Gay Marriage Is going to Supreme Court! - Page 12
   

       The Horse Forum > Life Beyond Horses > General Off Topic Discussion

Gay Marriage Is going to Supreme Court!

This is a discussion on Gay Marriage Is going to Supreme Court! within the General Off Topic Discussion forums, part of the Life Beyond Horses category

    Like Tree127Likes

     
    LinkBack Thread Tools
        03-28-2013, 02:20 PM
      #111
    Weanling
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FlyGap    
    BaileyJo, I am not enforcing or dictating MY religious or moral views on anyone. READ MY POST, the answer is NOT ALLOWING the government dictate or support or approve or allow who, what, and how many ANYONE can marry.

    YOUR argument is intrensically flawed because YOU are inserting YOUR moral and theological views on the subject.
    Sorry, thought you were being saracastic and implying that I have no moral or religious views.

    Anyway, no, I am not inserting my views on anyone. I am asking people to let me have my own!
         
    Sponsored Links
    Advertisement
     
        03-28-2013, 02:21 PM
      #112
    Trained
    Close minded? Sorry, but no.
    Our economy, the strength of our nation, and our future impacts EVERYONE, not just a small minority.
         
        03-28-2013, 02:30 PM
      #113
    Weanling
    Oh, so because it's one or two people, they don't have a right to be heard? This IS Editih Windsor's economy! It may not be your or the majority's economy but have you heard she has to pay over $363,000 in federal taxes because the Federal Government, the very one she is suing, does not recognize her New York state marriage?? Where else does she go?? Yeah, I would say it needs to heard and it will affect people's economy. Sorry, may not be your economy but I believe she has waited long enough.
         
        03-28-2013, 02:50 PM
      #114
    Trained
    Like I said, the government should have no right determining who or how anyone is related and how they receive an inheritance, a simple document should have sufficed. There are ways around paying these taxes, even heterosexuals have to figure them out.

    We should all fight to get rid of these insane tax/property laws, instead most people are only interested in helping a certain group. Just think how great things could be if we all united instead of focusing our energy on a few minorities...
    nvr2many likes this.
         
        03-28-2013, 02:54 PM
      #115
    Green Broke
    If this is such a small issue then why a people vigorously trying to resist it?

    Obviously issues like war a debit are more important to our countries well being. It effects everyone, gay, straight, married, black, liberal, republican or size 8 shoe. That doesn't mean these "small" issues like abortion, gay marriage or stem cell usages, aren't important, because they are. It may not effect you directly, but one day when your child's life could be saved by something like stem cells or you find out your loved one is gay it WILL suddenly impact you, not only impact you but could change your entire life! There is no reason government can't multitask on these issues. They can multitask, right?!
    Posted via Mobile Device
         
        03-28-2013, 02:57 PM
      #116
    Super Moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bsms    
    You mean, by amending it? That would be the 14th for slavery, and the 19th for women to vote. And BTW, the laws for both of those were changed in many places before the Constitution was amended. Just as some states have decided to support homosexual marriage...

    When did the Constitution start having protections that covered gay marriage? What was found there that had been hidden for the last 200+ years? And why isn't this being addressed in CONGRESS, or the other state legislatures?

    Why do you need a court to make up a law? Why do you need one judge to find what no judge had found before him for 200+ years? And why do you like living under judicial tyranny, and fear the popular vote?
    The Supreme Court does not amend the constitution. You know that....right? They set precedents that may, in the long run, prompt amendments. BUT, they can change federal laws through PRECEDENT. They can determine that curtailing the right to become legally married is a violation.

    Since when do SC decisions automatically amend the constitution? I work with new SC decisions every year in my job, yet none of these decisions (Roe V Wade, Brown V Board of Ed, Miranda) ever became an amendment to the constitution.

    Addressing this...

    Quote:
    Why do you need a court to make up a law? Why do you need one judge to find what no judge had found before him for 200+ years? And why do you like living under judicial tyranny, and fear the popular vote?
    Laws are dissected every day. That had better NEVER change. The world and cultures evolve. Otherwise we would still be living in mud huts with our slaves and killing our misbehaving children. There have been countless cultural and legal changes in the last 200 years, or have you not noticed?

    I believe letting the minority decide what I can do with my OWN BODY and other people's OWN LOVE (as long as they are consenting adults) IS TYRANNY!

    I live a very boring and mainstream lifestyle. But I have dear friends who are wonderful partners and parents who are affected by this decision every minute of their lives. Why should you, put your thumb on these people whose lives impact you in a zero, personal, way?
         
        03-28-2013, 03:03 PM
      #117
    Super Moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Faceman    
    Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...
    Oh, but there is a BIG difference between how I address people and how you do.
         
        03-28-2013, 03:06 PM
      #118
    Green Broke
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FlyGap    
    Like I said, the government should have no right determining who or how anyone is related and how they receive an inheritance, a simple document should have sufficed. There are ways around paying these taxes, even heterosexuals have to figure them out.

    We should all fight to get rid of these insane tax/property laws, instead most people are only interested in helping a certain group. Just think how great things could be if we all united instead of focusing our energy on a few minorities...
    Or work on INCORPORATING the minorities into the whole. The only thing that makes them "minorities" are the attitude of the majority.

    The simple argument is that of this woman had a husband instead of a wife she would have NOT been charged those taxes.

    Maybe we should revoke all federal benefits from everyone if we can't share them equally. How would any heterosexual single, couple or family feel about that? I bet you would be awfully pissed about missing you babies birth and first few weeks of life.
    Posted via Mobile Device
         
        03-28-2013, 03:33 PM
      #119
    Green Broke
    Bsms, what exactly would you think the "natural" difference is? Any why is it so important it couldn't come from an alternate source, like a brother, uncle or cousin? You need a man to teach the proper technique of how to pee on a tree? And how to shake? I just don't see why it is necessary.

    And your right, there isn't really any longer term research out there on the long term impact on children. Then how do you know heterosexual parents are the OPTIMAL way of raising kids? Yes, its been done that way for a very, very, long time. There's a little something in the medical world called Evidence Biased Practice. It pretty much means that care is made OPTIMAL by researching what works best. This means we DON'T give care biased on "just because" that's how its always been done.

    Can you please show me research that says a heterosexual household is the best place to raise children, that isn't backed or from a religious sources? "Just because" is no longer an acceptable answer in this day in age.
    Posted via Mobile Device
         
        03-28-2013, 04:34 PM
      #120
    Green Broke
    Saddlebag, and anyone else... This is an EXCELLENT video of an interview with Edie Windsor and her Lawyer. It gives background on the circumstances and why they are suing and trying to overturn DOMA.

    Btw, their marriage in Canada WAS recognized by NY state.

    Www.YouTube.com/watch?v=7h4ropt3eq

    If that doesn't work look up: Digital Age- have we outlawed the traditional meaning of marriage?

    And holy moly, this woman is 83 years awesome! She could of spent the $360,000 and just gotten on with it. 83 years old and taking on the government... Excuse the cliche but YOU GO GIRL!
    Posted via Mobile Device
         

    Thread Tools

    Similar Threads
    Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
    Supreme Court upholds health care law kitten_Val General Off Topic Discussion 151 07-04-2012 07:40 PM
    Marriage described through a horse race - Warning, vulgar language!! mliponoga Jokes and Funnies 10 12-21-2010 09:49 PM
    Pre arranged marriage? LOL Heybird Horse Pictures 7 12-21-2009 06:56 PM
    Court Venue rider4life422 Horse Law 5 06-22-2009 06:16 PM



    All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:36 PM.


    Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
    Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
    Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0