SCOTUS: Gay Marriage Case Update

When WA was considering same sex marriage there was an examination of our law to determine how much "definition" had to actually change.

As it turned out, almost nothing had to change. The reason was that we already had to redefine marriage as we became averse to discriminating against women. So, our definition of marriage already referred to "spouse" not any term indicating gender.

One of the few changes necessary was to change the words on the marriage license and application to complete the change to "spouse".

For anyone in WA to get worked up about that was ludicrous. After all, we already redefined marriage to ensure the state doesn't consider gender!! And, what's more, YOUR state should do that, too. Discrimination against women isn't OK.

If you really want to look at how the definition of marriage is changing, you need to consider the parts of the definition of marriage related to tax law, inheritance law, laws about children, laws about health care, laws about the social safety net, laws on minorities and women, laws on exceptions to age of consent and mental capacity, the extensive and ever changing laws about divorce, etc., etc.

Many of THOSE redefinitions actually have ramifications on our marriages - on YOUR marriage, if you are married.

Same sex marriage does NOT.

 

Just the one statute that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Not sure of your point here.

 

Never said any such thing. You seem fond of making (*)(*)(*)(*) up, and attributing it to others

Your delusions are getting more frequent.

 

You said it in post #395. Do you think nobody can read or remember?

Your lies are becoming more obvious all the time. READ post #395.

 

Marriage is defined by thousands of lines of law describing who the state may marry and what it means to be married.

So, the definition is changed quite frequently. Plus, it includes case law, another avenue of relatively frequent change.

And, the change to end discrimination against same sex couples is actually quite small in terms of lines of law. Plus this change only impacts same sex couples.

I would suggest this change is actually quite minor.

 

Silly, evidently you cant read your own words or mine. The definition of marriage is changed, NOT the definition of YOUR marriage.

- - - Updated - - -

A change in the effects of marriage isnt a change in the definition of marriage.

 

Amazing. Do you even know what honesty is? So NOW you are saying that the definition of marriage has changed, except that it hasn't. Or maybe you're saying that all existing marriages aren't marriages anymore, except that they are? Or maybe that they're all different now, except that they're the same?

Sorry, the definition hasn't changed, nobody's marriage has been redefined, none of the laws, precedents, rules and regulations defining marriage have changed. But I tire of point out the truth to you - to you, the truth is simply incomprehensible, beyond your grasp.

- - - Updated - - -

Except that marriage IS the effects of marriage. That's tautological. You are now saying that a change in the color of red doesn't change the nature of red. Don't your flaming pants trouble you from time to time?

 

Not at all. Why don't you try and address what Ive actually stated.

 

"Effects"? No, that's a weak evasion.

As I stated, we change the law on who may be married from time to time. Interracial marriage was significant. We also change law on who we deny marriage based on ability to consent (age, parental consent exceptions, mental capacity etc.). We change whether we will marry those who can't show up in person (those who are incarcerated, serving overseas, etc.). We've changed the laws regarding denial of marriage to those who fail certain blood tests. We change law regarding who we accept or deny common law marriage.

And, what it means to be married by the state is most definitely part of the definition of state marriage. When states change marriage law to become community property states, for example, that is a serious redefinition of marriage. In fact, the financial ramifications of marriage have always been one of the fundamental reasons for marriage. And, I pointed out numerous other similar changes that certainly are significant in the definition of marriage.

 

I agree that allowing same sex marriage doesn't change my marriage or yours.

However, we do make changes in the definition of marriage that affect those who were married previous to the change.

For example, when a state moves to being a community property state, it very much changes the marriages of people within the state.

The same can be true when we modify divorce, tax law, immigration law, law on testimony, etc., including case law in those areas.

And, yes, our body of law on marriage IS the definition of state marriage. In fact, these laws are the ONLY definition of what is meant by state marriage - there is nothing else to point to.

 

Dixon - most people really do agree with you. It's just most don't have the time and energy as you do. The LGBT (or whatever you call it) will never stop until they get "their" way...but in reality "they" will never be really accepted no matter how much they try.

 

Not so serious that it requires a change to the dictionary definition of marriage. Changes to Community Property didnt require any redefinition of marriage. Gay marriage has redefined the word.

 

Wow!

There has been rapid and significant change on this topic all across America - to the point where it's hard to doubt that a majority of Americans are in favor of same sex marriage.

And, here you are suggesting it is going to stop!

Can you give any clues as to the basis for your rather startling prediction?

I do agree that there will be those who will continue to prefer to discriminate against gays. That's been true with ALL our civil rights issues. Irish, Italian, black, Asian, Hispanic, Catholic, Mormon, gay, native American, Jew, Arab ... no legislation fixed the hate for any of these groups. We even have those who are adamant about relegating women to lesser roles.

Time does heal, though. We see pretty good progress on the hate for the Irish, Italians and Catholics.

 

The obvious reason is that Lib judges retract the will of the majority...call it what you want but most are not on the same page as you. Now I think I'll go to Chic-filet!

 

Ī

The will of the majority has changed.

Go light on the breading.

 

Actually polls over the last decade show an increase in support of gays having the right to marry. Most people either don't care if gays get married or they support it.

 

Hey Dude go easy on the insulting...I have my viewpoints and you have yours. Got it!

 

This is exactly correct. Expanding marriage to permit different races to marry, or same sex to marry, etc. doesn't change any existing marriages. Many changes in the law DO affect existing marriages, sometimes quite profoundly. And of course it's true that it is this body of law (and rules, precedents, and regulations) that define marriage, that determine what a marriage IS. Dixon's dictionary is irrelevant, but he'd have to be honest to admit that, so don't hold your breath.

 

For this assertion to make sense, you would have to select which of the many self-contradictory positions he has taken. About the only things common to his blather are (1) he doesn't know what he's talking about, but (2) he hates the idea of marriage, but only for certain people he claims not to have anything against, you understand...

Looking around my neighborhood here in Alabama, I can find numerous people who will never accept integration. Amazingly, the battle to minimize integration is still being fought here. The nigras will never stop until they get "their" way, don't you know? But us responsible, industrious, educated, and intelligent (meaning, white) people will never accept it no matter how much they try. And that's because treating the nigras as real people just ain't natural, and you know it.

 

My positions have remained consistent and present no contradiction. It is only your strawmen that conflict with my positions, but that was by your design.

 

I see what you did here. You are trying to equate sexual preference to race. Apples and Oranges.
My point is that most likely the LGBT lifestyle will be recognized legally...but human nature will always consider it an oddity. Hey at least be happy for the legality standpoint. Can't have it all!

 

You are deluded if you think a change to the dictionary definition of a word, isn't a redefining of the word.

 

Doesn't involve redefining the word either.

Changes to the race involved, changes to community property, changes to the differing treatment for husbands and wives or any other changes offered on the thread DO NOT require a redefinition of the word, because all those details are not a part of the definition of marriage. ON THE OTHER HAND, a marriage between two people of the same sex contradicts every definition above. That's why a redefining of the word was necessary to include same sex couples.

 

I'm looking at what sexual orientation and race have in common relative to this discussion. And the relevant common denominator is that both are the target of bigotry, and I'm agreeing that bigots cannot learn tolerance. But most people are NOT bigots (though your circle of friends may have self-selected for bigotry, and you thing your attitude is universalo), and the clear and growing majority has no difficult accepting either one.

(I might also mention that both race and sexual orientation are inherent, and neither can be altered. Some people can fake it, of course.)

- - - Updated - - -

As I and many others have tried to educate you, the definition of marriage is what is embodied in all of the laws concerning marriage. Your dictionary is irrelevant. And again, to admit this you'd have to be honest. I see repeating the same lies is as far as you've got. I expected no better.

 

They redefine the concept, the underlying meaning of the word.

Those details are what marriage IS. No more and no less.

<omit repeated lies. Dixon just can't help himself>