SCOTUS Takes on Gay Marriage.

[donaldcc]

  now this is sure to be controversial.  SCOTUS is taking on two issues. The first is DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) which defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of deciding who can receive a range of federal benefits.

 83-year-old Edith Windsor, who sued to challenge a $363,000 federal estate tax bill after her partner of 44 years died in 2009. She had married her gay spouse who died after leaving everything to her.  There is no dispute that if Windsor had been married to a man, her estate tax bill would have been zero.

 The other is California's constitutional amendment that forbids same-sex marriage. At odds is California's Proposition 8, the state constitutional ban on gay marriage that voters adopted in 2008 after the state Supreme Court ruled that gay Californians could marry. a lot of controversy, even for CA.

 In my own family, my wife is a very strong advocate against gay marriage saying it is a sin and bible is against it.  i completely disagree.  i work with a number of hard working gays who i support in their quest for equality.  

 i know many of you on this board are against government intervention in our affairs.  how can we justify refusing to allow people in our country equal rights?  a gay person can go to war to protect the rights of Americans and come back to have their own rights trampled.  doesn't seem right.

[Serk]

The bigger question is, why is the government deciding who can marry whom in the first place? Get the government out of marriage altogether and this issue goes away as well...

[tank_post142]

who but the courts should decide?

[Jess from VA]

It's not really about marriage, it's about marriage benefits.

Similar to the last election.

[Robert]

Actually it's not only about benefits but about marriage as defined by the Bible. They have been offered civil unions with the full benefits and turned that down. Marriage is not a civil right either just as you cannot marry your sister or cousin so the government does have a say. That is the part of the rub, gays are claiming it is indeed a civil right, but that is a slight of hand actually. Marriage in the news has seen a lot of positioning but it marriage is only between a man and a woman.  It is an institution based on this structure with this as a defined set of qualifications for getting married. It has rules and is basically a contract for the breeding and raising of children, It is not free speech that all have a right to. Children in gay households are much more likely to be gay and now in California there is a law against what is called conversion therapy. So if you are not decided about which way to go the therapists cannot offer you help to convert or even mention changing to heterosexual which they have been successful at doing. I would say look at the news for the Castro section of San Francisco and see what's going on there. The Bible does not accept homosexual marriage either.  The atheists are also behind the push for gay marriage because it is a way to further take God out of our country and they are actually helping the gay agenda. I have heard some pretty nasty things from the atheists about this issue, including the Bible never says anything about gay marriage to this country was not founded on Christian beliefs to even not giving respect to all that gave their lives in service to this country protecting everyone's rights. In Colorado it is now ok for a man to walk into a girl's bathroom why because he thinks he's a woman.

[Clark]

  :cooldude:WHAT HE SAID

[PAVALKER]

It's not really about marriage, it's about marriage benefits.

Similar to the last election.

  I agree... to a degree.  It is about marriage, AND also marriage benefits.  

And as far as the OP's "equal rights" issue..... there is equality.... every man and woman has the equal right to marry a member of the opposite sex, regardless of race/color/creed; but NOT a member of the same sex or a member of another "breed".  That is equality for all.... but if you open the door to opposite sex or another breed, then that is not marriage per definition and is something else, which may have become acceptable to some, yet is still not "marriage" and not entitled to "marriage benefits".  

Kinda like asking/demanding veterans benefits, death benefits, unemployment benefits even tho there might not have been military service, a death or a job from which to be unemployed.

Maybe they should revisit and legally define "marriage", and the rest would come a little easier.  

The bigger question is, why is the government deciding who can marry whom in the first place? Get the government out of marriage altogether and this issue goes away as well...

Because it is directly tied to "government benefits" for "married couples", even previously "married couples". 

Maybe if they eliminate those government (tax dollar) benefits, it wouldn't be as much of an issue either.

[donaldcc]

  the issues before the Court are somewhat narrow.  it is not about marrying other "breeds". and what the heck does that mean, marrying a dog or cow?  i think we can all agree about that. "equality" is about being an American, not man, woman, etc.

  and in CA simply put, the argument on appeal is that taking away a right to same-sex married couples violates the Equal Protection Clause. Prop 8 proponents cannot come up with a sound reason to deny the marriage right (in the court's mind), which leaves animus as the only logical reason.

  or in simpler terms, we don't like it, so you can't do it. sometimes the "majority" can't tell you what to do.



 
 

[Robert]

  the issues before the Court are somewhat narrow.  it is not about marrying other "breeds". and what the heck does that mean, marrying a dog or cow?  i think we can all agree about that. "equality" is about being an American, not man, woman, etc.

  and in CA simply put, the argument on appeal is that taking away a right to same-sex married couples violates the Equal Protection Clause. Prop 8 proponents cannot come up with a sound reason to deny the marriage right (in the court's mind), which leaves animus as the only logical reason.

  or in simpler terms, we don't like it, so you can't do it. sometimes the "majority" can't tell you what to do.

Regardless of the gay issue I think this is one of the one that pisses me off the most. Prop 8 was a ballot measure so it was put before the people. They decided what they wanted in their state and the courts overturned it. That to me is wrong, way wrong, We don't live at the beckoning of the courts and it is in the California constitution that this is the way that these issues are done. There was actually 2 ballot initiatives on this issue and the first failed on a technicality. The people spoke twice on the same issue it was clear. Now explain why the people don't have a right to govern themselves, why the courts have become the new law or should I say feudal system in town. This issue is not about gay rights it is about a people who decided that they govern themselves. I hope the courts uphold prop 8 not because of the issue but because the people decided something for themselves and it should be upheld otherwise we are no longer a free country.

[Six Guns]

A MAN marrying a MAN or a WOMAN marrying a WOMAN is just not right. They adopt a kid and more times than not the kid grows up screwed up. Just my 2 cents.     

[G-Man]

 83-year-old Edith Windsor, who sued to challenge a $363,000 federal estate tax bill after her partner of 44 years died in 2009. She had married her gay spouse who died after leaving everything to her.  There is no dispute that if Windsor had been married to a man, her estate tax bill would have been zero.

Keeping my opinion on gay marriage to myself.

As far as the paragraph above, if they were married and committed to each other, why was the other woman's holdings only in her name and not in both of there names?  Why wasn't the bank account a joint account?  Why wasn't both of their names on property deeds? Etc.  Just asking.

[tank_post142]

you still gotta pay taxes for the other 1/2 of the account, property etc.

[fudgie]

I say let'm marry if they want. I know alot of G/L out there. They are good people. Well one couple I know is not and we got into it in the ER 2 months ago. 
Cant really say kids will be screwed up anymore then what they are now adays.
Hell I went to a gay bar Sat night to watch the drag show.  Went with Kit & my female coworker. I had a blast and will do it again.

[fudgie]

In Colorado it is now ok for a man to walk into a girl's bathroom why because he thinks he's a woman.

Was at a bar Sat night and the women used the mens room at the same time as us. The ladies room line was pretty full. Not the 1st time I had women going at the same time as me. 

[Serk]

Being a libertarian, I apply the Jeffersonian religion test:

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Letting two guys get hitched, or two girls get hitched, neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg, so I have no problem with allowing it.

(Although I still say the government should get out of the who can marry whom business altogether.)

[SANDMAN5]

I believe homosexuality is a sin AND it's just plain wrong. I'll not
back down from that and I'll not be convinced otherwise. I will
not vote to legalize it, say it's natural or normal, or condone it
in any way, shape, form, or fashion. Those (if any) that feel the
need to insult me about my views....go right ahead. You won't
bother me one bit.

[G-Man]

you still gotta pay taxes for the other 1/2 of the account, property etc.

Maybe,....but definitely not your half.