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

[bigrebnc1775]

Gay marriage advocates are so wrapped up in their single issue they cant see the damage this kind of judicial interventionism does to our whole system. I'm sure most would disagree, as I do, with the court's ruling on Citizens United.

Yes, we do disagree with the courts ruling on Citizens United...what does that have to do with marriage equality rulings (which, by the way, did not come from the SCOTUS, but dozens of lower and Federal District courts)

Tell us, precisely, what "damage" Loving v Virginia did to our "whole system". Be specific.

Loving vs VA is not the same if it was the supreme court would have ruled on it.

Care to explain what you mean by that? Surely you're not suggesting that the ruling in Loving v Virginia is invalidated because the Supreme Court saw no reason to hear the state's appeal.

Because dumb fuck there is no such thing as a constitution protected right to gay marriage. If it was the supreme court would have ruled on it. DUMB ASS.

Well, the Courts disagree with you, under the 14th amendment's right to equal protection under the law. So, you can keep stomping your feet, and screaming it's not fair, all you like. However, while you're standing around acting like a dumb ass, the gays will just keep right on going to the courts, getting marriage licenses, and doing what the courts have told them they have every right to do.

Guess who wins.

The Supreme court said nothing on the subject other than it was a state issue.
But it can't be a state issue as long as the federal court justice ruled on it.
You are dismissed dumb ass.

 

[Czernobog]

Yes, you are correct. The RCC performing wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples, or not as the case were, has nothing to do with equality. You are conflating private association with the public associations of civil liberties.

Except that I am not. The RCC, invested with the power of the state to marry people, is an actor of the state.
Thus, inequality.

Except they're not. They are a private Christian organization which is under no obligation to follow public accommodation rules. They are not, nor have they ever been, considered agents for the state. In fact, the first amendment prohibits the State from recognizing them as agents of the State.

Dear Czernobog: If people do not agree with the state authorities having to accommodate same sex couples within marriage,
do you agree with the idea of removing marriage from the state altogether and just keeping it a private ceremony for churches?

Do you believe in making the state involvement purely neutral in writing estate and custody contracts, as with civil unions,
for people of any and all beliefs, and keep marriage out of the state to prevent from forcing a policy on people not everyone believes in.

Not at all. This is just a small sample of all of the laws, policies, and procedures of individual industries that have privileges, rights, and responsibilities of marriage:

Tax Benefits

• Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
• Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Estate Planning Benefits

• Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
• Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
• Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
• Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.

Government Benefits

• Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
• Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
• Receiving public assistance benefits.

Employment Benefits

• Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
• Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
• Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
• Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits

• Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
• Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits

• Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
• Making burial or other final arrangements.

Family Benefits

• Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
• Applying for joint foster care rights.
• Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
• Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Housing Benefits

• Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
• Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Consumer Benefits

• Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
• Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
• Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Other Legal Benefits and Protections

• Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
• Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
• Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
• Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
• Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
• Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

You cannot possibly be suggesting that it would be easier, and "more equitable" to force all of those laws, and policies, and more, to be changed, then it would be to simply acknowledge same sex marriages.

\
Each of these areas should be examined if the SC wants to legalize gay "marriage".....

There should be NO discrimination against singles regarding tax law for example, if they are going to make this a "right".

No they shouldn't. Because a single spouse is a single spouse. That is the point. Same-sex marriage does not fundamentally change how any of those laws are applied. Hell, I should even go so far as to say that, should someone come forward demanding it, incestuous marriage would be easier to legalize, as it still would not fundamentally alter the meanings of the terms of any of those laws, and policies.

Polygamy, on the other hand, would fundamentally change those laws, and policies, as it would add a whole extra person to the social contract. This would have to be dealt with. So, sorry, your argument simply doesn't stand.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think you missed the point, which wasn't so much a point but a question of your understanding.
Strauight couples can be married in the RCC.
Sane-sex couple cannot because the RCC will not marry them.
Thus, inequality.
Since the state cannot force the RCC to marry same-sex couple, you shall not see 100% equallity.
You recognize ths, correct?

Actually the point is that you are creating a red herring by misrepresenting what equality is concerned with.
You recognize this correct?

So, your answer to my question must be "no".

Yes, you are correct. The RCC performing wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples, or not as the case were, has nothing to do with equality. You are conflating private association with the public associations of civil liberties.

Except that I am not. The RCC, invested with the power of the state to marry people, is an actor of the state.
Thus, inequality.

Except they're not. They are a private Christian organization which is under no obligation to follow public accommodation rules. They are not, nor have they ever been, considered agents for the state. In fact, the first amendment prohibits the State from recognizing them as agents of the State.

Why then does the state regognize marriages performed by clergy of the RCC?
Answer: the state specifically vests them with the power to do so. Thus, actors of the state.
And so... you shall not see 100% equality, because the state cannot force the RCC to solemnize same-sex marriages.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The state cannot violate a church's right to marry whom it will and turn away those that it won't, because it is a matter of private association.

Such that is a false comparison to right of civil liberties that everyone else has.

To help you again: the issue is about who can get married, not which institution marries or not marries people.

 

[Czernobog]

Yes, we do disagree with the courts ruling on Citizens United...what does that have to do with marriage equality rulings (which, by the way, did not come from the SCOTUS, but dozens of lower and Federal District courts)

Tell us, precisely, what "damage" Loving v Virginia did to our "whole system". Be specific.

Loving vs VA is not the same if it was the supreme court would have ruled on it.

Care to explain what you mean by that? Surely you're not suggesting that the ruling in Loving v Virginia is invalidated because the Supreme Court saw no reason to hear the state's appeal.

Because dumb fuck there is no such thing as a constitution protected right to gay marriage. If it was the supreme court would have ruled on it. DUMB ASS.

Well, the Courts disagree with you, under the 14th amendment's right to equal protection under the law. So, you can keep stomping your feet, and screaming it's not fair, all you like. However, while you're standing around acting like a dumb ass, the gays will just keep right on going to the courts, getting marriage licenses, and doing what the courts have told them they have every right to do.

Guess who wins.

The Supreme court said nothing on the subject other than it was a state issue.

Really? Please cite that claim.

 

[Czernobog]

Actually the point is that you are creating a red herring by misrepresenting what equality is concerned with.
You recognize this correct?

So, your answer to my question must be "no".

Yes, you are correct. The RCC performing wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples, or not as the case were, has nothing to do with equality. You are conflating private association with the public associations of civil liberties.

Except that I am not. The RCC, invested with the power of the state to marry people, is an actor of the state.
Thus, inequality.

Except they're not. They are a private Christian organization which is under no obligation to follow public accommodation rules. They are not, nor have they ever been, considered agents for the state. In fact, the first amendment prohibits the State from recognizing them as agents of the State.

Why then does the state regognize marriages performed by clergy of the RCC?
Answer: the state specifically vests them with the power to do so. Thus, actors of the state.
And so... you shall not see 100% equality, because the state cannot force the RCC to solemnize same-sex marriages.

No it doesn't. The state vests anyone with an ordination with the power to perform marriage. You can get your ordination online, in five minutes, and you can marry, and bury. Wanna try again?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So, your answer to my question must be "no".

Yes, you are correct. The RCC performing wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples, or not as the case were, has nothing to do with equality. You are conflating private association with the public associations of civil liberties.

Except that I am not. The RCC, invested with the power of the state to marry people, is an actor of the state.
Thus, inequality.

Except they're not. They are a private Christian organization which is under no obligation to follow public accommodation rules. They are not, nor have they ever been, considered agents for the state. In fact, the first amendment prohibits the State from recognizing them as agents of the State.

Why then does the state regognize marriages performed by clergy of the RCC?
Answer: the state specifically vests them with the power to do so. Thus, actors of the state.
And so... you shall not see 100% equality, because the state cannot force the RCC to solemnize same-sex marriages.

No it doesn't. The state vests anyone with an ordination with the power to perform marriage. You can get your ordination online, in five minutes, and you can marry, and bury. Wanna try again?

There's no need for me to try again as noithing said here negates my point.
You seek 100% equality. You shall not see it for the reason noted above.

 

[Czernobog]

Yes, you are correct. The RCC performing wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples, or not as the case were, has nothing to do with equality. You are conflating private association with the public associations of civil liberties.

Except that I am not. The RCC, invested with the power of the state to marry people, is an actor of the state.
Thus, inequality.

Except they're not. They are a private Christian organization which is under no obligation to follow public accommodation rules. They are not, nor have they ever been, considered agents for the state. In fact, the first amendment prohibits the State from recognizing them as agents of the State.

Why then does the state regognize marriages performed by clergy of the RCC?
Answer: the state specifically vests them with the power to do so. Thus, actors of the state.
And so... you shall not see 100% equality, because the state cannot force the RCC to solemnize same-sex marriages.

No it doesn't. The state vests anyone with an ordination with the power to perform marriage. You can get your ordination online, in five minutes, and you can marry, and bury. Wanna try again?

There's no need for me to try again as noithing said here negates my point.
You seek 100% equality. You shall not see it for the reason noted above.

Except that the reason you state is wrong. As much as you would like to create this red herring, it simply does not exist. Churches are not agents of the state.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Loving vs VA is not the same if it was the supreme court would have ruled on it.

Care to explain what you mean by that? Surely you're not suggesting that the ruling in Loving v Virginia is invalidated because the Supreme Court saw no reason to hear the state's appeal.

Because dumb fuck there is no such thing as a constitution protected right to gay marriage. If it was the supreme court would have ruled on it. DUMB ASS.

Well, the Courts disagree with you, under the 14th amendment's right to equal protection under the law. So, you can keep stomping your feet, and screaming it's not fair, all you like. However, while you're standing around acting like a dumb ass, the gays will just keep right on going to the courts, getting marriage licenses, and doing what the courts have told them they have every right to do.

Guess who wins.

The Supreme court said nothing on the subject other than it was a state issue.

Really? Please cite that claim.

Why do I have to site something that is so god damn obvious? Did the supreme court make a ruling?

 

[Czernobog]

Care to explain what you mean by that? Surely you're not suggesting that the ruling in Loving v Virginia is invalidated because the Supreme Court saw no reason to hear the state's appeal.

Because dumb fuck there is no such thing as a constitution protected right to gay marriage. If it was the supreme court would have ruled on it. DUMB ASS.

Well, the Courts disagree with you, under the 14th amendment's right to equal protection under the law. So, you can keep stomping your feet, and screaming it's not fair, all you like. However, while you're standing around acting like a dumb ass, the gays will just keep right on going to the courts, getting marriage licenses, and doing what the courts have told them they have every right to do.

Guess who wins.

The Supreme court said nothing on the subject other than it was a state issue.

Really? Please cite that claim.

Why do I have to site something that is so god damn obvious? Did the supreme court make a ruling?

No. The Federal Circuit Court did. Which the Supreme Court so no reason to reverse. So, the last ruling that the court system made was that this is not a state issue.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Because dumb fuck there is no such thing as a constitution protected right to gay marriage. If it was the supreme court would have ruled on it. DUMB ASS.

Well, the Courts disagree with you, under the 14th amendment's right to equal protection under the law. So, you can keep stomping your feet, and screaming it's not fair, all you like. However, while you're standing around acting like a dumb ass, the gays will just keep right on going to the courts, getting marriage licenses, and doing what the courts have told them they have every right to do.

Guess who wins.

The Supreme court said nothing on the subject other than it was a state issue.

Really? Please cite that claim.

Why do I have to site something that is so god damn obvious? Did the supreme court make a ruling?

No. The Federal Circuit Court did. Which the Supreme Court so no reason to reverse. So, the last ruling that the court system made was that this is not a state issue.

And the Supreme court said nothing it has to pass the supreme court for it to be considered constitutional or not. Not a lower court not a court of appeals the SUPREME COURT.
Dumb ass

 

[dcraelin]

Except that I am not. The RCC, invested with the power of the state to marry people, is an actor of the state.
Thus, inequality.

Except they're not. They are a private Christian organization which is under no obligation to follow public accommodation rules. They are not, nor have they ever been, considered agents for the state. In fact, the first amendment prohibits the State from recognizing them as agents of the State.

Dear Czernobog: If people do not agree with the state authorities having to accommodate same sex couples within marriage,
do you agree with the idea of removing marriage from the state altogether and just keeping it a private ceremony for churches?

Do you believe in making the state involvement purely neutral in writing estate and custody contracts, as with civil unions,
for people of any and all beliefs, and keep marriage out of the state to prevent from forcing a policy on people not everyone believes in.

Not at all. This is just a small sample of all of the laws, policies, and procedures of individual industries that have privileges, rights, and responsibilities of marriage:

Tax Benefits

• Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
• Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Estate Planning Benefits

• Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
• Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
• Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
• Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.

Government Benefits

• Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
• Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
• Receiving public assistance benefits.

Employment Benefits

• Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
• Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
• Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
• Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits

• Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
• Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits

• Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
• Making burial or other final arrangements.

Family Benefits

• Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
• Applying for joint foster care rights.
• Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
• Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Housing Benefits

• Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
• Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Consumer Benefits

• Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
• Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
• Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Other Legal Benefits and Protections

• Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
• Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
• Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
• Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
• Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
• Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

You cannot possibly be suggesting that it would be easier, and "more equitable" to force all of those laws, and policies, and more, to be changed, then it would be to simply acknowledge same sex marriages.

\
Each of these areas should be examined if the SC wants to legalize gay "marriage".....

There should be NO discrimination against singles regarding tax law for example, if they are going to make this a "right".

No they shouldn't. Because a single spouse is a single spouse. That is the point. Same-sex marriage does not fundamentally change how any of those laws are applied. Hell, I should even go so far as to say that, should someone come forward demanding it, incestuous marriage would be easier to legalize, as it still would not fundamentally alter the meanings of the terms of any of those laws, and policies.

Polygamy, on the other hand, would fundamentally change those laws, and policies, as it would add a whole extra person to the social contract. This would have to be dealt with. So, sorry, your argument simply doesn't stand.

A single SPOUSE, what in the hell are you talking about.............and I said nothing about polygamy......tho I believe even some gay-marriage advocates are admitting that their approach would legalize that aspect. A prominent gay-marriage advocate aided the lawsuit of a polygamist.

If you believe everyone should be treated equally then there should not be different tax laws based on a persons marital status alone.

 

[Czernobog]

Well, the Courts disagree with you, under the 14th amendment's right to equal protection under the law. So, you can keep stomping your feet, and screaming it's not fair, all you like. However, while you're standing around acting like a dumb ass, the gays will just keep right on going to the courts, getting marriage licenses, and doing what the courts have told them they have every right to do.

Guess who wins.

The Supreme court said nothing on the subject other than it was a state issue.

Really? Please cite that claim.

Why do I have to site something that is so god damn obvious? Did the supreme court make a ruling?

No. The Federal Circuit Court did. Which the Supreme Court so no reason to reverse. So, the last ruling that the court system made was that this is not a state issue.

And the Supreme court said nothing it has to pass the supreme court for it to be considered constitutional or not. Not a lower court not a court of appeals the SUPREME COURT.
Dumb ass

No, it doesn't. You really are completely clueless about how our judicial system works, aren't you. the only reason that the Supreme Court feels the need to get involved in a case is if they feel one of the lower federal courts was wrong. Guess what? They didn't in this case.

But, like I said, you keep throwing your temper tantrums, calling everyone dumbass, and insisting on how wrong it is for the fags to be able to get married. In the meantime,. the homosexuals will just keep ignoring you, going to the court houses, getting their marriage licenses, and doing what the Federal Courts told them they had every right to do.

Guess who wins.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Supreme court said nothing on the subject other than it was a state issue.

Really? Please cite that claim.

Why do I have to site something that is so god damn obvious? Did the supreme court make a ruling?

No. The Federal Circuit Court did. Which the Supreme Court so no reason to reverse. So, the last ruling that the court system made was that this is not a state issue.

And the Supreme court said nothing it has to pass the supreme court for it to be considered constitutional or not. Not a lower court not a court of appeals the SUPREME COURT.
Dumb ass

No, it doesn't. You really are completely clueless about how our judicial system works, aren't you. the only reason that the Supreme Court feels the need to get involved in a case is if they feel one of the lower federal courts was wrong. Guess what? They didn't in this case.

But, like I said, you keep throwing your temper tantrums, calling everyone dumbass, and insisting on how wrong it is for the fags to be able to get married. In the meantime,. the homosexuals will just keep ignoring you, going to the court houses, getting their marriage licenses, and doing what the Federal Courts told them they had every right to do.

Guess who wins.

Dumb ass
The Supreme Court on Monday turned away seven same-sex marriage cases in five states, refusing for now to take up the basic question of whether same-sex couples have a right to marriage.

Supreme Court turns away same-sex marriage cases - CBS News

 

[Czernobog]

Except they're not. They are a private Christian organization which is under no obligation to follow public accommodation rules. They are not, nor have they ever been, considered agents for the state. In fact, the first amendment prohibits the State from recognizing them as agents of the State.

Dear Czernobog: If people do not agree with the state authorities having to accommodate same sex couples within marriage,
do you agree with the idea of removing marriage from the state altogether and just keeping it a private ceremony for churches?

Do you believe in making the state involvement purely neutral in writing estate and custody contracts, as with civil unions,
for people of any and all beliefs, and keep marriage out of the state to prevent from forcing a policy on people not everyone believes in.

Not at all. This is just a small sample of all of the laws, policies, and procedures of individual industries that have privileges, rights, and responsibilities of marriage:

Tax Benefits

• Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
• Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Estate Planning Benefits

• Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
• Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
• Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
• Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.

Government Benefits

• Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
• Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
• Receiving public assistance benefits.

Employment Benefits

• Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
• Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
• Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
• Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits

• Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
• Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits

• Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
• Making burial or other final arrangements.

Family Benefits

• Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
• Applying for joint foster care rights.
• Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
• Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Housing Benefits

• Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
• Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Consumer Benefits

• Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
• Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
• Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Other Legal Benefits and Protections

• Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
• Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
• Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
• Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
• Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
• Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

You cannot possibly be suggesting that it would be easier, and "more equitable" to force all of those laws, and policies, and more, to be changed, then it would be to simply acknowledge same sex marriages.

\
Each of these areas should be examined if the SC wants to legalize gay "marriage".....

There should be NO discrimination against singles regarding tax law for example, if they are going to make this a "right".

No they shouldn't. Because a single spouse is a single spouse. That is the point. Same-sex marriage does not fundamentally change how any of those laws are applied. Hell, I should even go so far as to say that, should someone come forward demanding it, incestuous marriage would be easier to legalize, as it still would not fundamentally alter the meanings of the terms of any of those laws, and policies.

Polygamy, on the other hand, would fundamentally change those laws, and policies, as it would add a whole extra person to the social contract. This would have to be dealt with. So, sorry, your argument simply doesn't stand.

A single SPOUSE, what in the hell are you talking about.............and I said nothing about polygamy......tho I believe even some gay-marriage advocates are admitting that their approach would legalize that aspect. A prominent gay-marriage advocate aided the lawsuit of a polygamist.

If you believe everyone should be treated equally then there should not be different tax laws based on a persons marital status alone.

Sorry. I got comfuzzled. I'm basically having three different debates on this over two different threads, and got my arguments confused.

As to your comment, I suppose part of the problem is my fault. You get that nothing on that list is a "right", correct? Those are the benefits of marriage. The only "right" in question is, and has always been, that of marriage - specifically the right to marry the person of your own choosing, with no restriction.

 

[Czernobog]

Really? Please cite that claim.

Why do I have to site something that is so god damn obvious? Did the supreme court make a ruling?

No. The Federal Circuit Court did. Which the Supreme Court so no reason to reverse. So, the last ruling that the court system made was that this is not a state issue.

And the Supreme court said nothing it has to pass the supreme court for it to be considered constitutional or not. Not a lower court not a court of appeals the SUPREME COURT.
Dumb ass

No, it doesn't. You really are completely clueless about how our judicial system works, aren't you. the only reason that the Supreme Court feels the need to get involved in a case is if they feel one of the lower federal courts was wrong. Guess what? They didn't in this case.

But, like I said, you keep throwing your temper tantrums, calling everyone dumbass, and insisting on how wrong it is for the fags to be able to get married. In the meantime,. the homosexuals will just keep ignoring you, going to the court houses, getting their marriage licenses, and doing what the Federal Courts told them they had every right to do.

Guess who wins.

Dumb ass
The Supreme Court on Monday turned away seven same-sex marriage cases in five states, refusing for now to take up the basic question of whether same-sex couples have a right to marriage.

Supreme Court turns away same-sex marriage cases - CBS News

Which caused what to happen in regards to the rulings that had already been handed down in those cases by the lower Federal Courts?
Dumb ass

From your own article:

While the decision is a setback for the gay rights movement's goal of achieving marriage equality nationwide, it does allow the lower court rulings in those five states to stand -- all in favor of marriage equality. That means same-sex couples in Indiana, Wisconsin, Utah, Oklahoma, and Virginia will be able to get married.

The decision also leaves in place rulings from the Fourth, Seventh and Tenth Circuits, meaning same-sex marriage will soon be allowed in West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming.

Once same-sex marriage is allowed in those states, it will be legal in 30 states and the District of Columbia.​

In other words, the ruling finds that it is not a state issue, and will affect states that were not part of the seven cases that the Supreme Court passed on.

 

[dcraelin]

[QUOTE="Czernobog, post: 9954837, member: 51730"]

Dear Czernobog: If people do not agree with the state authorities having to accommodate same sex couples within marriage,
do you agree with the idea of removing marriage from the state altogether and just keeping it a private ceremony for churches?

Do you believe in making the state involvement purely neutral in writing estate and custody contracts, as with civil unions,
for people of any and all beliefs, and keep marriage out of the state to prevent from forcing a policy on people not everyone believes in.

Not at all. This is just a small sample of all of the laws, policies, and procedures of individual industries that have privileges, rights, and responsibilities of marriage:

Tax Benefits

• Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
• Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Estate Planning Benefits

• Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
• Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
• Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
• Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.

Government Benefits

• Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
• Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
• Receiving public assistance benefits.

Employment Benefits

• Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
• Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
• Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
• Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits

• Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
• Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits

• Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
• Making burial or other final arrangements.

Family Benefits

• Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
• Applying for joint foster care rights.
• Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
• Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Housing Benefits

• Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
• Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Consumer Benefits

• Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
• Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
• Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Other Legal Benefits and Protections

• Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
• Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
• Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
• Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
• Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
• Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

You cannot possibly be suggesting that it would be easier, and "more equitable" to force all of those laws, and policies, and more, to be changed, then it would be to simply acknowledge same sex marriages.

\
Each of these areas should be examined if the SC wants to legalize gay "marriage".....

There should be NO discrimination against singles regarding tax law for example, if they are going to make this a "right".

No they shouldn't. Because a single spouse is a single spouse. That is the point. Same-sex marriage does not fundamentally change how any of those laws are applied. Hell, I should even go so far as to say that, should someone come forward demanding it, incestuous marriage would be easier to legalize, as it still would not fundamentally alter the meanings of the terms of any of those laws, and policies.

Polygamy, on the other hand, would fundamentally change those laws, and policies, as it would add a whole extra person to the social contract. This would have to be dealt with. So, sorry, your argument simply doesn't stand.

A single SPOUSE, what in the hell are you talking about.............and I said nothing about polygamy......tho I believe even some gay-marriage advocates are admitting that their approach would legalize that aspect. A prominent gay-marriage advocate aided the lawsuit of a polygamist.

If you believe everyone should be treated equally then there should not be different tax laws based on a persons marital status alone.

Sorry. I got comfuzzled. I'm basically having three different debates on this over two different threads, and got my arguments confused.

As to your comment, I suppose part of the problem is my fault. You get that nothing on that list is a "right", correct? Those are the benefits of marriage. The only "right" in question is, and has always been, that of marriage - specifically the right to marry the person of your own choosing, with no restriction.[/QUOTE]
Its those benefits that supposedly started this quest on the part of gay-marriage advocates.....I dont see how you can separate the benefits from the "right". If all you want is the ability to associate with whom you want....gay people already have that. (that is also part of what separates these cases from Loving V Virginia).

The approach, equal protection, I think logically requires that single people be treated no differently than married people when it comes to tax law. Something I agree with and should be the case now regardless.

 

[Czernobog]

Its those benefits that supposedly started this quest on the part of gay-marriage advocates.....I dont see how you can separate the benefits from the "right". If all you want is the ability to associate with whom you want....gay people already have that. (that is also part of what separates these cases from Loving V Virginia).

The approach, equal protection, I think logically requires that single people be treated no differently than married people when it comes to tax law. Something I agree with and should be the case now regardless.

Not really. The theory, not entirely inaccurate, is that being married, and starting a family, carries with it added financial burdens. It is for this reason that couples filing as married get the tax benefits they get - to offset these costs. It is the same reason for the "Child Tax Credits". By your logic, there should be no "Child Tax Credit"; that should just be another credit that everyone gets. Otherwise we're "discriminating" against people without kids.

And here's the thing. Tax breaks are not rights; there is no guarantee that everyone gets the same benefits. However, everyone should have the same right to the opportunities that make those benefits possible. Hence, the drive for Same-Sex Marriage Equality.

 

[Youch]

wonderful news for individual rights

Dangerous Dolt,

Individual rights were just diminished. A small handful of unelected black robes, far removed from your best interests, just over-rided the will of the people in those states. Millions of people. And you rejoice? How ignorant!!!!

I live when ignorant rightwingnut bigots think they are insulting me. Cracks me up.

Yet, you ignore the point made. Ignore the facts. Hence, dangerous dolt.

 

[Youch]

The Supreme court just decided it will not hear the Same Sex Marriage cases from IN, OK, UT, VA, or WI. So that means two things.

First, since, in all of those cases, the lower court ruling was to strike down the state ban on Same Sex Marriage, that now means that Marriage Equality is now the "Law of the Land" in those 7 states.

Second, and more importantly, all of those states had a stay on their rulings until the Supreme Court acted. Well, guess what? It just did. So, the stays in all of those states are about to run out.

Bad news for the religious fanatics.

Supreme Court declines to hear gay marriages case in surprise move

No, you dangerous dolt. Regardless of your opinion on gay marriages, what the those unelected black robes just did was diminish the vote, voice and rights of the people of those states, and thus further eroded the liberty of our citizenry within our republic as it was formed.

Your summation of "religious fanatics" is dumb on the surface, shows your narrow and intolerant bias, and completely misses the larger point.

But you are definitely NOT alone. Thus, we're doomed.

No you dangerous dolt. What those unelected black robes just did was their job. You know, interpret the Constitution? In case you weren't there for that class, the entire purpose of the Judicial Branch of the United States Government is to rule on whether or not laws are Constitutional. You see, no one took away your right to vote. You got that, and you voted. After that, the Judicial Branch, when a question of the law is brought before them, gets to rule on whther or not that law you just voted on is Constitutional, or not.

That's the beauty of our system, and what keeps us from being subject to the tyranny of the masses. Just because you said you wanted it, doesn't make it Constitutional. So, you only get your "vote, voice, and rights of the people" so long as those votes, voices, and rights are exercised within the boundaries of the Constitution.

And my summation of religious zealots is right on. I do not have, and have never had, a problem with Christians, or people of faith. I do have, an d will always have, a problem with religious zealots who want to force everyone else to behave in accordance with their understanding of their faith using the law.

But, you're right. You are doomed. You were doomed from the beginning. People rather like the freedom to make decisions for themselves, so you zealots who feel like you get to demand that everyone act the way you tell them they should lost before you even began to fight.

You state that the Judicial Branch is to interpret the Constitution, yet provide no evidence that they did that. What they did, actually, violated the Constitution, given that marriage is not a delineated power of the federal government, and given that marriage is wholly a state purview within the Constitution. My previous point still stands. Refute it with facts, not emotion, if you can. You cannot, of course.

Another obvious point of your ignorance is in your last paragraph. You really think the Supreme Court supported individual freedom when they, in essence, decided not to support the millions of people who voted in their respective states regarding gay marriage? You claim people like to make decisions for themselves, yet support the Supreme Court that did just the opposite? How dumb. You contradict yourself......perhaps you don't understand how? Let me know if this needs further clarification.