From Dobbs to Same-Sex Marriage
-
Yeah exactly. And if, for some reason, legislation is unconstitutional, SCOTUS will step in. For expanding marriage access, that certainly doesn't seem to be unconstitutional.
That being said, similar to those who recently "saw the light" by refusing to say the Redskins football name, I find it interesting the number of politicians, including Biden and Clinton, who are so pro-gay marriage even though the concept hasn't changed since they opposed it 10 or 20 years ago.
Personally, as we have discussed a billion times here, I find the idea of permitting same sex marriage to be a logical slippery slope. Whether culturally it ever gets there, I see no difference between a same sex couple, and a polygamous marriage, or even an incestuous marriage albeit with limits surrounding procreation. In other words, if two men "marry", why can't 3 men and 2 women all join into a legal marriage, or a son and his grandmother, or grandfather for that matter?
-
Yeah exactly. And if, for some reason, legislation is unconstitutional, SCOTUS will step in. For expanding marriage access, that certainly doesn't seem to be unconstitutional.
That being said, similar to those who recently "saw the light" by refusing to say the Redskins football name, I find it interesting the number of politicians, including Biden and Clinton, who are so pro-gay marriage even though the concept hasn't changed since they opposed it 10 or 20 years ago.
Personally, as we have discussed a billion times here, I find the idea of permitting same sex marriage to be a logical slippery slope. Whether culturally it ever gets there, I see no difference between a same sex couple, and a polygamous marriage, or even an incestuous marriage albeit with limits surrounding procreation. In other words, if two men "marry", why can't 3 men and 2 women all join into a legal marriage, or a son and his grandmother, or grandfather for that matter?
@89th as I said in T(O)NCR...
... one of my surgeon friends, who said, "I'd love to marry my father! There would be no inheritance tax!"
"Yeah, but you'd have to divorce your wife."
"Why? We're all consenting adults. Why can't I marry my father, and still be married to my wife?"
And you commented, back then:
GK - these are all logical examples if one wants to be fair.
-
@89th as I said in T(O)NCR...
... one of my surgeon friends, who said, "I'd love to marry my father! There would be no inheritance tax!"
"Yeah, but you'd have to divorce your wife."
"Why? We're all consenting adults. Why can't I marry my father, and still be married to my wife?"
And you commented, back then:
GK - these are all logical examples if one wants to be fair.
-
End marriage as a legal construct. That’s the only logical solution.
Government recognizes marriage because it makes for easier civic governing. Estate planning, custodial rights, and myriad others. They offer tax incentives as procreation serves an important civic function. But since we can’t have anything without it being twisted and argued about until it’s twisted beyond all recognition, then just get rid of it.
The Brad
-
And I commented back then that his little loophole has nothing to do with same sex marriage. He could marry his mom and accomplish the same thing.
@jon-nyc said in From Dobbs to Same-Sex Marriage:
And I commented back then that his little loophole has nothing to do with same sex marriage. He could marry his mom and accomplish the same thing.
At the time of that conversation, his mother had already died. But your point is valid.
-
@jon-nyc said in From Dobbs to Same-Sex Marriage:
And I commented back then that his little loophole has nothing to do with same sex marriage. He could marry his mom and accomplish the same thing.
At the time of that conversation, his mother had already died. But your point is valid.
@George-K said in From Dobbs to Same-Sex Marriage:
@jon-nyc said in From Dobbs to Same-Sex Marriage:
And I commented back then that his little loophole has nothing to do with same sex marriage. He could marry his mom and accomplish the same thing.
At the time of that conversation, his mother had already died. But your point is valid.
Not when the topic is polygamy, which it is now…
-
End marriage as a legal construct. That’s the only logical solution.
Government recognizes marriage because it makes for easier civic governing. Estate planning, custodial rights, and myriad others. They offer tax incentives as procreation serves an important civic function. But since we can’t have anything without it being twisted and argued about until it’s twisted beyond all recognition, then just get rid of it.
@LuFins-Dad said in From Dobbs to Same-Sex Marriage:
then just get rid of it.
Just what Putin and the Chinese want you to do.
-
End marriage as a legal construct. That’s the only logical solution.
Government recognizes marriage because it makes for easier civic governing. Estate planning, custodial rights, and myriad others. They offer tax incentives as procreation serves an important civic function. But since we can’t have anything without it being twisted and argued about until it’s twisted beyond all recognition, then just get rid of it.
@LuFins-Dad said in From Dobbs to Same-Sex Marriage:
End marriage as a legal construct. That’s the only logical solution.
Government recognizes marriage because it makes for easier civic governing. Estate planning, custodial rights, and myriad others. They offer tax incentives as procreation serves an important civic function. But since we can’t have anything without it being twisted and argued about until it’s twisted beyond all recognition, then just get rid of it.
Perhaps, but the concept of "legal couples" would still be something to define, for the various civic/legal reasons you mentioned. Either that, or family and estate attorneys would see a massive increase in work if the government didn't issue marriage certificates.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in From Dobbs to Same-Sex Marriage:
End marriage as a legal construct. That’s the only logical solution.
Government recognizes marriage because it makes for easier civic governing. Estate planning, custodial rights, and myriad others. They offer tax incentives as procreation serves an important civic function. But since we can’t have anything without it being twisted and argued about until it’s twisted beyond all recognition, then just get rid of it.
Perhaps, but the concept of "legal couples" would still be something to define, for the various civic/legal reasons you mentioned. Either that, or family and estate attorneys would see a massive increase in work if the government didn't issue marriage certificates.
@89th said in From Dobbs to Same-Sex Marriage:
@LuFins-Dad said in From Dobbs to Same-Sex Marriage:
End marriage as a legal construct. That’s the only logical solution.
Government recognizes marriage because it makes for easier civic governing. Estate planning, custodial rights, and myriad others. They offer tax incentives as procreation serves an important civic function. But since we can’t have anything without it being twisted and argued about until it’s twisted beyond all recognition, then just get rid of it.
Perhaps, but the concept of "legal couples" would still be something to define, for the various civic/legal reasons you mentioned.
No. Somebody is still going to bitch and whine. It can never be equitable. The only way to make it equitable is to make it crappy for everyone.
-
End marriage as a legal construct. That’s the only logical solution.
Government recognizes marriage because it makes for easier civic governing. Estate planning, custodial rights, and myriad others. They offer tax incentives as procreation serves an important civic function. But since we can’t have anything without it being twisted and argued about until it’s twisted beyond all recognition, then just get rid of it.
@LuFins-Dad said in From Dobbs to Same-Sex Marriage:
End marriage as a legal construct. That’s the only logical solution.
Government recognizes marriage because it makes for easier civic governing. Estate planning, custodial rights, and myriad others. They offer tax incentives as procreation serves an important civic function. But since we can’t have anything without it being twisted and argued about until it’s twisted beyond all recognition, then just get rid of it.
Partially right.
Marriage should be a construct most advantageous to society. in our case, that would be one man/one woman monogamous marriage.
Civil union law could cover any discrepancies.
The push behind gay marriage is not any longing for civil rights or equality, it is a cry from a tiny minority that wants acceptance as being "normal".
-
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/16/us-mormon-church-gay-marriage-senate-bill
The Mormon Church supports the Senate's same-sex marriage bill.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/16/us-mormon-church-gay-marriage-senate-bill
The Mormon Church supports the Senate's same-sex marriage bill.
@Axtremus said in From Dobbs to Same-Sex Marriage:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/16/us-mormon-church-gay-marriage-senate-bill
The Mormon Church supports the Senate's same-sex marriage bill.
It wasn't all that long ago that they supported polygamy, so, there's that.
-
@Axtremus said in From Dobbs to Same-Sex Marriage:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/16/us-mormon-church-gay-marriage-senate-bill
The Mormon Church supports the Senate's same-sex marriage bill.
It wasn't all that long ago that they supported polygamy, so, there's that.
@George-K said in From Dobbs to Same-Sex Marriage:
@Axtremus said in From Dobbs to Same-Sex Marriage:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/16/us-mormon-church-gay-marriage-senate-bill
The Mormon Church supports the Senate's same-sex marriage bill.
It wasn't all that long ago that they supported polygamy, so, there's that.
Which is probably why they support the bill… They want to slide down that slippery slope…
