I have been following the tweets as the Justices ask questions. Pretty interesting. Is marriage only for procreation? Should the goverment even be involved?
And could we see a narrow definition? Only DOMA overturned? Or will both Prop 8 and DOMA both be overturned?
Personally I think homosexuals should be allowed to marry, but I don't know if the Supremes will see it that way.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
I don't actually see how they can overturn either of them. Marriage is certainly not a right after all, or if it is it is a right that is denied to a whole lot of people besides homosexuals. As for DOMA, all that legislation does is define for the benefit of the court what certain terms contained in legislation meant to the legislators who drafted the statutes. Given that marriage had but a single definition when the legislation in question was written, it should not have been necessary at all to define the term, nor should it have been a difficult matter for any court to understand that Congress was talking about the union between one man and one women when the legislation was drafted. But of course, given the inclination of certain courts to "interpret" their way to definitions which the legislature never intended, Congress felt it necessary to plainly state what definition the term had when Congress used it.
I suppose that the Supreme Court could overturn every federal law which contains the word "marriage" in it if it finds that the definition Congress was using when it adopted those laws is discriminatory, but how can it overturn DOMA which is nothing more or less than a statement of the definition that Congress was using? How can the Supreme Court possibly tell Congress that no, that wasn't the definition for the term Congress was using when it drafted the laws, especially in light of the reality that it was the only definition of the term then in use?
Marriage is a HUMAN RIGHT...NOT a "heterosexual privilege."
If it were only for "procreation", we'd be denying marriage to "couples-over-55" (as one of the Justices postulated), and there would be fertility tests for every couple seeking a marriage certificate, even if they planned to remain child-free. (And then what?...If they haven't produced any children in a certain period of time, their marriage is null-and-void?)
And the main thing is that we don't allow other people to vote on someone else's RIGHTS. If we did, there would still be slavery; there would still be prohibitions against interracial marriage; there would still be segregated/separate-but-[non]equal schools......
I think the SCOTUS will, as usual, play it safe and try to do the narrowest interpretation. But they will be behind the arc of history. It will change, it's just a matter of when...
Here's a sobering fact for the Right: 81% of ALL people 30-and-under support marriage-equality; (similar numbers support comprehensive immigration reform...) Guess which party is becoming extinct because they still think if they play to the "old, angry white guys" they can win?... I just love watching the Death March of the Dinosaurs... I can hardly wait until they get to the point that they have to roll out the elderly in their wheelchairs to vote against the wedge-issues that they can't win on anymore.
I think DOMA has a much better probability of being struck down as unconstitutional... But they probably won't expand Prop-8 much farther than California...Although, I would be nice if they would at least come down with a "9-State Solution." That's still a possibility.
LadyJazzer wrote: Here's a sobering fact for the Right: 81% of ALL people 30-and-under support marriage-equality; (similar numbers support comprehensive immigration reform...) Guess which party is becoming extinct because they still think if they play to the "old, angry white guys" they can win?... I just love watching the Death March of the Dinosaurs... I can hardly wait until they get to the point that they have to roll out the elderly in their wheelchairs to vote against the wedge-issues that they can't win on anymore.
I have to say, I never participated in any polls, nor did anyone I talk to on a regular basis (pretty much ALL my family and friends). I know this because we talk all the time, and they hate anyone other than those they know personally or from their jobs calling the house. (The same goes for participating in any polls PERIOD, wherever the hell it is) Before you say "What, two other people?" just know that my family is VAST and my friends I frequently talk to number in the dozens. So, your poll is completely flawed, because I'm not the only American with this type of "don't talk to the idiot blanket callers" attitude.
I have to agree on the part of equal marriage though. Let gays get married, I really don't care. Marriage has a lot of miserable obstacles to overcome, let 'em give it a shot, if they can take it (no pun intended).
And immigration reform? How about severe punishment for repeat border jumpers, especially if they're criminals (I can think of a LOT of manual hard labor that can last for DECADES, no sitting in prison), and actually encourage and make affordable and realistic the channels to get here? Although I worked with Mexican/Puerto Rican/South American/Boznian/etc immigrants at Coors years ago, that went through all the hoops and barrels and the hardships to get here, saved and scraped every dime and lived in the dirt, I suppose the system isn't cushy enough for everyone, so let's liberalize it (why not, I'm sick of hearing about it) so the Left can STFU. Course, you already knew that would come from me didn't you?
LadyJazzer wrote: Marriage is a HUMAN RIGHT...NOT a "heterosexual privilege."
If it were only for "procreation", we'd be denying marriage to "couples-over-55" (as one of the Justices postulated), and there would be fertility tests for every couple seeking a marriage certificate, even if they planned to remain child-free. (And then what?...If they haven't produced any children in a certain period of time, their marriage is null-and-void?)
And the main thing is that we don't allow other people to vote on someone else's RIGHTS. If we did, there would still be slavery; there would still be prohibitions against interracial marriage; there would still be segregated/separate-but-[non]equal schools......
I think the SCOTUS will, as usual, play it safe and try to do the narrowest interpretation. But they will be behind the arc of history. It will change, it's just a matter of when...
Here's a sobering fact for the Right: 81% of ALL people 30-and-under support marriage-equality; (similar numbers support comprehensive immigration reform...) Guess which party is becoming extinct because they still think if they play to the "old, angry white guys" they can win?... I just love watching the Death March of the Dinosaurs... I can hardly wait until they get to the point that they have to roll out the elderly in their wheelchairs to vote against the wedge-issues that they can't win on anymore.
I think DOMA has a much better probability of being struck down as unconstitutional... But they probably won't expand Prop-8 much farther than California...Although, I would be nice if they would at least come down with a "9-State Solution." That's still a possibility.
I agree marriage is a human right, you have the right to form any kind of relationship, thus if you get married, you don't need your govt permission or recognition. If the govt does not recognize the marriage, it does not nullify it.
I feel bad for people that think that respect can be regulated and their right to marry comes from the govt, it makes them seem weak. In fact regulating respect can end up backfiring.
I have no idea what will be decided though except that most will agree that it is not up to the citizen what they will call their relationship it is up to a group of special people far away and what they say, you will do they are the bosses of you and what you even call your relationship.
Just curious, if the court decides that people of the same sex cannot marry, does that bar them from saying they are married, I figure since we live in a place where there is all kinds of stuff you cannot say? Is it illegal for straight people to lie about whether they are married.
What do gay people get if the govt recognizes their marriage in stead of them simply saying they are married? I cannot think of much I get for actually being govt. married except a higher tax bill.
LadyJazzer wrote: What do they get?...Approximately 1,480 rights and benefits that are otherwise denied to them.
Well that's a freaking problem. People can get approximately 1,480 new rights by forming a relationship with another person. That is just wrong.
So in stead of making it so you get all the rights that everyone else gets by simply existing as an individual....
You would prefer that EACH group must individually lobby to be able to have the rights to form this special right increasing relationship.
Freaking brilliant, get a flat tire and make all tires equal by slashing the other three.
I agree we should be equal and have equal rights, I just don't think you should need a permit to get into the equal group, you are passionate about your right to be classified as someone who can get the permit to get the rights - that is a complex passion, I just want rights. I am sorry for every insulting your intelligence, because that is an extremely complicated, difficult and unsustainable way to secure rights, most of all unsustainable.
I guess this is just you having respect for the will of the people. By securing the gay marriage right in such a way that it can be questioned again in the future on it's own, creating a system where folks can be classified by relationships and get different rights in stead of the opposite, you are recognizing that in the near future the tide may change and we can shift this right back to the way it was.
I think fundamentally you and I agree, I want gay folks to be able to get married, I want any combination of humans in any quantity to be able to get married, I just don't want any of them to have more or less rights after going through the process. You just want it now, and I want it forever.
Thanks, but you don't get to decide "what I want"... You don't get to tell me "what I would prefer."
You asked what they get? I answered you: They get approximately 1,480 rights and benefits that are otherwise denied to them. I want to see it equal for all...no more, no less.
