@Mr. Bean --"The rights for children to marry (including married
to an adult) is guaranteed in the US Constitution... in the exact same
paragraphs that authorizes gays to marry."That's just
silly. "Equal protection" doesn't mean "throw out
all the other constitutional protections and laws", any more than "The
right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or
abridged" means that four-year-olds get to vote for President. You need to
deal with that whole "due process of law" thing.We already
know, from **several** court cases in **several** different states, that the
courts do NOT apply rulings on homosexuality to cases of incest. The same
distinction would be made with any child marriage.Cmon, please -- we
need less hysteria, and more facts and logic.
@Tyler D:"... and the laws regarding what children can and cannot do
have been made, by the people, for many many years, so I’m not sure what
your point is."Laws are meant to change... as we can see by the
DOMA law."Are you saying that if two children want to get
married, contrary to all laws in every state (i.e., the overwhelming will of the
people), the SC should find that right in the Constitution and allow the
marriage (somehow based on today’s precedent)?"The rights
for children to marry (including married to an adult) is guaranteed in the US
Constitution... in the exact same paragraphs that authorizes gays to marry."Exactly – and so in both cases today the S Court essentially
kicked it back to the states (as they should have done in R v W)."But they didn't kick R v. W back so it stands on the books as a federal
and not a state issue.
We won't really know for many years what the effect of this ruling may be.
But I fear the results won't be good ones.
@Cool Cat Cosmo --"Interesting...I wonder how this will relate
to polygamists...what about their 'equal rights'?"Polygamy (and also incest) are completely different issues. Courts in both the
US and Canada have already shown very clearly that they can easily distinguish
between these issues.If you're interested, a 2011 case in
British Columbia has detailed reasoning behind Canada's reaffirmation of
the constitutionality of its polygamy ban. (It may be of special interest that
the case was based on a polygamous Mormon-offshoot up there in Canada.)In regards to incest, **several** US cases -- both Federal and state, and in
several different states -- have already very clearly declared that
homosexuality rulings do NOT apply to incest.I can post specific
quotes from both polygamy and incest cases in future comments, if you are truly
interested. In general, though, you can be reassured that the courts DO know the
legal difference between homosexuality, polygamy, and incest.
You really need to keep your own arguments from contradicting themselves,
worf."Gay marriage is irrelevant." Well, then, if it's
irrelevant, then it shouldn't bother you, and you didn't need the
second half of your statement.Additionally, you must not understand
marriage in this country very well if you think it's dangerous to allow
"government jurisdiction is this." Surprise! Government already had
jurisdiction in marriage. You can't be legally married in ANY state in
this nation without first going to a county government and obtaining a marriage
license. Pastors, Priests, Bishops and Temple Sealers will NOT marry you unless
you have that governmental piece of paper. They and the witnesses sign it and
then it is filed with the government. For lack of a better term, marriage is a
legal contract. Therefore government has jurisdiction. You may not like it,
but it's been that way for quite awhile.
I think this ruling will bring many Christian religions together to settle
differences and work together.
Interesting...I wonder how this will relate to polygamists...what about their
@Liberal Ted --"Marriage is still one man and one woman."You can call "marriage" whatever you like -- but the GOVERNMENT
in states with gay marriage laws won't agree with you. And many religious
denominations, both Christian and Jewish, also don't agree with you.@worf --"What's dangerous is allowing government
jurisdiction in this kind of matters."That's what the
Supreme Court is FOR -- protecting the rights of its citizens. There is nothing
new about SCOTUS ruling in marriage-related cases -- they've been doing
that for more than a century already.
America was great, because America was good.
Gay marriage is irrelevant.What's dangerous is allowing
government jurisdiction in this kind of matters.
Good for Gay Marriage which is two LGBT people.Marriage is still one
man and one woman.I never had an issue with people receiving the
benefits that they work for. Something that democrats have a hard time allowing
people that make and earn a living, spend those earnings on their families,
rather than being taxed out of all of their income so the democrats can
redistribute the money to buy votes.With this passage, it will be
interesting to see if the LGBT will be happy with this or if they will now go
against their word and force this down the throats of people of faith and use
the full force of the government to take away religious freedom....
It will be very interesting to see how these decisions play out in the states.
The defeat of DOMA, in particular, would seem to give tons of ammunition to
those who want to contest the constitutionality of state bans on gay marriage.
I'm cheering, too.I'm also disturbed that sanity and
reason have to be defended so vigorously these days.