DC Tom Posted June 26, 2015 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? On the constitutional grounds that the federal government has absolutely no business defining what marriage should and should not be.
boyst Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 On the constitutional grounds that the federal government has absolutely no business defining what marriage should and should not be. Yes, but you can't argue that when his principles are based on not the letter of the law but the moral high ground of doing whats right. Cuz, ya know, when you do whats right and morally courageous you're a hero!
Rob's House Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 Does this mean we can start calling douche bags faggots again?
DC Tom Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 Yes, but you can't argue that when his principles are based on not the letter of the law but the moral high ground of doing whats right. Cuz, ya know, when you do whats right and morally courageous you're a hero! I know. People want a government of men, not a government of laws. And benign or maleficent, that is tyrrany.
boyst Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 I know. People want a government of men, not a government of laws. And benign or maleficent, that is tyrrany. So, why don't the people actually elect a government of the men? Why do we keep electing the same group over and over again and demand change? We create our own prison, we have build our own tyranny and only have ourselves to blame.
LeviF Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 The best part about these contentious issues is that everyone on the Court writes brilliant arguments. All of the opinions written for this case are excellent reads. That said, Scalia's is !@#$ing hilarious. Love that guy.
B-Man Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 More "mass hysteria".............. Dick Cheney, when asked about gay marriage, back in the 2000 vice-presidential debate: The fact of the matter is, we live in a free society and freedom means freedom for everybody. We don’t get to choose, and shouldn’t be able to choose, and say, “You get to live free, but you don’t.” And I think that means that people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It’s really no one else’s business in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard. The next step then, of course, is the question you asked of whether or not there ought to be some kind of official sanction, if you will, of the relationship or if these relationships should be treated the same way a conventional marriage is. That’s a tougher problem. That’s not a slam dunk. I think the fact of the matter, of course, is that matter is regulated by the states. I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions and that’s appropriate. I don’t think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area. I try to be open-minded about it as much as I can and tolerant of those relationships. And like Joe [Lieberman], I also wrestle with the extent to which there ought to be legal sanction of those relationships. I think we ought to do everything we can to tolerate and accommodate whatever kind of relationships people want to enter into. This was eight years before then-Sen. Barack Obama told pastor Rick Warren, “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian…it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.” Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner .
LeviF Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 (edited) You can't tell me you don't love this: If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: "The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity," I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie. If you are anyone who has any sort of libertarian streak with you, then how can you possibly be against this ruling? The argument would be that the ruling does not extend freedom, that it instead limits it. Which, of course, is the longstanding argument regarding "judicial activism." Edited June 26, 2015 by LeviF91
Magox Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 On the constitutional grounds that the federal government has absolutely no business defining what marriage should and should not be. If a heterosexual couple is receiving benefits due to their married status, are gay couples entitled to those same benefits?
Azalin Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 (edited) If a heterosexual couple is receiving benefits due to their married status, are gay couples entitled to those same benefits? This goes back at least 20 or 25 years ago, and is probably the first issue in the battle for legalized same-sex marriage. I remember in the early-mid 90's when this first became an issue. Lots of insurance plans wouldn't cover a same-sex partner since they weren't technically a spouse. Of course there was more than just insurance coverage involved - inheritance and other issues I can't recall right now were part of it as well. Edited June 26, 2015 by Azalin
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 Yes, but you can't argue that when his principles are based on not the letter of the law but the moral high ground of doing whats right. Cuz, ya know, when you do whats right and morally courageous you're a hero! I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 http://i.imgur.com/0jpgH3d.gif Interesting.
Jauronimo Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 Can I gay marry a woman? Regular marriage seems very 90s to me. Plus my parents got regular married and it was a disaster.
Magox Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 This goes back at least 20 or 25 years ago, and is probably the first issue in the battle for legalized same-sex marriage. I remember in the early-mid 90's when this first became an issue. Lots of insurance plans wouldn't cover a same-sex partner since they weren't technically a spouse. Of course there was more than just insurance coverage involved - inheritance issues were part of it as well. This is the case. I would never suggest that the government should impose that a church recognizes gay marriage. However, if a heterosexual couple happens to be receiving benefits because of their interpersonal recognized legal union that they have with one another, then shouldn't gay couples be entitled to those same benefits? Of course they should.
DC Tom Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 If a heterosexual couple is receiving benefits due to their married status, are gay couples entitled to those same benefits? Yes, but until today the federal government has never determined marital status. It has always defaulted to the states' determination. This goes back at least 20 or 25 years ago, and is probably the first issue in the battle for legalized same-sex marriage. I remember in the early-mid 90's when this first became an issue. Lots of insurance plans wouldn't cover a same-sex partner since they weren't technically a spouse. Of course there was more than just insurance coverage involved - inheritance and other issues I can't recall right now were part of it as well. And medical rights. At the start of the AIDS epidemic, long-term partners of AIDS suffers were banned from seeing their dying partners by family, and had no recourse of action because they had no familial rights themselves. Don't think that didn't have significant bearing on the issue.
Magox Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 Yes, but until today the federal government has never determined marital status. It has always defaulted to the states' determination. It appears to me that the argument is a matter of semantics. Marriage, legal civil unions or what have you, call it what you want, the point of contention for me are that these couples enjoy all the same benefits provided to heterosexual couples. Maybe I should read up more on this ruling. Isn't that basically what this is mainly about, equal rights, equal benefits?
Dante Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 Since marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution shouldn't the 10th amendment apply? "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
TH3 Posted June 26, 2015 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. Ok - I just started a church that recognizes and marries same sex people - does it now hold merit?
Recommended Posts