Fed Judge overturns CA ban on gay marriage

[dross]

I say we stop here. You have no desire to have an "adult" conversation and I have no desire to keep going back and forth with you in this fruitless exercise. There are others willing to have an actual discussion that doesn't consist of "You're wrong, now go use Google to prove me right".

...and with that.

I'd urge you to continue. You're making your points quite well, and while you'll never change his mind, there are others reading who haven't yet made up their minds. Most users are lurkers, they just read and don't post much. Keep presenting for them.

I fight some battles, others I leave. You're doing well with this one.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

<-------- Done wasting my time. I've proved my point, you just want to dance around in a circle.

 

[BloodEclipse]

You're right, it used to be between a couple and their church, then the government got involved. And people have a right to equal treatment under their government. Let's get the government out of ALL marriage. Problem solved.

So if the Government stays out, we can go back to prearranged marriages?
Many religions have marriage parameters that fall outside our socially accepted norm.
If you want the Government out, then you are setting the stage for underage marriages, arraigned marriages, polygamy and various other forms that would not under current laws be legal.
If you say you only want them to be involved up to a set age, you are advocating government involvement.
So what is it everyone wants?

 

[groovatron]

 

[Expat]

So if the Government stays out, we can go back to prearranged marriages?
Many religions have marriage parameters that fall outside our socially accepted norm.
If you want the Government out, then you are setting the stage for underage marriages, arraigned marriages, polygamy and various other forms that would not under current laws be legal.
If you say you only want them to be involved up to a set age, you are advocating government involvement.
So what is it everyone wants?

Did someone say something about my cuzn....

 

[BloodEclipse]

Did someone say something about my cuzn....

I could see the birth of many new religions tailored to meet the marriage parameters to cover every perversion know to man and possibly the creation of a few more.

 

[dross]

So if the Government stays out, we can go back to prearranged marriages?
Many religions have marriage parameters that fall outside our socially accepted norm.
If you want the Government out, then you are setting the stage for underage marriages, arraigned marriages, polygamy and various other forms that would not under current laws be legal.
If you say you only want them to be involved up to a set age, you are advocating government involvement.
So what is it everyone wants?

You have to go back to bedrock principles. No initiation of force. If you prearrange a marriage with a minor who cannot consent, you have initiated force. It's a simple and beautiful principle.

Fully informed and consensual polygamy is no problem for me. In fact, it exists (and it exists even outside the semi-Mormon sects) it just doesn't exist with government sanction.

The government is systematically enslaving us, and you guys are worried about who marries who. My family pays the salary of an entire government employee, while fifty percent of this country pays no taxes yets benefits from the product of others. A large percentage of this country thinks that it's better to be a victim than to defend themselves.

A guy who falls in love with another guy and wants to marry him is so trivial to me that it boggles my mind why anyone cares at all.

 

[CarmelHP]

You have to go back to bedrock principles. No initiation of force. If you prearrange a marriage with a minor who cannot consent, you have initiated force. It's a simple and beautiful principle.

Well, just a sec, it used to be that it was assumed that after about 7 years old, minors could consent to just about anything. It's quite subjective. At the beginning of the 20th century, it was widely assumed that if you were at puberty or beyond, then you were ready for marriage. We're going to have to be a bit more precise and honest about what's being opened up.

 

[dross]

Well, just a sec, it used to be that it was assumed that after about 7 years old, minors could consent to just about anything. It's quite subjective. At the beginning of the 20th century, it was widely assumed that if you were at puberty or beyond, then you were ready for marriage. We're going to have to be a bit more precise and honest about what's being opened up.

It's a reasonable societal discussion. When is a person developed enough to be able to give consent? It's a nuanced discussion.

For the record, seven seems too young to me.

Come to think of it, I got divorced in my early thirties, but I dated some young women in their early twenties. Based on the success of my wizardry, 24 may be too young as well.

 

[BloodEclipse]

It's a reasonable societal discussion. When is a person developed enough to be able to give consent? It's a nuanced discussion.

For the record, seven seems too young to me.

Come to think of it, I got divorced in my early thirties, but I dated some young women in their early twenties. Based on the success of my wizardry, 24 may be too young as well.

Age does not make maturity.
I think maturity is based upon upbringing and life experiences.
How does one gauge that?
It is all very subjective.

 

[Roadie]

So not exclusively christian (morality and principles)?

Did you go to the LOC site I posted?

It seems quite a few of the Founding Fathers if not Christians themselves, at least talked about Christian values and morality.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Did you go to the LOC site I posted?

It seems quite a few of the Founding Fathers if not Christians themselves, at least talked about Christian values and morality.

Sure. That's because English Common Law was heavily invested in Judeo-Christian values and Christianity was the predominant cultural religion. We sometimes seem to think of the Founding Fathers as visionaries because they added that 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion, but don't forget that the histories they were taught were fraught with the persecutions of Catholics by Anglicans in England, various Protestant sects by the Catholic Church, and various ethnic struggles either blamed on religion or exacerbated by religious sectarianism. They were perfectly aware that the State favoring one religion or another is a way to tear a society apart and they were attempting to head off that sort of thing. It worked for almost 200 years.

 

[johnsmith]

How can we not allow a man to marry a hamster now? Or a brother to marry his sister?? Why is this not strictly a state issue? The Federal Govt. is way too powerful. Vote in November.

 

[shibumiseeker]

Age does not make maturity.
I think maturity is based upon upbringing and life experiences.
How does one gauge that?
It is all very subjective.

What makes someone an adult or capable of consent is something that is already pretty well established in our society at this time and to introduce that as an argument as to why government should discriminate against consenting adults is disingenuous. Using the slippery slope argument (what's next, hamsters?), a favorite tactic of the anti-gun movement, to justify your own personal biases isn't a very good argument against it and just looks stupid. If you try to use your own religious beliefs and then try to say that anyone who doesn't agree with all of your moral and spiritual beliefs would also obviously support murdering babies or somesuch (as these discussions invariably lead to) is also outrageous and looks pretty ignorant as well.

I have yet to see an argument against is that isn't "I think it's icky so I don't think it should be allowed."

Government should either get out of the marriage business completely (my choice) or they should recognize any marriage between CONSENTING ADULTS. All the yahoos in this thread who are trying to use the "what's next, marrying pets", or "arranged marriage" as justification as to why their own particular version of morality is obviously superior should get off their moral highground before they topple off because they get a nosebleed from having their nose stuck so high in the air.

 

[dross]

How can we not allow a man to marry a hamster now?

Gosh, I hope so. I've had my eye on this cute thing down at the pet store. Man, when I look into her beady little eyes, my heart just skips a beat. And the way she drinks out of that upside down bottle with the metal tube - man, you just KNOW she's naughty.

"There she goes just a walkin' on her wheel, singin' do wah ditty, feed her crumbs, feed her crumbs..."

 

[Eddie]

What makes someone an adult or capable of consent is something that is already pretty well established in our society at this time and to introduce that as an argument as to why government should discriminate against consenting adults is disingenuous. Using the slippery slope argument (what's next, hamsters?), a favorite tactic of the anti-gun movement, to justify your own personal biases isn't a very good argument against it and just looks stupid. If you try to use your own religious beliefs and then try to say that anyone who doesn't agree with all of your moral and spiritual beliefs would also obviously support murdering babies or somesuch (as these discussions invariably lead to) is also outrageous and looks pretty ignorant as well.

I have yet to see an argument against is that isn't "I think it's icky so I don't think it should be allowed."

Government should either get out of the marriage business completely (my choice) or they should recognize any marriage between CONSENTING ADULTS. All the yahoos in this thread who are trying to use the "what's next, marrying pets", or "arranged marriage" as justification as to why their own particular version of morality is obviously superior should get off their moral highground before they topple off because they get a nosebleed from having their nose stuck so high in the air.

Shibumi has hit upon something here. The question is "Who gets to marry?", not "Who gets to have sex?". Those are two different issues. A man legally married to a woman can still be charged with rape if he has sex with his spouse and she does not consent. States are still free to decide at what age a minor may consent to sex and that age does vary from state to state and it has changed over time.

I agree that sex and marriage are related issues, but they are not the same. (Just ask any married guy whether or not sex is a guarantee after marriage.) Lots of people have sex without ever getting married and the same laws about rape and molestation will apply to them as apply to married people. Marriage allows two people to make a commitment to each other in accordance with their own beliefs.

My preference would be for the government to get out of the marriage business. Let people marry as they see fit within their own belief structure. My vote would be for contract marriage. Let a couple who is getting married sign a contract as to what the terms of their marriage are going to be. Make a set of default laws for people who don't make a contract or who make an incomplete contract, similar to how the probate code provides for people who don't make a will. If there is a divorce, then the judge can look at the contract or go to the default laws if there is no contract and proceed with the case. If people stay together and aren't committing crimes then the goverment need not worry about who is marrying who.

 

[dross]

Shibumi has hit upon something here. The question is "Who gets to marry?", not "Who gets to have sex?". Those are two different issues. A man legally married to a woman can still be charged with rape if he has sex with his spouse and she does not consent. States are still free to decide at what age a minor may consent to sex and that age does vary from state to state and it has changed over time.

I agree that sex and marriage are related issues, but they are not the same. (Just ask any married guy whether or not sex is a guarantee after marriage.) Lots of people have sex without ever getting married and the same laws about rape and molestation will apply to them as apply to married people. Marriage allows two people to make a commitment to each other in accordance with their own beliefs.

My preference would be for the government to get out of the marriage business. Let people marry as they see fit within their own belief structure. My vote would be for contract marriage. Let a couple who is getting married sign a contract as to what the terms of their marriage are going to be. Make a set of default laws for people who don't make a contract or who make an incomplete contract, similar to how the probate code provides for people who don't make a will. If there is a divorce, then the judge can look at the contract or go to the default laws if there is no contract and proceed with the case. If people stay together and aren't committing crimes then the goverment need not worry about who is marrying who.

Perfect. Your solution only fails to address one thing: All those guys are still out there kissing each other. Icky.

 

[CarmelHP]

Government should either get out of the marriage business completely (my choice) or they should recognize any marriage between CONSENTING ADULTS. All the yahoos in this thread who are trying to use the "what's next, marrying pets", or "arranged marriage" as justification as to why their own particular version of morality is obviously superior should get off their moral highground before they topple off because they get a nosebleed from having their nose stuck so high in the air.

If the argument is, as proposed, "Anyone who is able to give consent is permitted to marry," then the next logical question is, "Who does that include or exclude?" The definition of "consenting adults" isn't even consistent from state to state. To say that that one believes that changing the parameters of marriage endangers a important societal norm (even some gays believe that) is not the same as saying, "it's icky and I don't like it." That's a straw man that's been grafted onto the former position.

 

[dross]

If the argument is, as proposed, "Anyone who is able to give consent is permitted to marry," then the next logical question is, "Who does that include or exclude?" The definition of "consenting adults" isn't even consistent from state to state. To say that that one believes that changing the parameters of marriage endangers a important societal norm (even some gays believe that) is not the same as saying, "it's icky and I don't like it." That's a straw man that's been grafted onto the former position.

I think Eddie answered the first part of your post. As to "an important societal norm" again, those change and I'd prefer not to have them enforced by the weight of the law. I refer again to the societal norms about race that have changed.

To flesh out my position, I believe that all laws against PRIVATE discrimination for any reason are anti-freedom. I should be able to associate or conduct commerce or refrain from such for any reason I choose. The government, however, should treat its citizens equally, as long as they are not initiating force upon one another.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I think the question OPs and I are asking is: How can one make an argument that other types of "marriage" posited are "ridiculous because we already have laws against that" when the same reasoning used to overturn "traditional" marriage can be used to argue that forbidding other types of relationships to be legitimized as marriage should be unlawful under the equal protection clause ?