JJ.

Marriage: Let’s break it out.

I'm curious. How is being married or getting married upholding the institution of marriage?
It has no meaning outside of the churches that sanctify it.

Yes, married people who stay married, tend to be more stable than those who don't, but getting that piece of paper doesn`t make anyone more responsible or a better citizen, or a better parent for that matter.

I think that Simon, and a few others are confusing cause and effect here.

Home ownership doesn't make you a member of the middle class. It is just a sign that you are responsible enough with your money not to lose the house to the bank. Staying married (not getting married) is the same thing.

How does a piece of paper from 1981 make me a better person? It doesn't. It is just a document, like my driver's license, except it confers fewer benefits.

In my ideal world, no one would ever ask if you were married or not, for any reason, because frankly it is not anyone else's business but your own.

"This personal story is anecdotal, of course..."

Redundant, much?

Here's some good news, Amy! SCOTUS is upholding the Fourth Amendment. It seems the Miami-Dade law enforcement decided to be coy and bring a drug-sniffing dog onto someone's property (and take a nice leisurely stroll around the premises with the dog before knocking on the door and asking for permission to search).

When permission was denied, they got a warrant. SCOTUS ruled that their activities prior to asking for permission constituted a warrantless search.

It was a five-four decision and with one STRANGE breakdown of votes. Alito, C.J. Roberts, Kennedy and Breyer dissented.

Whoops, forgot the link.

I acctually like it when gay marriage opponents use the bible.

After all the first marriage in the bible was between two twin brothers, one of whom got a sex change operation from god.

OT first: Patrick, I saw that yesterday afternoon, and I too was intrigued by the vote breakdown. Scalia wrote the majority opinion and was joined by the seemingly-unlikely combination of Thomas, Ginsberg, Sotomayer, and Kagen. And Roberts wrote the dissent. Obviously the discussion didn't break along the usual conservative-liberal lines. Putting aside the reliability of drug dogs for a moment, the Court appears to be establishing a standard that what one can observe with the unaided eye and ear is fair game, but a use of any kind of instrument -- whether it be a drug dog, a wiretap, or an infrared camera -- constitutes a search. However this isn't consistent with the previous ruling concerning car searches. It's going to be interesting to see how this gets resolved.

Back to the topic: I too have observed many gays who wish to live a lifstyle that is, other than having a same-sex partner, entirely traditional. A lot of gays are just like a lot of other people: they just want to be left alone. Some of the soc-cons aren't going to be able to get past the Biblical prohibition or the ick factor. They'll just have to be out-voted.

But regarding the state of marriage in general: I disagree with Isab about the effect of getting married, for this reason: it's a statement to the rest of society. And that's more than "I've given up my OK Cupid account"; essentially, when you get married, you are telling society that you expect to be held to a different standard. Marriage traditionally is associated with the taking on of responsibility, for family, for making a home, for taking on different roles in the community. (Not that single people can't do all these things, but married people traditionally have higher expectations placed on them.)

The problem we have today is that our divorce process tends pretty strongly to reward the irresponsible party. If one person in the marriage breaks their vows, it's quite likely that not only can they walk away from the marriage scot-free, but they might even be entitled to a subsidy from the responsible party. Here's where the soc-cons have a good point: while it might be true that government can't enforce moral behavior, it can sure as heck stop rewarding immoral behavior. That's an important distinction and one that gets missed in a lot of discussions of law vs. morality.

> what really affects children negatively isn't
> gay marriage; it's divorce

Yep! Absolutely. Horrible things happen when society behaves as if children's hearts will conveniently flex to accommodate the trivial romantic impulses of adults who never grew up themselves.

I wanted to agree, that we need to work on hetero marriage before condemning gay marriage, until I saw gays themselves mention how little they prescribe to monogamy in their own unions. Kinda defeats the argument, no? It must be said, that knowing your partner is a phone call away from your next-in-line can be a deterrent to domestic drama.

This article at PJ Media explains a lot about why I have been ambivalent on this issue. The leftists who are pushing the issue see it not as equality, but as a nose under the camel's tent.

"And guess what -- nothing has happened to the institution of marriage, except, sadly, from those heterosexuals deserting it. And that is clearly not the homosexuals' fault."

Uh, no. The author is ignoring why heteros are deserting it. I have no problem ascribing fault for marriage dying to many gay groups who support socialist policies that destroy the family unit. Then all of a sudden they want to jump in and become part of a family? How odd.

As Dave said, its about getting a foot in the door for more state control.

To be blunt, I don't give a rat's ass what this SCOTUS decides. They're asking the wrong questions. They need to rule on the Constitutional merits.

If they fail (which I'm sure they will), it will come up again.

Alito, for instance, says, "You want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cellphones or the internet? I mean, we do not have the ability to see the future."

No, we want you to base your decision on the Constitutional merits of the issue, which is your job and the only thing you should be concerned about. If you can't handle that, then do us all a favor and resign. We'll get someone who isn't afraid to do his job.

Kennedy also complained about venturing into "uncharted waters." Would anyone like some rice to go with the chicken that SCOTUS is serving up?

Crid, in the words of a former vice-president, GFY.

Eichenwald: My point is, the crowd that whines about the damage that it says would be brought on the institution of marriage if gays were allowed to wed is a bunch of lying hypocrites. If they cared about marriage, they would address the real problem--something that actually undermines marriage.

Well, the reason they spend much more time and energy whining and screaming and hyperventilaing about same-sex marriage instead of divorce is because they simply don't like gays and lesbians, because their "holy" book says that homosexuality is wrong.

Your typical religious conversative is probably far more appalled at the idea of two women or two men having sex (or even kissing), than he/she is by a woman cheating on her husband or a man beating up his wife.

I wanted to agree, that we need to work on hetero marriage before condemning gay marriage, until I saw gays themselves mention how little they prescribe to monogamy in their own unions. Kinda defeats the argument, no?

Given the amount of infidelity in "comited" hetero relationships? I dont see how

From the PJ Media piece: I have a feeling that if the push to end DOMA and Prop 8 were primarily the work of Reason or the Ayn Rand Institute, certain traditionalist conservatives would be at least slightly more amenable to it. This would be because the implicit threat of future civil-rights lawsuits against, say, churches that refuse to marry gays would be a moot point. No Cato Institute senior fellow wants to file suit against the Catholic Church for exercising its First Amendment rights.

Are churches covered by existing anti-discrimination laws, or are they exempt from them?

July 2012: White Mississippi Church Refuses To Marry Black Couple

The predominantly White First Baptist Church of Crystal Springs, Mississippi, stayed true to it’s Dixiecratic roots by refusing to marry a Black couple after an outcry from the congregation, reports CNN.

. . .

According to a recent study, 29 percent of Republican voters in Mississippi believe that interracial marriage should be illegal.

Marriage has declined because its original meaning has mostly been lost.

Marriage, originally, was a very public contract between two people, designed to assure that any kids they may have will be not only supported but raised and cared for by BOTH parents. And the law used to back this up: if you had children without getting married first, no child support for you! (unless it was rape).

Now that the child support law no longer works that way (and welfare departments will provide the support even if daddy doesn't), those women whose motivation for marrying used to be money need no longer bother. All they have to do is trick a man, so they do.

This is why 30% of all births today are out of wedlock. And this catastrophic widespread scam will continue until and unless the law is changed back.

Straight couples can do way more damage than gay couples when it comes to raising children.

If gay couples want to marry, why not let them? Seems only fair they be given the chance to bet half their stuff they'll love that person the rest of their life...

Do they have gay marriage in Canada?

Maybe you should be talking about this with the people best-poised to solidify your moral authority on the topic.

Yes, we to your south are better -looking, more dynamic, and more compelling in our motion through history...

But there you are. Up there.

> in the words of a former vice-president, GFY.

This is the seriousness with which you treat the importance of a mother and father to a child. You are that bitter... I believe you.

No, Crid, it's your assumption that gay people (or at least those who want their unions afforded the same rights as opposite sex couples) "never grew up."

Coming from you, that's the most staggering piece of irony that I'm likely to read for the rest of my life.

"If they fail (which I'm sure they will), it will come up again."

Yep, if the SCOTUS does its usual thing, it will find some narrowly tailored grounds to maintain the status quo, which will leave all of the big questions unanswered. But maybe that's the way it should be. IMO, this is a question that should be decided by the people and their elected representatives, not by a court.

"Are churches covered by existing anti-discrimination laws, or are they exempt from them?"

Doesn't matter. Few churches can afford the costs of defending themselves against a lawsuit.

> that's the most staggering piece of irony

Yes, everything your life is just explosively meaningful and savagely enraging and poignantly touching and you're just constantly pushed to boundaries of belief & sarcasm by external events and distant personalities.... There are no subtle perceptions and no small responses. You live in 1000% stimulation from all sources in all contexts.

A child buzzed on cotton candy.

"This is the seriousness with which you treat the importance of a mother and father to a child."

How many children are you raising, or have you raised, Crid? If you aren't parent, then you opinion is uninformed.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggght. Nobody could know anything about family life unless they've had a....

Oops, right?

Again: If you think children don't deserve mothers or fathers, you ought to say so in an affirmative manner.

And if you can't find those words, I think I know why not.

"Oops, right?"

Right. Ever heard the expression "Never had a chick or a child"?

Your opinion and your questions on the subject mean nothing.

Like I tell feminsts, shut up and breed.

You might get away with that — I mean, you'd still be a supercilious, reductive, reprehensibly small-minded prick, but you might get away with it — if only the rest of us (childless or not) weren't accountable for the family decisions made, and bungled, by others.

Those are MY courts you're squabbling in, you dorkweeds. They're operating with my money and (more importantly) my moral authority. YOU ARE WASTING THEIR TIME. Your inability to raise a child to sane, stable, productive and admirable adulthood affects me in every context of my life. I probably wouldn't like your kids anyway... But since they're so fucked up, the resentments stack ever higher.

Again, again: If you think children don't deserve mothers or fathers, you ought to say so in an affirmative manner.

OK, that was mean, and I'm sorry. It's not that YOU would be a supercilious, reductive, reprehensibly small-minded prick, but you'd be a person with the position of a supercilious, reductive, reprehensibly small-minded prick.

It just doesn't apply. People who aren't licensed to drive are still expected to share their feelings about where the roads should go and how the traffic laws should work.