QMany Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 Today was the first of two days of arguments. Wednesday, the court will consider the related question of whether the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denies federal benefits to married same-sex couples, should be struck down. Kennedy even raised the prospect of the court dismissing the case altogether, a relatively unusual move that would leave intact a federal appeals court ruling that had earlier struck down the California law, known as Proposition 8. If dismissal were the outcome of the Supreme Court's consideration of Proposition 8, gay marriages in California could proceed, but the case would have no impact on other states, as gay rights activists had hoped. It would also mean that the high court could stay silent on the issue, at least in the short term. http://www.chicagotr...,0,727855.story I don't think the court can continue to stay quiet on this issue. Personally, I think it is a civil rights issue, a "fundamental rights" issue, and a moral issue. All of which point to one outcome. Link to comment
The Dude Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 Get your act together, America. 2 Link to comment
NUance Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 Unlike Proposition 8, that case does not give the court the opportunity to issue a broad ruling for or against gay marriage because the case relates only to a federal law that limits the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples for the purposes of federal benefits. This is a big sticking point. The Court is reluctant to create a whole new set of citizens who will be on the gov't dole, so to speak. The "wives" of gay gov't workers. Link to comment
QMany Posted March 27, 2013 Author Share Posted March 27, 2013 Unlike Proposition 8, that case does not give the court the opportunity to issue a broad ruling for or against gay marriage because the case relates only to a federal law that limits the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples for the purposes of federal benefits. This is a big sticking point. The Court is reluctant to create a whole new set of citizens who will be on the gov't dole, so to speak. The "wives" of gay gov't workers. I guess it will come into play but it really depends on the standard of review they use. That might be a "rational basis" but any higher standard of review, I don't think the discrimination could be justified. 1 Link to comment
bhamHusker Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 This is a big sticking point. The Court is reluctant to create a whole new set of citizens who will be on the gov't dole, so to speak. The "wives" of gay gov't workers. The word you're looking for is spouses. It is not a hard concept to grasp. Women are wives, men are husbands - even if when there are two of the same sex in the union. Referring to them as wives is degrading. As for the topic, I hope that the SCOTUS does the right thing, but I'm not confident that it will happen. The hard-line conservatives on the court are a predictably against marriage equality, Kennedy is on the fence and seems to be afraid of the issue. I think the moderate to liberal justices are pretty reliably in favor of it, but Ginsburg asked some questions today that raised an eyebrow or two. 4 Link to comment
NUance Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 This is a big sticking point. The Court is reluctant to create a whole new set of citizens who will be on the gov't dole, so to speak. The "wives" of gay gov't workers. The word you're looking for is spouses. It is not a hard concept to grasp. Women are wives, men are husbands - even if when there are two of the same sex in the union. Referring to them as wives is degrading. As for the topic, I hope that the SCOTUS does the right thing, but I'm not confident that it will happen. The hard-line conservatives on the court are a predictably against marriage equality, Kennedy is on the fence and seems to be afraid of the issue. I think the moderate to liberal justices are pretty reliably in favor of it, but Ginsburg asked some questions today that raised an eyebrow or two. So the term "wife" is degrading? If I understand the arguments in U.S. v. Windsor correctly, Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage as the legal union between a husband and a WIFE. Edie Windsor seeks the same marital deduction as a surviving husband or WIFE would receive following the death of Thea Spyer. She is already a spouse of Thea Spyer (or partner, or whatever you want to call her). She wants the rights of a husband or WIFE. How could the term “wife” be demeaning? That’s what Ms. Windsor seeks. On a final note, it’s difficult to persuade people to your point of view when you act like a smarmy douchebag. You might consider adopting a different tone. Link to comment
walksalone Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 People wanting same sex marriage have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us... 2 Link to comment
Popular Post tschu Posted March 27, 2013 Popular Post Share Posted March 27, 2013 Hilarious how America was settled due to religious persecution and was founded on the idea of separation of church and state; yet a large percentage of the population still believes that not only is it okay, but that it is correct to discriminate against a certain subset of the population merely on the basis of what their religion deems to be unholy. "Gay marriage shouldn't be legal because my religion says it's a sin" is some of the worst logic you can ever come up with. 14 Link to comment
walksalone Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Hilarious how America was settled due to religious persecution and was founded on the idea of separation of church and state; yet a large percentage of the population still believes that not only is it okay, but that it is correct to discriminate against a certain subset of the population merely on the basis of what their religion deems to be unholy. "Gay marriage shouldn't be legal because my religion says it's a sin" is some of the worst logic you can ever come up with. Link to comment
MLB 51 Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 People wanting same sex marriage have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us... Was just going to post that exaact reply. +1 Link to comment
QMany Posted March 27, 2013 Author Share Posted March 27, 2013 This is a big sticking point. The Court is reluctant to create a whole new set of citizens who will be on the gov't dole, so to speak. The "wives" of gay gov't workers. The word you're looking for is spouses. It is not a hard concept to grasp. Women are wives, men are husbands - even if when there are two of the same sex in the union. Referring to them as wives is degrading. As for the topic, I hope that the SCOTUS does the right thing, but I'm not confident that it will happen. The hard-line conservatives on the court are a predictably against marriage equality, Kennedy is on the fence and seems to be afraid of the issue. I think the moderate to liberal justices are pretty reliably in favor of it, but Ginsburg asked some questions today that raised an eyebrow or two. So the term "wife" is degrading? If I understand the arguments in U.S. v. Windsor correctly, Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage as the legal union between a husband and a WIFE. Edie Windsor seeks the same marital deduction as a surviving husband or WIFE would receive following the death of Thea Spyer. She is already a spouse of Thea Spyer (or partner, or whatever you want to call her). She wants the rights of a husband or WIFE. How could the term “wife” be demeaning? That’s what Ms. Windsor seeks. On a final note, it’s difficult to persuade people to your point of view when you act like a smarmy douchebag. You might consider adopting a different tone. I don't think bhamHusker may have known the facts of the case that is in front of SCOTUS. It can reasonably be inferred that you may have been making a shot at gay couples trying to call a male spouse a "wife," even though I don't think that was your intent. Now that is out of the way ... [T]he word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. In the simplest terms, they hope to get the DOMA language erased. Most of the benefits are conferred on "married" couples. They are trying to change the definition of "marriage" from DOMA's bigoted view to a view that makes marriage open to gay couples for federal and interstate purposes. They are not trying to be eligible as "wives" per se, they are trying to show that language is discriminating and should be changed. Link to comment
ShawnWatson Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Hilarious how America was settled due to religious persecution and was founded on the idea of separation of church and state; yet a large percentage of the population still believes that not only is it okay, but that it is correct to discriminate against a certain subset of the population merely on the basis of what their religion deems to be unholy. "Gay marriage shouldn't be legal because my religion says it's a sin" is some of the worst logic you can ever come up with. Simple, but fantastic post. +1 sir. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 The entire gay marriage amendment issue that Bush brought up during his term is one of the stupidest, idiotic, waste of times ever put forth by a political party. Link to comment
QMany Posted March 27, 2013 Author Share Posted March 27, 2013 Wall Street Journal @WSJ1m Attorney: #SCOTUS justices "might want a more limited ruling" that neither bans nor declares right to gay marriage. http://on.wsj.com/ZvWM6N That would be a FAIL. So they are basically leaving it up to the states, 41 of which have antiquated "marriage" laws. Link to comment
Junior Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Hilarious how America was settled due to religious persecution and was founded on the idea of separation of church and state; yet a large percentage of the population still believes that not only is it okay, but that it is correct to discriminate against a certain subset of the population merely on the basis of what their religion deems to be unholy. "Gay marriage shouldn't be legal because my religion says it's a sin" is some of the worst logic you can ever come up with. Well said. That point is relates to a lot of topics in this country. Link to comment
Recommended Posts