• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Appeals court: Denying federal benefits to same-sex couples is unconstitutional

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
The Federal government shouldnt have ANY benefits for couples. It should not be involved in marriage at all.
I agree that the FEDERAL government should not be involved but the STATES must for all the obvious reasons.
Having said that, the Federal laws pertaining to the States regarding marriage has to be unconstitutional. The recognition of the States marriage laws by the Federales is also a must... Also the Feds can't say States don't have to recognize same sex marriage laws but recognize say... Driver licenses... as folks move through the States.

We are finally getting close to SCOTUS on at least one element of that... Probably 2013.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,840
3,636
126
marriage is a religious rite
And we have both freedom of religion and freedom from religion. That means if two gay people want to marry for religious reasons the state has no say in it. The state can't impose a Christian religious definition on gay people who have their own Christian or non Christian religious belief differing from other Christians. Christians nor any other religion gets to define marriage for the state. Religious freedom allows a couple to define it any way they want gender wise and that is fine because the law will rule that preventing that would be illegal gender discrimination.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
And we have both freedom of religion and freedom from religion. That means if two gay people want to marry for religious reasons the state has no say in it. The state can't impose a Christian religious definition on gay people who have their own Christian or non Christian religious belief differing from other Christians. Christians nor any other religion gets to define marriage for the state. Religious freedom allows a couple to define it any way they want gender wise and that is fine because the law will rule that preventing that would be illegal gender discrimination.
Actually it's kind of backward. Gay people can marry in religious ceremonies in several major churches, but the secular state refuses to recognize those marriages.

IMO the primary opposition to gay marriage is not religious, but traditionalist. I too have a great affection for American tradition; I just disagree that the majority has a moral right to set behavior for the minority to preserve tradition. Tradition enforced by law eventually becomes oppression.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
oh really... I summarized it very well......this has always been about one man and one woman and the combinations,....such as man and man...woman and woman ....man and woman.....show me exactly where there are any other combinations being represented in any court in the United states......
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/25/sister-wives-explained-a-fundamentalist-mormon-polygamy-primer/

Clearly people in the US want to have more than one wife. But since people are so bigoted against them they would be laughed out of court.

What would you propose the government offer instead as a contract to determine line of succession, custody rights, hospital visitation rights, shared benefit rights, joint tax filing rights or any of the other things that a legal marriage contract deals with now?
Why should joint tax filing exist? Why should shared benefits exist? Its called a will and a health care proxy. Custody would revert to biological parents, or I believe can be stated in a will if both biological parents are dead.

So every time a couple breaks up, they should go to trial to determine who gets to keep what of their shared possessions or who gets custody of the children? If someone dies, do all their assets go to the government, or do they need to have a will specifically set up to determine next of kin? When a couple decides that one of them will work and another will raise the children, how do we determine if the one who raised the children is eligible for benefits of the working partner?

We need government involved in the business of "marriage." We just don't need to use one religion's definition of the word to apply to all of them.
How does a bf/gf divide their assets now if they live together and break up.

The bolded is really the only valid reason for the government to be involved in marriage. To protect what is largely a non-working woman from the possibility of her husband abandoning her. Funny that this is exactly the kind of relationship that liberals set out to eliminate.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Second, why do you think Japan is not religious.... Their religion, generally, is a sorta mix of many and they do support all religious beliefs... even Christianity. The majority practice what they call Shinbutsu or like that.
Right, I dont really understand eastern religious traditions. But it is clearly not Christian. And I was really trying to address comments like this

And we have both freedom of religion and freedom from religion. That means if two gay people want to marry for religious reasons the state has no say in it. The state can't impose a Christian religious definition on gay people who have their own Christian or non Christian religious belief differing from other Christians. Christians nor any other religion gets to define marriage for the state.
Marriage being between a man and a woman is not just a Christian definition.

Religious freedom allows a couple to define it any way they want gender wise and that is fine because the law will rule that preventing that would be illegal gender discrimination.
But religious freedom doesnt allow someone to define it numbers wise, or species wise, or incest wise?

What makes gender special in allowing someone to define what marriage is?
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,861
2
0
Actually it's kind of backward. Gay people can marry in religious ceremonies in several major churches, but the secular state refuses to recognize those marriages.

IMO the primary opposition to gay marriage is not religious, but traditionalist. I too have a great affection for American tradition; I just disagree that the majority has a moral right to set behavior for the minority to preserve tradition. Tradition enforced by law eventually becomes oppression.
1) Aren't the reason(s) that the secular states are refusing to recognize SS marriage due to interference/influence by religious groups or individuals with political influence?

2) Agreed
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Right, I dont really understand eastern religious traditions. But it is clearly not Christian. And I was really trying to address comments like this



Marriage being between a man and a woman is not just a Christian definition.



But religious freedom doesnt allow someone to define it numbers wise, or species wise, or incest wise?

What makes gender special in allowing someone to define what marriage is?
Ok, fair enough.

As you'd no doubt by now realize there are a few ways to view this marriage issue.
You can view it in context of the Constitution, Religion and how each view marriage here and everywhere else and I suppose Tradition currently here and from whence we originally came from and elsewhere too.

We can start with what is the highest authority in the USA regarding Rights and if Marriage is among them... and we know the Constitution is and Marriage is included as a Fundamental Right... We know the States follow the Constitution which in this case gives the States (currently) the power to define what Marriage is. Some States say it is two humans and some say it is two humans of a different sex. That is all that matters really. But we can look to what Religion says too because some wish to bring into the Constitution a Religious meaning to most everything but that is not how the Constitution is set up mainly because there are many religions and the law must apply equally to all citizens and why the Federal laws must either be silent regarding the State's definitions or cause uniformity and I don't think the Constitution permits that. It would require an Amendment, in my opinion.
Tradition is a more acceptable notion. Traditionally what was marriage? States have adopted that originally as the obvious definition.... I say obviously because until recently there was no language defining it in State law. Society changes and traditions become old hat... and new ones take over because the people want that... And they are empowered to alter or define differently, marriage. Religion can and has done the same thing because Tradition and Religion seen to evolve equally and along the same path.... But, is that relevant to Federal or State law?

Federal law and what SCOTUS ought to maintain is the notion that the States define marriage based on what each population desire be it from a Religious or Traditional bent as is obvious that the population majority in some States are Religious and wish their laws to follow that and Tradition is their conduit while others may be religious but look against tradition toward a more Rights oriented thinking.

SCOTUS can't reasonably create universal thinking in the marriage question without destroying a history of States Rights on the subject. But, neither can they allow the Federal Congressional Laws to deal with the various states willy nilly... without also destroying a history of law.
Stare Decisis said Plessy was right in a land mark case of separate but equal but Warren's court said it was wrong... so who knows what they will do...

All I am saying is the rational way to view this is to adopt the view of the State that has defined marriage as you see it... and accept that other States can differ and everyone is right!...
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
The state can't impose a Christian religious definition on gay people who have their own Christian or non Christian religious belief differing from other Christians.
But they are attempting to impose a non-Christian definition on everyone - and everyone includes Christians.

This is why I say the government must stop violating the Constitution and get out of messing with religion. Just stop legal marriages altogether, do a find-replace of the word marriage with civil union on legal forms, and everyone is happy.

New civil unions to create new rights can be created without messing with religion. Hetero, homo, poly, incest...all will be allowable under the law. Obviously, since a civil union is a legal contract we must keep an age limitation and all parties must be human. If we ever find another intelligent life form and gain the ability to accurately communicate, we can then create a new civil union allowing that type of union as well with little difficulty.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,439
1
81
But they are attempting to impose a non-Christian definition on everyone - and everyone includes Christians.
No they aren't. If gays are allowed to marry, that does not mean that gay marriage will become mandatory. You have the right to marry someone of a different race than you, but you aren't required to. How does that definition impose anything on you?

And stop calling it a "Christian" definition; there are Christian sects that recognize and perform gay marriages.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
13,184
2,761
136
New civil unions to create new rights can be created without messing with religion. Hetero, homo, poly, incest...all will be allowable under the law. Obviously, since a civil union is a legal contract we must keep an age limitation and all parties must be human. If we ever find another intelligent life form and gain the ability to accurately communicate, we can then create a new civil union allowing that type of union as well with little difficulty.
I actually agree with you. Doing away with civil marriage altogether would solve a lot of these problem. But I don't think that about 80% of all Americans would go for that. For one many of them would no longer be married.

Also if we ever found another sentient race that we could communicate with, then no changes to the law would be required. They would then be able to consent, which is all that is required to enter a contract.
It does open up a strange situation where you could marry a corporation though.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
No they aren't. If gays are allowed to marry, that does not mean that gay marriage will become mandatory. You have the right to marry someone of a different race than you, but you aren't required to. How does that definition impose anything on you?
This is the fallacy libs love to use.

It IS mandatory that I accept it as allowable. I am forced to accept it as allowable. Thus, the morality of it is forced upon me. I am forced to accept that something which is not allowable actually is allowable. If I do not have to accept it as allowable, that means I can deny things to gays married people I would not deny to straight married people. Since we both know I would not be allowed to do that, that means I am forced to accept it.

And stop calling it a "Christian" definition; there are Christian sects that recognize and perform gay marriages.
There are people who speak such horrible English you would swear it was a foreign language - yet it is actually still English. It is bad English - it is English done improperly - those using it that way are wrong - but it is English still.

Christianity is the same way.
 
Last edited:

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
I actually agree with you. Doing away with civil marriage altogether would solve a lot of these problem. But I don't think that about 80% of all Americans would go for that. For one many of them would no longer be married.
You might be surprised. Churches could still marry people (any type of marriage they like) as well as perform the legal civil unions. You get two pieces of paper, the religious one and the legal one.

Everyone will call all the types of unions a marriage.

Had the gay rights groups gone this route instead of the "I will force you to do as I demand" route, the new rights may already have been created and everyone already forgotten about the whole thing.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
There are people who speak such horrible English you would swear it was a foreign language - yet it is actually still English. It is bad English - it is English done improperly - those using it that way are wrong - but it is English still.

Christianity is the same way.
Besides don't liberals normally insist that Christians are forcing their opposite-sex definition of marriage on everyone? :rolleyes:

You might be surprised. Churches could still marry people (any type of marriage they like) as well as perform the legal civil unions. You get two pieces of paper, the religious one and the legal one.

Everyone will call all the types of unions a marriage.

Had the gay rights groups gone this route instead of the "I will force you to do as I demand" route, the new rights may already have been created and everyone already forgotten about the whole thing.
The smart thing would have been to create a "Gay marriage" contract. Which would have established things like a inheritance, health care proxy, etc. Then they could have held gay marriages ceremonies and signed their "Gay marriage" contract. Then after a number of years people would have probably thought hey lets just combine gay and straight marriage together.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,524
3,086
126
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/1...lygamy-primer/

Clearly people in the US want to have more than one wife. But since people are so bigoted against them they would be laughed out of court.

Clearly you really are reaching to defend your assertion.....c`mon a fundamentalist Mormon family that practices polygamy????

Clearly it will do no good to try to have an intelligent discussion when you embrace anything even the far out wacked out polygamists.

Then you try to claim that because a few people are practicing that it must mean there is a ground swell grass roots movement to legalize polygamy.......lolol
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/1...lygamy-primer/

Clearly people in the US want to have more than one wife. But since people are so bigoted against them they would be laughed out of court.

Clearly you really are reaching to defend your assertion.....c`mon a fundamentalist Mormon family that practices polygamy????

Clearly it will do no good to try to have an intelligent discussion when you embrace anything even the far out wacked out polygamists.

Then you try to claim that because a few people are practicing that it must mean there is a ground swell grass roots movement to legalize polygamy.......lolol
So basically you are confirming you are bigoted against polygamists.

And no I said exactly the opposite. Polygamists are as far as I know and even smaller minority group that homosexuals. I fail to see why that make bigotry against them acceptable :rolleyes:
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
1) Aren't the reason(s) that the secular states are refusing to recognize SS marriage due to interference/influence by religious groups or individuals with political influence?

2) Agreed
Probably to the degree that those institutions promote traditional Christian values. Change is in the air though, as more mainstream type gays come out. We see that in the South, where prejudice against blacks lingers far longer than government-backed discrimination. To a degree it's a protective stratagem; if blacks are not racially inferior, then we (our ancestral families at least) did a horrendous thing keeping them in slavery. Ergo, blacks must be racially inferior to prevent us from being descended of monsters. It also gives whites with little going for them someone over whom they can feel superior without having to actually do anything. I think there's a degree of that in homophobia, a desire to both feel superior and to deny having done wrong in the past. There is also the evolution of our government; we are increasingly comfortable on both sides of the aisle with using government to force others to behave as we wish. Or perhaps I have that backward; our government has always been used to enforce a certain uniformity of behavior and we're only expanding its power and reach. Regardless, that only works as long as the discriminated class remains identifiably other. Once one becomes friends or at least acquainted with blacks or with homosexuals and realizes they aren't materially different from the rest of us, such defenses must come crashing down. And to take a Moonbeamish angle, denying that a great evil has been done to one's benefit doesn't make it go away; on the contrary, it binds the evil to us. As long as we maintain that blacks or homosexuals are other and should rightfully bear discrimination for the benefit of ourselves, we willingly embrace that stain on our souls.

I don't totally discount the Christian angle, but it's worth pointing out that such prohibitions are fairly universal, certainly expanding beyond Christianity. It's also worth pointing out that homosexuality is not one of the things on which Christ preached. (I won't presume to guess which sins are important and which are not, but it's always worth noting that modern populations, medicine, and hygiene have rendered moot prohibitions against homosexuality as a matter of population health, much as most of us no longer observe prohibitions against eating pork or shellfish.) I think to the degree that opposition to gay marriage is centered around religion institutions, it's in those institutions's role as the preservers and champions of tradition. And I recognize the value of that tradition, I just don't believe in constraining the freedom of others to keep that tradition. On the contrary, allowing gays into the tradition of marriage will strengthen it, just as accepting that blacks too are created equal and entitled to the same rights as whites enhanced America's other traditions.

All that is to say that I can respect opponents of gay marriage, I simply believe they are wrong. Tradition should not trump freedom and personal liberty, nor should the two even be at odds. Tradition always evolves and as long as the rate of changes are within the society's ability to accept, the evolved tradition should be stronger rather than weaker. And to those with remaining religious rejection, I'd simply ask that you value Jesus' teachings above Paul's or the Old Testament's.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
So basically you are confirming you are bigoted against polygamists.

And no I said exactly the opposite. Polygamists are as far as I know and even smaller minority group that homosexuals. I fail to see why that make bigotry against them acceptable :rolleyes:
Would you call a person whose State has a ballot measure to define Marriage as between a male and female a bigot if they vote to pass that measure? I don't! I somehow separate the ballot box from other actions.
And, I'm probably wrong.
Would they be doing that because they have no underlying rationalization other than it being in their best interest? I doubt it.

And, those States who enable Gay marriage whose majority contain Christians are they looking past their own Christianity and seeing the Rights they enable for the Gay folks? I think so and I think that is the sign of a more progressive society.

Remember, the only time a realistic case of Gay Rights violation occurs when Gays have the Right and then a subsequent effort denies it... Then if becomes a US Constitutional issue. Like in Prop 8. All the rest vests with the States... except inter State stuff like DOMA.

Do you think Lawrence v Texas provides the means for polygamist marriage to be argued in SCOTUS? I do!
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
This is the fallacy libs love to use.

It IS mandatory that I accept it as allowable. I am forced to accept it as allowable. Thus, the morality of it is forced upon me. I am forced to accept that something which is not allowable actually is allowable. If I do not have to accept it as allowable, that means I can deny things to gays married people I would not deny to straight married people. Since we both know I would not be allowed to do that, that means I am forced to accept it.



There are people who speak such horrible English you would swear it was a foreign language - yet it is actually still English. It is bad English - it is English done improperly - those using it that way are wrong - but it is English still.

Christianity is the same way.
You might be surprised. Churches could still marry people (any type of marriage they like) as well as perform the legal civil unions. You get two pieces of paper, the religious one and the legal one.

Everyone will call all the types of unions a marriage.

Had the gay rights groups gone this route instead of the "I will force you to do as I demand" route, the new rights may already have been created and everyone already forgotten about the whole thing.
The only problem I see with that is it doesn't solve the problem. We continue on as homosexual rights activists press for complete recognition and their opponents press for special privileges for "real" marriage. besides this whole debate being a waste of societal energy, one learned in the sixties that separate and equal is never equal; otherwise there is no need to be separate.

So basically you are confirming you are bigoted against polygamists.

And no I said exactly the opposite. Polygamists are as far as I know and even smaller minority group that homosexuals. I fail to see why that make bigotry against them acceptable :rolleyes:
I don't particularly have anything against polygamous marriage, but it clearly presents some problems that homosexual marriage does not. There is no history of homosexual marriages being essentially forced on children within religious cults; there is a considerable history of that in polygamous marriage. And as long as we remain a society that allows divorce and makes children of divorce wards of the state, polygamous marriage presents problems that homosexual marriage simply does not. I'm not saying that polygamous marriage is completely off the table, merely that it's a question of greater magnitude and complexity. Removing a constraint government places on an individual selecting her preferred spouse is a much simpler change structurally than is allowing her to select multiple preferred spouses.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,183
60
91
They want special rights and privliges they dont deserve. Did they raise a family?

For the Children!
 
Last edited:
Feb 6, 2007
16,439
1
81
This is the fallacy libs love to use.

It IS mandatory that I accept it as allowable. I am forced to accept it as allowable. Thus, the morality of it is forced upon me. I am forced to accept that something which is not allowable actually is allowable. If I do not have to accept it as allowable, that means I can deny things to gays married people I would not deny to straight married people. Since we both know I would not be allowed to do that, that means I am forced to accept it.
That doesn't make any sense. It's mandatory that you accept it as allowable? What does that mean? Couldn't that be said of any law? It's allowable for people to approach me on the street and attempt to give me literature about their religious beliefs. I accept it as allowable even though I would prefer be left alone. But it doesn't mean that I have to start handing out my own fliers. I don't smoke cigarettes, I don't own any firearms, I detest canned spinach, I'm not a fan of most pop music and I find modern television shows mostly boring or terrible. All I have to do is not do those activities. Just because I don't want to take part in something doesn't mean that the government allowing others to do it needs to be stopped.

And what on Earth are you on about "denying things to gay married people that you wouldn't deny to straight married people?" Are you an insurance provider or the proprietor of a wedding chapel that will marry anyone the law allows? Are you a divorce attorney? What services are you denying to gay people that will be affected if they're allowed to marry? What does that even mean?
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,439
1
81
They want special rights and privliges they dont deserve. Did they raise a family?

For the Children!
My mothers raised two sons. So you think they should be allowed to marry, correct? Granted, it's too late since one of them has passed away, but you'd agree that since they fulfilled the "raise a family" criterion, they should have been allowed to marry, yes?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,840
3,636
126
cybrsage: But they are attempting to impose a non-Christian definition on everyone - and everyone includes Christians.

M: The state can't impose because it is a violation of rights, but people can impose and insist that they be allowed to practice their rights so what one can't impose another can. If I assert my rights and you feel imposed on that is your problem. Nobody else cares. Law is an imposition.

c: This is why I say the government must stop violating the Constitution and get out of messing with religion.

M: Not at all. Government's relationship to religion is a fundamental part of the Constitution. Government can't impose a religion and any religion can't impose on government. But an individual can assert his or her rights, both religious and otherwise.

c: Just stop legal marriages altogether, do a find-replace of the word marriage with civil union on legal forms, and everyone is happy.

M: Not going to happen. People want to get married religiously and they want government recognition they are. Many if not most would not be happy with a civil union.

c: New civil unions to create new rights can be created without messing with religion. Hetero, homo, poly, incest...all will be allowable under the law. Obviously, since a civil union is a legal contract we must keep an age limitation and all parties must be human. If we ever find another intelligent life form and gain the ability to accurately communicate, we can then create a new civil union allowing that type of union as well with little difficulty.

M: We can do the same with marriage. It's part of our religious rights
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
My mothers raised two sons. So you think they should be allowed to marry, correct? Granted, it's too late since one of them has passed away, but you'd agree that since they fulfilled the "raise a family" criterion, they should have been allowed to marry, yes?
Sad that one of your moms passed away before being allowed to have that most basic of human rights, the right to sanctify a marriage with a spouse of her own choice and have that marriage recognized by others.

This is a situation where someone's freedom WILL be abridged. That's inevitable in civilization. If someone can own land, then I lose the freedom to use that land. If my employee is legally married, then I lose the freedom to choose whether or not I offer them family coverage (assuming I offer it to other married employees.) To have the benefits of civilization, we inevitably have to give up some of our freedom; the same government that punishes others for taking my stuff also insists that I cannot decide not to offer to blacks or gays or fat people the same public accommodations I offer to others. That said, it seems to me to be a far step between government having the power to choose whom we may or may not marry, and government having the power to make us not discriminate. As bad as discrimination can be in an individual, it's much worse when given the force and implied moral authority of government. This seems to me to be a non-brainer.
 

Sonikku

Lifer
Jun 23, 2005
15,637
4,225
136
This is ridiculous. The Bible classifies marriage as between one man and one woman and I think that most of us will agree that that is the only holy book that matters in this country as far as making state policy is concerned.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
This is ridiculous. The Bible classifies marriage as between one man and one woman and I think that most of us will agree that that is the only holy book that matters in this country as far as making state policy is concerned.
America is a Judeo-Christian nation only insofar as a great majority of its founders and present citizens have and value Judeo-Christian traditions and values. Our Founding Fathers, having seen firsthand the dangers of state-sponsored religion, wisely made us a nation with freedom of religion. Therefore the Bible is important in making state policy only as its values are reflected in our present-day citizens. As those Judeo-Christian values are presently evolving to be more tolerant of homosexuality, so too will we make state policy that is more tolerant of homosexuality.

Beyond that, America is also founded on the ideals of classical liberalism, that all men are created equal and should have equal treatment under the law. Our Founding Fathers intentionally founded a nation under which each person is ideally accorded the same respect and protection under the law, regardless of how well or how poorly he adheres to the Bible. To the extent that our laws fail to adhere to this ideal, they should be changed, even where that conflicts with the Bible. You have the right to worship G-d as you best see fit; you should not have the right to impose your understanding of G-d's will on others.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY