Small Victory for Normal Marriage

[Figaro]

Gay marriage bans in four states upheld, Supreme Court review likely.
It is no way a foregone conclusion that Gay marriage will be the law of the land without the input of the states who have the right to define marriage as they see fit.
Victory for Normal Marriage Gay marriage bans in four states upheld Supreme Court review likely John Hawkins Right Wing News
USA Today reports the same-sex marriage movement lost its first major case in a federal appeals court Thursday after a lengthy string of victories, creating a split among the nation’s circuit courts that virtually guarantees Supreme Court review

Small victory...I hope at least these such a small victories will be continue

 

[JoeB131]

Not really. SCOTUS finally has to take a stand after pretty much saying that "If you make us take a stand, we WILL find for gay marriage."

 

[Delta4Embassy]

It is a forgone conclusion every state will have to allow it. Those that don't will be contested as gay marriages are done outside them and then the marrieds sseek recognition from their own state which doesn't allow it. As states loose appeals to the Supreme Court over not having to recognize them they'll have to start recognizing them, then when the next challenge comes 'if you recognize other states marriages you have to allow them too' will come about and that's how it'll go down.

There's no state interest in disallowing gay marriage. Why they're all loosing.

 

[hipeter924]

Same-sex marriage being made legal throughout the US is only a matter of time, but it is doubtful that the high court decision goes either way - as this will be referred to the Supreme Court (which will likely overrun the ruling of the high court).

So under a best case scenario, any legal proceeding would take years to rule either way. Not really a victory for same-sex marriage opponents, rather a postponement.

 

[jwoodie]

The only "victory" I am interested in is one for the institution of marriage itself, which is becoming little more than an income tax avoidance and Social Security benefit strategy. The only legitimate government interest in marriage is the protection and welfare of children, yet it has become a political football for unrelated social causes.

Civil marriage contracts should be limited to parents of children under 18 years of age (and continuing thereafter). Whether two (or more?) consenting adults love each other, live together, sleep together, or wear wedding rings should be of no concern to the government or anyone else.

 

[bodecea]

A victory for normal marriage? I guess that people are allowed to normally marry again.....thank goodness that restriction against normal marriage has gone away!

 

[JoeB131]

The only "victory" I am interested in is one for the institution of marriage itself, which is becoming little more than an income tax avoidance and Social Security benefit strategy. The only legitimate government interest in marriage is the protection and welfare of children, yet it has become a political football for unrelated social causes.

Civil marriage contracts should be limited to parents of children under 18 years of age (and continuing thereafter). Whether two (or more?) consenting adults love each other, live together, sleep together, or wear wedding rings should be of no concern to the government or anyone else.

If you are really concerned about "the children", you should be upset about the 50% divorce rate among heterosexuals, not whether the gays are getting married or not.

What upsets you guys is that gays can say they are just the same as you.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The only "victory" I am interested in is one for the institution of marriage itself, which is becoming little more than an income tax avoidance and Social Security benefit strategy. The only legitimate government interest in marriage is the protection and welfare of children, yet it has become a political football for unrelated social causes.

Civil marriage contracts should be limited to parents of children under 18 years of age (and continuing thereafter). Whether two (or more?) consenting adults love each other, live together, sleep together, or wear wedding rings should be of no concern to the government or anyone else.

So you support same-sex marriage (and different-sex marriage) as long as they are raising children (the last census showed 25% of same-sex couples are raising children). So they are included right?

So...

Some specifics if you would. (1) Do couples have to have children (which arise through procreation, IVF, surrogacy, or adoption) through out of wedlock births and then they can Civilly Marry, or (2) same-sex and different-sex couples can Civilly Marry and there is a grace period of - what - say 18 to 24 months and after that time if there are no children being raised in the home the Civil Marriage is annulled?


>>>>

 

[jwoodie]

The only "victory" I am interested in is one for the institution of marriage itself, which is becoming little more than an income tax avoidance and Social Security benefit strategy. The only legitimate government interest in marriage is the protection and welfare of children, yet it has become a political football for unrelated social causes.

Civil marriage contracts should be limited to parents of children under 18 years of age (and continuing thereafter). Whether two (or more?) consenting adults love each other, live together, sleep together, or wear wedding rings should be of no concern to the government or anyone else.

If you are really concerned about "the children", you should be upset about the 50% divorce rate among heterosexuals, not whether the gays are getting married or not.

What upsets you guys is that gays can say they are just the same as you.

Yes I am upset over the 50% divorce rate and I oppose no fault divorce when children are involved.
No, I am not a homophobe. Read my post.

 

[ScienceRocks]

A mother and father needs to stay together to raise children. This is what makes normal marriage advantages over gay marriage.

 

[jwoodie]

The only "victory" I am interested in is one for the institution of marriage itself, which is becoming little more than an income tax avoidance and Social Security benefit strategy. The only legitimate government interest in marriage is the protection and welfare of children, yet it has become a political football for unrelated social causes.

Civil marriage contracts should be limited to parents of children under 18 years of age (and continuing thereafter). Whether two (or more?) consenting adults love each other, live together, sleep together, or wear wedding rings should be of no concern to the government or anyone else.

So you support same-sex marriage (and different-sex marriage) as long as they are raising children (the last census showed 25% of same-sex couples are raising children). So they are included right?

So...

Some specifics if you would. (1) Do couples have to have children (which arise through procreation, IVF, surrogacy, or adoption) through out of wedlock births and then they can Civilly Marry, or (2) same-sex and different-sex couples can Civilly Marry and there is a grace period of - what - say 18 to 24 months and after that time if there are no children being raised in the home the Civil Marriage is annulled?


>>>>

I would support something like this: All couples could file as domestic partners, with no special tax or Social Security benefits, and with simplified no-fault dissolution available to them. Couples with children of their own (by birth or adoption) could file for civil marriage, with the ability to file joint tax returns and receive Social Security spousal benefits. However, they would not be entitled to no-fault dissolution proceedings and they would have to prove to the court that divorce would have a less harmful effect on their minor children than remaining married or legal separation. Once the children turned 18, they would have the option of remaining married or reverting to domestic partner/no-fault divorce status. No gender requirements at all.