John Adams Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 (edited) Sorry Dorkington: This is MY topic! In law school it was always fun to read the dissents in the equality cases and Scalia will not disappoint future generations in the same way that Kennedy's prose speaks to those same future generations in over the top Obama-esque prose. I thought Roberts would come out on the side of history but oh well. Enjoy Scalia's dissent. He's the best writer on a court of great writers. Amusing and fun read. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf America eff yeah. Edited June 26, 2015 by John Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 File this under be careful what you wish for. Gay's didn't think this through. Now they will have to deal with the legalized thievery called divorce court settlements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 If you are anyone who has any sort of libertarian streak with you, then how can you possibly be against this ruling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Best part of this? A whole subset of "special snowflake" people now has one less reason to cry about oppression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 It's funny that this will be a boon to republicans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 If you are anyone who has any sort of libertarian streak with you, then how can you possibly be against this ruling? Easily. The government shouldn't be involved in any sort of marraige, other than contract law. For those purposes, they should be doing nothing more than granting civil unions to anone who asks for them, regardless of sexual orientation or gender combinations. Marraige is a religious institution, and should be left in the private sector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Sorry Dorkington: This is MY topic! In law school it was always fun to read the dissents in the equality cases and Scalia will not disappoint future generations in the same way that Kennedy's prose speaks to those same future generations in over the top Obama-esque prose. I thought Roberts would come out on the side of history but oh well. Enjoy Scalia's dissent. He's the best writer on a court of great writers. Amusing and fun read. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf America eff yeah. Mine was first! Easily. The government shouldn't be involved in any sort of marraige, other than contract law. For those purposes, they should be doing nothing more than granting civil unions to anone who asks for them, regardless of sexual orientation or gender combinations. Marraige is a religious institution, and should be left in the private sector. Effectively a Marriage License is a "Civil Union", so now we're just splitting hairs. All this is doing is making the government treat same sex couples equally in terms of the Marriage License part, it's not forcing a church or religious institution to perform a ceremony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 (edited) Easily. The government shouldn't be involved in any sort of marraige, other than contract law. For those purposes, they should be doing nothing more than granting civil unions to anone who asks for them, regardless of sexual orientation or gender combinations. Marraige is a religious institution, and should be left in the private sector. Wrong! Marriage is not solely performed or recognized via a religious institution, it is an interpersonal union that is also recognized legally. Therefore allowing gay couples to be entitled to the very same benefits that the government provides for legal marriage. That would be the true libertarian take on this matter. Edited June 26, 2015 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Good. It's high time we moved past the 'debate' on this absurd topic. Two gay people getting married has absolutely zero impact on my life. Easily. The government shouldn't be involved in any sort of marraige, other than contract law. For those purposes, they should be doing nothing more than granting civil unions to anone who asks for them, regardless of sexual orientation or gender combinations. Marraige is a religious institution, and should be left in the private sector. Isn't that essentially what this ruling means? Or are you just arguing about the semantics of the word 'marriage'? I presume the USSC didn't require religious institutions to sanctify gay marriages. Sorry Dorkington: This is MY topic! In law school it was always fun to read the dissents in the equality cases and Scalia will not disappoint future generations in the same way that Kennedy's prose speaks to those same future generations in over the top Obama-esque prose. I thought Roberts would come out on the side of history but oh well. Enjoy Scalia's dissent. He's the best writer on a court of great writers. Amusing and fun read. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf America eff yeah. Yeah, disappointed by Roberts. And I hate to sound like a liberal Facebook whiner, but Scalia's dissent is embarrassing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 (edited) Wrong! Marriage is not solely performed or recognized via a religious institution, it is an interpersonal union that is also recognized legally. Therefore allowing gay couples to be entitled to the very same benefits that the government provides for legal marriage. That would be the true libertarian take on this matter. The key word is marriage. Marriage historically is a religious institution. Secular governments coopted the institution of marriage and conferred specific legal rights to married couples when no one imagined the concept of same sex couples. That's why there's a huge battle and will continue to escalate until you get the inevitable legal tussle over the right of religious freedom vs discrimination of churches refusing to wed gays. If the topic was correctly framed as - should same sex couples have the same secular legal rights, benefits and protections afforded to married couples under the law, but without calling it marriage, then you wouldn't need a SCOTUS ruling and few people would care. Said another way, you cannot get married anywhere but in a house of worship. If you tie a knot in a government institution, it should be called something else. Edited June 26, 2015 by GG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Easily. The government shouldn't be involved in any sort of marraige, other than contract law. For those purposes, they should be doing nothing more than granting civil unions to anone who asks for them, regardless of sexual orientation or gender combinations. Marraige is a religious institution, and should be left in the private sector. Yes Wrong! Marriage is not solely performed or recognized via a religious institution, it is an interpersonal union that is also recognized legally. Therefore allowing gay couples to be entitled to the very same benefits that the government provides for legal marriage. That would be the true libertarian take on this matter. But why should the government be offering any benefits (or penalties for that matter) to marriage? I guess this leads to more questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Yes But why should the government be offering any benefits (or penalties for that matter) to marriage? I guess this leads to more questions. If the government wants to remove marriage benefits, then that will happen equally under this ruling as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Wouldn't it be totally cool and appropriate to raise the rainbow flag at the SC statehouse in replacement of the stars and bars! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Best part of this? A whole subset of "special snowflake" people now has one less reason to cry about oppression. I wouldn't bet on it. Look at what happened to race relations after the first black president was elected. It will make it more amusing when they claim an ongoing struggle for equal rights though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 I wouldn't bet on it. Look at what happened to race relations after the first black president was elected. It will make it more amusing when they claim an ongoing struggle for equal rights though. You're right, Don't know what i was thinking. They'll find something else to B word about I'm sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Wrong! Marriage is not solely performed or recognized via a religious institution, it is an interpersonal union that is also recognized legally. Therefore allowing gay couples to be entitled to the very same benefits that the government provides for legal marriage. That would be the true libertarian take on this matter. Is there anything that you actually do understand? Marraige did not evolve as a secular institution, but a religious one. Government co-opted it, asigning itself the authority to marry. A true libertarian view is one in which the government does not have the authority to co-opt religious institutions, but instead concerns itself with the things within it's just perview such as contract law. Govenment should not be in the marraige business at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 The key word is marriage. Marriage historically is a religious institution. Secular governments coopted the institution of marriage and conferred specific legal rights to married couples when no one imagined the concept of same sex couples. That's why there's a huge battle and will continue to escalate until you get the inevitable legal tussle over the right of religious freedom vs discrimination of churches refusing to wed gays. If the topic was correctly framed as - should same sex couples have the same secular legal rights, benefits and protections afforded to married couples under the law, but without calling it marriage, then you wouldn't need a SCOTUS ruling and few people would care. Said another way, you cannot get married anywhere but in a house of worship. If you tie a knot in a government institution, it should be called something else. Historically, yes. But just like many other things, they evolve. Look up the definition of "marriage" in what is accepted in virtually every arbiter of the English language. The law (I believe, I'm not 100% sure) does not say that religious entities have to recognize the marriage, but more from the legality of it and the benefits provided under the law for married couples. Now I may be wrong, if the court ruled that religious entities have to perform and recognize these marriages, then that's another story. And I would not be in favor of that portion of the ruling. Is there anything that you actually do understand? Marraige did not evolve as a secular institution, but a religious one. Government co-opted it, asigning itself the authority to marry. A true libertarian view is one in which the government does not have the authority to co-opt religious institutions, but instead concerns itself with the things within it's just perview such as contract law. Govenment should not be in the marraige business at all. You can call it "co-opt" all you want. The fact remains that marriage is not solely recognized by religious institutions but by the government as well. If you have a problem with that, then you can take it up with Webster or any other arbiter of the English language. Now that it is the law, the libertarian view is live and let live..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 You can call it "co-opt" all you want. The fact remains that marriage is not solely recognized by religious institutions but by the government as well. If you have a problem with that, then you can take it up with Webster or any other arbiter of the English language. Now that it is the law, the libertarian view is live and let live..... I'm calling it co-opting, because that's what it is. Any libertarian view is against government doing exactly that. Now, should the government recognize same sex contractual unions as equal to those of traditional hetrosexual unions? Absolutely. If government is just, all individuals must be treated equally under the law, and with equal access. As GG notes, however, this will continue until ultimately religious institutions are sued for not performing same sex marraiges, and that is exactly what your views accomodate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 The JA bat signal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Marraige is a religious institution, and should be left in the private sector. Tell that to the IRS. Why is marital status a question on your tax filing, oh right because someone decided to give married people a "TAX BREAK". If we had a flat tax would this even be an issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts