"Before Christianity polygamy and sex before marriage were considered ok."

Polygamy, sure, but sex before marriage, not so much. In fact, if you will recall, under Jewish law, Joseph could have sent Mary away and she would have been forever marked for her "adultery" even though they weren't married. It isn't a sin on the order of violating a commandment, but it was considered bad in Jewish tradition for centuries before Christ came.

@Draug No of course I don't want that but we needs to set up guidelines before there's abuses with that system.

Polygamy is a great way to reproduce

Facses - Likewise, societies generally don't throw money and incentives towards activities that are neutral or destructive to societies. Gay marriage is a neutral matter, and some would argue (not saying I agree) a destructive issue, and will point to the fall of the Roman empire and pretend it fell because of homosexuality (which is absurd).

Anyway, marriage as recognized by the Feds is purely an incentive/tax break/inheritance...i.e. MONEY issue....so providing the benefit to something that doesn't "support" or enhance the society doesn't make sense.

We don't support incentives for buying ice cream, either, but most people are happier with an ice cream cone in their hand....so the government is hear to fund your happiness.

that being said, the government *is* here to allow you to *pursue* you happiness, and thus should remove the roadblock to marriage if it makes people happy...

...and then remove the roadblock to people getting marijuana, because that makes people happy, too..

@Draug And it depends on how far back you go. If you go back to Greco-Roman times I believe women were still suppose to be virgins upon marriage.

@Krellin How about we let gays marry and then encourage them to adopt children. I know 2 gay couples who have done that.

Fasces - you picking nits...you understand my point and are now just reducing it absurdly to the tiniest details, knowing full well that I'm talking about the intent of societies throughout time....i.e. *traditional* views of marriage. If you want to reduce everything to every possible, tiny permutation, then this is a pointless discussion. concede the point, or don't...there is nothing more to say on it from me.

As I said, for whatever reason government have or do support marriage, the time for such behavior has passed, as civilization will get alone with a federally provide financial incentive...

get along just fine without a federally provided financial incentive, that is..

This is how it is. The Federal government has traditionally respected any marriage approved by the states. So if most states had an age limit of 16 to get married, but Mississippi, for example, allowed 14 year olds to get married, the Federal gov't would still respect that marriage and the couple would be eligible to to receive all the federal benefits of marriage. Then in 1996 (I think) DOMA comes in (signed by Clinton, that's right a democrat), defining marriage as between one man and one woman. So now, even if the states wanted to consider a same-sex marriage couple as married, it would not be seen as such by the federal government and the couple would not receive the federal benefits of marriage. So it's an issue of whether the federal gov't should see all marriages performed by the states as vaild.

I believe the age of marriage example can be a good thought experiment for us in this situation. Could the federal gov't pass a constitutional law saying that it will only respect marriages between two individuals of at least a certain age?

They can pass any law they want....the constitutionality of it will be (randomly) decided at a later date.

What they do is hold money hostage from the states if states do not do their bidding....such as when some states tried to have No Speed Limits on certain highways. feds stepped in and said "Go ahead...we'll just withhold a couple billion in highway funds from you..." and thus they blackmail the states to do their bidding.

This is why the Feds prefer high tax rates on everything...it gives them control over everything, even if it makes no sense for control to reside at the Federal level...and once you concede that your funding comes from the Feds, good f*ing luck getting it back under your own control...

"@Krellin How about we let gays marry and then encourage them to adopt children. I know 2 gay couples who have done that. "

If they are already doing it, why do we need to encourage it??

Adoption is a totally different subject. Adoption policy in the US if totally fucked up, as well as the foster care system....not going in to that right now.

<huh....was just pondering how *deafening* a certain silence is in this discussion....>

@Krelldog. Fair enough. Constitutionality is a rather arbitrary matter. But suppose this were a forum made of of Supreme Court justices: Would it be constitutional for the US gov't to pass a law saying they will only respect marriages between people of at least a certain age, even as some states continue to perform marriages for people younger than that limit?

So, Krellin, the feds only make laws and change things that benefit society, presumably in a financial matter? How did emancipating the slaves benefit soiety in general? Civili liberty? Suffrage? I don't see where these are any different from granting all people the right to marry as their heart desires.

@Krellin People are going to have children why do we need to encourage it. Oh and I know you said that no one should get the federal benefit just pointing out another option there.

We can discuss the adoption problem in another thread. But maybe if it was easier for people to adopt there wouldn't be such a problem in the system.

"the feds only make laws and change things that benefit society,"
*IN general, yes, I think this is intended to be true...not saying it always is, though. Can you think of a law passed that was intended to harm the nation?

"presumably in a financial matter"
*No, I won't stipulate that at all...but will say yes, they pass laws very often of a financial nature intended to benefit the finances of the nation. Tax breaks / loopholes, etc are intended to spur segments of the economy, and in the long run they hope to gain more revenue than they cost...that's the theory, anyway...

Thus, your follow up questions are moot or need to be rephrased...

"People are going to have children why do we need to encourage it."

Errrr....I already said this and therefore agree..

@Krellin which I acknowledged as well.

'Polygamy, sure, but sex before marriage, not so much. In fact, if you will recall, under Jewish law, Joseph could have sent Mary away and she would have been forever marked for her "adultery" even though they weren't married. It isn't a sin on the order of violating a commandment, but it was considered bad in Jewish tradition for centuries before Christ came."
That furthers my case, this is religion denouncing sexual behaviour. Krellin claimed that religion promotes straight marriage to encourage population growth. I am saying thats not true.

"societies generally don't throw money and incentives towards activities that are neutral or destructive to societies"
They do when they are blinded by faith. For example, in ancient Jerusalem you would be stoned to death for working on the Sabbath. That is an incentive to spend a day being unproductive.

@Krellin - The is a third option besides helping or harming society, it is being neutral. You mentioned it before but when I point out examples that didn't directly help society any differently than accepting non-traditional marriages were, you suddenly ask for laws that hurt society. Does accepting non-traditional marriages hurt society? No! But *not* accepting does hurt society.

At what point do we stand up for the rights of the downtrodden? When we become the downtrodden and there is no one else left to stand up for up?

@ Celticfox

They may perceive gay marriage as a threat to the traditional family, which has admittedly been under seige since the 1950s. In my opinion, the traditional family has been dead since 50% divorce rates.

@ Draugnar

The Preamble has no legal weight either.

""Marriage" as a term, should be struck from the legal record. Marriage should be a religious (note I didn't say Christian or Hebrew or any specific religion) and all the State and Fed should do is have "civil unions". Thast way the fucktards on both sides wouldn't have an argument to stand on because their would be no legal marriage."

I agree completely.

@ Fasces

"Ummm no. The 10th amendment is my favourite amendment because it limits the size of government. Lets start repealing unconstitutional laws rather then repealing the constitution to make those laws constitutional..

Prop 8 is completely legal under the 10th because the 10th only concerns federal, not state legislation.

Gay marriage should be a state issue and while I would have voted no on Prop 8, I am not entirely against it because gay marriage should be a state, not federal issue."

I agree with you. I meant that the Court needs to start looking at laws that infringe on the 10th. The 10th Amendment is my second favorite amendment behind the 2nd Amendment. Gay marriage *should* be a state issue, and I hope that the Court agrees with me.

Does that mean if a state decides to make bi-racial marriage illegal you'd be ok with that as well GF?

I don't think you could oppose such a law on constitutional grounds, if that's what you're asking.

But would you agree with it the same way you're agree with the ban on gay marriages?

For the last time, I don't *agree* with the ban on same-sex marriages. I just think that you cannot overturn state legislation such as Prop 8 on constitutional grounds.

@GF Ah sorry I miss understood then.

"Does that mean if a state decides to make bi-racial marriage illegal you'd be ok with that as well GF? "

Equating racial status to homosexual status is a false argument. One is a biological status, one is a behavioral choice.

@Draug "At what point do we stand up for the rights of the downtrodden? "

Define "the downtrodden" first of all, and then maybe I will try to answer your further question. I honestly have *no* idea what constitutes someone being "downtrodden". I could give you my opinion (and it would only be an opinion), and then you would give me a different opinion, and then bo and celtic woudl each give their own opinion and none would agree. (And then YJ would prance into the room, throw insult, and go create another "hey krellin" thread....and we'd all point at him and say, "Upon this one thing we can agree: he is amongst the mentally downtrodden..." and we would all slap hands in high fives and share a few "remember when" jokes and go about our merry way....)