9th Circuit Court of Appeals: Still looney after all these years

[lucrezaborgia]

(02-10-2012 02:00 AM)myotch Wrote:  Like I said before, marriage as it is practiced now is older than civilization and society. Civilization has been built on the concept of marriage and family as the basic unit.

Where are you getting your information? Marriage has such a breadth and depth of experience that is totally dependent on culture and time. There is no way you can make this statement and be accurate.

Quote:To what societal benefit do we retrofit the concept of marriage for those who have been historically excluded from marriage?

Which concept? The modern one or one of the various concepts from the past? The benefit is families, whether they include children or not...or are you saying that people without children do not deserve the benefit of marriage?

Quote:To what importance do we, as a society, give this new definition of marriage?

The exact same as it is now except it's not limited to one man and one woman. That's not really a huge stretch.

Quote:To what concept of liberty do we owe the government licensing and regulation of homosexual couples in the recognition of their relationship?

The same as heterosexual couples.

Quote:It only serves to validate the orientation, and to allow the government to mediate the dissolution of the relationship.

...which is the same as heterosexual couples.

Quote:Many types of heterosexual relationships are banned, as well, and government has an interest in not allowing some people to get married.

Poly relationships I don't have issue with and I don't have a good argument for banning them. Incest is banned for many reasons and there are serious issues other than genetic for banning them. Cousins is different and I've said this to you before...some states allow first cousins and some don't. Which you seem to agree with as it being a states right issue and all that...except a first cousin marriage is still legally recognized by all 50 states. Even in states where such a marriage is illegal.

Quote:In this way, as seen throughout the history of civilization, marriage has always been somewhat exclusionary. Typically, as history progresses, there seems to be MORE, not less, restriction on who exactly can marry whom, and restrictions include the existing relationship of people intending to marry (brothers and sisters, cousins), age of the people intending to marry, etc.

So now you are saying marriage changes???

Quote:No law can actually force people to not have consensual sex, mind you. But the state does have an interest to refuse licensed marriage between two people who don't fit certain criteria.

Except when it doesn't.