SCJ Ginsburg On Gay Marriage ...

PureX

PureX

Well-known member
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Defends Gay-Marriage Against Challengers

As the Supreme Court started to hear oral arguments to Obergefell v. Hodges—the historic case that could determine the legality of gay marriage bans—on Tuesday, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered quite the perfect response to her same-sex-marriage opponents.

Below are some of the same-sex-marriage arguments and her responses to each.

Argument: The court does not have legal right to change a "millennia" of tradition.

RBG's response: "Marriage today is not what it was under the common law tradition, under the civil law tradition. Marriage was a relationship of a dominant male to a subordinate female. That ended as a result of this court's decision in 1982, when Louisiana's Head and Master Rule was struck down. Would that be a choice that state should be allowed to have? To cling to marriage the way it once was?"

Argument: The institution of marriage is inherently linked to a couple's ability to procreate.

RBG's response: "Suppose a couple, 70-year-old couple, comes in and they want to get married? You don't have to ask them any questions. You know they are not going to have any children."

Argument: Gay marriage "impinges on the state" and takes benefits away from straight couples.

RBG's response: "How could that be, because all of the incentives, all of the benefits of marriage affords would still be available. So you're not taking away anything from heterosexual couples. They would have the very same incentive to marry, all the benefits that come with marriage that they do now."

Argument: Legal gay marriage has never been a possibility for most of history. Why now?

RBG's response: "[Same-sex couples] wouldn't be asking for this relief if the law of marriage was what it was a millennium ago. I mean, it wasn't possible. Same-sex unions would not have opted into the pattern of marriage, which was a relationship, a dominant and a subordinate relationship. Yes, it was marriage between a man and a woman, but the man decided where the couple would be domiciled; it was her obligation to follow him.

There was a change in the institution of marriage to make it egalitarian when it wasn't egalitarian. And same-sex unions wouldn't—wouldn't fit into what marriage was once."
Click to expand...

I think she is making a very important point that a lot of anti-gay marriage folks overlook, and that is that our understanding of what a marriage is, has ALREADY CHANGED in the last century, significantly. And it is that change that has opened the door to marriage as an egalitarian partnership, that gays could then enter into.

Those who oppose gay marriage have already embraced the changes that have made gay marriage a moral and ethical possibility, and that's why their position against it is being viewed as discriminatory bias, and they are losing the battle to stop it.
 
Granite

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Interesting to (finally) see these tired arguments dismantled by someone with the know-how and authority to do so once and for all.
 
Last edited:
Rusha

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
It was inevitable and Ginsburg's arguments were spot on.
 
H

HisServant

New member
I oppose marriage as it is anti-american at its core. The declaration of independence was all about individual freedoms.. rights to peruse ones own destiny and happiness. The current laws accorded to married couples in this country violate the spirit of that document... they remove ones self determination and saddle people with other persons irresponsible behavior for years, decades and sometimes for the rest of their lives.

The benefits that marriage currently bestow should be done in a different more equitable manner and government should get out of the marriage business.
 
PureX

PureX

Well-known member
HisServant said:
I oppose marriage as it is anti-american at its core. The declaration of independence was all about individual freedoms.. rights to peruse ones own destiny and happiness. The current laws accorded to married couples in this country violate the spirit of that document... they remove ones self determination and saddle people with other persons irresponsible behavior for years, decades and sometimes for the rest of their lives.

The benefits that marriage currently bestow should be done in a different more equitable manner and government should get out of the marriage business.
Click to expand...
You bring up some interesting points.

I think people need and should have the right to form partnerships of various sorts, wherein they can share assets and responsibilities to the mutual benefit of those involved.

I think people also need and should have the right to mark and declare themselves as being sexually partnered, so that others will know to respect that union and avoid sexual interaction with them. This is good for the peace and security of both the individuals involved and for society as a whole.

I do not see any logical reason why these two forms of partnerships (legal/sexual) should or must be taken or forced together. Nor do I see any logical reason why the gender of the participants should be controlled, nor, further, do I see any logical reason why these should or must be connected to child-rearing. Children should be nurtured and protected regardless of any arrangements entered into by their adult parents or guardians.
 
chrysostom

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
the purpose of marriage is to protect the children
and
not two guys living together
 
PureX

PureX

Well-known member
chrysostom said:
what do you think

what God has joined together

means?
Click to expand...
People pair bond for lots of reasons. They do it to unite families. They do it for love. They do it for their mutual benefit/survival. They do it to fulfill a sexual attraction. They do it for companionship. They do it for child rearing, and sometimes they do it just to get away from their parents, or because they're bored, or because they're expected to.

God doesn't join them, and God doesn't keep them joined nor prevent them from joining. Regardless of religious threats to the contrary.
 
chrysostom

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
PureX said:
People pair bond for lots of reasons. They do it to unite families. They do it for love. They do it for their mutual benefit/survival. They do it to fulfill a sexual attraction. They do it for companionship. They do it for child rearing, and sometimes they do it just to get away from their parents, or because they're bored, or because they're expected to.

God doesn't join them, and God doesn't keep them joined nor prevent them from joining. Regardless of religious threats to the contrary.
Click to expand...

you mentioned biblical days
so
now please tell us how God joins them together
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top