Poll: Who should have final say on gay marriage? Voters, courts or congress?

[Hacp]

Unacceptable. Either the benefit is there for everyone, gay married couples included, or it's not there at all. Period.

Tell that to the baby boomers that stole our futures. They'll be collecting 40 years of SS and medicare while young people work like slaves paying it off for them.

Again, no problem with recognizing gay marriage. Just don't give them any federal or state "benefits" and I would have no objection. I have nothing against gay people.

 

[khon]

The question is whether equal protection applies to gay marriage.

Who should make that determination? That is what the poll asks.

Obviously that's a court issue.

 

[actuarial]

Well that would be the best case scenario(reducing the size of SS) but right now the fight is preventing more people from putting their hands in the cookie jar.

So basically you'd stomp all over the constitution as long as it saves money?

How about this: instead the government can just deny YOU SS survivor benefits and give it to a gay couple instead. If you're willing to take away something from someone else then you should be willing to sacrifice it yourself.

And don't try to argue that you're not taking anything away. If the gender restrictions on marriage are deemed not constitutional then they always should have had the benefits. The fact that they were denied for this long does't forgive continuing to deny them.

 

[actuarial]

Tell that to the baby boomers that stole our futures. They'll be collecting 40 years of SS and medicare while young people work like slaves paying it off for them.

Again, no problem with recognizing gay marriage. Just don't give them any federal or state "benefits" and I would have no objection. I have nothing against gay people.

...Other than them being given the benefits that I myself am afforded...

 

[shira]

Tell that to the baby boomers that stole our futures. They'll be collecting 40 years of SS and medicare while young people work like slaves paying it off for them.

Again, no problem with recognizing gay marriage. Just don't give them any federal or state "benefits" and I would have no objection. I have nothing against gay people.

The problem is that same-sex couples are being prevented from marrying not for financial reasons (which wouldn't be valid anyway: why single out same-sex couples; why not infertile couples or all NEW couples?), but because society is imposing a MORAL judgment: homosexuality is unnatural, against God, sinful, icky.

As the judge pointed out in the decision, the evidence presented at the trial showed conclusively that there was no demonstrable benefit in singling out same-sex couples for exclusion from marriage, not even a financial one. The state LOSES financially by doing so; the children of same-sex couples are WORSE off BECAUSE their parents are not allowed to marry; and the couples themselves are harmed by being deprived of marital benefits. And the Prop-8 proponents failed utterly to demonstrate that allowing same-sex marriage caused any damage to heterosexual unions; in fact, the expert testimony shredded this contention by the Prop-8 proponents.

In other words, the evidence showed conclusively that Proposition 8 was all loss and no gain; it was passed SOLELY as a moral judgment of homosexuality. Thus - because there was no compelling benefit in barring same-sex couples from marrying, the normal exceptions to due process and equal protection do not apply, and Prop 8 is therefore unconstitutional.

 

[zsdersw]

Just don't give them any federal or state "benefits" and I would have no objection.

Again, either the benefits are available to all married couples, gay and straight... or they shouldn't exist for anyone. Not extending them to married gay couples (were the federal/state government to recognize them) is discriminatory.. and not Constitutional.

 

[Xcobra]

You are completely backwards on this debate.

If it was as easy as claiming 'equal protection' then this whole thing would have been settled years ago, but it isn't and it continues to be fought out across the country.

Just because a group of people proclaim that they are protected by 'equal protection' does not make it so.

Right now gays don't have the right to marry in most states and it is up to them to prove that this right should be extended to them. They are the ones who have to prove that equal protection should be extended to them and their right to marry.

Are you this stupid?

 

[Hacp]

Again, either the benefits are available to all married couples, gay and straight... or they shouldn't exist for anyone. Not extending them to married gay couples (were the federal/state government to recognize them) is discriminatory.. and not Constitutional.

Its already like this. Single people who have no relatives can't give survivor benefits to anyone. You don't see single people crying do you? This is an attempt by the gay population to get on the government welfare tabs plain and simple.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm sure you supported Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. How do you square the last line you wrote with Sotomayor's "wise latina" et al remark?

I am not alone in supporting her. The Senate does too. There is no way to square what you think her remark means with what you think it should square with. This contrast is a construct that exists only in your head, not mine. I have no idea what her remark means or what it squares or doesn't square with.

 

[hal2kilo]

Tell that to the baby boomers that stole our futures. They'll be collecting 40 years of SS and medicare while young people work like slaves paying it off for them.

To paraphrase the Who:

"Hope you die before you get old"

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Yes but a state can't pass a law that violates the constitution.

And the Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage (gay or normal). What some people have a hard time understanding though - is that marriage isn't a "right". When they proceed under that mistaken notion, they think they can find reason to force it on the nation. The problem is - the whole premise is wrong. The "right" just plain doesn't exist.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

And the Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage (gay or normal). What some people have a hard time understanding though - is that marriage isn't a "right". When they proceed under that mistaken notion, they think they can find reason to force it on the nation. The problem is - the whole premise is wrong. The "right" just plain doesn't exist.

Perhaps it is that i'm a Brit or that i'm not as bright as you but what does the constitution say about interracial marriages? How about drinking fountains? Placements on buses?

How can you NOT get such a simple thing as this? How old are you?

Equal protection doesn't NEED to spell everything out.

Now i'm sure you'll blush when you realise you just been thumbed on the nose by a Brit on your own countries constitution and try to explain it away in your own small mind but.....

I've been following this enough to know that your Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is indeed a right, so there you go. Loving vs Virginia and you are so lost in your own ignorance that it's not even funny anymore.

Cheerio, gotta go but i'm sure others will taunt you for this, as they should.

 

[jackace]

Perhaps it is that i'm a Brit or that i'm not as bright as you but what does the constitution say about interracial marriages? How about drinking fountains? Placements on buses?

How can you NOT get such a simple thing as this? How old are you?

Equal protection doesn't NEED to spell everything out.

Now i'm sure you'll blush when you realise you just been thumbed on the nose by a Brit on your own countries constitution and try to explain it away in your own small mind but.....

I've been following this enough to know that your Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is indeed a right, so there you go. Loving vs Virginia and you are so lost in your own ignorance that it's not even funny anymore.

Cheerio, gotta go but i'm sure others will taunt you for this, as they should.

I agree with you. At this point the supreme court has made prior rulings that have set a precedence which now means unless past decisions are overturned the supreme court has the final say on gay marriage.

 

[bfdd]

Fucking NO ONE. NO ONE SHOULD HAVE ANY FUCKING SAY WHATSOFUCKINGEVER. Marriage should have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT. Final say is this, government get the fuck out of it, stop distinguishing between married people and single people. That way the shit is just a social construct to make people feel good about themselves.

 

[Hacp]

Fucking NO ONE. NO ONE SHOULD HAVE ANY FUCKING SAY WHATSOFUCKINGEVER. Marriage should have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT. Final say is this, government get the fuck out of it, stop distinguishing between married people and single people. That way the shit is just a social construct to make people feel good about themselves.

I agree however this isn't an issue about marriage. Its an issue about federal benefits. Taxpayer dollars is involved. The choice is to give the handouts to gays or not to. If gays want to be married, they can in states. However, gays just don't want to be married. They want federal dollars lining their pockets.

 

[bfdd]

I agree however this isn't an issue about marriage. Its an issue about federal benefits. Taxpayer dollars is involved. The choice is to give the handouts to gays or not to. If gays want to be married, they can in states. However, gays just don't want to be married. They want federal dollars lining their pockets.

no benefits for marriage, get rid of them. it's fucking retarded and it prevents people from being treated equally under the law. what if i don't want to be married? i'm now treated differently from you who decided to get married. that's fucking retarded. government should get the fuck out of any social aspect of our lives and they sure as fuck shouldn't tax or govern on such.

 

[Hacp]

no benefits for marriage, get rid of them. it's fucking retarded and it prevents people from being treated equally under the law. what if i don't want to be married? i'm now treated differently from you who decided to get married. that's fucking retarded. government should get the fuck out of any social aspect of our lives and they sure as fuck shouldn't tax or govern on such.

I agree. But right now, we're just trying to prevent more people from getting these benefits.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I agree with you. At this point the supreme court has made prior rulings that have set a precedence which now means unless past decisions are overturned the supreme court has the final say on gay marriage.

Not only that, i do believe that your highest court is like ours which means that unless it's legally forbidden, it is allowed and that rights are inherent, not given and no exceptions are made except if it infringes on others rights in which case the "common good" is the rule?

This may sound like a statement, but it's not, it is a question. It's also interesting from a historical perspective for me since i am an Englishman.

Anyways, cheers and good for you that you know about the precedent (i don't think there is more than one though, nor is it needed, this will be the second one).

Cheers from Afghanistan!

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I agree. But right now, we're just trying to prevent more people from getting these benefits.

I suggest the government tax you for ALL of the cost, since you think it's ok for a minority (which would be you in this case) to be discriminated against.

Hey, just hand over all your property, i'm sure it'll help, at least a little...

But no, you're one of those guys who is just fine with others having to give up their rights while you should always keep yours, right?

You're not a pretender of any kind, you are a REAL nazi, right, full blown idiot all the way.

 

[bfdd]

I agree. But right now, we're just trying to prevent more people from getting these benefits.

no you're not. you shouldn't be trying to prevent this at all. you should be fighting to get rid of any form of benefit gained through marriage by the government. fight governmental involvement in marriage, don't fight to help the government keep people from getting married. that's fucking stupid and you're stupid for thinking the way you do.

 

[werepossum]

And the Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage (gay or normal). What some people have a hard time understanding though - is that marriage isn't a "right". When they proceed under that mistaken notion, they think they can find reason to force it on the nation. The problem is - the whole premise is wrong. The "right" just plain doesn't exist.

All this is true, but the issue is a bit more complicated than that. There is an issue as to whether the government can selectively establish privileges for some people but not others, and if so, on what basis can it do so. And there is an issue as to what degree the majority can go to frame the society they prefer, to what extent the rights of the minority overrule the rights of the majority and vice versa. These are important and weighty issues in the abstract (as well as being obviously important to gay people) because they impact directly on our system of government (constitutional representative republic versus democracy) and on our degree of freedom.

On SS, if there are survivor benefits then each person should, if free, be free to designate his or her own heirs. Unfortunately we have grown to accept government as a sort of overlord entitled to make those decisions for us, willingly adopting the posture of chattel as long as we get bennies and our ox isn't gored - and if our neighbor's ox IS gored, so much the better. Until we get over this idea that government is somehow morally entitled to decide what we need and order our lives accordingly, issues like this will continue to be problematic.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

All this is true, but the issue is a bit more complicated than that. There is an issue as to whether the government can selectively establish privileges for some people but not others, and if so, on what basis can it do so. And there is an issue as to what degree the majority can go to frame the society they prefer, to what extent the rights of the minority overrule the rights of the majority and vice versa.

No, actually none of it is true, it's a selective interpretation that no court except perhaps SA's Sharia courts would allow or maybe my bestest buddies the Taliban.

There is NO question of this in a democracy, perhaps you'd prefer a theocracy where the majority's religious views will discriminate on the minorities civil rights.

Because make no mistake, this is about "god said" against civili rights, nothing else, there isn't one fucking argument besides a religious one against it, not ONE.

 

[zsdersw]

Its already like this. Single people who have no relatives can't give survivor benefits to anyone. You don't see single people crying do you? This is an attempt by the gay population to get on the government welfare tabs plain and simple.

Single people cannot get a benefit designed as an incentive to be married and committed. The incentive is rooted in the benefits to society. It's not about "welfare" at all.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Single people cannot get a benefit designed as an incentive to be married and committed. The incentive is rooted in the benefits to society. It's not about "welfare" at all.

He's just pissy because he doesn't even have a friend in the world to give the benefits to.

Nor does he have a mother, father or siblings, he's all alone, he's the lone wolf... pssstssh

 

[Hacp]

Single people cannot get a benefit designed as an incentive to be married and committed. The incentive is rooted in the benefits to society. It's not about "welfare" at all.

Benefits to society? Lol that is a load of bull invented by sociologists.