Supreme Court and gay marriage

Jeanwah

I'm surprised that there's nothing on here about this.

26 March 2013 Last updated at 02:51 ET Help
The US Supreme Court is to consider two landmark cases on gay marriage in back-to-back-hearings.

On Tuesday, the justices will weigh a California constitutional amendment banning same-sex unions, passed after gay marriage became legal there. On Wednesday, a federal law defining marriage as between a man and a woman only, for the purpose of taxes and benefits, is up for review.

The court is expected to hand down its ruling by the end of June.

Video here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21934897

brianlux

That is big news. The end of June must seem like long way off for those directly affected by these decisions. I hope the judges do the right thing and I hope same sex marriage is made legal once again here in California.

fife

I just love how you can vote on equal rights.

Cosmo

Look at the two sides...
On one side, the point is: We are America. We are the Land Of The Free. Home of Equality in that All Men/Women are Created Equal. We should NOT restrict someone else's Pursuit of Happiness, just because we do not approve of them.
...
On the other side: Their main point is, 'God Hates Fags'.

fife

well just to give you guys support, here in Canada we have had gay marriage for about 10 years and no problems.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commenta ... e10193881/

unsung

I think DOMA will be struck down but Prop 8 will be upheld.


The correct answer is that government should not be involved in marriage, and asking for permission to do so doesn't make it a RIGHT. It gives them more control.


But then they can't get those tax dollars if they let the gay people get married.

cincybearcat

fife wrote:

well just to give you guys support, here in Canada we have had gay marriage for about 10 years and no problems.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commenta ... e10193881/

They gays are the least of your worries with all those Canadians running around up there.

JimmyV

cincybearcat wrote:

fife wrote:

well just to give you guys support, here in Canada we have had gay marriage for about 10 years and no problems.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commenta ... e10193881/

They gays are the least of your worries with all those Canadians running around up there.

JimmyV

Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since May of 2004. In all that time it has impacted my life as a straight man not one bit. There are no good reasons why this should not be allowed.

unsung

I'd agree. Who is supposed to allow it?

fife

cincybearcat wrote:

fife wrote:

well just to give you guys support, here in Canada we have had gay marriage for about 10 years and no problems.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commenta ... e10193881/

They gays are the least of your worries with all those Canadians running around up there.

don't worry, we are too drunk on beer and hockey to care what anyone says esp. from our little brothers to the south.

cincybearcat

fife wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

fife wrote:

well just to give you guys support, here in Canada we have had gay marriage for about 10 years and no problems.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commenta ... e10193881/

They gays are the least of your worries with all those Canadians running around up there.

don't worry, we are too drunk on beer and hockey to care what anyone says esp. from our little brothers to the south.

Shitty beer and a shitty sport! And trust me, I know the "American adjunct lagers" (Bud/miller/etc) suck as well.

But back on topic. I really hope they rule correctly on this one.

JimmyV

unsung wrote:

I'd agree. Who is supposed to allow it?

If you are looking for access to the same tax breaks and spousal benefits that a heterosexual married couple enjoys, then the government needs to allow it. Or recognize it if that word works better.

unsung

My point is two people should not need permission to engage in a contract when both are consenting. Government has no business. Supporters of gay marriage are begging the govt to give them permission to do so. It is the wrong path to take. Govt does not belong in the bedroom.

Cosmo

unsung wrote:

I'd agree. Who is supposed to allow it?

...
Actually, states, such as California, should not be able to forbid it. Even if the majority passed it... the same way no state can pass a law allowing discrimination if the majority of its citizens want to discriminate.
Since the law attaches certain privileges to married couples, the state cannot say who gets to be married and who does not. Either grant access to the privileges to all married people... or revoke privileges from all married people. Those are your choices.

JimmyV

It is not nearly that simple. Heterosexuals have access to benefits that homosexuals in a majority of states do not. The only way those benefits will be made available to homosexuals is through government recognition of their marriages.

JimmyV

Gay marriage should be the ultimate Libertarian issue, should it not? Isn't this a case where we should have more freedom?

Cosmo

unsung wrote:

My point is two people should not need permission to engage in a contract when both are consenting. Government has no business. Supporters of gay marriage are begging the govt to give them permission to do so. It is the wrong path to take. Govt does not belong in the bedroom.

...
It is not permission to marry... it is more of the privileges granted to married couples, such as carrying your spouse on your health insurance. Either take away the privileges from everyone or grant the privileges to everyone.

mikepegg44

JimmyV wrote:

Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since May of 2004. In all that time it has impacted my life as a straight man not one bit. There are no good reasons why this should not be allowed.

I always thought my marriage was worse off because of something, now I know what it is...Mass. gay married couples have ruined what once was a perfect marriage. Thanks Boston...one more thing I hate you for....(just kidding for those who can't tell)

JimmyV wrote:

It is not nearly that simple. Heterosexuals have access to benefits that homosexuals in a majority of states do not. The only way those benefits will be made available to homosexuals is through government recognition of their marriages.

I just don't know how the supreme court is going to apply the equal protection clause here. I mean, it seems as though one side has a point in that the gov't tying certain things to marriage has created a situation where some who cannot get married for love lose out on certain legal privileges.

on the other hand, as people point out from time to time, anyone can get legally married, but not everyone can do it for love. Just not sure how they will rule.

JimmyV wrote:

Gay marriage should be the ultimate Libertarian issue, should it not? Isn't this a case where we should have more freedom?

yes, and I believe most libertarians would say what Unsung is saying, we shouldn't need a license to get married.

JimmyV

It isn't really that hard though. You can marry a man, you can marry a woman. You can be husband and wife, husband and husband, wife and wife. And as far as the government is concerned each one is equal.

Where is Prince of Dorkness?!?! I am not nearly as eloquent on this issue as he is.

Cosmo

JimmyV wrote:

It isn't really that hard though. You can marry a man, you can marry a woman. You can be husband and wife, husband and husband, wife and wife. And as far as the government is concerned each one is equal.

Where is Prince of Dorkness?!?! I am not nearly as eloquent on this issue as he is.

...
That's the point. It should be recognized equally.
The arguement that people will marry their duck or their car is ridiculous and are always from the mouths of ridiculous people.