Discussion:

Discussion for article #235773

“Because if you’re changing the meaning of marriage from one where it’s based on that biological bond to one where it’s based on emotional commitment, then adults could think, rightly, that this relationship is more about adults and not about the kids,” Bursch said.

                                              **********

Doesn’t the above quote sound like solid reasoning to ban the infertile from lawfully marrying? The elderly from lawfully marrying? ANYONE who states they do not desire children and will take proactive actions to stay childless from lawfully marrying?

BTW, allowing same-sex couples to lawfully tie the knot does not alter any definition to marriage with regards to children and/or procreation.

Based on Kennedy’s reported remarks, I think he will be affirmative.

Keep this in mind the next time you, or someone you know thinks voting in 2016 is a waste of time.

Ohio 2004 is the whole reason we are engaging in this charade. Ironically, gay marriage was the reason then too.

Anyway, I get nauseous when I read that SUPREME COURT JUSTICES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA have borrowed, stole, co-opted, parroted, conservative talking points about gay marriage. Really, if they have reached that loftiest of positions in life and still can’t come up with their own nonsense, then what are they doing there?

There was a time when our justices were better than that. I don’t know when that time was, but my guess is that, like everything else that has changed for the worse in this country, it started around the time that Ronald Reagan took power.

Boy, that’s an understatement. Of course, it’s never a given how one’s nominees will side in these decisions–and it shouldn’t be–but it’s been a fair guide.

GWBush and his Crime Family, Inc. Also known as a scourge.

until the end of the 20th century, there never was a nation or a culture that recognized marriage between two people of the same sex?," Alito asked Mary Bonauto

Bullshit.

The Cherokee and other Native tribes allowed it, but I’m sure you were referencing white, English speaking Christian people weren’t you? The Cherokee were so evolved they didn’t even have a word for “gay.”

When the Constitution was written it over-turned a lot of pre-conceived notions. When the 14th amendment was passed it over-turned a lot of pre-conceived notions. When the Civil Rights Act was passed, it overturned a lot of pre-conceived notions. When the Brown vs. Board of Education case, the Loving case, theLawrence vs. Texas case were decided, they over-turned a lot of pre-conceived notions. And that’s just a few of the pre-conceived notions our country has stood on their heads.

So who really cares how many “millennia” marriage has been defined as being between one man and one woman. It’s not about how gay marriage may or may not inconvenience the notions of the conservatives or the so-called “religious.” It’s just about equal protection under the law. These conservative Justices are a joke and I include Kennedy in the bunch. A pox on all their houses.

Marriage was also a vehicle for essentially conveying the ownership of a woman from her father to her husband. Thanks goodness we have changed that “definition” of marriage.

Although there are a few who, no doubt, would like to go back to that definition.

How can Scalia say this? Priests don’t have to perform Jewish weddings, they don’t have to perform interfaith weddings. Religions are allowed now to pick and choose which marriages they will perform and recognize. Nothing about that changes with gay marriage. If his Catholic Church does not recognize or perform them then they don’t.

Ginsberg shot that down pretty quickly by asking why they allow the elderly to marry.

I think so too. 5-4 decision with Kennedy being the swing vote. I had hoped that he would be a little less on the fence and therefore give Roberts some cover and make it 6-3, but sadly, that’s not how it played out.

I am sooooo not surprised that Alito would resort to the slippery slope logical fallacy.

The man’s “reasoning” is on a level with the average two-year-old.

Yep. And coverture was actually brought up during the first question in today’s oral arguments.

I was going to post something similar. It’s shocking to me that members of our highest court, whom I was taught all through grade school and even into college were above all bias and the court was comprised of the most esteemed legal minds we could muster from society. What a complete crock of shit. Kennedy is literally arguing the same points that my idiot conservative Facebook friends are making and keep getting eviscerated for.

Justice Kagan reminded him of what you just said. He kept delving but someone else chimed in with the same logic … then he shut up.

I didn’t have the examples to hand, but I knew there were examples.

Of course, in the English-speaking world, for most of the millenia the justices are talking about, the marriage between a man and a woman was a form of property contract: becuase the man owned the woman.

I don’t think that millenia of practice should be the guiding principle here.

The 14th amendment speaks to equality before the law. In part “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…”. I think this could be interpreted as applying to equality in marriage.