- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 80,422
- Reaction score
- 29,077
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati
DETROIT — Michigan's gay marriage ban is set for another legal showdown, only this one involves more players, more judges and likely more drama.On Wednesday, the historic civil rights case that centers on the right to marry heads to the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, where three federal appeals judges will decide the fate of same-sex marriage bans in Michigan, Tennessee, Kentucky and Ohio. In each of these states, a judge has ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, though all rulings have been appealed.
The Midwest states are part of an explosive litigation movement in which same-sex couples nationwide are fighting for the right to marry, or to have their existing marriages legally recognized. More than 75 lawsuits challenging gay marriage bans are pending in 32 states. Since December, courts have ruled in favor of same-sex marriage in 29 cases, with those victories now on appeal.Michigan's case is in that category and ultimately could go before the U.S. Supreme Court, which has not yet issued a definitive ruling on same-sex marriage.
Maybe it is time our government(s) stop defining or acknowledging marriage.
Maybe it is time our government(s) stop defining or acknowledging marriage.
Won't happen. The majority of the Dems and Reps in congress don't want the government to get out of marriage. If they did, there would be SOME sign of a bill to support that move.
The government shouldn't get out of "marriage." It's a standardized set of legal rights and obligations that grease all kinds of economic and legal wheels and make what could be difficult in many cases far easier to deal with. Couples could get MOST of the same legal benefits through a series of contracts, drawn up by a lawyer or team of them, but they wouldn't be uniform, and creditors and hospitals and courts would have to look at each contract to see the terms. As is, there is a standard "contract" that people sign when they get married and it includes what might take a couple hundred legal pages of rights and obligations to outline, and everyone knows what those are, and only needs to look at the actual "contract" where there's been a pre-nuptial or other arrangement between the married couple that changes the standard
marriage "contract."
It wouldn't do any good, except then there would be no gay "marriage" to recognize, and would do a lot of harm. So that's why most people aren't in favor of eliminating a government recognition of marriage.
It has absolutely nothing to do with "rights"......It has to do with taxes and aristocratic nonsense.
government can never stop protecting contracts, I have no idea why anybody even tries to suggest something so asinine.
Maybe it is time our government(s) stop defining or acknowledging marriage.
The federal government can indeed stop adding benefits onto state contracts. That is what is being proposed.
Why? Marriage is an important part of a stable family unit, which is important to society. It should be encouraged.
So, let the individual states encourage it the way that makes sense for them. Take away the federal element.
Why? There is no need to "take away the federal element" here. The federal government has more programs than most states and are more likely (at least within most of our history) to actually protect our individual rights than the state governments are.
It has absolutely nothing to do with "rights"......It has to do with taxes and aristocratic nonsense.
Marriage confers a number of legal rights involving healthcare, inheritance, children, employee benefits, and more.
Eventually this will all have to go to the Supreme Court and they will have to settle this once and for all and when they do...good riddance.
Once again, there is no federal marriage "right". That is something made up out of whole cloth by the SCOTUS. If the federal benefits weren't at stake, the whole rights argument put forth thus far goes away. The feds can benefit those who support others through tax relief just as they do through marriage now, without having to muggle around with the state contract of marriage.
In context, not the sort of rights at discussion. In this discussion thus far, rights=federal constitutional rights. But everything listed there could indeed be handled by the individual states.
Knowing that court as we do, they'll be an incomplete gotcha attached. Room for wiggle. They will only "sorta" decide.
In context, not the sort of rights at discussion. In this discussion thus far, rights=federal constitutional rights. But everything listed there could indeed be handled by the individual states.
So, let the individual states encourage it the way that makes sense for them. Take away the federal element.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?