Justice Alito: Why Not Let 4 Lawyers Marry One Another?

How would that be different than the government "doling" out respect and dignity by allowing women the right to vote and own property? Or mixed race couples the "dignity and respect" to marry? Were those not accomplished through the actions of the Federal Government?

 

Julie and Hillary Goodridge, the gay couple who first won in court the right to same sex marriage in the Massachusetts, were separated before they had been married even two years.

 

Limiting the size of a partnership is not the same as excluding individuals from joining one on the basis of their gender.

You cannot form a S Corp with more than 100 shareholders. Saying you need at least one man to form a S Corp or marriage is a different kind of limitation.





​

 

???? Women weren't given the right to vote and own property to give them respect and dignity. They were given such rights because the gender of the voter or property owner has NO rational relation to any governmental interest in relation to voting or owning property. AND in the case of voting it was done to comply with the 19th amendment to the US constitution and a couple stare constitutions

 

Sure it is. In both cases the government is restricting their personal choice as to who they want to form partnerships with. What you really mean is that excluding people on the basis of gender effects gays while the restriction on the size of partnership does not.

 

It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).
"matrimonium was then an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man took a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he might have children by her."


I saw a guy marry a horse once, but it had no "legal standing" in the law. Neither would this.

 

They already have the same rights...Any man and woman is entitled to certain rights, including marriage as granted by their STATE. Any two or more people of any sexual orientation can contract to achieve any legal goal.

No Government can grant or promote dignity or respect for any person, that must be earned and frankly trying to force this issue down my kid's throats, isn't earning either.

 

We restrict personal choice all the time. Restricting the scope of a freedom is different than saying a person can't partner with citizens of a particular gender, race, or religion.

Telling people they can't have more than 14 people in an elevator doesn't limit their freedom of association, telling them blacks can't ride in the same elevator as whites does.




​

 

How can a horse give consent ? LOL

 

I should have known you are a mind reader. Tarot cards??

 

Among other things, Nero, whose physique was pathetic, entered athletic competitions in which his opponents knew they would pay for their triumphs over him with their lives. With that in mind, perhaps you'd like to explain how these "marriages" he sanctioned were any more legitimate than his athletic victories.

 

It affects the society from which i LIVE. It is a deviant lifestyle that is sterile, non fruitful, and it goes against my faith. It is forced on society as if it is a normal way of life. it goes against science as life is created by a male and female counter part. Basically, if you are a person of faith, GOD does not endorse it. if you are a naturalist, nature can not support it. Bottom-line, the only way it is brought about, is by a deviant behavior, and forced upon mankind by a bankrupt society.

 

Who cares we have the First Amendment to protect your right to faith and sanctuaries for it, if you meddle in the Public Domain you step on others rights to not be bothered with your primitive beliefs and the US Constitution holds dominion as a Constitutional Democracy which protects the rights of the minority over the majority when needed. If homosexuals want to marry there is no good reason to ban it this will not harm population growth they wouldn't reproduce anyway without medical help or planning while the majority cranks out babies. And we also allow immigration which also provides labor. You not liking it is also not a reason I don't like Deists but have to live with them. The 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause is black and white English and should be read literally and not interpreted in this case as anything but to lift bans on SSM.

 

Your preaching to the choir. Im just pointing out the governments arguments and goals. I don't agree with them.

 

Actually, with this new marriage that has nothing to do with procreation, there is no good reason to ban any two consenting adults who wish to marry. But we understand why you are only concerned with the homosexuals.

 

And in days past marriage was about the transfer of property (I'll sell you my daughter for two goats and a horse). So we can see marriage has had many meaning over the years. Right now, the issue before the courts is SSM. If you want to marry your sister's daughter, you can petition the courts and spend millions of dollars and years working to achieve success - or not. But don't hide your wishes behind SSM.

 

Encouraging opposite sex couples to marry improves the well being of children that only opposite sex couples produce. It provides a societal benefit that justifies the discrimination in favor of only opposite sex couples. Encouraging gay couples to marry provides no such societal benefit so there is nothing to justify discrimination in favor of gay couples.
The fact that while opposite sex couples are responsible for the perpetuation of the human species, same sex couples are responsible for 60% of the new HIV cases and little else, AND the fact that such marriages are in violation of every major religious doctrine and the moral standards of so many Americans, only makes government promotion of homosexuality all the more absurd.

 

No it wasn't. That's why he only sold his daughter and only to a man. If two goats and a horse were the concern, it wouldn't matter what the genders of the party were. In ancient Mesopotamia, the purchase of a wife was really indistinguishable from the purchase of a slave, with ONE exception. If your wife didn't produce a child, you get your money back.

 

Encouraging SSM will reduce the spread of HIV as same sex married couples will have fewer partners. In the case of Lesbian mothers, it will provide a more stable economic environment - possibly allowing for more stay-at-home parenting. SSM may reduce the number of people on welfare, as married couples receive economic benefits as well as reduced taxation.

There are a growing number of religions that will happily provide SSM services and support their married gay parishioners. Polls show that a majority of Americans now support SSM.

Your arguments are a fail.

 

Nero didn't sanction marriages. Roman law didn't provide for two people of the same sex to marry. BUT, as the emperor, he didn't need to follow the law. He took a castrated slave, dressed him up to look like his ex wife and married him.

 

Says who? They even invented a new term to describe monogamy in gay marriage, "monogamish". Which essentially means, NOT monogamous. Monogamy is important to heterosexual couples in that it establishes paternity of any children that result. Not an issue with gay couples.

 

Nodded her head up and down and whinnied with delight, in place of an "I do".

 

Yeah, its saying a person can't partner with citizens of any gender, race, or religion because they have one partner already. Like I said, with this new marriage, unrelated to procreation, the number of people over two is of no concern. TWO in traditional marriage is because every child starts with two parents. Whether its two people joining together to form a household or 5, makes no difference with procreation out of the equation. Their need for government award of "dignity" is no less than two gay guys.

It does when the elevator is 8ft x 8ft and your telling people they cant have more than 2 people in any elevator.

 

Are you talking legally obligated or the quality of parentage?

Yea, they just like going to court all the time. Lol

 

Look I get it. You made a really vague post and when asked for clarification you've been bumbling and stumbling ever since. If you have no idea what you're talking about at least say so and save the rest of us some time.

- - - Updated - - -

Nobody is promoting homosexuality. You're just not allowed to discriminate against them anymore. Boo hoo