U.S. Supreme Court upholds right to Marry in all 50 States

[Danmark]

The United States Supreme Court today held: same-sex couples
may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all 50 States.
".... No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies
the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice,
and family. In forming a marital union, two people become
something greater than once they were. As some of
the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage
embodies a love that may endure even past death. It
would misunderstand these men and women to say they
disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do
respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its
fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned
to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s
oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the
eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."

Question for debate: Is this decision, and its rationale, consistent with the teachings of Jesus to be loving, faithful, understanding, and tolerant?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 54 by DanieltheDragon]

I just found it interesting that there is actually an argument from same sex marriage to marriage of relatives, albeit in disuse.

What about permanently infertile opposite sex relatives?
Relatives who're temporarily infertile? (e.g. some forms of surgical contraception)
What about relatives who'd abort? (and relatives who'd forgo sex)

Conversely, what about people with genetic diseases having any potentially fertile sex at all? (And the inbred/those born from incest)

This is why it is not wise to base public policy on the exceptions. There is no end to them. Laws should serve a specific social good or restrain a particular social ill. It shouldn't be about currying favor with certain voter constituencies.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 61 by bluethread]

This is why one shouldn't make categorical judgements on generalisations other than ones that almost circularly lead to problems - because it creates a need for exceptions.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 61 by bluethread]

This is why one shouldn't make categorical judgements on generalisations other than ones that almost circularly lead to problems - because it creates a need for exceptions.

Maybe that is why marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. It is not the kind of thing governments should be involved in. That's the conclusion that they were coming to out here in Washington, before this whole marriage equality thing took off.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 63 by bluethread]

Marriage is really just a broad contract with some dressing and cultural significance, but marriage has plenty of implications in taxation and other matters that do make it important for the government to regulate it. (Or alternatively, they should exclude it (specifically) from relevance in general law.)

The facts that people find the implications of it significant, and that it's so widespread, point to a need to describe if not regulate it - i.e. task forces to specifically protect individuals from forced marriage.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 63 by bluethread]

Marriage is really just a broad contract with some dressing and cultural significance, but marriage has plenty of implications in taxation and other matters that do make it important for the government to regulate it. (Or alternatively exclude it (specifically) from relevance in law.)

No taxation has been designed to implicate marriage. There is nothing inherent in marriage that requires it to be considered by a governmental taxation scheme.

The facts that people find the implications of it significant, and that it's so widespread, point to a need to describe if not regulate it - i.e. task forces to specifically protect individuals from forced marriage.

Your example is a restriction of marriage, not an expansion of it. Your view presumes an interventionist government. The need for a government to define and/or regulate it depends on how much one believes a government should do.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 65 by bluethread]
(UK specific)
https://www.gov.uk/married-couples-allowance/overview
(and another note on inheritance tax)

Currently, IHT is charged at 40pc on estates that are worth more than £325,000. However, if you are married or in a civil partnership, all assets can be passed to a surviving spouse without any inheritance tax being applied whatsoever.

There are also a LOT of financial implications for marriage.

I don't see any issue with restricting marriage to be consensual, and not under duress. I don't believe it'd be marriage if it weren't mutual (though I don't think it needs to be transitive).

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 65 by bluethread]
(UK specific)
https://www.gov.uk/married-couples-allowance/overview
(and another note on inheritance tax)

Currently, IHT is charged at 40pc on estates that are worth more than £325,000. However, if you are married or in a civil partnership, all assets can be passed to a surviving spouse without any inheritance tax being applied whatsoever.

There are also a LOT of financial implications for marriage.

You do realize that tax is not an absolute imperative and there is nothing other than pandering to constituents that requires there to be a marriage exception?

I don't see any issue with restricting marriage to be consensual, and not under duress. I don't believe it'd be marriage if it weren't mutual (though I don't think it needs to be transitive).

As I pointed out, you appear to be implying that governments not only have an obligation to protect people from abusive contracts, but also have an obligation to define the nature of a given contract, it's scope and it's availability to the public in general. That may seem somewhat matter of fact to someone who has been socialized to accept that kind of micromanagement. However, historically, that view is rather draconian.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 67 by bluethread]

Marriage is just a word like any other, if you want a contract that's slightly different to the government's definition of marriage, and it's within the law, go ahead. You're free to call it marriage, that may even be a reasonable description of it, even if it doesn't match the government's definition.

The government is just providing a set of standards under which you may more easily and safely "marry". Other people might not consider your non-standard marriage to be a marriage (just as some don't consider same-sex or non-religious marriages to be marriages); the main purpose of standards is to provide something most can conform to with greater convenience and/or other motivating factors for whatever group controls the standard. (Typically the motivating factors of those using it.)

That's mostly the same issue as different usage of a word. You can disagree with a dictionary too, and you can be reasonable in doing so.

I don't think the government should have some of laws they do on marriage, e.g. exceptions exclusively to married couples.

Banning contracts forced under duress doesn't seem draconian to me, surely enforcing such a contract would be draconian?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 54 by DanieltheDragon]

I just found it interesting that there is actually an argument from same sex marriage to marriage of relatives, albeit in disuse.

What about permanently infertile opposite sex relatives?
Relatives who're temporarily infertile? (e.g. some forms of surgical contraception)
What about relatives who'd abort? (and relatives who'd forgo sex)

Conversely, what about people with genetic diseases having any potentially fertile sex at all? (And the inbred/those born from incest)

Which is why I steared clear of making firm statements centered around marriage. My only real concern is those that knowingly procreate with a high risk of severe genetic disease. I would strongly recommend those with severe genetic diseases to not procreate if they are indeed able. Especially if they know the risk factors.

The main point I was trying to address that polygamy, incest, LGBT rights. They are not even on the same slope. As each issue has inherently different traits. One making an argument about polygamy can't make the same argument about Gay marriage, nor can either make the same argument about incestuous marriage.

Generally speaking throughout most societies and species there is a fairly strong discouragement among 1st degree relative procreation. I don't think any law is necessary for it as we as a society already generally don't seek this behvior to begin with.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 69 by DanieltheDragon]
Haven't read many English novels, have we, hmmm?
The ultimate terror in any English novel of the 19th century was marrying poor or not marrying at all (and being a "spinster" and having to live at the mercies of her close relatives). (Yes, we're talking about our beloved Jane Austen.)
Thus where primogeniture was dictating that all the property was going to go to the younger uncle's son, such a need for our "poor" (in the future presumably) heroine to seek an arranged marriage with the young first cousin.