The SCotUS has cleared the way for Legalized Polygamy.

[AmazonTania]

There are far more cash and prizes than tax breaks. There are Social Security survivor benefits. There is access to a spouse's federal employee health insurance. Many, many benefits bestowed on people who have the right sexual orientation.

Those are not to be confused with rights. By making these problems about federal benefits, it is no longer a states rights issue, but a federal issue. The Federal Government already should not be in the business of marriage.

What the hell do you think all the gay bashing topics are about? They are about DOMA which was overturned today!

FEDERAL law.

And?

Out here in reality, the federal government IS in the business of marriage, and straight people were glad to have them in their business as long as they were being given special treatment. For many, many decades now, they were pleased with the Feds being all up in their marriage.

And now you are pissed that homosexual couples cannot receive special benefits from the Federal Government. You can't have it both ways. Either you want the Government in the business of licensing marriage, or you do not.

Now the bigots are royally pissed others are being given EQUAL treatment under the law, as is their RIGHT.

Equal treatment under the law is a right. Equal treatment under the law does not fall under the category of receiving special treatment because of who you are. You are confused, but that's understandable.

 

[g5000]

the Roman Empire lasted about 675 years and fell apart due to the same shit the United States of America is going thru now.., decadency and a ruler who is fiddling our once great nation into total ruination, our nation is burning figuratively and literally

Only people who have no knowledge of Roman history say things like this.

Several emperors were gay, including some of the early ones. And homosexuality was always tolerated, since the days of the Republic.

So I guess this DOMA decision means the clock is ticking. We have only six centuries left until our doom!

 

[francoHFW]

It's ALL about 2 consenting adults- anything else is trouble for all involved.Up with gay rights, sodomy, whatever, down with polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality, NO MISTAKE, dupes.

 

[Avatar4321]

There is a difference between two men loving each other and a porn store next to a school.
Again how about we strip you of your right to preach the bible on the corner, but hey you can preach all you want about Islam. You still can stand on the corner all you want, nobody has taken your rights away.

waits for it

The two aren't comparable. No one is outlawing same sex relationships. People are free to enter into whatever societal contract they want. The question is should the government recognize the relationship as marriage and have the power to regulate it.

And there is no societal benefit for doing either.

I had no idea you had to prove a social benefit before you were given rights where you live!

Wow. I thought you lived in America.

Well that's just it. It's not a right.

 

[g5000]

And now you are pissed that homosexual couples cannot receive special benefits from the Federal Government. You can't have it both ways. Either you want the Government in the business of licensing marriage, or you do not.

Again, the point sails right over your head because you haven't a clue what rights are.

It is a simple fact the government is in the marriage business. Whether or not you or I like that fact is immaterial. It is the state of things today.

What IS material is that the government has been EXCLUDING gays from the benefits it bestows on marriages, and that is a violation of their rights. As long as the government is in the marriage business, it must treat them all equally.

The reason the government is in the marriage business to begin with is because Americans wanted them to be. I never heard a Republican or Democrat complain about it. In fact, just try to get government out of marriage and watch the Right and Left rise up in anger.

 

[Plasmaball]

And now you are pissed that homosexual couples cannot receive special benefits from the Federal Government. You can't have it both ways. Either you want the Government in the business of licensing marriage, or you do not.

Again, the point sails right over your head because you haven't a clue what rights are.

It is a simple fact the government is in the marriage business. Whether or not you or I like that fact is immaterial. It is the state of things today.

What IS material is that the government has been EXCLUDING gays from the benefits it bestows on marriages, and that is a violation of their rights. As long as the government is in the marriage business, it must treat them all equally.

The reason the government is in the marriage business to begin with is because Americans wanted them to be. I never heard a Republican or Democrat complain about it. In fact, just try to get government out of marriage and watch the Right and Left rise up in anger.

its amazing how they argue something that doesnt even exist. Government is in the business and this will remain so for a long time.

 

[g5000]

The two aren't comparable. No one is outlawing same sex relationships. People are free to enter into whatever societal contract they want. The question is should the government recognize the relationship as marriage and have the power to regulate it.

And there is no societal benefit for doing either.

I had no idea you had to prove a social benefit before you were given rights where you live!

Wow. I thought you lived in America.

Well that's just it. It's not a right.

Another one who does not know what rights are.

If the government decided to give a free car to every American, but excluded white males, you would get the principle very quickly. And you would understand how retarded it would sound if when white men asked for free cars, too, everyone else said, "Those white guys think they are special. They want free cars, too!" And you would understand how deranged it sounds if people refused to give white men free cars and said, "White men already have equal rights."

The federal government has been giving free gifts to marriages, but excluded gay ones.

Simple as that.

 

[AmazonTania]

And now you are pissed that homosexual couples cannot receive special benefits from the Federal Government. You can't have it both ways. Either you want the Government in the business of licensing marriage, or you do not.

Again, the point sails right over your head because you haven't a clue what rights are.

It is a simple fact the government is in the marriage business. Whether or not you or I like that fact is immaterial. It is the state of things today.

I do understand very much what rights are. Your problem is that you use the term 'right' very broadly, thus your understanding of rights are very poor. You can keep saying this over and over. It won't make your point any more valid. Somehow you understand the premise that homosexuals couples are not entiled (with the emphasis on entitled) is wrong, but you don't seem to understand that Government being in the marriage licensing business is also wrong.

I really don't understand how that logic is suppose to work.

What IS material is that the government has been EXCLUDING gays from the benefits it bestows on marriages, and that is a violation of their rights. As long as the government is in the marriage business, it must treat them all equally.

It must treat them equally as individuals. Not as a homosexual, woman, men, Black, child, Asian, Jew, Muslim, Hindi, or any other particular group.

Everyone has rights as an individual, and nothing else.

 

[g5000]

And now you are pissed that homosexual couples cannot receive special benefits from the Federal Government. You can't have it both ways. Either you want the Government in the business of licensing marriage, or you do not.

Again, the point sails right over your head because you haven't a clue what rights are.

It is a simple fact the government is in the marriage business. Whether or not you or I like that fact is immaterial. It is the state of things today.

I do understand very much what rights are. Your problem is that you use the term 'right' very broadly. You can keep saying this over and over. It won't make your point any more valid. Somehow you understand the premise that homosexuals couples are not entiled (with the emphasis on entitled) is wrong, but you don't seem to understand that Government being in the marriage licensing business is also wrong.

I really don't understand how that logic is suppose to work.

What IS material is that the government has been EXCLUDING gays from the benefits it bestows on marriages, and that is a violation of their rights. As long as the government is in the marriage business, it must treat them all equally.

It must treat them equally as individuals. Not as a homosexual, woman, men, Black, child, Asian, Jew, Muslim, Hindi, or any other particular group.

Everyone has rights as an individual, and nothing else.

Before today, heterosexuals were given special treatment by the federal government.

That special treatment ended today.

I cannot help you if this simple fact is too profound for you to grasp.

 

[bodecea]

the Roman Empire lasted about 675 years and fell apart due to the same shit the United States of America is going thru now.., decadency and a ruler who is fiddling our once great nation into total ruination, our nation is burning figuratively and literally

The Roman Empire fell apart when the Christians took over. Kindly know your history before saying such foolishness again.

(BTW...Nero played the lyre, the fiddle wasn't invented yet...and the Roman Empire lasted another 300 years after him)

 

[g5000]

I do understand very much what rights are. Your problem is that you use the term 'right' very broadly, thus your understanding of rights are very poor. You can keep saying this over and over. It won't make your point any more valid. Somehow you understand the premise that homosexuals couples are not entiled (with the emphasis on entitled) is wrong, but you don't seem to understand that Government being in the marriage licensing business is also wrong.

Again, immaterial. The government providing cash and prizes to people is not illegal nor unconstitutional, in and of itself. So your obsession with your personal preference about government's involvement in marriage has absolutely no bearing on the Constitutional rights at issue.

What IS unconstitutional is that the government has been providing cash and prizes to heteros and withholding them from homos, for no rational reason.

Read the decision.

 

[AmazonTania]

Again, the point sails right over your head because you haven't a clue what rights are.

It is a simple fact the government is in the marriage business. Whether or not you or I like that fact is immaterial. It is the state of things today.

I do understand very much what rights are. Your problem is that you use the term 'right' very broadly. You can keep saying this over and over. It won't make your point any more valid. Somehow you understand the premise that homosexuals couples are not entiled (with the emphasis on entitled) is wrong, but you don't seem to understand that Government being in the marriage licensing business is also wrong.

I really don't understand how that logic is suppose to work.

What IS material is that the government has been EXCLUDING gays from the benefits it bestows on marriages, and that is a violation of their rights. As long as the government is in the marriage business, it must treat them all equally.

It must treat them equally as individuals. Not as a homosexual, woman, men, Black, child, Asian, Jew, Muslim, Hindi, or any other particular group.

Everyone has rights as an individual, and nothing else.

Before today, heterosexuals were given special treatment by the federal government.

That special treatment ended today

I cannot help you if this simple fact is too profound for you to grasp.

[/quote]

Now it's a special treatment? I thought they were 'rights.' Good to know I was able to educate you on the proper use of the term. You're welcome.

And where exactly did this 'special treatment' end, the 12 states which allows recongises gay marriage? That's something, I guess.

 

[g5000]

I personally oppose all tax expenditures. The tax thing wouldn't even be an issue for gays or straights if the government banned tax expenditures, which I think it should.

All of them.

However, this is about far more than taxes.

As long as Social Security exists, and the federal government provides cash to the survivor in a marriage after one dies, then ALL marriages should receive this benefit.

Before today, that was not the case. Straights received special treatment, and gays were excluded.

As long as a federal employee was allowed to place their spouse on their employer-provided healthcare plan, then ALL marriages should receive this benefit.

Before today, that was not the case. Straights received special treatment, and gays were excluded.


It really isn't that difficult to understand the ACTUAL issue at stake...if you really want to.

 

[Avatar4321]

Again, immaterial. The government providing cash and prizes to people is not illegal nor unconstitutional, in and of itself. So your obsession with your personal preference about government's involvement in marriage has absolutely no bearing on the Constitutional rights at issue.

What IS unconstitutional is that the government has been providing cash and prizes to heteros and withholding them from homos, for no rational reason.

Read the decision.

And why do we let the government provide cash and "prizes" to anyone with our tax money?

 

[g5000]

Again, immaterial. The government providing cash and prizes to people is not illegal nor unconstitutional, in and of itself. So your obsession with your personal preference about government's involvement in marriage has absolutely no bearing on the Constitutional rights at issue.

What IS unconstitutional is that the government has been providing cash and prizes to heteros and withholding them from homos, for no rational reason.

Read the decision.

And why do we let the government provide cash and "prizes" to anyone with our tax money?

Because that is what Right and Left have demanded for decades. And they have been quite happy with the arrangement, as long as fags marriages were excluded.

 

[g5000]

I do understand very much what rights are. Your problem is that you use the term 'right' very broadly. You can keep saying this over and over. It won't make your point any more valid. Somehow you understand the premise that homosexuals couples are not entiled (with the emphasis on entitled) is wrong, but you don't seem to understand that Government being in the marriage licensing business is also wrong.

I really don't understand how that logic is suppose to work.



It must treat them equally as individuals. Not as a homosexual, woman, men, Black, child, Asian, Jew, Muslim, Hindi, or any other particular group.

Everyone has rights as an individual, and nothing else.

Before today, heterosexuals were given special treatment by the federal government.

That special treatment ended today

I cannot help you if this simple fact is too profound for you to grasp.

Now it's a special treatment? I thought they were 'rights.' Good to know I was able to educate you on the proper use of the term. You're welcome.

And where exactly did this 'special treatment' end, the 12 states which allows recongises gay marriage? That's something, I guess.

Yes, it is special treatment when one group receives cash and prizes and another group is deliberately excluded for no logical reason.

When that special treatment is codified in law, such as DOMA, then it becomes unequal treatment under the law, which is unconstitutional.

I honestly have run out of ideas on how to penetrate your thick skull on this matter.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I support legalizing All forms of marriage to Adults. Who the fuck are you to tell them no?

 

[AmazonTania]

I do understand very much what rights are. Your problem is that you use the term 'right' very broadly, thus your understanding of rights are very poor. You can keep saying this over and over. It won't make your point any more valid. Somehow you understand the premise that homosexuals couples are not entiled (with the emphasis on entitled) is wrong, but you don't seem to understand that Government being in the marriage licensing business is also wrong.

Again, immaterial. The government providing cash and prizes to people is not illegal nor unconstitutional, in and of itself. So your obsession with your personal preference about government's involvement in marriage has absolutely no bearing on the Constitutional rights at issue.

What IS unconstitutional is that the government has been providing cash and prizes to heteros and withholding them from homos, for no rational reason.

The reason being that there are many states which does not recongnise same-sex marriage and an invalid marriage does not qualify for benefits and privileges under the law.

Sounds rational to me. The question is why should the government be in the business of doing this...

Read the decision.

I already know what the decision says. Still doesn't make it any less or more of a good decision.

 

[bodecea]

I support legalizing All forms of marriage to Adults. Who the fuck are you to tell them no?

You go for it!

 

[g5000]

Married tax returns were created with the federal income tax.

Social Security survivor benefits started in 1939.

We let government into the marriage business a long time ago.