From the Denver Post, a statement from Colorado Attorney General John Suthers -
Colorado is one of the states included in the 10th Circuit Court so anything they rule on affects us too.
Bob
I think the “Liberal” case is right here, there is simply no point hanging on to the last vestige of traditional marriage now that the rest of the thing is gone. I’m more than a bit sad that we took all those steps down the road in the first place though.
As Ginsburg said in the interview quoted above, there’s no need to grant cert because all the appeals courts so far are agreed, and they all ruled to allow SSM. In other words, the liberals are winning in the lower courts. When your side is winning you don’t want to appeal to the supreme court.
I don’t believe you’ve correctly characterized the liberal view on SSM at all. Their response is something more like the other final liberal responses you wrote:
Liberal: Nonsense. It simply allows gays and lesbians the same rights as straight people.
You mean 400 years or so?
Quite. Of course, by giving unhappy people a way to get out, you’re bt definition watering down the fundamental nature of marriage. As more than a few people said at the time.
And is that a bad thing? The benefits of maintaining misery are unclear to me.
Bullshit. Unless this is a whoosh which I’m not getting.
Marriage has never been restricted to people who are capable of reproducing. This was one of the arguments which got laughed oral arguments. at in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Marriage has never been defined as the man working and the wife not.
You did miss the one about blacks and white not being allowed to get married.
Well, if a man could some day grow a baby inside of himself for 9 months and then give birth to it, then I’d say he was a mother in the original sense of the word. But in any case “marriage” is not a gendered noun the way that “mother” is. “Bride” and “groom” have a gender, but marriage doesn’t.
But regardless of if the meaning of “marriage” has fundamentally changed, surely the meaning of “divorce” hasn’t. It’s the break up of a marriage, same as ever. Saying “gay divorce” as if it’s some different thing just seems silly.
It’s not a real traditional marriage if there’s no dowry involved … I demand to know how many cows jtgain thinks a decent, stay-at-home cooking-and-cleaning wife is worth
More critically, the most important change in the American understanding of marriage happened when we abandoned coverture. Once married women were allowed to own property on their own, and assert their own legal rights, it is no longer significant who is the “man” and who is the “woman” in the relationship, whereas before it was important to know who had rights and who didn’t. That really was a change in the fundamental definition of marriage, and a good thing it was too.
Okay, I’m going to just grant you that it’s always been liberals trying to make these changes (which is probably a mistake, but whatever). Can you please tell me why this change was a bad idea? Can you please tell me what’s wrong with this idea? Marriage permanence is really dumb. If two people stop caring about each other, forcing them to stay together “for tradition’s sake” is monstrous.
This has never been an argument. Where does this even come from? At no point was the intent to have children a necessary contingency for marriage. Was this ever a change in the law? I don’t think so.
Wait, this was a liberal idea? The point of two-income households was not “give women freedom”, it was “make more money”. Because the cost of living was going up. You seem to be drastically missing the point.
Are you for real? Like, honestly? First of all, this has more to do with individual relationship dynamics; second of all, are you saying that:
a) This was an inherent part of the definition of marriage
and/or
b) This was a good thing?
Because either way, you’re totally wrong. There is absolutely nothing wrong with assigning household tasks however the relationship sees fit. There’s nothing wrong with a stay-at-home dad and a working mom. And more to the point, keeping women “in their place” is a fucking horrid sentiment and you should feel bad for giving it your implicit support.
You know what’s interesting? Not a single one of the things you brought up here are the things liberals appeal to when discussing a change in marriage. Not one. We usually bring up how it used to be between one man with property and another man with property’s daughter (i.e. his property). Or how it was then between one man and one woman of the same skin color. Not how divorces used to be harder to get, or how the role of the woman changed. Because, and here’s the key point, those changes liberals actually bring up? They are things nobody in their right mind could claim as bad. Moving from “women are property” to “women are equals”? A huge, fundamental shift in what marriage is and means, and one which only an utter monster would consider bad. You have no idea what you’re talking about, and your argument makes absolutely zero sense. It neither matches the historical record of why such moves were made, nor does it explain why they were bad things, nor does it even have anything to do with the arguments liberals make today.
Did you see the story last year about the two guys who had a Zulu customary wedding in KZN? Though apparently neither of them paid lobola.
(For our non-South African readers: lobola is a bride-price in Bantu cultures, traditionally a quantity of cattle.)
Yeah, that isn’t a real marriage - they should have exchanged cows when they exchanged vows 
Not really, I hate the idea of any kind of bride price. Or groom price, as the case may be.
In fairness, it’s not someone’s fault if they’d been indoctrinated since youth with a number of arbitrary social/religious rules about what men should do and what women should do.
My own mother recalls with annoyance the legal limitations imposed on her, being unable to sign contracts or buy property and such without the approval of her husband, and this was in Quebec in the late 1960s, hardly some medieval backwater. Fortunately, the influence of the Catholic Church has hugely evaporated (and we’re Jewish, so she was being bound by laws based on dogma, not just dogma itself) and no comparably arbitrary authority has risen to take its place.
I’m not. As the female sole income provider of a marriage that did not produce children I’m pleased as punch that my marriage is nonetheless considered as valid as any other.
No kidding. It’s like they don’t get that legal marriage is a wholly human construct and can be changed and modified to fit the needs of humans. Religious marriage is totally up to the religion and no court case in the world is going to compel the RCC to start giving annulments out like candy, to pick one religion at random. If you want a marriage like a steel trap, there are options for you out there. They won’t have legal force but presumably, if that’s important to you, they don’t need it.
Why did you choose “no-fault” divorce? In the southern American colonies, where the Church of English was established, marriage was a sacrament. There was no divorce.
The rest of your list consists of customs, not laws. And–why did you omit miscegenation laws?
Could you please show me a marriage that has been in existence for centuries? I’d like to wish the couple a happy anniversary.
Yes, the set of people who can marry has expanded. But that’s nothing new-- That happens literally all the time. Thirty years ago, I wasn’t allowed to marry, but today, I am. The change didn’t make the papers, and in fact, I’m not even entirely certain when it happened. Nobody needed to iron out details of family law when I became allowed to marry; the same laws just applied to me as had applied to all the people before me, and as would apply to all of the people after me.
Another change in Utah is that now gay couples can legally adopt children if they get married, as the law had restricted adoptions by couples to married people. The law didn’t prohibit single people from adopting children, but placed the restriction only on couples with the obvious intent to target gay couples.
While the window for SSM was open in Utah during the end of December among the gay couples getting married were a large number of of families raising children together. They applied for be allowed to jointly adapt the children and the state of Utah moved quickly to freeze those adoptions was the stay was issued.
I see this an nothing less than homophobia by the Mormon church which dominates Utah politics.
The Mormon church was 30 years behind the times on giving blacks equality and it will be 30 years behind the times for LGBT rights.
My parents were extremely miserable in their marriage, as was a great number of their generation. There were not a few people who were abused either physically or emotionally, and who couldn’t escape.