Married same-sex couple turned down for spousal benefits

[chess9]

Bozack:

The reason the President and most conservatives want a constitutional amendment defining marriage is because the full faith and credit clause of the constitution will require the states to recognize the marriage of any person lawfully married in another state. (see, Loving v. Virginia)

Obviously, if the marriage in California is legal then Illinois must recognize it. We don't know yet whether the marriage in Cali is legal. The California Supremes have yet to roll out their latest single, which I have presumptuously titled "Straight Shooter".

-Robert

 

[BugsBunny1078]

Well If I went to the press because my employer wouldn;t give me a benefit I wanted and it made trouble for my employer i would expect to be fired. They also would have a right to fire me for that. Whistle blowers may be protected ( they aren't really they only are on paper) but that is only for tattling on illegal labor practices or other illegal activities. Trying to make bad press for your employer who is not violating any law is certainly not protected even in a fake paper law like whistleblower. He can be fired for this quite easily.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: chess9
Bozack:

The reason the President and most conservatives want a constitutional amendment defining marriage is because the full faith and credit clause of the constitution will require the states to recognize the marriage of any person lawfully married in another state. (see, Loving v. Virginia)

Obviously, if the marriage in California is legal then Illinois must recognize it. We don't know yet whether the marriage in Cali is legal. The California Supremes have yet to roll out their latest single, which I have presumptuously titled "Straight Shooter".

-Robert

Sorry, I should have included that about SanFran and the legality of said marriages in my response, same as those performed in NY.

personally I support the companies position, until it is mandated by the law they are under no duress to do anything.

 

[chess9]

Bozack:

True, but I would go further. They shouldn't recognize the "unions" until the Cali Supremes say their "union" is a marriage. At that point, I think the company cannot discriminate between types of marriages.

-Robert

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: chess9
Bozack:

True, but I would go further. They shouldn't recognize the "unions" until the Cali Supremes say their "union" is a marriage. At that point, I think the company cannot discriminate between types of marriages.

-Robert

Hmm, maybe I am not being overly clear...personally I don't think Cali supporting it should be the determining factor...if Chicago does not want to recognize it then that is their decision, I know this goes against loving, but I think the definition should be changed for all (homo or straight) and it should be a state decision what they do or do not want to recognize.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: chess9
Bozack:

True, but I would go further. They shouldn't recognize the "unions" until the Cali Supremes say their "union" is a marriage. At that point, I think the company cannot discriminate between types of marriages.

-Robert

Hmm, maybe I am not being overly clear...personally I don't think Cali supporting it should be the determining factor...if Chicago does not want to recognize it then that is their decision, I know this goes against loving, but I think the definition should be changed for all (homo or straight) and it should be a state decision what they do or do not want to recognize.

the bigger problem is that when one government entity chooses to selectively determine what laws from some other entity they will choose to accept and/or reject.

Back in 1860 some states chose to reject/ignore laws from other states. Look what happened then; tore the country apart And there are still reverberations from it today.

 

[Officerdown]

Originally posted by: Spencer278
If they give the benefits to different-sex couples why shouldn't they give it to same sex-couples.

Stability?That?s why. You open the door for one group you open it for others. Where does it stop?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Officerdown

Originally posted by: Spencer278
If they give the benefits to different-sex couples why shouldn't they give it to same sex-couples.

Stability?That?s why. You open the door for one group you open it for others. Where does it stop?

Nope, you're on the worng slope. You close the door to one group and pretty soon we're back to holding slaves. You just don't see things right.

 

[Officerdown]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Officerdown

Originally posted by: Spencer278
If they give the benefits to different-sex couples why shouldn't they give it to same sex-couples.

Stability?That?s why. You open the door for one group you open it for others. Where does it stop?

Nope, you're on the worng slope. You close the door to one group and pretty soon we're back to holding slaves. You just don't see things right.

Not really. I don't think we are any closer to holding slaves. Just leave things as is. Where do you get slaves involved with marriage? So if we keep marriage as is and not change the law to legalize it for every group out there, we'll go back to having slaves? Marriage has been around longer than government, which may surprise Liberals. Government needs to stand for an orderly society. So because marriage has been around forever, after the War Between the States, I don't think we ever took a step back to slavery. Do you?

 

[LordMagnusKain]

You imagine, in your blind state of bigotry that there is this would be abuse.

no, do some research on other country's they've done this; the meaning of 'marriage' has been left to almost nil, and benefits relegated to what the state requires.. oh yea, that's right, employers aren't people but agents of the government to for big-government give aways;

so you don't have to worry about what it costs the producers.

no company has to recognize an illegal marriage license; it's fair enough to at lest allow the court system to deal with it.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

You imagine, in your blind state of bigotry that there is this would be abuse.

no, do some research on other country's they've done this; the meaning of 'marriage' has been left to almost nil, and benefits relegated to what the state requires.. oh yea, that's right, employers aren't people but agents of the government to for big-government give aways;

so you don't have to worry about what it costs the producers.

no company has to recognize an illegal marriage license; it's fair enough to at lest allow the court system to deal with it.

The problem is that it is a legal license until the process has been declared illegal by the CA court.
SF issued a license according to their reading of the CA law. Until the CA court says that reading is wrong or the law needs to be clarified (ie. MA Supreme Court), the license should be considered legal and valid.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Officerdown

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Officerdown

Originally posted by: Spencer278
If they give the benefits to different-sex couples why shouldn't they give it to same sex-couples.

Stability?That?s why. You open the door for one group you open it for others. Where does it stop?

Nope, you're on the worng slope. You close the door to one group and pretty soon we're back to holding slaves. You just don't see things right.

Not really. I don't think we are any closer to holding slaves. Just leave things as is. Where do you get slaves involved with marriage? So if we keep marriage as is and not change the law to legalize it for every group out there, we'll go back to having slaves? Marriage has been around longer than government, which may surprise Liberals. Government needs to stand for an orderly society. So because marriage has been around forever, after the War Between the States, I don't think we ever took a step back to slavery. Do you?

Jeepers creepers, it's not rocket science. First you declare that gays can't marry, then interracial couples, then you start revoking the right of women to vote and blacks to be free. It's a slippery slope when you start limiting rights. Marriage is as old as bipedalism and the need to care for a helpless infant with a huge brain that takes years to develop.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

You imagine, in your blind state of bigotry that there is this would be abuse.

no, do some research on other country's they've done this; the meaning of 'marriage' has been left to almost nil, and benefits relegated to what the state requires.. oh yea, that's right, employers aren't people but agents of the government to for big-government give aways;

so you don't have to worry about what it costs the producers.

no company has to recognize an illegal marriage license; it's fair enough to at lest allow the court system to deal with it.

The problem is that it is a legal license until the process has been declared illegal by the CA court.
SF issued a license according to their reading of the CA law. Until the CA court says that reading is wrong or the law needs to be clarified (ie. MA Supreme Court), the license should be considered legal and valid.

Didn't CA deem all liscences as invalid until further notice? if so then why should they be viewed as Legal?

again I don't think this can even remotely be compared to slavery or the civil rights movement, and do to so is laughable....the former were of far greater significance and had much more bearing than this ever will.

 

[chess9]

EagleKeeper:

You actually have it backwards. Cali has a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. A state's laws are presumed valid until a court says otherwise. So, until the Cali Supremes sing "Straight Shooter" all other states can ignore the "marriage".

-Robert

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: chess9
EagleKeeper:

You actually have it backwards. Cali has a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. A state's laws are presumed valid until a court says otherwise. So, until the Cali Supremes sing "Straight Shooter" all other states can ignore the "marriage".

-Robert

Agree

However, SF is using another CA law as a work around. SF has the two laws conflicting with each other. therefore, based on their ideology, they are choosing the law that they wish to use. The CA court needs to resolve this issue.

 

[chess9]

EK:

The Mayor of SF is relying upon the state statute being unconstitutional. The problem is the state Supreme Court is the final arbiter of that issue and they haven't ruled. The corrollary in Federal Jurisprudence is that the U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is constitutional. The U.S. Constitution means what they say it means. Ditto for the Cali Supremes.

-Robert

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: chess9
EK:

The Mayor of SF is relying upon the state statute being unconstitutional. The problem is the state Supreme Court is the final arbiter of that issue and they haven't ruled. The corrollary in Federal Jurisprudence is that the U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is constitutional. The U.S. Constitution means what they say it means. Ditto for the Cali Supremes.

-Robert

Well the rights we have are inalienable and can't be taken even by the court. It is the right of the people to alter and abolish our government and to institute new government as to how we feel it will best provide for our safety and happiness.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: chess9
EK:

The Mayor of SF is relying upon the state statute being unconstitutional. The problem is the state Supreme Court is the final arbiter of that issue and they haven't ruled. The corrollary in Federal Jurisprudence is that the U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is constitutional. The U.S. Constitution means what they say it means. Ditto for the Cali Supremes.

-Robert

Well the rights we have are inalienable and can't be taken even by the court. It is the right of the people to alter and abolish our government and to institute new government as to how we feel it will best provide for our safety and happiness.

viva la gay-revolution!

wait.. how is spousal benefits for homosexual lovers an inalienable human right?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: chess9
EK:

The Mayor of SF is relying upon the state statute being unconstitutional. The problem is the state Supreme Court is the final arbiter of that issue and they haven't ruled. The corrollary in Federal Jurisprudence is that the U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is constitutional. The U.S. Constitution means what they say it means. Ditto for the Cali Supremes.

-Robert

Well the rights we have are inalienable and can't be taken even by the court. It is the right of the people to alter and abolish our government and to institute new government as to how we feel it will best provide for our safety and happiness.

viva la gay-revolution!

wait.. how is spousal benefits for homosexual lovers an inalienable human right?

The fact that you ask and have to ask indicates that you aren't capable of seeing the answer which is really quite obvious. It won't, therefore, do the slightest good to answer for you. You will continue to fail to see. You aren't looking for truth but support for your bigotry. The problem with bigotry is that it makes truth a lie and lies the truth. It turns the mind completely up side down. I like to call this Cadidicy since Cad does this so well.

It's sort of sad too because even monkeys understand fair play and refuse to play if the game's not fair. Of course bigotry destroys even chimpanzee common sense. Your religion has made you immune to common decency. Some religion.

 

[chess9]

Moonbeam:

Well, that is the question before the Calif Supremes, i.e., what is the nature of marriage? Marriage is undoubtedly an inalienable right, but is gay marriage an inalienable right? Personally, I favor the broadest definition possible. I'd like to be able to marry my bike if my wife gets fed up!

-Robert

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: chess9
EagleKeeper:

You actually have it backwards. Cali has a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. A state's laws are presumed valid until a court says otherwise. So, until the Cali Supremes sing "Straight Shooter" all other states can ignore the "marriage".

-Robert

Doesn't the the Defense of Marriage Act allow states not to recognize (gay) marriages performed in other states? I think the DoMA has to be ruled unconstitutional and revoked before states will be "forced" to recognize all marriages.

 

[chess9]

Most constitutional experts think the DOMA won't pass constitutional muster, that is why the constitutional amendment is moving forward. The right wing considers DOMA a stop gap measure only.

The Cali Supreme Court will not be required to reach the DOMA issue if they rule that the Cali constitution forbids discriminating against gays in the issuance of marriage licenses.
-Robert

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: chess9
Most constitutional experts think the DOMA won't pass constitutional muster, that is why the constitutional amendment is moving forward. The right wing considers DOMA a stop gap measure only.

The Cali Supreme Court will not be required to reach the DOMA issue if they rule that the Cali constitution forbids discriminating against gays in the issuance of marriage licenses.
-Robert

Your previous post said that all other states could ignore Cali marriages until the CA Supreme Court ruled. That is not true. The DoMA allows states to "ignore" marriages (gay) performed in other states. Nothing the CA Supreme Court does will affect that, it is federal law. And yes it is unconstitutional, IMO, and will probably be struck down if challenged.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: chess9
Most constitutional experts think the DOMA won't pass constitutional muster, that is why the constitutional amendment is moving forward. The right wing considers DOMA a stop gap measure only.

The Cali Supreme Court will not be required to reach the DOMA issue if they rule that the Cali constitution forbids discriminating against gays in the issuance of marriage licenses.
-Robert

Your previous post said that all other states could ignore Cali marriages until the CA Supreme Court ruled. That is not true. The DoMA allows states to "ignore" marriages (gay) performed in other states. Nothing the CA Supreme Court does will affect that, it is federal law. And yes it is unconstitutional, IMO, and will probably be struck down if challenged.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: chess9
Moonbeam:

Well, that is the question before the Calif Supremes, i.e., what is the nature of marriage? Marriage is undoubtedly an inalienable right, but is gay marriage an inalienable right? Personally, I favor the broadest definition possible. I'd like to be able to marry my bike if my wife gets fed up!

-Robert

Your wife may want the bike instead if she gets fed up with you. "Better ride"

/No offense - just could not resist the opening.