SCOTUS poll

[Lemon Drop]

Ombligo wrote:
[quote=Lemon Drop]
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?
That's a complex question - yes the laws are inconsistent around the country. If first cousins do marry they should get genetic testing done to make sure they aren't passing along something deadly (which is unlikely but more possible than for unrelated couples.) Otherwise I have no problem with it.
It is however a terrible mess if that couple divorces, because they share the same extended family.
Also - slippery slope problem. This is the same genetic relationship as uncle/niece. Should they be allowed to marry?

[August West]

LD 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.

Lemon Drop is correct.

Oxford Analytica wrote:
In Roman law marriage was originally a relationship based on the husband's domination over the wife (manus) and later a relatively “free marriage” (i.e., union of equals in which divorce was permissible). The radical Christian sects (Marcionites, Gnostics) attacked marriage as contrary to the Gospels, as fornication, and as the work of the devil. Mainstream Christianity had to work out a compromise between the complete rejection of marriage and the Roman legal concept of “free marriage” following St. Paul's dictum that “it is better to marry than to burn” (1 Cor 7:9). Late Roman legislation shifted back and forth on the question of the permanence of marriage and the possibility of divorce; Justin II in a novel of 566 still maintained the traditional view that divorce could be allowed with the agreement of the two partners. The principal changes occurred (probably under the influence of customary law) by the 8th C., and were formulated in the Ecloga. The major aspects of the change were restriction of divorce, strengthening bonds of property within the family, and balancing the rights of the mother and father regarding their children. Later came the prohibition of concubinage.

Church fathers considered marriage a divine institution established for the procreation of children and the prevention of fornication. The consent of the bride and groom, and often of their parents or guardians, was necessary for marriage, although in romances marriages were sometimes performed without parental approval. A formal marriage rite or wedding was required for the conclusion of a marriage; eventually under Alexios I, the distinction between marriage and betrothal was limited. The minimum age for marriage was puberty, reckoned as age 12 for girls and 14 for boys; normally, the husband was older than the wife. Second marriages were permitted (for lay persons), while a third was undesirable and required an epitimion (see Remarriage). The marriage of eunuchs was prohibited by Leo VI, and the marriage of slaves was considered illegal until the 11th C. (see Slavery). There were various marriage impediments, based on reasons of religion, consanguinity, or affinity. Although highly regarded, marriage was considered inferior to virginity, and canon law required celibacy of monks and bishops; second marriages were prohibited for priests.

The metaphor of marriage was frequently used in Byz. imagery: the church was identified as the bride of Christ, and individual women committed themselves in marriage to the immortal bridegroom Christ (Brock-Harvey, Women 71, 165).

Emphasis mine.

[Lemon Drop]

Day two:

If DOMA is overturned, married gay couples would be treated the same as married straight couples under federal law, but states would remain free to outlaw gay marriage.

“A majority of justices today appeared to regard DOMA for what it is: a pervasive program of discrimination that changes 1100 laws and touches every aspect of life,” said Judith E. Schaeffer, the vice president of the liberal-leaning Constitutional Accountability Center.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/...t-doma.php

Overturning Prop 8 would be far more reaching in terms of extending equality - overturning one section of DOMA is better than nothing though.

[Dennis S]

"It is however a terrible mess if that couple divorces, because they share the same extended family."

They've probably been banned from Thanksgiving dinner already.

[RgrF]

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

How would that be any different from death panels?

[PeterB]

I voted "Allow the state to marry who they will and allow churches to marry who they will" only because whether or not a church recognizes a marriage is up to that church, and immaterial to whether or not the marriage is recognized by the state. Churches can make up whatever (silly) rules they like, including excommunicating parishioners for marriage outside the church, etc. That should have no bearing on what is recognized by the state.

[davester]

PeterB wrote:
I voted "Allow the state to marry who they will and allow churches to marry who they will" only because whether or not a church recognizes a marriage is up to that church, and immaterial to whether or not the marriage is recognized by the state. Churches can make up whatever (silly) rules they like, including excommunicating parishioners for marriage outside the church, etc. That should have no bearing on what is recognized by the state.

I didn't vote for that one because churches are already able to do whatever the hell they want and the cases before the court have no bearing on that right. The only thing before the court is the concept of marriage as a legal contract that is associated with certain privileges and obligations as recognized by and enforced by the government. The churches have nothing to do with that and so should STFU.

[Acer]

The whole cousin thing is really a recent social taboo. Brother/sister parent/child not so much. But throughout human history we commonly married within our clans, with very few degrees of separation. It was this case even into the 20th century in the West. Darwin married his cousin, for example.

OK, maybe bad example for the evangelicals, but you get my (genetic) drift.

[PeterB]

davester wrote:
[quote=PeterB]
I voted "Allow the state to marry who they will and allow churches to marry who they will" only because whether or not a church recognizes a marriage is up to that church, and immaterial to whether or not the marriage is recognized by the state. Churches can make up whatever (silly) rules they like, including excommunicating parishioners for marriage outside the church, etc. That should have no bearing on what is recognized by the state.

I didn't vote for that one because churches are already able to do whatever the hell they want and the cases before the court have no bearing on that right. The only thing before the court is the concept of marriage as a legal contract that is associated with certain privileges and obligations as recognized by and enforced by the government. The churches have nothing to do with that and so should STFU.
Agreed, but the likelihood of that happening is almost zero. The Founding Fathers clearly intended for there to be a separation of church and state, yet the Justices don't always follow the Constitution in that regard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_...troversies

[$tevie]

I'm unclear on how I feel about what I'm going to say, but it seems like everyone is all for letting individual churches refuse to marry gays but find it outrageous if individual churches refuse to marry interracial couples. I think I am of the opinion that, as wrong as it feels, churches should be allowed to be bigots because of the separation of church and state.

That said, the federal government should never have passed that stupid DOMA bill and Clinton should be ashamed.