Page 64 of 193 FirstFirst ... 1454626364656674114164 ... LastLast
Results 631 to 640 of 1930

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

  1. #631
    Guru
    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    11-28-16 @ 12:28 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,732

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

    Apparently my earlier questions about multiple marriage restrictions were answered as Roberts said the majority opinion opens the door for legal multiple marriages

    Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one. It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.

  2. #632
    Randian PUA
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    58,634

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Harman View Post
    Masha Gessen:

    I agree that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it is a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. . . Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again, I don’t think it should exist.

    I sometimes think that gay marriage advocates are acting in bad faith.
    from the majority opinion
    it is the enduring importance of marriage that
    underlies the petitioners’ contentions. This, they say, is
    their whole point. Far from seeking to devalue marriage,
    the petitioners seek it for themselves because of their
    respect—and need—for its privileges and responsibilities.

    And their immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage
    is their only real path to this profound commitment.

    Recounting the circumstances of three of these cases
    illustrates the urgency of the petitioners’ cause from their
    perspective.

    Petitioner James Obergefell, a plaintiff in the
    Ohio case, met John Arthur over two decades ago. They
    fell in love and started a life together, establishing a lasting,
    committed relation. In 2011, however, Arthur was
    diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS.
    This debilitating disease is progressive, with no known
    cure. Two years ago, Obergefell and Arthur decided to
    commit to one another, resolving to marry before Arthur
    died. To fulfill their mutual promise, they traveled from
    Ohio to Maryland, where same-sex marriage was legal. It
    was difficult for Arthur to move, and so the couple were
    wed inside a medical transport plane as it remained on the
    tarmac in Baltimore. Three months later, Arthur died.
    Ohio law does not permit Obergefell to be listed as the
    surviving spouse on Arthur’s death certificate. By statute,
    they must remain strangers even in death, a stateimposed
    separation Obergefell deems “hurtful for the rest
    of time.” App. in No. 14–556 etc., p. 38. He brought suit
    to be shown as the surviving spouse on Arthur’s death
    certificate.

    April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse are co-plaintiffs in the
    case from Michigan. They celebrated a commitment ceremony
    to honor their permanent relation in 2007. They
    both work as nurses, DeBoer in a neonatal unit and Rowse
    in an emergency unit. In 2009, DeBoer and Rowse fostered
    and then adopted a baby boy. Later that same year,
    they welcomed another son into their family. The new
    baby, born prematurely and abandoned by his biological
    mother, required around-the-clock care. The next year, a
    baby girl with special needs joined their family. Michigan,
    however, permits only opposite-sex married couples or
    single individuals to adopt, so each child can have only one
    woman as his or her legal parent. If an emergency were to
    arise, schools and hospitals may treat the three children
    as if they had only one parent. And, were tragedy to befall
    either DeBoer or Rowse, the other would have no legal
    rights over the children she had not been permitted to
    adopt. This couple seeks relief from the continuing uncertainty
    their unmarried status creates in their lives.

    Army Reserve Sergeant First Class Ijpe DeKoe and his
    partner Thomas Kostura, co-plaintiffs in the Tennessee
    case, fell in love. In 2011, DeKoe received orders to deploy
    to Afghanistan. Before leaving, he and Kostura married
    in New York. A week later, DeKoe began his deployment,
    which lasted for almost a year. When he returned, the two
    settled in Tennessee, where DeKoe works full-time for the
    Army Reserve. Their lawful marriage is stripped from
    them whenever they reside in Tennessee, returning and
    disappearing as they travel across state lines. DeKoe, who
    served this Nation to preserve the freedom the Constitution
    protects, must endure a substantial burden.

    The cases now before the Court involve other petitioners
    as well, each with their own experiences. Their stories
    reveal that they seek not to denigrate marriage but rather
    to live their lives, or honor their spouses’ memory, joined
    by its bond
    .
    We cannot deny fundamental rights to some people merely because someone else has an opinion you don't like
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  3. #633
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    28,214

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MrT View Post
    Well...more than two adults, hence the term polygamy. Heh.

    But the primary issue that someone challenging a law preventing polygamy is that they have to overcome the State's legitimate interest of preventing fraud and folks being able to claim the tax benefits without any of the associated societal benefits.
    That's got to be the first legitimate argument against polygamy that I've ever seen. However, its still not enough. They have the same concern (fraud) when it comes to permits and licenses for people owning a gun. Yet since its a Right then they still have to find a way to deal with it. Same goes for people claiming that their home/land should be considered church property and as such exempt from taxation.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  4. #634
    Guru
    Verthaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    09-08-16 @ 12:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,044

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

    Quote Originally Posted by WCH View Post
    So you don't have a concept of G and E?
    I do have a concept of good and evil. I am just not required to run it by you or your religion for approval.

  5. #635
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,065

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

    Quote Originally Posted by WCH View Post
    Sorry but, in the end it will.
    In the end? Lol. Good grief, here, I'll make you a deal. If you're right, I'll buy you a beer in hell. What? You didn't think you'd end up in heaven because you hated on homosexuals from the anonymity of a computer... did you? I'm being facetious of course. There is no heaven or hell. You live, you die, then you get eaten by worms.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  6. #636
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,188

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

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    It can be, but in this case, almost certainly won't be because of the fact that support for same sex marriage is only increasing not decreasing, and the only way for this to go back to Court is if the states refuse to obey the SCOTUS ruling and the federal government refuses to enforce it.
    You could be right - no way to be certain, either way. For me, however, courts are now a crap shoot - judges have become purveyors of opinion rather than upholders of the law. They are true politicians, more concerned with the prevailing winds rather then their oath of office. I hope you're right about support for same sex couples growing - at one time many Americans were pretty confident about the abortion decision being unassailable, and you see where that is now. The courts should never move faster than society, in my view. But it is what it is and many, if not all, should be hopeful of calm going forward.
    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.

  7. #637
    Randian PUA
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    58,634

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    What people that would otherwise have any distinguishing feature that are not man and woman? Can you be specific?


    Tim-
    Ask your question using understandable english - all people have distinguishing features.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  8. #638
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,372
    Blog Entries
    4

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Samhain View Post
    Apparently my earlier questions about multiple marriage restrictions were answered as Roberts said the majority opinion opens the door for legal multiple marriages
    And who says multiple marriages cannot be inter-species - or even with inanimate objects? Yes this does open up a whole pandora's box of paths for the future.
    “I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  9. #639
    Sage
    BrewerBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    6,441

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeTrumps View Post
    a gay man who died in 1990 did was never DENIED marriage because he didn't KNOW he was being denied it.
    Where in the WORLD did you come up with that?

  10. #640
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,180

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

    I'm happy that this is over and settled. Time to move on. Incidentally I was also pleased with Jeb Bush's handling of the matter, no theatrical hysterics just a reasoned understanding that the issue is over and it is time to move forward.

Posting Permissions

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