Once you grasp the idea that culture and traditions evolve, the idea that marriage cannot evolve is absurd.
Because that’s the job of a legislature, not a judge sitting as a super legislature. Let’s say that a state raises it’s speed limit to 80mph based upon an engineering study. Should a judge be able to strike down the law and set the speed limit at 55mph because he says that the study is nonsense?
Of course not. If the study is really and truly nonsense, then you try to convince your legislators next term that the study is nonsense and get them to vote the other way. Judges should be deciding questions of law and not making policy choices.
Since marriage was established, things have changed. As you yourself noted, we do not arrange marriages anymore, we allow infertile people to marry, and polygamy is illegal in this country.
So are you arguing against all change, and therefore advocating arranged, polygamous, and/or underage marriages? Or are you okay with most changes but are just a bigot?
This is not such a case. Straw man. It is a political manoeuver.
In many countries arranged marriages are still the norm, and marriage for love is looked upon as Western decadence. Marriage for love fails 50% of the time. Duh.
Why do you say that I am a bigot?
If the law violates the constitutionally protected rights of citizens, the study is meaningless, nonsense or not.
Really? No one ever had kids outside of marriage? Among the peasantry who didn’t have titles and land marriage was sort of optional for a lot of history. They did tend to form pair-bonds and some certainly held a ceremony, but for large swathes of history no one gave a damn if the underclasses married or not.
Newsflash: humans aren’t lions.
Nonsense. Homosexuality does not make one sterile. Old school, homosexuals might have to engage in hetero sex a few times if having kids was really, really important. These days, technology enables same-sex couples to have kids via various “assisted reproduction” technologies ranging from turkey-basters to in vitro fertilization, just as they aid some hetero couples with conceiving. There’s also adoption, a long-standing human custom in many cultures throughout history.
I disagree. I see a true cultural shift in recognizing SSM as equivalent to heterosexual marriage in societal and personally meaningful ways. This is not top down, but emerged from grass roots.
A majority of Americans say otherwise.* Next!*
You are imagining things.
I fear that this is how freedom of speech may end up dying in this country whether it is 20, 50, or 500 years from now. When the Big Brother government finds a type of speech that it dislikes it will simply label it “bigotry” and rely on supporters like yourself who have conceded that stifling the rights of bigots is a “net societal good.”
Do you disagree? Remember, what you are today labeling “bigotry” is something the President himself supported two years ago. It’s something every country in the world unquestionably agreed with only 15 years ago. Which of your sincerely held thoughts in the coming years will be squelched because of a new definition of bigotry?
Well, in Washington state a majority voted for same sex marriage, I’d call that “support”. What would you call it?
And that is the $64,000 question, not whether some study is right or wrong.
Because you have no problems changing the “definition” of marriage to allow marriages of love between infertile opposite sex couples and the exclusion of arranged, polygamous, under aged marriages – you simply oppose them icky gays.
In some senses, Melchior is actually correct. The state’s interest in regulating marriage does come, in large part, from its interest in (1) regulating the transfer of property, (2) regulating the transfer of people (i.e. women), and (3) regulating the legitimacy of children back when we were barbaric enough to think that mattered.
I hope we all agree that (2) is no longer relevant, now that men and women are both considered legal equals. So long-established custom can change without doing violence to the institution.
For (3), we no longer hold that bastards are socially inferior, but marriage still helps ensure that children of a marriage have certain rights of their parents which are upheld. SSM just extends this to children of gay couples. Since the children aren’t gay in any different percentage than children of heterosexual marriages, their interests need to be protected whatever their home life.
For (1), property is still transferred between individuals of the same sex. In fact, that was the core of the case that struck down (parts of) DoMA.
So, Melchior, you’re a little bit right and a hell of a lot wrong. Of course, having made up your minds and sealed it hermetically, I’m just wasting electrons here.
Do you understand what I meant by ‘the same biological imperative’? Apparently not. The male lion does not want to raise some other male lion’s offspring.
Why do you keep pointing out significant aspects of marriage that have undergone change, and still maintain that marriage cannot change?
You can disagree with gay marriage and still take pictures. Just like you can disagree with miscegenation and still bake cakes. Nobody is forcing you to support or bless the happy couple. Officiants and priests aren’t being forced to marry people against their religion.
Don’t like serving the public? Open a private club.
How does this relate to gay humans?
Well, we can clearly see the origin of the Pride Festival.