The U.S. Supreme Court stepped into the gay marriage debate for the first time on Friday by agreeing to review two challenges to federal and state laws that define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
The high court agreed to review a case against a federal law that denies married same-sex couples the federal benefits heterosexual couples receive. It also unexpectedly took up a challenge to California's ban on gay marriage, known as Proposition 8, which voters narrowly approved in 2008.
Same-sex marriage is a politically charged issue in a country where 31 of the 50 states have passed constitutional amendments banning it, while Washington, D.C., and nine states have legalized it, three of them on Election Day last month. -end snip
If/When the Supreme Court rules that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, it's going to be lolz from the Right/Religious Right crying over how the government is too big and has no right encroaching on peoples rights/beliefs/Teling them what they can or can't do. Can't wait for this circus to get full under way.
I guess 52 to 47 is narrow but the map made me think, otherwise.
(please log in to view the image)
And I would agree with that crying. The problem is the laws favor heterosexual couples over the single people and whatever-sexual people are not heterosexual people, and they shouldn't. As always, sound-minded adults should be free to associate with each however they want.
Re: Re: Re: Supreme Court takes on Same-Sex Marriage
Yes to both...sort of.
More like there should be crying because the government should have never gotten between people* to freely-associate with each other. It is just more governing that should not have been put there in the first place. We need more AC on these boards: he explained, much better than I, why marriage is archaic and unnecessary.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Supreme Court takes on Same-Sex Marriage
Well, yes, the DoMA should have never passed, but it did, so we need more government to step in and abolish it, thereby giving every consenting adult the same right of being able to marry who they choose, should they choose to marry.
I'll find it lolz when the Right starts crying over "big gob'ment!", when the DoMA is/was just that and they're the ones who typically claim to want less government.
Saying "marriage is archaic" is just something "edgy" people like to say to make themselves seem edgier. Like yelling "**** the system", then they go drink their $5.75 designer coffee drink, while wearing skinny jeans and using their MacBooks at Starbucks.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Supreme Court takes on Same-Sex Marriage
The only reason they want those rights is due to the privileges that the married enjoy. The rights should not be dependent upon marriage.
Yeah, saying marriage is outdated is definitely "edgy". Derp.
Saying legal marriage is necessary is something the right says to justify their derpy hate to the "homos".
I don't drink coffee, can't fit into designer skinny jeans, don't ever shop at Starbucks, and have never owned an Apple computer. Who can afford all that shit, anyway? lol
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Supreme Court takes on Same-Sex Marriage
Probably. But maybe some just like the title. Also, marriage doesn't always grant better privileges, eg we pay slightly higher taxes filing together in CA in our bracket. But that aside, I'm not against non married people having any of the same privileges/penalties.
Yup, it is. Glad you agree.
And that doesn't follow logic either. "Legal marriage" can be homo and legal.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Supreme Court takes on Same-Sex Marriage
In CA, legal marriage is between one man and one woman. Prop 8 is from CA, as well. I was not aware we were talking about the other states where it is grayly legal.
Again, just make them feel like lesser people and arrest those who associate with them and "facilitate" their homosexuality as they're going to do in Uganda. Let us all leap and frolic upon the happy middle ground.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Supreme Court takes on Same-Sex Marriage
The symbolic victory means quite a lot actually.
However speaking about "rights" and "privileges" is a bit strange here. The rights are the privileges. The only reason they want those rights is because they want to have those rights.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
So if this by some chance goes badly for those wanting marriage for all, what happens to all the same-sex marriages performed thus far? Would that simply mean that companies don't have to acknowledge them when analyzing benefits for their employees and their significant others if they aren't of the opposite sex?
Makes perfect sense and I do not disagree. We (not really us...but you know what I mean) created a privileged group of people and this has made it unfair to same-sex couples (or even for polygamous or polyandrous relationships). We should be able to just enter into a civil contract with each other, regardless of the idea of "marriage". This would mean "marriage" rights could be extended to best friends that want to share financial and legal responsibility with each other.
I think the real problem is American's inability to let go of Victorian morals. We just can't separate sex from anything. "I don't care about Estate, tax, insurance, medical, family, consumer, death, and employment benefits! They are having man on man BUTTsex in their America! This will NOT stand!"
Well, I think there is a law governing those benefits, actually. A mostly unrelated law. It's sad that I forget the name of the law: this was covered in one of my HR classes.
I actually got shanghaied into a Harlem Renaissance class. It was listed as "Major Figures in American Lit", and because it was the only one of that subject that worked with my schedule I had to take it, even though I'd just gotten done with a Black Women in Lit class (which was also listed as a normal Women in Lit class).
I didn't mind taking them, I just wish they wouldn't sneak that kind of thing under my nose.
__________________
“Where the longleaf pines are whispering
to him who loved them so.
Where the faint murmurs now dwindling
echo o’er tide and shore."
-A Grave Epitaph in Santa Rosa County, Florida; I wish I could remember the man's name.
KMC Community Forums
Dec 9th, 2012 07:02 AM
