Breaking News: Supreme Court Has Chosen Not To Hear Any Of The 7 Marriage Equality Cases.

[Qball]

One, this is an issue about law, not culture.

Two, if we bring in culture, the millennials (who all can vote in 2016) overwhelmingly support this news.

Three, they outnumber the social con right.

Four, this is over.

I'd slightly disagree. Millennials support gay marriage insofar as they associate disagreement with it with the Christian right and homophobia. They look at the debate over gay marriage as being a referendum on homosexuality, and "who cares about people who are gay???", so thus, they "support" it. But, like you said, this is an issue about law, not culture.

I would also suggest you could polarize even the "millennials" by fully explaining that gay marriage isn't simply being "legalized", it's being declared the law by judges. It might be all well and good now, but let a Republican administration or Republican-appointed judge do something similar and suddenly they will get that pesky separation of powers doctrine actually has a purpose.

 

[Dana7360]

wonderful news for individual rights

Unless you are a baker or a photographer.

I've been a professional photographer for decades.

While weddings aren't what I usually do, I would very happily photograph a gay wedding.

Their money spends just the same as money from heterosexual couples.

I have worked with many homosexuals in the last 35 years. I don't care if a person is gay or not. It's none of my business and it has no bearing on whether I will work with anyone or not.

There are many jobs that I refuse to do. None of them ever involved homosexuals.

I wonder what the christian right would do if someone refused to work with them just because they're christian right or just because they were heterosexual.

I wouldn't be surprised if those christians screamed bloody murder that they were being discriminated.

Christians are federally protected from such discrimination. They object to gays being on equal protected footing.

They're very unAmerican.

It's very unAmerican to discriminate against people.

I can see that some people put their religion before our nation and being an American. Yet they are the same people who scream they're the true Americans and the only ones who love our nation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not when it is public.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One, this is an issue about law, not culture.

Two, if we bring in culture, the millennials (who all can vote in 2016) overwhelmingly support this news.

Three, they outnumber the social con right.

Four, this is over.

I'd slightly disagree. Millennials support gay marriage insofar as they associate disagreement with it with the Christian right and homophobia. They look at the debate over gay marriage as being a referendum on homosexuality, and "who cares about people who are gay???", so thus, they "support" it. But, like you said, this is an issue about law, not culture.

I would also suggest you could polarize even the "millennials" by fully explaining that gay marriage isn't simply being "legalized", it's being declared the law by judges. It might be all well and good now, but let a Republican administration or Republican-appointed judge do something similar and suddenly they will get that pesky separation of powers doctrine actually has a purpose.

You misunderstand millennials. The ones I knew is East Texas and western Louisiana, almost all church attenders, thought the anti gay marriage laws to be simply incomprehensible, along with prejudices against ageism, sexism, and racism.

They don't get it, and they won't support those positions. It has nothing to do with being anti-Christian. They simply disagree with the evangelical and fundamentalist positions on those issues.

 

[Dana7360]

wonderful news for individual rights

Unless you are a baker or a photographer.

I've been a professional photographer for decades.

While weddings aren't what I usually do, I would very happily photograph a gay wedding.

Their money spends just the same as money from heterosexual couples.

I have worked with many homosexuals in the last 35 years. I don't care if a person is gay or not. It's none of my business and it has no bearing on whether I will work with anyone or not.

There are many jobs that I refuse to do. None of them ever involved homosexuals.

I wonder what the christian right would do if someone refused to work with them just because they're christian right or just because they were heterosexual.

I wouldn't be surprised if those christians screamed bloody murder that they were being discriminated.

Well how lovely you're also a hater and a bigot. so jump off your high horse

Who do I hate?

I'm trying to get some people to put themselves in other people's shoes. How would they feel if they were discriminated just because they were christians or heterosexual?

Maybe if a person can see it from that perspective, as in the selfish perspective, then they can understand where homosexual people are coming from.

If you want our laws to sanction bigotry then our laws have to sanction ALL bigotry.

You can't pick and choose.

 

[Stephanie]

Why should I pay the same rate, when I produce future tax payers, then those that don't or won't?

Your future tax payers use up current resources like school busses, classrooms, etc.... which many of us will never use yet still pay for.

Have you ever gone to see a doctor? If you have, you have used the public school system.

Do you like to drive on roads, use a bridge or fly on an airplane? If so you you've used the public school system.

Just about everything you experience in life is because someone else went to school to learn to do it.

The internet you use to spew your hate was 100% created by tax dollars. By people who went to public schools.

You benefit from and use the public school system every day of your life.

you should try being a nice human being. maybe if you work on it someday you might not be such a snob people can't stand to be around

 

[JakeStarkey]

Did some research. The right-leaning Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, to be exact, may actually uphold the Ban. If it allows the same sex marriage, then Ginsburg stated that the Court will likely take on the case. If so, Sotomayor has at least a six to three majority, if not seven to two.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why should I pay the same rate, when I produce future tax payers, then those that don't or won't?

Your future tax payers use up current resources like school busses, classrooms, etc.... which many of us will never use yet still pay for.

Have you ever gone to see a doctor? If you have, you have used the public school system.

Do you like to drive on roads, use a bridge or fly on an airplane? If so you you've used the public school system.

Just about everything you experience in life is because someone else went to school to learn to do it.

The internet you use to spew your hate was 100% created by tax dollars. By people who went to public schools.

You benefit from and use the public school system every day of your life.

you should try being a nice human being. maybe if you work on it someday you might not be such a snob people can't stand to be around

Steph, honey, that is your mirror to which you are talking. And, yes, take your advice.

 

[Stephanie]

ok, suggestions are coming in what to do over all this. here's one I ran across

Two things these businesses should start doing immediately:
1. Start recording all transactions with customers yourselves.
2. DO NOT commit to any engagement while the customer is on the premises. Tell them that they will receive a letter the next business day regarding your availability (we have to check our calendar before we can give you an answer). All refusals of service should not be done in person and no reason should be given other than “schedule doesn’t permit that date or time”.

this was another comment about this from an article on it here:
Supreme Court declines to hear same-sex marriage cases making it legal in five new states Hot Air
the truly slippery slope is this:
if the State has no controlling interest (as decided by the Supremes) in who gets married (man/woman, man/man, woman/woman and any other non-cis-centric designations you wish to imagine) … then what is the validity of restricting it to just 2 people? why not 3? 4? any number?
why be arbitrary with only 2 people being “married”?

 

[Czernobog]

Okay. I like that idea. It encourages adoption. I mean, I assume that your intention was not to exclude heterosexuals who are impotent, sterile, or have had permanent sterilization surgeries, was it?

Same sex couples are sterile by their nature, but can use invitro or adopt. Those that can't, and want the deduction, and judged competent would get the deduction

Okay. I'm okay with this. Although, I think, as someone already pointed out, we already do this. That's kinda what the Child Tax Credit is...

That ends when the child leaves. It should not.

Why should I pay the same rate, when I produce future tax payers, then those that don't or won't?

Equity brother, equity

Hmmm...I don't know about that. I mean the whole point of the tax credit is supposed to be about offsetting the cost of raising that "future tax payer". Just like the marriage deduction is to offset the costs of starting a family. We don't really have any individual tax breaks that are meant to be rewards simply for the sake of rewards. I mean we do have some corporate tax breaks that are for that purpose, but those are meant to be economic incentives. To my knowledge we don't have any personal tax breaks that are designed like that.

It's seems times have changed.

Why should I, who supplies the nurses and health care workers needed to care for others who do not supply the same for me, pay at the same rate?

Seems highly unfair brother

Okay...ummm...I have absolutely no clue what you're babbling on about...

 

[Dana7360]

TOLERANCE

Not acceptance.

Is it so hard to tolerate someone else? Must we all conform to a narrow template of morality? Who arbitrates this morality? Used to be Queen Victoria, but that was under the aegis of the throne in Great Britain. But in America?

The government is mandating that two consenting adults without a blood relationship may avail themselves of the benefits and protections of the marriage contract.

Why do you have a problem with that? Will same sex marriage ruin your marriage?

You are just a bigot whose world is shrinking. Tough.

Looks like my post went over your head, too. Tolerance means not interfering. Forced acquiescence is interference. Homos want to force their irrelevant behavior onto others. That is the opposite of tolerance.

I cannot see any correlation between marriage equality and anyone force(ing) their irrelevant behavior onto others. Do heterosexual married couples 'force' their lives upon yours?

When they create children they have. On those children by their mere existence and others in the sense that new people exist to affect society. Homos cannot create children therefore no need to involve the government or others.

I know several homosexual women who became pregnant and gave birth to a child.

All they need is sperm. A sperm bank can provide that. Or a male friend can.

The reproductive organs in homosexual women work the exact same way as they do in heterosexual women.

As I can well attest. I've used donated sperm from a friend and IVF. Everything worked just fine. Five healthy babies.

That's wonderful.

Wow 5 new lives!

You're truly very blessed.

If those 5 are still small, enjoy it now. My husband and I have been having a debate on whether it was a good idea to teach our child how to talk or not. When they get to the teen years they have a LOT to say. Whether you like to or not. LOL.

But it's very incredible to watch that little baby grow to become a strong and independent adult right before your eyes in just 18 short years.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

That has nothing to do with anything I posted. Re-read and try again.

I am asking about your concept of 'forced acquiescence'. Please clarify.

When the government mandates tax breaks and subsidies and equal footing for adoption that is forced acquiescence. Tolerance is accepting homos for who they are and not interfering their own personal choices. That is all fine. But forcing others to grant privileges to homos in the name of their personal choices is forced acquiescence. It is fascism.

No, it's equality. Tax breaks are granted to parents, married couples, the uber wealthy and corporations leaving the country. Now, which of these groups forced acquiescence upon you? The marriage license is simply that. A marriage license. It's not a heterosexual license, nor is it a homosexual license. The rights, privileges and protections provided apply to each and every license.

Discriminating because of NO SOUND REASON WHATEVER is, indeed Fascism.

Any tax break afforded is a subsidy paid by the rest of the taxpayers. Using and objectionable tax break as rationale to defend and equally objectionable tax break doesn't defend either.
Granting tax breaks created with the intention of aiding child rearing to homo couples (and thereby forcing the subsidization of homo marriages), who by their very nature cannot procreate, is a fascist imposition.
There is no need to give homo marriage legal status. They can't procreate as can hetero couples. That is the only and most necessary distinction. There is no denying rights or any undue discrimination.

Moron...we get the tax breaks for the kids regardless of whether we are married or not.

Dumbass, homos can't have kids together.

 

[Czernobog]

Oh! And martybegan, I'm still waiting for you to tell me what marriage equality is making you do now that you didn't have to do before.

It's not what it does not me, its what it does to the Republic when it is enforced by judicial fiat and not through the actions of State Legislatures changing the laws that establish the marriage contract.

Except that isn't what happened. It was you guys who all went rushing to your state legislatures to change the marriage laws to include a restriction - "one man, one woman" - that was never there before, because you didn't like those icky icky fags marrying each other. All the courts have done is said, "Nope. You don't get to change the law just because you don't like who happens to be taking advantage of it,"

Also, "The Republic" isn't a person. Your claim was that we force people to behave according to our beliefs. That means that we are actually forcing people to behave differently than they were before. So, either give us an example of how "we" are doing that, or feel free to find a different argument - preferably one that isn't quite so retarded.

The restriction was always implied, it had to be codified because of you assholes. You then went to courts and got them to create a "right" out of thin air, and violated the prerogatives of the state legislatures.

When government forces you to "bake or go out of business" you are forcing your beliefs on others. That is the only example one needs.

and blacks used to be 3/5 of a person and women didn't have the vote... and jim crow was legal...

and?

You keep wrongly equating government discrimination with private discrimination.

yeah, I notice you just skipped right over my response to you martybegan. Why is it that? Is it easier to just pretend that I didn't reply than to try to argue against reason, and logic?

 

[Czernobog]

wonderful news for individual rights

No. It's a ruling against rights and freedom.
The gov mandating by fascist decree that all people must acknowledge and acquiesce to irrelevant kinky sex between non-procreative adults is an infringement upon rights and freedom. Not even a religious thing. Just basic logic. Something that eludes most democrats and lefties.

So, just to clarify, it is your contention that the only people who should be allowed to marry are those who can, and will, procreate? A simple yes, or no will suffice.

 

[RKMBrown]

One, this is an issue about law, not culture.

Two, if we bring in culture, the millennials (who all can vote in 2016) overwhelmingly support this news.

Three, they outnumber the social con right.

Four, this is over.

Your are conflating the bigoted religious folk on the left and right with some sort of whimsical win by the left. In short... why don't you go play with yourself.

You continue to prove you don't have a clue. The issue is over.

The issue will be over when gays can get married in all states.. and the laws discriminating against gays are thrown out. You are calling this to early.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Should my widowed mother be permitted to apply for a marriage license at age 81?

What does that mean?

If procreation is seen as a requirement for a marriage license, why does that standard get ignored when the elderly wed?

OK so the lifetime tax deduction is available to heterosexuals and homosexuals.


Is it based in the individual testing positive for fertility. In other words the government makes you go to the doctor have a test and submit the medical results?

Or is it based on performance?

Now for women it's pretty easy to determine performance, but for men - will they need to get a get a DNA test to prove that they qualify because they produced off spring or do we just go with the name on the birth certificate? So a woman can go out and screw around and the infertile Dad gets credit?



Share with us specifically how this brilliant idea is going to work?



>>>>

Child in home = credit

Child grows to maturity = credit

Simple nuff?

So it's performance based and not fertility based.

You didn't answer the question about the Dad though, do we just assume who the biological father is or is proof required?




So you loose the credit if the child dies before the age of 18?

But at the age of 18 then poof the tax credit is for the rest of your life?



>>>>

Id let congress handle the details ( I'm far to busy trying to figure out who the hells gonna make the NCAA playoffs), but in my opinion. The household gets the deduction.

In cases of adoption or invitro, and the household breaks apart, the deduction is applied 50/50 to the parents that were within the household when the child is brought home.

But you said "Child grows to maturity = credit".

So they get the tax credit at birth and raising the child to maturity isn't a factor?



>>>>

WW, if a child dies before maturity, how is the credit currently handled? Got it?

A credit (does not have to be the current child credit), should apply to those that survive to maturity and creates additional tax revenue.

Humming to my self the big hit. A brave new worlddddddddddd

No I don't "got it". Current tax credits last until they reach adulthood, you are one one that wants a new permanent tax credit for procreating.

You said that those that produce children under YOUR new plan would receive a tax credit forever (well as long as they are alive). Then you said "Child in home = credit, Child grows to maturity = credit" which changes things.

Either they get your tax credit for as long as they live once they have a child or they perpetual tax credit is dependent on their reaching the age of maturity.


Which is it?


>>>>

 

[Czernobog]

wonderful news for individual rights

No. It's a ruling against rights and freedom.
The gov mandating by fascist decree that all people must acknowledge and acquiesce to irrelevant kinky sex between non-procreative adults is an infringement upon rights and freedom. Not even a religious thing. Just basic logic. Something that eludes most democrats and lefties.

TOLERANCE

Not acceptance.

Is it so hard to tolerate someone else? Must we all conform to a narrow template of morality? Who arbitrates this morality? Used to be Queen Victoria, but that was under the aegis of the throne in Great Britain. But in America?

The government is mandating that two consenting adults without a blood relationship may avail themselves of the benefits and protections of the marriage contract.

Why do you have a problem with that? Will same sex marriage ruin your marriage?

You are just a bigot whose world is shrinking. Tough.

Looks like my post went over your head, too. Tolerance means not interfering. Forced acquiescence is interference. Homos want to force their irrelevant behavior onto others. That is the opposite of tolerance.

Who, eaxctly, are they "forcing their behavior" onto, and in what manner, specifically?

 

[bodecea]

Why should I pay the same rate, when I produce future tax payers, then those that don't or won't?

Your future tax payers use up current resources like school busses, classrooms, etc.... which many of us will never use yet still pay for.

Have you ever gone to see a doctor? If you have, you have used the public school system.

Do you like to drive on roads, use a bridge or fly on an airplane? If so you you've used the public school system.

Just about everything you experience in life is because someone else went to school to learn to do it.

The internet you use to spew your hate was 100% created by tax dollars. By people who went to public schools.

You benefit from and use the public school system every day of your life.

you should try being a nice human being. maybe if you work on it someday you might not be such a snob people can't stand to be around

Well...isn't that an Ironic Post.

 

[novasteve]

Now incest an polygamy in those states have to legal otherwise the "marriage equality" people are bigots and lying.

 

[Czernobog]

I live in Virginia. Our local Clerk of Court office says that it won't issue any marriage licenses for same sex couples until it receives clarification of the law/direction from Richmond requiring them to do so since the current statutes do not authorize it. This Dillon Rule stuff will have to be sorted out.

I don't see how that applies. Your local Clerk of Court is demanding "clarification" of a law that has already been clarified. The court has rolled back the "between one man, and one woman" clause that was added to the law. Insisting that the Clerk of Court has no "authority" to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples only works if that same clerk is also insisting that they do not have the authority to issue marriage licenses to any couple. Otherwise all it is is a delaying tactic to avoid having to abide by the ruling of the court.