Two days in a row

Post #402,888 by malraux 6/26/15 10:19:56 AM Reply	Two days in a row First Obamacare's exchange legality held up 6-3, then gay marriage legalized 5-4. Scalia must be having an aneurism. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #402,890 by mvitale 6/26/15 10:37:14 AM Reply	One can only hope. -Mike @MikeVitale42 "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania
Post #402,891 by mmoffitt 6/26/15 10:51:48 AM Reply	Whatever your position, ... You've got to admit that Kennedy is senile and should retire. "No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family," Kennedy wrote. "In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than they once were." Either that, or he's spending his final years reading Harlequin romance novels and basing his decisions on what he learns from them.
Post #402,892 by drook 6/26/15 11:06:16 AM Reply	And there's nothing in that quote that requires the union to involve specific genders -- Drew
Post #402,893 by malraux 6/26/15 11:09:19 AM Reply	Hmm. No, actually, I don't. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #402,894 by Another Scott 6/26/15 11:18:49 AM Reply	Cosign. Also, a bit of levity. Balloon-Juice: 95. Omnes Omnibus says: June 26, 2015 at 11:03 am @Betty Cracker: It’s not compulsory. You should read the full opinion before you say that. I am a more little upset that I recently found a woman I like and now I have start looking for a dude. rofl. Cheers, Scott.
Post #402,895 by mmoffitt 6/26/15 11:48:11 AM Reply	To all above. Read Roberts' dissent. The issue was not decided on the law. If you support this Court's decision, you must not, cannot logically, become upset the next time they select a President for us.
Post #402,897 by rcareaga 6/26/15 12:03:37 PM Reply	the Farce is strong in this one You are my favorite Confederate Marxist homophobe, mmoffitt. affectionately (in a decent, manly fashion),
Post #402,901 by Another Scott 6/26/15 12:39:31 PM Reply	Meh. From the Opinion of the Court: Of course, the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, so long as that process does not abridge fundamental rights. Last Term, a plurality of this Court reaffirmed the importance of the democratic principle in Schuette v. BAMN, 572 U. S. ___ (2014), noting the “right of citizens to debate so they can learn and decide and then, through the political process, act in concert to try to shape the course of their own times.” Id., at ___ – ___ (slip op., at 15–16). Indeed, it is most often through democracy that liberty is preserved and protected in our lives. But as Schuette also said, “[t]he freedom secured by the Constitution consists, in one of its essential dimensions, of the right of the individual not to be injured by the unlawful exercise of governmental power.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 15). Thus, when the rights of persons are violated, “the Constitution requires redress by the courts,” notwithstanding the more general value of democratic decisionmaking. Id., at ___ (slip op., at 17). This holds true even when protecting individual rights affects issues of the utmost importance and sensitivity. Fundamental rights of everyone need to be protected, independent of restrictive laws and regulations passed by legislatures. That you see this as similar to Bush v. Gore is, er, weird. Roberts writes: In the face of all this, a much different view of the Court’s role is possible. That view is more modest and restrained. Says he who gutted the Voting Rights Act. Yeah, sure, Roberts is the go-to guy when it comes to modesty and restraint. [rolls eyes] Cheers, Scott.
Post #402,903 by mmoffitt 6/26/15 1:29:10 PM Reply	I think you just made my point. The clip of the decision you quoted speaks of "the rights of persons" being violated, but as Roberts properly points out in his dissent, this "right of same-sex marriage" is purely conjecture, or will, on the part of the majority. That "right" has no basis in law - the majority assumed it without explaining from whence it came. They assumed the existence of a right in order to prove that right was violated. I have one criticism of Roberts' dissent, though. He writes: Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one. It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” ante, at 13, why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” ante, at 15, why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” ante, at 22, serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships? See Bennett, Polyamory: The Next Sexual Revolution? Newsweek, July 28, 2009 (estimating 500,000 polyamorous families in the United States); Li, Married Lesbian “Throuple” Expecting First Child, N. Y. Post, Apr. 23, 2014; Otter, Three May Not Be a Crowd: The Case for a Constitutional Right to Plural Marriage, 64 Emory L. J. 1977 (2015). I do not mean to equate marriage between same-sex couples with plural marriages in all respects. There may well be relevant differences that compel different legal analysis. But if there are, petitioners have not pointed to any. When asked about a plural marital union at oral argument, petitioners asserted that a State “doesn’t have such an institution.” Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 2, p. 6. But that is exactly the point: the States at issue here do not have an institution of same-sex marriage, either. It's most emphatically *not difficult to see* how this court could fail to make the baby step after making the giant leap. You see, the rule of law no longer applies. They're making this up as they go, so anything they want to say becomes law.
Post #402,911 by Another Scott 6/26/15 2:13:28 PM Reply	You (and Roberts) don't acknowledge the "right to marry" for those who 'don't fit'. That's what it comes down to. Marriage isn't, contra-Roberts, about the state saying which couples are worthy. Marriage is a fundamental right that two adults can share. It's not about procreation, it's not about keeping blood lines pure, it's not about not offending Chuthlu or Odin or Zeus or the FSM. It is, in the USA in 2015, about two adult people (not any other hypothetical set) making a commitment to each other that is recognized by the state and conferred with certain rights and responsibilities. See my other reply below in the thread. Society isn't static. The interpretation of the law isn't static either. SC justices decide what the law means - that's their job. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #402,913 by mmoffitt 6/26/15 2:15:27 PM Reply	Re: Marriage is a fundamental right that two adults can share. I agree with you, now. That right was just created out of thin air by the majority.
Post #402,946 by drook 6/26/15 4:37:24 PM Reply	Finally figured out how to put this Gay marriage and interracial marriage are equivalent. Multiple marriage is not. Here's why. There are three people, Alex, Chris and Jordan. None has ever been married. Alex wants to marry Jordan. The state agrees that Alex may do that. But what if Chris wants to marry Jordan? If Alex is allowed, by what law can you deny Chris the same right that Alex has? Try to answer without naming a protected class. Now, what if Alex already has married Jordan? The state says that Chris is not allowed to marry Jordan. The reason why is simple: Jordan is already married. Jordan has taken a voluntary action that has legal consequences. If you say that Alex can't marry Jordan because of who Jordan is - gender, color, age, etc. - then you're discriminating. If you say that Alex can't marry Jordan because of what Jordan has done - already got married - then it's fair game for legislation. Note that this doesn't say anything about whether gay marriage, interracial marriage or multiple marriage are good things, or what position the state should take with regards to any of them. Simply pointing out that there is a very clear difference between prohibiting marriage on the basis of gender (or race) and prohibiting marriage on the basis that you are already married. -- Drew
Post #402,954 by Another Scott 6/26/15 5:29:49 PM Reply	Good! I wonder if Alito got an answer like that (but am too disinterested now to check. ;-)
Post #402,961 by Another Scott 6/26/15 7:58:28 PM Reply	Sullivan returned to blogging, for today. http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2015/06/26/it-is-accomplished/ Worth a read, even if you know what he's going to say. Cheers, Scott.
Post #402,973 by Another Scott 6/27/15 4:57:10 PM Reply	Richard Posner's take Slate: It was no surprise that the Supreme Court held Friday that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. It is very difficult to distinguish the case from Loving v. Virginia, which in 1967 invalidated state laws forbidding miscegenation. There was, as an economist would say, a “demand” (though rather limited) for biracial marriage, and it was difficult, to say the least, to comprehend why such marriages should be prohibited. In fact the only “ground” for the prohibition was bigotry. The same is true with respect to same-sex marriage. No more than biracial marriage does gay marriage harm people who don’t have or want to have such a marriage. The prohibition of same-sex marriage harms a nontrivial number of American citizens because other Americans disapprove of it though unaffected by it. John Stuart Mill in On Liberty drew an important distinction between what he called “self-regarding acts” and “other-regarding acts.” The former involves doing things to yourself that don’t harm other people, though they may be self-destructive. The latter involves doing things that do harm other people. He thought that government had no business with the former (and hence—his example—the English had no business concerning themselves with polygamy in Utah, though they hated it). Unless it can be shown that same-sex marriage harms people who are not gay (or who are gay but don’t want to marry), there is no compelling reason for state intervention, and specifically for banning same-sex marriage. The dissenters in Obergefell missed this rather obvious point. I go further than Mill. [...] A good read. Cheers, Scott.
Post #402,982 by a6l6e6x 6/27/15 6:34:44 PM Reply	You have to admit John Stuart Mill lays it out clearly. Alex "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." -- Isaac Asimov
Post #402,989 by drook 6/27/15 8:32:58 PM Reply	I don't have to admit ANYTHING! Oops, sorry. -- Drew
Post #403,004 by mmoffitt 6/28/15 10:38:12 AM Reply	Re: No more than biracial marriage does gay marriage harm people who don’t have or want to have such Reinstate the marriage penalty in the tax code, and I'd agree. My wife and I paid it for seven years and I always understood that the so-called penalty was just. I argued for continuing it with my married friends who (like everyone on this board apparently) could not understand the soundness of my position. Now more than ever it should be a part of the tax code.
Post #403,006 by malraux 6/28/15 10:51:16 AM Reply	You just don't get this, do you. Or you're just clothing bigotry in sophistry. "No more than." If one group of people has it, every group should. That's the Fourteenth Amendment. How does gay marriage harm people who don't have it or want it MORE THAN any other sort of marriage does? Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #403,033 by mmoffitt 6/29/15 8:42:02 AM Reply	You're right. I won't ever "get" this. I won't ever get it because I'm not a six year old little girl dreaming of her prince who rides in on a white stallion, sweeps her off her feet, marries her and rides away to the palace with her in a gold carriage. To me, "marriage" has always been an entirely a State construct. The State license my wife and I got nearly 32 years ago has never said anything about how much love is present in our relationship nor how committed we are to one another. I've never cared what the State thought of my relationship with my wife. I do not grant the State the power to dictate what my relationship with my wife is nor what it means to either of us. Marriage was the legal relationship a couple entered into because they wished to have their children recognized as legitimate and not in any way castigated for the marital status of their biological parents at the time of their births. The State rightly believed that children who grow up in a household with their biological parents fair better, on average (which is what you write legislation for) than children who are not afforded that opportunity. If marriage had nothing to do with procreation, how then did the State arrive at the classification of children born out of wedlock as illegitimate (or illegal)? And by what means were children born to a couple considered legal? By the issuance, prior to their births, of a marriage certificate to their biological parents, right? I've already heard (even from an idiot Justice) that "we allow infertile couples to marry, so ..." So what? So, let's correct a mistake by compounding it? Although truth be told, there used to be some measure of correcting this particular error codified in the tax code. You want the benefits of laws pertaining to marriage (written to encourage biological parents to remain with their offspring) in the absence of a desire or ability to have children? The State said, "Fine. But it's going to cost you." Why? Because such marriages do not result in the benefit to the State of a new generation. That was true until, IIRC, around the year 2000. It should be corrected and I sincerely do not see how same-sex marriage advocates (or non child producing opposite-sex marriage advocates) could be opposed to a re-instatement of that tax. For doing so would indicate that their position is far from "wanting equal dignity" and is more a desire to get something for nothing.
Post #403,042 by pwhysall 6/29/15 9:48:46 AM Reply	Marriage is not. About. Children. It's about: 1. Who gets my shit when I'm dead, and I couldn't be arsed to do the paperwork. 2. Who gets to say "turn the fucker off" to the doctor. Serious, important stuff. Honestly, the whole "kids" thing is a massive red herring. And don't bring up history. Sure, blah blah blah was different in the 15th century. People in the 15th century didn't go to the hospital where their husband is, to find a doctor going "I can keep this wanker alive for as long as you want. Or I can switch his face right the fuck off. What do?"
Post #403,047 by mmoffitt 6/29/15 11:58:37 AM Reply	Re: Marriage is not. About. Children. So, it's about ... 1) Greed that survives sloth. 2) Inability to plan properly. Thanks for that.
Post #403,068 by pwhysall 6/29/15 2:22:04 PM Reply	Not even wrong.
Post #403,043 by malraux 6/29/15 9:58:07 AM Reply	Red herring. Answer the question as posed. i didn't ask about children or love or any of the other things. Nor do I see any same sex marriage proponents railing against reinstating the marriage tax. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #403,038 by crazy 6/29/15 9:05:19 AM Reply	Any tax benefit anyone else gets harms him financially. Remember, he feels (in the depths of his nonexistent Communist soul) that he IS the state. So, once he has it set in his mind that some benefit will chip away at his totallity, he will fight it. Even if it costs him just a 1/10 of a cent, he hates it. Happy MM? You are no longer a homophobic bigot!
Post #403,039 by mmoffitt 6/29/15 9:13:48 AM Reply	s/him/State
Post #403,041 by crazy 6/29/15 9:48:37 AM 6/29/15 9:50:58 AM Reply	Which makes no difference in the meaning of the post Since it states they are the same thing to you. Which you didn't argue against. Did I summarize your view correctly, or did I miss anything? After all, you have argued a bunch of side points, but it all boils down to this, or so it seems. You feel pain when the state feels pain. Of course, since the state doesn't actually feel anything, it is up to you to determine it. Edited by crazy June 29, 2015, 09:50:58 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #403,044 by malraux 6/29/15 10:01:47 AM Reply	No, he still could be. Because whether or not there is a tax benefit, it should be equally applied to everyone/no one. And since marriage isn't going to be abolished, his wishful thinking (?) aside, the 14th Amendment applies. It's really starting to smell like a pseudo-rational cover for bigotry. Paraphrased: "I don't like the institution of marriage, therefore I'm going to fight against allowing this last little bit of society to have it." Seems like quite a stretch to me. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #403,048 by mmoffitt 6/29/15 12:04:45 PM Reply	Of course the tax should apply equally. It did. I think you're asking me "In what way has altering the definition of marriage injured the marriages entered into before the definition changed?" Is that it? If so, (and again, I'm speaking here of the perspective of the State) I'd say that the definition has been so altered as to make the definition ambiguous and without purpose. I don't know that I'd say that really injures pre-existing marriages, but I would say that it makes them at best undefined, at worst irrelevant.
Post #403,049 by drook 6/29/15 12:10:01 PM Reply	Nope Inheritance is not undefined. Medical decision-making authority is not irrelevant. Neither of those things changed. This decision didn't make my marriage one iota different from what it was before. -- Drew
Post #403,050 by mmoffitt 6/29/15 12:12:46 PM Reply	But you got that because of an expectation that you'd reproduce.
Post #403,051 by Another Scott 6/29/15 12:16:06 PM Reply	An expectation by whom? Legal cites, please.
Post #403,052 by drook 6/29/15 12:36:36 PM Reply	You didn't make a claim about retroactive meaning You said, "that it makes them at best undefined, at worst irrelevant." That's "makes", present tense. That this decision changes something in the present meaning of my marriage. It doesn't. -- Drew
Post #403,062 by mmoffitt 6/29/15 1:29:24 PM Reply	I was trying to answer a question posed to me. Although I admittedly don't yet completely understand the question's full implications. Our everyday language is (or was at least at one point) full of expressing the idea that marriage results in children. Surely you've heard at some point in your life, "Get married and start a family." Does that not imply the expectation that children will result from marriage? I think it indisputable that most opposite-sex marriages do, in fact, result in the births of children. I recall the scuttlebutt about the hospital where my wife and I worked being that we "would never have children" because my wife wasn't pregnant in the first two years after we got married - like everyone else who was our age who'd gotten married. I'm finished with this topic here because everyone apparently rejects my premise that State issued marriage licenses only make sense in the context of an expectation of a new generation arising from those relationships and that expectation is the basis for all codified preferential treatment under law those relationships receive. I think rejecting that premise is being dishonest of (at least) the history of marriage in the United States. But, if you can't agree on the premises, you can never agree on the arguments. And that's where we are. And I'm weary. ;0)
Post #403,054 by malraux 6/29/15 1:00:40 PM Reply	Re: Of course the tax should apply equally. It did. In responding to "No more than biracial marriage does gay marriage harm people who don’t have or want to have such" you said, Reinstate the marriage penalty in the tax code, and I'd agree. Here's the question I asked again, for reference: How does gay marriage harm people who don't have it or want it MORE THAN any other sort of marriage does? Because the decision last week was about the 14th Amendment, from the viewpoint of the State. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #402,899 by rcareaga 6/26/15 12:35:32 PM 6/26/15 12:40:00 PM Reply	this morning's decision IANAL, and have read only excerpts from the ruling and the dissents, but the underlying principle seems to me of a piece with "Loving v. Virginia." I fear that mmoffitt will chime in here that there's a big difference in that the poor darkies can't help being black whereas the queers are just doing it to annoy the rest of us, and could perfectly well step up to the other gender's naughty bits if they didn't insist on being so darned, well, perverse. Could be I'm doing an injustice to mmoffitt here, but that strawman argument is one held quite dearly and sincerely by many mouth-breathers currently holding American citizenship. I'm also seeing a lot of "marriage has always been the union between one man and one woman," which certainly would have come as a surprise to a lot of the Old Testament patriarchs. Indeed, the Jewish practice of polygamy apparently came into conflict with Roman law, which called for monogamy, during the first few centuries of the Common Era. And of course, Islam still countenances the practice (void where prohibited), and the Mormons would re-embrace it in a heartbeat given the chance. So no, "one man and one woman" has never been a historical absolute. (I find, amusingly, the following rather surprising quote from Martin Luther, who I'm told is held in high esteem by many Protestants: "I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter.") I don't see the risk to "traditional" marriage* that seems so apparent to many who are bewailing the ruling, unless they're afraid that Denny ("Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?") Hastert might now feel free to abandon his wife and take up with a strapping Wheaton College undergraduate PE major. I wish for other reasons that my old sweetheart V was still around, but since she and her partner were among the 4000 couples who were issued marriage licenses in San Francisco during the monthlong period in early 2004 before the State Supreme Court closed that window, I'm particularly sorry that she's not around for this development. "The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice." I'm far from certain that the sorry record of the human race supports this conclusion, but today's SCOTUS action does appear to kink in that direction. cordially, (forgot to add): Now might be a good time to repeat my earlier recommendation that we abolish "marriage" and replace it with "Marriage Classic" (hetero/mono) and "New Marriage" (anything goes). In another twenty years, if we're lucky, the more enlightened among the cultural reactionaries—the demographic today that is grudgingly prepared to go as far as recognizing "civil unions"—will be harumphing "I don't care what* they call it as long as they don't call it "Marriage Classic." Edited by rcareaga June 26, 2015, 12:40:00 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #402,902 by Another Scott 6/26/15 12:41:33 PM Reply	Thanks.
Post #402,904 by mmoffitt 6/26/15 1:32:16 PM 6/26/15 1:36:08 PM Reply	I think Roberts fairly refuted the fallacy of comparing this with Loving. In NONE of the prior cases was the definition of marriage altered. Here, it was. With no basis in law whatever. But even more than that, there is no outline, no hint, no suggestion of the contribution that same-sex marriages will make to the State at all. It's easy to see why. Same-sex marriages are incapable of contributing to society what opposite sex marriages can, and most often do. In making a State policy, shouldn't the interests of the State be entertained at all? Edited by mmoffitt June 26, 2015, 01:36:08 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #402,905 by rcareaga 6/26/15 1:40:31 PM Reply	step into my parlor "Same-sex marriages are incapable of contributing to society what opposite sex marriages can." Explain. ravenously,
Post #402,906 by mmoffitt 6/26/15 1:47:31 PM Reply	BIO 101. You take it?
Post #402,908 by rcareaga 6/26/15 2:01:13 PM Reply	Re: BIO 101. You take it? So my wife and I, in our sixties, are childless, and BIO 101 suggests that no efforts on our part, however energetic, are likely to change this state. Is our marriage then not legitimate? Here: take this shovel. cordially,
Post #402,910 by mmoffitt 6/26/15 2:09:15 PM Reply	Nope. It just means that your marriage is of no value to the State. Note that I am not saying your marriage is without value to you, only to the State. But, your marriage does come at a cost to the State and I fail to see how it benefits the State to encourage relationships that are a net negative to the State. Next?
Post #402,914 by Andrew Grygus 6/26/15 2:16:15 PM Reply	That's a rather obsolete argument. Today, with overpopulation the root of most of our problems, especially ecological problems, that a gay marriage cannot produce children is a benefit to the State. Also, gay couples often adopt, which is also a significant benefit to the State.
Post #402,919 by mmoffitt 6/26/15 2:31:44 PM Reply	I'm not blind to the overpopulation problem. But you assume facts not in evidence. First, I haven't seen compelling evidence that suggests the benefits of a reduction in birth rates a State receives from childless marriages overwhelms the burdens placed upon the State by the cohabitation of the married couple. Let alone being denied the potential contributions to the State the children could make should they actually be born. Second, the adoption question is an open one. There's no conclusive proof (yet) that children are better off being raised by a couple who do not fit the conventional mother/father roles. That may well be the case. We're in the midst of an experiment with the next generation. But it's far too early to make a claim about benefits or costs associated with being raised in a household headed by a same-sex couple. There simply is no conclusive evidence that the State receives the benefit of better performing citizens when those citizens were raised by same-sex couples as there is when they are raised by their biological parents. Until such evidence is presented, adoption by same-sex couples cannot be fairly characterized as either a benefit or a cost to the State.
Post #402,927 by rcareaga 6/26/15 3:07:25 PM Reply	BTW, don't you think that Virginia... felt that the state had an interest in tamping down the numbers of mulatto children?
Post #402,933 by mmoffitt 6/26/15 3:22:33 PM Reply	Yes. See. Marriage really was all about procreation!
Post #402,948 by Andrew Grygus 6/26/15 4:40:13 PM Reply	When a child is taken out of state care . . . . . and is instead cared for by an income generating couple, that is a cost benefit to the State. Increasing population requires the state to spend more on infrastructure to support that population, and more on human services as well. Taxes have to be higher with a growing population than for steady state due to a larger part of the population being under wage earning age. The environmental costs of overpopulation are too obvious to require a study (except for the benefit a study may provide to a person preparing a doctoral thesis).
Post #402,915 by Another Scott 6/26/15 2:19:27 PM Reply	You keep making these pronouncements in these threads... "no value to the State". Really? The State has much more interest in marriage than procreation. It has an interest in promoting the health, safety, and general welfare of its citizens. It has an interest in minimizing overbuilding of housing stocks (no "all adult humans must live in physically separated abodes!" laws). Marriage promotes lots and lots of benefits other than reproduction. If the State only cared about procreation, then procreation would be a requirement of marriage. If it only cared about procreation, why would there be over 1000 federal benefits of marriage? It isn't. Please stop bringing up this discredited argument. Thanks. ;-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #402,921 by mmoffitt 6/26/15 2:40:54 PM Reply	Re: The State has much more interest in marriage than procreation. Well, it might now. But historically it hasn't. Marriage, historically, was the means by which the State encouraged biological parents to remain with their biological offspring until those offspring reached maturity. I'm the first to admit it was not an optimal solution. But claiming that the State benefits in equal proportion from childbearing and non-childbearing marriages contains the implicit "truth" that children are of net zero value to the State. I will not and cannot do that.
Post #402,938 by Another Scott 6/26/15 3:59:58 PM Reply	We've been arguing about the history for at least 11 years... We're not likely to convince each other. ;-) #135825. Enjoy. Cheers, Scott.
Post #402,942 by rcareaga 6/26/15 4:09:38 PM Reply	Re: The State has much more interest in marriage than procreation. In that case, divorce ought to have been universally outlawed.
Post #402,950 by mmoffitt 6/26/15 4:51:04 PM Reply	It was in Rome.
Post #402,956 by Another Scott 6/26/15 5:33:28 PM Reply	Eh? http://www.womenintheancientworld.com/divorceinancientrome.htm Cheers, Scott.
Post #402,917 by crazy 6/26/15 2:22:05 PM Reply	What what what!? Benefit to the state is the criteria that you use when determining what should be lawful? The state exist for us, not the other way around. Confederate communist viewpoint is amazing.
Post #402,920 by rcareaga 6/26/15 2:40:31 PM Reply	"Confederate communist viewpoint is amazing" Yes, it's almost as though he has cherry-picked the most preposterous elements of each ideology. While this means that there is little of substantive value in his contributions, the entertainment content is considerable. cordially,
Post #402,918 by hnick 6/26/15 2:25:40 PM Reply	Umm... My wife and I are also childless. You are claiming that our relationship is a net negative for the State. I would submit that this is the United States, not the Soviet Union. The people here ARE the State. Happy people in stable relationships are a positive for the state, not a negative. People here, who have too many children they can't afford or can't maintain are more of a load on society than my wife and I who work as much as we are able (considerable still)and maintain our property. As a side note, discounting what the Republicans think, our society is not a business; everything is not a financial profit/loss transaction, and we don't "manage out" the bottom 10% on a performance basis. "Religion, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable." ~ AMBROSE BIERCE (1842-1914)
Post #402,924 by mmoffitt 6/26/15 3:04:05 PM Reply	Would you leave your wife if you didn't have a marriage license? I, respectfully, submit to you that the strength of the relationship you and your wife enjoy is not dependent upon a state issued marriage license. Further, if the existence of "happy people in stable relationships" is entirely dependent upon a State issued license, then how happy can the people truly be? How stable can be their relationships when it is only a legally binding document that keeps them together?
Post #402,929 by rcareaga 6/26/15 3:14:15 PM Reply	easy-peasy Let's assume hnick and his wife are not actually married. The (virtual) Mrs. hnick, whose parents have never liked her boyfriend, is mortally ill. Her parents bar hnick from the hospital room, and from the subsequent funeral service. Since the hnicks neglected to do proper estate planning, her entire assets go to the virtual in-laws. Lord, the barrel is so tiny, and the fish so big.
Post #402,934 by mmoffitt 6/26/15 3:26:23 PM Reply	Ah, then we're talking of the selfish interests of the couple. That's what's really important here, right?
Post #402,939 by hnick 6/26/15 4:02:49 PM Reply	Re: Ah, then we're talking of the selfish interests of the couple. Protecting the interests of the citizens (including couples) is the only legitimate business of the state. As long as there are varying rights in society that are dependent on a declared status e.g. marriage, all consenting adults are entitled to access that privilege. Now, in the instance of marriage, they have it. If this overly bothers you, well, pissfiddles... it's only the selfish interest of an individual they're messing with. "Religion, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable." ~ AMBROSE BIERCE (1842-1914)
Post #402,953 by mmoffitt 6/26/15 4:57:01 PM Reply	The State also has an interest in seeing that it survives.
Post #402,955 by Andrew Grygus 6/26/15 5:32:45 PM Reply	The State has interests . . . . . The State this, The State that, The State something else, always The State - geez, what a commie :)
Post #403,034 by mmoffitt 6/29/15 8:47:50 AM Reply	:0)
Post #402,958 by hnick 6/26/15 6:35:19 PM Reply	My last comment in this thread "You are not just wrong. You are wrong at every conceivable level of resolution. Zooming in on any part of your worldview finds beliefs exactly as wrong as your entire worldview." Fractal wrongness "Religion, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable." ~ AMBROSE BIERCE (1842-1914)
Post #402,960 by drook 6/26/15 7:39:00 PM 6/26/15 8:11:51 PM Reply	Man, I gotta keep that link ... Oh lord, time sink from hell! My new favorite term: Gish Gallop. From which I find this little (unsurprisingly apropos) nugget: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:77_Reasons -- Drew Edited by drook June 26, 2015, 07:46:40 PM EDT Edited by drook June 26, 2015, 08:11:51 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #402,964 by Another Scott 6/27/15 12:51:41 AM Reply	Things like that were on Pharyngula when PZ was debating. He eventually quit debating.
Post #403,202 by Ashton 7/2/15 5:43:00 PM Reply	Holy Cthulhu! ... why this thesis might be appended to Gödel's Proof--thus bringing scale + relativity to human mouth noises!--at last. {Alas, as with Dr.Strangelove's Doomsday device: it only works if everyone Knows about it} ;-/ ..so as to return so many bat-shit crazies to their former status: being utterly ignored. For cause.
Post #402,909 by Another Scott 6/26/15 2:05:26 PM Reply	The Majority opinion, again. Objecting that this does not reflect an appropriate framing of the issue, the respondents refer to Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997), which called for a “‘careful description’” of fundamental rights. They assert the petitioners do not seek to exercise the right to marry but rather a new and nonexistent “right to same-sex marriage.” Brief for Respondent in No. 14–556, p. 8. Glucksberg did insist that liberty under the Due Process Clause must be defined in a most circumscribed manner, with central reference to specific historical practices. Yet while that approach may have been appropriate for the asserted right there involved (physician-assisted suicide), it is inconsistent with the approach this Court has used in discussing other fundamental rights, including marriage and intimacy. Loving did not ask about a “right to inter-racial marriage”; Turner did not ask about a “right of inmates to marry”; and Zablocki did not ask about a “right of fathers with unpaid child support duties to marry.” Rather, each case inquired about the right to marry in its comprehensive sense, asking if there was a sufficient justification for excluding the relevant class from the right. See also Glucksberg, 521 U. S., at 752–773 (Souter, J., concurring in judgment); id., at 789–792 (B REYER , J., concurring in judgments). That principle applies here. If rights were defined by who exercised them in the past, then received practices could serve as their own continued justification and new groups could not invoke rights once denied. This Court has rejected that approach, both with respect to the right to marry and the rights of gays and lesbians. See Loving 388 U. S., at 12; Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 566–567. IOW, asked and answered. Loving wasn't about whether the couple could get married in Virginia. They were married in DC. Loving was about (among other things) the state recognizing the marriage and the couple getting all the same benefits as non-mixed-race couples. IOW, the same thing here. The "definition" of marriage has certainly changed throughout the years. Even in the 20th century. After all, if you couldn't get a license, you couldn't legally marry. Wikipedia: The constitutionality of anti-miscegenation laws was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1883 case Pace v. Alabama (106 U.S. 583). The Supreme Court ruled that the Alabama anti-miscegenation statute did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. According to the court, both races were treated equally, because whites and blacks were punished in equal measure for breaking the law against interracial marriage and interracial sex. This judgment was overturned in 1967 in the Loving v. Virginia case, where the Supreme Court declared anti-miscegenation laws a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore unconstitutional. [...] In 1928, Senator Coleman Blease (Democrat of South Carolina) proposed an amendment that went beyond the previous ones, requiring that Congress set a punishment for interracial couples attempting to get married and for people officiating an interracial marriage. This amendment was also never enacted. Your (and Roberts') arguments didn't carry the day. Sigh and move on. :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #402,912 by mmoffitt 6/26/15 2:14:17 PM Reply	I cannot "Move On"... "Moving on" means knowingly claiming a falsehood is true. Specifically, that any same-sex marriage will ever be the equal of mine for the simple reason that no same-sex marriage will ever contribute to the State what mine already has, and the contributions mine has made to the State will only multiply in the coming decades. You're asking me to claim something is true that is plainly, flatly false. I didn't do that as a nine year old in the Soviet Union and I'll be damned if I'm going to start doing it now.
Post #402,916 by rcareaga 6/26/15 2:21:27 PM Reply	Your so-called contribution ...did not require a marriage license. And what did the legally married parents of Mr. Dylann Storm Roof "contribute," exactly, to society? less cordially,
Post #402,922 by mmoffitt 6/26/15 2:52:12 PM Reply	Re: ...did not require a marriage license. I think we at last may have found some common ground. I know somewhere in the endless threads about this I've said that my commitment to my wife had nothing to do with our getting married; but a strong desire not to have my children listed as bastards or illegitimate. Knowing that they would be so classified were I not married when they were born, I proposed some 35 years ago only because I had found the woman with whom I wanted to have children. I repeat myself again, but the stigma attached to out-of-wedlock births has largely disappeared in the last 30 years or so. Hence, marriage has about outlived its usefulness, notwithstanding today's ruling. I think the solution that makes the most sense now is that we just stop issuing marriage licenses to anyone. What a marriage is today is little more than a meaningless (to the State - who, after all, is being asked to issue these licenses) intensive issued by two people.
Post #402,926 by rcareaga 6/26/15 3:04:55 PM Reply	I have a relative, shortly to be married ...who was technically a "bastard" when she was born (her parents married a few years later, and went on to have two more children). Her "illegitimacy" (of which she has been long aware) has not so far as I am aware cost her or anyone associated with her so much as a second of sleep these past thirty years. Your then-obsession with "stigma" says much more about the regional cultural climate in which you were raised than it does about the merits of in-wedlock childbirth. As a thought experiment, I imagine one of your daughters coming out as a lesbian and asking your blessing for her marriage to another woman (and I'm thinking fat, butch, crewcut, and with more tattoos'n you could shake a stick at) with whom she's deeply in love. Would you extend your approval, or stand on non-ceremony? cordially,
Post #402,932 by mmoffitt 6/26/15 3:21:09 PM Reply	Regional. That's funny. I was raised in Long Beach, California (ages 4 - 18 ). Of course, I was raised by two people from rural North Carolina and that had greater influence than the "region" I lived in. And there was heavy stigma attached in their thinking and rearing, despite both being college grads and my father holding a Master's degree. With both my daughters being in their early 20's (my youngest is aghast at my views on this subject), I've told them what I've always told them, "There's no point in getting married if you have no intention of having children." So would I object to one (or both) of them making the decision you suggest? No. I'd think it was a stupid decision, but no more so than if they decided to marry a man with no intention of having children. I can't imagine either of them asking for my "blessing" in any case. They know that my view is that it is their decision and, frankly, none of my business.
Post #402,943 by rcareaga 6/26/15 4:11:57 PM Reply	Nor indeed, then, is it any of your business ...if a couple of guys want to tie the knot. Glad we got this settled. cordially,
Post #402,951 by mmoffitt 6/26/15 4:53:45 PM Reply	In the final analysis. You're right. It isn't. But it is stupid.
Post #402,925 by boxley 6/26/15 3:04:38 PM Reply	hey, christians beleive you can bang one of your slaves to whelp a get that would get you locked up 8 ways from sideways today Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
Post #402,923 by boxley 6/26/15 3:01:41 PM Reply	okay now I am totally confused in upholding obamacare 6-3 the justices stated the intent of the law to hold back subsidies to states who didnt participate invalid due to equality. In the equality of marriage Roberts is saying equality doesnt matter? strange. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
Post #402,930 by rcareaga 6/26/15 3:15:56 PM Reply	confused is your default state
Post #402,931 by boxley 6/26/15 3:21:05 PM Reply	rather be an asshole than a self righteous asshole Dr. Villega Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
Post #402,944 by rcareaga 6/26/15 4:12:47 PM Reply	Thou sayest.

Welcome to IWETHEY!