Supreme Court and gay marriage

24567

Comments

  • justam
    justam Posts: 21,415
    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:
    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&
  • Cosmo
    Cosmo 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!!!
  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,614
    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-Exit
    Last-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.
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,962
    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
  • mikepegg44
    mikepegg44 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
  • fife
    fife 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
  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,614
    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..."
  • pandora
    pandora 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!
  • mikepegg44
    mikepegg44 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
  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,614
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    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...

    Should it not allow you to make decisions for your spouse should they become medically incapacitated? It isn't just tax breaks.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • mikepegg44
    mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    JimmyV wrote:
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    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...

    Should it not allow you to make decisions for your spouse should they become medically incapacitated? It isn't just tax breaks.

    I realize it isn't just tax breaks, just went off your example.

    in some cases a spouse could be making decisions for you that you would not have made and in their own selfish best interest, everyone should have a healthcare directive, married or not.
    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
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    Cosmo wrote:
    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'.

    That's pathetic and totally not accurate.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • Cosmo
    Cosmo Posts: 12,225
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    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 is exactly my point. If someone wants to marry a duck... and put that duck on his insurance plan (good luck with that)... and allow his duck to visit him in the hospital... really, who gives a fuck, right? I certainly don't care.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • Cosmo
    Cosmo Posts: 12,225
    know1 wrote:
    Cosmo wrote:
    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'.

    That's pathetic and totally not accurate.
    ...
    Okay. I would really love to hear your side.
    Then, what is the other side's reasoning?
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    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.

    Why just one man or one woman, though. What if you wanted husband, husband, wife. Would that relationship have the same grounds for equality?
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • Kel Varnsen
    Kel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    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/

    Seriously america, as a Canadian I would like to welcome you to 2005. Wait until you see Batman Begins, that movie was awesome.
  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,614
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    JimmyV wrote:

    Should it not allow you to make decisions for your spouse should they become medically incapacitated? It isn't just tax breaks.

    I realize it isn't just tax breaks, just went off your example.

    in some cases a spouse could be making decisions for you that you would not have made and in their own selfish best interest, everyone should have a healthcare directive, married or not.

    I know you know that. I know Unsung knows it as well.

    Anything can be abused. If we are going to take away all the benefits of legalities of marriage for all citizens that is one thing, but we both know that is never going to happen. Until then I do not see the argument against. If more freedom is good then this is the ultimate more freedom issue. More freedom for more Americans.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • mikepegg44
    mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    JimmyV wrote:
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    JimmyV wrote:

    Should it not allow you to make decisions for your spouse should they become medically incapacitated? It isn't just tax breaks.

    I realize it isn't just tax breaks, just went off your example.

    in some cases a spouse could be making decisions for you that you would not have made and in their own selfish best interest, everyone should have a healthcare directive, married or not.

    I know you know that. I know Unsung knows it as well.

    Anything can be abused. If we are going to take away all the benefits of legalities of marriage for all citizens that is one thing, but we both know that is never going to happen. Until then I do not see the argument against. If more freedom is good then this is the ultimate more freedom issue. More freedom for more Americans.

    agree
    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
  • Cosmo
    Cosmo Posts: 12,225
    know1 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.

    Why just one man or one woman, though. What if you wanted husband, husband, wife. Would that relationship have the same grounds for equality?
    ...
    Why do you care? How is that marriage affecting you?
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!

Categories