US Supreme Court to take up same-sex marriage issue

reply to post by The Old American


Certrain people know how to tweak the system. Like you said, when they want "Democracy" they use that and throw it around, and when they want to usurp the very same system to get what they want, then they appeal to the Supreme Court which they have been adding judges more biased toward their ideals. Whatever happened to "blind justice".

reply to post by sdcigarpig

reclused

I think you meant "recused" here.

reply to post by The Old American


For your first point OP. This is what the Supreme Court does. Is determines whether a law is constitutional or not.

If the state of California made a law that stated "We're going to tax white people 50% more" and everyone voted on it, would that still be a positive act of democracy? No that would be clear discrimination and an un-equal application of the law.

reply to post by The Old American

There should be no tax benefits for any married couple.

What you are saying here is that married people who are likely to bear children as part of their contract with each other do not deserve to have a tax break for the expenses incurred by raising children and paying taxes to the overbearing public education system regardless of what school they choose to send their kids to. You are saying that the burdens of married couples are the same as those who are free to pursue whatever they want without the added burdens of raising children. So in your mind gays getting married should not have any of these tax bennies either.

Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Will gays really want to be married that badly if there are no tax bennies attached?

reply to post by Miraj

If the state of California made a law that stated "We're going to tax white people 50% more" and everyone voted on it, would that still be a positive act of democracy? No that would be clear discrimination and an un-equal application of the law.

And with one fell swoop, the Federal Supreme Court overturned every State law on the books regarding abortion.
This is the reason why activist judges get appointed to lower courts, so they can determine more outcomes of these suits and then boot them up to the Supremes if necessary.

reply to post by The Old American

They have no business in marriage at all.

Just think, in times past, women were unable to directly inherit wealth from her own father and she had to have a dowry in addition when getting married. How far we have come from that. In the 50's the courts favored women in child custody cases. Now the courts are veering back toward patriarchal power in custody, with a wealthy woman often having to pay child support. This was unheard of in the 50's when society thought the family was worth protecting. Now it's every man for himself and be darned the family and the safety of the children. What's more is the children can be snatched up from either or both of the parents on the whim of some teacher who reports them to CPS, or some snoopy neighbor, or some other bureaucrat.

And now our favorite Marxist Senator gone State Dept is trying to get the US tied into her lil Village raising our children for us UN Treaty.

Yep, let's get the govt out of our marriages and out of our families. And keep the UN out of our biz while we are at it. Let's get govt out of our pocketbooks completely and overturn the 16th Amendment and get rid of the Fed.

Is that taking this too far?

Finally we can get this issue resolved!

I could care less, personally.

Whatever someone else calls their union hs no impact on the value and importance of my marriage.

Just my 2 cents.

Originally posted by beezzer
Finally we can get this issue resolved!

I could care less, personally.

Whatever someone else calls their union hs no impact on the value and importance of my marriage.

Just my 2 cents.

I agree(except I'm not married lol), and I think most people would agree too.
But I could see the conservative leaning Supreme Court saying marriage is defined as being between a male and a female.....
haha, how great would it be if the revolution started because of gays?

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by beezzer
Finally we can get this issue resolved!

I could care less, personally.

Whatever someone else calls their union hs no impact on the value and importance of my marriage.

Just my 2 cents.

I agree(except I'm not married lol), and I think most people would agree too.
But I could see the conservative leaning Supreme Court saying marriage is defined as being between a male and a female.....
haha, how great would it be if the revolution started because of gays?

The Supreme Court has to look at the issue from a Constitutional aspect. So they might surprise you. As a conservative myself, I don't see what the big deal is.

All of your arguments and misguided attempts at liberty are meaningless outside of the goal of the amalgamated consciousness. The conservative ideology will fade away with this issue by the year 2016.

Marriage will be known as a union between two consenting adults of requisite mental capacity.

Don't feel bad, or cheated. This is the way causality has flowed. You can not stand against the rapids, least you be washed away and forgotten. Join the flow, willingly or by force. It's your choice. There is no umbrella for this torrential flow. No rafts, no lifevests.

I'm content to watch your efforts to fight against, but then again...I'll be there to give you a friendly pat on the back when you realize that my words were true. I'll console you, and be sure to tell you that everything will be ok. Remember, two adults consenting in this union. It's the way things will be. Just wait, and watch.

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by beezzer
Finally we can get this issue resolved!

I could care less, personally.

Whatever someone else calls their union hs no impact on the value and importance of my marriage.

Just my 2 cents.

I agree(except I'm not married lol), and I think most people would agree too.
But I could see the conservative leaning Supreme Court saying marriage is defined as being between a male and a female.....
haha, how great would it be if the revolution started because of gays?

Since there is no merits briefs yet (the arguments pro/con) it really is hard to say what exactly is going to be argued. As noted in this thread, I hope they focus on the contract issue. That is what marriage is, a contract between two consenting adults and there are certain privileges afforded when that contract is signed. Those privileges should extend to whom ever decides to enter that contract, straight, gay, alien, donkeys...doesn't matter.

I do however want the Supreme Court to stay out of the issue of defining what marriage is. Though, this will most likely bring it up, I believe the court will shy away from it and push it back to the states.

reply to post by beezzer


No, they don't. That's what people fail to understand about the courts. They have the social consciousness of the nation in mind in these type of interest issues. The lay person doesn't understand this, but the children of jurisprudence do (not that we're more or less than anyone else). Their considerations are multi -tiered and not simply seated within the constitution. It'll be argued that way, but the truth is a lot more...subjective.

Originally posted by TheOneElectric
reply to post by beezzer

 

No, they don't. That's what people fail to understand about the courts. They have the social consciousness of the nation in mind in these type of interest issues. The lay person doesn't understand this, but the children of jurisprudence do (not that we're more or less than anyone else). Their considerations are multi -tiered and not simply seated within the constitution. It'll be argued that way, but the truth is a lot more...subjective.

Well, regardless, I think it's 'much ado about nothing', to coin a phrase.

Originally posted by TheOneElectric
All of your arguments and misguided attempts at liberty are meaningless outside of the goal of the amalgamated consciousness. The conservative ideology will fade away with this issue by the year 2016.

Marriage will be known as a union between two consenting adults of requisite mental capacity.

Conservatives embrace that....Republican brand? Not so much. So what is your point?

I'm content to watch your efforts to fight against, but then again...I'll be there to give you a friendly pat on the back when you realize that my words were true. I'll console you, and be sure to tell you that everything will be ok. Remember, two adults consenting in this union. It's the way things will be. Just wait, and watch.

You didn't respond to anyone, so the question is, who are you speaking to here?

Originally posted by TheOneElectric
No, they don't. That's what people fail to understand about the courts. They have the social consciousness of the nation in mind in these type of interest issues.

If the courts have that type of mentality, then they are wrong. While I am not naive enough to think they are completely impartial, the do at least have to base their opinion on law and precedent. So to say they act on the "social consciousness" of the nation is a stretch. It isn't a pick and choose game. While some rulings may baffle our minds, they at least provide the path in which they arrived at that conclusion. It is a marvelous thing. Mainly because even if a ruling didn't go a certain way, arguments can be formulated against that ruling using law, logic and precedent.

The lay person doesn't understand this, but the children of jurisprudence do (not that we're more or less than anyone else). Their considerations are multi -tiered and not simply seated within the constitution. It'll be argued that way, but the truth is a lot more...subjective.

What? You went straight off the deep-end here. I am a "lay person" yet I am able to read rulings and opinions. What the hell are you talking about?

reply to post by TheOneElectric

All of your arguments and misguided attempts at liberty are meaningless outside of the goal of the amalgamated consciousness. The conservative ideology will fade away with this issue by the year 2016.

And what is thee goal of "the amalgamated consciousness"? Just so I am clear as to what your meaning is.

reply to post by Ghost375

haha, how great would it be if the revolution started because of gays?

That might depend on what Revolution you are referring to.

It's doubtful you mean a revolution in Higher Consciousness.

reply to post by tothetenthpower

Why do you want it to be called "married" if you're an atheist? Why would it matter.

Why does the word matter at all - to anyone? Your argument works as well forward as backward - sideways or up and down

It's not the word - it's what it symbolizes

Appeasing people is not the way forward towards equality

The religious folks don't own the word or the meaning behind it - it's not theirs

Unfortunately (or fortunately) it may now be up to 9 individuals to decide once and for all - equal, separate but equal - or inequality: status quo

Married is married - for any two people that decide the symbolism matters - it should be available to them without separation or the splitting of hairs

Using atheists as an example really doesn't make the point you were trying to make - because not believing in god doesn't mean you don't believe in uniting with your one true love

Does it?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


To experience every possible scenario no matter it's social, political, philosophical, temporal, or moral connotation. What is omniscience without knowing experience?

From the looks of it this will be two different cases. One involving same-sex marriage and Prop 8: Hollingsworth v. Perry. The other involves Defense of Marriage Act: Windsor v. United States

In the first, Hollingsworth v. Perry, the court could bring to merits Prop 8 and if the proponents of that case should have even be able to argue that case. (I have to look more into this and what SCOTUSblog is alluding to here.)

The second, Windsor v. United States, the court will be considering DOMA. In this case, the Court will also be examining if the Republican-led defense of DOMA should have had standing.

1 USC Section 7 (DOMA)

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

After researching why the court chose these two cases (of out the 10 presented before it) it became clear why the didn't want any of the 1st Circuit cases. That would have placed Justice Kagen into a spot to recuse herself or make it political fodder. For that action, I commend the Supreme Court in hearing arguments in which all 9 Justices will be able to opinion on.

APA it seems will be providing an amicus brief, along with calls that the White House provide one (I personally believe they should remain out of it.)