Looks like the SCOTUS is going to have to get into it now (Gay Marriage)

[okalb 79]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/06/gay-marriage-appeals-court-ohio-michigan-kentucky-tennessee/15712319/

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[kelpdiver 2]

what a piece of shit.

"Better in this instance, we think, to allow change through the customary political processes, in which the people, gay and straight alike, become the heroes of their own stories by meeting each other not as adversaries in a court system but as fellow citizens seeking to resolve a new social issue in a fair-minded way."

Which has always worked great for 9 wolves and 1 sheep. Fairness definitely reigns.

But it does remind me of Robert's "defense" of the ACA. I sense he (or the Party) is looking to give the SC a way to turn the tide. But in the process he's doomed any chance he has of higher appointments (what a shame...)

[wolfriverjoe 1,349]

Yeah...

States get to use their own definition of marriage.

So if a state wanted to define it as between a man and woman of the same race.

Or of the same religion.

Would this sort of "state decision" be upheld by the 6th?

There was a rather scathing dissent.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[SkyDekker 1,136]

okalb

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/06/gay-marriage-appeals-court-ohio-michigan-kentucky-tennessee/15712319/

Quite the justice system when decisions get made according to party affiliation.

[AndyBoyd 0]

You are just noticing this now?

[davjohns 1]

I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation for why the government (at any level) regulates personal relationships between consenting adults...at all.

The people who can't pass a budget on time or even balance a budget want to tell us how to run our personal lives. Does anyone else see a problem with that?

David

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[champu 1]

davjohns

I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation for why the government (at any level) regulates personal relationships between consenting adults...at all.

The people who can't pass a budget on time or even balance a budget want to tell us how to run our personal lives. Does anyone else see a problem with that?

David

Calling various level governments' involvement in marriage the "regulation of personal relationships between adults" is a misrepresentation.

Being married, as far as the government is concerned, has nothing to do with your personal relationship with that person. The government regulates impersonal relationships between the two of you together and others.

[SkyDekker 1,136]

AndyBoyd

You are just noticing this now?

No, I have mentioned this before on dz.com. Even when appointed, it would seem that appointments are based on if the judge will rule according to party affiliation or not. At least, that's the sense I get.

Electing people in the judicial system is insane in my opinion.

[davjohns 1]

Marriage today is a government regulation of personal relationships. You need government permission to be 'married'. You need government permission to cease being 'married'.

I understand that much of the fuss is over benefits offered people who are 'married'. But that is just an offshoot of the underlying issue. If you did away with the government determination of who is and is not 'married', the special status offered those who comply with the government's definition of 'married' should naturally fall away.

Along with my criticism of government sanctioned 'marriage', I have issues with special tax provisions, special healthcare provisions, etc. If two people want to spend their lives together, why should there be special provisions for or against them? At the heart of the matter is a personal relationship between two consenting adults. Everyone else should stay out of it...especially government.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[champu 1]

I agree it would be preferable to divorce the automatic government benefits/arraignments from marriage itself, and then revisit each of those benefits and ensure the ones that make logical sense (e.g. medical information, visitation, decisions) are available for people to set up on their own regardless of marital status...

...however...

...it's unsettling that this viewpoint only seems to come up in the context of the gay marriage debate. In my mind, it's the offshoot. To help me understand a little better, is there anything specifically that the government does or does not do with regards to recognizing marriage that constitutes telling us how to run our personal lives?

Quote

The people who can't pass a budget on time or even balance a budget want to tell us how to run our personal lives."

[wolfriverjoe 1,349]

davjohns

Marriage today is a government regulation of personal relationships. You need government permission to be 'married'. You need government permission to cease being 'married'.

I understand that much of the fuss is over benefits offered people who are 'married'. But that is just an offshoot of the underlying issue. If you did away with the government determination of who is and is not 'married', the special status offered those who comply with the government's definition of 'married' should naturally fall away.

Along with my criticism of government sanctioned 'marriage', I have issues with special tax provisions, special healthcare provisions, etc. If two people want to spend their lives together, why should there be special provisions for or against them? At the heart of the matter is a personal relationship between two consenting adults. Everyone else should stay out of it...especially government.

Actually, the government has some pretty good reasons to get involved in "mawwiage, that wevewred institution."

Children do better in stable, 2 parent households. That's been shown pretty well. Interestingly, it doesn't seem to matter if the two parents are both men, both women, or one of each.

Less crime (lower costs), Better education and future incomes (more tax revenue), more accomplishments as adults (economic growth), those are just at the top of the lists.

More successful kids make more successful adults. The benefits of that cascade down for a long way.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[davjohns 1]

In my mind, it pre-existed the issue of gay marriage. Polygamists have deplored the government telling them who they could and could not be married to for decades before the gay marriage issue came the fore.

Before that, it was difficult for people to get a divorce because government rules followed religious guidelines. So, people were unable to marry who they wanted because they were still married to who the government tied them to.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[davjohns 1]

I think most people would agree that a loving home with two parents is preferable to a single parent. Raising children often requires two people working at the task. If nothing else, having someone who has strengths to compliment your weaknesses makes you a better parent.

The problem is that government has nothing to do with the more advantageous situation that you describe. Government still allows divorces for most any reason...or do you propose the government no longer allow divorce and require parents to stay together for the sake of the children?

I'm jesting. I know that is not your argument, but it is the logical outcome thereof.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[wolfriverjoe 1,349]

davjohns

...The problem is that government has nothing to do with the more advantageous situation that you describe. Government still allows divorces for most any reason...or do you propose the government no longer allow divorce and require parents to stay together for the sake of the children?

I'm jesting. I know that is not your argument, but it is the logical outcome thereof.

Well, once you get divorced, you lose all the government provided advantages that marriage has.

The government doesn't force people to get married or stay married.
It just offers benefits to those who do.

And there are circumstances where the government penalizes marriage. Welfare recipients are one. The "marriage penalty" in certain income tax brackets is another.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[champu 1]

davjohns

In my mind, it pre-existed the issue of gay marriage. Polygamists have deplored the government telling them who they could and could not be married to for decades before the gay marriage issue came the fore.

Before that, it was difficult for people to get a divorce because government rules followed religious guidelines. So, people were unable to marry who they wanted because they were still married to who the government tied them to.

These are still matters related to government recognition of your marriage affecting how you interact with the government, not how you conduct your personal life within your marriage. With a couple notable exceptions (that were really more about CPS running amok than about marriage, imo) the government doesn't involve itself in people's actual day-to-day married lives.

[SkyDekker 1,136]

davjohns

Marriage today is a government regulation of personal relationships. You need government permission to be 'married'. You need government permission to cease being 'married'.

I understand that much of the fuss is over benefits offered people who are 'married'. But that is just an offshoot of the underlying issue. If you did away with the government determination of who is and is not 'married', the special status offered those who comply with the government's definition of 'married' should naturally fall away.

Along with my criticism of government sanctioned 'marriage', I have issues with special tax provisions, special healthcare provisions, etc. If two people want to spend their lives together, why should there be special provisions for or against them? At the heart of the matter is a personal relationship between two consenting adults. Everyone else should stay out of it...especially government.

What about health care decisions when dying?
Spousal privilege in court?

[jakee 1,257]

SkyDekker

Spousal privilege in court?

Gotta be honest, never understood that one anyway. What's the reasoning for it?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[SkyDekker 1,136]

jakee

***
Spousal privilege in court?

Gotta be honest, never understood that one anyway. What's the reasoning for it?

They are based on the idea of encouraging spousal harmony.

Strong marriage tend to be better for society. A better society leads to a better, stronger and more prosperous country.

[jakee 1,257]

Strong criminal marriages?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[SkyDekker 1,136]

jakee

Strong criminal marriages?

It applies to civil cases as well. (just not civil cases of one spouse vs other spouse)

[TriGirl 277]

wolfriverjoe

Well, once you get divorced, you lose all the government provided advantages that marriage has.

The government doesn't force people to get married or stay married.
It just offers benefits to those who do.

(bold and italics mine)

This is the problem I have with the parts of "marriage" that are under the purview of the government. Actually, I don't have a problem with these benefits per se -- just that the government has yielded to the religious groups over who qualifies and who doesn't.

And this sort of addresses David's comment about government being involved in our relationships. I can officially marry any (legally) eligible man I choose. He would receive medical coverage under the military's system. If I were living abroad and he still in the U.S., I'd get a stipend for his housing, and I'd receive an extra allowance called separation pay to offset the "burden" of being physically separated. I could also transfer my education benefits to him; and unless I stipulate otherwise, he would get all my death benefits, properties and insurance upon my death (not to mention parts of my military retirement, even if we divorced). No one would be allowed to question anything else about our relationship, as long as we were legally married (not even the religious groups, since its a hetero situation).

He could be half my age or younger. We may never have a physical relationship. As long as I don't have a physical relationship with someone else, the military also can't say anything about the situation. No kids may be involved at all.

Why can I opt to pass all these benefits on to any man I choose, but not have the exact same situation with a woman? It's the legal/civil issues (those portions of "marriage" that the government regulates) that are of concern to me, as they are absolutely unfair. These issues do affect my "day-to-day" relationships, as I can't help out a female friend in need the way I legally can help a male friend.

And, if the religious groups oppose same-sex marriage because of the physical aspect, or the procreation factor, then why do they not protest just as strongly the 80-yr-old man who marries the 21-yr-old woman? Or the hetero couple who marries simply for the business plan I outlined above? They've made no move to restrict that. And if having two loving/nurturing parents in the household is better for the development of children, then I really don't understand why a same-sex couple that has exactly that relationship is somehow not as good as a dysfunctional hetero couple -- a situation these same groups seem not to care about (at least not enough to try to pass laws and amendments to prevent).

Finally, I'd also like to point out that I equally don't care if one man marries three consenting adult women within their own church. Let them take each others' names, and live together, and raise each others' children as they choose, without fear of arrest. But I do understand that if the government ties public benefits to a legal partnership of a household, they do need to draw the line that is fair for everyone. So, I'm all for consenting adult couples, of any gender mix, entering into the business arrangement that affords all the rights and responsibilities that is currently called "marriage." But, it should be limited to one agreement per person (e.g., only the first marriage, until it's dissolved, is the one that counts under the legal provisions), IMHO.

[climbs off soap box]

[kallend 1,640]

What she said!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[okalb 79]

You rock T

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[JerryBaumchen 1,055]

Hi Girl,

Quote

[climbs off soap box]

Thank You. I could not have said it any better.

Jerry Baumchen

[kallend 1,640]

www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/12/us-usa-gaymarriage-south-carolina-idUSKCN0IW1UT20141112

S. Carolina ban ruled unconstitutional.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.