"But it's STILL between a man and a woman..

So why even bring it up???"

I brought it up because it REFUTES your contention, totally and completely, that marriage is an institution whose meaning has never changed over thousands of years. It has in fact, changed its definition drastically over the years and continues to do so.

"Yet, those practices are aberrations and universally accepted as not a true marriage.."

Again a false statement on your part. Marriage between only one man and one woman by that same standard you just set is also not universally accepted, it could also be considered an aberration also. How can you call plural marriage, an aberration, when it is in fact been accepted by multiple cultures all over the world for thousands of years? That makes NO sense.

"If we're going to change the definition that has stood for thousands of years, the argument for person-hamster marriage or person-long black gun marriage is JUST as valid as the argument for same-sex marriage..."

NO, it is NOT just as valid. You can repeat that over and over gain as many times as you want and it will still NEVER make it true. That's just pure nonsense. You are talking contract law, which is essentially, boiled down, is what marriage is. You cannot have a contract that is legally binding with either a non-living entity or a entity that is not cognizant and capable of either signing the contract or giving consent in the first place. No matter how you want to spin it, your statement is just plain stupid, always was, and always will be.

"But the goal isn't equality...
The goal is acceptance.. To force Christians to acknowledge the gay lifestyle...
And THAT will never happen.."

Another statement that is false, and never will be true, no matter how many times you want to repeat it.

"If the goal is equality than the gay activists would be happy with civil unions that have all the rights and responsibilities of a traditional marriage."

There are several things wrong with that statement that need to be pointed out.

1.) Separate but equal is NOT equal. That is established fact.

2.) The civil union option was closed to gays by the anti-gay rights crowd themselves, when they started passing state amendments that not only banned same sex marriage, but civil unions and domestic partnerships and anything equivalent to marriage (their wording) even in places where they already existed.

3.) Marriage IS a civil union. Holy matrimony is the religious rite. Marriage is the term used for the secular civil union. So why use a different word just to mean the same thing? Unless of course, your whole intent is to make "civil union" something less than an exact equal copy to marriage?

4.) There are churches that perform same sex religious ceremonies. By you refusing to recognize those as legal marriages, how are you not violating THEIR religious rights and liberty?

The response from the attorney was the same response that was given here..

"Because that is not how marriage is defined"

But Justice Alito's point, and MY point is that we are going to court to CHANGE the definition of marriage...

So, if thousands of years of tradition is to be thrown out the window, why go with half-measures??

If we're going to change the definition that has stood for thousands of years, the argument for person-hamster marriage or person-long black gun marriage is JUST as valid as the argument for same-sex marriage...

If the goal is equality than the gay activists would be happy with civil unions that have all the rights and responsibilities of a traditional marriage.

But the goal isn't equality...

The goal is acceptance.. To force christians to acknowledge the gay lifestyle...

And THAT will never happen..

This country was founded to avoid that very thing...

Michale

Com'on JM!!

Show some compassion!!

JFC is pining away for his long black gun... JFC wants to be one with his long black gun in wedded bliss..

Have you no soul!!????

:D

Michale

And if JFC wants to marry his long black gun, then he should have EVERY right to do so!!

After all, that is what "true marriage equality" is all about, right???

"No rules. Just right."
-Outback

Michale

Irregardless of the fact that it may or may not be an actual definition, the point is we are CHANGING the definition of marriage..

So, why not change it so that ANYONE can get married to ANYONE or ANYTHING...

Why frak around..

Just change the definition of marriage in such a way that it is "true marriage equality"....

THAT's the point, isn't it??

Michale

It's what Justice Kennedy thinks..

And he seemed to have a REAL problem with changing the definition that has stood for thousands of years in the blink of an eye because some social misfits get their feelings hurt...

Michale

But it's STILL between a man and a woman..

So why even bring it up???

Michale

Really??

Find me THAT definition posted somewhere prior to 2000 and I'll concede the point..

Otherwise, yer just making shit up... :D

Michale

BFD...

It's STILL between a man and a woman....

Michale

But we're changing the definition of marriage....

So, what's to stop a group from wanting it changed to fit THEIR social lifestyle, be it with hamsters or dogs or computers or cars or 3 or more adults??

THAT's the whole point...

The Christian bible itself contains many examples of men with both multiple wives and as many concubines as they could manage. Some Mormons still use these biblical examples for justifying their plural marriage arrangements. Having more than one wife has also been practiced in China, Africa, and the Arab nations. It is still practiced in parts of the Arab world and Africa.

Yet, those practices are aberrations and universally accepted as not a true marriage..

NOW ya'all want to claim that they are "true marriages"???

Ya'all need to get your arguments straight..

To say that the definition of marriage has remained static as only one man and one woman without change for thousands of years is simply not true.

Again with the "truth" crap...

You want to argue TRUTH, yer talking to yourself..

But the fact that marriage has maintained the same definition (a man and a woman) for thousands of years is fact.

Your aberrations notwithstanding...

Michale

Those are all completely irrelevant and silly questions that have been debunked repeatedly as total nonsense.

"Would you consider "true marriage equality" to mean that a man (or woman) could marry their hamster or their dog???"

Neither a hamster or a dog is capable of giving any kind of consent let alone even comprehend the concept to begin with.

"Could a man (or woman) marry their child or their parent???"

No. Since a parent and child already have a legally recognized family relationship, there is no need to try to establish another one through marriage. Marriage is to establish a legally recognized family relationship between two individuals who previously had no familial relationship.

"Could man (or woman) marry their car or their computer??"

Again no. Since an inanimate object can neither give consent nor even comprehend the process to begin with.

"Could 4, 6 or 10 people of sound mind be married???"

Not relevant to the question at hand, which only involves the qualifications, intrinsic characteristics and restrictions involving two individuals to marry each other, such as age, race, religion, gender, etc.

"Ya'all want to change the definition of marriage as it has been known for thousands of years...."

Also not true. Native Americans have had same sex ceremonies in the past. During the 10th to the 12th centuries the liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox church included same sex ceremonies. Also, modern heterosexual marriage is nothing like heterosexual marriage that existed in prior centuries. Women were the property of their fathers, until they married and became the property of their husbands. Marriage for political reasons was quite common among European royalty, while marriage exclusively for love is a totally modern idea. In fact, the peasant class often went without a formal marriage all together.

The Christian bible itself contains many examples of men with both multiple wives and as many concubines as they could manage. Some Mormons still use these biblical examples for justifying their plural marriage arrangements. Having more than one wife has also been practiced in China, Africa, and the Arab nations. It is still practiced in parts of the Arab world and Africa.

To say that the definition of marriage has remained static as only one man and one woman without change for thousands of years is simply not true.

Would you consider "true marriage equality" to mean that a man (or woman) could marry their hamster or their dog???

Could a man (or woman) marry their child or their parent???

Could man (or woman) marry their car or their computer??

Could 4, 6 or 10 people of sound mind be married???

Where does your "true marriage equality" draw the line??

Ya'all want to change the definition of marriage as it has been known for thousands of years....

Where do ya'all draw the line??

Michale

Today DailyKos linked to this essay from Hillary appearing today: https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/respect-law wherein she calls for several changes to the criminal justice system in the wake of Baltimore, etc. She also spoke at Columbia U. today on this topic. She talks about income inequality as well, which really is the fundamental problem underlying so many issues today. I'm glad to see it.

May Bernie Sanders drive her yet more left! There's plenty of room from where things are stuck (on the right) before she becomes remotely extreme. Scales need to pull back the other way -- Go Hillary! Go Bernie! Go Martin O'Malley! Would take any one of them over any of the repub clown contingent.

Considering Kennedy's questions, I would not be so sure...

His one point was dead on...

The definition of marriage, a man and a woman, has been with us for thousands of years...

Are we to change it, by your own admission, in the blink of an eye, because a disgruntled group who made a certain lifestyle choice wants it changed??

THAT is the question facing the SCOTUS....

Justice Ginsburg has been quoted as saying she regrets her vote in RoevWade because it interrupted the public debate on the issue. Had RvW not gone the way it did, public debate would have continued and, in the long run, been a LOT better for the issue..

You just know she has to be thinking the same thing with gay marriage...

Michale