(June 27, 2015 at 10:19 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: We're not creating something else. It is the same institution, with expanded rights to include 10-15% of the population who were excluded. The bottom line is, as the SCOTUS opined, that at its basest level marriage is an intimate contract freely entered by two parties who wish to elevate that intimacy. Excluding anybody who is legally able to consent to that is ludicrous, and a violation of the 14th Amendment. Nothing about your marriage or any other marriage has changed as of yesterday. You've been told it has, but you'll go on just like you did before. If you can tell me one thing about this institution that means so much to you that has changed in regards to your marriage, please feel free to do so.

The sorority analogy isn't apt because fraternal orders were already expanded to include sororities. No one is being denied entry into a fraternal order, because Title IX makes it clear that for every organization for males, there must also be one for females. If you meet the criteria for getting into a fraternal order (Selected Major, referral, etc.) then you will get in provided you pass some draconian test or another. Also, to compare a club to a legal right (one affirmed multiple times by the SCOTUS as a right) is a little misleading. You don't have the right to join a fraternity just because you want to, but you do have the right to get married if you want to.

I disagree that a woman can get into most fraternities providing they meet all the other qualifications. Just like you stated, for every organization for males, there must also be one for females. Fine. You're right about what the SCOTUS declared, and in doing that they redefined marriage. The constitution doesn't declare that everyone must be allowed to be married, but rather that everyone must be allowed equal rights under the law. They have no more moral right to redefine an institution than a university would have to ban any fraternity from the campus because they will not accept women, since sororities are equally accepted and afforded the same status. If they wanted to allow the creation of fraternal organizations of mixed sexes, then that would a much better solution.

(June 27, 2015 at 10:31 pm)Lek Wrote:

(June 27, 2015 at 10:07 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: Here are the verses that were used to 'define' marriage in the segregated south:

It is also worthwhile to remember that most white people, when these laws were written, literally thought of blacks as a different, lower breed of human who would lead whites into depravity and away from God.



(this one was also used to promote segregation.)

They misinterpreted scripture, as these warning were given because of the depravity of the spouses they were taking. It had nothing to do with their genetic make-up, but rather to do with their immorality and their worship of other gods. The bible does caution against christians marrying non-christian spouses as Paul spoke of being "unequally yoked", but christians still recognized those marriages and we're commanded to remain in them unless the non-believing spouse were to abandon the other. I'm one of those by the way. "Unequally yoked" referred to their spiritual status. I agree that people were using verses such as these to justify banning inter-racial marriages, but the bible was not speaking against interracial marriage. In fact, foreigners could convert to judaism and as fellow believers be considered morally acceptable. Even at that, the Jews still recognized marriages to non-believing foreigners to be valid marriages. It happened quite regularly, by the way

Ah.. but now we're getting to the nitty gritty. You keep switching to how the Jews defined marriage from how America has defined marriage. Whether those Americans interpreted scripture differently that you is not the point. They interpreted scripture and defined their marriages that way. Your ad hoc look back doesn't change that. As Americans, we have redefined marriage several times via the SCOTUS. Whether you agree that the 'original' American definition was the right one is a moot point. American courts have honed down what a marriage is and can be for centuries. From laws of coverture (another religious upheaval---women were to have legal rights even after they were married?!?!? pshaw!!!), to interracial marriage, to women's rights to her person within a marriage (spousal rape) we have been changing what marriage means. And every fucking time it is the knuckle dragging religious right that has to be dragged in by their ears with the idea of traditional marriage.

This isn't the first time that your precious institution has changed. In fact, this is really an extremely minor change with respect to how it affects you. (Which is not at all.) Some of the other decisions actually affected existing marriages. When laws of coverture were tossed, a man's wife suddenly could purchase property without his permission, and enter into contracts without his permission. The horrors! After marriage was redefined such that a man couldn't take sex from his spouse just because they were married, a man (or woman) could face criminal charges for taking sex from his (or her) spouse without her (or his) permission.

(June 27, 2015 at 10:25 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(June 27, 2015 at 8:31 pm)Lek Wrote: Those who tried to deny inter-racial marriage were re-defining marriage.

So do you agree that polygamy should be permissible? That was a definition of marriage two thousand years ago.

You Christians have changed the definition of marriage already. Why are you complaining about that now, if not to defend your bigotry?

No. The United States never recognized polygamy. When our country was founded and the constitution was put into law,marriage was accepted as a union between and man and a woman. If another country was founded accepting polygamy, that's their business. They should apply whatever legal status is warranted.

(June 27, 2015 at 10:44 pm)Lek Wrote: I disagree that a woman can get into most fraternities providing they meet all the other qualifications. Just like you stated, for every organization for males, there must also be one for females. Fine. You're right about what the SCOTUS declared, and in doing that they redefined marriage. The constitution doesn't declare that everyone must be allowed to be married, but rather that everyone must be allowed equal rights under the law. They have no more moral right to redefine an institution than a university would have to ban any fraternity from the campus because they will not accept women, since sororities are equally accepted and afforded the same status. If they wanted to allow the creation of fraternal organizations of mixed sexes, then that would a much better solution.

A fraternal order is a term that includes sororities. Greek Fraternities and Sororities are clubs, and as such can choose their membership. It is not a right to be able to join a Fraternity.

Marriage is a right, that the Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote about in the unanimous decision for the aforementioned Loving v. Virginia:

Chief Justice Earl Warren Wrote:Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Are you saying that Earl Warren was wrong in his interpretation of the Constitution?

(June 27, 2015 at 10:54 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: A fraternal order is a term that includes sororities. Greek Fraternities and Sororities are clubs, and as such can choose their membership. It is not a right to be able to join a Fraternity.

Marriage is a right, that the Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote about in the unanimous decision for the aforementioned Loving v. Virginia:

Chief Justice Earl Warren Wrote:Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Are you saying that Earl Warren was wrong in his interpretation of the Constitution?

I agree with Justice Warren. This decision was aimed at interracial marriage. There wasn't any same sex marriage at that time and marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman, so when he spoke of marriage, that is what he was referring to.

(June 27, 2015 at 10:44 pm)Lek Wrote:

(June 27, 2015 at 10:19 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: We're not creating something else. It is the same institution, with expanded rights to include 10-15% of the population who were excluded. The bottom line is, as the SCOTUS opined, that at its basest level marriage is an intimate contract freely entered by two parties who wish to elevate that intimacy. Excluding anybody who is legally able to consent to that is ludicrous, and a violation of the 14th Amendment. Nothing about your marriage or any other marriage has changed as of yesterday. You've been told it has, but you'll go on just like you did before. If you can tell me one thing about this institution that means so much to you that has changed in regards to your marriage, please feel free to do so.

The sorority analogy isn't apt because fraternal orders were already expanded to include sororities. No one is being denied entry into a fraternal order, because Title IX makes it clear that for every organization for males, there must also be one for females. If you meet the criteria for getting into a fraternal order (Selected Major, referral, etc.) then you will get in provided you pass some draconian test or another. Also, to compare a club to a legal right (one affirmed multiple times by the SCOTUS as a right) is a little misleading. You don't have the right to join a fraternity just because you want to, but you do have the right to get married if you want to.

I disagree that a woman can get into most fraternities providing they meet all the other qualifications.  Just like you stated, for every organization for males, there must also be one for females.  Fine.  You're right about what the SCOTUS declared, and in doing that they redefined marriage.  The constitution doesn't declare that everyone must be allowed to be married, but rather that everyone must be allowed equal rights under the law.  They have no more moral right to redefine an institution than a university would have to ban any fraternity from the campus because they will not accept women, since sororities are equally accepted and afforded the same status.  If they wanted to allow the creation of fraternal organizations of mixed sexes, then that would a much better solution.

Lek, they have coed fraternities.

(June 27, 2015 at 11:09 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: Lek, they have coed fraternities.

Great. They doing the right thing. I haven't been in college for a while.

(June 27, 2015 at 11:00 pm)Lek Wrote: I agree with Justice Warren. This decision was aimed at interracial marriage. There wasn't any same sex marriage at that time and marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman, so when he spoke of marriage, that is what he was referring to.

The decision wasn't what I was pointing at. The definition of marriage as a fundamental right, one that is guaranteed by the 14th amendment, is what I was pointing at. If you agree that even with his definition of marriage he was right, now you have to provide a reason that two men don't qualify for equal protection and due process under the law, and why this fundamental right becomes exclusionary.

(June 27, 2015 at 10:48 pm)Lek Wrote:

(June 27, 2015 at 10:25 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: So do you agree that polygamy should be permissible? That was a definition of marriage two thousand years ago.

You Christians have changed the definition of marriage already. Why are you complaining about that now, if not to defend your bigotry?

No.  The United States never recognized polygamy.  When our country was founded and the constitution was put into law,marriage was accepted as a union between and man and a woman.  If another country was founded accepting polygamy, that's their business.  They should apply whatever legal status is warranted.

No Lek, Marriage was never mentioned in the constitution.

(June 27, 2015 at 10:48 pm)Lek Wrote:

(June 27, 2015 at 10:25 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: So do you agree that polygamy should be permissible? That was a definition of marriage two thousand years ago.

You Christians have changed the definition of marriage already. Why are you complaining about that now, if not to defend your bigotry?

No. The United States never recognized polygamy. When our country was founded and the constitution was put into law,marriage was accepted as a union between and man and a woman. If another country was founded accepting polygamy, that's their business. They should apply whatever legal status is warranted.

Nonsense. You wrote earlier in this thread that she laws banning interracial marriage were struck down, that was a changed definition.

Additionally, your reply completely ignores my point that Christians have yourself changed the definitions of marriage. Answering in regards to American jurisprudence is dodging my question, so I will ask it again: Given that you Christians have changed the definition of marriage over the centuries, what is the basis of your complaint that this ruling changes the definition of marriage, if it's not a defense of the bigotry?