Jump to content


SCOTUS and Gay Marriage


Recommended Posts

I hope they rule in favor of equality, I have no issue with two individuals getting married because it makes them happy. I would have a HUGE issue if the courts told me I couldn't marry my wife because of X reason. It's none of their business and it's what makes me happy.

  • Fire 2
Link to comment

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.

 

But same sex marriage will lead to bestiality! :blink:

 

Here's a message I woke up to this morning:

 

So if I really-really love my cat and have no family then can I marry my cat since she's been my "life partner" all these years? I have no issues with love having a blurry definition, but I'm not certain where I stand in blurring the lines of marriage.
Link to comment

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.

 

But same sex marriage will lead to bestiality! :blink:

 

Here's a message I woke up to this morning:

 

So if I really-really love my cat and have no family then can I marry my cat since she's been my "life partner" all these years? I have no issues with love having a blurry definition, but I'm not certain where I stand in blurring the lines of marriage.

 

Sorry, wrong kind of pu&&y for marriage. :lol:

Link to comment

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.

 

But same sex marriage will lead to bestiality! :blink:

 

Here's a message I woke up to this morning:

 

So if I really-really love my cat and have no family then can I marry my cat since she's been my "life partner" all these years? I have no issues with love having a blurry definition, but I'm not certain where I stand in blurring the lines of marriage.

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/donnad/how-gay-rights-is-nothing-like-legalizing-beastali

  • Fire 3
Link to comment

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.

 

But same sex marriage will lead to bestiality! :blink:

 

Here's a message I woke up to this morning:

 

So if I really-really love my cat and have no family then can I marry my cat since she's been my "life partner" all these years? I have no issues with love having a blurry definition, but I'm not certain where I stand in blurring the lines of marriage.

 

http://www.buzzfeed....lizing-beastali

 

That's perfect!

Link to comment

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.

i like this logic for euthanasia as well. so my doctor cannot let me go peacefully because someone's bible says that is wrong? even though the church's stance has changed, which means they are not dictated by any higher, universal standard; but the whims of society and science just like anyone else.

Link to comment

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.

I was fully aware of the details of the case vs. DOMA, however neither this discussion nor the broader impact of whatever decision SCOTUS makes is limited simply to the plight of Edie Windsor. Prop 8 was before the SCOTUS yesterday as well, and the broader point of employment benefits that NUance raised extends well beyond the specifics of the DOMA case since neither woman was an employee of the government (Windsor's suit addresses federal inheritance taxes). When referring to the court's aversion to placing more people "on the gov't dole" NUance's description of these people as "wives" certainly seemed loaded to me. Since there are nearly equal numbers of men versus women employed by the federal government, we're talking about large set of mixed genders, and using wives as a blanket description for them would be demeaning to at least half of them. I, justifiably imo, took exception to that characterization.

 

NUance, you'll note in my original post that I didn't say that the term wife was inherently demeaning ("women are wives, men are husbands"). My exception was to the apparent blanket use of the term, which seemed to be demeaning. If that wasn't your intent (and given your response, perhaps it was not not), then by all means you have my apology. Understand that when I read it, your one line of text didn't indicate that you were narrowly referring only to the plight of Mrs. Windsor and that point wasn't really relevant to her case anyway (see above). There was nothing smarmy or douchebaggish about the point I raised or the way I raised it - a shade confrontational perhaps, but not overly so. What's up with the name calling?

Link to comment
Justice Elena Kagan pushed a similar point. She told Clement ... "that maybe Congress had something different in mind than uniformity" in the definition of marriage. Suggesting the law was "infected with prejudice, fear, spite, and animus," Kagan read a portion of the House Report, which said DOMA was meant to reflect Congress' "collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality."

General consensus is that DOMA is in trouble! Kennedy talked about how it infringed on states' rights, while no less than 4 Justices talked in terms of gay rights.

Link to comment

Here is my personal opinion on what should happen, maybe what might happen, but IDK enough about the cases to make a real judgement...Get rid of the term marriage as a government term, return it to the religious side for each religious group to deal with. Make the term be "Civil union" because that more accurately explains what two people do, and make every "couple" create an actual contract that is legally binding, so we can get rid of a lot of the divorce issues(and because in the eyes of the state that's what it should be a legal interaction). Then everyone can be on the same playing field, and if someone so chooses they can get married in a religious ceremony of their choice even if they are gay.

 

My second question, and yes I am serious. For all the people who are pro-gay marriage/rights, are you for polygamous marriage equality as well? Why or Why not? The reason being, I personally think people should be allowed to enter into a relationship that all parties are consenting to and legally agree upon.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

It's quite possible that it was a very clever move by the conservative faction of the Supreme Court to hear the Prop 8 and the DOMA case in the same session. If DOMA is struck down on Federalism grounds it's going to take some fancy footwork to strike down the Prop 8 ruling.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

Here is my personal opinion on what should happen, maybe what might happen, but IDK enough about the cases to make a real judgement...Get rid of the term marriage as a government term, return it to the religious side for each religious group to deal with. Make the term be "Civil union" because that more accurately explains what two people do, and make every "couple" create an actual contract that is legally binding, so we can get rid of a lot of the divorce issues(and because in the eyes of the state that's what it should be a legal interaction). Then everyone can be on the same playing field, and if someone so chooses they can get married in a religious ceremony of their choice even if they are gay.

Is "marriage" a religious term? What religions should be allowed to claim it?

 

564703_10152178323642137_696603188_n.jpg

 

 

My second question, and yes I am serious. For all the people who are pro-gay marriage/rights, are you for polygamous marriage equality as well? Why or Why not? The reason being, I personally think people should be allowed to enter into a relationship that all parties are consenting to and legally agree upon.

My opinion as I expressed to my bat-sh*t crazy Aunt:

Polygamy raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, and child custody that regular and gay marriage does not. If a state prohibits polygamy, it’s prohibiting conduct (choice). If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting based upon their status. Polygamy is a choice. You choose to want to marry 20 women. It is not a choice to be black, female, or gay. You shouldn’t be able to discriminate those based on that status.

  • Fire 3
Link to comment

Here is my personal opinion on what should happen, maybe what might happen, but IDK enough about the cases to make a real judgement...Get rid of the term marriage as a government term, return it to the religious side for each religious group to deal with. Make the term be "Civil union" because that more accurately explains what two people do, and make every "couple" create an actual contract that is legally binding, so we can get rid of a lot of the divorce issues(and because in the eyes of the state that's what it should be a legal interaction). Then everyone can be on the same playing field, and if someone so chooses they can get married in a religious ceremony of their choice even if they are gay.

 

My second question, and yes I am serious. For all the people who are pro-gay marriage/rights, are you for polygamous marriage equality as well? Why or Why not? The reason being, I personally think people should be allowed to enter into a relationship that all parties are consenting to and legally agree upon.

i very much agree with the first part. marriage is a religious sacrament, let churches decide who they want to marry. however, the state should allow two consenting parties to enter into a civil union. like you said, it is a contractual agreement as much as anything.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

I hate memes, so damn much, they are pain in the ass to quote, but to Qmany, Marriage(the idea) may not have been invented by any one religion, nor should any religion own the term marriage. But because most religions have invested most of their history around the word and idea, I think its easier to separate the church and state and find common ground. If no one is prepared to compromise on the issue, no real progress can be made.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...