I think it is 14 in Brazil, not 12. Anyway, in the 1890s, several U.S. states had an age of consent as low as 10. In 1895, the age of consent in Delaware was 7.
Comments all point to the fact that “traditional” marriage has been in constant flux. What was once acceptable or even normal is now repulsive. So for those who embrace “traditional” marriage, just be prepared to defend those traditions like child marriages.
Cannot think of a rationale for having government control the marriage contract. Should be a matter between individuals only, and their church if they wish. Also cannot think of a rationale for having government interfere with terms of employment, terms of coverage of for health insurance, or purported water and/or air “pollution” with no measurable effects across state lines. Too much freedom has already been surrendered to the wisdom of bureaucrats.
It’s not just gay rights. What about sexism? Lila, I’m sure you’ve been treated as ‘just a girl’ when Boyd, as a man, was treated better. What about the glass ceiling, Lila? Especially with your DDs and revealing clothing, I’m sure you’ve experienced it.
I’m a pretty conservative guy, but I personally think that if two people are in love and happy together, why not let them get married if they want to. I agree with @jbmlaw above.
What is it about “consenting adults” that some people find so hard to grasp? Marriage is a contract, and we don’t consider children capable of entering into most contracts now, nor animals, nor trees, nor whatever stupid thing the bigots want to suggest is equivalent to two CONSENTING ADULTS pledging to spend their lives together. We have no trouble drawing a line that legally distinguishes between adults competent to enter contract and other entities when it comes to any other kind of contract, why should it somehow be impossible to draw that line in the case of a marriage contract?
Why want to get married? Gee, for a start, maybe it’s to take advantage of those 1,135 Federal rights that married couples get: http://www.marriageequality.org/1-138-federal-rights …and that really is just a start in terms of the policies that privilege married couples in our society.
It’s just fascinating that there are complaints about “rewriting the marriage laws” on MLK day, when it wasn’t that long ago that marriage laws were rewritten to allow people of different races to marry each other. The world didn’t end and society didn’t collapse, btw.
And what’s ESPECIALLY interesting is that the arguments against abolishing miscegenation laws were EXACTLY the same ones as are now being put forth against gay marriage. None of it happened.
But rest assured that in 20 years, today’s homophobic bigots will be universally viewed as hateful idiots, just as we now view those who said interracial marriage would lead to bestiality, child marriage, the total moral collapse of society and the destruction of the institution of marriage.
Oh, and everyone’s focusing on marriage, but there’s also no federal protection for gay people from being fired from a job or denied housing or discriminated against in other ways just for being gay. Twenty-one states have laws including civil rights protection for sexual orientation, the remainder do not.In a very large part of the U.S., “You’re gay? Then you’re fired!” = perfectly legal.
@paullp Typicall reaction from a liberal that will accept any view as long as it is liberal and if you don’t agree just insult the person instead of debating.
Typical reaction from a conservative — automatically assume that all liberals fit a typical mold. jbmlaw offered no rationale for his/her statements, so there’s really nothing to debate. I wasn’t being insulting; based on jbmlaw’s statements (“cannot think”) I was suggesting that he/she try to do a little thinking, that’s all. That said, I will admit to having serious doubts about the intellectual and perceptive abilities of any one who can look at the world we’re living in and not understand the need for government regulation in such areas as employment and healthcare.
kittylover2 almost 11 years ago
Boyd is right. They should be able to marry in every state period. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to be as miserable as the rest of us?
kittylover2 almost 11 years ago
NO WAY.
LeoAutodidact almost 11 years ago
Yes, why should it be that NO LAWYER is going to get a percentage when Portia De Rossi and Ellen DeGeneres break-up? It’s JUST NOT FAIR!
(Since they’re not “Married” they can’t get “Divorced” which means no percentage of their fortunes for their “Divorce Lawyers”)
Follow the Money, then you’ll see just WHO’s “fairness” they’re worried about!
kittylover2 almost 11 years ago
The age now in MS is 15 girl, I7 for a boy. Both with parental consent.
charne almost 11 years ago
Hey Leo — then don’t get divorced. Vows at marriage mean something. (Thatll show those lawyers.)
comicsboi Premium Member almost 11 years ago
I think it is 14 in Brazil, not 12. Anyway, in the 1890s, several U.S. states had an age of consent as low as 10. In 1895, the age of consent in Delaware was 7.
cdward almost 11 years ago
Comments all point to the fact that “traditional” marriage has been in constant flux. What was once acceptable or even normal is now repulsive. So for those who embrace “traditional” marriage, just be prepared to defend those traditions like child marriages.
jbmlaw01 almost 11 years ago
Cannot think of a rationale for having government control the marriage contract. Should be a matter between individuals only, and their church if they wish. Also cannot think of a rationale for having government interfere with terms of employment, terms of coverage of for health insurance, or purported water and/or air “pollution” with no measurable effects across state lines. Too much freedom has already been surrendered to the wisdom of bureaucrats.
karanne almost 11 years ago
It’s not just gay rights. What about sexism? Lila, I’m sure you’ve been treated as ‘just a girl’ when Boyd, as a man, was treated better. What about the glass ceiling, Lila? Especially with your DDs and revealing clothing, I’m sure you’ve experienced it.
paullp Premium Member almost 11 years ago
jbmlaw,
Perhaps you should start trying to think!
Flatlander, purveyor of fine covfefe almost 11 years ago
Bachelor, someone who never made the same mistake once.My dearly departed ex! Not dead, just departed!
David Root almost 11 years ago
HOORAY FOR KARA KALEL!!!!!!!
Squirrelchaser almost 11 years ago
I’m a pretty conservative guy, but I personally think that if two people are in love and happy together, why not let them get married if they want to. I agree with @jbmlaw above.
Emlyn Premium Member almost 11 years ago
When I was in graduate school back in the late sixties, a professor told me that a man should have had my place.
calliopejane almost 11 years ago
What is it about “consenting adults” that some people find so hard to grasp? Marriage is a contract, and we don’t consider children capable of entering into most contracts now, nor animals, nor trees, nor whatever stupid thing the bigots want to suggest is equivalent to two CONSENTING ADULTS pledging to spend their lives together. We have no trouble drawing a line that legally distinguishes between adults competent to enter contract and other entities when it comes to any other kind of contract, why should it somehow be impossible to draw that line in the case of a marriage contract?
Why want to get married? Gee, for a start, maybe it’s to take advantage of those 1,135 Federal rights that married couples get: http://www.marriageequality.org/1-138-federal-rights …and that really is just a start in terms of the policies that privilege married couples in our society.
calliopejane almost 11 years ago
It’s just fascinating that there are complaints about “rewriting the marriage laws” on MLK day, when it wasn’t that long ago that marriage laws were rewritten to allow people of different races to marry each other. The world didn’t end and society didn’t collapse, btw.
And what’s ESPECIALLY interesting is that the arguments against abolishing miscegenation laws were EXACTLY the same ones as are now being put forth against gay marriage. None of it happened.
But rest assured that in 20 years, today’s homophobic bigots will be universally viewed as hateful idiots, just as we now view those who said interracial marriage would lead to bestiality, child marriage, the total moral collapse of society and the destruction of the institution of marriage.
calliopejane almost 11 years ago
Oh, and everyone’s focusing on marriage, but there’s also no federal protection for gay people from being fired from a job or denied housing or discriminated against in other ways just for being gay. Twenty-one states have laws including civil rights protection for sexual orientation, the remainder do not.In a very large part of the U.S., “You’re gay? Then you’re fired!” = perfectly legal.
Dr Lou Premium Member almost 11 years ago
Very good…..
paullp Premium Member almost 11 years ago
Hey, Kara Kalel, are you both Supergirl and Superman?
smhawkes almost 11 years ago
@paullp Typicall reaction from a liberal that will accept any view as long as it is liberal and if you don’t agree just insult the person instead of debating.
paullp Premium Member almost 11 years ago
Typical reaction from a conservative — automatically assume that all liberals fit a typical mold. jbmlaw offered no rationale for his/her statements, so there’s really nothing to debate. I wasn’t being insulting; based on jbmlaw’s statements (“cannot think”) I was suggesting that he/she try to do a little thinking, that’s all. That said, I will admit to having serious doubts about the intellectual and perceptive abilities of any one who can look at the world we’re living in and not understand the need for government regulation in such areas as employment and healthcare.