Home› A Moving Train

Supreme Court and gay marriage

JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
edited April 2013 in A Moving Train
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
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1345

Comments

  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,388
    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.
    "Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!"
    -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"

    "Try to not spook the horse."
    -Neil Young













  • fifefife Posts: 3,327
    I just love how you can vote on equal rights.
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    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'.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • fifefife Posts: 3,327
    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/
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    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.
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,492
    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.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,317
    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.

    :lol:
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,317
    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 changed by not changing at all..."
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    I'd agree. Who is supposed to allow it?
  • fifefife Posts: 3,327
    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.
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,492
    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.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,317
    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.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    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.
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    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.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,317
    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 changed by not changing at all..."
  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,317
    Gay marriage should be the ultimate Libertarian issue, should it not? Isn't this a case where we should have more freedom?
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    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.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    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.
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,317
    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.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    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.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • justamjustam Posts: 21,412
    Cosmo wrote:
    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.

    I wonder if that's not a hidden reason why there's such resistance to marriage equality? We see the religious objections openly but, perhaps there are business meetings behind closed doors too?! It would certainly cost businesses more to insure people and give them benefits...

    :geek:
    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    justam wrote:
    I wonder if that's not a hidden reason why there's such resistance to marriage equality? We see the religious objections openly but, perhaps there are business meetings behind closed doors too?! It would certainly cost businesses more to insure people and give them benefits...

    :geek:
    ...
    You're right. We don't know all of the factors. But, we do know that those businesses, such as insurance companies, will remain publicly silent in order to avoid the bad press.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,317
    justam wrote:
    Cosmo wrote:
    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.

    I wonder if that's not a hidden reason why there's such resistance to marriage equality? We see the religious objections openly but, perhaps there are business meetings behind closed doors too?! It would certainly cost businesses more to insure people and give them benefits...

    :geek:

    It's a very good question.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • Last-12-ExitLast-12-Exit Charleston, SC Posts: 8,661
    Cosmo wrote:
    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.

    I agree. The reason this is even in front of the supreme court is because the ridiculous estate tax that a woman is required to pay because the federal government doesn't recognize gay marriage. If this woman's spouse been a man, she would not have had to pay that tax. I'm sorry I don't remember the woman name.
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,492
    Last-12-Exit wrote:
    Cosmo wrote:
    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.

    I agree. The reason this is even in front of the supreme court is because the ridiculous estate tax that a woman is required to pay because the federal government doesn't recognize gay marriage. If this woman's spouse been a man, she would not have had to pay that tax. I'm sorry I don't remember the woman name.

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/27/us/new-yo ... ?hpt=hp_t1
    hippiemom = goodness
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    Cosmo wrote:
    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.


    my come back to that point is, how does it change your life if someone does marry a duck? car? or carrot?

    It doesn't. I don't understand why people care so much about their neighbors lives when it impacts you exactly 0%
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • fifefife Posts: 3,327
    Last-12-Exit wrote:
    Cosmo wrote:
    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.

    I agree. The reason this is even in front of the supreme court is because the ridiculous estate tax that a woman is required to pay because the federal government doesn't recognize gay marriage. If this woman's spouse been a man, she would not have had to pay that tax. I'm sorry I don't remember the woman name.

    her name was Edith "Edie" Windsor. I still think this would have been brought up to the supreme court without her
  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,317
    If we were to give tax breaks to everyone who wanted to marry their car or a duck it may have an impact. And two gay men who wish to get married and spend their lives together should not be told, "No, if we let you then some other dude might want to marry a duck."
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • pandorapandora Posts: 21,855
    It's a big subject in the news and on new radio today. I hear 5 to 4 projected in favor of gay rights.
    They think the swing voter judge, the tie breaker, will vote for the change.

    I am so surprised and very happy. I thought for sure we were some years out for this.
    I'll be celebrating with my gal pals, maybe another couple weddings ... official style :D
    Fun!
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    JimmyV wrote:
    If we were to give tax breaks to everyone who wanted to marry their car or a duck it may have an impact. And two gay men who wish to get married and spend their lives together should not be told, "No, if we let you then some other dude might want to marry a duck."


    I agree. But then again, I don't think being married should give you tax breaks...
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
Sign In or Register to comment.