It's already legislated, we're discussing a legislative change via judicial fiat. I've not suggested that we write laws to ban gay marriage, but others have decided that marriage, as we've defined it for our culture's entire history, is now something else, which inevitably opens it up to further changes (something apparently denied by those who strongly supported the first change).


And your concept of moral equivalence is quite faulty, though we obviously cant discuss why. Simply compare the morals of ISIS to your own and you'll see that "ones not right and ones not wrong" collapses on itself. Some morals absolutely are immoral, though the degree of response is different to sexual perversion in a free society versus headchoppers in a tyrannical one.

 

And please don't forget that my own position on this is similar to yours, I don't think the government has any business writing laws about marriage. I don't have to try to legislate immorality out of existence unless the immorality is something that needs to be obliterated for the good of all (slavery, murder, rape for example)

 

But if we determine rights based on one person's religion, who's to say we won't start determining rights based on someone else's religion?  


Just look the middle east, and see how they're doing in regards to having religious-based rights.  I don't think you'd want that here any more than I do.  But to decide someone doesn't deserve certain rights because of religion opens that door.  


Marriage is an institute that has evolved over time.  Some for the better, and some for the worse.  At one time it was commonly acceptable to marry a baby.  Each person's marriage is their own, and can only be defined by their own actions.  Otherwise Kim Kardashian ruined the sanctity of everyone's marriage (along with the vegas drunk weddings) not to mention all the people who used marriage as a business merger.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

But if we determine rights based on one person's religion, who's to say we won't start determining rights based on someone else's religion?  


Just look the middle east, and see how they're doing in regards to having religious-based rights.  I don't think you'd want that here any more than I do.  But to decide someone doesn't deserve certain rights because of religion opens that door.  


Marriage is an institute that has evolved over time.  Some for the better, and some for the worse.  At one time it was commonly acceptable to marry a baby.  Each person's marriage is their own, and can only be defined by their own actions.  Otherwise Kim Kardashian ruined the sanctity of everyone's marriage (along with the vegas drunk weddings) not to mention all the people who used marriage as a business merger.

 

Your comments are the reason I specify marriage as we've defined it in our culture, that of enlightenment age Western Civ, and your first statement is exactly what's been done. Judges decided that the way we've defined marriage (and it's legal rights) for centuries is no longer law and redefined it into something else (with as of yet undefined and potentially limitless legal rights) without the consent or input of the legislative branch. I'm not even saying that, short of my own preference of zero government interference, the legislatures shouldn't pass something to allow gay marriage; I'm simply saying that the way this happened leads to black robed Oligarchy where a judge made law from the bench. As I said before, marriage (in our culture) went from one man and one woman to one person and one person. Why shouldn't it go to three or more persons? If a judge can rule from a bench that marriage isn't one man and one woman anymore is there anything anywhere that they can't change (for good or ill)? Redefining the one of the pillars of society by fiat should give us all pause, that's a lot of power for a small group of mostly unelected people.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

It seems like the difference is inclusion as opposed to exclusion. The laws and state constitutional amendments against gay marriage exclude anyone disagreeing with that from marriage. On the other hand, laws that allow gay marriage, or court decisions that declare state constitutional amendments invalid do not exclude traditional marriages, they just allow non-traditional marriages to exist.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

In some cultures, persons marry other persons that they first meet on their wedding day.

 

That doesn't fit our traditions.  Should we ban or refuse to recognize those marriages too?

---

Assume a gay couple marries in a state where it is legal, and then moves to a state where it is not. If the marriage fails, would the state where they now live, where it's not legal, refuse to initiate divorce proceedings in court?

 

Crazy question, I know.

---

What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.







 

Assume a gay couple marries in a state where it is legal, and then moves to a state where it is not. If the marriage fails, would the state where they now live, where it's not legal, refuse to initiate divorce proceedings in court?

 

Crazy question, I know.

 

I would guess that if they live in a state where gay marriage is not legal, they wouldn't need a divorce at all. 

 

?

---

I would guess that if they live in a state where gay marriage is not legal, they wouldn't need a divorce at all. 

 

?

 

I believe they would lack standing to bring a motion, but IANAL.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I believe they would lack standing to bring a motion, but IANAL.

 

As long as we're hypothesizing, what about a case where one partner doesn't want to be married any more, so he or she moves to a state where gay marriage is not recognized, and tells his or her partner, "I'm not married to you, I'm in Alabama." 

 

This is a prime example of why (not all, but many) laws need to be national, not local. 

---

As long as we're hypothesizing, what about a case where one partner doesn't want to be married any more, so he or she moves to a state where gay marriage is not recognized, and tells his or her partner, "I'm not married to you, I'm in Alabama." 

 

This is a prime example of why (not all, but many) laws need to be national, not local. 

 

I think the jilted partner could still file in the state where he/she resides. That leaves two major issues, Alimony and Child Support.

 

The question of Alimony/Palimony would be up in the air, but those laws need to go away to create gender equality anyhow. Divorce should be the end of the entire relationship including the financial aspect. Agree on a division of the assets and move on, this man paying the woman for the rest of her life deal is absurdly paternalistic.

 

Child Support would be no different unless the departed partner was not blood kin nor legally a parent by adoption (I think that's how they handle the "my two dads" situation where it's legal right now). I've seen court cases where completely unrelated men were required to pay child support  for children who weren't theirs though, so the departed partner could still potentially be on the hook. Generally child support orders exist outside the marriage framework, so there shouldn't me much of an issue there in any case.

 

Some other issues do exist, like the division of joint assets and tax provisions, but we'll need some kind of precedence for that to become common.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I researched this a little, and it's not as cut and dried as one might think. Most states that do not recognize same-sex marriages will not grant a divorce to a couple whose union the state does not recognize in the first place, but there's very few laws specifically against it.

 

Another question is how qualification for benefits will be determined. Qualification for Medicaid includes a cap on income. If an applicant is married, income limits for things like Medicaid includes the income of both spouses in the calculation. It will be interesting if they will deny applicants based on a federal standard using criteria not recognized by the state.

 

I think these will be moot points in the near future, as virtually every challenge to anti-same sex marriage laws has been successful. It will be the law of the land soon enough.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

I believe they would lack standing to bring a motion, but IANAL.

 

Bold usage of that acronym, considering the topic of discussion.

---

Bold usage of that acronym, considering the topic of discussion.

Lol

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Yes, obviously you must. This is what you want to hear right? 

 nope.

 

This conversation has gone from the sublime to the bizarre.

 

So its okay to discuss gay marriage and say a man/woman who has sex with another man/woman is okay? But discussing whether or not humans having sex with animals is immoral? 

 

What if the social norm swings the other way. What if in 30 years the social norm is against interracial marriages, society figures were all so polarized we should just keep to our own. Would you support legislation prohibiting interracial marriages?


For the same reason you wouldn't you shouldn't support any legislation based on the whims of society.

 

Where at in the bible it said it was immoral for a black man to marry a white woman?

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

 nope.

 

 

So its okay to discuss gay marriage and say a man/woman who has sex with another man/woman is okay? But discussing whether or not humans having sex with animals is immoral? 

 

 

Where at in the bible it said it was immoral for a black man to marry a white woman?

 

Religious text are not the basis for the law of the land. You're talking faith I'm talking politics. Just so you realize how DANGEROUS it is to base laws on faith just look into the interpretations of religious text in the 1800's they absolutely would've argued interracial marriage was prohibited in several religious text, they where wrong but that doesn't change the main stream thought trend of the time.

 

reality is if you want law based upon belief systems you end up with extremities dictating law to the minorities. The ONLY option is to keep government out of personal decisions so long as they do not threaten life or property.

---

Religious text are not the basis for the law of the land. You're talking faith I'm talking politics. Just so you realize how DANGEROUS it is to base laws on faith just look into the interpretations of religious text in the 1800's they absolutely would've argued interracial marriage was prohibited in several religious text, they where wrong but that doesn't change the main stream thought trend of the time.

 

reality is if you want law based upon belief systems you end up with extremities dictating law to the minorities. The ONLY option is to keep government out of personal decisions so long as they do not threaten life or property.

 

 

Yeah we see differently on this. I was going to post another scripture, but had to catch myself.

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

Religious text are not the basis for the law of the land. You're talking faith I'm talking politics. Just so you realize how DANGEROUS it is to base laws on faith just look into the interpretations of religious text in the 1800's they absolutely would've argued interracial marriage was prohibited in several religious text, they where wrong but that doesn't change the main stream thought trend of the time.

 

reality is if you want law based upon belief systems you end up with extremities dictating law to the minorities. The ONLY option is to keep government out of personal decisions so long as they do not threaten life or property.

 

One of the best posts I've read from you.

---

Yeah we see differently on this. I was going to post another scripture, but had to catch myself.

 

I'm sure we agree more then you think, however it is the role of government that we are disagreeing on.

 

One of the best posts I've read from you.

 

thank you, it really must be a new era we agree on something lol

---

So its okay to discuss gay marriage and say a man/woman who has sex with another man/woman is okay? But discussing whether or not humans having sex with animals is immoral? 

How hard is it to understand the word "consenting"?


Adults can give consent, animals can not give consent, under aged children can not give consent...see where this is going?

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

Religious text are not the basis for the law of the land. You're talking faith I'm talking politics. Just so you realize how DANGEROUS it is to base laws on faith just look into the interpretations of religious text in the 1800's they absolutely would've argued interracial marriage was prohibited in several religious text, they where wrong but that doesn't change the main stream thought trend of the time.

 

reality is if you want law based upon belief systems you end up with extremities dictating law to the minorities. The ONLY option is to keep government out of personal decisions so long as they do not threaten life or property.

 

Why go back to the 1800's?


At one time, people argued that interracial marriage was against their religion.  In fact Virginia Judge Leon Bazille wrote:  


 

 

 

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay, and red, and placed them on separate continents, and but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend the races to mix.

 

That was in 1967.

 

In fact as recent as 2009 a justice of the peace refused to perform a wedding for an interracial couple in Louisiana.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

How hard is it to understand the word "consenting"?


Adults can give consent, animals can not give consent, under aged children can not give consent...see where this is going?

 

Im not talking about consent.

 

I am talking about discussing immoral vs moral behavior. 

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.