The Horse Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Gay Marriage Is going to Supreme Court!

14K views 225 replies 29 participants last post by  Saddlebag 
#1 ·
:D

I couldn't be happier. This little blurb is off a facebook basically saying what today and tomorrow can bring for same-sex couples... it's about damn time!.

Tuesday and Wednesday are the beginning of what may be the single most important cases to come before the United States Supreme Court in our lifetime.

On Tuesday, the court hears the opening arguments challenging California's Proposition 8. It centers on the principle that all Americans deserve the right to marry the one they love, and that that freedom should not be denied based on sexual orientation.

On Wednesday, the court hears arguments on the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denies those lawfully-married same-sex couples in the states which allow same-sex marriage from receiving the more than 1,138 federal rights, benefits and protections based on marital status. These include access to Social Security and tax benefits, family and medical leave, immigration rights, federal health coverage and much more.



Think of what could be next? ::Crosses fingers:: Maybe federal recognition of same-sex marriages, in place of state by state marriage laws? :-o
 
See less See more
#3 ·
In the past, marriage laws were supposed to protect women and children from uncaring men. Don't know if that ever worked that way. However, one would be hard pressed to find a society in the last 5,000 years that actively promoted marriage between homosexuals.

This is technically not a homosexual marriage case at all. I seriously doubt the Supreme Court is going to require all states to start holding homosexual marriages - although no power grab is beyond possibility with the Supreme Court. This is about letting people in a state decide to ban homosexual marriages in that state - a 'right' that has been automatic since 1776. The idea that the US Constitution REQUIRES homosexual marriage is pretty ludicrous.

In any case, here are the oral arguments for anyone interested:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-144a.pdf

68 pages of text.
 
#4 ·
I just say live and let live.....gay or straight......the only thing I find amusing, yet it is what it is, is that the bible says that homosexuality is a sin, yet homosexuals want to marry which to my knowledge 'marriage' is a biblical principal......:shock: I don't get it:?

But I'm a floater, I can see most things from most angles:wink:
 
  • Like
Reactions: hunterjumper1998
#5 ·
Marriage as a religious ceremony is up to the religion. Marriage as a civil ceremony probably depends on what government is trying to promote. Prior to around 1960, when women had extremely restricted employment opportunities, having strict civil contracts as a part of marriage probably provided badly needed protection to the women, and to kids as well.

In a world of no fault divorce, I'm more inclined to think government should get out of the marriage business. When single, I resented paying more in taxes than a married man.

OTOH, I'm not sure I'm ready for polygamy to make a comeback either...:?
 
#7 ·
Get real....marriage is FAR more than a religious ideal. It is a contract, whether religious or secular. It give LEGAL protections of property, health/medical rights and child legal status. There is a LOT on trial here.

I have a student and very good friend who is in a LONGterm same sex relationship where two children have been produced. They are fabulous children with two loving parents. When NC passed their constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage, they effectively labeled these children as Bast@rds, which I find horrible. Her partner has no legal status where the family/children are concerned.

How does their having a contractual protection hurt anyone?
 
#8 ·
I just say live and let live.....gay or straight......the only thing I find amusing, yet it is what it is, is that the bible says that homosexuality is a sin, yet homosexuals want to marry which to my knowledge 'marriage' is a biblical principal...... I don't get it
Marriage has become intertwined with government, which is where the problem lies. I think any religion has the right to make their own rules, for sure. To each their own. But, married couples get rights, tax breaks, etc, etc etc.... That regular couples don't get. If it were STRICTLY religious, then by means, leave it between the religious folks to deal with.
 
#10 ·
Yawn,,, I dont care much one way or the other, and certainly dont rank it as a lifetime event. The court is so politicized right and wrong doesnt really matter anyway.
Freedom should be about doing whatever you want unless it really hurts someone else. I fail to see how two dudes getting married hurts me. If you dont like gay marriage, dont have one. If you think gay marriage is a sin, well thats their problem now isnt it. If your right they go to hell, oh well to bad so sad, again how does that affect me ? Seems the media, the gay groups, politicians, and religious groups are all caught up in arguing about whether it is right or wrong. And that is very sad. The argument should be whether or not it hurts someone else. If it doesnt then the government has no business prohibiting it. If it does then please explain it to me.
 
#11 · (Edited)
IMO, it will eventually be legalized. It's just a matter of time. I know it is a simplistic way to look at it but history has proven itself that eventually, things change.

I find the most interesting piece of this is considering whether or not homosexuality is a 'sin'. Your religion is not my religion, my God is not your God. How is it that you can force your sin or your God upon me? I have a totally different relationship with God than anyone else does. My relationship is my own and my sin is my own.

Honestly, we don't even know for sure if there is a hell. Do we??
 
#23 · (Edited)
In my eyes no God (meaning higher being, not one particular) is going to judge people biased on who they love. People will be judge on their moral behavior. My sexuality has nothing to do with being a good person or not. It doesn't prevent me from working hard, helping others and giving my time. I would say I'm of pretty high, or at lease good, moral standing.

I highly doubt Jesus would be out there trying to oppress groups of people. He was a healer, a teacher and a roll model for good character. I'm sure he is face palming up in heaven at the mere thought of people the the westboro community church doing things like saying the Sandy Hook shootings were because of CTs approval on gay marriage... Really? Posted via Mobile Device
 
#12 ·
Actually, as a legal matter, the argument should be "Does the US Constitution require it?" And that answer is obviously no. But in modern America, it will be decided by a popular vote held of 9 judges living a rarefied life rather than expecting Congress to pass laws, or allowing the states to do as they see fit. Remember - there is nothing STOPPING a state from allowing homosexual marriages. A number already do. In California, Prop 8 could be overturned by a Prop 209, if the voters wish.

"Her partner has no legal status where the family/children are concerned."

That could be dealt with by a contract. Ever hear of a power of attorney?

"When NC passed their constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage, they effectively labeled these children as Bast@rds, which I find horrible."

I've known a number of single moms, none of whose kids were suffering stigmatization as '*******s'. So why is it different for your friends? And if you had Muslim friends, should they be allowed polygamous marriages, in accordance with their religion, and overturning the laws of the USA?
 
#15 ·
Just a reminder about this case, borrowing a good summary from Wiki:

"Same-sex couples and government entities filed numerous lawsuits with the California Supreme Court challenging the proposition's validity and effect on previously administered same-sex marriages. In Strauss v. Horton, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, but allowed existing same-sex marriages to stand (under the grandfather clause principle).

United States District Court Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010 in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger, ruling that it violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution. Walker issued an injunction against enforcing Proposition 8 and a stay to determine suspension of his ruling pending appeal."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)

The ruling was in FEDERAL court. It used the US Constitution to effectively require homosexual marriages, since the ruling said a ban on homosexual marriage violated the US Constitution. If returned to the states, then Prop 8 stands. But if the 9th Circuit ruling is affirmed by the US Supreme Court, then states will effectively be required to permit homosexual marriage.

I believe DOMA will be argued tomorrow. It is the federal law defining what marriage means when used in federal law.

Pro or con, the news reporting on this has been confusing, IMHO. Or maybe I'm just not very smart...:oops:
 
#17 ·
Sorry, I'm EXTREMELY eager to respond but I'm stuck in class right not. Don't think if ditched this post. ;)

Fact of the matter is marriage extends WAY BEYOND religion. It IS intertwined into out government, hence the 1000+ benefit denied to same sex couples. Why should I have to hire an attorney for something automatically handed to others. Especially for people who marry NOT because they love each but for benefits people are trying so hard to fight for.
Posted via Mobile Device
 
#22 · (Edited)
I think this is the most frustrating thing. Sure, your RELIGION says homosexuality is bad (i totally don't believe that God doesn't like gay people, I think this is something taken to literally or out of context.
It was a dramatically different world back then!) but that doesn't mean your faith based beliefs have to be the standard for the country. For example, there are plenty of people who are still racist, doesn't mean we should institute any deportation to native lands. That would outrage people! Then why not send white people back to where they came from? White people are no more "special" or "entitled" then black, Asian, or Spanish people. Just like there is no superior religion or culture. So why do we have a superior sexuality?
Posted via Mobile Device
 
#29 ·
Can a pedophile pursue happiness? What about a bank robber? Can a Muslim pursue happiness with 4 wives in America? The states have varying laws about minimum age - why can one state ban a 16 year old from marrying, and another allow it? Should the state allow 2 men and 3 women to enter into a "marriage"? What if it makes them happy?

Virtually every law on the books interferes with the pursuit of someone's happiness. I'm happier driving at 85 mph than 75 mph - why don't I get to do what makes me happy? And for the record, I've done a LOT of speeding in my life, and haven't had an accident.
 
#180 ·
I sure agree with that! If I were in a gay relationship I'd be glad there was no pressure to marry.
Sure, marriage can be great, until it isn't.
Now, if gay people or any unmarried couple wants to split up, they just do. They agree what each will take etc., sometimes they can even remain friends. Enter the divorce lawyers & pretty soon they are fighting over the value of barn cats.

If Government gives you permission to marry then you have to ask their permission to unmarry (is that a word?)

There are contracts to cover single couples in every aspect of life or you can make your own. No big tax advantage to being married that I see. Even heath insurance for married people is considered a family/group policy & can be more costly than 2 single plans. Also you get to be responsible for half of all debt.
His/her bad name can become yours.

Divorce lawyers are the only ones that will benefit in the long run. Meetings, court dates, back & forth bantering all costs money & breeds resentment.

I personally don't think any marriage is smart though I would consider marrying some rich guy who just entered hospice care if I didn't already have a contract making me his heir.

I don't oppose gay marriage any more than I oppose all marriage.
 
#25 ·
I suppose this could be considered hijacking, just jumping in and throwing my thoughts around, but I just need to get a few things out.

The first thing I would like to say is that I'm 15 years old, and a Christian. And no, I'm not religious; I'm a faithful servant of Christ who devoted my life to Him and vowed to serve Him and live my life to glorify Him. I go by no rules, no regulations, except for living the way God wants me to. I think it's quite sad how so many people think Christians are "homosexual haters" who would pay anything to see every homosexual be condemned to hell. I'm not one of these people. In fact, I know a lot of Christians who aren't.

The thing is, God doesn't hate homosexuals. He loves them. He loves them as much as He loves me, as much as He loves you, as much as He loves every murderer or thief or prostitute. He even loves the people who despise Him. Because God is love. The thing that many people don't understand is that God hates the sin that homosexuals commit, not the homosexuals themselves. He loves murderers, but he hates the crime they've done.

I personally do not support gay marriage, but that won't stop me from respecting the opinions of other people who do. I can't start a fight just because I think gay marriage is wrong and I certainly wouldn't ever try to change anyone's opinion. And as a Christian, I'm going to acknowledge my downfalls. So many people think that Christians are high-and-mighty arrogant snobs who take a look at you and automatically assume you're a huge sinner. The truth is, I'm a huge sinner too. I sin just as much as everyone else in the world, just in different ways than others. Because not everyone is the same.

I just saw the posts on here about God and "religion" and I just wanted you all to see how I see things. And it doesn't matter if you support gay marriage, it doesn't matter if you had a kid when you were 16, it doesn't matter if you spent half your life in jail. God loves and forgives. God is love.

-Kennedi
 
#26 ·
The thing that many people don't understand is that God hates the sin that homosexuals commit, not the homosexuals themselves. He loves murderers, but he hates the crime they've done.
I always have such a hard time understanding how people even presume to know what God does or does not like. And comparing homosexuality to murder is just wrong and way out of context.

BTW, my God does not hate the sin of homosexuals.
 
#28 ·
This is where the lines get fuzzy... Are we banning/not giving people the right to marry because of RELIGIOUS reasons? Because this is not and should not be a religious issue any more then eat meat during lent is!

These are human rights, treating fellow humans as "lesser" is not right in our eyes. Can anyone really say woman shouldn't be allowed to vote? Or black people should have to drink from separate water fountains?
Posted via Mobile Device
 
#34 ·
I think the constitutional arguments are stemming from the 14th's equal protection clause.
However ruling its a states issue is a pretty good dodge the question political reponse. One that I would default to on most matters. But as pointed out, right and wrong doesnt really matter to this court. All about politics.
 
#42 ·
I don't see how religion has a monopoly on marriage. One is not required to be of any particular faith to get married in the US.

And, one is not required to be anything other than an adult to enter into a legal and binding partnership that gives them every legal right to property, hospital visits, etc., that marriage would. The ONLY thing marriage would "allow" that cannot be obtained by any other binding contract between two people is spousal benefits. This is not limited to gays. No two heterosexuals of the same sex can marry - either. So the "can't access spousal benefit" thing is NOT "unequal" treatment.

So, to me the question isn't why should it matter if gays can marry...it is why does it matter to gays (reportedly 3.5 is percent of the population) that they can't???

And, the second there was a new pope, the immediate response was people sure hoped he was pro-gay marriage. Hello? For whose sake? Gays in Iran? Or, did they mean for the sake of anti-christian folks living in predominately christian countries?? There is no end to this "we demand" from gays dominating the airwaves. Meanwhile the national debt is beyond out of control, and there are plenty of "real places" that rather draconian treatment of gays IS actually dictated by religion (e.g., Iran), yet not a PEEP about it.

As far as "people should be allowed to marry the one they love" - really? Even if it involves incest?
 
#47 ·
I don't see how religion has a monopoly on marriage. One is not required to be of any particular faith to get married in the US.

And, one is not required to be anything other than an adult to enter into a legal and binding partnership that gives them every legal right to property, hospital visits, etc., that marriage would. The ONLY thing marriage would "allow" that cannot be obtained by any other binding contract between two people is spousal benefits. This is not limited to gays. No two heterosexuals of the same sex can marry - either. So the "can't access spousal benefit" thing is NOT "unequal" treatment.

So, to me the question isn't why should it matter if gays can marry...it is why does it matter to gays (reportedly 3.5 is percent of the population) that they can't???
Marriage and religion are intertwined. It's one of the biggest reasons preventing it. Why do people think its wrong? Because their religion tells them so. Not for nothing, religion has also taught people we were the dependence of two people and the earth is the center of earth. Oh, these are old principles? So is the thought*of homosexuality as a disease.

If gays are not "unequal" then can we "demote" heterosexual marriage to the same standing as "gay marriage"? There are BENEFITS to being legally married. Obviously this website does not outline them all, but it gives a good broad overview http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/from-why-marriage-matters-appendix-b-by-evan-wolfson

How would YOU feel is you were denied visitation to your dying spouse or couldn't get time off for bereavement? If you couldn't cover your children with insurance? And there are hundreds of other reasons marriage benefits a person. And many people marry just to reap these benefits.

3.5% is still equivalent to 4 million people, gay people are not a small cult. That doesn't include people who are in denial, afraid to come out for fear of ostracized and the discrimination and hate gay people are up against. Hell, I knew my whole life but I didn't know what a lesbian was until 8th grade and I have a very "real world" upbringing. There is a researcher who estimates the homosexual to heterosexual ratio at 1 to 10.
Posted via Mobile Device
 
#44 · (Edited)
Just to play devils advocate......... why not? Sure, marriage has traditionally been between two, but three (or more) could be beneficial. Two people out making money, someone home with the kids. These "ways of life" are nothing new, only taboo for OUR culture. Plenty of animals live this way and I'm sure humans didn't always live by the pair mentality. I'm not for, but not against it either.

Honestly, I feel like the argument of "Well if we allow gays to marry then people can marry their dogs, cousins (another cultural taboo), and children". We are talking about two consenting adults. Not a dog who doesn't can't understand the higher concept of what it is to me in a committed, romantic relationship, not a child who can't give consent, and not two people who will produce children with various genetic mutations.

It's like coming at horse slaughter with the idea of "Wow, if they allow horse slaughter I bet dogs and cats are next!!!". I doubt in 1000 years dogs or cats will EVER be slaughtered. Why, because there will be such a HUGE out cry. It's not within out cultural norms, just like incest, having sex with children and marry your cousins violate or sense of what is right.

Also, I don't see ANY out cry from ANYONE in that area. Why? Because it's wrong, not just wrong for religious reasons, just morally wrong by any standard in the United states. Untillpeople start fighting for those rights I DOUBT we will have to worry about them.
 
#46 ·
MY point was simply that the "pursuit of happiness" (from the Declaration of Independence) is hardly a constitutional mandate requiring homosexual marriage. All laws interfere with someone's happiness.

Nor do I think much of the "if they love each other" argument. If a married man comes to love another woman, I think he has an obligation to his WIFE and KIDS to work on his marriage, rather than dump her and them and "follow his heart". That is why marriage became a contract to begin with - to protect women and kids, and support a family that builds a society.

My brother teaches in Tucson. Almost none of his kids come from a traditional two-parent home, living with the father who helped create them. It seems to me our society has already degraded marriage to the point that we, as a society, don't believe in traditional marriage at all. But judging from the results in schools where most kids come from non-traditional marriage homes versus those with a large percentage of original, two parent homes...that comes with a high price to society.

I would argue we should be trying to reverse the trend, and put more emphasis on 'traditional marriage' - but I also think that part of the culture war is long gone, and my side lost. I think there will be a price to pay, and America will inevitably pay it.
 
#50 ·
Marriage is to do exactly what you said, SUPPORT FAMILY. That's what these movements are about! You have an obligation to your family, gay or straight, if your raising children your obligation is to your partner and kids! Disallowing equality prevents this from happening. How are you supposed to support your family if you can't provide them with insurance? Get time off for having a baby? Take time off for family leave (serious illness, etc)? Get child support incase one partner leaves? Your employer comes back with "well, by law, that's not your family". And by law, right now, it is very difficult to act as a family even though you are emotionally just a connected as a "legal" family.

How can we hold such high value to "traditional" marriage when you have a divorce rate of 50%, that doesnt include people who cannot afford divorce and are separated. Then you have the likes of people like Brittany Spears and Kim Kardashian who marry for money & fame. Or people like my girlfriends aunt who married a man so he can gain citizenship in this country. It's all over the place and its disgraceful! Now I think THAT is insulting to values and benefits marriage. Not two humans who love each other who just so happen to be homosexual.
Posted via Mobile Device
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top