To-may-toes, to-mah-toes...

[cmzero]

Scientifically, a tomato is a fruit: nutritious plant tissue surrounding seeds, designed to be eaten by animals so the seeds might later be (ahem) deposited elsewhere surrounded by helpful fertilizer. But in cooking terms, a tomato is a vegetable because of its low sugar levels. If someone asks for a fruit salad, or a fruit sorbet, you would not

Comments

[looniewolf]

You do realize you made an indirect fruit reference to gay marriage? =^-^= Just teasing ya. ^^;;

I recently mentioned to someone else concerning word evolution. Well, what you described is law evolution. The thing is? We have people fighting against the further evolution of the marriage law, and people fighting for it. But ultimately, this is a Constitutional issue

[cmzero]

I've heard the "civil unions for all" idea tossed around in several circles, sometimes for the reasons you described, sometimes just to shut all the complainers up. I think it's a great idea with three complications:

1) The transition period is going to be PAINFUL.

2) Marriage law is state-based, so either all 50 states have to be on-board for it or the Supreme Court has to step in and make a ruling like the one you described.

3) The Supreme Court already stepped in on the subject of marriage in Loving v. Virginia (interracial marriage) and declared it a fundamental right. They'd likely either have to overrule that statement or say "civil unions cover the same thing" before this plan would be possible.

As for the "fruit" comment... :P

[looniewolf]

Federal Law takes precedence over State Law. So if the Federal Government passes the Civil Union Act stating that Marriage is a Religious device and thus unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution, and then replaces the office with Civil Unions, the States could complain, but they couldn't do that much. Well, take the law to Federal Court and complain to the Supreme Court maybe, but at that point you have a State out-and-out stating it is being prejudiced because I'm quite sure if would be one of those States that forbid Gay Marriage doing this. ^^;;

[johncwright]

"So the law was made, and so it stayed as it was carried to the colonies. And when the United States was born it used the same system of calling and treating marriage in the church and legal marriage as the same thing. One problem: America introduced a little thing called freedom of religion. So it wasn't too long before there were a good number of Americans that weren't even pretending to be Christian."

I hate to say it, but your precis of the history of Anglo-American law is remarkably incorrect. The English court recognized marriages between Jews, for example, including questions of paternity, legitimacy, and divorce. Characterizing marriage as merely a Christian institution which happened to adhere to English Law overlooks the real law, and the real age of the institution.

[cmzero]

I'll admit my expertise on the subject is limited. How would you characterize how the legal elements of marriage developed?