SCOTUS takes on Prop 8 & DOMA!

[redfox]

I agree with this except that I don't believe the state should be an equal party in the contract. It's only goal should be to arbitrate disputes arising from the other two parties and not be involved in the validity of the contract itself.

In my mind, the only real question in the entire debate is, if we think the state should be a party to the contract, do we have an expectation that it will approve all forms of marriage or are some restrictions right and proper?

Nicely summed up! The state has obviously had restrictions in place, and those are being changed as social mores change. My opinion: I too would prefer that the state not be party to the contract. My husband & I debated literally for years over this, as we agree, and wondered how to best solemnify our committments to each other & his children.

As in all things revolutionary, we also had the mundane to attend (jobs, etc.), and thus took the easy, socially sanctioned way, legal marriage. With our own Pagan twists, of course! (The Celebrant, my improv theatre teacher, got his license to marry us on the internet in 5 minutes, and we had our entire community pronounce us married as a collective.)

We married for fun, for joy, for recognition, for acceptance as a couple AND as a stepfamily, for ease of moving through our society, and to throw a fantabulous party. Many of the same reasons that others marry. Notably absent for us was a formal religious aspect, as we're both Pagan.

Since the legal status of 'married' exists, and many systems intertwine with this legal status, denying it to same gender couples is illogical, undemocratic, and indefensible in a civil society. And now, in some places, illegal. That is progress in a secular, civil society.

[gimmethesimplelife]

I guess it depends on how you define 'the state'. If you're talking about the several states mentioned in our constitution, I think it's only right and proper for them to set standards for social contracts within their jurisdictions. If you're talking about the federal government, then my objection is that it should not be in their purview. By what right does it choose not to accept a legal contract originating in one of it's states?

Along these lines, it will be interesting to see how the federal government reacts to the legalization of marijuana in Washington State and Colorado.....and what reasoning they wll use if these recently passed laws are tossed aside. Ditto should same sex marriage be made nationwide via the federal government - (which I would approve of) - but there would be some states that would not approve. I live in one of them, Arizona. What would be their reasoning and rights to preempt what the state residents deem is proper for the state? I think I see your point to some degree and I don't have easy quick answers on this one. But you are making me think......Rob

[redfox]

Along these lines, it will be interesting to see how the federal government reacts to the legalization of marijuana in Washington State and Colorado.....and what reasoning they wll use if these recently passed laws are tossed aside. Ditto should same sex marriage be made nationwide via the federal government - (which I would approve of) - but there would be some states that would not approve. I live in one of them, Arizona. What would be their reasoning and rights to preempt what the state residents deem is proper for the state? I think I see your point to some degree and I don't have easy quick answers on this one. But you are making me think......Rob

Our AG & local DA's wants to know too! Much speculation in WA state about the role the Feds will take, if any. The ongoing & robust national convo about the balance between states rights & the role of the Federal Government continues...

[jp1]

If society decides that it is so enlightened as to change the traditional concept of marriage to include same sex couples, will it continue to evolve in it's enlightenment to include multiple spouses and close relatives, all in the name of human and civil rights? And if not, why not?

Short answer. Blood related couples should be not able to get married. For the obviose reasons you point out. Should we relax those rules if kids won't be involved, perhaps.

Multi-marriages: In theory it shouldn't matter. But in reality, marriage benefits are much more than just financial. They also include child custody rights, survivor healthcare decisions, etc. Expecting the state to make decisions about such, ahead of time, is not practical and probably not desirable for people in those positions.

[Tradd]

Short answer. Blood related couples should be not able to get married. For the obviose reasons you point out. Should we relax those rules if kids won't be involved, perhaps.

I remember reading somewhere that at least one state allows first cousins to get married if both are over 50, for obvious reasons.

[bae]

I remember reading somewhere that at least one state allows first cousins to get married if both are over 50, for obvious reasons.

We also seem to allow people who are not related to get married, even if they both carry genes for some nasty genetic condition that is likely to be passed on to children.

Whereas the risk from first-cousin marriages seems to be quite small:

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/i...l.pbio.0060320

So I suspect we're in fact dealing with some sort of cultural discomfort here, rather than a science-based concern for the welfare of children.

[redfox]

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepol...their-stories/

A few short vid interviews with couples, about their meeting & relationships.

[redfox]

Multi-marriages: In theory it shouldn't matter. But in reality, marriage benefits are much more than just financial. They also include child custody rights, survivor healthcare decisions, etc. Expecting the state to make decisions about such, ahead of time, is not practical and probably not desirable for people in those positions.

I know many people who are polyamorous, and one trio who engaged in a handfast ceremony. I do not think this is the scary "slippery slope" that those opposed to marriage equality imagine it to be. Those of us who are Queer are estimated to be around 10% of the population, though I don't know if bisexuals are included in this estimate.

Those who are poly are a lesser number of folks than those who are Queer, though of course many poly folks are heterosexually oriented, so can be in an open marriage with legal protections connected to at least one of their partners. The issue before us is same gender marriage, and nothing else. Let's take this one step at a time! If the poly community wants to advocate for marriage equality, make your case, let's talk about it. That's how it rolls in a secular, civil society.

[bae]

I do not think this is the scary "slippery slope" that those opposed to marriage equality imagine it to be.

But it is so much more fun to trot out those "what about people who want to marry goats" lines to rationalize your discrimination against consenting adults engaging in uncoerced behaviour :-)

[Alan]

But it is so much more fun to trot out those "what about people who want to marry goats" lines to rationalize your discrimination against consenting adults engaging in uncoerced behaviour :-)

I must have missed the part about the goats and the rationalization of discrimination. Perhaps I should re-read the thread.