That is only for tax purposes, more or less.
It is about rather more, and rather more important rights than that.
Really? Because that is the main issue I have seen that could only be solved by the federal government recognizing gay marriage.
Yet not a jetpack.
Pair bonding of course predates civilization, but I would consider any tribe that is advanced enough to give recognition of it as a marriage is civilization.
It's the difference between a tribe member thinking "I want to mate with Klinda, but she is mating with Urka already, and Urka is bigger than me. I'll find someone else.", or thinking "I want to mate with Klinda, but she is mating with Urka already, and the chief said that is good. I'll find someone else for the chief to call us good.".
It may not be very advanced, but at that point, the tribe members are acting in a civil manner. They don't have to build the Acropolis for it to be civilization.
Long range tranquilizer rifles.
And... I guess we're still calling it a "jetpack" even though it's just using turbofans? I guess there's no other commonly-known term to describe it?
I'd call it a personal helicopter.
I think the rocky times are because there is some social progress (and social regress in terms of inequality). Those who don't like it are kicking back.
Actually, a lot of people who do like social progress are being kicked, stamped on, attacked, and demonized by the loudest "advocates" for social change.
It's bizarre. As a lifelong liberal my enthusiasm for liberal reforms has been ice-cooled by the behaviour of so called "progressive" advocates over the last 12 months. Despite my enthusiasm for these reforms, I simply cannot set aside my cynicism as to the motives, ideology and behaviour of the people who have jumped on these bandwagons over the last few years. I find my traditional political boat filled with people who seem determined to steer it into treacherous waters.
Right now the boat is all but running side by side with the old right authoritarians of yesteryear. Censorship advocates and anti-rationalists have grasped the helm, and myself and traditional advocates for cause like gay marraige find our ship being steered in a political bermuda triangle and ourselves at gunpoint. Yes the captain has announced gay marraige reforms over the intercom, but our celebrations in the gallery are a little more subdued that we previously imagined.
It's all feeling a bit Moscow circa 1930, and these five year plans are becoming increasingly worrisome. One wonders whose history our side of the ship is actually going to end up on.
This is one of the most intelligent and insightful posts so far. And for very good reason.
I just had a talk with my daughter, who is very happy that the court ruled as it did. She has many gay friends, so it is an important decision in her sphere. However, after seeing some of the arguments the pro-gay-marriage side is putting forth, she is a bit upset they are on her side of the argument, because they are ignorant on some important points.
As long as the next election doesn't have the first black president on the ballot, it is hard to predict the winning side.
So all those gay weddings that took place a decade ago meant nothing to the participants? The churches that conducted wedding ceremonies for gay couples didn't consider those couples married in the eyes of their deity?
It doesn't matter if the government considered those marriages valid. That is only for tax purposes, more or less. Most of the legal issues that are automatically handled by a marriage license can be handled with a few more signatures on the appropriate documents. Marriage is about people being together, not about the government allowing it or not.
You're right. It is only as complicated as managing a staged protest, complete with a willing media to make the "other guys" look bad. Throw out a few insults and taunts, insist that only your view is valid and that any dissenters are hateful bigots, and you have a great leader of a country.
Your public school must not have taught history very well, if you think that the Constitution created the United States.
California voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
On the other hand, Brokeback Mountain was about two gay cowboys that lived in Wyoming. Insterestingly enough, a foreign version of it's description was "Secreto en la montaña"
So why do the courts get to allow Wyoming and "montaña" tell California what to do here?
How does the institution of marriage predate the civilization that would be needed to recognize and affirm such an institution?
Why can't you just call it a domestic partnership now? Is that only an option if you wanted to have a male on your insurance?
I've been saying that since I was in high school back in the 1980s.
And since my wife and I are not the same race, various governments (national or state) would have prevented me from my right to marriage if we had lived a century earlier.
That's a distinction with out meaning.
Only if you don't understand the word "within".
An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.
