Author Topic: Marriage- what's the point?  (Read 13618 times)

Offline maxtog

  • Elite Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8372
  • Country: us
  • 2011 Silver
Re: Marriage- what's the point?
« Reply #45 on: July 28, 2015, 05:03:18 pm »
These and quite a few other issues are why the gay marriage issue was.... well, such an issue. It is also why the issue really could not have been decided any other way than it was by the US Supreme Court a little while ago: our Constitution provides for "equal protection under the law" (twice, in the 5th and 14th amendments) and so as married couples are given certain protections (which include privileges and advantages by the way), then same- sex couples who could not get married, or have their married status [not recognized] in some states were being denied those 'equal protections'.

Again, strictly from the legal point of view, reading 'The Big Book of Rules' (the Constitution) that we live under, there was just no other way to apply that rule in my opinion, as well as the opinions of 5 out of 9 of the Supreme Court justices.... their opinion carrying significantly greater weight, at least outside my house.  ;D  It really does not have anything to do with what a person's opinion or belief system is, it is just a matter of following our own law. If, as a country, we really did not / do not want gay marriage, then we would have to change the Constitution by writing and ratifying a new amendment.

I am not sure I agree.  "Marriage" is not defined nor protected in the Constitution at all.  The concept of applying laws equally is... sortof.  Disclaimer- I am not Constitutional law expert...

I have a specific right to bear arms and own a gun.  That atually *is* in the Constitution.  And my State defines how I can exercise that right.  And yet I can travel to another state and have my rights completely stripped away (for example, a concealed-carry permit).  I would hardly call that "equal protections".

"Marriage" is a made-up construct that states can define however they want (or should be able to, because powers not SPECIFICALLY listed in the Constitution as belonging to the Fed, belong to the States).  Why would a man-woman arrangement be allowed but not a man-man or woman-woman?  Because that is how it was defined.  It doesn't seem fair- but I could say that giving ANY kind of financial or legal advantage to someone who is "married" but not someone who is single is also just as unfair... it discriminates against people who are single.  It also discriminates against people who might want to have a "marriage" involving more than just 2 people.... throw religion aside and one needs to ask "why not"?

Although the country is not ready for it,  what I was saying in my first post is that perhaps the whole concept of marriage is unfair, dated, ill-defined, watered-down, becoming irrelevant, and primarily a religious domain (and I believe in STRONG separation of government and religion).
Shoodaben (was Guhl) Mountain Runner ECU flash, Canyon Cages front/rear, Helibars risers, Phil's wedges, Grip Puppies, Sargent World seat-low & heated & pod, Muzzy lowering links, Soupy's stand, Nautilus air horn, Admore lightbar, Ronnie's highway pegs, front running lights, all LED, helmet locks, RAM Xgrip, Sena SMH10, Throttle Tamer, MRA X-Creen, BearingUp Shifter, PR4-GT, Scorpion EXO-T1200,etc

Offline B.D.F.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4848
  • Country: 00
  • It's only really cold if you fall down in it.
    • C-14 farkles you almost cannot ride without.
Re: Marriage- what's the point?
« Reply #46 on: July 28, 2015, 07:46:05 pm »
Oh Oh, rubbing my little hands together in anticipation! I am a lay- student of constitutional law and pay pretty close attention to quite a few of the 'rules' (the Constitution of the US, along with the amendments, which become part of the Constitution).

1) Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. But "equal protection under the law" is, in the fifth and fourteenth amendments. That means that any protection extended to any individual or group must be extended to all individuals or groups. If marriage between a man and a woman are afforded any 'protections', and it most certainly is, then those protections must be extended to any individuals or groups that <may> be married. It appears that the limits of marriage have now been legally extended to anyone with a 'soul', meaning homo sapiens sapiens. So marriage is not the issue, Constitutional protections are.

2) Marriage cannot be defined as whatever a state wants it to mean. That has been decided by the Supreme Court of the US at least twice now: the first time was when a pair of lesbians got married in CA, only to have their marriage effectively nullified by the state of CA when the state defined the state of marriage as a condition that can exist between 'a man and a woman'. The two women sued, and amazingly enough, the law was upheld through the CA state Supreme Court. It was appealed to the US Supreme Court, citing the fourteenth amendment, and was overturned. Again, any protections afforded <any> married persons must be extended to <all> married persons per 'equal protection under the law'.

The second time was most recently when again, the US Supreme Court struck down 'states rights' to [not recognize] same- sex marriages which were completed and remain valid in different states. As an example, if, say, Oregon recognizes same- sex marriage, then for example, say, Kentucky cannot choose to disregard that state (married) because Kentucky refuses to endorse same- sex marriage. In cases such as this, federal law trumps state law, again due to the US Constitution.

3) These rulings regarding the current usefulness / meaningfulness of marriage: It may be 'passe' or not but that does not matter at all. This is a civil liberties question, not one of morality, current thinking or anything else. Again, read the Constitution and its amendments and see if you can find a 'way out' of these rulings. It does not matter if you, I and / or anyone else likes it or not but we all have certain rights that are "inalienable" and cannot be infringed.

Lastly, careful on the 'right to bear arms'; while I agree with you on this issue, and I believe that I too have that same right (along with anyone else), we must be careful that it is more complex and convoluted that it is sometimes represented to be. You have the right to bear arms but the definition of 'arms' is very much controlled and limited. Try buying weaponized anthrax or plutonium..... not going to happen. An individual is restricted in possessing weapons of mass destruction, and there are very strict rules regarding an individuals 'right' to own many person arms, such as machine guns, guns masquerading as anything else (such as a cane or umbrella), etc., etc.. Contrary to common thought, an individual CAN own such items, up to and including artillery, but that person must have a Federal Transfer Permit and be 'allowed' to purchase / own such devices. So your 'right to bear arms' is absolutely limited, as is you right to free speech and quite a few others.

Brian

I am not sure I agree.  "Marriage" is not defined nor protected in the Constitution at all.  The concept of applying laws equally is... sortof.  Disclaimer- I am not Constitutional law expert...

I have a specific right to bear arms and own a gun.  That atually *is* in the Constitution.  And my State defines how I can exercise that right.  And yet I can travel to another state and have my rights completely stripped away (for example, a concealed-carry permit).  I would hardly call that "equal protections".

"Marriage" is a made-up construct that states can define however they want (or should be able to, because powers not SPECIFICALLY listed in the Constitution as belonging to the Fed, belong to the States).  Why would a man-woman arrangement be allowed but not a man-man or woman-woman?  Because that is how it was defined.  It doesn't seem fair- but I could say that giving ANY kind of financial or legal advantage to someone who is "married" but not someone who is single is also just as unfair... it discriminates against people who are single.  It also discriminates against people who might want to have a "marriage" involving more than just 2 people.... throw religion aside and one needs to ask "why not"?

Although the country is not ready for it,  what I was saying in my first post is that perhaps the whole concept of marriage is unfair, dated, ill-defined, watered-down, becoming irrelevant, and primarily a religious domain (and I believe in STRONG separation of government and religion).
Homo Sapiens Sapiens and just a tad of Neanderthal but it usually does not show....  My Private mail is blocked; it is not you, it is me, just like that dating partner said all those years ago. Please send an e-mail if you want to contact me privately.

KiPass keeping you up at night? Fuel gauge warning burning your retinas? Get unlimited peace and harmony here: www.incontrolne.com