Page 77 of 88 FirstFirst ... 2767757677787987 ... LastLast
Results 761 to 770 of 880

Thread: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

  1. #761
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    I think the opposition has already surrendered.
    You could be right. I suppose we'll see, eventually.

  2. #762
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,789

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    I disagree. They are doing what they have done since Madison v Marbury, wait another generation and then invoke precedent. They're waiting to see if the majority against will erode with time in face of the current lower court decisions. If the states and the people don't fight back effectively, it becomes an easy decision when they do take it up.
    the majority already support equal rights even though thier support isn't needed
    the states and minority of people have no effective fight against equal rights so thats a lost cause
    Fact still remains SCOTUS "may" never rule on this

    while I hope they do just to drive that last nail in the coffin or bigotry adn or rights oppression they might not
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  3. #763
    Guru
    Lakryte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    06-02-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,982

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    It would still have to be recognized by the government.
    Please show everyone where I have said otherwise. This is about the third time you have brought up this strawman argument. I have explicitly stated the above point multiple times. The rest of your post also misses my actual point. I don't know how to be any clearer than I already have been, but at this point I'm beating a dead horse. Let me spell it out one last time.

    1. I support same-sex marriage.
    2. I prefer that there be no marriage license at all, but have the common sense to know that isn't going to happen any time soon, if ever.
    3. Legal kinship can be established without a government issued marriage license or any government issued document. This is the case in the United Kingdom.

    Now your point about notarization is more relevant to my claims, so I will address that respecfully. The maximum fee a notary can charge varies from $0.50 to $10.. That is cheaper than a marriage license pretty much anywhere. Keep in mind, however, that notaries are not required for all types of contract, and only exist because government forces people to use them for certain contracts.
    "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
    "When we live authentically we create an opportunity for others to walk out of their dark prisons of pretend into freedom."

  4. #764
    Guru
    Lakryte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    06-02-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,982

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    If the government is still involved, then what would be the point? They would still decide which ones they recognized.

    And I still don't see where you think that it wouldn't cost money to set these up, even if it is just a single document. They would still have to have it notarized, which likely means a fee. Plus, I don't see the government not requiring a fee to at least file the paperwork either.
    As long as the court system is controlled by government, it will be involved in the enforcement of all contracts. Does that mean there is no point to having private contracts? Government would not get to decide which contracts to recognize. If I say my best friend Bob is my next of kind and we sign a contract, the government would recognize that. Period. Notary fees are a creation of government, and some notaries charge less than a dollar.
    "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
    "When we live authentically we create an opportunity for others to walk out of their dark prisons of pretend into freedom."

  5. #765
    Guru
    Lakryte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    06-02-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,982

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    So, put your money where your libertarian mouth is. All the things you mention can be done with a private contract. So make one. Start your own marriage contract firm. Offer marriage contracts that do everything the government one does for less money and less hassle. Run them out of business with a superior product. Surely the market will gravitate towards your much better option.
    What a stupid suggestion. You know as well as I do that the current system as it is set up does not allow for this. Such contracts would be useless and could never have the benefits of a marriage license. You might as well tell a same-sex couple in Texas to "put your money where you mouth is and just get a Texas marriage license." Of course they couldn't do that, because the government does not allow them to. Likewise, government does not allow me to confer the benefits of marriage through a private contract.

    And by the way, have you ever heard of a prenup? Those are essentially additional privately created marriage contracts tacked on to the license.
    "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
    "When we live authentically we create an opportunity for others to walk out of their dark prisons of pretend into freedom."

  6. #766
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    Even before Loving marriage between races was legal in most of the US.
    Actually, it was only just before Loving, within a decade or so, that most states started changing their laws to allow interracial couples to marry. Almost every state has had, at one point in time, laws against interracial marriage. The vast majority of people were still against interracial relationships in 1970, after the Loving ruling, 70% in fact.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  7. #767
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Lakryte View Post
    As long as the court system is controlled by government, it will be involved in the enforcement of all contracts. Does that mean there is no point to having private contracts? Government would not get to decide which contracts to recognize. If I say my best friend Bob is my next of kind and we sign a contract, the government would recognize that. Period. Notary fees are a creation of government, and some notaries charge less than a dollar.
    They are not needed for most people so long as marriage is available. Marriage is efficient for most couples, and quite inexpensive.

    The government would still get to decide which contracts were recognized and who got precedent over legal family, the same as they do now in those states that do not recognize same sex marriages and there have been cases of same sex partners getting screwed over by the courts and legal kin of their loved one.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  8. #768
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Lakryte View Post
    Please show everyone where I have said otherwise. This is about the third time you have brought up this strawman argument. I have explicitly stated the above point multiple times. The rest of your post also misses my actual point. I don't know how to be any clearer than I already have been, but at this point I'm beating a dead horse. Let me spell it out one last time.

    1. I support same-sex marriage.
    2. I prefer that there be no marriage license at all, but have the common sense to know that isn't going to happen any time soon, if ever.
    3. Legal kinship can be established without a government issued marriage license or any government issued document. This is the case in the United Kingdom.

    Now your point about notarization is more relevant to my claims, so I will address that respecfully. The maximum fee a notary can charge varies from $0.50 to $10.. That is cheaper than a marriage license pretty much anywhere. Keep in mind, however, that notaries are not required for all types of contract, and only exist because government forces people to use them for certain contracts.
    Legal kinship cannot be legitimately established without the government being involved in some way. It is ridiculous to assume that it would be different if there were some form of legal kinship documents available that the government didn't offer. And so long as the government is involved, it is not likely to be cheap going through non-government sources, since legal kinship is pretty important for legal matters and affairs of a person.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  9. #769
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,787
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Actually, it was only just before Loving, within a decade or so, that most states started changing their laws to allow interracial couples to marry. Almost every state has had, at one point in time, laws against interracial marriage. The vast majority of people were still against interracial relationships in 1970, after the Loving ruling, 70% in fact.
    I'm unconcerned by most people. Your own post confirms that Loving broke no new ground nationally.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  10. #770
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: **BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    I'm unconcerned by most people. Your own post confirms that Loving broke no new ground nationally.
    Nor will any ruling from the SCOTUS on same sex marriage. Same sex couples can already get married in over half the states in the US. It is quite possible that by the time the SCOTUS does take on a case pertaining to state same sex marriage bans (that it doesn't punt, again), there will be more states that allow same sex couples to marry than there were states that allowed interracial couples to marry when Loving was decided.

    My state didn't even have a ruling yet for the same sex marriage cases here in NC, but now we do, after the SCOTUS refused the cases that reached them so far. Since the Circuit Court covering my state already struck down the laws in VA, it only took a ruling by the judge to strike it down here as well.

    It should hit 35, which outnumbers pro-interracial marriage states at Loving, within the next few months, certainly before the next time SCOTUS might review another case pertaining to same sex marriage.

    States | Freedom to Marry

    Same-Sex Marriage Fast Facts - CNN.com

    Alaska is likely going to make it 30 (once the legal extras are decided).

    Federal judge rules Alaska's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional | Alaska Dispatch
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

Page 77 of 88 FirstFirst ... 2767757677787987 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •