IAP Political Forum
October 12, 2008, 07:56:29 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the new "IAP 2.0" -- please re-register before continuing to post.
 
   Home   Blog Forum   Help Search Chat Login Register  
Digg This!
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban  (Read 2948 times)
Reaganite
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +15/-460
Posts: 1,303



View Profile WWW
« on: May 15, 2008, 09:34:14 AM »

This will sounds nuts, but this right here is Great for McCain.  He can use this in the coming months to show how a federal Ban is needed. (ya know to bolster his conservative /puke base)

btw, I don't care if gays want to be together and have unions or whatever and I could care less if they even get married by some court.  You sexual preference is non of my business as long as you keep it in your bedroom and its a decision by two consenting adults.

On the other hand what I do have an issue with is if gays can get married in order to get access to health care, child custody and such then why cant two roomates who are not sleeping together?   Why cant two friends that don't live together and kissed once when they were 17 get "married" in order to get a break in taxes and buy a two family house together where they can share health care expenses?

Its a slippery slope....

I guess time will tell but if you get married and MA or CA and move to TX where gay marriage is banned you have no real right and cant get divorced heh you would have to BOTH move back to CA or MA for a period of 18 month to legally become resident of that state to be divorced "Legally"
---------------

SAN FRANCISCO - The California Supreme Court has overturned a ban on gay marriage, paving the way for California to become the second state where gay and lesbian residents can marry.

The justices released the 4-3 decision Thursday, saying that domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.

"Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest," the court said in a majority decision
Logged

MY PREDICTION BASED McCain 291 - Obama 247.

Sorry but the math is just not wrong.... Sad
Patton
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +97/-137
Posts: 1,750


NObama '08


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: May 15, 2008, 09:42:08 AM »

Why can't an adult, who has accumulated wealth and benefits decide who those benefits go to?

"Marriage" or "civil union" is not to be entered into lightly......same rules apply for division of wealth upon dissolution....so it goes far beyond  "two roomates who are not sleeping together?   Why cant two friends that don't live together and kissed once when they were 17 get "married" in order to get a break in taxes and buy a two family house together where they can share health care expenses?

You get to pick who benefits from your death or illness....someone gay should have the same right.
Logged



The Obama/Pelosi/Reid Party has started!
Abraxas
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +206/-201
Posts: 3,913


"You do not speak for the rest"


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: May 15, 2008, 10:58:35 AM »

This will sounds nuts, but this right here is Great for McCain.  He can use this in the coming months to show how a federal Ban is needed. (ya know to bolster his conservative /puke base)

And enforce the fact that he is a flip-flopper?

VOTING RECORD
- Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
- Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)


The Democrats would say he is pandering... and they would be right.

Quote from: Reaganite
btw, I don't care if gays want to be together and have unions or whatever and I could care less if they even get married by some court.  You sexual preference is non of my business as long as you keep it in your bedroom and its a decision by two consenting adults.

On the other hand what I do have an issue with is if gays can get married in order to get access to health care, child custody and such then why cant two roomates who are not sleeping together?   Why cant two friends that don't live together and kissed once when they were 17 get "married" in order to get a break in taxes and buy a two family house together where they can share health care expenses?

Its a slippery slope....

Why can't straight people do that? Why are only gay people going to abuse the benefits of marriage?

You know what? Why does government have to be in marriage at all?
Logged

Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like its from Neptune.
- Noam Chomsky

... you can almost see the high water mark - that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
- Hunter S. Thompson
freethinker
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +98/-203
Posts: 2,257



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: May 15, 2008, 02:39:01 PM »

 They call him flipper, flipper,
 no one that you see
can flip flop like he... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeBw28tX5Nw
« Last Edit: May 15, 2008, 02:41:05 PM by freethinker » Logged

NO Third Term For Bush
illy
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +94/-105
Posts: 960


illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: May 15, 2008, 05:36:22 PM »

What does it really matter if two people get married but don't have a relationship? I know some married couples who don't have much of a relationship anymore. Should we make them divorce if they're not having sex with each other?

My philosophy is that It's none of my business what goes on behind closed doors (even nothing is going on behind the doors). And as Patton points out, it does come down to an issue of property rights. We should not infringe on someone's right to share what's theirs with someone based on what that someone's gender is.



Abraxas, while I think it's likely that McCain was just pandering, it should be noted that support for a ban on gay marriage isn't necessarily the same thing as support for a constitutional amendment. I've met a few social conservatives that favor the idea of a ban, but would rather not amend the constitution for it.
Logged

Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
tadpol
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +27/-19
Posts: 291



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: May 15, 2008, 06:31:50 PM »

The State of California backs Bart Simpson against Juliet Capulet, stenchblossoms smell worse than roses.
Logged
Peisithanatos
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +28/-51
Posts: 450



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: May 15, 2008, 07:11:02 PM »

the idea of punishing singles with taxes goes against the core of liberalism. We soon shall be entering the era of the emancipation of single people. Imagine the day when a single person is elected the President. Imagine the time when single people will be able to openly practise their lifestyle. Singularly sitting in a restaurant without being booed. When it will be possible to wear the "I'm single and I'm pround of it" t-shirt. Single Pride Movement. Possibly even Single Power paramilitary. Nowadays, state discrimination of single people makes hatred possible. WHile it is signle who people are the prominent intellectuals and spirituals and blah. Look what they did with Ralph Nader. Bastards.
Logged

a big pile of bs covered with a thick layer of sugar
SoulWrangler
Newbie
*

Karma: +2/-5
Posts: 15


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: May 16, 2008, 06:05:56 AM »

Quote from: Reaganite
On the other hand what I do have an issue with is if gays can get married in order to get access to health care, child custody and such then why cant two roomates who are not sleeping together?   Why cant two friends that don't live together and kissed once when they were 17 get "married" in order to get a break in taxes and buy a two family house together where they can share health care expenses?

How does this at all apply? Why is the problem with the legality of marriage with SSM and not with the federal subsidizing of health care and other benefits through frivilous expenditures such as SS? I dont see a problem in the marriage aspect. Much moreso SS, Medicare and Medicaid.
Logged
Toaster
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +49/-129
Posts: 739


Burnin' for you


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: May 16, 2008, 06:28:26 AM »

Civil unions do not have the same legal rights as marriage.


Quote
The Difference Between Marriage and Civil Unions
From Kathy Belge,

You hear the politicians saying it all the time. "I support Civil Unions, but not gay marriage." What exactly does this mean? Some even say they support equal rights for gays and lesbians, but not gay marriage. Is this possible? And why do gays and lesbians want marriage so badly when they can have civil unions?


First of all, What is Marriage? When people marry, they tend to do so for reasons of love and commitment. But marriage is also a legal status, which comes with rights and responsibilities. Marriage establishes a legal kinship between you and your spouse. It is a relationship that is recognized across cultures, countries and religions.


What is a Civil Union? Civil Unions exist in only a handful of places: Vermont, New Jersey and Connecticut. California and Oregon have domestic partnership laws that offer many of the same rights as civil unions.

Vermont civil unions were created in 2000 to provide legal protections to gays and lesbians in relationships in that state because gay marriage is not an option. The protections do not extend beyond the border of Vermont and no federal protections are included with a Civil Union. Civil Unions offer some of the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, but only on a state level.


What about Domestic partnership? Some states and municipalities have domestic partnership registries, but no domestic partnership law is the same. Some, like the recently passed California domestic partnership law comes with many rights and responsibilities. Others, like the one in Washingtonoffer very few benefits to the couple.


What are some of the differences between Civil Unions and Gay Marriage?


Recognition in other states: Even though each state has its own laws around marriage, if someone is married in one state and moves to another, their marriage is legally recognized. For example, Oregon marriage law applies to people 17 and over. In Washington state, the couple must be 18 to wed. However, Washington will recognize the marriage of two 17 year olds from Oregon who move there. This is not the case with Civil Unions. If someone has a Civil Union in Vermont, that union is not recognized in any other state. As a matter of fact, two states, Connecticut and Georgia, have ruled that they do not have to recognize civil unions performed in Vermont, because their states have no such legal category. As gay marriages become legal in other states, this status may change.


Dissolving a Civil Union v. Divorce:

Vermont has no residency requirement for Civil Unions. That means two people from any other state or country can come there and have a civil union ceremony. If the couple breaks up and wishes to dissolve the union, one of them must be a resident of Vermont for one year before the Civil Union can be dissolved in family court. Married couples can divorce in any state they reside, no matter where they were married.


Immigration:

A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.


Taxes:

Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.


Benefits:

The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.


But can't a lawyer set all this up for gay and lesbian couples?

No. A lawyer can set up some things like durable power of attorney, wills and medical power of attorney. There are several problems with this, however.


1. It costs thousands of dollars in legal fees. A simple marriage license, which usually costs under $100 would cover all the same rights and benefits.


2. Any of these can be challenged in court. As a matter of fact, more wills are challenged than not. In the case of wills, legal spouses always have more legal power than any other family member.


3. Marriage laws are universal. If someone's husband or wife is injured in an accident, all you need to do is show up and say you're his or her spouse. You will not be questioned. If you show up at the hospital with your legal paperwork, the employees may not know what to do with you. If you simply say, "He's my husband," you will immediately be taken to your spouse's side.

The government ought not to be in the marriage business.

If the church will marry gays, that is their right - we have religious freedom in the USA.

If the church won't, that is also their right.

I can't see religions being forced to marry those outside their religion (despite the inevitable straw men that get brought up) and I don't see how this opens the door to marrying farm animals, etc - as animals can't sign contracts, can they? As far as polygamy, hey, if your religion allows it and you actually want more than one woman nagging you, be my guest.
Logged

DISCUSSION, n.
A method of confirming others in their errors.
 

The Devil\\'s Dictionary
neue regel
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +58/-272
Posts: 1,721



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: May 16, 2008, 06:38:46 AM »

Quote
The government ought not to be in the marriage business.

It is the government that sets the rules on tax exemptions. It will be the government that will force health care companies to cover the 'significant other.' Government will force all states to recognize marriage.


Government is in the dead center of it.
Logged
Abraxas
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +206/-201
Posts: 3,913


"You do not speak for the rest"


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: May 16, 2008, 08:52:15 AM »

Companies should offer incentives to whomever they want without federal pressure.

If a HC company only wants to take care of straight couples, let them. They will suffer or reap the benefits. And if a HC company wants to offer it to gay couples, let them. They will suffer or reap the benefits as well.

It's NOT a federal issue and it doesn't have to be one.
Logged

Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like its from Neptune.
- Noam Chomsky

... you can almost see the high water mark - that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
- Hunter S. Thompson
neue regel
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +58/-272
Posts: 1,721



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: May 16, 2008, 09:45:12 AM »

Quote
Companies should offer incentives to whomever they want without federal pressure.

If a HC company only wants to take care of straight couples, let them. They will suffer or reap the benefits. And if a HC company wants to offer it to gay couples, let them. They will suffer or reap the benefits as well.

It's NOT a federal issue and it doesn't have to be one.

What do you do when the ACLU steps in, sues the company, and wins? The courts make it their business to write laws all the time. The courts wrote their own law in the subject title of this very thread.
Logged
Irwin
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +45/-79
Posts: 1,035


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: May 16, 2008, 09:53:42 AM »

Quote
Companies should offer incentives to whomever they want without federal pressure.

If a HC company only wants to take care of straight couples, let them. They will suffer or reap the benefits. And if a HC company wants to offer it to gay couples, let them. They will suffer or reap the benefits as well.

It's NOT a federal issue and it doesn't have to be one.

What do you do when the ACLU steps in, sues the company, and wins? The courts make it their business to write laws all the time. The courts wrote their own law in the subject title of this very thread.

Courts "writing" law is not a fact, it is political spin, standard issue, Republican opinion.

If you don't like the ruling, you say it is legislation from the bench, if you do, it is good solid Constitutional thinking. Standard partisan crapola.
Logged
Abraxas
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +206/-201
Posts: 3,913


"You do not speak for the rest"


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: May 16, 2008, 09:58:05 AM »

The rejection of a gay marriage ban is based on the constitution.

Making companies respect marriage isn't.
Logged

Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like its from Neptune.
- Noam Chomsky

... you can almost see the high water mark - that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
- Hunter S. Thompson
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.4 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC
Joomla Bridge by JoomlaHacks.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.224 seconds with 27 queries.