danivon wrote:Equal protection invoked to apply across the USA.

Cool.

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:Equal protection invoked to apply across the USA.

Cool.

What is the next discrimination of marriage that needs to be changed going to be?

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:Equal protection invoked to apply across the USA.

Cool.

What is the next discrimination of marriage that needs to be changed going to be?

Which ones between fully consenting adults are left?

The right to marry whoever one wishes is an elementary human right compared to which ‘the right to attend an integrated school, the right to sit where one pleases on a bus, the right to go into any hotel or recreation area or place of amusement, regardless of one’s skin or color or race’ are minor indeed. Even political rights, like the right to vote, and nearly all other rights enumerated in the Constitution, are secondary to the inalienable human rights to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence; and to this category the right to home and marriage unquestionably belongs.”

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:Equal protection invoked to apply across the USA.

Cool.

What is the next discrimination of marriage that needs to be changed going to be?

Which ones between fully consenting adults are left?

Where is the phrase "consenting adults" in the 14th Amendment?

bbauska wrote:It is unseemly to answer a question with a question. I am sure it is just an oversight. Lets start again:

What is the next discrimination of marriage that needs to be changed going to be?

Ray Jay wrote:

bbauska wrote:It is unseemly to answer a question with a question. I am sure it is just an oversight. Lets start again:

What is the next discrimination of marriage that needs to be changed going to be?

In about 30 years it may seem odd that you cannot marry more than 1 person if everyone consents.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:Equal protection invoked to apply across the USA.

Cool.

What is the next discrimination of marriage that needs to be changed going to be?

Which ones between fully consenting adults are left?

Where is the phrase "consenting adults" in the 14th Amendment?

It isn't. But I am sure you have a point to make.

I'm happy more people can happily marry. I wish more people could be (happy, and happily married). I see no reason for government to ban gay marriage.

freeman3 wrote:Your asking a question with a built-in assumption. There is no evidence that marriage will be extended. Some might find the question itself offensive. Perhaps you might want to give possible marriages that are not now covered. I think there are no other possible marriages that can be covered. Perhaps you want to give examples?

I think the intent of the question is designed to show that, oh no, the barn is wide open to marriage between a man and...a rock or something. correct me if I am wrong.

bbauska wrote:

freeman3 wrote:Your asking a question with a built-in assumption. There is no evidence that marriage will be extended. Some might find the question itself offensive. Perhaps you might want to give possible marriages that are not now covered. I think there are no other possible marriages that can be covered. Perhaps you want to give examples?

I think the intent of the question is designed to show that, oh no, the barn is wide open to marriage between a man and...a rock or something. correct me if I am wrong.

That built in assumption was rock solid in my mind up until the SCOTUS ruled. I am asking others what other areas of discrimination are out there that need to be addressed. It is MY assumption also there should be no others. You certainly know what a "relic" my viewpoints are.

Enlighten me...

If there are no other areas, then we can all be agreed that the marriage should be as the SCOTUS ruled, and no further adjustments be needed.

Ray Jay wrote:

bbauska wrote:It is unseemly to answer a question with a question. I am sure it is just an oversight. Lets start again:

What is the next discrimination of marriage that needs to be changed going to be?

In about 30 years it may seem odd that you cannot marry more than 1 person if everyone consents.

Welcome to the exciting new world of the slippery slope. With the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling this Friday legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states, social liberalism has achieved one of its central goals. A right seemingly unthinkable two decades ago has now been broadly applied to a whole new class of citizens. Following on the rejection of interracial marriage bans in the 20th Century, the Supreme Court decision clearly shows that marriage should be a broadly applicable right—one that forces the government to recognize, as Friday’s decision said, a private couple’s “love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family.”

The question presents itself: Where does the next advance come? The answer is going to make nearly everyone uncomfortable: Now that we’ve defined that love and devotion and family isn’t driven by gender alone, why should it be limited to just two individuals? The most natural advance next for marriage lies in legalized polygamy—yet many of the same people who pressed for marriage equality for gay couples oppose it.

This is not an abstract issue. In Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissenting opinion, he remarks, “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.” As is often the case with critics of polygamy, he neglects to mention why this is a fate to be feared. Polygamy today stands as a taboo just as strong as same-sex marriage was several decades ago—it’s effectively only discussed as outdated jokes about Utah and Mormons, who banned the practice over 120 years ago.

Yet the moral reasoning behind society’s rejection of polygamy remains just as uncomfortable and legally weak as same-sex marriage opposition was until recently.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... z3eDBQxMOr