So if I found someone misguided enough to want to marry me, and if I were past the age of child-bearing, I should still have the right to marry because I could (though I could not in this scenario) have children?

My hypothetical husband could easily find another woman to bear his kids...but that hardly is an argument for marriage unless in this hypthetical world I agreed to raise another woman's kid(s) to give them a benefit of a loving, supportive environment?

But if I wanted to marry another woman (no offense, but I don't want to marry anyone I currently know, male or female) I should not have the same right because I couldn't have children?

Kind of crazy if you ask me.

As I put it to my happily married brother some time back, how does same-sex marriage affect his happy marriage? He couldn't provide an answer, quite frankly.

 

So, again, if that's government's sole reason for being involved in marriage, why not mandate that all married couples have kids within a certain period of time?

Why not ban marriage for infertile couples or post-menopausal women? How is that unconstitutional, but banning marriage for a same-sex couple is not? It could not be about individuals vs. couples, as the Supreme Court recently ruled that entire corporations have the same rights as individual people.

As far as incest, as far as I'm concerned, that should be legal as well, because the only reason to outlaw it is due to the idea that the incestuous couple might have children. Using that rationale, anyone carrying a genetic disorder should be banned from marrying. (And my "ick factor" is on super-high alert when it comes to a brother and sister being romantic, but an "ick factor" is not a reason to ban anyone from marrying the person that he or she chooses.)

A ban on a child or animal marrying makes sense, since neither children nor animals can sign any sort of legal contract. And as far as government involvement is concerned, that is all marriage is: a legal contract. In a couple's private life or in various religions, it might mean much more than that. But I'm discussing government involvement in marriage. Government cannot and should not mandate children, or even romance in a marriage.

If two elderly sisters want to sign one legal contract that would allow each other power of attorney and inheritance rights, they should be allowed to do so. "Will you have kids together?" shouldn't even be a question.

Marriage--again, under the law--is about creating a family with the other person. Families in the 21st century do not necessarily consist of mother, father, brother, sister and dog.

I should also point out that the original purpose of government-issued marriage licenses was to keep interracial couples from marrying and to keep couples from marrying across social classes. Why exactly is this something we need to keep around?

I don't need a government license to tell me that my husband is my husband. I need that government contract to tell me that he automatically inherits my assets and is my power of attorney if I'm ever incapacitated.

 

J-Rod,sometimes my tongue and my fingers don't coordinate.

Anakinfansince1986 said it far better than I:


[blockquote]Why not ban marriage for infertile couples or post-menopausal women? How is that unconstitutional, but banning marriage for a same-sex couple is not? It could not be about individuals vs. couples, as the Supreme Court recently ruled that entire corporations have the same rights as individual people.[/blockquote]

My point being what she ^ said: if marriage should be for the purpose of having the next generation and I or another woman is post-menopausal, then I or these other women should not have the right to marry under that definition. Nor should infertile couples, or couples who plan to have no children (and in this "having" kids I'm including those who don't plan to adopt,either).

Just because a traditional man-woman couple COULD have kids doesn't mean they WOULD.

So either marriage is redefined to be for those who have kids or adopt kids and everyone else gets something like a legal partnership that is not "marriage" under the above definition - or - marriage is only for those whose marriages are sanctified by a relgious organization.

But wait - what is Religious Group A blesses same-sex marriage and Religious Group B finds it obscene - does B get to overrule A, A overrule B, or do they have to find a way to co-exist?

In the end, all this argument really comes down to semantics - but words are powerful and symbolic and hence the focul point of the, ahem, discussion.

Marriage is a legal contract to the government, a legal status that grants benefits. Marriage to most (all?) religions is a sacrament.

Solutions (not endorsing these, just throwing them out there):
1. Church-sanctioned weddings and only those are "marriages" and everything else is - named something else.
2. Marriages can be either secular, religious or both - one is is recognized by the government and the other is recognized by both government and religion.
3. ??
4. ??

I live in Washington state: the Senate just passed a same-sex marriage bill, the House is voting on it shortly (it's expected to pass) and the Governor has promised to sign it into law.

One of our more "conservative" (being polite here) religious leaders is requesting a boycott of Starbucks and planning a referendum to overturn this not-yet-passed law. I can't be bothered to give him much of an ear, but the gist of his argument is that he is offended - OFFENDED - by what other two men or other two women do. My understanding of his viewpoint is that HE gets to define marriage for anyone else, and by god (yeah, snuck that in there) what he wants should be right and moral for everyone and if they don't like it, well, they have to follow his rules because he's right and they're not.

Here's an interesting local poll from NBC affiliate TV station, King 5:
[blockquote]In a non-scientific poll on KING5.com, 12 percent of people said they would never buy products again from a company that supported same-sex marriage, while 51 percent said they were more likely to buy products from those companies. Thirty-three percent said it would make no difference in their buying habits.[/blockquote]

Here's an interesting quote from an online article on CBS affiliate KIROTV.com:


[blockquote]Nearly a dozen amendments were debated, including several that passed that strengthen legal protections for religious groups and organizations. A handful were rejected, including one that would exempt photographers, cake decorators and other business owners who object to gay marriage from the law, and another that called for a referendum clause to be added to the bill.

Sen. Dan Swecker, R-Rochester, argued that the proposed law alters the definition of marriage and "will lead to the silencing of those who believe in traditional marriage." {insert editorial comment here: }

"It's ironic how a bill which purports to be about ending discrimination leaves the door open so far for discrimin

 

But under the eyes of the law, that's what marriage is, no more. It's a simplified version of the contract that you say (correctly) that these two sisters can get. Marriage may be something different in the eyes of individuals or religions, but legally, that's all it is.

Government has absolutely no business stopping any couple from marrying simply because certain groups or people like the one Valairy_Scot quoted, believe that their particular pairing isn't valid under the eyes of a particular God.

(And Starbucks is now getting a lot more of my business. I needed an excuse to buy lattes more often. )

No, it hasn't. Your argument is that marriage is solely about having kids. You then went on to say that it is unconstitutional for the state to ban infertile people or post-menopausal women from marrying. However, apparently it is not unconstitutional for the state to ban couples from marrying simply due to their sexual orientation. If the Supreme Court says that entire corporations, because they are comprised of groups of people, are the same as individuals in regards to speech, why do two people who comprise a couple not have the same rights as individuals in regards to deciding to form a family together?

You have not addressed why heterosexual couples--whether or not they are capable of having children or want children--have more rights than same-sex couples. Your only argument is that same-sex couples cannot have biological children together and therefore they have no need to get married. Based on that argument, neither do infertile or elderly couples, or couples who do not want children, but neither you nor the state has any problem with their marrying. That doesn't make sense.

Exactly. And as I said above, there is no reason whatsoever why same-sex couples should not be allowed that status just as heterosexual couples can have, for the price of a license.

If the government is going to remain in marriage, it should be open to any two adults who can sign a legal contract. Period.

 

Seriously. And if J-Rod is correct, then it makes no sense to allow the elderly or infertile to marry.

If it is unconstitutional to mandate that married people have children, marriage must be about something other than children; otherwise, government involvement in marriage would be unconstitutional in and of itself.

It also makes no sense whatsoever to ban same-sex couples from marrying for the reason that "they can't have children" but allow an infertile couple or elderly couple to marry when they can't have children either.

You mentioned property; one thing the marriage contract does, is simplify property rights. I would say that the purpose of having government issue a marriage contract is to simplify into one legal contract a number of provisions that a couple wants to grant to each other, saving paperwork, time and money.

But as J-Rod already pointed out, any couple can do this, so if government got out of the marriage business, all that would happen is that the legal contract process for heterosexual non-blood-related couples would become as complex as it is for anyone else.

I'm not following why heterosexual non-blood-related couples get the special treatment of a more simplified contract. As there is no fertility test, age requirement or requirement to adopt, "it's for the children" is obviously just an excuse.

 

IOW, I think we need to take religion and tradition out of this and look at the contract itself and whether it is still necessary or useful. "This is why it was established," besides being a fallacy, is hardly a reason to keep a policy as is--particularly when we are discussing government-issued marriage licenses, whose original purpose was racist and classist.

I would say that a simplified contract between life partners is useful today, but restricting choice of life partners and only issuing contracts to those who make the traditional choice, is not useful at all.