Supreme Court takes on Same-Sex Marriage

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

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/09/us-usa-court-gaymarriage-idUSBRE8B617420121209

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.

Originally posted by Robtard
It also unexpectedly took up a challenge to California's ban on gay marriage, known as Proposition 8, which voters narrowly approved in 2008.

I guess 52 to 47 is narrow but the map made me think, otherwise.

Originally posted by Robtard
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. Can't wait for this circus to get full under way.

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.

You agree that they'll be much crying, or you think those that will be crying have a rightful place to cry?

Originally posted by Robtard
You agree that they'll be much crying, or you think those that will be crying have a rightful place to cry?

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.

*Defined what I meant by that, already.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

*Defined what I meant by that, already.

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.

Originally posted by Robtard
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.

The only reason they want those rights is due to the privileges that the married enjoy. The rights should not be dependent upon marriage.

Originally posted by Robtard
Saying "marriage is archaic" is just something "edgy" people like to say to make themselves seem edgier.

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".

Originally posted by Robtard
Like yelling "**** the system", then they go drink their $5.75 designer coffee drink, while wearing skinny jeans and using their MacBooks at Starbucks.

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

Originally posted by dadudemon
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

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.

I wasn't implying you think you're edgy.

Originally posted by Robtard
And that doesn't follow logic either. "Legal marriage" can be homo and legal.

I wasn't implying you think you're edgy.

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.

Suuuuuure. 313

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.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The only reason they want those rights is due to the privileges that the married enjoy.

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.

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?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
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.

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!"

Originally posted by Ascendancy
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?

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. 🙁

Originally posted by dadudemon

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. 🙁

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You took a class on the Harlem Renaissance too? 313

You sunnuva...

No. 🙁 We did cover that in a American Literature History class, but only briefly.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You sunnuva...

No. 🙁 We did cover that in a American Literature History class, but only briefly.

I didn't mind taking them, I just wish they wouldn't sneak that kind of thing under my nose.

Can't the Supreme Court find something better to do?

Originally posted by Jim Colyer
Can't the Supreme Court find something better to do?

ya, how dare it focus on matters of individual rights under the constitution!

Let's finally show these religious nuts that the right to opinion does not mean the right to promote ignorance!

Originally posted by Lestov16
Let's finally show these religious nuts that the right to opinion does not mean the right to promote ignorance!

Actually, that is exactly what that means.

I know 🙁
Sucks that humanity's greatest strength is also it's most debilitating weakness.