Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LOL...except it isn't inequality. Single people aren't denied the right to marry.
But they are denied the rights afforded to married couples. In other words, NOT equal.
Tax breaks aren't a fundamental right, marriage is. They aren't denied the right to marry.
Tax breaks for some and not others is wrong, IMO
Registries have been. You can rail all you want but it simply isn't remotely realistic to get the Gubmit out of "the biz".
I suspect many felt the same way about slavery back in the day...
Libertarian wet dream that will never become a reality...no matter how much contract lawyers would salivate.
As if divorce lawyers aren't racking up billable hours these days, with more to come as the definition of marriage is expanded for some...but only some.
It's not my battle, but I support your efforts. You're not ever going to get the "gubmit" out of the marriage biz but you're free to try.
Thanks. I will continue to try, not so much because I feel so passionately about who gets to marry who, but because I am passionate about the idea that government should treat all citizens equally and that it does more harm than good trying to engineer behavior. The central planners do not know what is best for us all.
Yeah? Try how? What have you done?
But they are denied the rights afforded to married couples. In other words, NOT equal.
Tax breaks aren't a fundamental right, marriage is. They aren't denied the right to marry.
Tax breaks for some and not others is wrong, IMO
You may think it's wrong, but it's not unequal and it's not a violation of anyone's civil rights.
I suspect many felt the same way about slavery back in the day...
Yeah, marriage registries and slavery...exactly the same.
Libertarian wet dream that will never become a reality...no matter how much contract lawyers would salivate.
As if divorce lawyers aren't racking up billable hours these days, with more to come as the definition of marriage is expanded for some...but only some.
Divorce is the exact reason you're not going to get the government out of the marriage business. Who else do you think the "definition" should be "expanded" for? Polygamists? That's always "next" on the slippery slope.
And I suppose if there is no societal harm in allowing polygamists marriages, they could fight the same fight all these other groups who have had marriage "expanded" for them. (like blacks that wanted to marry whites or convicted murderers on death row)
I vote libertarian. I speak my mind to those I know. I write my political representatives. I give $ to the cause.
What would you expect me to do?
Ironically, I SUPPORT your right to marry whomever you like, but you still attack me. I find that odd. Anyway, best of luck in your quest.
Asking a question wasn't attacking. I've had my time with the "get government out" people before and what I've found is many of them are legally married. Funny that. They don't want ME to be married because they don't think the government should be involved, but are in fact legally married themselves. I don't know what that tells you, but that tells me that it isn't about the government and it's all about the gays. These are folks that want to fill the pool rather than let us swim.
You might not be one of those kind of people, but in all the years we've been discussing letting us into the pool, not a single piece of legislation has EVER been introduced to actually get the government out of the business of legal marriage...only laws that would keep "some" out.
Tax breaks aren't a fundamental right, marriage is. They aren't denied the right to marry.
Tax breaks for some and not others is wrong, IMO
You may think it's wrong, but it's not unequal and it's not a violation of anyone's civil rights.
Yeah, marriage registries and slavery...exactly the same.
Libertarian wet dream that will never become a reality...no matter how much contract lawyers would salivate.
Divorce is the exact reason you're not going to get the government out of the marriage business. Who else do you think the "definition" should be "expanded" for? Polygamists? That's always "next" on the slippery slope.
And I suppose if there is no societal harm in allowing polygamists marriages, they could fight the same fight all these other groups who have had marriage "expanded" for them. (like blacks that wanted to marry whites or convicted murderers on death row)
Polygamists, assuming they're adults acting of their own free will, should not be anyone's business. If they want to marry each other, they should be able to. And they could were government not attempting to socially engineer society.
I vote libertarian. I speak my mind to those I know. I write my political representatives. I give $ to the cause.
What would you expect me to do?
Ironically, I SUPPORT your right to marry whomever you like, but you still attack me. I find that odd. Anyway, best of luck in your quest.
Asking a question wasn't attacking. I've had my time with the "get government out" people before and what I've found is many of them are legally married. Funny that.
Not married. Government has no business meddling in my personal relationships and I belong to no organized religion. Consequently, I am discriminated against by being denied perks set aside for married couples.
They don't want ME to be married because they don't think the government should be involved, but are in fact legally married themselves. I don't know what that tells you, but that tells me that it isn't about the government and it's all about the gays. These are folks that want to fill the pool rather than let us swim.
Wrong. I want you to marry if it's your will. You shouldn't need government's blessing for that.
You might not be one of those kind of people, but in all the years we've been discussing letting us into the pool, not a single piece of legislation has EVER been introduced to actually get the government out of the business of legal marriage...only laws that would keep "some" out.
And I stand against those laws.
They did no such thing. You really need to look up both rulings.But the Supreme Court just said they could choose "no" to gay marriage. And so, they may do so. California is no exception to this new Ruling.
No, by allowing that the question of gay marriage [the gist of the entire Opinion] was the "unquestioned authority [choice]" of the states and avering that numerous times in DOMA, and, by announcing DOMA and Prop 8 hearings were the same venue, the Supreme Court announced that gay marriage is not a constitutional right therefore, and that what is constitutional instead, are the individual states' rights to define marriage for themselves: affirming also that the fed's only role is to acknowledge what the states decided.Silhouette, The Constitutionality of anti gay marriage laws has not been determined by the SCOTUS...yet. You're misinterpreting theDOMA ruling...just ask Scalia.
No, by allowing that the question of gay marriage [the gist of the entire Opinion] was the "unquestioned authority [choice]" of the states and avering that numerous times in DOMA, and, by announcing DOMA and Prop 8 hearings were the same venue, the Supreme Court announced that gay marriage is not a constitutional right therefore, and that what is constitutional instead, are the individual states' rights to define marriage for themselves: affirming also that the fed's only role is to acknowledge what the states decided.Silhouette, The Constitutionality of anti gay marriage laws has not been determined by the SCOTUS...yet. You're misinterpreting theDOMA ruling...just ask Scalia.
CA cannot be the one exception to this freshest and Superior ruling that need not specify that it automatically nullifies any lower rulingin conflict with it. CA is one of the 50 and as such has its constitutional right to choose yes or no to gay marriage upheld in the DOMA Opinion....the sister opinion to Prop 8's seemingly muddied and unclarified Ruling. It is concisely clarified in its sister Ruling on DOMA and states' rights on defining marriage....
I have two questions for you.
1. Can states pass laws that are unconstitutional?
2. Has any state's anti gay marriage law been heard by the SCOTUS?
I have two questions for you.
1. Can states pass laws that are unconstitutional?
2. Has any state's anti gay marriage law been heard by the SCOTUS?
Answer to #1. Since you are referring to the Prop 8 in California, we'll just put that out on the table at the get go. And the answer is that Prop 8 was screened as all initiatives are before it was put on the ballot. And it was allowed to go forward: and the people voted. After a sound defeat was predicted by gay activists, the Proposition won anyway, handily, with 7 million voters approving its definition of marriage as "between a man and a woman". That ability to define marriage was just Upheld at the Supreme Court level in DOMA; where, in the context of the question of legality of gay marriage...and tied at the hip in venu to the Prop 8 Hearing, did aver that the Interpretation of the Constitution offered the Finding that states each get to define marriage with respect to the larger question and that this is in fact Constitutional [therefore all lower court rulings in conflict are null and void]
And
#2. Not only has "any" state's anti-gay marriage law been heard by the SCOTUS, all of them have in DOMA and Prop 8 twin Hearings earlier this year. And a decision was rendered for the 50 states under the larger question of legality of gay marriage: the SUPREME COURT OPINED THAT THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE WAS UP TO EACH STATE TO DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES.
Caso cerrado.
Silhouette, I understand you don't like the rulings, but . . . your feelings don't matter.
The issue is over. CA will not bring up Prop 8 and private citizens have no standing to do so and cannot force the government to do so.
Fuck shit like this!
They did no such thing. You really need to look up both rulings.But the Supreme Court just said they could choose "no" to gay marriage. And so, they may do so. California is no exception to this new Ruling.
I did Seawytch. I did. I read the six or seven dozen times the Supreme Court in DOMA Upheld that the realm of defining marriage, within the larger question of gay marriage before it that day, is and always was "the unquestioned authority" of the individual states to define.
No single state may be disenfranchised from this staunch Determination. You can line up a thousand lower court rulings with a thousand gay judges presiding and it doesn't add up to diddly ...if those rulings are diametrically opposed to the Supreme One issued last month affirming states' constitutional rights to define marriage.
There is no "gay civil right" to marriage. DOMA Opinion makes that very clear. And since the High Court decided to unite the two cases in one hearing, they are telling the world they consider the two related. And that relation, that legal wedding of the two cases will play out in the case moving before the Court again on Prop 8: If it is legal and constitutional Upheld in DOMA Decision for states to define marriage within the larger context of gay marriage intrinsic to both cases, how can it be illegal/unconstitutional for California to define marriage within the larger context of gay marriage?
That's how closely people need to read those two cases.
1. Within the context that they were heard at the same time: a message from the Supreme Court on their legal relation and
2. That one of them states flatly, clearly and repeatedly that states can define marriage as they like, within the context of the discussion: which is/was gay marriage.
The question is whether the resulting injury and indignity is a deprivation of an essential part of the liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment, since what New York treats as alike the federal law deems unlike by a law designed to injure the same class the State seeks to protect.
DOMAs principal effect is to identify and make unequal a subset of state-sanctioned marriages. It contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not others, of both rights and responsibilities, creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State. It also forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect.
The States interest in defining and regulating the marital relation, subject to constitutional guarantees, stems from the understanding that marriage is more than a routine classification for purposes of certain statutory benefits. Private, consensual sexual intimacy between two adult persons of the same sex may not be punished by the State, and it can form but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 567 (2003) .
UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute
Breaking:
A new case challenging Prop 8's legality has been filed July 18, 2013. This time it's the San Diego County Clerk who refuses to defy his Oath of Office and issue illegal marriage licenses.
The governor and AG of that state apparently have been threatening county clerks with "contempt of court" charges should they fail to disobey state law and issue so-called gay marriage licenses anyway. This places clerks squarely in a position where they must break the law. There's harm. There's standing. Look for more to join his ranks. http://savecalifornia.com/images/stories/PDFs/clerkwritpetition.pdf
