Page 120 of 193 FirstFirst ... 2070110118119120121122130170 ... LastLast
Results 1,191 to 1,200 of 1930

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

  1. #1191
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,901

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    Basically my own opinion as well... Roberts was completely right.

    And he was right that this opens us up for plural marriages in fact.
    No, he wasn't, and no it doesn't, unless he is planning on being one of those to rule as such concerning plural marriages, which would be pretty dumb of him wouldn't it?
    "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.

  2. #1192
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:15 PM
    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
    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.
    And if the government piece of paper didn't exist, companies wouldn't be relying on it to avoid their responsibilities. And it's funny that you don't see that as a complication rather than a simplification. But then in your ideology, government control of your personal life comforts you - I'm much more independent and self-sufficient.

    Your circular argument really is tiring. Your argument boils down to government must issue and sanction marriages and licenses because everyone expects and depends on government to issue and sanction marriages and licenses.
    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.

  3. #1193
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,755

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

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    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?
    This is how these issues have been played out by those pushing them.

    "I have an issue with same sex marriage in terms of my faith". Response - That is because you are a bigoted scum sucking homophobe.

    "I have problems with the Presidents agenda" Response - That is because you are a racist cesspool dwelling jackass.

    "I think people need to take responsibility for the lives" Response - That is because you are a POS radical right wing zealot


    The list goes on and on, as does the methodology being used to address opposition to these demands. It seems to me this method is going to increase the acrimony, rather than lessen it.

    I think failure to recognize that is going to be a big mistake.
    President Donald J Trump, 45th President of the United States of America. A victory born in the hearts and minds of Everyday Americans

  4. #1194
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,755

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

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    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?
    I have no idea how a comparison to the 1800's has any relationship to society today.

    The fact is, marriage today is becoming passé. Yet, same sex marriage has been a hill to die on for liberal/progressives who at the forefront of rejecting the idea of it. So what was the point really? It doesn't seem to be the right, but the right to the right to do so.
    President Donald J Trump, 45th President of the United States of America. A victory born in the hearts and minds of Everyday Americans

  5. #1195
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,901

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    You can toss up all the idiotic scenarios you want - they're meaningless. Try "one citizen is more equal than another citizen under the law" and "one tax exempt charity is more equal than another tax exempt charity under the law". Perhaps next some smart liberal will determine that Democrats are more beneficial to society than Republicans so people get tax breaks for donating to Democrats but not donating to Republicans. Maybe you'd like that, but you wouldn't like the reverse.

    How are two couples, one married, one not, living together and making a home together different simply by virtue of their government piece of paper? How is one unmarried couple with four children less a benefit to society than a married couple with no children and no interest in children?
    Because one couple has agreed to take on legal responsibilities for each other, the other has not. The other is willing to agree that they are married on legal paperwork, which affects them when applying for certain benefits, generally negatively, because both people are expected to be counted on that paperwork. They also agree to take on an indirect legal connection to the family of that person they are in a relationship with, the other couple doesn't. Just living with someone, even in a committed, longterm relationship, does not connect them legally to you.

    For instance, if you work for the lottery commission, your family cannot win the lottery legally, this includes legal spouses or children living with you, and parents. Your parents and children are connected to you via birth certificates or adoption records. But your legal spouse is connected to you via the marriage license. This is one example of how legal marriage might be a burden to couples, but cohabitation with your significant other might benefit you. And it isn't just lottery workers either. Many employers have similar rules pertaining to legal spouses, and even inlaws, if there is any potential benefit or conflict of interest there. I work for the same company as my mother in law. I can't work in the same store as her though. My sister has worked in the same store as her though because there is no legal connection between my sister and my mother in law. The legal connections are between me and my sister and me and my mother in law.
    "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.

  6. #1196
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,901

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    I have no idea how a comparison to the 1800's has any relationship to society today.

    The fact is, marriage today is becoming passé. Yet, same sex marriage has been a hill to die on for liberal/progressives who at the forefront of rejecting the idea of it. So what was the point really? It doesn't seem to be the right, but the right to the right to do so.
    "Become" indicates that you are comparing marriage to some time in the past. Yet that is an arbitrary point in the past. Why is it a problem that it has become "passe"? In reality, it is just that people are changing their priorities, putting marriage at least, and even in many cases children (which is good) after establishing a career, some financial security.

    It doesn't matter if only a small percent of that small percent of same sex couples want to get married. They should still have the right to do so, just as opposite sex couples do.
    "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. #1197
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,901

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    This is how these issues have been played out by those pushing them.

    "I have an issue with same sex marriage in terms of my faith". Response - That is because you are a bigoted scum sucking homophobe.

    "I have problems with the Presidents agenda" Response - That is because you are a racist cesspool dwelling jackass.

    "I think people need to take responsibility for the lives" Response - That is because you are a POS radical right wing zealot


    The list goes on and on, as does the methodology being used to address opposition to these demands. It seems to me this method is going to increase the acrimony, rather than lessen it.

    I think failure to recognize that is going to be a big mistake.
    That is how you are seeing it. In reality, the majority are saying "if you have an issue with same sex marriage in terms of your faith, then you need to understand that your faith applies to you, not to others. You cannot force others to live by your faith. That violates our rights and freedoms as Americans." Only a minority accuses people of being bigots.

    I haven't called anyone racist, nor have I seen very many others do so, at least not debating here. (Unless there is someone who is not putting it nearly as rationally as you are, which does happen.)

    Again, very few actually insult others about their stance on taking responsibility. What I have seen much of the time is people saying that it is more republican based policies that lead to others having financial problems, or simply greed, and then they are told to take responsibility when they struggle to survive in such a situation where they are dependent on others.

    You are exaggerating the negative reactions and completely overlooking the negative beginning statements to those things. There is very little times when the debates ever operate with one side (in your examples, all of them, the right) being completely rational, and then the other side (again, in your examples being the left) being completely irrational and just plain jackasses in their responses. That simply isn't reality. There are rational people and jackasses on both sides.
    "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. #1198
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,901

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    And if the government piece of paper didn't exist, companies wouldn't be relying on it to avoid their responsibilities. And it's funny that you don't see that as a complication rather than a simplification. But then in your ideology, government control of your personal life comforts you - I'm much more independent and self-sufficient.

    Your circular argument really is tiring. Your argument boils down to government must issue and sanction marriages and licenses because everyone expects and depends on government to issue and sanction marriages and licenses.
    No, those companies would be picking and choosing which couples they wanted to recognize as married, leaving others to fend for themselves, treating them unfairly just because they felt it was okay to do so. Legal marriage provides a set standard that they must follow. If they offer benefits to married people, then it must be to all married people, not just those they like or agree with.

    There are many reasons for the marriage licenses to exist. That is just one of them.
    "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. #1199
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 11:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    No, those companies would be picking and choosing which couples they wanted to recognize as married, leaving others to fend for themselves, treating them unfairly just because they felt it was okay to do so. Legal marriage provides a set standard that they must follow. If they offer benefits to married people, then it must be to all married people, not just those they like or agree with.

    There are many reasons for the marriage licenses to exist. That is just one of them.
    Why should a company have to recegnise any relationship? What contract does your spouse sign with your employer which then obligates the employer? What service does your non-employee spouce provide to the buisness which then entitles your spouse to compinsation?

  10. #1200
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:15 PM
    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
    Because one couple has agreed to take on legal responsibilities for each other, the other has not. The other is willing to agree that they are married on legal paperwork, which affects them when applying for certain benefits, generally negatively, because both people are expected to be counted on that paperwork. They also agree to take on an indirect legal connection to the family of that person they are in a relationship with, the other couple doesn't. Just living with someone, even in a committed, longterm relationship, does not connect them legally to you.

    For instance, if you work for the lottery commission, your family cannot win the lottery legally, this includes legal spouses or children living with you, and parents. Your parents and children are connected to you via birth certificates or adoption records. But your legal spouse is connected to you via the marriage license. This is one example of how legal marriage might be a burden to couples, but cohabitation with your significant other might benefit you. And it isn't just lottery workers either. Many employers have similar rules pertaining to legal spouses, and even inlaws, if there is any potential benefit or conflict of interest there. I work for the same company as my mother in law. I can't work in the same store as her though. My sister has worked in the same store as her though because there is no legal connection between my sister and my mother in law. The legal connections are between me and my sister and me and my mother in law.
    Well, clearly we disagree, and you continuously throw up this nonsense that has zero to do with the need for a government issued marriage license as opposed to a civilly created personal relationship contact that any two people enter into at any given time in their lives. Your faith in government is adorable but misguided, in my view, and that's not going to change no matter how many red herrings and strawmen you toss in the way.

    Take care and have a good day.
    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.

Posting Permissions

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