SCOTUS DOMA unconstitutional/Prop 8 punted back

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.

Rick, if a employer would like to give benefits to many spouses or none, that comes out in the negotiation for employment, the two parties, employer and employee can work that out.

If we are talking about govt benefits. I SAY NO CHANGES IN GOVT RIGHTS WHEN YOU GET MARRIED, everyone needs to be treated as an individual under the law. Parents can work out custody just like joint tenants of other property. They can have private enforceable agreements that THEY MAKE, vs. other people making before they even get married. Married people can work out the constructs of their relationships. If you want your spouse to have a benefit you have a number of options, pay for it, let them pay for it, convince someone to give it to you, etc. but don't get more rights just because you decided to get married when others did not. Unmarried people are not worried about whether their neighbor's job will cover their health insurance. Marrying your neighbor should not change the obligations of your employer or fellow citizens via our govt.

Plus when you mandate benefits to an employer, you reduce the employment of the group you just protected. Employers would prefer to hire people without kids often and often do when they have the option. They would also prefer to hire people with less wives, ideally zero.

How simplistic...

There are over 1400 "rights" that accrue to married couples in the law--inheritance, estate, tax-states (married/single/married-filing-separately); dependents; parental rights, hospital-visitation/health-decisions/end-of-life, ad nauseum... If one person works and the other is covered under their company's private insurance, then if they are not married, the person who is covered under the policy has to declare it as "income" for tax-purposes...

What you think should or should not be covered has already been decided by decades of settled law.

Anyone wish that homosexuals had got these rights by vote or legislature rather than a mixed Supreme Court decision?

You don't put "Rights" to a vote...

That's why they are called "RIGHTS"....

But I understand how "equal protection under the law" and "rights" would be a foreign concept to Righties....

LadyJazzer wrote:
What you think should or should not be covered has already been decided by decades of settled law.

As you know, decades of laws can change. People can now have affairs without going to jail, Lesbians could not get married until very recently and men in NH can skimp on the firewood one winter and it is not ground for divorce. Should we just go back to the way things were on this stuff just because they were in place for decades. For decades we had no federal income tax, one year that changed. We are allowed to change things and we are allowed to work towards more equality.

We chose to punish straight and gay people that want to marry and the public around them "equally". I still propose that the govt does not recognize marriages and only recognize people. These people can then form legal agreements to address shared custody such as cars, homes and children. Divorced people make all kinds of legal agreements on custody and separation. This is also often forced on them by the courts.

Things change and you are a great force in changing things and you know that...so don't argue against change, that just is odd.

I think that the law should not change your rights if you get married, I have said that a number of times.

There are two kinds of rights, there are liberties and there are entitlements. Liberties occur without effecting others and should be preserved, entitlements cost others when you get your rights and thus should always be compared to the liberty we are sacrificing to get the entitlement and then we should to a cost benefit analysis as public policy, if we can even justify entitlements in the long run (due to their cost, by definition).

If I get married and now other citizens have to pay more or less on taxes (which they do because my tax rates change when I get married) or if I get married and now my employers expense structure will change or he or she has to fill out one more form, that is not a liberty, it is an entitlement. In order to exercise these rights, you are making demands of people outside of your relationship and using the law to make them do so.

So very specifically, when your marriage rights are entitlements, we do not have equality or equal protection under the law. You are making a personal decision that has all kinds of consequences on others outside of the relationship. One should be able to marry without worrying about the burden on others, friends, citizens or employers.

I am simply suggesting that our rights be secured as individuals and that our rights do not change when we form relationships. That is the first step towards royalty. We are supposed to have equal rights and protections under the law and when you can associate with certain people and get more or less rights, this should not be acceptable or turned around into something it is not.

I am also against people that work for companies that don't have SIMPLE IRA plans paying lower taxes than those that work for companies that don't. I am simply seeking that all individuals will have the same rights and same burdens. I don't want people's marriages or employer private benefits to change the taxes or rights that these individuals have vs. me.

I guess the cool thing about all this is that change is part of the game. The battle of getting people to pretend they don't hate you because of how you behave using laws cannot be won. In the end, many will hate you even more and it could lead to the loss of rights of being how you are. Look at what happens to anyone that wants more liberty these days, gay or not.

LadyJazzer wrote: You don't put "Rights" to a vote...

That's why they are called "RIGHTS"....

But I understand how "equal protection under the law" and "rights" would be a foreign concept to Righties....

Incorrect. Rights are always being put to votes and being defined by courts.
Think women always had the right to vote?
The US Constitition had to be amended to give women the right to vote.
Think minorities always had equal protection under the law?

There is a difference between amending the constitution and congress passing a law....the former is far more difficult....congress, however, cannot pass a law that is unconstitutional.....and the Supreme Court gets to decide that.....thus DOMA going before the Supreme Court.....and losing......our constitution already gives equal protection under the law...but you already knew all this..

Sorry, I was just trying to say I would prefer that homosexual marriage was legalized by the voters instead of a few appointed judges. I am happy Clinton's DOMA is gone, but I wish it was done by the American public.

Homosexual marriage is now legal for 30% of the US, but it was mainly state judges making it legal, not state voters.

on that note wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote:
What you think should or should not be covered has already been decided by decades of settled law.

As you know, decades of laws can change. People can now have affairs without going to jail, Lesbians could not get married until very recently and men in NH can skimp on the firewood one winter and it is not ground for divorce. Should we just go back to the way things were on this stuff just because they were in place for decades. For decades we had no federal income tax, one year that changed. We are allowed to change things and we are allowed to work towards more equality.

We chose to punish straight and gay people that want to marry and the public around them "equally". I still propose that the govt does not recognize marriages and only recognize people. These people can then form legal agreements to address shared custody such as cars, homes and children. Divorced people make all kinds of legal agreements on custody and separation. This is also often forced on them by the courts.

Things change and you are a great force in changing things and you know that...so don't argue against change, that just is odd.

I think that the law should not change your rights if you get married, I have said that a number of times.

There are two kinds of rights, there are liberties and there are entitlements. Liberties occur without effecting others and should be preserved, entitlements cost others when you get your rights and thus should always be compared to the liberty we are sacrificing to get the entitlement and then we should to a cost benefit analysis as public policy, if we can even justify entitlements in the long run (due to their cost, by definition).

If I get married and now other citizens have to pay more or less on taxes (which they do because my tax rates change when I get married) or if I get married and now my employers expense structure will change or he or she has to fill out one more form, that is not a liberty, it is an entitlement. In order to exercise these rights, you are making demands of people outside of your relationship and using the law to make them do so.

So very specifically, when your marriage rights are entitlements, we do not have equality or equal protection under the law. You are making a personal decision that has all kinds of consequences on others outside of the relationship. One should be able to marry without worrying about the burden on others, friends, citizens or employers.

I am simply suggesting that our rights be secured as individuals and that our rights do not change when we form relationships. That is the first step towards royalty. We are supposed to have equal rights and protections under the law and when you can associate with certain people and get more or less rights, this should not be acceptable or turned around into something it is not.

I am also against people that work for companies that don't have SIMPLE IRA plans paying lower taxes than those that work for companies that don't. I am simply seeking that all individuals will have the same rights and same burdens. I don't want people's marriages or employer private benefits to change the taxes or rights that these individuals have vs. me.

I guess the cool thing about all this is that change is part of the game. The battle of getting people to pretend they don't hate you because of how you behave using laws cannot be won. In the end, many will hate you even more and it could lead to the loss of rights of being how you are. Look at what happens to anyone that wants more liberty these days, gay or not.

What you are "suggesting" has no relevance... What has happened is now the same rules, rights, statutes, tax-rules, estate-rules, property-rules, insurance-rules, etc., that are granted to traditional married couples are now granted to same-sex couples. What has "changed" is that the federal government can no longer come in and treat one married couple differently than another in states where it is legal. What you think "it should be" matters not.

In some states...