29 votes

*Marriage Has Been Perverted!*

Since 1215... when the Government of the United Kingdom (such a likable bunch!), created the requirement for a *public* announcement in a Christian parish (no longer recognizing private marriages) as requested by the Roman Catholic Church, setting the stage for our modern day definition of marriage.

Before this point "marriage" was a *private* binding contract often between clans (families) to form alliances. A "dowry" (cattle, land, precious metals, soft toilet paper or whatever else was considered to be valuable at the time) was passed between the clans. Marriages "of love"(gay or straight)have existed for thousands of years as well(more so in prosperous times/areas where alliances between families were not needed to survive brutal times).

What was done in 1215 represents the *real* perversion point in the whole marriage saga, even on a day like today, because this is when it became a public/state issue. Whether you are gay or straight inviting the government into people's private lives is always bad.

Let's face it, even after today's ruling, gays will *still* not enjoy the same rights or protections as straight people do but they may start enjoying the same tax breaks and other benefits that marriage affords everyone else, ( you know...like the benefit of being next to your partner while they're lying on their deathbed and such).

The fact is that, the day that the 14th amendment and the 1st amendment are upheld to protect *ALL* citizens will be a great day for this nation regardless of any superficial differences anyone of us share.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Result Based Analysis

My REAL issue is with people (not necessarily you) using the constitution to justify their own personal views on government. The constitution was setup as a framework for government that best preserves liberty. It doesn't forbid people from making stupid laws.

A good framework for liberty, such as the constitution, will always allow for a limitation on liberty (liberty to get rid of liberty) but it will make it hard to do and limited in scope. One of the key tenants of this framework is the have judges that ONLY apply the law as adopted and not apply personal judgment about whether or not the the law fulfills someones definition of "liberty". The later is the job of Congress.

It's really a matter of understanding roles. This result destroys the constitution by saying 9 lawyers are the arbiters of what is or isn't liberty. The constitution was set up to allow the people to do that unless that task is given to the government by the people.

So in short, I hate that people praise the decision because it "enhances liberty", legitimacy be damned. It's an ends justify the means thinking and it has long term consequences.

You can't just hold a vote to

You can't just hold a vote to take someone's property or life, can you? Why, then, should you be able to vote to take someone's liberty? That's not due process - that's tyranny of the majority. A vote is not due process of law.

Understanding Due Process of Law

Yes, you can and yes voting is due process of law (one kind of it). We have the history behind the 5th amendment and the words "Due process of law". It is from the Magna Carta and means a government can't deprive someone of those three things without following the "law of the land". It goes hand and hand with the rest of the amendment. In fact, the takings clause is right after it which describes how you can take property from a citizen.

So if a state held a vote on

So if a state held a vote on say, rounding up all black people and having them shot, that would be due process of law since it was voted on? Somehow I think not.


I'm glad to have seen this information because I always knew there was something about legal marriage that didn't jive with me. From my perspective it's just another act of submission to authoritarian institutions. It's the recognition of an institutions power over oneself to ask it permission for something so simple as being with the one (or ones) you love.


the boldest act of freedom you can do is love someone independent of other people's approval.

As far as I see it (as a

As far as I see it (as a single person), gays are only perpetuating inequality because they focus their efforts on promoting inequality between themselves and straight people. I find that especially irritating because they claim to be about 'equality', not to mention promoting inequality between themselves and the 22 or so other types of marriages out there. If they're about overall equality, they ought to stop focusing on themselves and recognizing that gov't involvement in marriage is the real problem.

This gov't involvement in marriage thing is so f*cking backwards and it baffles me how so many people in this country just don't get it, I mention it to my former coworkers on facebook and their comments are so vacuous as they claim to support equality and parrot the same old tired lines. I get sick of the groupthink that equates supporting gay rights with supporting overall equality. Such BS!

I think you have that ass backward. We want EQUALITY!

You say "gays are only perpetuating inequality because they focus their efforts on promoting inequality between themselves and straight people"

you really just lose all credibility with comments like that.