So, what IS marriage now?

[shunyadragon]

Of course what the conservatives in this thread are talking about is that at least one legal criterion has been abolished: the little criterion that it consist of a husband and wife. So you could perhaps see how this could leave people wondering what criteria, if any, are essential. And wondering what criteria can be left standing if the arguments of legal equality and fundamental right are taken to their logical conclusion.

This criteria is a religious cultural criteria and not a sound legal criteria as determined by the Supreme Court, which should not be the criteria of a secular government. As far as individual religions and churches, there criteria remains intact for those that believe in that criteria for "marriage" in the United States. The fundamental criteria currently is that two adults who desire a civil "marriage" union of monogamy are within their rights to have one under the laws of our current laws of the secular civil government. Probably in the future this may also include polygamous relationships which currently exist in the US despite legal restrictions. Individual religious or cultural limitation on the legal definition of "marriage" should not be the definition of civil "marriage."

It is interesting that in Judaism, Zoroastrian, Christianity, Islam, and the Baha'i Faith there are not any specific spiritual teachings nor spiritual laws that prohibit polygamy.

[Bill the Cat]

The fundamental criteria currently is that two adults who desire a civil "marriage" union of monogamy are within their rights to have one under the laws of our current laws of the secular civil government. .

Monogamy has nothing to do with the "fundamental criteria" of marriage.

[Bill the Cat]

This sort of thing happens already among heterosexuals and has done for a long time. The morality of such behaviour is questionable but it's not necessarily a SSM thing.

Sure it is. Since the compelling state's interest is now removed, which prior SCOTUS rulings have declared what that interest was, there is now no real compelling interest to the government other than "fairness". The SSM ruling has successfully disinterested the government in anything related to other prior interests.

[Joel]

This criteria is a religious cultural criteria and not a sound legal criteria as determined by the Supreme Court, which should not be the criteria of a secular government. As far as individual religions and churches, there criteria remains intact for those that believe in that criteria for "marriage" in the United States. The fundamental criteria currently is that two adults who desire a civil "marriage" union of monogamy are within their rights to have one under the laws of our current laws of the secular civil government. Probably in the future this may also include polygamous relationships which currently exist in the US despite legal restrictions. Individual religious or cultural limitation on the legal definition of "marriage" should not be the definition of civil "marriage."

It is interesting that in Judaism, Zoroastrian, Christianity, Islam, and the Baha'i Faith there are not any specific spiritual teachings nor spiritual laws that prohibit polygamy.

What I'm suggesting is that, by the same reasoning, no criterion of "marriage" is a "sound legal criterion", nor should be a criterion of a pluralistic secular government. And therefore government has no business dealing with "marriage".
Current criteria that exist legally are the rules against polygamy (as you point out) and close relations. And as you point out, those are based on sexual taboos that are not universally shared. So, by the above reasoning, those criteria ought to be abolished. I'll go further: the current criteria denies equal legal privileges to single individuals. But the criterion that "marriage" must require two (or more) persons is a cultural tradition, so by the above reasoning it too should be abolished. A single person should be equally able to have the term "marriage" applied to them and have equal legal privileges. To be really equal and avoid any cultural baggage, the government should just declare that the label "married" applies to every individual automatically from the moment of conception (No criteria). In which case it becomes meaningless, and the whole legal concept should be abandoned.

[Tassman]

Sure it is. Since the compelling state's interest is now removed, which prior SCOTUS rulings have declared what that interest was, there is now no real compelling interest to the government other than "fairness". The SSM ruling has successfully disinterested the government in anything related to other prior interests.

In other words, "justice". Ensuring equal justice for all citizens is what government is all about, I would have thought.

[shunyadragon]

Monogamy has nothing to do with the "fundamental criteria" of marriage.

To some churches and belief systems monogamy is a "fundamental criteria" for marriage.

[Bill the Cat]

To some churches and belief systems monogamy is a "fundamental criteria" for marriage.

We are talking about government sanction of marriage, so that is inconsequential to this discussion.

[shunyadragon]

What I'm suggesting is that, by the same reasoning, no criterion of "marriage" is a "sound legal criterion", nor should be a criterion of a pluralistic secular government. And therefore government has no business dealing with "marriage".

"No criterion of marriage" is not a "sound legal criterion" in any circumstance unless you are proposing some sort of Theocracy where the state religion determines the criteria. Other than in a Theocracy your reasoning has no validity.

The state issues marriage certificates for both civil and religious marriages, therefore the state will have legal criteria for "marriage."

[Bill the Cat]

In other words, "justice". Ensuring equal justice for all citizens is what government is all about, I would have thought.

And it isn't at all just for the government to deny people the right to marry for financial benefit. To which, I have discovered that it NOT actually illegal. So that changes the nature of my argument.

There was a recent article on college students at UC Berkely who were marrying to get in-state tuition:

Source: http://affordanything.com/2011/05/23/tuition-marriage/

A marriage of convenience: no romance, no love, no sex, not even living together. You need to meet one time, get a marriage license, get married by a Justice of the Peace and then get a divorce after college is finished.

© Copyright Original Source

Sounds exactly the opposite of what you claimed was what the SCOTUS just decided marriage was all about.

[Starlight]

Perhaps you should pass a law against marriages of convenience then?
The article you cite above was written when same-sex marriage wasn't legalized, and it's advocating heterosexual marriages of convenience. Good luck trying to blame the gays for that one.

[Bill the Cat]

Perhaps you should pass a law against marriages of convenience then?
The article you cite above was written when same-sex marriage wasn't legalized, and it's advocating heterosexual marriages of convenience. Good luck trying to blame the gays for that one.

As I said, this changes things. I need to consider the implications of my research. According to the legal textbook "Family Law:The Essentials", the marriage for tuition CAN be annuled as a sham, so that is another piece of information I need to recalculate.

[shunyadragon]

We are talking about government sanction of marriage, so that is inconsequential to this discussion.

Yes it is relevant to the discussion, because it is those speaking from religious perspective that object to secular civil ceremony defining "marriage" to include homosexual couples. It is ok for each church or religion to have their own criteria and define "marriage" for performance of marriage ceremonies. The 'fundamental criteria' does indeed vary from church to church, and in the different religions, and should not determine the criteria for defining "marriage" in civil unions by the state.

The original question was 'What is Marriage now?' would depend on by which criteria one uses to define "marriage." Different cultures, churches and religions have defined marriage differently throughout history. Same sex unions in Rome were not outlawed until Constantine in ~340 AD. In the modern world many countries are considering civil unions of homosexuals as included in the definition of marriage or some equivalent.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

In the 20th and 21st centuries various types of same-sex unions have come to be legalized. As of March 2014 Same-sex marriage is currently legal in eleven European countries: Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, France, the United Kingdom (England, Wales and Scotland), [Sweden] and Luxembourg , Finland is currently in the process of legislation.

Other types of recognition for same-sex unions (civil unions or registered partnerships) are as of 2014 legal in twelve European countries: Andorra, Austria, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, (Isle of Man), (Jersey), Liechtenstein, Slovenia, Switzerland, the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), Malta and Croatia.

A referendum to change the Constitution of the Republic of Ireland to allow same sex marriage took place on 22 May 2015 and approved the proposal to add the following declaration to the Constitution: "marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.

© Copyright Original Source

[Joel]

"No criterion of marriage" is not a "sound legal criterion" in any circumstance unless you are proposing some sort of Theocracy where the state religion determines the criteria.

I can't make any sense of this sentence.
I was not trying to say that there is a thing called "No criterion of marriage" and that that thing is a "sound legal criterion".
Rather, I was saying that there does not exist any sound legal criterion for marriage (following the reasoning being discussed). And thus the state should have none. The state should not be declaring some people "married" and others "not married" at all.

In other words, "justice". Ensuring equal justice for all citizens is what government is all about, I would have thought.

Declaring some people "married" and other people "not married" and granting special legal privileges to those deemed "married" is the opposite of equal justice. Equal justice cannot coexist with state marriage licenses.

[shunyadragon]

I can't make any sense of this sentence.
I was not trying to say that there is a thing called "No criterion of marriage" and that that thing is a "sound legal criterion".

The response is very clear English in response to your statement. "No criterion of marriage" is not a "sound legal criterion" in any circumstance unless you are proposing some sort of Theocracy where the state religion determines the criteria.

Rather, I was saying that there does not exist any sound legal criterion for marriage (following the reasoning being discussed). And thus the state should have none. The state should not be declaring some people "married" and others "not married" at all.

This legal responsibility for legal criterion and the legal definition for marriage, because the state issues marriage licenses, and one form or another this has been the legal case for thousands of years.

Declaring some people "married" and other people "not married" and granting special legal privileges to those deemed "married" is the opposite of equal justice. Equal justice cannot coexist with state marriage licenses.

The existence of state marriage licenses is the legal basis for granting privileges such as tax rates and legal rights and responsibilities of parents for their children. Your concept of what is legal justice is rather bizzaro.

The state does not "declare" some people married. There is a legal basis for marriage by the state and laws governing who may marry thousands of years old.

Question what criteria do you propose for "marriage" and what is the basis for this criteria?

[Joel]

This legal responsibility for legal criterion and the legal definition for marriage, because the state issues marriage licenses, and one form or another this has been the legal case for thousands of years.
...There is a legal basis for marriage by the state and laws governing who may marry thousands of years old.

You say the state is using criteria that are thousands of years old; so what? Those criteria are all cultural or religious traditions and should be ejected in a pluralistic legal system, according to your reasoning above.

Question what criteria do you propose for "marriage" and what is the basis for this criteria?

There should be no legal "marriage" at all. (And therefore no criteria.) Instead of criteria distinguishing between persons, there should be equality before the law.