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

[Youch]

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.

Really is that what they did? regardless what the lower judicial activist did? You fucking hypocrite

Hey, dumbass. Those "lower courts" were still federal courts, and still part of that United States Judicial Branch. So, guess what? In deciding that there was nothing that needed to be revisited by the Supreme Court, and letting those lower Federal Court rulings stand, the judicial system did its job. Just because you don't happen to like the ruling doesn't make it any less valid.

You got your say. You got to tell gay people you don't like them, and you don't want them getting married. That was your right, and you got your vote. Now, the Courts have told you whether or not your actions were Constitutional. Guess what? They weren't. No one took your rights away; you exercised them. It is no one's fault but your own that you attempted to exiercise them in a way that exceeded the limitations of the Constitution.

But, hey! You keep right on screaming, "It's not fair! It's not fair! It's not fair!" if that makes you feel better. In the meantime, all those folks whose rights you tried to deny, well, they're just gonna ignore you, and go right on doing what the Constitution, and the Courts said they get to do.

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.

I patently disagree. What you call "Judicial interventionism" the Constitution calls the courts doing their job. Yes, I do disagree with the court ruling on Citizens' United. However, that decision doesn't make me change my mind about what the Court's job is. Just because I may have a different interpretation of the constitution, that's irrelevant. Guess what? My interpretation of the constitution is irrelevant; it is the interpretation of those guys in the black robes - whether at the district level, or the Supreme Court - that matters.

You've obviously never read or understood the constitution. Or that more than guys in the black robes. I find your dangerously naïve on a subject that you attempt to discuss.

 

[dcraelin]

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.

Well I think your destroying the whole grounds for gay-marriage lawsuits if you think tax breaks are not rights.......that as I understand it is a key part of their argument. .......I was talking about single people without children, they should not be disadvantaged by not recieving tax breaks that married people get solely for being married.

Also...part of their argument is that 'they are born that way"....well then they are born without the capacity to have children in that relationship.....why should they argue they have the right to raise children then?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Really is that what they did? regardless what the lower judicial activist did? You fucking hypocrite

Hey, dumbass. Those "lower courts" were still federal courts, and still part of that United States Judicial Branch. So, guess what? In deciding that there was nothing that needed to be revisited by the Supreme Court, and letting those lower Federal Court rulings stand, the judicial system did its job. Just because you don't happen to like the ruling doesn't make it any less valid.

You got your say. You got to tell gay people you don't like them, and you don't want them getting married. That was your right, and you got your vote. Now, the Courts have told you whether or not your actions were Constitutional. Guess what? They weren't. No one took your rights away; you exercised them. It is no one's fault but your own that you attempted to exiercise them in a way that exceeded the limitations of the Constitution.
But, hey! You keep right on screaming, "It's not fair! It's not fair! It's not fair!" if that makes you feel better. In the meantime, all those folks whose rights you tried to deny, well, they're just gonna ignore you, and go right on doing what the Constitution, and the Courts said they get to do.

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 v Virgina AGAIN,... ad-nauseum,......... Iv talked that to death..... youve seen my arguments already............you cant learn, and are too wrapped up in your own issue to see the reality.

Yes, Loving again. Loving was decided by the SCOTUS against the will of the people. According to you, rulings like that "damage our whole system".

How?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Well I think your destroying the whole grounds for gay-marriage lawsuits if you think tax breaks are not rights.......that as I understand it is a key part of their argument. .......I was talking about single people without children, they should not be disadvantaged by not recieving tax breaks that married people get solely for being married.

Also...part of their argument is that 'they are born that way"....well then they are born without the capacity to have children in that relationship.....why should they argue they have the right to raise children then?

So you also disagree with tax breaks the wealthy get for owning airplanes, right?

Are you trying to argue that people who cannot procreate with each other naturally should not have children? You're going to cause an orphanage crisis with stupid rules like that.

Go ahead and end the tax breaks, we're still going to want civil marriage. Tax breaks are only one of over a thousand rights, benefits and privileges associated with legal, civil marriage. We've been marrying for decades...we've only just started getting the tax breaks a couple years ago. We'll survive.

 

[Seawytch]

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

Yes, that is what the SCOTUS did...they chickened out which leaves the lower court rulings as LAW.

Now, if the 4th or 6th circuit rules contrary to the dozens and dozens or rulings that have come down until now, the SCOTUS will have a reason to take up the question.

Tell me...do you think that the SCOTUS, after allowing 11 more states to marry gay people, will suddenly render those hundreds and thousands of civil marriages null and void? Really?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

The state specifically vests their clergy with the power to act as its agent.
This, necessarily, makes said clergy an agent of the state.
It is impossible to soundly argue argue otherwise.
You seek 100% equality. You shall not see it for the reason noted above

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

No such right exists.
Marriage, as a legal institution, exists because state law created it.
Nothng requires a state to do so, and so, upon repealing the relevant laws, marriage as a legal institution would cease to exist.
Thus, marriage, as a legal institution, is a privilige granted by the state, not a right inherent to the people.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

Really is that what they did? regardless what the lower judicial activist did? You fucking hypocrite

Hey, dumbass. Those "lower courts" were still federal courts, and still part of that United States Judicial Branch. So, guess what? In deciding that there was nothing that needed to be revisited by the Supreme Court, and letting those lower Federal Court rulings stand, the judicial system did its job. Just because you don't happen to like the ruling doesn't make it any less valid.

You got your say. You got to tell gay people you don't like them, and you don't want them getting married. That was your right, and you got your vote. Now, the Courts have told you whether or not your actions were Constitutional. Guess what? They weren't. No one took your rights away; you exercised them. It is no one's fault but your own that you attempted to exiercise them in a way that exceeded the limitations of the Constitution.

But, hey! You keep right on screaming, "It's not fair! It's not fair! It's not fair!" if that makes you feel better. In the meantime, all those folks whose rights you tried to deny, well, they're just gonna ignore you, and go right on doing what the Constitution, and the Courts said they get to do.

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.

I patently disagree. What you call "Judicial interventionism" the Constitution calls the courts doing their job. Yes, I do disagree with the court ruling on Citizens' United. However, that decision doesn't make me change my mind about what the Court's job is. Just because I may have a different interpretation of the constitution, that's irrelevant. Guess what? My interpretation of the constitution is irrelevant; it is the interpretation of those guys in the black robes - whether at the district level, or the Supreme Court - that matters.

You've obviously never read or understood the constitution. Or that more than guys in the black robes. I find your dangerously naïve on a subject that you attempt to discuss.

Well, what you "find" is quite irrelevant, as the Constitution is very clear about the power of the Judicial Branch in Article III, Section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects​

So, yeah. it is the job of courts to decide if any law, statute, or policy of local, county, state, or federal government is, in fact, constitutional.

...moving on...

 

[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.

Well I think your destroying the whole grounds for gay-marriage lawsuits if you think tax breaks are not rights.......that as I understand it is a key part of their argument. .......I was talking about single people without children, they should not be disadvantaged by not recieving tax breaks that married people get solely for being married.

Also...part of their argument is that 'they are born that way"....well then they are born without the capacity to have children in that relationship.....why should they argue they have the right to raise children then?

If that is the entirety of your understanding of the issue of marriage equality, it is no wonder you don't understand the difference between a 'benefit", and a "right". Have a good day...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Really is that what they did? regardless what the lower judicial activist did? You fucking hypocrite

Hey, dumbass. Those "lower courts" were still federal courts, and still part of that United States Judicial Branch. So, guess what? In deciding that there was nothing that needed to be revisited by the Supreme Court, and letting those lower Federal Court rulings stand, the judicial system did its job. Just because you don't happen to like the ruling doesn't make it any less valid.

You got your say. You got to tell gay people you don't like them, and you don't want them getting married. That was your right, and you got your vote. Now, the Courts have told you whether or not your actions were Constitutional. Guess what? They weren't. No one took your rights away; you exercised them. It is no one's fault but your own that you attempted to exiercise them in a way that exceeded the limitations of the Constitution.

But, hey! You keep right on screaming, "It's not fair! It's not fair! It's not fair!" if that makes you feel better. In the meantime, all those folks whose rights you tried to deny, well, they're just gonna ignore you, and go right on doing what the Constitution, and the Courts said they get to do.

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.

I patently disagree. What you call "Judicial interventionism" the Constitution calls the courts doing their job. Yes, I do disagree with the court ruling on Citizens' United. However, that decision doesn't make me change my mind about what the Court's job is. Just because I may have a different interpretation of the constitution, that's irrelevant. Guess what? My interpretation of the constitution is irrelevant; it is the interpretation of those guys in the black robes - whether at the district level, or the Supreme Court - that matters.

You've obviously never read or understood the constitution. Or that more than guys in the black robes. I find your dangerously naïve on a subject that you attempt to discuss.

Well, what you "find" is quite irrelevant, as the Constitution is very clear about the power of the Judicial Branch in Article III, Section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects​

So, yeah. it is the job of courts to decide if any law, statute, or policy of local, county, state, or federal government is, in fact, constitutional.

...moving on...

The supreme court did not rule ob gay marriage because it is not a protected right.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

No such right exists.
Marriage, as a legal institution, exists because state law created it.
Nothng requires a state to do so, and so, upon repealing the relevant laws, marriage as a legal institution would cease to exist.
Thus, marriage, as a legal institution, is a privilige granted by the state, not a right inherent to the people.

Except that according to Loving v Virginia marriage is a right. I kn ow, I know. You're sick of hearing about Loving v Virginia. Tell you what. You stop making nonsensical statements like "marriage isn't a right", and I'll quit bringing up the court case that proves your statement false.

 

[Czernobog]

Hey, dumbass. Those "lower courts" were still federal courts, and still part of that United States Judicial Branch. So, guess what? In deciding that there was nothing that needed to be revisited by the Supreme Court, and letting those lower Federal Court rulings stand, the judicial system did its job. Just because you don't happen to like the ruling doesn't make it any less valid.

You got your say. You got to tell gay people you don't like them, and you don't want them getting married. That was your right, and you got your vote. Now, the Courts have told you whether or not your actions were Constitutional. Guess what? They weren't. No one took your rights away; you exercised them. It is no one's fault but your own that you attempted to exiercise them in a way that exceeded the limitations of the Constitution.

But, hey! You keep right on screaming, "It's not fair! It's not fair! It's not fair!" if that makes you feel better. In the meantime, all those folks whose rights you tried to deny, well, they're just gonna ignore you, and go right on doing what the Constitution, and the Courts said they get to do.

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.

I patently disagree. What you call "Judicial interventionism" the Constitution calls the courts doing their job. Yes, I do disagree with the court ruling on Citizens' United. However, that decision doesn't make me change my mind about what the Court's job is. Just because I may have a different interpretation of the constitution, that's irrelevant. Guess what? My interpretation of the constitution is irrelevant; it is the interpretation of those guys in the black robes - whether at the district level, or the Supreme Court - that matters.

You've obviously never read or understood the constitution. Or that more than guys in the black robes. I find your dangerously naïve on a subject that you attempt to discuss.

Well, what you "find" is quite irrelevant, as the Constitution is very clear about the power of the Judicial Branch in Article III, Section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects​

So, yeah. it is the job of courts to decide if any law, statute, or policy of local, county, state, or federal government is, in fact, constitutional.

...moving on...

The supreme court did not rule ob gay marriage because it is not a protected right.

Still wrong. The Supreme Court did not rule on the marriage equality question, because the duly appointed Federal District courts already did, and the Supreme Court saw no reason to set those rulings aside. You constantly misstating what happened isn't going to magically make what happened not have happened.

Here's a thought, bigrebnc1775, why don't you try holding your breath, until all of the 19 states that have had their marriage bans overturned agree to not give homosexuals marriage licenses. That should work just about as well as your continued insistence that "Gay marriage isn't a right, because I SAY SO!!!"

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

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.

Hi Czernoborg: Thanks for replying with intelligent reasons and explanations to my messages and others here which I hope do not tax your patience. These discussions are critical to hash out all the issues involved. I applaud encourage and thank you!

1. For convenience or expedience:
if this was used as legal rationale, then atheists who sue over crosses on public property
would be dismissed due to the EXCESS cost of damaging historic memorials
when it would be easier just to accommodate the crosses that have both historic and religious meanings.

Unfortunately religious freedom is what it is.
So if the atheist can be protected from a cross that "offends" or "excludes" their beliefs
(and does NOT believe in funding or supporting a cross with public tax dollars)
where this costs more to sue and to remove than just leaving the cross alone.
Surely we can respect the right of people not to support gay marriage against their beliefs.

AGAIN I am NOT advocating to BAN or exclude gay marriage
but to keep the laws neutral where they NEITHER prohibit nor establish beliefs either way.

2. All the above can be changed to be for civil unions and contracts.

3. It's not up to me but to the people in each state.

SURE, if they agree it is cheaper to allow gay marriage
then the people of that state can decide, either way.

Not up to me or to the govt to decide.

The people need to agree since religiously held beliefs are involved on both sides.

Either they agree to remove it from the state and revise all laws to be neutral
and refer to civil contracts and unions only independent of gender.

Or leave the laws as is and just open the door for this to
be applied or interpreted equally for any couple.

My point is the govt cannot be abused to force a decision on
the people without full public consent.

Because of religious freedom that the state cannot force
people to change and be under policies against their religious beliefs.

Both beliefs for and against gay marriage are equally valid.
the state has no right to judge this, thinking it's the same as
race when it isn't. The homosexuality and marriage issues
involve spiritual issues and beliefs the state has no jurisdiction over
except with the public's consent. We used to consent to marriage
laws under the state for convenience, but if that is not the case
anymore and people do not agree, then we have to change it
one way or the other, depending on what people in each state agree to do.

Not my place, I just believe in respecting all beliefs
equally and asking all people and states to support neutral policies for that reason.

Thanks again CZ for articulating
your reasons and replies so clearly,
which I hope compels others there to rise above the usual
rhetoric back and forth that fails to address the root issues.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

No such right exists.
Marriage, as a legal institution, exists because state law created it.
Nothng requires a state to do so, and so, upon repealing the relevant laws, marriage as a legal institution would cease to exist.
Thus, marriage, as a legal institution, is a privilige granted by the state, not a right inherent to the people.

Except that according to Loving v Virginia marriage is a right. I kn ow, I know. You're sick of hearing about Loving v Virginia. Tell you what. You stop making nonsensical statements like "marriage isn't a right", and I'll quit bringing up the court case that proves your statement false.

Religious freedom is also a natural right
but the govt cannot dictate how that is exercised either.

 

[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.

I patently disagree. What you call "Judicial interventionism" the Constitution calls the courts doing their job. Yes, I do disagree with the court ruling on Citizens' United. However, that decision doesn't make me change my mind about what the Court's job is. Just because I may have a different interpretation of the constitution, that's irrelevant. Guess what? My interpretation of the constitution is irrelevant; it is the interpretation of those guys in the black robes - whether at the district level, or the Supreme Court - that matters.

You've obviously never read or understood the constitution. Or that more than guys in the black robes. I find your dangerously naïve on a subject that you attempt to discuss.

Well, what you "find" is quite irrelevant, as the Constitution is very clear about the power of the Judicial Branch in Article III, Section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects​

So, yeah. it is the job of courts to decide if any law, statute, or policy of local, county, state, or federal government is, in fact, constitutional.

...moving on...

The supreme court did not rule ob gay marriage because it is not a protected right.

Still wrong. The Supreme Court did not rule on the marriage equality question, because the duly appointed Federal District courts already did, and the Supreme Court saw no reason to set those rulings aside. You constantly misstating what happened isn't going to magically make what happened not have happened.

Here's a thought, bigrebnc1775, why don't you try holding your breath, until all of the 19 states that have had their marriage bans overturned agree to not give homosexuals marriage licenses. That should work just about as well as your continued insistence that "Gay marriage isn't a right, because I SAY SO!!!"

Wrong as usual they did not rule on it because it was supposed to be a state issue.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Hi Czernoborg: Thanks for replying with intelligent reasons and explanations to my messages and others here which I hope do not tax your patience. These discussions are critical to hash out all the issues involved. I applaud encourage and thank you!

1. For convenience or expedience:
if this was used as legal rationale, then atheists who sue over crosses on public property
would be dismissed due to the EXCESS cost of damaging historic memorials
when it would be easier just to accommodate the crosses that have both historic and religious meanings.

Unfortunately religious freedom is what it is.
So if the atheist can be protected from a cross that "offends" or "excludes" their beliefs
(and does NOT believe in funding or supporting a cross with public tax dollars)
where this costs more to sue and to remove than just leaving the cross alone.
Surely we can respect the right of people not to support gay marriage against their beliefs.

AGAIN I am NOT advocating to BAN or exclude gay marriage
but to keep the laws neutral where they NEITHER prohibit nor establish beliefs either way.

2. All the above can be changed to be for civil unions and contracts.

3. It's not up to me but to the people in each state.

SURE, if they agree it is cheaper to allow gay marriage
then the people of that state can decide, either way.

Not up to me or to the govt to decide.

The people need to agree since religiously held beliefs are involved on both sides.

Either they agree to remove it from the state and revise all laws to be neutral
and refer to civil contracts and unions only independent of gender.

Or leave the laws as is and just open the door for this to
be applied or interpreted equally for any couple.

My point is the govt cannot be abused to force a decision on
the people without full public consent.

Because of religious freedom that the state cannot force
people to change and be under policies against their religious beliefs.

Both beliefs for and against gay marriage are equally valid.
the state has no right to judge this, thinking it's the same as
race when it isn't. The homosexuality and marriage issues
involve spiritual issues and beliefs the state has no jurisdiction over
except with the public's consent. We used to consent to marriage
laws under the state for convenience, but if that is not the case
anymore and people do not agree, then we have to change it
one way or the other, depending on what people in each state agree to do.

Not my place, I just believe in respecting all beliefs
equally and asking all people and states to support neutral policies for that reason.

Thanks again CZ for articulating
your reasons and replies so clearly,
which I hope compels others there to rise above the usual
rhetoric back and forth that fails to address the root issues.

He doesn't deserve such kindness nor does any liberal turd.

 

[emilynghiem]

He doesn't deserve such kindness nor does any liberal turd.

Maybe his replies to me have been respectful and deserve respect
because I extend the same. Maybe if we all tried harder to address each other
with equal respect, people would decide we deserve the same as we give to them.

Shall we try it?

 

[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.

Hi Czernoborg: Thanks for replying with intelligent reasons and explanations to my messages and others here which I hope do not tax your patience. These discussions are critical to hash out all the issues involved. I applaud encourage and thank you!

1. For convenience or expedience:
if this was used as legal rationale, then atheists who sue over crosses on public property
would be dismissed due to the EXCESS cost of damaging historic memorials
when it would be easier just to accommodate the crosses that have both historic and religious meanings.

Unfortunately religious freedom is what it is.
So if the atheist can be protected from a cross that "offends" or "excludes" their beliefs
(and does NOT believe in funding or supporting a cross with public tax dollars)
where this costs more to sue and to remove than just leaving the cross alone.
Surely we can respect the right of people not to support gay marriage against their beliefs.

AGAIN I am NOT advocating to BAN or exclude gay marriage
but to keep the laws neutral where they NEITHER prohibit nor establish beliefs either way.

First, there's a difference between "cost" and "expedience". Let me put it this way. We have two different options for implementing a new public policy. Option one requires that one rule be changed by striking out a single clause. Option two requires that not only must the rule in question be changed, but 478 other rules, affecting 1,578 different departments, must also be changed, and the department heads of all of those different departments must now be informed of the new rules, and training must be provided for all of the employees of all of those departments. Now, since both options will result in the same end, which option would seem the most logical one to take to you? Your analogy of the religious icons on public land is actually a false analogy as those are not cases involving two different options resulting in, more or less, the same end. Hence those court cases are actually necessary.

2. All the above can be changed to be for civil unions and contracts.

There are actually several problems with this suggestion. The first is the time, energy, and effort required to make all of those changes. There is also the matter of the fact that many of those benefits are benefits provided by private industries. The government has no authority to demand that private industries change their policies to include social contract they do not wish to include. Now it could be argued that this would mean that these private industries could choose to not acknowledge "gay" marriage. However. in order to do this, would require them to change their policies to define in a way that the courts have already ruled, in 19 different cases, is unconstitutional, and discriminatory. Finally, the idea of the "civil union" runs afoul of the "separate but equal" restrictions that have already been determined are not constitutional. This final problem could of course be dealt with by simply removing marriage from the civil law altogether, and make civil unions the practice of the land for everyone. Good luck getting the Christians to agree to that.

3. It's not up to me but to the people in each state.

SURE, if they agree it is cheaper to allow gay marriage
then the people of that state can decide, either way.

Not up to me or to the govt to decide.


The people need to agree since religiously held beliefs are involved on both sides.

Either they agree to remove it from the state and revise all laws to be neutral
and refer to civil contracts and unions only independent of gender.

Or leave the laws as is and just open the door for this to
be applied or interpreted equally for any couple.

My point is the govt cannot be abused to force a decision on
the people without full public consent.

Actually, that's not true. The Supreme Court decided in 1967 under Loving v Virginia that marriage to the person of one's own choosing is, in fact, a right of every citizen protected under the 14th amendment. It is on this precedent that many of these same-sex marriage bans are falling.

Because of religious freedom that the state cannot force
people to change and be under policies against their religious beliefs.

Both beliefs for and against gay marriage are equally valid.
the state has no right to judge this, thinking it's the same as
race when it isn't. The homosexuality and marriage issues
involve spiritual issues and beliefs the state has no jurisdiction over
except with the public's consent. We used to consent to marriage
laws under the state for convenience, but if that is not the case
anymore and people do not agree, then we have to change it
one way or the other, depending on what people in each state agree to do.

Not my place, I just believe in respecting all beliefs
equally and asking all people and states to support neutral policies for that reason.

You're making the same mistake that many on the right are making. you are conflating the civil contract of marriage with the religious ritual of a wedding.

You see, a marriage is a marriage whether the wedding ceremony is performed by the local parish preacher, the justice of the peace, or the Fake Elvis down at "Billy Bob's Wedding Emporium" on the Strip in Vegas. In the eyes of the law, those are all marriages. To have a marriage doesn't require a religious ceremony. It only requires a license, and someone recognized in your state as having the authority to officiate - and you can get this online in 5 minutes; no religious beliefs necessary.

Thanks again CZ for articulating
your reasons and replies so clearly,
which I hope compels others there to rise above the usual
rhetoric back and forth that fails to address the root issues.

No problem. I actually don't mind having this discussion with grown ups.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

He doesn't deserve such kindness nor does any liberal turd.

Maybe his replies to me have been respectful and deserve respect
because I extend the same. Maybe if we all tried harder to address each other
with equal respect, people would decide we deserve the same as we give to them.

Shall we try it?

That dog was shot a few years back. You can play nice with the snakes I will not.

 

[Czernobog]

I patently disagree. What you call "Judicial interventionism" the Constitution calls the courts doing their job. Yes, I do disagree with the court ruling on Citizens' United. However, that decision doesn't make me change my mind about what the Court's job is. Just because I may have a different interpretation of the constitution, that's irrelevant. Guess what? My interpretation of the constitution is irrelevant; it is the interpretation of those guys in the black robes - whether at the district level, or the Supreme Court - that matters.

You've obviously never read or understood the constitution. Or that more than guys in the black robes. I find your dangerously naïve on a subject that you attempt to discuss.

Well, what you "find" is quite irrelevant, as the Constitution is very clear about the power of the Judicial Branch in Article III, Section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects​

So, yeah. it is the job of courts to decide if any law, statute, or policy of local, county, state, or federal government is, in fact, constitutional.

...moving on...

The supreme court did not rule ob gay marriage because it is not a protected right.

Still wrong. The Supreme Court did not rule on the marriage equality question, because the duly appointed Federal District courts already did, and the Supreme Court saw no reason to set those rulings aside. You constantly misstating what happened isn't going to magically make what happened not have happened.

Here's a thought, bigrebnc1775, why don't you try holding your breath, until all of the 19 states that have had their marriage bans overturned agree to not give homosexuals marriage licenses. That should work just about as well as your continued insistence that "Gay marriage isn't a right, because I SAY SO!!!"

Wrong as usual they did not rule on it because it was supposed to be a state issue.

The right of marriage has not been a "state issue' since 1967 under Loving v Virginia, and you repeating over, and over that it is a state issue doesn't magically make it so.