Same Sex Marriage Before the SCOTUS

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

Streetwiseguy wrote: The whole thing makes no difference to me. I can't see why two consenting adults can't do whatever strikes their fancy, but on the other hand, is a state recognised marriage really such a big deal anymore?

I think it makes a big difference to people from a tax, retirement, insurance, benifits, child rearing point of view. That's what's being argued.

I had a friend at work who's partner was in an auto accident. He was not allowed any input into care, or even to visit while the other guy was in coma.

His anti-gay grandma was, though. Lucky the guy woke up, my friend said granny acted like she wanted to pull the plug.

EDIT for less ambiguity: The coma guy's grandmother.

I have nothing other than I would like to add a strategically-placed R to the "SCOTUS" acronym.

I really don't understand the opposition at all.

I get that there are financial ramifications on multiple levels but those are due to government incentivising unions of one specific type, presumably because procreation is good for building empires. For them to limit it to just M/F pairs is exclusive and silly when we are already flush with too many damn people. They could incentivize immigrants to become citizens for the same effect.

Either make it equal for all or make it all go away.

EDIT: Agree with Sky... SCROTUS is better.

Beer Baron wrote:

DaveEstey wrote: Marriage existed within religion long before laws were ever conjured about the subject. The government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage at all. As it is, we discriminate against single people by giving married couples more rights and lower tax rates.

Marriage existed outside religion before holy books were penned.

Like any good troll, I'm replying with "Prove it."

Sidenote: I'm not for nor against gay marriage. I think the government should keep their nose out of the marriage business entirely. The fact that a person can pay for a marriage license and the fee for a JOP to have additional rights compared to a non-married person in this country is ridiculous.

DaveEstey wrote:

Beer Baron wrote:

DaveEstey wrote: Marriage existed within religion long before laws were ever conjured about the subject. The government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage at all. As it is, we discriminate against single people by giving married couples more rights and lower tax rates.

Marriage existed outside religion before holy books were penned.

Like any good troll, I'm replying with "Prove it." Sidenote: I'm not for nor against gay marriage. I think the government should keep their nose out of the marriage business entirely. The fact that a person can pay for a marriage license and the fee for a JOP to have additional rights compared to a non-married person in this country is ridiculous.

easily proved just by looking at any history that is not Judaic...

anyway, I am with you. there should legal ANYTHING for marriage. Marriage is a contract between 2 people to only be with each other.. until one dies. it should have nothing to do with taxes, or any legality.

DaveEstey wrote:

Beer Baron wrote:

DaveEstey wrote: Marriage existed within religion long before laws were ever conjured about the subject. The government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage at all. As it is, we discriminate against single people by giving married couples more rights and lower tax rates.

Marriage existed outside religion before holy books were penned.

Like any good troll, I'm replying with "Prove it." Sidenote: I'm not for nor against gay marriage. I think the government should keep their nose out of the marriage business entirely. The fact that a person can pay for a marriage license and the fee for a JOP to have additional rights compared to a non-married person in this country is ridiculous.

You're the one claiming religion "owns" marriage. Therefore you are the one that needs to prove ownership.

GAY SLUR

...ooohhh wait...yeah, probably not the best time for that one...

Passionate rebuttal - Here is a link to an article I skimmed. I will post it to prove my point, but theres probably something in it that can be used against me...

Political Article generically related to this thread...

4cylndrfury wrote: Political Article generically related to this thread...

Little known fact. Hitler is dutch for homosexual.

Gays have every right to be just as miserable as the rest of us.

No, I said marriage within religion existed before governments thought to say anything about it. Big difference there.

There was no need to govern something that was already laid out, and given that bygone governments weren't separated from religion like modern governing bodies, there was no need to craft additional legislation about it.

If our own government hadn't created laws regarding marriage, they wouldn't then be in a position to deny its citizens equal rights.

I'm marrying the love of my life this year. Why shouldn't her gay sister have the exact same right?

I have a number of gay friends, male and female. They shouldn't even have to settle for "domestic partnerships" or any other bull E36 M3 term to appease the straights. Why should they have to settle for "less"?

All I know is, everytime I see someone use the abbreviation SCOTUS, I think of Southern Culture on the Skids, and makes me happy, no matter what the judicial branch is up to.

Javelin wrote: I fully support the rights of anyone to marry, and live in one of the 9 states where it's legal. To deny them that right disenfranchises them of equal standing amongst other couples including in filing tax returns, health car, other insurance coverage, and rights involving children. Not to mention the ridiculousness that is forcing a religious belief upon another people! I have a niece that is openly gay and in the military (also about damned time).

I do agree with this, they need to revamp the whole thing to just be a "civil union" across the board whether you're man/woman, cousins(only in kentucky/west virginia/tennesee), man/man, woman/woman, it/it, man/dog, woman/gorilla, it doesn't berkeleying matter....Make it all the same. It shuts the religious brigade down on the whole "Marriage is between a man and woman" arguement and it cleans up the whole damned mess it has become.

DaveEstey wrote: No, I said marriage within religion existed before governments thought to say anything about it. Big difference there. There was no need to govern something that was already laid out, and given that bygone governments weren't separated from religion like modern governing bodies, there was no need to craft additional legislation about it. If our own government hadn't created laws regarding marriage, they wouldn't then be in a position to deny its citizens equal rights.

I don't see how that means that religion has more authority on the subject. What was already "laid out"? Marriage meant many more things before religion, let alone gov't got involved.

But I agree that the gov't has no right to get involved. DoMA and Prop 8 should immediately be struck down and give the right to marriage to all persons.

You're current argument supports the fact that DOMA and Prop 8 never had any right to even exist.

DaveEstey wrote: No, I said marriage within religion existed before governments thought to say anything about it. Big difference there.

Marriage existed in religion before existing in government because religion existed before government. However, society and culture predate religion and marriage is a cultural concept that predates all modernly practiced religion. It exists pretty universally in some form or other throughout every human culture I am aware of.

There was no need to govern something that was already laid out, and given that bygone governments weren't separated from religion like modern governing bodies, there was no need to craft additional legislation about it.

Incorrect. Many governments have been separated from religion, like the ancient Romans and Greeks who inspired the founding fathers, or the ancient Chinese. Or if they are connected it is generally through their shared culture, rather than religion spawning government.

Beer Baron wrote: They are designed around the rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit or Happiness.

Everything can be boiled down to this sentence right here. If any law passed violates these 3 things that are guranteed us by the Declaration of Independence, then it is an illegal law. Oxymoron there ain't it...

Cone_Junky wrote: I don't see how that means that religion has more authority on the subject. You're current argument supports the fact that DOMA and Prop 8 never had any right to even exist.

Never said it did.

And my argument is that marriage shouldn't be recognized by the government in the first place. We keep looking at the symptoms of the problem rather than the cause. We gave the government control of something. They then use that control to deny citizens equal rights. We never should have let the control it in the first place.

Caeser was a pontiff before he was a politician. Cicero was an auger. There was no separation in Roman society as we would now regard the word.

Cone_Junky wrote: <---- My opinion States shouldn't have the right to trample on basic human/civil rights. Federal law should override and trump bigoted laws.

No kidding. What if they married in a state that allows the marriage, then get a great job offer in a state that doesn't?

As I have now read page 2.......for the love of all things berkeley, the #1 problem here is that our nation chose to name it a "Marriage License". This is why religions have invested large sums to stop this from happening as it is indeed, against many of their beliefs.

As usual, the debate rages between the two sides and those that are intelligent enough to see the real problem and offer solutions that work will never get heard.

As far as the whole "Society existed before religion" thing, you guys do realize that as long as there has been mankind, mankind has worshipped something as a god right? The sun, the lifeforms, the wind, etc. Things mankind didn't understand were thrown into a "Whatever god is happy or pissed at us" category. Now I am even borderline pissed with this thread.

alfadriver wrote: ...that gives the rights of the individual a higher priority than the will of the public.

Unless the individual doesn't want to buy health insurance.

SCARRMRCC wrote: it should have nothing to do with taxes, or any legality.

So, if marriage has nothing to do with legality, then how do you let a spouse have legal rights to make decisions of a disabled spouse, or inherit the estate of the spouse, etc?

There are very long standing laws surrounding marriage unions, and I suspect that estate laws have been around longer than this country has. Else women who's rich husbands died would be left out on the street.

There are legal benefits to being married that need to be around.

I'm curious how the world would look if there was no legal tie between spouses.

DILYSI Dave wrote:

alfadriver wrote: ...that gives the rights of the individual a higher priority than the will of the public.

Unless the individual doesn't want to buy health insurance.

SCOTUS says you don't have that right.

alfadriver wrote:

SCARRMRCC wrote: it should have nothing to do with taxes, or any legality.

So, if marriage has nothing to do with legality, then how do you let a spouse have legal rights to make decisions of a disabled spouse, or inherit the estate of the spouse, etc? There are very long standing laws surrounding marriage unions, and I suspect that estate laws have been around longer than this country has. Else women who's rich husbands died would be left out on the street. There are legal benefits to being married that need to be around. I'm curious how the world would look if there was no legal tie between spouses.

Write a will. Right of attorney etc.

yamaha wrote: As I have now read page 2.......for the love of all things berkeley, the #1 problem here is that our nation chose to name it a "Marriage License". This is why religions have invested large sums to stop this from happening as it is indeed, against many of their beliefs. ... As far as the whole "Society existed before religion" thing, you guys do realize that as long as there has been mankind, mankind has worshipped something as a god right? The sun, the lifeforms, the wind, etc. Things mankind didn't understand were thrown into a "Whatever god is happy or pissed at us" category. Now I am even borderline pissed with this thread.

As has been said "marriage" is actually a secular term that has come to mean different things in relation to people being we. "Matrimony" or "Holy Matrimony" are the actual religious constructs, or more correctly Christian Sacraments.

And so society has had superstition and worship since it has existed. That is anthropologically not the same as religion. And even if it is... who cares? What does that have to do with the current debate?

I see it as: is one group of people being given unequal protection and rights under the law from another group?