SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that states can not prevent same-sex couples from marrying and must recognize their marriages from other states. In the majority opinion by Justice Kennedy it is stated:
The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States. It follows that the Court also must hold—and it now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.
...and:
It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed. It is so ordered.
Original Submission
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Alfred on Friday June 26 2015, @06:17PM
The point of having a discussion is to find more truth. Both sides already claim that so what is the point. New truths are not discovered by internet discussions anyway.
All you can do is take those you love and are responsible for and raise them right even with all the crazies over there that are grossly wrong.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by SubiculumHammer on Friday June 26 2015, @06:20PM
The reasoned approach is to reframe the argument around contracts, and have the government remove itself from marriage licenses
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @07:39PM
Yes, because government has completely removed itself from contract law.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @08:06PM
Lots of places still prohibit incestuous marriages and more than two people marrying one another. These issues could be solved with better and more customizable contracts.
Furthermore, I'd say that marriage is just some silly social convention with a lot of magical thinking attached to it. It has no need to be specifically recognized.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @01:03AM
Well, it does, because most of that magical thinking around a marriage has morphed into the realms of contract law, witness everything that happens in a divorce. A divorce proceeding really is the state's dissolution of an implied (because no prenuptial agreement) business partnership - division of assets and debts, adjudicating "fair" access and ongoing responsibilities and obligations to undivideable assets (aka, children, custody, child support), with all the legal instruments required for all the entities involved (e.g., bank accounts, credit card accounts, etc) needing this aspect of the divorce for things to be worked out correctly.
The court (rightly) doesn't give a rat's ass about the emotional state about either party, their theological issues, etc.
Until you've experienced it, the above just seems like nice, theoretical talk...
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Friday June 26 2015, @08:22PM
The gov has to get involved if there is property to split up after the divorce. If people were good and divorce wasn't necessary then you got a plan.
Also, if it is about contracts then you can get a legally binding contract for about whatever union/collaboration/group you want. You could even legally mandate that health insurance be given to the other party in the contract if it is the right kind. You could have that but carefully word it to have the most favorable tax status. Looking ahead at where I am going with this I see a downward spiral of gov screwing stuff up. So...too much gov in too much stuff causing too much pain.
Maybe we should frame it as a church thing. Nevermind, to many jacked up churches too. Though I'd take them over gov since the collection plate is an optional thing.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Justin Case on Friday June 26 2015, @09:01PM
> The gov has to get involved if there is property to split up after the divorce.
Why do you think that couldn't be spelled out in the contract? And anyway, govs usually get involved when contracts go sour. That's why the contract is in writing, so courts can see what you agreed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @06:35PM
Not everyone feels strongly about the topic of marriage.
It is possible to have a discussion of the legal aspects of the fourteenth amendment and states' rights.