Gay Marriage Headed to SCOTUS: States have rights? Wuh?

[wizardwatson]

Well, the tsunami of societal institutionalizing of gay marriage has hit a snag. Got some disagreement at different federal appeals courts. State constitutional bans on gay marriage upheld in todays ruling:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/federal-appeals-court-rules-gay-marriage-bans-26743179

Apparently some silly judges have decided that states have the right to decide marriage laws. I don't know where they got this idea in their head. I thought it was clear to everyone that the federal government is God.

Freedom to Marry movement not happy:

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/blog/entry/6th-circuit-appeals-court-breaks-from-unanimous-appellate-rulings-upholds-d

Of course this isn't a loss. It's actually a win for the movement because now it will force SCOTUS to hear the case, and it will likely take place quickly as all the gay couples have to wait to get married. Not cool if you've saved yourself for your soul mate and now have to endure unnecessary waiting time on account of all that red tape.

[wizardwatson]

I'm surprised this issue isn't being talked about more on here. It's a fascinating social question that touches on state's rights vs. federal, whether gays are being discriminated against, religion, sex, morality... It's chocked full of wedge issue goodness. I believe it is very much on the level of "Roe vs. Wade".

Anyway, maybe it's just boring, people have already decided, don't want to offend, etc.

Lot's of articles about this. I originally posted specifically for the fact that I was surprised a judge actually made the case that this was a state's rights issue and the feds have no business sticking their nose in it because it's been a state issue since the beginning of the country's founding.

This article: http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/sixth-circuit-the-split-on-same-sex-marriage/

.... the end of it anyway, I'm posting here as it shows the reasoning steps behind the judges decision.


The Sixth Circuit’s majority opinion reached its result through these specific steps:

* It ruled that the Supreme Court’s one-line decision in the 1972 case of Baker v. Nelson, saying that a challenge to a state ban on same-sex marriage did not raise “a substantial federal question,” is a still intact precedent, and it binds the lower courts.

* It found that the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor, striking down a part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, did not disturb that 1972 precedent.

* It relied upon the Supreme Court’s comment in the Windsor decision that the Court was not providing an answer to the basic question of state authority to impose bans on same-sex marriages. It also interpreted that decision as being primarily about federalism, and the need to respect the prerogatives of the states to define marriage.

* It commented that the Justices’ October 6 refusal to grant review of any of the same-sex marriage appeals before it then does not end the debate over state authority in this field.

* It rejected the reasoning of all of the other federal court rulings striking down state bans, and it said that they involve a wide array of reasoning. And it rejected the theories of the challengers in bringing those cases, saying that “not one” of those “makes the case for constitutionalizing the definition of marriage and for removing the issue from the place it has been since the founding: in the hands of state voters.”

* It said it was guided by the history of state power to define marriage, which it said was an unbroken definition that this was open to opposite-sex couples, from the founding of the nation right up to 2003, when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck down that state’s ban.

* It declared that the state bans were to be evaluated using the “rational basis” test — the most lenient of the constitutional standards for judging claims of discrimination. It conceded that this test set a “low bar.” And it concluded that state bans have at least two rational foundations: first, the regulation of sex between men and women, with the promotion of marriage between them as a way to establish stable family relationships; and, second, a state’s desire to wait and see before changing the norm of opposite-sex marriage.

* It found that none of the bans adopted by voter-approved ballot measures in the four states involved in the cases had been enacted out of hostility (“animus”) toward gays and lesbians, but rather sought only to codify long-standing social norms about marriage, already reflected in state laws. It also commented that it was difficult to assess the motives of the 8.6 million people in the four states who voted for those measures.

* It concluded that what the same-sex couples were seeking was a fundamental right to “gay marriage,” and that does not exist under the Constitution. The route of recognizing gay marriage through the Constitution, it said, “does not exist.” It thus rejected the argument of advocates of same-sex marriage that they were seeking only an equal right to enter an institution open to others. Even the Supreme Court’s 1967 decision in Loving v. Virginia, for the first time allowing couples of different races to marry, did not provide a new definition of traditional marriage, it said.

* It ruled that bans on same-sex marriage would not violate the constitutional ban on discrimination based on gender. Gays and lesbians, it said, have not been recognized by the Supreme Court as a discrete class deserving of special constitutional protection as historic targets of discrimination.

* It concluded that it was up to the nation’s people, not to its courts, to decide when “the time is right to recognize” a new and more expansive interpretation of rights under the Constitution. “The federal courts,” it said, “have no long-lasting capacity to change what people think and believe about new social questions.” Victories by gay rights advocates through initiatives and legislation, it remarked, would lead to “greater acceptance” of those goals.

* Finally, turning to the question of state authority to refuse to officially recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, it found that “states have always decided for themselves when to yield to laws of other states.”

Now that was the decision reached by 2 of the 3 judges in the case. One of the judges dissented. And in her dissent she literally gets pissy with the argument of the other two.

You can read her unbridled vitriol for her coworkers here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/06/gay-marriage-dissent_n_6117648.html

In the interest of fairness to both sides here's a couple of her nuggets:


The author of the majority opinion has drafted what would make an engrossing TED Talk or, possibly, an introductory lecture in Political Philosophy. But as an appellate court decision, it wholly fails to grapple with the relevant constitutional question in this appeal. … Instead, the majority sets up a false premise—that the question before us is “who should decide?”—and leads us through a largely irrelevant discourse on democracy and federalism. In point of fact, the real issue before us concerns what is at stake in these six cases for the individual plaintiffs and their children, and what should be done about it. Because I reject the majority’s resolution of these questions based on its invocation of vox populi and its reverence for “proceeding with caution” (otherwise known as the “wait and see” approach), I dissent.


Instead of recognizing the plaintiffs as persons, suffering actual harm as a result of being denied the right to marry where they reside or the right to have their valid marriages recognized there, my colleagues view the plaintiffs as social activists who have somehow stumbled into federal court, inadvisably, when they should be out campaigning to win “the hearts and minds” of Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee voters to their cause. But these plaintiffs are not political zealots trying to push reform on their fellow citizens; they are committed same-sex couples, many of them heading up de facto families, who want to achieve equal status.

In her dissent she goes on about "Jim Crow laws", but I think that's a flawed argument. This gay right to marry thing is not the same as saying blacks can only marry blacks. As one black pastor put it:


''I've read that [former presidential candidate] Carol Moseley Braun didn't see any difference between same-sex marriage and interracial marriage, but we believe the difference is enormous,'' Thompson said. ''Today, we look back with scorn at those who twisted the law to make marriage serve a racist agenda, and I believe our descendants will look back the same way at us if we yield to the same kind of pressure a radical sexual agenda is placing on us today. Just as it's distorting the equation of marriage if you press race into it, it's also distorting if you subtract gender.'' http://www.vfbaptist.org/articles/articles%20101-200/article00102.htm

Seems to me too many state-worshippers think that the state defines marriage. Marriage is not defined by the state. Marriage is an ancient ancient social norm. The state/government only "recognizes" the marriage.

But I honestly think it's futile to argue about this. Everyone these days with their half-education about "rights" and "law" love to twist these things into a pretzel until they get what they want. I fully expect the Supreme court will force this down the state's throats. It wouldn't surprise me at all. If people can twist "rights" and "law" to justify scraping babies out of uteruses then twisting it to redefine marriage I think is a walk in the park.

I'm interested in the subject mostly for eschatological reasons anyway.

[wizardwatson]

This is a very good article against same-sex marriage in my opinion. Talks to the substance of same-sex marriage and he also sheds light on the 6th circuits reasons for upholding of same-sex marriage bans in four states. Essentially pointing out that the Supreme Court has already ruled back in 1972 that the is no "federal question" surrounding marriage, ie, it's a state issue.


Supreme Court, 'Gay Marriage' and the Easter Bunny

Source: http://eaglerising.com/11150/supreme-court-gay-marriage-easter-bunny/

There is no such thing as the Easter Bunny.

If there arose a global movement that loudly and proudly demanded "bunny equality," and a dozen or more activist federal judges suddenly declared the Easter Bunny to be real, and thousands of rabid rabbit wannabees pranced in pink bunny suit parades, all the while pretending to be, even believing themselves to be, Easter Bunnies, and liberal legislators passed "anti-discrimination" laws presuming to force everyone else to join in on the delusion (severely punishing those who refused), there’d still be no Easter Bunny.

There is no such thing as "same-sex marriage."

There can’t be.

It’s an idea no less silly than a giant pink bunny hiding eggs behind trees. It’s an oxymoron. It’s contradictio in terminis. It’s like pointing to your lawn and saying, "What a beautiful green sky."

Oh, sure, there are thousands of people hopping around pretending to be, perhaps even believing themselves to be, "married" to someone of the same sex. Still, and while nice folks they may be, these nice folks labor under an unfortunate fairytale.

Fairytales are for children.

The "gay marriage" fairytale hurts children.

Here’s what marriage is. Marriage is the God-ordained, lifelong, covenantal union between man and wife, designed to provide men, women and children optimal stability and overall well-being. Marriage is that biologically, spiritually and morally centered institution calculated to ensure responsible procreation and perpetuate the human race. Marriage, real marriage, represents the fundamental cornerstone of any healthy society (any society that hopes to survive, at least).

Here’s what marriage is not:

Anything else.

On Thursday, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Ohio agreed. It rightly upheld natural marriage laws in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. This is huge. It has kneecapped the left’s propagandist "gay-marriage-is-inevitable" myth. It’s created a conflict between federal circuits, which means, almost certainly, that the U.S. Supreme Court will, once again, weigh in on extremist efforts to deconstruct marriage, nationwide, via lower court judicial fiat.

In the 6th Circuit’s decision, Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote, "Of all the ways to resolve this question, one option is not available: a poll of the three judges of this panel, or for that matter all federal judges, about whether gay marriage is a good idea. Our judicial commissions did not come with such a sweeping grant of authority, one that would allow just three of us-just two of us in truth-to make such a vital policy call for the thirty-two million citizens who live within the four states of the 6th Circuit."

Ah, judicial restraint. How refreshing.

Here’s what most folks don’t know. The U.S. Supreme Court has already settled the "gay marriage" debate. In its 1972 Baker v. Nelson decision, the high court found that there is no "federal question" surrounding the definition of marriage. That is to say, there is no constitutional "equal protection" right (or any other right for that matter) to so-called "same-sex marriage."

This, my friends, is the law of the land.

The 6th Circuit upheld natural marriage based on the Supreme Court’s Baker decision, noting that it remains controlling law. "The Court has yet to inform us that we are not, and we have no license to engage in a guessing game about whether the Court will change its mind or, more aggressively, to assume authority to overrule Baker ourselves."

In Baker, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that a law protecting the timeless definition of marriage as between one man and one woman did not violate the U.S. Constitution: "The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis," the court found, further recognizing that "there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex."

The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed that laws limiting marriage to the natural man-woman binary requisite did not raise "a substantial federal question." For legal purposes, this is equivalent to the high court affirming the decision on the merits.

And so Baker became, and remains, precedent.

In keeping with the spirit of Baker, Sutton continued, "A dose of humility makes us hesitant to condemn as unconstitutionally irrational a view of marriage shared not long ago by every society in the world, shared by most, or not all, of our ancestors, and shared still today by a significant number of states."

The Supreme Court has, in other cases, likewise upheld the critical nature of natural man-woman marriage.

Marriage is "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942).

"An institution in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress." Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888).

Every rouge federal court that has somehow divined a constitutional "right" for two people of the same-sex to "marry" is not only out of touch with reality, it’s out of touch with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Even so, the final outcome is yet to be seen. It remains unclear just where Justice Anthony Kennedy, the "gay marriage" swing vote, will ultimately come down when the high court revisits the issue as early as June 2015.

The New York Times isn’t sure what he’ll do.

Nobody is.

Soon after last year’s disastrous Windsor decision, the Times observed: "Justice Kennedy writes that the Defense of Marriage Act violates the principles of federalism, which allow states to largely chart their own course."

"The State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism," Kennedy opined.

Hmm: "The State’s power in defining the marital relation." That’s promising. While, in reality, nobody, not even the states, has the power to define, or to redefine, marriage (that’s solely within God’s purview), that Kennedy evidently believes this to be a "states’ rights" issue bodes well for both the rule of law and for the preservation of marriage.

If he holds true to these federalist principles and observes the Supreme Court’s established precedent in Baker v. Nelson, then marriage will live to see another day.

If he does not - if he pulls a "gay" Easter Bunny from his hat - then this thing gets ugly.

[RonPaulIsGreat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions Just saying, it appears history has at least some examples of gay marriage.

There is zero reason the government even needs to recognize a marriage.

The aspects of marriage the government uses, are those related to finances, and "rights" granted in the case of permanent disability, those rights can easily be written into basic contracts. People should be able to write up any contract they wish (unless barred by law), and churches should be able to require certain requirements in contracts before they will marry them, like for adultery to be in line with religious beliefs.

Marriage and Government, IMO, are only immersed out of laziness, as essentially the current implementation is just forcing a bundling of contracts.

So, should any government whether state, federal, local, be able to ban or force recognition of gay marriage? No.

Should any church be able to marry or reject marrying a gay couple. Yes.

However, if the government is going to continue this bundling of contracts with the "religious" marriage contract, then the only "rational" method is for the federal government to force recognition of all marriages between consenting adults.

But again, of course, this is a problem wholly caused by the government even recognizing what for most is a "religious" contract, or even for atheists just a ceremony denoting commitment to another person above all others.

The debate should be why is government involved at all, even at the "recognition" level. I like contract bundles from my TV/PHone/Internet provider not from God/Tax Man/Will Writer/Power of Attorney, etc... Totally unnecessary bundling of services from unrelated providers.

However, I'd bet 1000 bucks Government will not recognize that it does not belong, and instead double down. Where that ends who knows.

Gay, hetero, Blah, why government uses Marriage for anything is the problem.

Seems simple enough to me.

If people want an unbiased perpetual record of their marriage in an incontestable form, then get the marriage entered into the bitcoin blockchain, that would be less hackable than government records anyway.

[wizardwatson]

However, if the government is going to continue this bundling of contracts with the "religious" marriage contract, then the only "rational" method is for the federal government to force recognition of all marriages between consenting adults.

Well, there's nothing that says marriage is rational to begin with. It's just a social norm. Polygamy has been a social norm in other places. I would say that making the whole thing "rational" is exactly what the Supreme Court was trying to do by striking down DOMA. Clearly some states do in fact want same-sex marriage so at the federal level they have to account for that.

I'm of the opinion that the case itself, apart from religious/moral/"good of society" opinions, is a state level issue. It looks like a toss up now. Either we're going to have state-level recognition with some states allowing, others not, some states not recognizing others states gay marriages, some will....or SCOTUS will just legalize it across the board. So as a country, if states rights win out the playing field will be more irrational than if SCOTUS just settles it for everyone.

[wizardwatson]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions Just saying, it appears history has at least some examples of gay marriage.

Reading through some of that this passage caught my eye as I heard someone else mention that "even in Greece they didn't give out marriage certificates and sanctify if" or something to that effect.

Here's from your above link:


In Hellenic Greece, the pederastic relationships between Greek men (erastes) and youths (eromenos) were similar to marriage in that the age of the youth was similar to the age at which women married (the mid-teens, though in some city states, as young as age seven), and the relationship could only be undertaken with the consent of the father.[citation needed] This consent, just as in the case of a daughter's marriage, was contingent on the suitor's social standing. The relationship consisted of very specific social and religious responsibilities and also had a sexual component. Unlike marriage, however, a pederastic relation was temporary and ended when the boy turned seventeen.

At the same time, many of these relationships might be more clearly understood as mentoring relationships between adult men and young boys rather than an analog of marriage. This is particularly true in the case of Sparta, where the relationship was intended to further a young boy's military training. While the relationship was generally lifelong and of profound emotional significance to the participants, it was not considered marriage by contemporary culture, and the relationship continued even after participants reached age 20 and married women, as was expected in the culture.

It's weird what "social norm" means at different periods of time. For instance we see here in Greece pedophilia OK, gay marriage frowned upon. In USA today, pedophilia frowned upon, gay marriage ok.

It indicates there that there was a "ceremony" for these men to be hooked up with these boys. I'd say the difference with this gay marriage debate is that "marriage" has become sort of an abstraction instead of a "ceremony" (no doubt due to government stepping into it, linking all sorts of benefits to it, etc. as you mention above) and traditional marriage people think their ceremonial view of marriage is being violated. But really what everyone is fighting over is who gets to be under the umbrella of Uncle Sam's good graces. Because even if gay marriage were "its own thing" like this Greek man-boy arrangement they would still want to be on par with everything that Joe and Jane sixpack get from the government for being married.

In other words, I think despite all this propaganda about "love", "rights", "dignity", "respect", etc. the pro-gay marriage crowd will settle for nothing less than exactly what heterosexuals get.

Anyway, it's a hot mess of an issue. It's a wedge issue that's easy to argue from both angles.

[Sonny Tufts]

The author puts too much emphasis on religion, the Baker case, and procreation.

"While, in reality, nobody, not even the states, has the power to define, or to redefine, marriage (that’s solely within God’s purview)..."

Really? States define marriage by establishing minimum age requirements and prohibiting polygamy and marriage between close relatives.

Appellate courts other than the 6th Circuit have distinguished Baker and held it not to be controlling:


we must address the states’ argument that whatever the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims, we are bound by Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972) (mem.), to reject them. For there the Supreme Court, without issuing an opinion, dismissed “for want of a substantial federal question” an appeal from a state court that had held that prohibiting same-sex marriage did not violate the Constitution. Although even a decision without opinion is on the merits and so binds lower courts, the Supreme Court carved an exception to this principle of judicial hierarchy in Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975), for “when doctrinal developments indicate otherwise”; see also United States v. Blaine County, 363 F.3d 897, 904 (9th Cir. 2004); Soto-Lopez v. New York City Civil Service Commission, 755 F.2d 266, 272 (2d Cir. 1985). Baker was decided in 1972—42 years ago and the dark ages so far as litigation over discrimination against homosexuals is concerned. Subsequent decisions such as Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 634–36 (1996); Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 577–79 (2003), and United States v. Windsor are distinguishable from the present two cases but make clear that Baker is no longer authoritative. At least we think they’re distinguishable. But Justice Scalia, in a dissenting opinion in Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 586, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas, thought not. He wrote that “principle and logic” would require the Court, given its decision in Lawrence, to hold that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Id. at 605. Baskin v. Bogan, Nos. 14-2386 to 14-2388 (7th Cir. 2014)

Two landmark decisions by the Supreme Court have undermined the notion that the question presented in Baker is insubstantial. Baker was decided before the Supreme Court held that “intimate conduct with another person . . . can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 567 (2003). The decision in Baker also pre-dates the Court’s opinion in Windsor. Several courts held prior to Windsor that Baker controlled the same-sex marriage question. See, e.g., Massachusetts v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 682 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2012) (“Baker does not resolve our own case but it does limit the arguments to ones that do not presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”); Donaldson v. State, 292 P.3d 364, 371 n.5 (Mont. 2012) (“The U.S. Supreme Court’s action in Baker has been described as binding precedent.” (citations omitted)). However, since Windsor was decided, nearly every federal court to have considered the issue— including the district court below—has ruled that Baker does not control. See Wolf v. Walker, No. 14-cv-64-bbc, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77125, at *10-18 (W.D. Wis. June 6, 2014); Whitewood v. Wolf, No. 1:13-cv-1861, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68771, at *14-18 (M.D. Pa. May 20, 2014); Geiger v. Kitzhaber, Nos. 6:13-cv-01834-MC & 6:13-cv-02256-MC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68171, at *7 n.1 (D. Or. May 19, 2014); Latta v. Otter, No. 1:13-cv-00482-CWD, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66417, at *28 (D. Idaho May 13, 2014); DeBoer v. Snyder, No. 12-CV-10285, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37274, at *46 n.6 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 21, 2014); De Leon v. Perry, No. SA-13-CA-00982-OLG, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26236, at *28-29 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2014); Bostic v. Rainey, 970 F. Supp. 2d 456, 470 (E.D. Va. 2014); McGee v. Cole, No. 3:13-24068, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10864, at *32 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 29, 2014); Bishop v. United States ex rel. Holder, 962 F. Supp. 2d 1252, 1277 (N.D. Okla. 2014); Kitchen, 961 F. Supp. 2d at 1195. But see Merritt v. Att’y Gen., No. 13-215-BAJ-SCR, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163235, at *2 (M.D. La. Oct. 2, 2013), magistrate judge report adopted by 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162583 (M.D. La. Nov. 13, 2013) (citing Baker as controlling in dismissing pro se complaint, but not considering whether doctrinal developments had undermined Baker). Kitchen v. Herbert, No. 13-4178 (10th Cir. 2014)

Defendants contend that this decades-old case [Baker] is still good law, and therefore bars us from concluding that same-sex couples have a due process or equal protection right to marriage.

However, “subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court” not only “suggest” but make clear that the claims before us present substantial federal questions.
Wright v. Lane Cnty. Dist. Ct., 647 F.2d 940, 941 (9th Cir. 1981); see Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2694–96 (holding unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment a federal law recognizing opposite-sex-sex but not same-sex marriages because its “principal purpose [was] to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency”); Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 578–79 (2003) (recognizing a due process right to engage in intimate conduct, including with a partner of the same sex); Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 631–34 (1996) (invalidating as an irrational denial of equal protection a state law barring protection of lesbians and gays under state or local anti-discrimination legislation or administrative policies). Three other circuits have issued opinions striking down laws like those at issue here since Windsor, and all agree that Baker no longer precludes review. Accord Baskin v. Bogan, No. 14-2386, 2014 WL 4359059, at *7 (7th Cir. Sept. 4, 2014); Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352, 373–75 (4th Cir. 2014); Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193, 1204–08 (10th Cir. 2014). As any observer of the Supreme Court cannot help but realize, this case and others like it present not only substantial but pressing federal questions. Latta v. Otter, No. 14-35420 (9th Cir. 2014)

"Here’s what marriage is. Marriage is the God-ordained, lifelong, covenantal union between man and wife, designed to provide men, women and children optimal stability and overall well-being. Marriage is that biologically, spiritually and morally centered institution calculated to ensure responsible procreation and perpetuate the human race. Marriage, real marriage, represents the fundamental cornerstone of any healthy society (any society that hopes to survive, at least).

Here’s what marriage is not:

Anything else."

So since "anything else" would include an opposite-sex union in which the couple either can't have or doesn't want children, it's not a real marriage?

[RonPaulIsGreat]

Well, there's nothing that says marriage is rational to begin with. It's just a social norm. Polygamy has been a social norm in other places. I would say that making the whole thing "rational" is exactly what the Supreme Court was trying to do by striking down DOMA. Clearly some states do in fact want same-sex marriage so at the federal level they have to account for that.

I'm of the opinion that the case itself, apart from religious/moral/"good of society" opinions, is a state level issue. It looks like a toss up now. Either we're going to have state-level recognition with some states allowing, others not, some states not recognizing others states gay marriages, some will....or SCOTUS will just legalize it across the board. So as a country, if states rights win out the playing field will be more irrational than if SCOTUS just settles it for everyone.

X person enters into contract with Y person, the contract in question is legal for individuals to enter in all 50 states , should that contract be recognized universally?
That is the real situation, at the most basic level.

If the law is supposed to be equally applicable to all, then the only "rational" position is forced recognition of gay marriage. Otherwise you would be discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Again why government should not be involved at all.

All valid laws must be able to be boiled down to x person and y person without regard to sex, race, religion, IMO, of course. Somehow, though discrimination has been encased in law, even though it can't be equally applied. Affirmative Action, Hate Crime, etc... All don't meet the x person and y person standard resulting in the same outcome, thus are discriminatory by nature.

[wizardwatson]

If the law is supposed to be equally applicable to all, then the only "rational" position is forced recognition of gay marriage. Otherwise you would be discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Again why government should not be involved at all.

Is it discriminating on sexual orientation or gender?

It's gender. The pro-gay marriage crowd is pressing sexual orientation into it claiming civil right victimhood. "They don't want us getting married because they hate gays." Is the anti-gay marriage crowd also discriminating and hating polygamists? If the polygamists were as numerous as the LGBT community and the tide of public opinion was in their favor I'm sure they would work to remove the requirement for two people the same way the LGBT community wants to remove the gender constraint and no doubt they would claim civil rights violations. The federal government discriminates on gender when it comes to registering for the draft. Why is this? Because it's a moral consensus that 1. we should have a draft 2. women shouldn't be forced. Both of those points could be considered "immoral" and "violating civil rights" and indeed are by many.

All laws at root are moral constructs. Marriage is a moral construct. The "right to life" and "right to free speech" are moral constructs. We say they are "God given", in this country anyway, but really it's just a moral consensus. The same way the "right to life" can be interpreted to mean a woman owns her body and a fetus doesn't, or the "right to free speech" can be interpreted to apply to corporate entities, marriage too can be interpreted and given different meaning in the legal process.

So what's really happening is the moral consensus on gay marriage country-wide has shifted in favor of gay marriage. In these federal rulings the judges are saying that marriage itself is a fundamental right and that the gender constraint discriminates against same-sex partners. They/We are changing the consensus on fundamental rights and changing the consensus on what marriage is.

There's nothing wrong with this really, or at least nothing new. If people want to change the law to include marriage as a right and change the universal definition of marriage to include gay couples (but still exclude polygamy since moral consensus is not there) then that's fine. Moral consensus changes. Slaves got rights, women got rights, etc. So if gays are fighting for their unions to be on par with hetero unions that's all fine and dandy, but they have no leg to stand on claiming they are being discriminated against because they are gay unless they also extend that same level of recognized oppression to polygamists. They can't do that though without losing moral ground (in the mobs eyes). The pro-gay marriage is capitalizing on moral support they have for marriage, the "civil right" legal claim is fictional in this context since the right only exists-or will exist-because these judges are extrapolating this new right based on the new moral consensus. This should be evident from the fact that these federal judges are literally writing about "the right to marry". Did you learn about the "right to marry" when you took your required class on the US constitution? The feds are extrapolating that "new right" based on moral consensus.

There is no objective, legal, property-based-rights answer to whether gay marriage is right or wrong. It's all moral consensus. And the current moral consensus is that it's "not fair" for hetero couples to get all those benefits while gay couples don't. We should all stop pretending that there are these fundamental "rights" that objectively exist. They don't. Rights only exist in relation to a government that recognizes them and recognition is based on moral consensus of those who have the power.


X person enters into contract with Y person, the contract in question is legal for individuals to enter in all 50 states , should that contract be recognized universally?
That is the real situation, at the most basic level.

I would say no. If one state allows 12 year olds to have a driver license but another state requires licensed drivers to be 16 I see no reason why the latter should have to recognize the former. To use this as an analogy to gay marriage I think might go like this: The 12 year olds all band together and get "driving" declared by the federal government as a fundamental right (honestly this is more fundamental from the perspective of utility than marriage) and then claim they are being discriminated against because of age by other states. Some old people are horrible drivers and can't even see so why are they allowed to drive? The 12 year olds could make the same arguments about it "harming and depriving them of a full life". They can't drive their crippled mom across state lines to get special medical care, etc.

So just like a state can have different qualifications for who can drive, I see no reason why there can't be conditions for getting married (are you old enough, are you already married, is your spouse opposite gendered).

As far as uniformity the federal government already made themselves uniform by striking down DOMA. That makes sense because they have states that disagree, so at the federal level it makes sense for them not to discriminate state by state to determine eligibility for federal benefits. They are adjusting to a change in moral consensus.

My opinion and I believe Ron Paul's opinion (was last time I heard anyway) is that these marriage laws should be a state issue and as was referenced in above posts SCOTUS has already ruled to that effect in the past. But the proponents of this know that in order to force it and make it uniform across the country they must overturn this by getting the federal government to consider "marrying the person you love" regardless of gender a fundamental 14th amendment protected civil right.

Wishy washy stuff that changes with the times should be left to the states. Marriage conditions, drug legalizations, driving requirements, building codes, etc. Things that apply universally should be federally protected. Not having your person or property criminally agressed, free speech, right to assemble, due process of law, right to bear arms, etc. And all these things should be clearly defined in the Constitutions. In Kansas marriage is defined in the Constitution as a man and a woman, an amendment voted into place by 70% of voters. In the federal Constitution marriage isn't defined at all, so just like they "interpreted" that corporations have free speech rights, now they are trying to interpret that marriage is just two people that love each other and not only that, but it is a fundamental federal right therefore trumps state constitutions.

It's all a bunch of crap. Every legal argument everyone is making is crap in my opinion. We are simply changing the moral consensus about gays marrying and the pro-gay marriage legal crowd is using time-tested tactic of using the federal courts to force states to comply by shoehorning "oppression" into the argument where it does not apply. Neither the pro or anti side can claim moral superiority. The pro has no basis to say they are oppressed in this context, and the anti certainly has no basis to claim "we are a nation built on Christian principles and this violates God's law" since this country is filled to the brim with anti-christian laws and the conservatives don't come out to fight against all that.

I think if we want to be rational and true to the original intent for how this republic is supposed to work then we should leave it to the states, but if our objective is to cut down on paperwork then, yeah sure, we should just let the feds force it. In an ideal situation I would eliminate government marriages altogether. The important stuff like adopting or fostering kids is already made on a case by case basis and certainly in those instances we shouldn't be discriminating because it's a gay couple since being married in this country is certainly no indication of your capacity to raise a child in a healthy environment.

Yes, there is a moral consensus that gay couples should be included under the umbrella of marriage in the eyes of the law. But I reject the claim that homosexuals are being oppressed or discriminated against because of their current exclusion just like I would reject the notion that pot-smokers civil rights are being violated because it is illegal in their state, or that mens rights are being violated because women don't have to register for the draft.

The moral consensus has changed in some states, that's all, and all these dubious-at-best "civil rights" arguments that are shoehorned into this debate are simply being used by the pro-gay marriage legal armada to get the federal courts to force it on the states uniformly, plain and simple.


All valid laws must be able to be boiled down to x person and y person without regard to sex, race, religion, IMO, of course. Somehow, though discrimination has been encased in law, even though it can't be equally applied. Affirmative Action, Hate Crime, etc... All don't meet the x person and y person standard resulting in the same outcome, thus are discriminatory by nature.

But isn't marriage equally applied already to an individual? A gay person, a polygamist, a transgender, an asexual can all get married to opposite sex partner. Marriage laws don't dictate or address what you do with your genitalia (or if you even have any) or whether you love the person you are with. That I think fulfills the criteria of being equally applied. Now the counter to this argument that I've seen is 'well, they also passed laws in the past that you could only marry your own race, and that was "equally applied" too'. But is a same gender exclusion the same as a mixed race exclusion? Moral consensus seems to be swaying to yes. I would say no. Same gender exclusion is rooted in consensus on definition of marriage (not on prejudice towards sexual orientation), racial exclusion is based on racial prejudice. Again, these are all moral interpretations, but the fact remains that the ONLY way they can force this on the states via the federal courts is to make it about "gay discrimination" and "civil rights" even though the reality of the situation is that marriage is gender restricted not sexual orientation restricted.

My position is that laws limiting marriage to opposite gendered couples only are not immoral. It "discriminates" in the literal sense on gender (not sexual orientation) but the only way we can claim that "rights" are being violated in this context is to make "marriage" a new right via shifting moral consensus on what "fundamental federal rights" are and redefining marriage as gender neutral AND THEN not allow two men to marry "because they are gay". But the pro-gay marriage legal team has to stick to its claim that these rights already exist and are protected in order to force uniformity on the states.

The whole gay marriage movement has no other objective than to redefine marriage to include gay couples. There's a consensus on it now so I don't think they are "bad" for wanting to do it. I do think it's "bad" to use this bogus civil rights argument to fast-track it and impose it by judicial fiat on states that don't want it.

[TheCount]

The federal government discriminates on gender when it comes to registering for the draft. Why is this? Because it's a moral consensus that 1. we should have a draft 2. women shouldn't be forced. Both of those points could be considered "immoral" and "violating civil rights" and indeed are by many.

The federal government does one bad thing, so it should do all bad things?



So if gays are fighting for their unions to be on par with hetero unions that's all fine and dandy, but they have no leg to stand on claiming they are being discriminated against because they are gay unless they also extend that same level of recognized oppression to polygamists.

I don't see why the state should care if someone chooses to enter a polygamous relationship.



We should all stop pretending that there are these fundamental "rights" that objectively exist. They don't. Rights only exist in relation to a government that recognizes them and recognition is based on moral consensus of those who have the power.

Are you saying that rights don't exist in the absence of government?




If one state allows 12 year olds to have a driver license but another state requires licensed drivers to be 16 I see no reason why the latter should have to recognize the former.

That is a contract with the state, not a contract with another person. Completely different issue.




So just like a state can have different qualifications for who can drive, I see no reason why there can't be conditions for getting married (are you old enough, are you already married, is your spouse opposite gendered).

There can be, it's just stupid. Oh, and also not the government's business.



My opinion and I believe Ron Paul's opinion (was last time I heard anyway) is that these marriage laws should be a state issue and as was referenced in above posts SCOTUS has already ruled to that effect in the past. But the proponents of this know that in order to force it and make it uniform across the country they must overturn this by getting the federal government to consider "marrying the person you love" regardless of gender a fundamental 14th amendment protected civil right.

I think that you may have skipped this part of the Constitution when you read it:


Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

If marriage is a power of a state, and any state chooses to marry gay couples, then all states must recognize those marriages.



I do think it's "bad" to use this bogus civil rights argument to fast-track it and impose it by judicial fiat on states that don't want it.

Yes, the right to enter into a contract of your choosing with another person of your choosing without government interference is way "bogus."

[jmdrake]

That is a contract with the state, not a contract with another person. Completely different issue.


The license in both cases is with the state. Get the state out of the marriage license business and the whole gay marriage issue goes away. People can contract with each other (write wills, set up joint back accounts etc) without state recognition.

[TheCount]

The license in both cases is with the state. Get the state out of the marriage license business and the whole gay marriage issue goes away. People can contract with each other (write wills, set up joint back accounts etc) without state recognition.

I agree.

What I mean about it being a different issue is this: The government should not be in the business of licensing contracts between people. The government licensing other things is a separate argument regarding the "proper" scope of government.

[wizardwatson]

The federal government discriminates on gender when it comes to registering for the draft. Why is this? Because it's a moral consensus that 1. we should have a draft 2. women shouldn't be forced. Both of those points could be considered "immoral" and "violating civil rights" and indeed are by many.

The federal government does one bad thing, so it should do all bad things?

The whole point is that the moral consensus is that it isn't a "bad thing". You think it is. You are in the minority.



So if gays are fighting for their unions to be on par with hetero unions that's all fine and dandy, but they have no leg to stand on claiming they are being discriminated against because they are gay unless they also extend that same level of recognized oppression to polygamists.

I don't see why the state should care if someone chooses to enter a polygamous relationship.

You "gotcha" me below with you saying "If marriage is a power of a state...". Doesn't this apply to your point here as well? If it's the power of the state then they care right? Isn't this what we're talking about? Government involvement in marriage?



We should all stop pretending that there are these fundamental "rights" that objectively exist. They don't. Rights only exist in relation to a government that recognizes them and recognition is based on moral consensus of those who have the power.


Are you saying that rights don't exist in the absence of government?

Absolutely, it is only because two or more people (a country) agree to recognize a "right" that it even means anything. God certainly didn't give you any rights. He gave you commands.



If one state allows 12 year olds to have a driver license but another state requires licensed drivers to be 16 I see no reason why the latter should have to recognize the former.



That is a contract with the state, not a contract with another person. Completely different issue.

Seriously?

Who is party to the contract doesn't change the point I was making.

It's called an "analogy".



So just like a state can have different qualifications for who can drive, I see no reason why there can't be conditions for getting married (are you old enough, are you already married, is your spouse opposite gendered).

There can be, it's just stupid. Oh, and also not the government's business.

Libertarian lala land isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the reality of how government works.



My opinion and I believe Ron Paul's opinion (was last time I heard anyway) is that these marriage laws should be a state issue and as was referenced in above posts SCOTUS has already ruled to that effect in the past. But the proponents of this know that in order to force it and make it uniform across the country they must overturn this by getting the federal government to consider "marrying the person you love" regardless of gender a fundamental 14th amendment protected civil right.


I think that you may have skipped this part of the Constitution when you read it:


Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

If marriage is a power of a state, and any state chooses to marry gay couples, then all states must recognize those marriages.

So your interpretation of that part of the Constitution is that any state who redefines marriage and marries people under that definition must be recognized by every other state as long as that definition is approved by Congress?

I could be wrong but I doubt a majority of people would interpret it that way.

Ultimately though it doesn't matter who changes the definition. The government is changing the definition in any case.

The whole substance of my argument is that the population/government most certainly CAN change the definition. I'm only saying that the legal argument of civil rights violation is contrived and erroneous. Following that, I'm also saying that without that false legal argument they wouldn't be able to fast track this via judicial fiat and would be forced to leave the definition to the states where in my opinion it should stay if it must be codified in law at all.

I'm flattered that you would rebut me line by line. Like any forum poster I love to see my threads flourish but do you actually disagree with my argument [previous paragraph if you can't find it] or do you just want to voice your opinion that government shouldn't be involved in marriage?

This whole argument of yours, and you aren't alone, that "I should be able to enter into any contract I want with anyone I want" doesn't apply in this context. If you can enter into a marriage contract with anyone you want any way you want then you are defining marriage and the government has nothing to do with it. The thing under discussion is government recognized marriage. Yes, as a libertarian we all know here that the state should get out of it, and also Obama shouldn't be president, but those are the facts on the ground.



I do think it's "bad" to use this bogus civil rights argument to fast-track it and impose it by judicial fiat on states that don't want it.


Yes, the right to enter into a contract of your choosing with another person of your choosing without government interference is way "bogus."

Again, I'm talking about the way things work in practice, not about libertarian utopia.

[acptulsa]

Is it discriminating on sexual orientation or gender?

It's gender.

I'm not sure the question even means anything. Is my lover prevented from enjoying my employer's family health care plan because my lover is the same gender as me, or because I'm attracted to my own gender?

Because that hypothetical is the whole issue, really--even though the answer to the question really doesn't matter. Oh, yes, the mainstream media has been downplaying that end of it. These people will never be happy unless somebody changes that last name and somebody is in debt to a jewelry store for the next five years, blah blah. But government licensing of marriage is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of how the government is mucking all this up. The rest is in the tax code, the billion pages of legalese that determines who can and can't be on someone else's insurance, actuarial tables that allow insurers to cut rates for this demographic and gouge that demographic, and a host of other completely peripheral issues.

Getting the government out of marriage is going to take a hell of a lot more than five minutes with a crowbar.

[Antischism]

This is a pretty simple issue that people tend to complicate in order to find a way to validate their personal biases or religious views. Can two consenting adults of the opposite sex be denied a marriage license anywhere in the U.S. simply for being of the opposite sex? What about an interracial couple? No? Then why should two consenting adults of the same gender be denied the those rights? Because of some moral code people want to keep entrenched in the system?

There are two options:

1. Government doesn't discriminate against homosexuals.
2. Government gets out of marriage.

Holding back in the hopes that maybe one day government will get out of marriage while reducing homosexuals to second class citizens in the meantime is not an option. Recognize every consenting adult regardless of race or gender, or no one.

[wizardwatson]

I'm not sure the question even means anything. Is my lover prevented from enjoying my employer's family health care plan because my lover is the same gender as me, or because I'm attracted to my own gender?

Because that hypothetical is the whole issue, really--even though the answer to the question really doesn't matter. Oh, yes, the mainstream media has been downplaying that end of it. These people will never be happy unless somebody changes that last name and somebody is in debt to a jewelry store for the next five years, blah blah. But government licensing of marriage is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of how the government is mucking all this up. The rest is in the tax code, the billion pages of legalese that determines who can and can't be on someone else's insurance, actuarial tables that allow insurers to cut rates for this demographic and gouge that demographic, and a host of other completely peripheral issues.

Getting the government out of marriage is going to take a hell of a lot more than five minutes with a crowbar.

The question is to highlight that it's logically incorrect to assert that marriage between a man and a woman discriminates based on sexual orientation in the eyes of the law. Gay men can marry gay women.

I get that you think government should stay out of it and I get that the moral consensus is that it's "unfair" for gay couples not to have the same government benefits as straight married couples.

But it's the DEFINITION that is key. You are defining marriage as "lovers". You think "marriage" in the eyes of the state should include gay couples since gay couples are monogamous lovers just like straight couples are monogamous lovers. So you would remove the requirement for the two people being married to be opposite genders.

The problem that I'm trying to point out is that it does not logically flow that because a government or person decides to redefine what marriage is that the person who sticks with the old definition is prejudiced or discriminating against groups of people that are not accommodated by the old definition. It's a ridiculous charge. And that ridiculous line of logic is precisely the basis for the legal argument the pro-gay marriage movement is using to settle this by judicial fiat.

Let's say people with tattoos wanted to be considered handicapped. If I object to a law establishing that am I prejudiced against people with tattoos? No. I simply disagree on the definition of handicapped. The fact that the gay marriage debate is emotionally charged doesn't change the logic. The reality is we're changing the way we define marriage to accommodate gay couples. The fiction is that marriage is a civil right and homosexuals are being oppressed in that context because of the gender contraint.

[wizardwatson]

This is a pretty simple issue that people tend to complicate in order to find a way to validate their personal biases or religious views. Can two consenting adults of the opposite sex be denied a marriage license anywhere in the U.S. simply for being of the opposite sex? What about an interracial couple? No? Then why should two consenting adults of the same gender be denied the those rights? Because of some moral code people want to keep entrenched in the system?

There are two options:

1. Government doesn't discriminate against homosexuals.
2. Government gets out of marriage.

Holding back in the hopes that maybe one day government will get out of marriage while reducing homosexuals to second class citizens in the meantime is not an option. Recognize every consenting adult regardless of race or gender, or no one.

Again, you are redefining marriage and then claiming the government is discriminating. This seems to be the prevailing line of logic from gay marriage supporters. See my previous post.

Nobody's rights are being violated. That argument is false.

The CORRECT gay marriage supporter position is: Let's change the definition of marriage to include gay couples.

[acptulsa]

I get that you think government should stay out of it and I get that the moral consensus is that it's "unfair" for gay couples not to have the same government benefits as straight married couples.

But it's the DEFINITION that is key. You are defining marriage as "lovers". You think "marriage" in the eyes of the state should include gay couples since gay couples are monogamous lovers just like straight couples are monogamous lovers. So you would remove the requirement for the two people being married to be opposite genders.

Bullshit.

What non-Christians want Christians to hear is what anyone who attempts to have a conversation wants heard--what was actually said, as opposed to the words that the propagandist in the room insists on stuffing into his mouth.

Ptooie.

[wizardwatson]

Bullshit.

What non-Christians want Christians to hear is what anyone who attempts to have a conversation wants heard--what was actually said, as opposed to the words that the propagandist in the room insists on stuffing into his mouth.

Ptooie.

I'm thinking since your reply to my post makes no sense that you posted in error. Not sure who you meant to reply to.

This is not the "What non Christians want Christians to hear" thread.

This is: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?462338-What-Non-Christians-Want-Christians-To-Hear

[acptulsa]

I'm thinking since your reply to my post makes no sense that you posted in error. Not sure who you meant to reply to.

This is not the "What non Christians want Christians to hear" thread.

This is: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?462338-What-Non-Christians-Want-Christians-To-Hear

I meant to reply to you.

I brought up the aspect of this issue that transforms it from a 'the guy in the ivory tower says this is technically discrimination' kind of an issue to a 'I'm suffering monetary damage right here in the trenches every month' issue because that aspect of it is important, and I did this through a set of hypotheticals which I said flat out were hypotheticals. The next thing I know, I'm being told how I define words, how I think the state should define institutions (skipping right over the step where we establish if I think the state should define such institutions at all), and what I would remove.

Excuse me for ensuring that your assumptions make an ass only out of U and not me.

[wizardwatson]

I meant to reply to you.

I brought up the aspect of this issue that transforms it from a 'the guy in the ivory tower says this is technically discrimination' kind of an issue to a 'I'm suffering monetary damage right here in the trenches every month' issue because that aspect of it is important, and I did this through a set of hypotheticals which I said flat out were hypotheticals. The next thing I know, I'm being told how I define words, how I think the state should define institutions (skipping right over the step where we establish if I think the state should define such institutions at all), and what I would remove.

Excuse me for ensuring that your assumptions make an ass only out of U and not me.

So I'm a propagandist and an ivory tower armchair intellectual? Still somewhat confused.

You say you are trying to highlight what you consider the core issue which is "I'm suffering monetary damage right here in the trenches every month". I specifically replied to that sentiment with "I get that you think government should stay out of it and I get that the moral consensus is that it's "unfair" for gay couples not to have the same government benefits as straight married couples.", which you quoted in your response.

All I've been saying, over and over and over, is that "suffering monetary damage" simply means gay couples feel they should get the same benefits as married straight couples AND I HAVE AGREED that the moral consensus in America is that they should.

My only "position" is that this is not a civil rights issue. The reality is that the outcome of all this is to redefine marriage to include gay couples. If America wants to do that, well, awesome sauce. But capitalizing on this "unfair" emotional trend to the point of concocting a bogus civil rights argument in order to accomplish it by judicial fiat instead of democratically through the legislative process is wrong and circumvents states rights (as usual). If the proper process was followed some states wouldn't implement it but with the false civil rights argument the 2% of people who are gay in this country are forcing it on states WHERE A MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION REFUSED TO REDEFINE MARRIAGE AND ALTERED THEIR CONSTITUTION TO THAT EFFECT.

Pretty simple position.

Do you actually have a position you want to take or disagree with my argument?

If you just want to point out or confirm I'm a douchebag then fine, I'm a douchebag. You win that argument.

[acptulsa]

So I'm a propagandist and an ivory tower armchair intellectual?

Are you asking me if I said that?

You can clearly see that I did not.

But thanks for asking instead of alleging this time. Otherwise I'd have had to quote Reagan...


https://youtube.com/watch?v=Wi9y5-Vo61w

[AFPVet]

Who cares... marriage never should've morphed from common law into a state institution.

[jmdrake]

I'm not sure the question even means anything. Is my lover prevented from enjoying my employer's family health care plan because my lover is the same gender as me, or because I'm attracted to my own gender?

Why shouldn't you be able to put your brother on your family health plan? You can put him on your car insurance. You can have him on your Sprint "framily" plan. You don't have the flexibility that you should have because of the federal tax code. Scrap the federal tax code.


Getting the government out of marriage is going to take a hell of a lot more than five minutes with a crowbar.

Of course. Auditing the fed is going to take a hell of a lot more than five minutes with a crowbar. Anything worth while is doing to do that. The question is do we expend energy on something that actually expands government just because it's reducing the role of government in general isn't going to be easy? Oh, and gay marriage will likely cause gay tax rates to go up. For people with similar incomes marriage is a tax liability, not a benefit.

[jmdrake]

Anyway, I hope the court will hurry up and rule one way or the other. It's a stupid distraction.

[wizardwatson]

Anyway, I hope the court will hurry up and rule one way or the other. It's a stupid distraction.

Bump for final day of stupid distraction!

SCOTUS hearing is today on gay marriage. Finally all you Christians can put this non-issue behind you and get down to the real Christian work of running non-winning candidates on evil platforms.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0

[TheCount]

SCOTUS hearing is today on gay marriage. Finally all you Christians can put this non-issue behind you and get down to the real Christian work of running non-winning candidates on evil platforms.

:rolleyes:

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

:rolleyes:

Another extreme progressive that advocates "gay rights." Another big government advocate that thinks contracting with government is akin to rights.

:rolleyes:

[TheCount]

Another extreme progressive that advocates "gay rights." Another big government advocate that thinks contracting with government is akin to rights.

:rolleyes:


Reading is not your strong suit.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Reading is not your strong suit.


Reading YOU and your intent on this site is my strong suit.

[Southron]

There is nothing as close to a god on earth as one of these black robed judges. They are finally going to define marriage for us peons.

[wizardwatson]

SCOTUS hearing is today on gay marriage. Finally all you Christians can put this non-issue behind you and get down to the real Christian work of running non-winning candidates on evil platforms.:rolleyes:

Well, when I posted that I did think it was a little harsh. But it sounded nice so I went with it.