SCOTUS DOMA unconstitutional/Prop 8 punted back

FredHayek wrote: In some states...

What part of "in states where it is legal" did you not understand?

LadyJazzer wrote:

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.

What we all think should matter a lot, just not to other people, to our own lives.

Most property rights are based on states laws.

And just so we are clear, my proposal would have addressed the rest of the problem, which is not addressed.

My understanding is that there are many states where gay folks have less rights today than straight folks and a gay couple moves to that state, that this new state does not have to treat these people as married. Perhaps I am wrong on this and if so, let me know.

This ruling is not universal and certainly does not make people dislike gay folks less. We all live in the real world and we know that even most of the folks that say they are fine with gay folks are fine as long as they don't interact with them or influence their children. Not all, but many and my guess is that you and I limit our exposure to these folks, but boy are they plentiful.

This is a lot of smoke and mirrors and laws are a good tool for some things, but they don't make people accept things fully in their heart. No amount of force (law) can do that, just like I always suggest, you need to win people over with peaceful discussion. That has not happened yet and forcing folks to pretend this is what they think only breeds resentment.

I have personal no issues with these laws, my concerns are for the long term rights of gay folks, of which I am not so I am not subject to the hate and still current legislation that allows folks in govt or society to keep them down. You can read huffpost all you want, homosexuality is not commonly accepted, it is primarily tolerated and as I have said many times, tolerance is no substitute for respect, tolerance is what people that think you are wrong do when they feel like they cannot make you suffer.

I agree this is a step in the right direction, but on the wrong path, a path that may not end, but certainly could. The path I suggested has no end, but is harder to get onto.

I personally want people to screw and bond with any other adult or combination of adults they want. Screw and bond away, I just want the govt out of it. These are personal relationships.

Perhaps next we can talk about official friend legislation. Didn't they find that in GB that it was best to discourage kids from having best friends? There is no limit to what bounds the govt can put on relationships when they get involved.

Just curious too, does the federal ruling rule out the possibility of still making or keeping homosexual act of affection illegal....or just the marriage status itself. Could people us the fact that this is even more regulated now to use those regulations to make gay marriages just a proclamation, but not something that can be consummated.... This is a real question and concern I have.

To the person that says they would rather people vote on this vs. the Supremes decide. I suggest that conceptually I may agree, I would prefer the two people in a couple to have a vote on their marriage rights and whatever they decide will be their marriage law. I like the concept of their neighbor's deciding their rights far less, this sounds kinda sick to me. I like the idea of the primary right deciders in the land determining that all the votes on this issue don't matter (like the one in CA where they voted to take the right away - btw- and that this is a right, let's just work on it being a liberty in stead of an entitlement. An entitlement always has someone that wants to take it away. The liberty, reinforced by the Supremes, does give some good protection under our system, depending on where you live and how much money you have.