Supreme Court & Gay Marriage/Prop 8

LadyJazzer wrote: The "will of the people" doesn't get to vote on other people's RIGHTS... That's why they're called "RIGHTS"... (And how'd that Amendment-2/"Romer v. Evans" thing work out for ya?)

If one majority's "ending of discrimination" is another minority's "political agenda", then so be it....

If it was just that easy. Can three consenting adults get married to each other?

How about consenting adult cousins?

You forgot the "bestiality" angle... That's always the "go to" argument for most of the right-wing... (I've never been able to understand why they always have this obsession with animals....???)

This is about marriage-equality...Seems to me there's already a polygamist family on the cable-channels, ("Sister Wives"?)...If you're still hung up on the "bestiality" thing, here are some pointers:

[youtube:2eqy7rfp][/youtube:2eqy7rfp]

The state would have a over-riding interest in preventing birth-defects by inter-familial marriage...and always has.

Outside of that, if all you have is trumpeting the same tired talking-points that got the Prop-8 people laughed out of the California & 9th-Circuit Appeals Courts, then you need some new material.

But there is a longer historical tradition of polygamy in the world than homosexual marriage.

What would denying DOMA do? Would it permit Colorado residents to go to Massachussets to get married on vacation and make that legal here? Or would it only be permitted for legally married residents of another state who move to Colorado for their marriage to be recognized locally? Probably depend on the individual state.

FredHayek wrote: What would denying DOMA do?

Marital status is relevant in more than 1,100 federal laws that include estate taxes, Social Security survivor benefits and health benefits for federal employees. Lawsuits around the country have led four federal district courts and two appeals courts to strike down the law's Section 3, which defines marriage. In 2011, the Obama administration abandoned its defense of the law but continues to enforce it. House Republicans are now defending DOMA in the courts. Do you even know what the DOMA suit was specifically about?

Windsor v. United States: Edie Windsor Challenges DOMA

Edie Windsor and Thea Spyer shared their lives together as a couple in New York City for 44 years. After a 40 year engagement they were finally married in Canada in May 2007. Two years later, Thea passed away, after living for decades with multiple sclerosis, which led to progressive paralysis.

When Thea died, the federal government refused to recognize their marriage and taxed Edie's inheritance from Thea as though they were strangers. b][i][u]Edith was forced to pay more than $363,000 in federal estates taxes that she would not have had to pay if the government had recognized her marriage to Thea.[/u][/i][/b Under federal tax law, a spouse who dies can leave her assets, including the family home, to the other spouse without incurring estate taxes.

Ordinarily, whether a couple is married for federal purposes depends on whether they are considered married in their state. New York recognized Edie and Thea's marriage, but because of a federal law called the "Defense of Marriage Act," or DOMA, the federal government refuses to treat married same-sex couples, like Edie and Thea, the same way as other married couples.

http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/windsor ... -edie-doma

THAT is what denying DOMA will do.... It's about FAIRNESS-UNDER-THE-LAW.

The issue of state reciprocity of recognized marriages was part of the Prop-8 case, and I guess we'll find out the result of that in June when the decisions are announced.

I'm really not interested in your polygamist, first-cousins, bestiality hypotheticals... Save those for someone who cares....

The entire issue of "Homosexual Rights" is simply about entitled benefits under Federal, State and local laws.....the rest of the arguments are pure BS........gimme, gimme, gimme.....


OF course Fred has a very interesting point......IF the Homosexuals (PC "GAY") are given the entitlements, Pologamy cannot be outside the law either......seems like a great way to live if you can afford several spouses and put up with the drama........MUSLIMS CAN NOW LIVE IN PEACE UNDER THEIR LIFESTYLES AND RELIGIOUS LAWS......

Saw a great stage play in NYC several years ago starring Sally Fields.....a really great actress IMHO.....the name is "The Goat".....about a man that falls in "love " with.......well yes a nice little goat.......CAN WE AFTER THE DIVORCE OF MALE AND FEMALE HUMANS DEMAND THE GOAT GET FEDERAL BENEFITS IF MAN IS AWARDED A CIVIL UNION WITH A GOAT.......SEEMS FAIR TO ME......WAS A NICE LITTLE GOAT......

Have you considered counseling?

"The state would have a over-riding interest in preventing birth-defects by inter-familial marriage...and always has."

HUMMMMM......HITLER IS SMILING FROM THE GRAVE.....YOU SEEM DEPENDING ON YOUR STATE OF DEFEAT TO EBMBRACE ESSENTIALLY THE ENTIRE ENVELOPE OF TWISTED DOGMA....Stalin liked that little tidbit also.....

A little goat never hurt anyone...........better than castration I would venture to offer...and a lot less painful....

deltamrey wrote: "The state would have a over-riding interest in preventing birth-defects by inter-familial marriage...and always has."

HUMMMMM......HITLER IS SMILING FROM THE GRAVE.....YOU SEEM DEPENDING ON YOUR STATE OF DEFEAT TO EBMBRACE ESSENTIALLY THE ENTIRE ENVELOPE OF TWISTED DOGMA....Stalin liked that little tidbit also.....

A little goat never hurt anyone...........better than castration I would venture to offer...and a lot less painful....

Ooooo!!! :woo hoo: :rofllol

You got to use "Hitler" AND "Stalin" in a sentence!!! Want to go for a triple-word score and add "Socialist"???

Tsk, tsk, tsk... And still obsessed with sex-with-animals... You're further gone than I thought.

Didn't we get these same arguments with interracial marriages?

archer wrote: Didn't we get these same arguments with interracial marriages?

Yeah... Thumping the Bible didn't work then either....