US Supreme Court to take up same-sex marriage issue

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Friday to take its first serious look at the issue of gay marriage, granting review of California's ban on same-sex marriage and of a federal law that defines marriage as only the legal union of a man and a woman.

US Supreme Court to take up same-sex marriage issue

The SCOTUS has decided to listen to arguments on the constitutionality of limiting the definition of marriage as one man and one woman. They have also decided to hear arguments on Proposition 8. I have several opinions on this, the two major ones being:

1) Proposition 8: If they didn't like the decision by the voters, they shouldn't have put it to a vote of the citizens. You can't say "democracy now!", and then when democracy works as intended, say "democracy never!" Make up your minds, and do it differently next time. Either way, live with it since it's what you wanted.

2) The government has no business defining marriage at all. They have no business in marriage at all. I support a union of two people of any sex who love each other and want to be a family. But the government needs to be out of it. No tax loopholes, no special benefits, nothing. Then it won't be a problem for anyone to get married.

/TOA

Oh boy............... I feel like no matter how this turns out, the taxpayers still lose.

1) Proposition 8: If they didn't like the decision by the voters, they shouldn't have put it to a vote of the citizens. You can't say "democracy now!", and then when democracy works as intended, say "democracy never!" Make up your minds, and do it differently next time. Either way, live with it since it's what you wanted.

You dont' live in a democracy. You live in a Republic.

If tomorrow there was an election in Texas, where the people decided it was ok to murder children in their sleep for no aparent reason, do you think that would stand up in court?

Obviously not, because the law violates other fundemental laws.

The Defense of Marriage Act violates the basic rights and freedoms and that's clear for anybody whno understands that government contracts and programs, such as marriage, must be available to all citizens who are of sound mind and age to enter the contract.

I agree that the government never should have been involved in the first place, but they did and that's where we are.

If SCOTUS doesn't rule in favor of same sex marriage in both cases, they've effectively approved discrimination.

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower


No way! We live in a republic?? When did this happen!?!?

Democracy was what they used in California to determine whether or not gay marriage would be allowed. Do you need pills or something? You're usually sharper than that.

/TOA

reply to post by The Old American


It doesn't matter what the people voted for. You don't live in a straight democracy, there are laws that PREVENT you from being able to legislate away the rights of a minority.

You can keep your condescending comments to yourself as well, regarding my need for 'pills'.

Pro 8 is a discriminating law, so is the Defense Of Marriage act. There is no argument here.

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower


I agree that they are both discriminatory. However, we know this going in, and we're only two people. How many people in California knew this and still brought it up for a vote? Proposition 8 should never have come up for a vote in the first place. Their heart was in the right place, but they brought it up for a vote, it was voted on, and they didn't like it. So millions were spent needlessly. No wonder California is broke. DOMA has no business existing at all.

/TOA

reply to post by tothetenthpower


I agree with what you said concerning the government not getting involved at all. I don't think they had any business doing that in the first place but since they like to tie taxes and other financial packages into marriage and allow judges to perform them, they were going to have to tackle this at some point and time.

It doesn't matter what the people voted for. You don't live in a straight democracy, there are laws that PREVENT you from being able to legislate away the rights of a minority.

The only possible way that the gay community can be classified as a minority is when it is referenced concerning government entitlements or the lack of such entitlements under marriage as recognized by the state. Referring to people of a different sexual preference as a minority when it doesn't involve government sponsored rights is just wrong. After all, most other "minoritys" can't leave there skin color or gender in the bedroom, can they?

reply to post by Helious


Oh don't worry, I'm not one of those victim gays

I don't even believe in gay culture ( as it mostly stems from entitled, white middle class folk -- let the flamming begin) much less them as a minority.

I simply wrote the term in reference to this specific instance. SInce the laws don't cover homosexuals and now explicitly leave them out, it's a minority sort of thing.

~Tenth

reply to post by The Old American


Mostly Mormons from Utah funded Prop 8 and all the related propaganda.

Check out analysis of the exit polls:

www.madpickles.org...

There was crap turnout in the actual communities it effected ,and much like any popular vote, it was left to those with most weight and say in the system, people over 40.

~Tenth

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by The Old American

 

Mostly Mormons from Utah funded Prop 8 and all the related propaganda.

Check out analysis of the exit polls:

www.madpickles.org...

There was crap turnout in the actual communities it effected ,and much like any popular vote, it was left to those with most weight and say in the system, people over 40.

~Tenth

All true, which is why democracy never works as intended. However, we do have laws that say "bring to a vote of the people, and it can become law". They did it. It became law. Most of knew it was crap, and then, surprise!, it was voted down. Again, millions were needlessly spent to support a crappy piece of legislation that had no chance of existing.

/TOA

reply to post by The Old American


I say we bill failed ballot initiatives to the groups most vocal about their passing and to those who signed the petitions to have it on the ballots.

I know crazy, but it would cut down on a lot of nonsense.

~Tenth

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by Helious

 

Oh don't worry, I'm not one of those victim gays

I don't even believe in gay culture ( as it mostly stems from entitled, white middle class folk -- let the flamming begin) much less them as a minority.

I simply wrote the term in reference to this specific instance. SInce the laws don't cover homosexuals and now explicitly leave them out, it's a minority sort of thing.

~Tenth

I would have to agree completely with that post and also say that regardless of my personal feelings on gay culture in general I do think that the government has a responsibility to treat all citizens equal when it comes to rights outlined by the state. If the state allows two people to be "married" and receive benefits for doing so then they must allow ANY two people to do so, it is not up to our government to govern our individual morality.

Now, with that said, I do believe in other institutions such as churches and other religious places having the freedom to refuse to perform such a union as church and state should be separated and the state should not be able to decide what is right or wrong concerning religious beliefs, practices or morality when it does not infringe upon the civil rights of others.

If what is sought is equal rights or equal persecution (we are talking about marriage here ) from the government then the only acknowledgment that should be needed is that of the state. Imho of course....

reply to post by Helious


Yup I'm for two kinds of marriage.

Officially churched recognized marriage.

Civil Partnerships for the government program that provides the extra rights.

~Tenth

reply to post by The Old American


You don't know how the Prop system in California works. Say I get an idea that a law needs to be made. I go out file my intent to create a ballot initative and petition, get the required signatures (5% or 8% of the number of people who voted for governor, depending on the law), and then return the signatures.

Say my ballot initative was to a special holiday to punch black people in the face. Obviously, no black person would sign that petitiion or even vote for it, but if I get enough signatures it goes to a vote.

Gay people didn't want to put it to a vote. Groups that wanted to ban gay marriage did. Thus the claim that "they shouldn't have put it to a vote" is a false narrative. Now it is the gay community challenging the law.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by Helious

 

Yup I'm for two kinds of marriage.

Officially churched recognized marriage.

Civil Partnerships for the government program that provides the extra rights.

~Tenth

Isn't the reason that marriage is a "religious" thing because to 2 souls knit together as one, the 2 become one flesh? Can't that happen with gay lovers?

What about churches that agree to marry gay couples. Are they married, or civilly partnered? Does it take a church to recognize a "holy" union from an unholy union? What about atheists? Civil partnerships for them too?

reply to post by windword


The civil Partnership would have all the same rights and benefits associated with the Church Recognized, one, it simply has a different name.

In all honestly you should have ONE policy for everybody, Civil Partnership, but since the religious folk want their word marriage in there, do it for appeasement.

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Yeah, but what if some churches recognize a marriage while other don't. who gets the final "appeasement"? Why should a gay couple, get married at a gay friendly church, while an atheist couple not be called married?

What about a Jewish/Catholic couple who choose a civil ceremony instead of a church wedding?

There's just too many layers of confusion and gray area here, imo.

Originally posted by The Old American

Again, millions were needlessly spent to support a crappy piece of legislation that had no chance of existing.

I don't think the money was needlessly spent. Even if they knew the legislation would fail, it still put their issue in the forefront and raised awareness at the state and nation level. Sure, everyone already knows about the gay marriage issue; however, if they quit spending time, money and other resources in the pursuit of their cause, then nobody else is going to pick up the torch and carry it for them.

So...let's say they decide that gay "marriage" is fine, and rules that all states must allow it.

Why not allow people to marry a horse? Or marry a child?

So where does it stop? Who decides what the moral compass is?

There ARE organisations that think the above should be legal.

Somewhere along the lines, a moral line is being drawn. It's just a matter of who's drawing the line, and where they draw it.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

Yeah, but what if some churches recognize a marriage while other don't. who gets the final "appeasement"? Why should a gay couple, get married at a gay friendly church, while an atheist couple not be called married?

What about a Jewish/Catholic couple who choose a civil ceremony instead of a church wedding?

There's just too many layers of confusion and gray area here, imo.

edit on 7-12-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)

Your making it seem over complicated when it really is not. The majority of a faith constitute and govern that organizations base moral values. There is no final appeasement because there can not be one, at least not in the way your asking the question.

While a single Catholic church MAY recognize and / or perform a gay wedding this does not mean the Pope or the Catholic faith in general recognizes it. Because this is the case, it would be considered invalid by that faith. The great thing is though is that it would be perfectly valid in the states eyes and you could enjoy any and all privileges that heterosexual unions receive under state law!

Asking a religious organization to validate your sexual preference when it is against there principle beliefs goes slightly beyond equal rights and wades into the deep end of the pool as agenda pushing. Unlike being born an American citizen or obtaining citizenship and being granted rights afforded to us by our constitution, religious organizations have no such rights, if you do not align yourself with their morals, principles or practices..... Find another religion or practice it without the need to seek approval from others.