I think if this goes through, I will have to divorce my wife as it will lose all its meaning and it will feel cheapened. Our marriage cannot survive something like this.

[video=youtube_share;EoDpghAaXT4][/video]

I think we could end all of the controversy by simply agreeing that marriage is between two people, period. No mention of gender or anything.

SportsAndLady;1415109 wrote:So translate this for someone (me) who doesn't understand political talk. This isn't going to pass?

Nobody really knows. It sounds like several justices were looking for excuses not to hear the case - I forget the terminology but something about not being argued by someone with an interest (the governor and AG both withdrew). That would be a punt without offering a decision.

But there's another case they are hearing tomorrow

stlouiedipalma;1415180 wrote:I think we could end all of the controversy by simply agreeing that marriage is between two people, period. No mention of gender or anything.

Get rid of all government benefits for married people and I'll agree. I don't care if 3 or 10 people marry each other, they should not get any tax breaks that single people don't get.

Manhattan Buckeye;1414225 wrote:Federally? I'm pretty sure it isn't. There are decades of Con law scrutiny for sex and race. There's isn't much for orientation. There's a difference between a hate crime (which I think is idiocy) and a protected class. The term "protected class" has serious meaning in Con law.

I think a case can be made that the antiquated laws prohibiting same-sex unions constitute gender discrimination. Is gender federally a protected class?

pmoney25;1415113 wrote:I think if this goes through, I will have to divorce my wife as it will lose all its meaning and it will feel cheapened. Our marriage cannot survive something like this.

The terrorists will win, God will die, and we'll all go to hell in a hand basket.

stlouiedipalma;1415180 wrote:I think we could end all of the controversy by simply agreeing that marriage is between two people, period. No mention of gender or anything.

Why two? Hell, if they're all consenting adults. If they're not hurting anyone, let them marry whoever they want, and however many. I honestly don't even see the legal problem with polygamy, but there needs to be no manipulated advantage to being married.

O-Trap;1415252 wrote:I think a case can be made that the antiquated laws prohibiting same-sex unions constitute gender discrimination. Is gender federally a protected class?

Which gender is being discriminated against? Sex is a protected class, sexual preference is not.

I'm in favor of civil unions, and end the tax breaks. Although the insurance benefit alone is a huge deal - seems like it's always characterized as about being equal and being about the label, but I think reality for most is that it's about the money (which is very understandable).

"Is gender federally a protected class?"

Yes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_scrutiny

Apologies for posting Wiki -but it is a good start.

My wife and I discussed this matter this morning. I think most people wouldn't have a problem with the civil union definition and tax implications (to the extent it is even favorable). But IMO there is a significant chance it won't stop here. The next target will be to religious organizations that don't accept same-sex marriages - would their tax-exempt status be revoked if they won't perform same-sex "marriages"?

Sound crazy? It might, but so did affirmative action based on sexual orientation 15 years ago.

I honestly have no clue what people are so afraid of, I've seen everything from people saying this will turn straight people gay to that it will lead to the end of the human race because people will stop having kids because gays will take over. Then you have the geniuses saying bestiality and pedophilia will be legal next. And last the Bible thumpers quoting Leviticus but ignoring the fact that eating pig/shellfish is a terrible sin, shaving your beard and wearing clothes with more than one material is also.

All because they want to have legal rights when it comes to finances, medical decisions and family decisions.

Why would you assume people are afraid? Is it not possible to not want same sex marriaes and not be afrad of them?

Heck, I think the real injustice is forcing anyone to obtain a licesne to marry. It's ridiculous.

"All because they want to have legal rights when it comes to finances, medical decisions and family decisions."

Which has what to do with the definition of marriage? Doesn't civil unions and other legal structures in place take care of these concerns?

Manhattan Buckeye;1415281 wrote:"All because they want to have legal rights when it comes to finances, medical decisions and family decisions."

Which has what to do with the definition of marriage? Doesn't civil unions and other legal structures in place take care of these concerns?

Thats fine. I don't care what its called. It is just a stupid word. My marriage will mean just the same. I made my vows to my wife in front of God. I have said that Churches should have all the rights not to marry people if they choose.also as a libertarian I also don't believe the Government should even be in the marriage business. I guess I just believe that freedom and liberty are more important than a word.

^^^

Agree, just don't think it will stop here. We've gone from tolerance, to acceptance, to some sort of equality, to quite possibly a government mandated equality.

Con_Alma;1415280 wrote:Why would you assume people are afraid? Is it not possible to not want same sex marriaes and not be afrad of them?

Heck, I think the real injustice is forcing anyone to obtain a licesne to marry. It's ridiculous.

I agree with your last point.


Afraid or ignorant. Most people who are against it are against it for religious reasons. Most of those people don't even understand the Bible.

I have yet to see one valid argument that doesn't include God. Gay people are still going to be Gay no matter what happens. All they want is the same legal rights straight people have. If its all about the word Marriage, then make up a new word for it.

Manhattan Buckeye;1415287 wrote:^^^

Agree, just don't think it will stop here. We've gone from tolerance, to acceptance, to some sort of equality, to quite possibly a government mandated equality.

The right answer is for the government to get out of anything regarding marriage. Get rid of the tax incentive and just allow people to give spousal rights to whomever they choose.

pmoney25;1415289 wrote:I agree with your last point.


Afraid or ignorant. Most people who are against it are against it for religious reasons. Most of those people don't even understand the Bible.

I have yet to see one valid argument that doesn't include God. Gay people are still going to be Gay no matter what happens. All they want is the same legal rights straight people have. If its all about the word Marriage, then make up a new word for it.

The new word has already been "made up". It's called civil union.

I'd like to see the automatic benefits and rights be eliminated from marriage and civil unions personally. Let a simple relationship contract define what a couple wants to provide to each other.

It's crazy that as a legal adult I am required to get permission from the State and a license to enter into a contract .

pmoney25;1415290 wrote:The right answer is for the government to get out of anything regarding marriage. Get rid of the tax incentive and just allow people to give spousal rights to whomever they choose.

Amen.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/supreme-court-on-gay-marriage-sure-who-cares,31812/

Manhattan Buckeye;1415277 wrote: My wife and I discussed this matter this morning. I think most people wouldn't have a problem with the civil union definition and tax implications (to the extent it is even favorable). But IMO there is a significant chance it won't stop here. The next target will be to religious organizations that don't accept same-sex marriages - would their tax-exempt status be revoked if they won't perform same-sex "marriages"?

Sound crazy? It might, but so did affirmative action based on sexual orientation 15 years ago.

I'm wondering the exact same thing. For a recent example, let's look at how ObamaKare is forcing Catholics to provide abortive meds/procedures through their religion. Now, will the feds force priests to marry LGBTs in their church? Clearly, their tax-exempt status would be up for revocation if they don't comply with big daddy government.

For those that preach about the separation of church and state, how would you reconcile the state getting into the church's grille?

gut;1415260 wrote:Which gender is being discriminated against? Sex is a protected class, sexual preference is not.

Both, in a way.

Man A is allowed to marry Woman B, but Woman A is not allowed to marry Woman B. Thus, Man A is being granted a right that Woman A is not, and that right is purely based on his gender.

The reverse is also true.

Woman A is allowed to marry Man B, but Man A is not allowed to marry Man B. Thus, Woman A is being granted a right that Man A is not, and that right is purely based on her gender.

We excuse this because of the notion that there are so many people of both genders, but it does still boil down to the idea that a man and woman do not have the same options, and the segregation of their options is purely based on their respective genders.

And while we're at it, let's leave god and any reference to religion out of it. Once you mention god or religion you impose your beliefs.

Ancient Greek culture was very accepting of homosexuality...marriage was still between a man and a woman.

However, based on the writings of Martial and of Juvenal, it appears that it was legal in Ancient Rome, as same-sex ceremonies and ancillaries were described by both men.

In ancient Greece, marriages were often between men in their 30s and women in their early to mid teen years, so I daresay that they hardly set a model of what I think should be acceptable today. And for what it's worth, I don't believe lesbianism was so freely accepted in Greek culture. As such, I'm not sure we can consider that an apples-to-apples comparison.