No word yet on California’s Prop 8.
Given the 5-4 decision overturning DOMA, the Prop 8 decision will expose the Court’s respect, or lack thereof, for the Tenth Amendment.
Like I said yesterday, this court is all over the place with its decisions.
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
No word yet on California’s Prop 8.
Given the 5-4 decision overturning DOMA, the Prop 8 decision will expose the Court’s respect, or lack thereof, for the Tenth Amendment.
Like I said yesterday, this court is all over the place with its decisions. [/quote]
Deciding against DOMA makes sense. I just hope the opinions are along the lines of ‘It’s not the Federal Gov’ts job to say what is and isn’t marriage.’ and ‘Just because the gov’t chooses not to recognize an institution doesn’t mean that institution is banned.’
I am relieved that the one-percenter who was assessed $400K in taxes on her dead partner’s estate will finally be able to catch a break. We’ve brutally oppressed homosexuals in this country for too long. Hopefully now, homosexuals will be able access to reproductive medical care on the taxpayer’s dime. Yay diversity or equality whichever one it is.
Justice Kennedy penned the majority opinion.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf
Reading the first few lines of Kennedy’s opinion, It looks as though DOMA was an over reach of the federal government.
It’s odd to me how he can say that about gay marriage, but BarryCare is perfectly okay.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Hopefully now, homosexuals will be able access to reproductive medical care on the taxpayer’s dime. [/quote]
You want taxpayers to pay for reproductive medical care? Why should we?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Hopefully now, homosexuals will be able access to reproductive medical care on the taxpayer’s dime. [/quote]
You want taxpayers to pay for reproductive medical care? Why should we? [/quote]
sarcasm, usmccds.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Hopefully now, homosexuals will be able access to reproductive medical care on the taxpayer’s dime. [/quote]
You want taxpayers to pay for reproductive medical care? Why should we? [/quote]
Sorry; Hopefully now, homosexuals will be able access to reproductive medical care on the taxpayer’s dime.
And, with Federal Healthcare AND Marriage Equality; now, you too can pay to support the reproductive habits of a gay couple regardless of your political affiliation or religious beliefs.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Hopefully now, homosexuals will be able access to reproductive medical care on the taxpayer’s dime. [/quote]
You want taxpayers to pay for reproductive medical care? Why should we? [/quote]
Sorry; Hopefully now, homosexuals will be able access to reproductive medical care on the taxpayer’s dime.
And, with Federal Healthcare AND Marriage Equality; now, you too can pay to support the reproductive habits of a gay couple regardless of your political affiliation or religious beliefs.[/quote]
I had a feeling you were being sarcastic, but you never know. Thanks for the clarification.
Looks like the SCOTUS dismissed the Prop 8 case.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I had a feeling you were being sarcastic, but you never know. Thanks for the clarification. [/quote]
Thx 2 teh interwebs, we can all comunicate together more better.
Yeah, the W3C missed an opportunity by not putting sarcasm tags in HTML5.
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
Looks like the SCOTUS dismissed the Prop 8 case.
[/quote]
I’d love to believe this is the Government getting out of our f-cking lives, so I agree with both decisions. However, I’m fully aware that it’s really just window dressing, they’re cleaning the dust off the fan shortly before more shit hits it.
Obama or his replacement will be forced to issue a reprieve for religious employers so that they don’t have to provide health coverage to gay spouses.
Indiana or Texas will be on trial for not honoring some of the 1,100,000,000 rights that make up marriage for a gay couple from California or Iowa and the f-cking commerce clause will be used to strike down a popular and state-supported amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Obama or his replacement will be forced to issue a reprieve for religious employers so that they don’t have to provide health coverage to gay spouses.
[/quote]
I’ll believe it when I see it. Religious freedom is going to take a HUGE beating. You’re a devout Christian florist that often supplies flowers to weddings? A wedding planner? Etc. Not anymore. You’re one or the other. There will be huge battles over benefits, employment, and services rendered (or not rendered). Religious freedom will lose, and lose, and lose.
All I gotta say is that I TOLD YOU SO. I do believe I said this would happen in each of the other gay marriage threads. Discriminating against gays is unconstitutional, plain and simple. No matter WHAT your personal or religious opinion on it, when you give gov’t advantage to some people and not others, it’s discrimination. There’s a lot of smart people here, not quite sure how that inconvenient fact escapes you.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Obama or his replacement will be forced to issue a reprieve for religious employers so that they don’t have to provide health coverage to gay spouses.
[/quote]
I’ll believe it when I see it. Religious freedom is going to take a HUGE beating. You’re a devout Christian florist that often supplies flowers to weddings? A wedding planner? Etc. Not anymore. You’re one or the other. There will be huge battles over benefits, employment, and services rendered (or not rendered). Religious freedom will lose, and lose, and lose.
[/quote]
I see it as expanding the religious freedom of the gay person and curtailing the right of people to tell others how they should live
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
All I gotta say is that I TOLD YOU SO. I do believe I said this would happen in each of the other gay marriage threads. Discriminating against gays is unconstitutional, plain and simple. No matter WHAT your personal or religious opinion on it, when you give gov’t advantage to some people and not others, it’s discrimination. There’s a lot of smart people here, not quite sure how that inconvenient fact escapes you.[/quote]
You mean the same smart people that claim to be Christian, white, heterosexual, and “discriminated” against?
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
All I gotta say is that I TOLD YOU SO. I do believe I said this would happen in each of the other gay marriage threads. Discriminating against gays is unconstitutional, plain and simple. No matter WHAT your personal or religious opinion on it, when you give gov’t advantage to some people and not others, it’s discrimination. There’s a lot of smart people here, not quite sure how that inconvenient fact escapes you.[/quote]
Question, do you believe there is white privilege in the United States?
Would gay marriage be okay with you so long as we aren’t spending money on sex changes etc?
I understand people don’t want to pay for that sort of stuff, neither do I.
But that really obfuscates the question of Gay rights. Aside from not wanting to pay for sex changes and all that, why is it any of our business whether gays get married or not?
If your religious, you need to check out and realize this isn’t sacramental marriage, it’s legal marriage. Why should your religious ideals be imposed on a country where there is intentionally a separation of church and state?
Seems like religious folks are trying to impose their religious beliefs on the state. Plain and simple.
Do any of you have openly gay friends, or people who came out? I served with a woman who later came out and has since had a sex change operation, with wife an child on the way… Maybe I’m too invested, but I think she/he has earned the right.
My libertarian side says that the federal government has not business nosing in the business of private citizens. One should be free to engage in any activity that does not infringe upon the rights of others to do the same. Nor should the federal government incentivise certain behaviors whether it be marriage, diet, choice of house, or choice of automobile.
On the other hand - carving out minority status because of a lifestyle choice makes no sense to me. But then again, obesity - another lifestyle choice - is now considered a disease.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
All I gotta say is that I TOLD YOU SO. I do believe I said this would happen in each of the other gay marriage threads. Discriminating against gays is unconstitutional, plain and simple. No matter WHAT your personal or religious opinion on it, when you give gov’t advantage to some people and not others, it’s discrimination. There’s a lot of smart people here, not quite sure how that inconvenient fact escapes you.[/quote]
Question, do you believe there is white privilege in the United States?
Would gay marriage be okay with you so long as we aren’t spending money on sex changes etc?
I understand people don’t want to pay for that sort of stuff, neither do I.
But that really obfuscates the question of Gay rights. Aside from not wanting to pay for sex changes and all that, why is it any of our business whether gays get married or not?
If your religious, you need to check out and realize this isn’t sacramental marriage, it’s legal marriage. Why should your religious ideals be imposed on a country where there is intentionally a separation of church and state?
Seems like religious folks are trying to impose their religious beliefs on the state. Plain and simple.
Do any of you have openly gay friends, or people who came out? I served with a woman who later came out and has since had a sex change operation, with wife an child on the way… Maybe I’m too invested, but I think she/he has earned the right. [/quote]
It appears you believe AC to be against this ruling. Reread what he posted and I don’t think you will find this to be true.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
It appears you believe AC to be against this ruling. Reread what he posted and I don’t think you will find this to be true.
[/quote]
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
On the other hand - carving out minority status because of a lifestyle choice makes no sense to me. But then again, obesity - another lifestyle choice - is now considered a disease.
[/quote]
This at the end of the day is the crux of the entire debate for -choice vs biological predisposition. It looks like the government is increasingly more of the mindset that homo/heterosexuality are less a choice and more a biologically driven characteristic. For full disclosure, I am of the mindset that human sexuality/attraction naturally falls along a bimodal distribution of sorts and is not a choice.
For the sake of not getting into this debate for the trillionth time on this forum, I’ll leave it there, but the fact of the matter is (regardless of whether it is correct or incorrect) if the government sees it as an innate characteristic, it will be fully recognized and protected under the law.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I see it as expanding the religious freedom of the gay person and curtailing the right of people to tell others how they should live
[/quote]
What?!? How does it do either of those things?
-Maybe I shouldn’t get involved here. I believe you once equated employment with slavery, by implying it is an involuntary condition.