- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 10,033
- Reaction score
- 3,905
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Next you'll be trying to tell me same sex sex has always been socially unacceptable.Enjoy. I am sure once the U.S. makes gay marriage legal Webster will change their definition. But gay marriage is wholly new territory. We are talking about changing something that has remained constant for thousands of years.
But it's through the government you wish to obtain your restrictions. So no matter what delusions you exist under, you should understand that you are the one looking to use government force to alter the natural state.
Nope, still the Same ball park, and you're playing on the KKK team, you're in the year after the civil war ended, saying that 10 years ago, no religion endorsed interracial marriage, therefore it's immoral for every religion because a few churches say so.
If common law marriages were still recognized then many gay couples would already be "married". It's not like gay couples are something new. The only reason heterosexual couples were recognized above others was the Church and as heirs. Since the Church doesn't recognize same-sex couples and they can't have heirs, in the biological sense of the word, it was never an issue before now. However, modern law has made marriage into something much more than just children and inheritance. Take away all those common "rights" (or whatever the hell the wordsmiths want to call them) of married couples and you'll have no more problems. Just admit that a wife can't make medical decisions for her incapacitated husband. That "married" couples have no special status at tax time or retirement. The list goes on and on. Marriage has become a legal institution, now, which in itself is a change of definition from the times you're talking about.Oh I am sure a lot of those marriages were the common law type. Recognized by most states. Here is a list of states and the year in which common law marriages ceased to be recognized:
Common-law marriages can no longer be contracted in the following states, as of the dates given: Alaska (1917), Arizona (1913), California (1895), Florida (1968), Georgia (1997), Hawaii (1920), Idaho (1996), Illinois (1905), Indiana (1958), Kentucky (1852), Maine (1652, when it became part of Massachusetts; then a state, 1820), Massachusetts (1646), Michigan (1957), Minnesota (1941), Mississippi (1956), Missouri (1921), Nebraska (1923), Nevada (1943), New Mexico (1860), New Jersey (1939), New York (1933, also 1902–1908), North Dakota (1890), Ohio (1991), Oklahoma (Nov. 2010), Pennsylvania (2005), South Dakota (1959), and Wisconsin (1917).
As for the rest of the world, French-Vietnamese marriages were very common, Alexander the Great had wives from Babylonia to Afghanistan to India. Since he was the government in the areas he conquered, I am sure he recognized his own marriages.
DD has a one track mind, he always uses the example of race but in all actuality its people of the opposite sex that marry.
Next you'll be trying to tell me same sex sex has always been socially unacceptable.
Because as a Roman Catholic I was taught that marriage is a union between a man ans a woman.
If common law marriages were still recognized then many gay couples would already be "married". It's not like gay couples are something new. The only reason heterosexual couples were recognized above others was the Church and as heirs. Since the Church doesn't recognize same-sex couples and they can't have heirs, in the biological sense of the word, it was never an issue before now. However, modern law has made marriage into something much more than just children and inheritance. Take away all those common "rights" (or whatever the hell the wordsmiths want to call them) of married couples and you'll have no more problems. Just admit that a wife can't make medical decisions for her incapacitated husband. That "married" couples have no special status at tax time or retirement. The list goes on and on. Marriage has become a legal institution, now, which in itself is a change of definition from the times you're talking about.
The rest of the world is not the issue. We already know America is socially backward compared to many other industrialized nations. As for ancient history, gay couples can't produce children and that's pretty much all that counted back then.
I did not even mention the Government............Its you Gays that always go to the activist judicial....I wish you would let the people decide.....
I agree and marriage is about as private as you can get, so much so that the law even protects spouses against the other's forced testimony. Government should never have been there in the first place and should get the hell out.I never said that, in fact it probably wasn't you I responded too. I mentioned Sparta where their warriors would leave their wives, female types and have sex with other warriors. Alexander the Great had a boy lover. All of this was readily accepted by those who lived during that time. But there were no gay marriages. Instead these were love affairs between two men. This kind of stuff goes back through eons of time.
How one leads his life in private is up to him, that is as long as he isn't harming anyone else.Government should stay out of a person's private life.
You can't be forced to testify against your spouse, either. There are MANY exceptions in the law that spouses are granted and other couples aren't. Why should I have to write a will just to make sure my wife gets my possessions after I die? Oh, that's right, I don't have to do that, it's the default position, isn't it? Why should I have to sign documents to let my wife make medical decisions if I'm incapacitated? Oh, that's right, I don't have to do that, it's the default position, isn't it? How many other examples would you like before you recognize how pervasive the laws are when it comes to marriage? I thought you were smarter than this. Get rid of these and ALL the others not mentioned - including all the common laws and proceeding legal decisions (they also define the law) and there won't be an issue anymore. Good luck with that.So this really has nothing to do with inter-racial marriages. Since it is the United States basically leading the way with gay marriages I wouldn't say were are that socially backward of other industrialized nations. Wills can take care of inheritance, they always have. Tax time, ah, benefits. I always find it strange these discussions always lead to benefits instead of love. If it weren't for Wilson and the income tax, FDR and SS, and on and on, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?
I don't mind that, I can see where he would think it is in the same ball park. But inter-racial marriage has been around probably from almost the beginning of time or at least when man first learned how to walk and left Africa. Gay marriage hasn't, at least that I know of or I haven't read anything that said it was. Many famous leaders throughout history were homosexuals, but none of them married another homosexual. At least that I heard of.
DD is fine, no name calling. I believe the debate should continue, that gay marriages should be decided state by state since it is such a new phenomena. I have no problem with it. I just do not think it is a civil right issue, if i did I would be on their band wagon. Changing thousands of years of tradition and custom as to what is marriage is not something to just jump in head first. Now if my state of Georgia recognizes gay marriage, I am on board, if they don't, then that too as of this moment is okay with me.
You can't be forced to testify against your spouse, either. There are MANY exceptions in the law that spouses are granted and other couples aren't. Why should I have to write a will just to make sure my wife gets my possessions after I die? Oh, that's right, I don't have to do that, it's the default position, isn't it? Why should I have to sign documents to let my wife make medical decisions if I'm incapacitated? Oh, that's right, I don't have to do that, it's the default position, isn't it? How many other examples would you like before you recognize how pervasive the laws are when it comes to marriage? I thought you were smarter than this. Get rid of these and ALL the others not mentioned - including all the common laws and proceeding legal decisions (they also define the law) and there won't be an issue anymore. Good luck with that.
You are right about inter racial marriage. Hell I am even in one. That said when someone uses the same line for 4 or 5 years it gets very old and stale........You are new here, you will find out.
And without a will the estate went to the eldest son or spouse, depending on the time and place in history. There has always been a default position for unexpected death where there was no will.Perhaps now it is, I don't know as I haven't research it. I know I drew up a living will just in case, I have a will for my other things. Tax laws are written to encourage certain behavior the government wants of us. Wills have been the way things has been passed down and intentions known for centuries, they are nothing new. I am sure in the common law era, wills was about the only way to go as there were no default positions.
As I said, I do not see this as a civil rights issue. If the SCOTUS sees it that way, I'll be fine with that and unlike abortion, if they do I hope it is by a 7-2, 8-1 or even 9-0 decision. Heck, the abortion verdict came down in 1973 by a 5-4 decision and it is still being fought. I think the SCOTUS will punt on prop 8, that will give it back to the 9th circuit court which has already ruled the ban unconstitutional and California will become the 10th state where gays can be legally married.
As for DOMA, I had thought it to be unconstitutional also. Until someone pointed out that it basically only deals with federal benefits and congress is the body that decides who receives them or not. The thing to remember is prop 8 only deals with California, so however the SCOTUS decides, California will be the only state affected. DOMA covers all 50 states and gives cover to the states that do not recognize gay marriages. It is here where the SCOTUS ruling could effect the entire nation. But even if the SCOTUS punts or upholds DOMA, gay marriage is taking effect in state after state, abet slowly, but it is getting there. Perhaps a bit of patience can subdue the rancor that followed the abortion rule. To me it would be well worth it. To gays, that may not be the case. Time will tell.
As usual you are wrong..........I will give you and example....Prop 8 in Califfornia was approved by the people of the state............Who went to the Government to appeal it? I could go on and on.......
Perhaps now it is, I don't know as I haven't research it. I know I drew up a living will just in case, I have a will for my other things. Tax laws are written to encourage certain behavior the government wants of us. Wills have been the way things has been passed down and intentions known for centuries, they are nothing new. I am sure in the common law era, wills was about the only way to go as there were no default positions.
As I said, I do not see this as a civil rights issue. If the SCOTUS sees it that way, I'll be fine with that and unlike abortion, if they do I hope it is by a 7-2, 8-1 or even 9-0 decision. Heck, the abortion verdict came down in 1973 by a 5-4 decision and it is still being fought. I think the SCOTUS will punt on prop 8, that will give it back to the 9th circuit court which has already ruled the ban unconstitutional and California will become the 10th state where gays can be legally married.
As for DOMA, I had thought it to be unconstitutional also. Until someone pointed out that it basically only deals with federal benefits and congress is the body that decides who receives them or not. The thing to remember is prop 8 only deals with California, so however the SCOTUS decides, California will be the only state affected. DOMA covers all 50 states and gives cover to the states that do not recognize gay marriages. It is here where the SCOTUS ruling could effect the entire nation. But even if the SCOTUS punts or upholds DOMA, gay marriage is taking effect in state after state, abet slowly, but it is getting there. Perhaps a bit of patience can subdue the rancor that followed the abortion rule. To me it would be well worth it. To gays, that may not be the case. Time will tell.
Went to the courts to remove government involvement.
Yes, I am. I moved over here from Politico along with 10 or so other folks. I am too. I married a Thai, my oldest daughter married a Laotian, my son and youngest daughter both married whites. I have a grand daughter who is married to a black with three beautiful kids, great grand kids. I have a grandson who is in the army, following his grandpa's tradition who is getting ready to marry a Korean. Another grandson who is dating a Vietnamese, he just finished HS and is getting ready for college. So my family is all over the map.
Congratulations on your great family so you can see there is very little connection with interracial and SSM. Interracial marriage is not changing the definition of marriage like SSM would.
Tell that to the racists of the 50's - or the modern day racists, for that matter. There are still plenty of people out there who look down on people like you who marry outside their race. Most would make it illegal if they could.Congratulations on your great family so you can see there is very little connection with interracial and SSM. Interracial marriage is not changing the definition of marriage like SSM would.
Went to court to get government involved with the 9th circuit court.
So if gay marriage is legalized how will you define marriage?
No, government was already involved since the advent of the Marriage License. Duh. They're trying to remove force from engaging in that contract, nothing more. If you want to be pissed about it, be pissed at the government for usurping marriage in the first place. But so long as it exists as it does, a government issued and recognized contract, then the individual has right to engage in it. You wish to use the force of government to prevent that exercise. It's quite clear.
Tell that to the racists of the 50's - or the modern day racists, for that matter. There are still plenty of people out there who look down on people like you who marry outside their race. Most would make it illegal if they could.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?