Ha ha, Eric, and it applies to you, as well. She should like that.

Some primitive cultures in tropical climates do, indeed, practice nudity. Even in modern societies, there are nude beaches and nudist colonies. Each to his own.

Bestiality is not condoned societally, though indubitably indulged in privately in certain sectors. Public masturbation? Not likely, though group masturbation and clubs to indulge it are known to exist.

Interesting, isn't it, that it always comes back to sex? Everything people do and legislate, produce, build and use, especially money, traces back to sex as its goal and driving force. It's the engine of life. All else is infrastructure.

Good thinking, philosophercat. +1 for the PETA exclusion. It made me chuckle. +10 for the rest.

Hear, hear!

There's a difference between sexual coupling, even when it's by a couple with a lifetime commitment and the ritual of traditional marriage. As far as I'm concerned, as long as it doesn't impede my forward progress I don't care. But if you can't tell the difference then I've run out of things to say to you on the subject.
It will be fun to talk to you on a few other subjects. Let's keep hanging around the Gulch.
Best,
Herb

You see, not a priori reasoning, not deduction from our principles, but experience, the lessons of history, evidence that shared premises about what is acceptable behavior, an acceptable government, and an acceptable view of life tend toward a peaceful, stable, contented society. And government has a role, here. Would you accept the choice of public nudity, a personal, non-aggressive choice? Would you accept peaceful public masturbation? How about a relationship with a sheep or a dog? These are ugly prospects, and we assume we never will see them. But we will if there is no regulation of behavior.

If I had to replace the tax code with something, I would simply make it a flat sales tax, with all food, clothing, shelter, medicine, and services exempt. That way only people with disposable income wind up paying it.

Marriage exists primarily as a formal arrangement to make sure that children get taken care of, and this was true even before religion or the state came along. Not all gay marriages are formed for that purpose, but some are, and I don't see the point of disparaging them.

But is it? I don't think so. Languages always have evolved, and always will. Efforts (such as the Académie Française) to prevent it will either be ignored, or will cause that language to go out of use more quickly than otherwise.

It's true that blurring the meanings of words in an important document such as our Constitution can have ill effects. But the Constitution gets misinterpreted on purpose, because the "justices" can do so with impunity. If its language were more exact (or less ambiguous) their rationalizations for doing so might be more obviously ad-hoc, but so what?

To add...

I do believe there should be a contractual obligation to establish financial liability, but this would be nothing more that a civil formality.

Similar to a subscription renewal.

(Ha Ha, I wonder if my wife would want to renew her subscription if she knew I thought about it that way)

I beg to differ. Marriage is probably older than man's intelligence; certainly there are other species that practice it. In primitive societies it is primarily economic in nature. Greece and Rome had various forms of gay marriage; there's really nothing new there. Those who believe that the Jewish or Christian religion "owns" marriage are simply looking at too short a period of history.

I have no problem with plural marriages. Indeed, I believe the law's hostility toward them is one of the causes of the abusive cult versions we've heard about. People conducting non-aggressive lives should not be made so afraid of the state that they must shun all contact with it.

I look at it this way...

The state licenses businesses, and can thereby revoke that license.
The state licenses drivers, and can thereby revoke that license.
The state licenses marriage, and can thereby revoke that license?

Why is the state involved again?

Consenting adults living their lives as they see fit, does nothing to diminish my life, livelihood, or relationships.

It is incumbent on me to be tolerant of the choices others make in how they live, if I expect others to be tolerant of the choices I make.

Therefore I have no issue with the topic, other than the state involvement.

This too.

I think the use of the terms "rights" and "marriage" in this battle is just a distraction tactic used by both sides of the issue to draw lines in the sand. Lines that have nothing to do with the actual issue but both sides want/need the force of government to further their agenda. The left doesn't care about gays except insofar as they can promote "special rights" (privileges) and shove them in the faces of the religious right. The religious rights' only concern for the definition of the word marriage is whether they can control it or not. They believe gays should be cured, not married, and they want to allow no access for gays to any of it. Not the word, the benefits nor the act itself, which is what they are trying to control.

For the state to assume any interest in the definition of marriage based on children that do not even exist is to allow any and every number of "interests" in peoples everyday lives. Ayn Rand could never have concluded that the state should control who gets married based on the rights of a nonexistent child as a nonexistent child can have no rights. Even a fetus, in her view, is only the potential of a child and can have no rights until it is born. The state could never assume interest in the nonexistent rights of a nonexistent child.

I would agree that to redefine marriage is not the proper way to force states to stop violating the rights of their citizens, but until the link is severed between marriage and the state (tax codes) those rights are being violated, and as Ayn Rand also said; "50 dictators are not better than 1 dictator".

It is one thing to do what you want, in a laissez-
faire way. It is quite another to run to the state
demanding that it put its imprimatur on it.

I don't think Ayn Rand ever set forth any views regarding marriage as an institution. Even if she did, such views would not necessarily constitute a component of her core philosophy.

My comment may be considered to be "off topic", but I don't believe so. Has everyone failed to realize that this was scheduled before the Supreme Court just before the Court will announce its ruling on ObamaCare? That even though 15% more Americans are concerned about ObamaCare than Homosexual Marriage according to the most conservative polls? Doesn't it seem odd that this is getting 90% more news time? Does anyone else find this odd? Is it possible distraction is being used to push Billions of dollars towards the insurance industry?

So my statement above. I confused everyone by drawing no conclusion because I didn't know what to conclude. I was just adding what seemed a relevant point... AND, I guess, pointing out that the state, according to Rand, does have an "interest" in what parents, married or not, do. It isn't entirely laissez faire because rights are involved...

I'm afraid that after stating the Ayn Rand view, as I did, I did not draw any conclusions. I know that is very untypical of Objectivists, but I didn't know what to conclude. I could not conclude that based on what Ayn Rand said the state could require people to be married to have children--i.e., licensed to bear children. Being married is simply not consistently associated with taking care of children and many, many unmarried parents do take care of children. I should have prefaced my remarks with: I don't know what to make of this, but...

Do we gain clues on how each Justice thinks by looking at other similar cases like US v Windsor? Yes. Recusal, however, isn't based on prior rulings, but on extra-judicial considerations.

As to the outcome of this case, I think the ideology is already set and that we shall see major disruptions to our legal code and free speech as a result. While I'd like nothing more than for the Justices to declare that the Tenth Amendment reigns supreme, I don't think that's likely. I think it's a Pandora's box that they are dead set on opening.

I agree with the comments below which indicate that the State should recuse itself from the whole issue of marriage.

I would like to add, though, that the sudden appearance of a proposed right does not exclude its validity. Many of the rights we consider foundation are relatively new. The world in which a nobleman rightfully owned his wife, children, servants, slaves, etc is quite close to us historically. The concept that 'all men are created equal' was not part of most European cultures until the 19th Century. (The right of women to be equal to men is still not accepted in many parts of the world.)

So I think that "suddenness" should be excluded as a criterion for "rights".

Jan

Well, they've all rather tipped their hands when they overturned DOMA so do we have them all recuse themselves? Usually there are only two or three justices that we aren't sure how they are going to vote -- their attitudes are well known.

And, as I said above, officiating over a same sex marriage sanctioned by the state is not the same as declaring it to be a right under the federal constitution. I don't think that's all that important, what is more telling is her history of supporting activist rulings.

I think they are probably not going to rule in favor of a federal right to same sex marriage -- they laid the groundwork in DOMA for saying it's not a federal issue. Still the equal rights argument could sway them.

I might give the idea of plausible deniability if one had only attended, but to officiate is to pronounce moral authority in a matter - there is no higher level of involvement or bias. To me it is an open-and-shut demonstration of partiality where the explicit code of conduct for the Justices _demands_ a strict level of impartiality and _requires_ recusal if there is any hint of bias.

Why is impartiality necessary? Because the Supreme Court is charged to adjudicate the enforcement of laws based on the Constitution - not public opinion. In order for the public to maintain confidence in the rulings of the Supreme Court, both sides have the right to expect a full and impartial hearing. If a judge has already sided with one side on the matter, impartiality has been compromised.

If this were at any other level, the lawyers involved would call for a mistrial and have justification for such. At the Supreme Court, the step of recusal is the last step of maintaining a fair and impartial hearing - since there is no other higher body to appeal to in the case of judicial misconduct or mistrial.

Yes, she absolutely should have recused herself from the Obamacare one as well, especially given that she wrote a large part of the government's position paper on it.

To me, it is the appearance of impartiality. I might give the idea of plausible deniability if one had only attended, but to officiate is to pronounce moral authority in a matter - there is no higher level of involvement or bias.