The last one! HUZZAH! Some questions for same gender marriage Part VI

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

In case you missed yesterday and the days before.


All the court cases I can find, including the landmark SCOTUS decision United States v. Windsor No. 12-307 hinge on equal treatment under the law. The couple in this case were married in Canada. I do have real problems with laws of other countries being enforceable in the United States, but that’s well off topic.

Law. Considering the history of marriage, then law is the right and proper way to consider marriage, a political and economic contract.

Writing a dissent, Justice Alito penned: “Past changes in the understanding of marriage—for example, the gradual ascendance of the idea that romantic love is a prerequisite to marriage— have had far-reaching consequences.“ See previous posts on how love had little to do with marriage.

Emotion, except when it is used to restrict another’s rights for marriage, is not something much discussed in court cases regarding same gender marriage.

So I get to my final point:

Why do you need someone else’s permission to get married if marriage is not about economics and political machinations?

Why is it necessary to have the approval of an outsider over your relationship? Note provisos posted previously.

If you are getting married for economic benefits, then SCOTUS has clearly stated government has the power to regulate this. If you are getting married for political reasons, ditto.

If you are getting married for love, why do you need a government seal of approval?

You don't.

Parity under the law is one thing. Emotion is something entirely different.

If you get married for economics, yep, government has the legal right to step in under SCOTUS decisions. If you get married for love, then government has no right to tell you what to do. If you combine the two, then government has the right under SCOTUS decisions to tell you what to do.