Supreme Court Declares Same-Sex Marriage Legal In All 50 States

[homewa]

You took it literally.

There is a benefit for being married: Someone's there to make your wishes known when you can't.

As somebody who has been married, I can say this, definitively. A spouse does not always share your wishes, and sometimes they lie... A spouse should not be the one making all of the decisions for you, if you have not explicitly stated as such.

 

[RjThoughts]

As somebody who has been married, I can say this, definitively. A spouse does not always share your wishes, and sometimes they lie... A spouse should not be the one making all of the decisions for you, if you have not explicitly stated as such.

Ours are written down, confirmed by a lawyer and Notary Public.
Our son has been told of what to do if both of us are compassionate.

And we have copies of this at our family lawyer's office, in a safe at home, at my sister's, and at my sister-in-law's home as well.

There is no chance of our wishes being misinterpreted

 

[Sean Renaud]

As somebody who has been married, I can say this, definitively. A spouse does not always share your wishes, and sometimes they lie... A spouse should not be the one making all of the decisions for you, if you have not explicitly stated as such.

Then who should and on what basis? I'm not saying spouses are perfect mind you but it can't be just anybody who walks in off the street claiming to friends or family and nothing against most of my family but if someone has to make a call for me I'd rather my family only make it if nobody else is available.

 

[mark_j]

Yes it IS that way. I'm saying that I don't believe it should be. I think I should be able to designate who gets to make decisions on my healthcare, regardless of marital status. I think that households should receive equal tax breaks if they have equal number of people in them. I think that those who are qualified to raise children should be allowed to adopt again regardless of marital status. I think that the government should not be using a religious institution to determine these things.

Except that you are forgetting that marriage is a legal contract between the parties involved... therefore the state (or feds) have a right to intervene. Beside not all marriages are religiously sanctioned. The Justice of the Peace or the county clerk have no real stake in it other than record keeping.

You can do that, but if there's no documentation, it would cause a quagmire of problems. Now, if you're married and there's no documentation, those decisions revert to the spouse.

Which is exactly why the state is involved. Marriage Before God (or whatever new age shit you want to quote) is fine but to have legal rights that come with said union (or contract if you will) required a central record keeping.

 

[homewa]

Ours are written down, confirmed by a lawyer and Notary Public.
Our son has been told of what to do if both of us are compassionate.

And we have copies of this at our family lawyer's office, in a safe at home, at my sister's, and at my sister-in-law's home as well.

There is no chance of our wishes being misinterpreted

That's good, but again, that's a benefit to being married. If I was living with a close friend, and we were not married, and did not intend to, but I felt that they represented my wishes, it would be entirely possible (and what frequently happens) for my blood relatives to show up, contest my wishes, and win in court. This has happened, and continues to happen frequently.

This is an issue, because we are giving people of a certain religious condition specific benefits over others, and we should not be doing that.

Then who should and on what basis? I'm not saying spouses are perfect mind you but it can't be just anybody who walks in off the street claiming to friends or family and nothing against most of my family but if someone has to make a call for me I'd rather my family only make it if nobody else is available.

Whoever you legally dictate, there should be a process (like currently getting a marriage certificate) to dictate who is responsible to carry out your wishes, or who you wish to have inherit your funding. I'm not saying that we should get rid of a legal system completely. Just that we shouldn't have it wrapped up in a religious ceremony.

Except that you are forgetting that marriage is a legal contract between the parties involved... therefore the state (or feds) have a right to intervene. Beside not all marriages are religiously sanctioned. The Justice of the Peace or the county clerk have no real stake in it other than record keeping.

I'm arguing that such a legal contract shouldn't be wrapped up in whom I am fucking. Why should the person I am fucking be he one that's making those decisions as a matter of course? We should still have a union type agreement, but it shouldn't have anything to do with sex (unless of course the people involved want it to), nor religion.

Which is exactly why the state is involved. Marriage Before God (or whatever new age shit you want to quote) is fine but to have legal rights that come with said union (or contract if you will) required a central record keeping.

Yes, which means that any state regulation of marriage inherently violates the establishment clause because it favors some religions over others.

 

[mark_j]

That's good, but again, that's a benefit to being married. If I was living with a close friend, and we were not married, and did not intend to, but I felt that they represented my wishes, it would be entirely possible (and what frequently happens) for my blood relatives to show up, contest my wishes, and win in court. This has happened, and continues to happen frequently.

Isn't that what a legal contract, will or power of attorney is for? To prevent questions regarding disposition of the estate or other such legal decisions.

This is an issue, because we are giving people of a certain religious condition specific benefits over others, and we should not be doing that.

Name them and explain how this is so..

Whoever you legally dictate, there should be a process (like currently getting a marriage certificate) to dictate who is responsible to carry out your wishes, or who you wish to have inherit your funding. I'm not saying that we should get rid of a legal system completely. Just that we shouldn't have it wrapped up in a religious ceremony.

Last I checked the state doesn't care what religious (or not) affiliation you have when you enter into a marriage contract. That isn't even a question that is asked on the application last I recall. Also, I don't think, as far as the state is concerned, who performs the ceremony (and whether they have any religious affiliation or not) as long as the person who performs it is licensed under state law.

I'm arguing that such a legal contract shouldn't be wrapped up in whom I am fucking. Why should the person I am fucking be he one that's making those decisions as a matter of course? We should still have a union type agreement, but it shouldn't have anything to do with sex (unless of course the people involved want it to), nor religion.

Where on the application or certificate does it say any of those things or even asks that?

Yes, which means that any state regulation of marriage inherently violates the establishment clause because it favors some religions over others.

How so? What religion is favored over another?

 

[homewa]

Isn't that what a legal contract, will or power of attorney is for? To prevent questions regarding disposition of the estate or other such legal decisions.

Powers of attorney are regularly thrown out when contested by family members. That has happened multiple times against the wishes of those who wrote those documents. Wills can be challenged too, marriage contracts as well.

Name them and explain how this is so..

Any religion that does not include marriage, any religion that includes temporary marriage, any religion that includes polygamy, any religion that has a different procedure for divorce is penalized by this. The religions that are close to the state are enfranchised and then perceived to be what is acceptable. Exactly what the establishment clause was intended to avoid.

Last I checked the state doesn't care what religious (or not) affiliation you have when you enter into a marriage contract. That isn't even a question that is asked on the application last I recall. Also, I don't think, as far as the state is concerned, who performs the ceremony (and whether they have any religious affiliation or not) as long as the person who performs it is licensed under state law.

That isn't the point, we have a law that depends on the recognition of a pseudo-religious ceremony, bad news all around. I am for the state not being involved in marriage. If a religion wants to let somebody marry their cat, or six wives, or whatever, cool. I am for the state supporting a form of union that has nothing to do with marriage.

Where on the application or certificate does it say any of those things or even asks that?

If I legally marry a friend, to get the benefits, it is fraudulent, it could be annulled, and will almost definitely get tossed out in court.

How so? What religion is favored over another?

Already touched on this. Religions that match the state's definition of marriage are favored, others are disenfranchised

 

[Bramblethorn]

All this ruling did was give special rights to gays,

Rights so "special" that ninetywhatever percent of the population already had them.

The only rights that have been lost by the religious community (or any others that oppose this ruling) is the right to express an opinion that is contrary to what some want to hear, without being screamed at and called names and OMG you have an opinion that doesn't match mine, you're not allowed to say that.

The lack of self-awareness in this sentence is hilarious. Free speech does not mean "nobody is allowed to criticise me for what I say", that's the OPPOSITE of free speech. Queer folk have been called horrible things for longer than anybody here has been alive, but as soon as that starts to become a two-way street the homophobes start bleating "help, help, I'm being oppressed".

They never lost the right to express an opinion without being called names in return because that right never existed. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, it never promised freedom from being considered an asshole.

Ask that pizza shop in Indiana what happened when they expressed an opinion that wasn't popular. They didn't even have to DO anything, they just had to give an opinion that didn't match what some people wanted to hear and their livelihood was pretty much over.

...

That pizza shop in Indiana is doing pretty well too, last I heard--despite the ignorant and intolerant ones.

That's some Olympic-grade cognitive dissonance you've got going there. Saved me the effort of a rebuttal. Yeah, they closed for eight days, re-opened, and pulled in something like $800k worth of donations from their fellow homophobes.

...so, basically your complaint is that people who say negative, hurtful things about homosexuals might have negative, hurtful things said about them in return? While making a profit from the deal?

That's terrible. My heart bleeds for those poor, poor people. And I thought Matt Shepard had it bad!

I am 100% against gay marriage (and by the way, do you HAVE to be gay to participate in same-sex marriage?

Nope! Open to bisexual and pansexual people too. Also to heterosexual transgender people whose paperwork might have the wrong gender on it.

And, sure, if straight or asexual people decide they want a same-sex marriage, ain't none of my business.

 

[mark_j]

Powers of attorney are regularly thrown out when contested by family members. That has happened multiple times against the wishes of those who wrote those documents. Wills can be challenged too, marriage contracts as well.

So what are we exactly talking about here? Immediate medical decisions or disposition of the estate after the fact?

In medical decisions, priority is usually given to current legal spouse and/or surviving children, and/or immediate blood relatives. Without a clear medical directive, yes, you can run into conflicts. Even without such a document those decisions are still based on next of kin.

As far as the estate, if there is no clear directive or surviving legal spouse/children it goes into probate and the courts decide. Yes this can and does get challenged all the time.

Any religion that does not include marriage, any religion that includes temporary marriage, any religion that includes polygamy, any religion that has a different procedure for divorce is penalized by this. The religions that are close to the state are enfranchised and then perceived to be what is acceptable. Exactly what the establishment clause was intended to avoid.

No it is based on whether or not any of the above meets the legal definition of marriage as defined by laws of the presiding jurisdiction. Most of what you mentioned above would not be legal definitions of marriage in most states. Divorce procedures would have to follow the legal definitions as far as division of property/childcare etc. The state doesn't care what a particular religion thinks about divorce as long as it meets the requirement of the state.

That isn't the point, we have a law that depends on the recognition of a pseudo-religious ceremony, bad news all around. I am for the state not being involved in marriage. If a religion wants to let somebody marry their cat, or six wives, or whatever, cool. I am for the state supporting a form of union that has nothing to do with marriage.

So who is going to define the laws if not the state?

If I legally marry a friend, to get the benefits, it is fraudulent, it could be annulled, and will almost definitely get tossed out in court.

Right, because it's against the law to do so.

Already touched on this. Religions that match the state's definition of marriage are favored, others are disenfranchised

Bullshit.. If my Uncle Bob worships trees, performs marriage ceremonies in accordance with state guidelines and is licensed by the state to do so, they don't care whether Uncle Bob worships trees or not. Nor do they care what I believe as long as the presiding official has a license and I understand what me and my partner are agreeing to.

 

[homewa]

So what are we exactly talking about here? Immediate medical decisions or disposition of the estate after the fact?

In medical decisions, priority is usually given to current legal spouse and/or surviving children, and/or immediate blood relatives. Without a clear medical directive, yes, you can run into conflicts. Even without such a document those decisions are still based on next of kin.

As far as the estate, if there is no clear directive or surviving legal spouse/children it goes into probate and the courts decide. Yes this can and does get challenged all the time.

That depends on your state.

No it is based on whether or not any of the above meets the legal definition of marriage as defined by laws of the presiding jurisdiction. Most of what you mentioned above would not be legal definitions of marriage in most states. Divorce procedures would have to follow the legal definitions as far as division of property/childcare etc. The state doesn't care what a particular religion thinks about divorce as long as it meets the requirement of the state.

Which means that LEGALLY the state has said that certain marriages are more valid than others, yes?

So who is going to define the laws if not the state?

There should be no laws around marriage. All of the things we now ascribe to marriage legally could be done outside of marriage using legal contracts.

Right, because it's against the law to do so.

But it shouldn't be. I should be able to have as many benefits as a married person if I am single and living in a household of similar size. If my friend depends on me financially, in what way, as far as finances are concerned is it different from marriage. In the end, that is punishing those who don't get married, or are opposed to it.

Bullshit.. If my Uncle Bob worships trees, performs marriage ceremonies in accordance with state guidelines and is licensed by the state to do so, they don't care whether Uncle Bob worships trees or not. Nor do they care what I believe as long as the presiding official has a license and I understand what me and my partner are agreeing to.

But they do care if your Uncle Bob marries six wives, or if your Uncle Bob performs a divorce ceremony according to his religion and then marries again, or if your Uncle Bob's faith has short term contract marriages. There is no way to make a law regarding marriage that does not make a statement about what the government thinks marriage is. Why do you think there was all this fighting at the SCOTUS? If the government's marriage wasn't a statement of validity, why would anybody fucking care. They do, because it is, which is why the contracts for living together, for medical care, for childrearing, should be handled outside of marriage in a civil, and non religious manner.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I don't think Homewa is wrong so much as most of us are fairly satisfied with the (as of last week) set up and this is a lot of work to go through to untangle centuries of stuff. And we've got other issues. Can we work on that paid vacation thing now?

 

[Cyann]

I have been married. There is a benefit to being married. Say I'm living with my friend, and he and I share expenses, but we aren't married, we aren't sexually involved at all. I will make less than my married friends, despite having the same exact living situation. That's a benefit, plain and simple.

If I have a dear friend who I want to make medical decisions, instead of my wife, but I am still married to her. Then if I become non-responsive there is a VERY good chance that the courts will ignore my friend and let my spouse make decisions for me.

Those are benefits... If there's no benefit to being married why did homosexual folks have to fight for it? There are clearly benefits. I'm arguing that being married shouldn't be a legal thing at all. Tax breaks should have to do with the number of people depending on your income living in your house, who makes decisions for your care and can visit you, should depend on your choices.

I agree with the last paragraph. The reality is gays have never been discriminated against with regard to marriage and they've always had the same rights all of us have had--the right to marry (an opposite sex partner). The only ones who have been (and continue to be) discriminated against are single people.

BTW my tax situation improved drastically once my divorce was final. I'm not seeing any advantages to being married, but that's just me.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I agree with the last paragraph. The reality is gays have never been discriminated against with regard to marriage and they've always had the same rights all of us have had--the right to marry (an opposite sex partner). The only ones who have been (and continue to be) discriminated against are single people.

BTW my tax situation improved drastically once my divorce was final. I'm not seeing any advantages to being married, but that's just me.

No, the rest of us had the right to marry the ones we loved. They were discriminated against you can keep saying it but it's still bullshit, still illegal under the Constitution, still wrong morally by any rational standard. Single people are not discriminated against except not being able to find someone to spend our lives with if we so choose.

 

[fma20fma]

hi

All other supreme courts of all over the world countries must follow suit and declare same sex marriage as legal,and stop interfering in personal life.

 

[Sean Renaud]

All other supreme courts of all over the world countries must follow suit and declare same sex marriage as legal,and stop interfering in personal life.

We have that kind of power?!

Sean Renaud V Pickled Cucumbers a.k.a. Pickles

I have been wronged, the taste never goes away even if you pick them off, they linger on the breath of females everywhere, they look like little turds floating in turd water! They must be destroyed! Hear my case Judge Scalia! You know your heart you must do the right thing!

 

[fma20fma]

hi

We have that kind of power?!

Sean Renaud V Pickled Cucumbers a.k.a. Pickles

I have been wronged, the taste never goes away even if you pick them off, they linger on the breath of females everywhere, they look like little turds floating in turd water! They must be destroyed! Hear my case Judge Scalia! You know your heart you must do the right thing!

a beginning has been made.now it will not be long before it spreads. What kinda ferrdom and democracy are we talking about when a small bunch of people peep into pvt lives and tyr to impose their will?

 

[about_average]

The reality is gays have never been discriminated against with regard to marriage and they've always had the same rights all of us have had--the right to marry (an opposite sex partner).

Hard to believe that people actually think that that is any sort of rational argument.

 

[Sean Renaud]

a beginning has been made.now it will not be long before it spreads. What kinda ferrdom and democracy are we talking about when a small bunch of people peep into pvt lives and tyr to impose their will?

I'll worry about it when I'm finished with my Final Solution for pickles. . .no seriously what is that fluid they use, I've tried saline solution, salt water baths, mocha and caramel. I need to know how to create them before I can destroy them all!

http://i1236.photobucket.com/albums/ff450/AedonGawen/evil-laugh-o.gif​

 

[mark_j]

That depends on your state.

Of course. No argument there. Each state is going to have a standard under which these rules apply.

Which means that LEGALLY the state has said that certain marriages are more valid than others, yes?

Not really. What we are talking about is does the marriage meet a certain definition in regards to state/federal benefits, taxes, IRS rules and divorce proceedings for legal disillusionment of the marriage contract.

There should be no laws around marriage. All of the things we now ascribe to marriage legally could be done outside of marriage using legal contracts.

Maybe so. But are all of those hodge-podge laws going to be recognized in all fifty states? Chances are they're not. Thus the idea of a basic standard under federal guidelines as to what the marriage contract is. Saves a whole lot of trouble in the end.

Divorce rules are an entirely different kettle of fish.

But it shouldn't be. I should be able to have as many benefits as a married person if I am single and living in a household of similar size.

But that's the way it is. Marriage is a basic "one size fits all" contract as far as the government is concerned. If you don't like the rules as they are now then get the rules changed. That is what the gay rights people did.

If my friend depends on me financially, in what way, as far as finances are concerned is it different from marriage.

Because, with the exception of child support, you are under no obligation to continue that financial arrangement.

In the end, that is punishing those who don't get married, or are opposed to it.

Yep. It sure is. You want to reap the benefits you have to play by the rules or get the rules changed.

But they do care if your Uncle Bob marries six wives,

Polygamy is illegal..

or if your Uncle Bob performs a divorce ceremony according to his religion and then marries again,

If he hasn't followed the legal guidelines of the jurisdiction then the divorce is not legal and he's just committed bigamy..

or if your Uncle Bob's faith has short term contract marriages.

Fraudulent marriages are illegal..

There is no way to make a law regarding marriage that does not make a statement about what the government thinks marriage is.

No shit sherlock.. but show me where religion has anything to do with it. The government doesn't care one whit about the ceremony, what they or you believe or who did it as long as they were licensed to do so. As far as the government is concerned, as long as you follow state and federal guidelines, they don't care..

Why do you think there was all this fighting at the SCOTUS?

Federal recognition at the IRS/benefit level.. Uniformity of the law. There were too many states that would allow same sex marriages and too many who would not recognize them. Plus you had the problem of federal rules that wouldn't recognize same sex for IRS/benefit purposes no matter what the state law said. Thus the court ruling. Either you have one standard for everyone in this regard or you don't.

If the government's marriage wasn't a statement of validity, why would anybody fucking care.

Uniformity at the federal level for the purpose of IRS/Benefits. Otherwise nobody really gives a shit.

They do, because it is, which is why the contracts for living together, for medical care, for childrearing, should be handled outside of marriage in a civil, and non religious manner.

They do because it provides a uniform code... Otherwise you end up with a byzantine mess that could vary widely from state to state.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

The lack of self-awareness in this sentence is hilarious. Free speech does not mean "nobody is allowed to criticise me for what I say", that's the OPPOSITE of free speech. Queer folk have been called horrible things for longer than anybody here has been alive, but as soon as that starts to become a two-way street the homophobes start bleating "help, help, I'm being oppressed".

They never lost the right to express an opinion without being called names in return because that right never existed. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, it never promised freedom from being considered an asshole. - Bramblethorn

Totally fucking true. What's been on my mind for a while, in fact....."They want to respond to my bashing by condemning it....that's not fair!" Bunch of babies.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Day 6 and no black helicopters and jack booted Feds have come to make me get Gay Married!

This....so fucking true. Maybe someday they'll realize that Obama's not a Muslim from Kenya, either. I'm not holding my breath, however.

 

[BotanyBoy]

That isn't the point, we have a law that depends on the recognition of a pseudo-religious ceremony, bad news all around.

Doesn't have to be and really isn't......marriage is a legal status, it has fuck all to do with religion in this country.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Personally, I believe in natural law, but I don't believe that it comes from the Judeo-Christian God. I believe in a natural, harmonious order and balance to the Cosmos and I believe that some rights are innate....including, yes, that pesky right to pursue happiness....shockingly progressive idea at its time, eh? Even now, people have a hard time grasping that this includes "others", such as the LGBTQ, minorities, women, men, etc.

In other words, even in a democracy, some things should not be up for a vote...particularly respecting personal freedom. There's this other concept that I follow....the rule of law. You might have heard of it.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Personally, I believe in natural law, but I don't believe that it comes from the Judeo-Christian God. I believe in a natural, harmonious order and balance to the Cosmos and I believe that some rights are innate....including, yes, that pesky right to pursue happiness....shockingly progressive idea at its time, eh? Even now, people have a hard time grasping that this includes "others", such as the LGBTQ, minorities, women, men, etc.

In other words, even in a democracy, some things should not be up for a vote...particularly respecting personal freedom. There's this other concept that I follow....the rule of law. You might have heard of it.

Fundamentally in a society each and every little thing is up for a vote whether we like it or not. That's just how life function. However when it comes to any group that prides itself on laws not emotions the laws have to fit together with each other or be changed. In the case of gay rights the 14th settled this over a century ago as does Article IV. Either way the only way around this is to "fix" the Constitution because we specifically set our laws to prevent the masses from bullying around minorities just because they could.

 

[homewa]

Doesn't have to be and really isn't......marriage is a legal status, it has fuck all to do with religion in this country.

Yes, so why are we clinging to a legal definition based on a religious ceremony, why do cling to
"person who am I fucking"?