4000 years of history wiped out by five SCOTUS Judges

a reply to: Asktheanimals

And I fail to see why we need a new word for a legal public commitment between two consenting adults. It has nothing to do with churches.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

unless it was spain the it was matrimonio
in german- die Ehe; die Heirat; die Hochzeit
Lakota- okiciyuze
Cherokee- tsv-da-da-tsv-s-do-di
and well, I think you get the idea...
just because the natives used another word for marriage, doesn't mean that they didn't have marriages!
so well you're statement doesn't make much since...
there were homosexual marriage recognized in the land we call the US long before the US was formed also!

a reply to: Asktheanimals

I think many have given numerous amounts of proof that "Marriage" has been redefined throughout History... what about all the things that the Catholic and Christians Rituals and ceremonies "Borrowed" from more Pagan and other religions?


If you are upset about a word, sorry but the Church doesn't hold Monopolies on Words

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Got it, remember this issue about marriage is not about gender or religion, per say, but about civil rights of human beings under the constitution, that is why the supreme court ruled the way they did, they took the religion and traditional part of it in order to make it a civil rights issue.

a reply to: marg6043

there is no human right to marriage and there has not been until the SCOTUS decision a constitutional right to marry and now that right is only for Homosexuals. Straights still don't have the right to marriage protected under the Constitution.

a reply to: jimmyx

where are your proofs of marriage from Buddhism or Hinduism. Taoism I believe is a form of Buddhism but if I am wrong then how about some quotes from them as well about marriage.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

No, but the 14t Amendment said we are all treated Equal, and if Heterosexuals Can get Married, so can Same-Sex couples.

You seem not to understand the Ruling, they didn't "Add" protections, or Laws, the Ruled that the 14th Amendment covered Everyone So both Heterosexuals and Homosexuals get that privilege

a reply to: ChesterJohn

there is no human right to marriage and there has not been until the SCOTUS decision a constitutional right to marry and now that right is only for Homosexuals. Straights still don't have the right to marriage protected under the Constitution.

You don't seem to understand the SCOTUS ruling. It did not make marriage for anyone a constitutional right. What it did was specify that it is not legal to deny marriage to homosexuals just because they are homosexuals. The decision said such laws are unconstitutional. Just as their decision in 1967 specified that laws against interracial marriage are unconstitutional.

a reply to: Darth_Prime

First you have to prove that marriage is a right and that was not done. two of the SCOTUS who opposed it have said it was not a right that needed protection of the constitution and despite the evidence the other five decided they know better than all others.

I thought the world has only been around for 2,000 years.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

First you have to prove that marriage is a right

Why?

Is getting a driver's license a right? Nope.

a reply to: Phage

Phage the five SCOTUS in favor failed to do their job in a judicial manner and that too was testified by the opposing SCOTUS. One cannot ignore their duty for the sake political correctness.

oops double post for some reason.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Who said it had to be a Right? it's a Privilege correct?

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That is what they ruled, that Everyone has the Privilege to get married yeah?

a reply to: ChesterJohn

What about those parts of Bible that Vatican, Caesar and rest didn't like? This religion is as credible as their crusades in Europe and both Americas.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Phage the five SCOTUS in favor failed to do their job in a judicial manner and that too was testified by the opposing SCOTUS.

ChesterJohn, there is only one SCOTUS. No, the justices didn't fail. BTW, judges don't testify. They state their opinions.

But, to answer your claim about "rights."
You can start reading about it here, beginning on page 2. Complete with precedents.

Applying these tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution...

www.supremecourt.gov...

One cannot ignore their duty for the sake political correctness.

Equality is "political correctness?"

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Phage

Phage the five SCOTUS in favor failed to do their job in a judicial manner and that too was testified by the opposing SCOTUS. One cannot ignore their duty for the sake political correctness.

Do you think the justices failed to do their job when they ruled, in Loving vs Virginia, that interracial couple could NOT be barred from marriage?

If a man's wife

was there at least any
If a Woman's Husband....laws?

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Sorry, but you are wrong. Same sex marriage existed before even the Code of Hammurabi. 700 years before it was created, Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum were two male Egyptians married to each other in life and buried together in death. Even their tomb depicts many images of them embracing and/or kissing.

Archaeologists also uncovered a burial in Czech Republic where a Bronze Age male was buried with female burial items. If his orientation was not accepted at the time, he would not have been buried with such care and with a reflection of his personality so evident.

Artwork found in Sicily dated back to the Mesolithic period (around 10,000 years ago) depict male on male intercourse. The fact that they made art of it shows that it was something celebrated not despised.

I am just going to repost this here because the OP either missed or ignored my post.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I really think that marriage is one of those inalienable rights that were spoken of in the declaration of independence.
like...um it doesn't matter if you pass laws forbidding it, people in love will pair up and create families. Don't believe me? The slaves were forbidden to marry, it didn't stop them, they just started jumping the broom!
it's gonna happen, legal or not. what is more concerned here is when the laws decide to not recognize some marriages (like those marriages of the slaves) and by doing so, they fail to give the couples certain courtesies that they give those that they decide to recognize.... like separating husband and wife and selling one to one plantation and the other in a plantation in another state.