Well, I know I'm probably a minority in saying this, but I'm disappointed - not because I don't think everyone should have access to the government rights attached to marriage, but because it seems our country doesn't actually want to fix problems at the root. What is the root problem? People on both sides of the debate agree (if given the option) that the government probably never should have messed with marriage, a…
Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules
551–560 of 1001 posts
Re: Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules
#552Well, I know I'm probably a minority in saying this, but I'm disappointed - not because I don't think everyone should have access to the government rights attached to marriage, but because it seems our country doesn't actually want to fix problems at the root. What is the root problem? People on both sides of the debate agree (if given the option) that the government probably never should have messed with marriage, a…
I agree, but that's just not going to happen. Besides, it's tom-ay-to/tom-ah-to.
Re: Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules
#553Re: Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules
#554Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm glad that my LBG friends can now marry anywhere. But damn, Scalia's counter opinion (and Roberts' opinion) strike me as well-considered and well-argued in the 2nd half of http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf . In brief, their view was that resolving this issue in the courts erodes the democratic process. Can anybody counter Scalia, and say why the issue of gay marriage couldn't wait to be re…
What happens when a member of a gay couple gets sick in a state that doesn't recognize gay marriages? What do gay couples do when they file their federal taxes?
Re: Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules
#555While this is excellent news for my gay and lesbian friends, I see no progress on polygamy. Which, unlike same-sex marriage, is an institution with deep roots both in America (the Mormons were forced to give up this sacrament as a condition of statehood) and in the majority of world cultures, where it ranges from condoned to celebrated. Without getting unduly personal, let's say that I have a stake in that question b…
I have no problem with polygamy, as long as it is a consensual relationship between all adults involved. The real problem is that government has gotten into the marriage business and it doesn't belong there. The issues you mentioned (child custody, hospital visitation, inheritance rights) really have nothing to do with marriage and should all be assignable without a government endorsed marital contract.
Smart folks have said that the reason homosexual marriage even became a thought was because of the transformation of marriage from a bond of ownership of man over woman to a shared partnership. A polygamous arrangement (as per the mormon church, not the polyamorous relationships of the hippies, etc) ends up with a hierarchy of power with one man controlling multiple wives, with the power to divorce, ruin, etc the others if they don't allow him to wed again.
I think an argument for polyamorous marriage could be made, but polygamy is essentially a raw deal for whoever isn't the hub of the marriage wheel (one man in the case of traditional mormonism, islam, etc.).
Re: Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules
#556Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a case of states violating the constitution of the united states. It's a pretty clear violation of equal protection. It's not up to the states to decide this. Rights of a minority should not be left to the democratic process.
If that's how the equal protection clause works, why was it necessary to pass the Civil Rights Act as a law or Woman's Sufferage as an amendment? Based on the state of civil rights at the time, it's clear that the founding fathers did not intend the constitution to provide universal equality for all peoples. I agree with this decision, but not because I think it's justifiable under the constitution. I see it as accep…
A constitutional amendment was necessary for women's suffrage because the constitution already spoke on the issue
Re: Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules
#557Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the opposite. You can be together whoever you want. What they mean, in this case, is the government recognition of your union. As the government need defined laws to operate... And why do the government need to recognize the union? To give them some rights that united people need. Like keeping important possessions (like a house), becoming responsible for kids, taking important medical decisions when the other p…
I understand that laws need definition, but why does a definition need governmental approval? Do we apply for a permit before we want to give birth to a child? Shouldn't it be the same basis as having a kid--that is, if you're going to marry, you are marrying, and no one is to have a say in that except realize that is fact? Last time I checked, there is no application to have a kid, and kids are defined in law for go…
Re: Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules
#558A sad day for our country, our highest court and much of our culture has succumbed to social insanity. For my part, I will never under any circumstances recognize by word or deed that any so-called marriage can be or has been established between two persons of the same sex. No government on earth has the power or authority to do that, anymore than a legislature could repeal the law of gravity or a judge could declare…
Re: Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules
#559Well, I know I'm probably a minority in saying this, but I'm disappointed - not because I don't think everyone should have access to the government rights attached to marriage, but because it seems our country doesn't actually want to fix problems at the root. What is the root problem? People on both sides of the debate agree (if given the option) that the government probably never should have messed with marriage, a…
Re: Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules
#560Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Can anybody counter Scalia, and say why the issue of gay marriage couldn't wait to be resolved by the states? For the same reason that slavery couldn't be resolved by the states. For the same reason that racism can't be resolved by the states. Because these things haven't gotten resolved by states. The United States of America, sadly, has a significant minority of people who Just Don't Get It, and there are enough…
Then why have the states at all? Why have a tenth amendment?