General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJustice Ginsburg Eviscerates The Case Against Marriage Equality In Just Five Sentences
" Same-sex couples) wouldnt be asking for this relief if the law of marriage was what it was a millennium ago. I mean, it wasnt possible. Same-sex unions would not have opted into the pattern of marriage, which was a relationship, a dominant and a subordinate relationship. Yes, it was marriage between a man and a woman, but the man decided where the couple would be domiciled; it was her obligation to follow him.
There was a change in the institution of marriage to make it egalitarian when it wasnt egalitarian. And same-sex unions wouldnt wouldnt fit into what marriage was once."
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/04/29/3652468/justice-ginsburg-eviscerates-case-marriage-equality-just-five-sentences/
Thank you, Justice Ginsburg!
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)want a war over this
shenmue
(38,506 posts)Hepburn
(21,054 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)I hope she ends up writing the majority opinion...
valerief
(53,235 posts)AnnieBW
(10,413 posts)I mean, my husband didn't buy me for two goats and a cow, nor was I divorced and sent back to my family in disgrace when I did not bear children. Meanwhile, my MIL has married twice since my FIL died in 1990 - and she was well past her child-bearing age when she did. Are these marriages less valid because they didn't produce children?
leftyladyfrommo
(18,866 posts)Outspoken and smart.
Well, actually I really like all the women on the court. I wish we had a couple more.
tclambert
(11,085 posts)When it was one man-one woman (or one man-multiple women), obviously the man owns his wife (or wives).