A Simple Question for Those Are Still Opposed to Same Sex Marriage

IMPLICIT in the amendment is the recognition of the very existence of marriages that are NOT "between a man and a woman". They are not banned. No law prohibits them from being entered into. And no law punishes them after the fact for doing so.

 

Let's go back in time and apply your same argument.

Then why do 50 states prohibit same sexed couples from marrying?.......... Because equality isn't the goal here. Winning more "respect and dignity" for interracial marriage is the goal.

As noted before, the passing of a law does not mean it will not be in violation of other laws or a constitution, state or federal. When interracial marriage was made illegal, it was in violation of the constitution. But it took a challenge in the courts to bring it into line. No one challenged the constitutional violation of banning SSM back then so thus it was not rectified. Same thing for consanguineous and other legally incestuous marriages then and now. Because they were not challenged in the courts, the courts cannot rule on the fact that they are in violation of the constitution. Your agument holds no water because it is based on a false premise that the courts could have done something about it before now.

 

No not really, but it is a change of context. One of the arguments for making SSM legal is that it was already in practice on the social and religious levels. No law has ever made such practices illegal. Only if a person tried to get multiple legal marriages would the law apply.

 

They don't. All 50 states have same sex marriage now. Prior to that they didn't recognize same sex marriages because only men and women make babies. People having sex doesn't give rise to any governmental interest. It was only the wellbeing of children that sex between a man and a woman can produce hat gave rise to a legitimate governmental interest.

Laws against inter racial marriage were held to be unconstitutional because bi racial couples made up of a man and a woman procreate just like same race couples. The well being of their children is just as important as any others. AND purifying the white race isn't a legitimate governmental interest.

1971 through the end of the century, the gays pretty regularly challenged in court the limitation to men and women and the courts repeatedly rejected their arguments

 

Every law in every state that stated only a man and a woman could marry. But you knew that.

 

Yea, he quite clearly refuted your moronic claim 4 years ago, and you know that.

 

Nope. Same sex marriage was specifically outlawed in numerous states. It’s why the issue went to court.

 

We are going to have to agree to disagree. You don’t understand basic sentence structure or definition.

Zero of this is relevant to why same sex couples should not be allowed to wed.

 

Your back must hurt contorting yourself into the positions you argue.

 

Odd. That’s not the reasoning I can find, the rulings had noting to do with men women or children...

Care to post where the courts said any of what you are claiming?

 

If they are only married before their diety, then the law cannot touch them because they do not have an Illegal marriage license.

Right now I claim to be in a polygamist marriage. I have a husband and two wives. Among us, on a legal basis, I am married to one woman and he to the other. Yet we still claim each other's as spouses. The law cannot touch us as there is no other legal documents of marriage between us.

The issues went to courts because they wanted the legal rights, not because they could not get married in a social or religious context.

 

You can call yourself whatever you like. The fact remains marriage is a legal institution. If a union is not legally recognized, it isn’t not a marriage.

 

The fact remains that marriage has existed long before the law ever bothered with it.

Are you married?

 

I agree. However in 2018, here in the US, marriage is a legal institution.

Yes. 9 years this coming September.

 

Correct. However, if the US government completely collapsed in an apocalypse, are you saying marriage would no longer exist?

 

Exist as it does today? no. Would pair bonding still occur? Of course.

 

Short answer: Yes, marriage would continue to exist.

Just because the 1138 Federal rights and benefits of marriage would evaporate into smoke in the event of an apocalypse doesn't mean marriage would cease to exist. Marriage existed before government and will continue after government.

 

No need to try and summarize what I said. My post was perfectly clear.

 

Mine too.

 

And mine was actually correct. Marriage, as it exists today as a legal institution would cease. Human pair bonding would likely continue.

 

Dude, you are free to make up your own definitions and believe whatever narrow views you like but the fact remains marriage not only existed before the US government and will exist after the US government, but exists all around the world despite or outside the US government.

Do you really believe a marriage in Mexico, Canada or anywhere else isn't a marriage?

 

actualoly the fact remains that marriage is a legal institution in this country. If a 30 year old man and his 12 year old “wife” come to this country, they are not legally married here in the US.

 

By our laws, correct, but by their laws, yes they are. They can't use US marriage laws, but they are still married. Are you saying they are not?

 

And those laws are irrelevant while in this country.

Married in the US? Nope.

 

You dance between marriage being only a government institution and marriage itself. You are trying to have it both ways.

I fully understand the difference; there is marriage. It's exists, usually in some form of religious rite, but also as a social rite. Then there's marriage laws around marriage. While the government can provide the actual service of marriage, usually it does not. It only defines the rights and benefits of marriage mainly as tax laws and rights of both survivorship and parentage. The marriage itself is often performed outside of government. Whether the government chooses to recognized that marriage, such as between a white person and a person of color, is up to the governmental laws you keep referencing. Regardless of governmental regulations, if a white person and a person of color were married in a church in the 1940s, they'd still be married.