A Quote by Elena Kagan

Suppose a State said that, Because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55. Would that be constitutional?
Sometimes I think marriage licenses should be like driver's licenses. They expire after a number of years, and in order to keep going you have to renew. Wouldn't that be kind of genius? It would force you both to look at the relationship, and if it's not working, the marriage would expire so you could go on your merry way, or on the positive side of it, you could look at each other and say we really want to renew. What a way to keep it fresh!!
My personal feelings on marriage? Samuel Johnson once said that second marriages - although I could probably say this about any marriage - are about the triumph of hope over experience. I think that's true. I don't know that human beings were meant to mate for life or be monogamous. But, for me, the aspect of marriage that is troubling is that it's a contract that is governed by the state, and I don't want the state to have control over my personal affairs.
... fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there-because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don't think it should exist.
If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress's constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a 'same sex' marriage license issued in another state.
The Silly Putty-like malleability of the institution [marriage], in fact, is the only reason we still have the thing at all. Very few people... would accept marriage on it's thirteenth-century terms. Marriage survives, in other words, precisely because it evolves. (Though I suppose this would not be a very persuasive argument to those who probably also don't believe in evolution).
You're saying, no, state said two kinds of marriage; the full marriage, and then this sort of skim-milk marriage.
People do not have a constitutional right to be married any more than we could say that someone has a constitutional right to a driver's license. You either meet the requirements or you don't. In the case of marriage, homosexuals do not meet the requirements of marriage.
There is such pleasure in long-term marriage that I really would hate to be my age and not have had a long-term marriage. Remember, sustaining a pleasurable, long-term marriage takes effort, deliberateness and an intention to learn about one another. In other words, marriage is for grown-ups.
I do support a constitutional amendment on marriage between a man and a woman, but I would not be going into the states to overturn their state law.
While 45 of the 50 States have either a State constitutional amendment or a statute that preserves the current definition of marriage, left-wing activist judges and officials at the local levels have struck down State laws protecting marriage.
I do think it's smart to see a marriage as "a garden and a gardener who constantly swap roles." You really have to switch from one to another. Being the gardener would be the more active role in the situation. Being a garden would be more passive. You've got to be both the one who gets help and the one that's helping. That's the circulation in a couple. You should switch from one position to another. I think it's good to be always aware that love can fade. There's something I really like about that sentence. It's as if love should be seen as work...because it is.
Husbands and wives, if you guys don’t have a beautiful marriage, a loving marriage, a romantic marriage you are ruining your eeman! You have to have a marriage so awesome that you don’t have to look at the character of a movie or a play and say ‘i wish i had a marriage like this’, your marriage should be better than that because otherwise, Sheytan will come to each one of you and say ‘man i wonder, is there anything better out there, why am I stuck in this?’ Both husband and wife have to work hard to make their relationship work not for yourselves but for your eeman!
For me, it's sad to say, but I would probably have a spiritual marriage but not a legal marriage, because I think so much about marriage starts to become about finances. It has nothing to do with God or feelings or the romantic side of marriage. It's about who owns what, who gets what? So what's the point?
Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the procreation and education of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute in the highest degree to their parents' welfare.
Marriage enlarges the scene of our happiness and miseries. A marriage of love is pleasant; a marriage of interest, easy; and a marriage where both meet, happy. A happy marriage has in it all the pleasures of friendship, all the enjoyments of sense and reason, and, indeed, all the sweets of life.
Marriage is an ongoing, centuries-long social experiment that is mostly controlled by the individuals in the relationships who insist on determining what the relationship terms are going to be. And that's why the terms of marriage change with every century and decade. We're shaping it from the inside. Marriage endures because it evolves. Obviously it does. None of us would accept marriage on its 13th century terms, not even the most conservative people...
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!