You are not. Why not 6 consenting adults? If two have that right why can't 6 people who love each other get married? . If you can use the 14th amendment for this interpretation you can use it for anything.
I selected the last response, but not liking it isn't true. I just really don't care all that much. I think it's stupid how crazy people get over the topic. Love is love. I couldn't careless beyond that. I'm not one to be waking rainbow flags or making my Facebook photo color rainbow, but I do support equality. Let them be happy and miserable like everyone else is at times.
I see nothing wrong with Polygamy. Many probably live that life styles prior to marriage, so I'm quite sure most of them don't want marriage. Not something I consider, but that's just me. I wouldn't force others to my way of living. Now, that's a mess to figure out, but I'm sure lawyers would love that headaches.
The difference is that plural marriage is not allowed to any group. Before the SCOTUS ruling, marriage between 2 adults was allowed to certain groups and not others. There's a pretty big difference between allowing any 2 adults to get married and allowing plural marriage. That said, if they decide to legalize plural marriage, I'd hope it would be any combination of partners rather than just polygamy or polyandry excluding other forms. That said, instead of asking "why wouldn't it?", you should probably first ask, "why would it?"
No because you would have to an institution where equal protection is provided to all parties of the polygamist marriage. That sort of institution doesn't exist and has never existed with polygamist marriages. In theory such a system could be established for all parties have equal rights in a plural marriage but at the moment that legal model doesn't exist. Equal protection doesn't apply because the government currently doesn't have a legal model to apply.
How does legal same sex marriage unravel the strong family unit of this country? If anything allowing gays to marry with the same rights and responsibilities of heterosexual marriage should strengthen the family unit. Yes divorce lawyers might rejoice because with gay marriage comes gay divorce. That said I don't see how gays marrying will cause more divorces among straight people.
The pace of change in public opinion has been incredibly fast. I doubt that even the most ardent supporter of gay rights could claim their stance has not changed significantly over the years.
Religiously, I do not agree with gay marriage. As an American, I believe everyone has the right to get married, take advantage of tax breaks, etc. So, I do not like gay marriage personally, but in the end, my life has not changed because the Supreme Court passed gay marriage as legal.
These outlandish hypothetical scare tactics are the same types of things people said after the end of the sodomy law back in the early 2000's. "First sodomy is legal, next thing you know bestiality, incest and bigamy will all be legal!!!!11" Shockingly, it's been over a decade and none of that has actually happened.
Marriage was not created to defend the family for the sake of the children. There isn't much in history to back up that argument. Also, homosexual couples divorce at lower rates than heterosexual couples. Does this make them bad for the family?
I'm 47 and my support of gay marriage hasn't changed since I became aware of the issue. I will say that when the Republicans were successfully using it as a wedge issue with their anti-gay state referendums during off year elections, I briefly wished gay activists would back off. That lasted for about five minutes. Then I just thought "**** it", they should push as hard as they want. This is their lives.
Progressives, why stop at gay marriage? If the world is like what you claimed, love prevails everything and anyone can marry whoever he/she loves, why stop at two? If a dude love two women and they love him, or a women loves another women and a man and they love her, why can't they get married as long as all parties agree? If no such system exists yet, why not create one? People should be free to do whatever they want, right?
All I've seen on that one was a small study that found divorce rates in 4 years in the states where it was legal showing a slower rate -- and then a retraction later saying that they didn't do the math correctly and the rate was actually the same. Are you referencing this study, or something else?
I don't give a rats ass about gay marriage. However, I do care for the mindset of all idiots in all countries who have changed their display pic on fb with the 3 color gay marriage symbol without a clue what it's for.
You're missing the point. Okierock was talking about equal protection and not about love. The truth is this ruling doesn't change who loves who or how many. It actually isn't even about morals. It is about the equal application of an existing legal institution to be gender neutral. Justice Kennedy writes some very moving language in his opinion which people quote but the two principles he cites that matters are the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Equal Protection clauses in the Constitution. Under those once a state provides for legal marriage it should be gender neutral and also be recognized by all states. Same Sex marriage isn't an invention from nowhere but is an extension of an existing legal frame work.
I heard Rick Santorum say on tv that marriage isn't about adults at all, that it's entirely about the children. What a ridiculous thing to say.
