Page 69 of 193 FirstFirst ... 1959676869707179119169 ... LastLast
Results 681 to 690 of 1930

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

  1. #681
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,433

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Why should a minority of American citizens, whether in same sex marriages or heterosexual marriages, get special tax and benefit treatment when large and growing numbers of people, particularly young people, have never been married and believe that priorities other than marriage and children are equally or more important to them?
    The short answer is committed couples raising children together are a public benefit, compared to the alternative.

    And the tax and other monetary benefits are just a small part of the benefits of marriage. Among them, my wife is presumed to get a portion of my estate if I die, we are jointly liable on debt, either can make decisions on behalf of minors, etc. The list of benefits is very long and what they mostly do is provide some legal certainty in all kinds of cases where a live in boyfriend or girlfriend wouldn't. My wife and I have been married 23 years and don't have children, but we still enjoy the benefits of marriage.

    Add to that the obscene level of divorce in our society, well over 50% of all marriages failing, what's the national interest in treating this group differently?
    I think that stat is misleading (as I understand it 50% of "marriages" do end in divorce, but far fewer married couples divorce because many people divorce more than once, e.g. Newt, Rush Limbaugh...), but it doesn't matter. There is still a benefit to raising children and in legal matters for the certainty that being married provides.

    And what is the societal downside? Tax benefits? OK - end them. But that's a small part of the problem.

    How about actually believing and implementing equal protections under the law and having each individual, regardless of race, gender, and marital status treated equally by government?
    Sorry but I don't see perfectly "equal" treatment under the law necessarily a virtue. It's often/usually a virtue, but there is no problem in my view for society to grant benefits to activities that produce social benefits. We provide preferential tax treatment to adopting kids, which is a good thing. Also for charitable donations, and tax benefits for taking care of dependents, even dependent adults. All good things in my view.

    Besides, it's not going to happen. We've rightly become accustomed to the benefits of marriage and no amount of sour grapes from fringe types that gays get to enjoy those benefits is going to turn the tide against "marriage" as a legal concept that comes with it certain benefits AND obligations.

  2. #682
    Randian PUA
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    12-03-16 @ 07:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    58,623

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Unless the government has a societal interest in the well being of divorce attorneys, that's just bull**** in the 21st century.

    Other than for purposes of procreation and child rearing, marriage is irrelevant to government.
    And there you go!!!!

    You just proved that marriage is relevent to the govt
    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. #683
    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
    28,195

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    A religious college has the right to dictate the morale compliance of it's students. it is a religious college. that should be a protected right.
    however as was told during the trial this ruling tramps on religious organizations protected religious freedoms.
    Why? It's a college. Funded in part by government monies. It has no more right to dictate morality than does a baker in a bakery.
    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. #684
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,923

    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.
    Because one gay person doesn't like the idea of marriage? That is her opinion, and yours, which is wrong.
    "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. #685
    Sage
    poweRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    24,872

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    Let's see if you're still so arrogant about it in 2016. It's gonna be a rout.
    Your future. I see lots of disappointment in it.
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The Supreme Court can't interpret The Constitution. They don't have that power.

  6. #686
    Sage
    Logicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:29 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    12,230

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Texmex View Post
    Why would god create people with the ability to piss him off so badly he punishes them for eternity. Yea, sounds like love to me.
    It's called free will. Read your Bible.
    "Progressives aren't really progressive. They're regressive, all the way back to Sodom and Gomorrah." - author unknown

  7. #687
    Sage
    AlbqOwl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,093

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Why should a minority of American citizens, whether in same sex marriages or heterosexual marriages, get special tax and benefit treatment when large and growing numbers of people, particularly young people, have never been married and believe that priorities other than marriage and children are equally or more important to them?

    Record Share of Americans Have Never Married | Pew Research Center

    Add to that the obscene level of divorce in our society, well over 50% of all marriages failing, what's the national interest in treating this group differently?

    How about actually believing and implementing equal protections under the law and having each individual, regardless of race, gender, and marital status treated equally by government?
    Well let me play devil's advocate and tell you why heterosexual marriage should have been protected and preserved as well as encouraged by the federal government in order to fulfill its constitutional obligation to promote the general welfare:

    I will say it as IMO to avoid having to dig up numerous links and resources--most of which I have posted in other threads here over the years--that traditional (one man, one woman) marriage was recognized and encouraged by the federal government because:

    - Study after study has shown a loving mother and father in the home is the very best circumstance for children growing up in that home. While there will always be exceptions, the children, whether straight or gay, are far less likely to have confusion about their own gender roles, are far less likely to experiment with harmful substances or engage in illegal activities, are more likely to form stable and healthy relationships themselves, and are far more likely to be socially and materially successful when they grow up in a traditional home. All traditional marriage laws in all 50 states were designed to be beneficial to any children born within the marriage.

    - Study after study has shown that neighborhoods composed of mostly traditional families tend to be more prosperous and more stable, produce more voluntary social services, are more aesthetically pleasing, produce good neighbors, better schools, and provide a more secure and safe environment to bring up kids.

    --Traditional marriage throughout the ages has always been the means of establishing bloodlines and how people are related and in more modern times has been invaluable in studying genetics, dna, and how various issues are transmitted from generation to generation. It has helped people keep track of who their relatives are and prevented the unwanted consequences of inadvertent incest or marrying somebody too closely related.

    While single parents and gay parents can do exemplary jobs bringing up children, and I know of many examples in which they do, they cannot provide the same dynamics that a loving mom and dad in the home can do. And strong family ties with the child's natural family are rarely maintained.

    And while I have long personally fought for gay people to have the necessary protections and benefits in our common society together, it is for the listed reasons and others that I have opposed changing the definition of marriage to something it never was before and was not intended to be.

    I believe that the changed definition strongly signals to the young that marriage is pretty meaningless after all and is not a necessary or even a desirable goal. I cannot see how that will be a good or healthy thing for us as a society.
    "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776

  8. #688
    Sage
    poweRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    24,872

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CRModeration View Post
    Hmm...it's been a busy week at the Supreme Court, it seems.
    Nah.. It's seasonal. They heard these cases months ago and they sit on their decisions for months and release the rulings right before they go on break.
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The Supreme Court can't interpret The Constitution. They don't have that power.

  9. #689
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,923

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeTrumps View Post
    the problem with that argument is that the slave's KNEW they were slaves and people who couldn't vote KNEW they couldn't vote. a gay man who died in 1990 did was never DENIED marriage because he didn't KNOW he was being denied it. this....this....thing....issue of being denied "rights" he didn't even know he was being denied until the lefte decided to MAKE IT a right they were being denied.

    i know, it makes absolutely NO SENSE to me either. why try to understand it. I'm just going to smile and nod like I know what's going on. enjoy your victory.
    The first challenge to laws that forbid same sex couples from getting married was in 1970, when homosexuality was still deemed a mental illness. Many knew then though that they were oppressing people, gay people, but they had a supermajority of support to do so with little public sympathy.
    "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.

  10. #690
    Sage
    Logicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:29 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    12,230

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Texmex View Post
    Looks like in this instance ungodly men have kicked god's ass.
    God gets the last word, not the ungodly.
    "Progressives aren't really progressive. They're regressive, all the way back to Sodom and Gomorrah." - author unknown

Posting Permissions

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