Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Same-Sex Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JimG said:
Justice Scalia asked a question which I don’t think was adequately answered. If same sex marriage becomes a constitutional right, not just a matter decided on by the states, then religious bodies may be required—constitutionally—to marry same sex couples, if they wish to retain their ability to perform marriages recognized by the state.

When states approve same sex marriage, they can make religious and ministerial exemptions. If same sex marriage is embedded in the constitution by judicial fiat, there will be no room for such exemptions. I have no doubt that some gay rights organizations will force the issue.
Click to expand...
I don’t think they’ll win though. That pesky little 1st Amendment would have to be done away with first. Church automony is pretty well established.

There are plenty of other ways the government can penalize churches that don’t fall in line.
 
JimG said:
Justice Scalia asked a question which I don’t think was adequately answered. If same sex marriage becomes a constitutional right, not just a matter decided on by the states, then religious bodies may be required—constitutionally—to marry same sex couples, if they wish to retain their ability to perform marriages recognized by the state.

When states approve same sex marriage, they can make religious and ministerial exemptions. If same sex marriage is embedded in the constitution by judicial fiat, there will be no room for such exemptions. I have no doubt that some gay rights organizations will force the issue.
Click to expand...
I’m clearly not a legal expert, but is this reason sufficient to deny constitutional recognition? (If so, that’d be great. Not a perfect victory but something nonetheless…)
 
EIF5A said:
But that doesn’t answer the question why old people are allowed to get married but not gays, IF the only argument is the ability to bear children.
Click to expand...
The question is why should the definition of marriage be changed to encompass those who engage in homosexual behavior?
 
(CNSNews.com) - In the oral arguments presented yesterday in the Supreme Court on the question of whether the U.S. Constitution guarantees two people of the same sex the right to marry one another, Justice Samuel Alito asked whether—if two of the same sex have a right to marry—why not four people of opposite sexes.
Click to expand...
“Would there be any ground for denying them a license?” Alito asked.
Click to expand...
“Let’s say they’re all consenting adults, highly educated. They’re all lawyers,” he said.
Click to expand...
Link

Is polygamy next?
 
estesbob said:
The question is why should the definition of marriage be changed to encompass those who engage in homosexual behavior?
Click to expand...
I’m not saying it should. I’m trying to find arguments against people who say, “Why can’t the definition be changed?”

I’m asking how does one reconcile the fact that IF the ability to bear children is the main reason for marriage, why are old people allowed but not gays? What’s the argument against that?

If the reason is “It’s not conjugal sex”, that points to some natural/moral law. How well would natural law hold up?
 
EIF5A said:
I’m not saying it should. I’m trying to find arguments against people who say, “Why can’t the definition be changed?”

I’m asking how does one reconcile the fact that IF the ability to bear children is the main reason for marriage, why are old people allowed but not gays? What’s the argument against that?

If the reason is “It’s not conjugal sex”, that points to some natural/moral law. How well would natural law hold up?
Click to expand...
It points to the fact that there are men and there are women for a reason. They are sexually complementary, and that is the sole reason for the institution of marriage. If sexual complementarity is entirely immaterial, then the government should provide no recognition or benefits for marriage whatsoever.
 
EIF5A said:
I’m not saying it should. I’m trying to find arguments against people who say, “Why can’t the definition be changed?”

I’m asking how does one reconcile the fact that IF the ability to bear children is the main reason for marriage, why are old people allowed but not gays? What’s the argument against that?

If the reason is “It’s not conjugal sex”, that points to some natural/moral law. How well would natural law hold up?
Click to expand...
Legally it can. But, the question before SCOTUS isn’t whether or not it can be changed by States, but rather if States must change it according to the 14th Amendment.
 
EIF5A said:
I’m not saying it should. I’m trying to find arguments against people who say, “Why can’t the definition be changed?”

I’m asking how does one reconcile the fact that IF the ability to bear children is the main reason for marriage, why are old people allowed but not gays? What’s the argument against that?

If the reason is “It’s not conjugal sex”, that points to some natural/moral law. How well would natural law hold up?
Click to expand...
I found Discussing Marriage quite useful. This is a YouTube channel which presents a whole litany of secular arguments for traditional marriage. Try watching “The Conjugal and Revisionist Views of Marriage” for an overview, and “The Objection from Infertility” to answer your specific question.
 
If same sex marriage is approved, the Court will have removed any legal barriers to approving other types of unions.
 
JimG said:
If same sex marriage is approved, the Court will have removed any legal barriers to approving other types of unions.
Click to expand...
They wont let that happen and let marriage turn into a free for all, because that will undermine same sex marriage, ironically, in the same way same sex marriage has undermined real marriage. I suppose only then will they understand what we’ve been talking about all along.
 
Thermopylae said:
Link

Is polygamy next?
Click to expand...
The issue of incest was also brought up by one of the justices. But, it was sort of glossed over and the judge didn’t push the issue.

But, really it is nearly impossible to draw the line between gay couples and any other couples/groups. Once you divorce kids from marriage there is no rational reason to distinguish one group from another. 🤷
 
SonOfMan said:
They wont let that happen and let marriage turn into a free for all, because that will undermine same sex marriage, ironically, in the same way same sex marriage has undermined real marriage. I suppose only then will they understand what we’ve been talking about all along.
Click to expand...
Ah. Well, marriage is already a free for all. Same sex marriage is only a further step. Contraception unlinked marriage from children. Divorce removed the factors of permanence and fidelity. With same sex marriage, sexual complementarity is not even a factor. There’s nothing left to save.
 
Thermopylae said:
Link

Is polygamy next?
Click to expand...
There is at least historical precedent for polygamy in contrast to same-sex “marriage”. There can be absolutely no reason to ban any definition of marriage if you change the most fundamental part of the ancient understanding.

Peace

Tim
 
Masha Gessen may have been prophetic when she said this:

“I agree that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it is a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. . . . Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again, I don’t think it should exist."

Source
 
JimG said:
Masha Gessen may have been prophetic when she said this:

“I agree that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it is a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. . . . Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again, I don’t think it should exist."

Source
Click to expand...
The feminist movement has regarded marriage as a patriarchal institution, and as such there has always been a strong push to negate the effects of marriage, and any support for an institution that bonds women to childbearing.

But to answer the judges question of why not, when marriage is redefined to be inclusive, there is no reason that it should not include all permutations and combinations that the individuals involved find personally fulfilling.

Indeed, the more complicated the marriage, the more beneficial it will be to the divorce lawyers to work out the settlements.
 
SonOfMan said:
They wont let that happen and let marriage turn into a free for all, because that will undermine same sex marriage, ironically, in the same way same sex marriage has undermined real marriage. I suppose only then will they understand what we’ve been talking about all along.
Click to expand...
There is nothing they can do to stop marriage being a free for all. Any state can change it’s laws to include whatever couples/groups they want to be considered a marriage and SCOTUS can’t stop them. They could protect states that don’t want every relationship to be a marriage, but that’s about it. 🤷
 
I have yet to hear an argument why it’s true the doctrine that 2 same gendered people can “marry.” Nothing. Just “we want it,” the word “equality,” little jingles about “same love,” etc… Pro-marriage advocates can point to the instilled, complementary character of the two genders that normatively “bear fruit” when in a conjugal relationship. Whether one wants to argue that basic arrangement is from God or evolution or both, it’s pretty obvious to anyone who isn’t completely intoxicated on the kool-aid. The other side? Nothing. The court is about to authorize their religious doctrine based on…nothing. And force businesses to comply and revoke tax status. It has happened. It will happen. I’ve said it before, this is an inquisition. Not alarmism. Just the basic trajectory of anyone who is minimally observant.
 
EIF5A said:
I’m asking how does one reconcile the fact that IF the ability to bear children is the main reason for marriage, why are old people allowed but not gays?
Click to expand...
Old people can often bear children. Infertility is difficult to diagnose with certainty. As well, anyone who loses fertility due to age is the victim of bodily deterioration. As complementary genders, their union still fortifies the obvious pillar of men and women marriages as a basic building block of a society. While gay people can obviously be very loving and competent, their union does not constitute a “marriage,” as it is normatively and naturally sterile and uncomplementary, no matter how healthy they are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top