SCOTUS on Marriage and Procreation

Quote
louiedalump
All righty, I'm 57, and I have to be honest, same-sex marriage sounds unusual to me - just the era I was raised in. But, why not? Detractors keep shrieking that our religious freedom is endangered. They're going to have to explain that one to me. No one says you HAVE TO marry someone of same sex. Come to that, no one says you HAVE TO approve of it. All they're saying is that folks who are so inclined HAVE TO be allowed to marry if they wish. Then they say it will somehow "degrade" my happy hetero marriage. Again, they're going to have to tell me HOW it will do that. Until someone gives me a GOOD, LOGICAL, INTELLIGENT explanation, I'll stick with "it won't." (Confidentially, I don't think any such explanation exists, but I'm willing to listen.) Personally, I've got more important things to have heart attacks over - will my transmission make it another year? How can I keep eating with $50 left until payday? (misplaced a digit) Will Mrs. DaLump get to keep her foot? Same-sex marriage isn't even in the top 500. It won't affect my paycheck. (Hope I found all the typos - storms here, and my wretched arthritis is acting up something fierce.)

Quote
StudioFiftyFour



Other people's relationships don't affect me in the least bit. People should pursue happiness as they see fit.

On that note I did get a text message today from a good friend of mine who is an attorney. He was telling me that he was raising a glass of champagne. I asked, why? He wrote, "You can't have gay divorce without gay marriage, my friend! This will undoubtedly be another revenue stream for the firm..."

Quote
keeper of traken
When are the self-immolations and migrations to Canada going to begin*? eyes2

* Nevermind that same-sex marriage has been legal in Canada for about a decade now.

Quote
keeper of traken
When are the self-immolations and migrations to Canada going to begin*?

Quote
yurble
Personally, I'm waiting for the slippery slope I was promised, of poly marriages.

Actually, I want to make marriage a purely social affair and get the government out of relationships. Let people make contracts if they want, with as many people as they want, covering aspects of life such as inheritance, end-of-life decisions and financial support.

Allowing homosexual marriage is a step forward, but it merely expands the franchise and still allows romantic couples to gain legal benefits which are denied to singles, non-romantic couples, and romantic multiples. There are advantages and disadvantages to all living situations, and it is not up to the government to mitigate disadvantages to some situations or add extra benefits to others because this effectively promotes certain situations over others, which is not the government's responsibility. The government's only role should be expanding the law against "family status" discrimination to cover all family situations, or repealing it. (Personally I'd like to see more consideration given for people who want to avoid neighbors whose life choices seriously impact their own quality of life.)

As for the comment about marriage not being related to procreation, it's nice to see that. However, it's obvious to me that the government still does encourage procreative relationships, in a number of ways. Obviously the value of procreation is subject to discussion and it is not a given, though you wouldn't know that from how all western governments seem to wail about declining birth rates and offer incentives/privilege to those who prop up the pyramid scheme of modern economic systems.

Quote
deegee
Just to clarify a part of my earlier post:

Furthermore, the "Let the democratic process decide, not the courts" argument is another crock of shit. You can't put a reduction of civil rights on a ballot or in a legislature to be voted on. This is how we ended up with Jim Crow laws and laws against interracial marriage, both overturned by the courts.

Quote
Techie

Quote
yurble
Personally, I'm waiting for the slippery slope I was promised, of poly marriages.

Actually, I want to make marriage a purely social affair and get the government out of relationships. Let people make contracts if they want, with as many people as they want, covering aspects of life such as inheritance, end-of-life decisions and financial support.

Allowing homosexual marriage is a step forward, but it merely expands the franchise and still allows romantic couples to gain legal benefits which are denied to singles, non-romantic couples, and romantic multiples. There are advantages and disadvantages to all living situations, and it is not up to the government to mitigate disadvantages to some situations or add extra benefits to others because this effectively promotes certain situations over others, which is not the government's responsibility. The government's only role should be expanding the law against "family status" discrimination to cover all family situations, or repealing it. (Personally I'd like to see more consideration given for people who want to avoid neighbors whose life choices seriously impact their own quality of life.)

As for the comment about marriage not being related to procreation, it's nice to see that. However, it's obvious to me that the government still does encourage procreative relationships, in a number of ways. Obviously the value of procreation is subject to discussion and it is not a given, though you wouldn't know that from how all western governments seem to wail about declining birth rates and offer incentives/privilege to those who prop up the pyramid scheme of modern economic systems.

Yurble, this is perfect, I agree with you 100%. While I never have opposed gay marriage, I don't like how government gets to pick and choose the winners and the losers of social living arrangements. Legalization of gay marriage maybe a win for gay community, but this could be a very slippery slope for single and CF people. Businesses could begin dictating a certain agenda, such as 2 adults cannot rent a room unless they are married. Domestic partner benefits for same or opposite sexes could be eliminated. This move maybe a step, but I don't feel it is a step in a right direction. This move does zero for CF people and this move is a step backwards for single CF people. Before this law, at least I could add a non-relative friend as a beneficiary to my things. Will this change now? Idea can float around that everyone can be married and for those who are not, well, let's show them... I don't even want to imagine what sort of hassles could this bring upon cohabitating opposite sex couples. Marriage may become something that is forced on people by denying certain rights to those who are not married. This is wolf in sheep's clothing for single people.

Quote
blondie
Domestic partnership benefits exist mostly to accommodate gays so I imagine those are going to start waning and along with that any respect for a non-marital relationship. I think it would cause a legal mess to change the system, but that one's domestic partner should be able to be anyone, and that they should be able to be assigned the same rights and responsibilities as a legal spouse. It would still cause problems to make that change but cutting single people off is really not fair.

My next of kin is a sociopath so I don't know if I'm ever really protected from that thing having access to me or my property if something happens and I don't have a spouse to take the role.