It's an interesting idea, but Zablocki is pretty tangential to marriage cases, as opposed to Loving and Griswold, which protected marriage and marital privacy with strict scrutiny, and Lawrence, which eschews the more common forms of scrutiny, but most resembles strict.
Either way, I think the big thing that will be necessary to really protect SSM is for it to be afforded the same level of constitutional protections that heterosexual marriage enjoys. Rational basis simply won't cut it, and I think that will be the real moment when the debate comes to an end.
your statement is exactly why I would take away benefits, people marry now days for the strict financial benefits. In a free society people should not be dependent on the government.
Except you fail to recognize that there exists a marriage penalty for some marriages that makes up for almost any money that other couples get from tax breaks in their marriage and that weddings and marriages themselves provide extra revenue to numerous businesses that then pay taxes for that. Married people tend to be more responsible than single people, meaning they are more likely to provide for themselves/each other, rather than relying on others to provide for them. Married people tend to buy larger ticket items together, such as houses rather than living in apartments. This means multiple more revenue streams for the state. The sexes/genders of those involved in the marriages doesn't change these facts.
Those links I provided plus so many more explain these things much better and why your logic fails. You are thinking of this way too simplistically, likely because you don't (for whatever real reason) don't want same sex couples to get married and it really has nothing to do with this feigned concern for the economic or financial impact of allowing same sex marriage.
well as was said earlier by someone on the other end of this debate is that gays can get "married" now but just reap no benefits.
well as was said earlier by someone on the other end of this debate is that gays can get "married" now but just reap no benefits. so all these things you are talking about is more of the mind set of being married no actual benefits. So without legalizing gay marriage you can still have all the benefits you stated and not have more loop holes to our system.
your statement is exactly why I would take away benefits, people marry now days for the strict financial benefits. In a free society people should not be dependent on the government.
The funny thing is that some couple tried this (and in fact got away with it for years) up in Washington. The woman claimed she was a single mother renting part of a house (a rather large house) from this man (who was claimed to be just her landlord and nothing more) in Washington state. The state paid her rent and some utilities plus she got extras. The state eventually found out that she was in fact married to the man she was "renting" from and that they had defrauded the government out of millions (that I believe they have to pay back, I know they got into major trouble for it). Such a scam though would easily work if the couple simply doesn't get married. They could even set up private contracts to cover some of the stuff done through marriage.
The thing is, those contracts are bunk. I have a medical POA, and was still denied entrance into my fiancees room during a visit to the ER. I have seen wills overturned by family members that didn't approve of a couple, family members that had not been a part of their lives for over a decade.
I have spent thousands of dollars to attorneys to try to protect myself and my family as best I can, but I also know that those contracts can be overturned by a judge.
you open the door for allowing people to marry there best friend for the benefits not for actually being gay homo sexuality is such a minority... that for the benefits that would come to homosexuals is out weighed by the negatives, so I stick to my above noted compromise to create equality.
I don't think there is a problem with rational basis covering it because there simply isn't a rational reason that restrictions on marriage based on sex/gender further any state interest at all, anywhere.
Every argument has to have a principle to it so my question is this... Allowing gay marriage benefits gays in what way?
The "person I love" argument is an extremely poor ones, me is the case with most emotional based political arguments. It's one of the only arguments that actually legitimately can be said applies equally to polygamy, incest, and under-age marriage.
Everything being said is debating what is more beneficial. the simple logical fact is you cant have reduced taxes and more government handouts and at the same time also have more taxes for the government and less government spending. So I will just again say the compromise would be taking away any benefits that heterosexuals have in order to provide equality. it may not be what you want to create equality but is something that I am wiling to compromise on to make sure homosexuals are equal.
All tax cuts are bad, you heard it here.
Also, Texashonor wants spouses to be compelled to testify against each other, wants to eliminate automatic child custody/inheritance, wants to eliminate automatic medical power of attorney... on and on.
Yup me as a heterosexual male am willing as YOU said again I repeat YOU SAID. I am willing to give up MY RIGHTS to testify against my spouse, Medical power of attorney so on and so forth so that YOU may be equal I am sacrificing because you argument is I have rights that YOU dont and I AM willing to give up the rights I HAVE to make sure YOU ARE EQUAL.
Every argument has to have a principle to it so my question is this... Allowing gay marriage benefits gays in what way?
And why does this make more sense then granting the rights to same sex couples?
by doing this gays would have the same rights as heterosexual couples.
@ Deuce
there are not as many Pros as there are Cons simple fact and the second argument goes to if you agree with Gays then how can you make Polygamy illegal. as long as things are consensual then why have them illegal?
by doing this gays would have the same rights as heterosexual couples.
yep very good but I think a lot of us want gay right and hetero sexual rights to be equal to one another because their equivalent to one another and we want to do this without taking rights away from either of them
well as people always say we live in a republic so the majority rules and I could see a majority of people saying that if it were deemed unconstitutional that they would be more willing to give up there rights as heterosexual couples then have an unbalanced system.
honestly I see the majority of people supporting gay marriage with a minority opposing and a smaller minority against all legal marriage
It doesnt matter what "you see" or what you want to see you have to stick to the facts. It is a fact that the majority of people don't support gay marriage and that isn't an estimation, it is a fact.
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?