SCOTUS DOMA unconstitutional/Prop 8 punted back

archer wrote: Rick... I haven't seen a true fiscal conservative on either side of the aisle.... The GOP can't see beyond cut, cut, cut.... The Democrats can't see beyond tax, tax, tax.... Until I see one side or the other actually take a balanced economic ledger seriously, and that starts with a total tax code overhaul, I will continue to vote based on those issues that the two parties differ greatly on.... Social issues.

There are non so blind as those who will not see.

Couldn't have said it better myself.....

deltamrey wrote: This case was brought, as I read it, by a Canadian looking for benefits whose partner is DEAD......she just wanted to skim the trough.......this is the motivation of the entire movement- not emotions.
What the heck.....I am in LOVE....will take any sex, just want good medical and retirement benefits.....do not need to meet just sign the papers and I will love you until death do us part (can I marry my son BTW).....get it folks.
In the US Military it is called FRAUD and prosecuted rather routinely.....and the criminal is tossed back into the civilian masses.

First off... most of your facts are wrong... but I'll overlook those little problems. As a conservative (or a libertarian) you should be THRILLED that this ruling has now placed the responsibility of determining the legal definition of marriage BACK TO THE STATES.

It's now a STATES RIGHTS issue, one of the cornerstones of conservative ideology. The Supreme Court just took the big-bad federal government out of the picture. Now that you understand this, I'll expect you to be trumpeting and supporting this decision with all your heart and soul.

LadyJazzer wrote: Couldn't have said it better myself.....

I could have. I would have spelled none right.

Just kidding.

While normally I am a states right guy, I don't think we can have homosexual marriage legal in some states and not others. The legislature or courts will have to clear this up soon.

tongue: And I see a Republican trying to outlaw marriage by amending the Constitution. Naive idealist? Or opportunist just wanting money for his re-election campaign?

I STILL believe that I'm Back is a troll (hard for me to wrap my mind around anyone that is THAT unaware/uninformed....and Deltamrey......up until this moment I believed you to be an progressive/informed individual...JMO..it's LOVE, that's all.

Now we can move forward and secure marriage rights for any combination or number of adult humans. They should be able to form bonds in whatever number and gender combination they want and call it whatever they want.

Limiting marriages or relationships to just two people is just as bad is limiting the gender combinations allowed in a two person marriage.

This is a step towards relative equal treatment under the law, but only a step.

The last step will be taken when anyone can marry any other adult, but that marriage DOES NOT change their rights in any way. Marriage or any relationship should not effect your rights. You rights should be secured as individuals and then the govt should be restricted from abusing them, not codifying contorted versions of them upon changing relationship status.

This ruling is likely good, but leaves much room for improvement in allowing citizens to function as equals, when you can start or stop a relationship and change your rights, we still have a problem and we are unequal under the law. Essentially, we will have equality under this issue when other people don't decide who can get married, we need to govt to STOP regulating marriage and associated rights, not spend the rest of time regulating it.

I would love to hear a hypocrite LGBT argue for two person relationships being more moral or correct than relationships or marriages with 3 or more...anyone game?

OTN, good points, there is a much longer tradition of polygamy than homosexual marriage. If we believe in religious freedom, we should allow Islamic Americans to marry more than one wife.

Just my belief....IF all parties understand the boundaries,ACCEPT those boundaries and establish a LOVING,communicative and
dedicated union.....then LEGAL marriage should be within their right......"Sister Wives", if entertaining,DID,if fact, allow an understanding of polygamy and it's complexity.....JMO.....DON'T think they should be persecuted/prosecuted/punished.

on that note wrote: Now we can move forward and secure marriage rights for any combination or number of adult humans. They should be able to form bonds in whatever number and gender combination they want and call it whatever they want.

I agree up to the point of benefits. Would three wives get the same benefits as one wife or would they have to split a single benefit between the three? Giving benefits to multiple spouses would surely encourage fraud.

Rick wrote:

on that note wrote: Now we can move forward and secure marriage rights for any combination or number of adult humans. They should be able to form bonds in whatever number and gender combination they want and call it whatever they want.

I agree up to the point of benefits. Would three wives get the same benefits as one wife or would they have to split a single benefit between the three? Giving benefits to multiple spouses would surely encourage fraud.

lol Too late! Right now the extra wives pretend to be unmarried so that they get more benefits than if they are married.