Gay Marriage Is going to Supreme Court! - Page 13
   

       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, 05:10 PM
      #121
    Trained
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SlideStop    
    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
    That's what I said. Revoke benefits, eliminate the taxes, get government out of the way we parent and live our lives, make things FAIR. The government is the one causing the problem, not the heterosexuals that don't support your lifestyle. Again, why not make things FAIR across the board instead of by one group by one group by one group by one group?

    When my aunt and her best friend get older they will combine their assets and live together with me caring for them. Should we all get married so we don't have to pay higher taxes when one of us dies?
    We will have lived together, known and loved each other longer than any married couple, so why should married couples get added benefits and tax breaks?

    And what does being gay have to do with the inequities of child birth? I'm sorry that a man can't birth a child, if I could I would gladly give them that honor.
    Missy May likes this.
         
    Sponsored Links
    Advertisement
     
        03-28-2013, 05:12 PM
      #122
    Trained
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Allison Finch    
    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...

    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?
    1 - Yes, I know the Supreme Court doesn't amend the Constitution. However, in the examples you gave, change was done BY amending the US Constitution - as I pointed out in my post.

    2 - It is NOT the job of the Supreme Court to change what the Constitution says. That should be done by amendment. It is hard to know what the law is, if a judge can change the law based on whim. Unhappily, the US Supreme Court has often decided to MAKE law, rather than to rule ON law.

    Ruling ON law, they could never conclude the Constitution gives a right to homosexual marriage, since there is nothing in the Constitution on the subject. Roe v Wade was an obscene travesty of justice: finding a right to privacy, and then applying it to something done by a publicly licensed doctor in his/her place of business (also regulated) and paid for by insurance companies. REAL private. By that standard, every business transaction I make is private and not to be regulated by government.

    3 - No one is telling you what to do with your body or love. You can move in and have sex with 7 guys, 3 gals and a hamster, and there isn't any law that I know of against it (except the hamster). However, government often gives tax breaks or special status to things they believe will make our society a better place. That can be a business tax break, or one to help raise kids, invest in green energy, or any of a number of other desired activities.

    That has nothing to do with what you decide to do with your body or love. It does have to do with what society has concluded will be helpful to society as a whole. Marriage, with a man & woman trying to raise kids, has been given that recognition by society. The question before the court is if society also must, to comply with the demands of the Constitution, give that recognition to same sex arrangements. This latter recognition is almost unheard of in society for thousands of years. Romans had LOTS of homosexual acts, but generally not homosexual 'marriage'. Other societies banned all homosexual activity, including ours until the 1960s.

    No one has a 'right' to marriage. There could not be varying age restrictions, if it was a 'right'. There cannot logically be any restrictions on numbers, if marriage is a right given to anyone who loves someone else.

    This is a case where a homosexual judge decided all the states were required to accept homosexual marriage. That is a pretty big step for one person, unelected, to impose on a country. It could reasonably be done state by state. It could be done by Congress tomorrow. But in a democracy, courts should not create law. When they do, they almost always screw it up, since they do so without debate and without popular support.

    Yes, I've noticed a lot of cultural changes over time. That is why we have ELECTED OFFICIALS, and why most states allow popular referendums - to change the law. That is how laws should be changed in society - by elected officials. Not courts and unelected judges.

    I haven't put my thumb on anyone. What you or others do with your bodies in your bedroom has no interest for me. However, what social structures we encourage, as a society, will affect the future of our society. If you encourage out-of-wedlock births, you encourage child abuse and poverty as a result - NOT because it always happens, but because children (plural, talking populations, not individuals) born outside of marriage will have a higher rate of physical abuse and poverty. Statistically, they are more likely to end up poor or in prison. That is a cost to society, and thus society has an interest in minimizing it.

    Homosexual marriage is far too new to have a track record. Lots of folks, including me, believe there are differences between boys and girls, and we are not gender-neutral widgets that can be interchanged without effect. What effect and how much, no one knows. Having an activist judge make that decision for all 50 states seems a stretch.
    Missy May likes this.
         
        03-28-2013, 05:22 PM
      #123
    Trained
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SlideStop    
    ...There's a little something in the medical world called Evidence Biased Practice...
    Having read a number of medical journals, I agree...they use "Evidence BIASED practice"!

    There is ample evidence that boys and girls differ. We are not gender-neutral units. Those who claim we are, and that 5000 years of experience can be chucked into the trash can, need to provide some evidence.

    Maybe you can get some. Maybe those states that have approved homosexual marriage will be able to show it works. Fine. But until then, prudence suggests caution in tossing out societal norms that have been in place for almost all of recorded human history. And tossing it based on one judge's feelings is rash indeed...
         
        03-28-2013, 05:23 PM
      #124
    Green Broke
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FlyGap    
    That's what I said. Revoke benefits, eliminate the taxes, get government out of the way we parent and live our lives, make things FAIR. The government is the one causing the problem, not the heterosexuals that don't support your lifestyle. Again, why not make things FAIR across the board instead of by one group by one group by one group by one group?

    When my aunt and her best friend get older they will combine their assets and live together with me caring for them. Should we all get married so we don't have to pay higher taxes when one of us dies?
    We will have lived together, known and loved each other longer than any married couple, so why should married couples get added benefits and tax breaks?

    And what does being gay have to do with the inequities of child birth? I'm sorry that a man can't birth a child, if I could I would gladly give them that honor.
    Because under the family leave act men can take time off work for the birth of a child. If my girlfriend goes into labor tomorrow I do not have the right to be at her side because gay people don't recieve those benefits. I could of used another example, like income tax or assets, but I chose that one because it hits close to home.

    Well when your aunt and her best friend are legally married they will be just like my girlfriends aunt,abusing the system to reap the benefits! My gfs aunt married a (gay) man so he could obtain citizenship in this country. Is it right? Hell no. But people abuse the system all the time. That ruins the integrity of marriage for EVERYONE.
    Posted via Mobile Device
         
        03-28-2013, 05:35 PM
      #125
    Green Broke
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bsms    
    Having read a number of medical journals, I agree...they use "Evidence BIASED practice"!

    There is ample evidence that boys and girls differ. We are not gender-neutral units. Those who claim we are, and that 5000 years of experience can be chucked into the trash can, need to provide some evidence.

    Maybe you can get some. Maybe those states that have approved homosexual marriage will be able to show it works. Fine. But until then, prudence suggests caution in tossing out societal norms that have been in place for almost all of recorded human history. And tossing it based on one judge's feelings is rash indeed...

    Is right for one judge to go rogue and do whatever he wants? No, it may just so happen to be in this case. But, from what I'm hearing the supreme court believes DOMA is unconstitutional and won't argue for it, which means they have no case. It's being turned over to the house of reps, I believe.

    Us being not gender neutral is no surprise, but there is a sliding scale of femininity and masculinity. So what exactly is the reason we need opposite sex parents? "Just because" that's how its always been? Or do we need women to teach girls about make up and push them to be cheerleaders and men to push their kids into sport and tell their sons to "toughen up and act like a man"? A man can drive, enjoy and support his daughter thought dance just like a woman can teach her kids to play baseball! In We could probably get a rough idea of single parents raising opposite gender kids. Do you have a problem with that?
    Posted via Mobile Device
         
        03-28-2013, 05:43 PM
      #126
    Green Broke
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bsms    
    Having read a number of medical journals, I agree...they use "Evidence BIASED practice"!
    When all else fails go for the spelling, that's what I always say!
         
        03-28-2013, 06:03 PM
      #127
    Trained
    Great, all we need are more people abusing the system.
    Again, that's why I feel like this argument is self centered and why, if they don't like it, they/we need to band together and eliminate these "special" benefits in order for everyone to prosper.
    Unfortunately the primary political group for GBL marriage is also the one for more and higher taxes.

    The argument about being there for the birth... We had to budget and DH had to schedule his time off for the birth. He caught major hell for it. Just because men have the "right" to take off they usually can't afford it, sooo should we pass YET ANOTHER LAW and make sure employers pay for it too? That's the only way to even the playing field, at the expense of someone else.
    Missy May likes this.
         
        03-28-2013, 06:43 PM
      #128
    Green Broke
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FlyGap    
    Great, all we need are more people abusing the system.
    Again, that's why I feel like this argument is self centered and why, if they don't like it, they/we need to band together and eliminate these "special" benefits in order for everyone to prosper.
    Unfortunately the primary political group for GBL marriage is also the one for more and higher taxes.

    It is self centered that gay people want to marry, as in share the same legal benefits as a heterosexual couple? I think it's self centered to think those 1,000 plus benefits are exclusively reserved for you! How does gay marriage = Higher taxed?


    The argument about being there for the birth... We had to budget and DH had to schedule his time off for the birth. He caught major hell for it. Just because men have the "right" to take off they usually can't afford it, sooo should we pass YET ANOTHER LAW and make sure employers pay for it too? That's the only way to even the playing field, at the expense of someone else.

    I'm sorry to hear that your husband couldn't afford to take off from work for the birth of your child, but the FMLA doesn't say he must take off from work. FMLA says your entitled to 12 weeks off from work. Entitled to, not must. Married gay couples don't even the the choice! And really, what significant other wouldn't want their spouse there? And what person wouldn't want to be at the side of their loved one in labor? Gay or straight. If you want it paid, take vacation time and be happy with what you actually have instead of want more. Especially when other people would kill to be in the shoes (legality wise) of a heterosexual couple.
    (So happy to have a computer to type on for the first time in days!)
         
        03-28-2013, 06:46 PM
      #129
    Green Broke
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FlyGap    
    Great, all we need are more people abusing the system.
    And not for nothing, people have been and always will abuse the system. Just because people will abuse Obamacare should we take it away from the people who need it? Just because people abuse welfare should we take it away from people who need it? Just because people abuse the privileges of international marriage and citizenship should we take them away from people who need it?

    No.
         
        03-28-2013, 07:32 PM
      #130
    Trained
    You say it's unfair that because the fed dosen't acknoledge GBL's and Hets get added benefits, so we need to change the law. I say take ALL the benefits away, therefore we are all equal. You are twisting things around and arguing for the sake of arguing.

    IT IS self-centered to try and make things EVEN when the time and effort should be to eliminate the governments involvement in marriage. Especially when it's going to further burden our system, but oh well. The political party supporting and supported by GBL's will be the last one to eliminate the taxes, breaks, and benefits that are unfair AND will add more taxes in the future. So lets not do the RIGHT thing, regardless of the ramifications, at least we will all be equal!

    Of course my DH was with me, as you could be with your DW. It dosen't take super powers to schedule and plan, which I am all for. That's what I said.
    If we took away the governments power over our marriage to make things EQUAL then we may lose some entitlements or "rights". Like I said, schedule, no big deal. We did it.
         

    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 10:43 PM.


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