Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?

Do you know why they didn't recognise them as common law married immediately after the SCOTUS ruling?

 

Numerous states and cities mounted challenges in both the form of legal argument as well as simply refusing to follow the SCOTUS ruling. Kim Davis is probably one of the more famous examples of the refusals that was backed by several Republican presidential hopefuls.
The why is complex but it boils down to wanting gay people to have less or no rights for whatever reason.
You have to remember consensual gay relations were illegal in several states a little over ten years prior to the ruling on marriage, many people did and still do want them locked up simply for being homosexual. To sum it up, hate.

 

Sure, but those laws weren't enforced as recently as ten years prior were they? Or are you going to blow my mind?

 

Meaning is a subjective value, and thus your last statement is opinion only. We can say that religious marriage is irrelevant to receiving legal benefits, and that is objectively true. However the discussion is not limited to only legal marriage, especially with claims that a legal marriage is not an actual marriage by some. Whether the participants are married or not is dependant upon the context of the type of marriage.

 

Which is the current situation.

 

Not as rare as you think. First, legal marriages are down, last I checked. People are simply getting married in the social and/or religious aspect, and not bothering with the legal. My wife and I were married for 8 years or so before we bothered to get the legal recognition. This is also a common theme for those who are poly, since they can't have more than one legal marriage, and currently legal marriage is limited to 2.

Religious/social marriages are also what same sex couples used to do before they could get the legal.

 

Common law marriage in the US is by state, and not all states have it.

 

Yes. Per OvH, the 14th prevents any law from making discriminations based upon sex or sexual orientation. Technically under the 14th, assuming RvW didn't exist, a law that permitted abortion would also have to legally permit a man to get an abortion as well. While a man could no more get an abortion than a non pregnant women could, the right cannot be denied him on a legal basis. Same goes for marriage. Marriage cannot be legally defined as between man and woman because you can't use sex as the basis.

 

A denomination is still part of a religion. And in some cases, although usually not with the larger organization, they actually consider themselves as a separate religion from the "pretenders". Regardless of whether or not we are looking at a religion as a whole, or denominations thereof, people still get religious marriages under them.

 

To be quite honest, we could not tell you the exact date we went from dating to married. At one point we realized that we had been referring to each other as husband and wife for over a year. If you are talking about the legal thing, we did that because we decided to start looking for a house to own, and mortgages are easier to get when you can show proof of marriage.

 

Correction @Maquiscat - It seems to me that to call a ban on consanguineous marriage unconstitutional is no more valid than calling a ban on underage marriage unconstitutional.

 

Actually yes there are some. It's rather their point. That legal same sex marriage is not an actual marriage, because of religion.

 

DOMA for one example.

 

Would you concerns that it can also be marriage under other religions?

 

They always could marry in the "traditional" sense and many did, whether to cover their secret, or because they lied to themselves. However, the law is not supposed to be using (physical) sex as a criteria of any given law. That said, the 14th in and of itself is not the principle by which consanguinous marriages is unconstitutional.

There has to be a reason to prohibit something, a principle of the 10th. Given the lack of requirement for sex or procreation under legal marriage, there is no legal basis to prohibit consanguinous marriages or even sex in and of itself, while there is a legitimate reasons to prohibit consanguinous breeding.

The only reason to seek a consanguinous legal marriage is the legal benefits, of which there are several that do not exist simply by being a blood or legal relative.

As to underage, that is based on ability to make informed consent. Someone who would normally be considered a legal minor (underage), would still be allowed to marry without parental consent if they had been legally emancipated. They are considered no longer underaged. Courts have declared those normally legal adults (of age) as incapable of providing informed consent, and thus can't enter into these types of arrangements. The principle is not age per se', but age is used as the rule of thumb.

 

For the most part, where there is common law marriage, the state doesn't bother to try and track who is living with who and assigning the legal status of marriage. It is only when a need arises, such as separation or anything where the marital status could make a difference, that they will bother. So a couple could live together for 20 years, had kids and then separate without issue, and the state would never know. So they could each then get legal marriages with no need of divorce.

 

Right, they are ceremonies if not legally recognized.

 

Of course.

Same way you know Santa Claus doesn’t.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-crime-years-later-hes-deemed-a-sex-offender/

https://slate.com/human-interest/20...al-sex-in-some-red-states-like-louisiana.html
Take Slate with a grain of salt. There are those who claim it has a liberal slant.

 

uh no it isn’t. Words mean things. Objectively. Marriage in the US is a legal institution. If church performs a marriage ceremony, but does not follow proper procedures to have it legally recognized, it is not a marriage. This is objective fact.

 

First off, meaning, as in whether something is meaningful or not, is a subjective value. You might find something to be meaningful and I might think it not. Subjective. Period.

The only difference with whether or not a marriage is legal or not is whether those involved receive benefits or not. Simply because the government does not recognize your marriage on a legal basis, it does nothing to invalidate your marriage on any other basis. To claim that marriage can only exist as a legal institution is as false as claiming that it can only exist as a religious institution.

Your acceptance of a given marriage has no bearing on whether or not the government accepts it. Your acceptance of a given marriage has no bearing on whether a given deity/religion accepts it or not. The government's acceptance of a given marriage has no bearing on whether the family accepts the marriage.

Marriage has multiple forms, that exist independently of each other and can exist simultaneously. Marriage existed prior to becoming a legal institution in the US and the creation of the legal institution in no way invalidated any already existing form.

 

again, I just showed you, objectively, that you are incorrect.

 

How? Show me how something that I find meaningful automatically and objectively is meaningful to you. You've already shown otherwise. I find marriage other than legal meaningful, and you have claimed that unless it is legal it is not meaningful. Prove to me has these are not subjective views.

 

By showing what words mean. Marriage is a legal institution here. Religious ceremonies are meaningless if they aren’t recognized. This is objective fact.

 

Words have multiple meanings. A religious marriage is only meaningless in the context of a legal one. But the discussion is not limited to the legal. Likewise a legal marriage is meaningless in the context of a religious one.