I wish I could bring this up to them again. I sure stopped one of them in their tracks. I don’t think she understood why it was a big deal before we had our chat. I find it’s also helpful not to be aggressive in those instances. I think her heart WANTS to be in the right place. And yelling and showing a reaction only makes things worse, imho.
The other woman didn’t say much of anything, but I could tell she didn’t want to bother comprehending my point.
That, right there, is why I make the suggestion that the term marriage be stripped of legal meaning.
For whatever reasons, some people can’t or won’t get around the fact that marriage can be between homosexuals. I think many of these people would have absolutely no problems giving homosexual and heterosexual couples the same rights.
**
I know what you were saying. I personaly don’t think you want couples of differnet genders to be seen differently, but I just don’t think it would be practical to change everything instead of one thing
But that’s *THEIR *problem. IF they can’t change
Sure, I don’t disagree. But they have political power. I understand the court system is there to protect minority rights, but it’s no guarantee that the US Supreme Court would rule in favor of these minority rights.
So you think your idea is more likely to succeed?
I do, yes. But I’m not saying that I have the monopoly on belief as to what would or would not be successful.
Right. And why shouldn’t her old spinster brother have a similar complaint? 
I asked for YOUR view. You’re ducking.
It doesn’t take much to pass the rational-basis test. Surely you can think of *something *you could argue constituted one.
“Settled” and “effective” are not synonyms, and challenges are indeed working their way up the ladder.
If you refuse to state your own views directly, then you leave them to be inferred from your statements. And those have been quite consistent, even vociferous.
No, you didn’t. You asked, and I quote “And the difference vs. an analysis under the US Constitution would be … ?”
I can. But I won’t. You can go and read the opinions in Baker v. Nelson, Andersen v. King County, or Deane & Polyak v. Conaway. I’m sure you’ll find what you seek in those opinions. As I stated (a quote which you failed to cite) I’m not going to give you theoretical rational bases so you can continue to defame me by dishonestly stating that that’s what I “actually” believe.
no, they are not synonymous. Thanks, Noah. but laws passed are presumed constitutional unless shown otherwise.
except i have stated my own views directly. thanks for playing.
Undoubtedly true. Clearly the courts can contort the constitution to fit anything they like. Notable head scratchers being the likes of Dred Scott, Plessy and Korematsu. From our vantage point now we are shamed by what the courts did there.
Many of us see this issue in much the same light. Certainly the court is not entirely predictable. However, here on the SDMB we try to debate what we think policy ought to be. So far you seem to be dodging that question suggesting it is not for you to suppose what a court may do.
Personally I think the rights are already there in the Constitution (federal) to supply same-sex marriage rights. I made that case here about a year ago (was a pretty good discussion I think).
So, if you were standing in front of the SCOTUS what case would you make to them? Or if you were a SCOTUS justice what opinion based on the Constitution, as regards same-sex marriage, would you render?
Well that depends who’s paying me 
See below…
What do I think the policy “ought” to be? Like if I were dictator of the world? Gays can get married.
What do I think pragmatically stands the best chance of finding popular appeal? Removing the legal significance of the term marriage and extending “civil unions” (or whatever other term) to all adults wishing to avail themselves of the legal consequences of such a system
What do I think a court would do? Honestly, I think rational bases could be demonstrated (given that it is an incredibly lax standard*) (also, I’m not sure the analysis would be the rational basis test - it may be intermediate scrutiny) for a state to constitutionally limit the concept of marriage to only opposite-sex couples. But I’m not a constructionalist/originalist/textualist, so I think that it behoves the Supreme Court to extend these rights to all couples, regardless of orientation, as it’s a matter of fundamental fairness in society. I recognize, however, that a majority of the supreme court may not be so bold. Which is why I tender the pragmatic solution.
As mentioned, I’m not going to proffer a hypothetical rational basis as an example, as there is one poster here who will misconstrue my words. Suffice it to say, all that one needs to do is to read Maryland, Minnesota, or Washington Supreme Court opinions, and you will probably find a few rational bases.
“minimal scrutiny in theory and virtually none in fact” is how the Maryland [Supreme] Court put it
I would have to disagree on this. I think policywise this is one of the least likely and least pragmatic possibilites out there.
Perhaps Rumor should give some evidence that his solution is more pragmatic and realistic than just changing the legal definition of marriage?
I’d argue they have been changing the definition of marriage in recent years to exclude same-sex marriages via the likes of DOMA laws. Prior to that it seemed it could encompass SSM and they needed additional laws to place further restrictions on it.
I have - it’s my feeling that many people have emotional and mental hang-ups with the term marriage, and it prevents them from voting for something that they wouldn’t otherwise have a problem with (equal legal standing for homo and hetero coupling), but for their emotional/mental issue with the actual word.
I can’t provide evidence for this, other than gut anecdotal feeling. I don’t think there is evidence against this (at least elucidated in this thread), other than gut anecdotal evidence, either.
I’m not sure why you think that people who object so strenuously to changing the definition of marriage to include homosexuals, would welcome changing the definition of marriage to exclude government recognition. Surely, if the goal is to “protect” marriage, altering marriage on such a fundamental level that you remove entirely all of the rights and privileges associated with the term is a far greater threat to the concept than merely extending those self-same rights and privileges to homosexuals?
It’s ludicrous to suggest that it would be easier to just eliminate the term “marriage”. Besides, we’ve have evidence of legislatures and courts expanding marriage to include gays, but not one instance where the term marriage was abandoned in favor of something else.
And that’s a valid point, and perhaps that is what would actually happen. It’s my opinion, and that’s all it is, that people use the term “marriage” in a dual-use sense. To most of these people, they place more importance in their marriage as recognized by either their church or their social network - what “dem laws” have to say about their marriage is nice, especially for the benefits they receive, but ultimately non-dispositive to their perceived status as married.
I would propose a simple test: do most people think that they would be married if they went to church and had the rigmarole of a ceremony, but failed to file/return their marriage registration certificate (absent a statute or case law that still makes them married)? I would think most would.
(edit: to further bolster this point, in my state (Illinois) a marriage needs to be solemnized by one able to do so. thus, technically, if you don’t get it solemnized by either a person authorized to administer oaths (judge or specifically provided clerk) or a recognized religious person, it’s technically not a valid marriage. EXCEPT the provision for solemnization goes on to state that if the marrying parties believe that the person solemnizing their marriage was able to do so, it’s a valid marriage. Point being, what the law dictates as ‘married’ doesn’t always comport with what people view as ‘married’ and, in this case, the law recognizes the disconnect and makes an appropriate contingency)
Would most people think that they were married if they did nothing but adhere to a state’s definition of common-law marriage and were oblivious to their adherence to said definition? I would think most would not.
Further, look at the converse:
Plenty of people believe that they are not married to their spouse whom they haven’t seen or lived with in a while, even though they haven’t formally obtained a divorce. There are many instances of people unwittingly (attempting to) committing bigamy because of it.
Again, the legal status of marriage in this case has nothing to do with how they actually perceive their status.
Yet another one:
I have attended a completely ceremonial homosexual wedding. Completely ceremonial because the couple could not get married in my state. What, I ask, is the purpose of this if it’s the case that socially-recognized marriage has to always track legal marriage? Why would they even bother doing it if the ceremony didn’t serve any purpose because, as far as “the law” was concerned, they couldn’t be anything but strangers? Me and my friends perceive of them as “a couple” or “married”, yet they aren’t technically married (well they subsequently got married in another state where it’s legal, but that didn’t change the character of it).