Page 119 of 193 FirstFirst ... 1969109117118119120121129169 ... LastLast
Results 1,181 to 1,190 of 1930

Thread: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

  1. #1181
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 01:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    22,683

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Kinda closing thoughts after I have had some time to digest this: I really wish Kennedy would have written the opinion differently. He spent almost the whole time explaining why it was the right thing to do, and almost no time explaining why it was the legal thing to do, and this despite the fact that the legal arguments where definitely there. There where multiple paths that could have explained the legal reasoning that would have been consistent with precedent, but he chose not to explain the reasoning used. This made Roberts job with his dissent very easy, and that dissent is what will be remembered(he has a very vivid writing style) along with the outcome. It is like Kennedy tailored the ruling to avoid making is usable as any kind of possible precedent, and to do that he really did not talk about the law or the constitution.

    I kinda expected that I would like the outcome, but not like the ruling, but the level of my discontent with the ruling is really high. That I suspect it was intentionally done that way does not change my dislike for it.
    Basically my own opinion as well... Roberts was completely right.

    And he was right that this opens us up for plural marriages in fact.

  2. #1182
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,912

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    The thirteen amendment covers slavery just fine. The fourteenth amendment was a power grab by the federal government.
    A power grab that gave power back to the people, where it belonged.
    "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.

  3. #1183
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,912

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    No, but I don't see why that is nessarcy now. You just stop issuing marriage licenses to everyone and when those people die or get divorced the government is done with marriage. Gays can't complain about unequal treatment nor can straight couples, so all should be good.
    Not going to happen because people want to be recognized in the legal kinship of "spouses". It doesn't matter how much you and a few others may not like that, but the majority wants it and it does not harm you at all. It does however help protect married people and it benefits society.
    "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.

  4. #1184
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,912

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    From what I hear from people like Roguenuke(I think that is right) it's all about the benefits. Apparently, it's just too much of a bother to be so shallow without government. Who knew?

    Why? The fourteenth amendment can't be invoked and no one is losing their benefits. I don't see why my plan wouldn't work.
    No. You are reading what you want to read. I have said very often that it is about the protections marriage offers, alone with the rights and benefits, due to the nature of marriage, of agreeing to being together in a committed relationship where the people see themselves as family. Legal marriage recognition recognizes as legal family members. The benefits are simply something people want to go along with it, and most of them make complete sense. It is also beneficial to society and the most efficient way to set up these family connections.
    "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.

  5. #1185
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,762

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Not going to happen because people want to be recognized in the legal kinship of "spouses". It doesn't matter how much you and a few others may not like that, but the majority wants it and it does not harm you at all. It does however help protect married people and it benefits society.
    It doesn't appear the society that is being pushed today is moving in a direction that supports your conclusion. Never in the history of the United States has marriage been less important, and that trend is growing.

    Just a generation or so ago, the idea of starting a family, or joining for life without getting married, was almost unheard of. It was socially unusual, and even unacceptable, to have children outside of marriage. Today, that is becoming the norm. If the trend continues, marriage will be the exception to the rule.
    President Donald J Trump, 45th President of the United States of America. A victory born in the hearts and minds of Everyday Americans

  6. #1186
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,912

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    Yes they are free to do so. They should be respected in their beliefs, just as those who support same sex marriage should be respected in theirs.

    Like you, I have no problem at all with same sex marriage. I base it on the law. Whether due process, or equal protection. In the end, I don't see how the government could oppose it. I do see a massive slippery slope, which is always a concern of mine.

    Perhaps I'm not articulating it well. To me, the greatest catalyst for the acrimony contained in the issue is the use of gay marriage as a vehicle for a much greater agenda. I think that is where the opposition to the concept is coming from, as opposed to actual rejection of the right.
    Then you are the one choosing to see it that way. There are separate issues. It isn't that hard to recognize either if you just look at the first case that homosexuals won in the SCOTUS. It wasn't same sex marriage and was even before they got laws struck that got them thrown in jail, even put on sex offender lists for just being in their consensual relationships. It was to be able to be recognized under local anti-discrimination laws without the state interfering to make such recognition illegal. Then there is the fact that those cake cases involved incidents where marriage wasn't even legal at the time in those states for same sex couples, the same as for the photography case. Their weddings was personal weddings, having little to do with legal marriage (eventhough at least one was getting legally married in another state and having the reception in their home state).

    The other issues are anti-discrimination and public accommodation laws, and adoption laws. Adoption laws are actually easier with same sex marriage bans struck down because that was how so many of them worked, only make adoption legal for those who were legally married. Now, same sex couples are legally married. I have no doubt though that there will likely be a last ditch effort on this one to try to prevent same sex adoptions, even with them now able to get married. As for anti-discrimination and public accommodation laws, this would just be adding sexuality as a reason to not discriminate, either in housing or in doing business. It applies to using any sexuality, not just homosexuality. Homosexuality, same sex relationships are not the only things that people have strong religious beliefs against, even of those protected by such laws. What exactly is your issue with people pushing for such things under the law? Other similar protections already exist within our laws, for race, religion, sex, etc.

    What else is there that is the problem, that you are talking about?
    "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. #1187
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:34 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,183

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Contract law does not cover the same things that marriage does because marriage deals with legal kinship, establishing a very specific legal kinship, the same as birth certificates and adoption paperwork does. That is not just a contract because that recognized legal kinship comes with certain legal rights and benefits, but also responsibilities that are so numerous that it would take massive paperwork for people to make individual contracts dealing with it. Instead, the government simplifies the process, having a general set of laws for the recognition of the kinship that applies to all people, and then people can choose to change certain parts through individual contracts if their situations require it (most don't).

    It doesn't matter how you believe or what you think you are or are not "beholden" to the government to pertaining to marriage. It really has very little to do with you unless you are married.
    You're quite funny. Government "simplifies the process" of marriage? Indeed - we've just seen decades of legal wrangling over same sex marriage that has been very simple. There's virtually nothing that government simplifies and absolutely nothing that government simplifies when it comes to the private lives of individuals. It's remarkable that your courts created a "right to privacy" under the constitution to legalize abortion and yet no similar right to privacy exists for personal relationships.
    A Canadian conservative is one who believes in limited government and that the government should stay out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms.

  8. #1188
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,912

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    It doesn't appear the society that is being pushed today is moving in a direction that supports your conclusion. Never in the history of the United States has marriage been less important, and that trend is growing.

    Just a generation or so ago, the idea of starting a family, or joining for life without getting married, was almost unheard of. It was socially unusual, and even unacceptable, to have children outside of marriage. Today, that is becoming the norm. If the trend continues, marriage will be the exception to the rule.
    We still have laws in some places (Utah) that prevent people from cohabiting without being legally married. That is why such things were unheard of. In the far past, marriage didn't require any paperwork to protect people, now it does. Some don't feel the need for those protections, others do. I doubt it will drop to really low numbers of people ever married legally anytime in the near future. The low numbers now are mainly not taking into consideration that young people are actually waiting til they are older to marry, and other factors. The waiting thing is something most people consider a positive. I waited til I was 27, which is higher than the national average for women. My husband was actually under it.

    Median Age at First Marriage, 1890–2010

    Notice the period around the 50s, 60s, how the average age of marriage dropped for both men and women. It is because there was a change in society, their beliefs on marriage and family.

    Also, we don't really have much information on marriage rates prior to 1920, but it actually wasn't that high, considering it was higher in 1960.

    Census: Marriage rate at 93-year low, even including same-sex couples | WashingtonExaminer.com

    Basically, people are simply comparing now to 1950s, 1960s, and assuming that those times represent the majority of US history for such things. It doesn't. Those times were changes themselves to society, changes that led to more stringent laws concerning marriage and relationships. In the past, if people wanted to divorce, even when against the law technically, they simply left the person. If you moved to a different state or territory in the 19th Century, who would know if you were leaving a spouse behind? Who kept track of who was married? How was it communicated to others? How did people know who was who unless they told you? How did you know they were telling the truth?
    "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. #1189
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:34 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,183

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Did you notice that the gay movement isn't concerned with the relationship actually suceeding at all?
    The fight for same sex marriage and the fight against same sex marriage, both, have had zero to do with "stable, self-sufficient, productive households". It has to do with government bestowed benefits and who should be allowed to have their hand in the taxpayer's pocket. It's the whole basis of the Supreme Court ruling - individuals with a same sex marriage in a State that doesn't recognize same sex marriage should not be punished and prohibited from accessing federal subsidies in those States that heterosexual married couples enjoy.
    A Canadian conservative is one who believes in limited government and that the government should stay out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms.

  10. #1190
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,912

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    You're quite funny. Government "simplifies the process" of marriage? Indeed - we've just seen decades of legal wrangling over same sex marriage that has been very simple. There's virtually nothing that government simplifies and absolutely nothing that government simplifies when it comes to the private lives of individuals. It's remarkable that your courts created a "right to privacy" under the constitution to legalize abortion and yet no similar right to privacy exists for personal relationships.
    Actually, it is much simpler to have that government recognition than to get spurious recognition of your relationship, as we have seen in some companies waiting for full recognition. Same sex couples had to look for a company that was willing to grant them recognition for their relationship (getting medical/dental coverage for your spouse), while opposite sex couples who are legally married get those things from companies without having to look for them. They are recognized as married. The company can't say "I recognize your marriage, but not yours", unlike if there was no legal marriage recognition.
    "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.

Posting Permissions

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