SCOTUS poll

[Ted King]

RgrF wrote:
Is there nothing we cannot split hairs about?

IMHO, no, but I'm an unreformed dilettante of philosophy.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

I believe homosexuals (all GLBT actually) have the right to be as miserable and unhappy as heterosexual married adults.

D & C

Note: I "stole" that line from some politician in Texas, I forget who.

[graylocks]

Allow the state to marry who they will and allow churches to marry who they will


i think this is what the push for marriage equality is really going for with the clarification of 'who' being LD's two adults of legal age, neither currently married to anyone else, not related by blood according to that state's laws

[Black]

I think the state should provide me with a suitable partner.

[BCam]

Pops wrote:
From the beginning, I have always objected to the term "marriage" being used by the government. Legal civil unions, with their appropriate legal protections should be the government's concern. Whether those rights or non-rights are federal or state related is a constitutional matter, IMO. I think the term "marriage" should be a religious issue determined by religious institutions, with no civil meaning attached.

That's just one atheist's view. One who has been "married" 40 years come this August.

What Pops said is exactly the case. A "civil union" falls under the purview of government in that it defines the legal parameters of the joining two parties in a partnership. "Marriage" is entirely a religious concept. If a civil servant (Justice of the Peace) or a ship Captain can perform a marriage ceremony, and it is seen as legally binding, the question has already been answered.

You don't sue for divorce before a pastor, priest or rabbi, you argue before a judge. Thus, only the State can end a civil union (by whatever name you give it), and, conversely, it would stand to reason that only the State can create a civil union (or whatever name you give it).

Our Founding Fathers had the wisdom to place a firewall between Church and State. Let's keep it that way. The SCOTUS is being asked to define contract law (a civil union) NOT a religious tradition. I hope they all understand that.

[Ombligo]

Lemon Drop wrote:
marriage should be between two adults of legal age, neither currently married to anyone else, not related by blood according to that state's laws.

Why should state's decide blood relationships? That has lead to discrepancies such as California allowing first cousins to marry, Michigan not allowing first cousins to marry and Texas making it a criminal offense for first cousins to marry. Is that much different than what was argued at SCOTUS yesterday?

The whole ban is based on two principals:
1) the YUCKY factor.. incest just goes against most peoples comfort zone. I can accept that but at the same time why should I tell someone else how to behave as long as no one is being hurt.

2) deformed babies -- this is always a popular argument but basic biology pretty much debunks it. The risk is higher but nothing in comparison to a mother that drinks or smokes during pregnancy and those are not illegal. It is a very small risk factor.

Now I'm not saying I want to run out and marry my sister (I don't), but why should it matter if we are both legal age and consenting?

I know this is exactly the argument some anti-gay marriage activists use but I just don't get the real problem with it. Adult/child?, adult/animal? etc.. one party cannot give informed consent, so those should not be allowed. But why should there be legal limits on legal, consenting adult behavior (no matter how yucky)?

[Lemon Drop]

(sorry this is in reply to Pops)

You're not married unless you go to city hall and file the right papers, and you don't have to see a preacher or visit a church to get married. In US marriages the role of "officiant" is pretty close to legally meaningless, your friend can go online and get licensed to marry you, or whatever.

I would disagree that "marriage" is a strictly religious concept, it was originally created as a contract property arrangement, the religious aspect came later.

We don't have to take churches out of the wedding business in order to extend marriage rights to same sex couples, in fact many of those couples actually want to be married in church (and do so now)

We can have both.

[OWC Jamie]

Black wrote:
I think the state should provide me with a suitable partner.

Rob a bank

[August West]

IMHO, no, but I'm an unreformed dilettante of philosophy.

[$tevie]

Lemon Drop wrote: I would disagree that "marriage" is a strictly religious concept, it was originally created as a contract property arrangement, the religious aspect came later.

This is true.