A Simple Question for Those Are Still Opposed to Same Sex Marriage

After I studied Ancient Roman law, I realize it is government not religion that is the basis.

 

Ok so where in Roman law did it mandate that people getting married seek government sanction, i.e. a license, prior to getting married?

 

I could be wrong, but was there not a Marriage tax ?

 

Don't know. That was not a area I would typically run across. However, something to remember is that often, in those days, marriage was a matter.of announcing you were married. Weddings, save for nobility and sometimes the wealthy, were simply not a thing among the common population. So even if there was a actual tax on those married, it got applied because the couple had been claiming they were married.

 

yes, if they are not legally married, they are not legally married.

 

I'm not sure if you are understanding the question. They are legally married in another country. The question is should we be treating them as two single people with neither being allowed to make medical decisions for the other since they are not married by the laws of this country? Or to turn it around, would you be alright if your wife was told she could not visit you in the hospital or make decisions for you, if incapacitated, because she was not legally married to you by their laws, should you be visiting another country?

 

I understood it perfectly. If the marriage would not be considered legal in the US ( a 40 year old man marrying a 12 year old girl) then they are not married.

I would be subject to that countries laws, while in that country, just like people from other countries are subject to ours, while inside our jurisdiction.

 

That is a hell of a question to ask a person that did not state Romans had printed licenses. Wives were protected under Roman law. The main purpose was the children.

 

My two wives, spanning many years did not make my medical decisions for me. Maybe you should explain why you bring this up.

 

Huh? There were no marriage licenses until interracial marriage was a thing? I call BS on that.

 

It was ALWAYS a legal institution. Whether licenses were required or not is irrelevant to its status as a legal institution. In ancient Mesopotamia it was the legal institution, not religion, that gave a husband a refund of the purchase price of his wife if she didn't bear a child. In ancient Rome

 

ancient Mesopotamia and rome have no relevance to marriage in the US, which is what is being discussed.

 

The topic being discussed is

 

no it isn't. Mesopotamia and roman law are entirely irrelevant to marriage in the US. You can't provide an actual constitutional argument for banning same sex marriage, and this is why you bring up red herrings and entirely irrelevant nonsense. It's amusing.

 

Marriage was a legal institution long before the US even existed and this assertion that it wasn't a legal institution until they wanted to stop interracial marriages in the US, is nothing more than a beautiful demonstration of how completely your ideology has disconnected you from reality

 

none of which has anything to do with marriage in the US, or US marriage law.

You can't provide an actual constitutional argument for banning same sex marriage, and this is why you bring up red herrings and entirely irrelevant nonsense. It's amusing.

 

Because legally speaking, unless you make a specific legal POA granting someone else the ability, if you are incapacitated and unable to make your own medical decisions, then your legal spouse has that right, overriding even your parents or siblings.

 

There never was any ban on same sex marriages and government recognition of marriage limited to men and women was Constitutional because the distinction of sex is rationally related to the legitimate governmental interest in improving the well being of children that only heterosexual couplings produce. This new gay marriage is unconstitutional because it excludes closely related couples without any justification for doing so.
And then, with marriage available to just any two people, you have the issue of the constitutionality of discriminating between the married and unmarried

 

Which is a flat out lie

Which is a flat out lie

Was black men being able to vote unconstitutional because women were unable to vote? Because something else is unconstitutional does not make the first part unconstitutional- it is the other item that is unconstitutional

Which was never a question raised before the inclusion of same sex couples, red herring.


Still waiting on you to make a valid point, it has to happen eventually

 

You know this is a lie

nope, as the supreme court pointed out. it's why you lost.

this is also a lie.

Everyone is free to marry, so there is no discrimination between the 2.

 

So you will be SOL if the spouse and you are in a serious fight.

 

Nonsense. There is no "ban" on you getting a dog license for your pet cat. Dog licenses are simply limited to dog owners. There is no intent to exclude anybody and instead the intent is to INCLUDE a certain classification of people.
AND THERE is a literal "ban" on closely related couples marrying in all 50 states.

Everyone was free to marry someone of the opposite sex so there was no discrimination. And there would still be discrimination between the married and unmarried.

 

Your point fails in comparison, not allowing same sex couples to obtain a dog license would have been more accurate. Which would also be unconstitutional.

Feel free to take a case to SCOTUS, like gay people did

That seemed to be the argument with interracial couples, interfaith couples; that argument failed also.

 

Not It if they sign an agreement where the father has no responsibility

 

You have to ask why it disturbs you so much