Thoughts on the US Supreme Court Hearing Abt Same-Sex Marriage?

[tinpra]

The supreme court hears cases on same-sex marriage today, to determine whether California's Prop 8 and the Fed's Defense of Marriage Act are constitutional. Listening to detractors of both on news radio (but curiously no supporters) say over & over that same-sex couples should have the same right marry made me wonder if we, people, have the right

Comments

[airehen]

I support traditional marriage.

It is sacred (ordained by God), and it is a covenant. The vast majority of people today do not even recognize how serious a covenant really is. It is a blood vow.

Also, there is the word itself. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Any other union should not be covered by that word, but called something else.

Sorry airehen

[tinpra]

....meant to respond to Jenn

[jeymien]

I support the equality of everyone. During my degree in anthropology, I had to take linguistics courses and in those course, I learned that language changes over time. Words change, their meanings change as the society that uses them changes. There is nothing wrong with change. To stay in one place is stagnation. It is not good for a culture or society to never change. That's the death of cultures and societies. To move forward in the world, as society struggles to change so that everyone has the same rights and freedoms that's what we should all strive towards. An inclusiveness of everyone, an acceptance of everyone

[tinpra]

Living languages do and must change, that's how we know whether they're alive or dying. However, as I mentioned, by redefining the word "marriage", we are also redefining the institution of marriage. Institutions are much bigger and its tendrils spread through much more of society than the words that make up that institution. Institutions don't change often or quickly. If/when they do, it's often a sign or a cause of major instability in a society. (If I'm wrong I'm sure my more history minded friends will correct me

[jeymien]

Yes, I do believe we have the right, as thinking, rational people. I think it is a good change institutionally wise. It's one thing to say everyone deserves the same rights - and another to actually give it to them. I believe this overall is a good change, the same sort of change wrought when Lincoln issues the Emancipation Proclamation and then championed the 13th Amendment. - Did this lead to societal upheaval? Well, sure, there was the Civil War. But the end outcome 2 centuries later has this being a good thing for American society in my opinion. It's taken 2 centuries and there's still racists out there.. Sometimes things have to change

[tinpra]

Not to be pokey, though it may sound that way, but I find it interesting that none of your arguments for same-sex marriage as it related/references Christianity or God draw from the Bible. Any particular reason

[moony_blues]

I'm one of those who is sitting here wondering how this country ever got to the place where we allow the states to license our marriages. Why do we seek permission from the state for something as personal as the people with whom we live our lives? Is it really just the convenience of getting your name changed without having to go through a legal proceeding, or is it part of a larger shift in national identity? I see the whole matter as tying into a lot of the welfare state mentality: people are being brainwashed into thinking that the state can take care of them, and that goes all the way to telling us who we can and cannot love and spend our lives with

[tinpra]

As you can imagine, I did some reading up on marriage and the institutionality of it. From my limited research, it would seem that someone higher authority/nation-state power has been regulating marriage for centuries particularly in the West

[moony_blues]

I don't think the ship has sailed so much as it was never given a serious thought by the hardcore pro-same sex marriage movement. Their underlying motive has not ever really been equality as much as it about forcing the religious right to accept their lifestyle decisions. By setting this up as a marriage issue, they are opening the door to sue churches whose ministers refuse to marry homosexual couples for denying them the 'right' to marry. I don't think that the majority of homosexuals share this larger goal, but the movement is being manipulated toward that end and has been for a long time.

Another reason I think that the movement hasn't considered the idea is that marriage is now being portrayed as a right, like so many other things that are actually responsibilities, such as employment, housing, food, insurance, health care... Need I go on?

I'm a strict Constitutionalist, and there is nothing in the Constitution that protects marriage in any way. And, since it is not something that is specifically enumerated in the articles or

[tinpra]

btw...great icon. unfortunately. sigh.