- Joined
- Mar 30, 2013
- Messages
- 31,009
- Reaction score
- 9,029
- Location
- The Lone Star State.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
So you don't have a concept of G and E?
I believe YOU or your RELIGIOUS BELIEFS don't get dictate to me what good and evil is. Sorry to disappoint you
If that were true I damn sure would. Not much for mincing words.
Now back to the abortion question....
Equal protection under the 'law'. They changed the 'law' of 14 states.
You happy ass secular feelings and emotions do nothing for me.
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.
October 15: The Supreme Court of the U.S. state of Minnesota upholds the decision of a lower court that denying a marriage license to a same-sex couple did not violate the U.S. Constitution."[19] This was in reference to a marriage application filed by activist Jack Baker and Michael McConnell in 1970, which garnered extensive media attention. An appeal of that decision ended when the U.S. Supreme Court accepted the case as required by a law in effect but then dismissed it "for want of a substantial federal question".[19] (see Baker v. Nelson). Until 1973, there was no restriction on gender in any marriage statute in any state within the U.S.
January 1: Maryland becomes the first state in the U.S. to statutorily ban same-sex marriage.[20] In the following two decades, other states joined Maryland in statutorily banning same-sex marriage, reaching almost the totality of US states by 1994.
May 20: Singer v. Hara, a lawsuit filed by John F. Singer and Paul Barwick after being refused a request for a marriage license at the King County Administration Building in Seattle, Washington on 20 September 1971, ends with a unanimous rejection by the Washington State Court of Appeals.[21]
March 26: Boulder County clerk Clela Rorex issues first U.S. same-sex marriage license. During the following month, she issued five more same-sex marriage licenses. Boulder District Attorney deferred the licenses, which became void. The matter never reached the courts.[22][23][24]
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.
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.
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.
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.
So you don't have a concept of G and E?
Sorry but, in the end it will.
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.
What people that would otherwise have any distinguishing feature that are not man and woman? Can you be specific?
Tim-
Apparently my earlier questions about multiple marriage restrictions were answered as Roberts said the majority opinion opens the door for legal multiple marriages
a gay man who died in 1990 did was never DENIED marriage because he didn't KNOW he was being denied it.
We're just following the example set by the christian god.
I think you just made Joe's point, LOL
R.e. Sodom and Gomorrah...
For there to have been so many - i.e. "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old" (Genesis 19:4) homosexuality must have been a common sin. And it was judged with the rest of their sins.
I'm starting to think that the majority of people who are opposed to everyone else having the same things they do are young Midwestern/Southern protestant men between the ages of 25-65 and with an income above the $45K mark but bellow $100K. There are exceptions of course. The black community, for all of its support of Democrats on different issues, has quite a sizeable population of congregations that have shown some opposition to gay marriage. However, they're nowhere near as vocal as the other group I've mentioned. To believe that our rights and benefits should be left up to these people is absolute insanity and has never been practiced in the history of the US. Ever. Even in the dark ages of the 1800s, people were bringing court cases against established traditions like the disenfranchisement of poor whites and blacks.
To your first point, read what you wrote, Kal. The denial of it to anything other than one man and one woman is regulating it, until now of course.
To your second point, If you read the decision, there is no way this majority could refuse a polygamy challenge based entirely on the language the majority used to justify this decision. It's a foregone conclusion actually.
Tim-
I certainly hope that won't happen and don't really think it's even a remote possibility. There are simply many advantages to recognizing marriage and stripping those advantages away because a small % of the population can now also get married would be the ultimate exercise in self destructive bigotry.
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? :lol: I'm being facetious of course. There is no heaven or hell. You live, you die, then you get eaten by worms.
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.
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?
Technically you are correct. But if you look ALL of our clearly enumerated Rights are able to be regulated to some extent by the states. Does this mean that all the regulations that a state can possibly do are legitimate and not unconstitutional? Or is there a limit to what they can regulate? If there is a limit how do we go about deciding where that limit is? Who can do that determination so that mob rule does not interfere with Rights?
Agreed. But it will have to go through its own court process as this particular decision only related to monogamous marriages as that is what was brought before them. SCOTUS cannot make a ruling on something that was not brought before them, and this case definitely was not about polygamy.
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?