ot. marriage is totally gay.

[jeff303]

[quote=AN]Is that the role of the court? Are they there to spare the country from having a debate? If it’s so inevitable, then why not let the people speak instead of having 9 people dictating it?

I support gay marriage, but I don’t support how it came about. I would much rather have the majority open their minds and accept the idea themselves instead of having 9 high and mighty judges dictating it. Just look at the legalization of marijuana as a prime example of how quick things can turn around.[/quote]

Their role is to ensure the Constitution isn’t violated. That includes, among other things, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as well as the Equal Protection Clause. Both of these tenets have clearly been violated by every state that has forbade same-sex marriage (since those individuals were ineligible for legal and tax benefits, among many other things). Therefore, the court finally acted to protect those individuals’ rights. It seems pretty simple to me.

[an]

[quote=jeff303]Their role is to ensure the Constitution isn’t violated. That includes, among other things, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as well as the Equal Protection Clause. Both of these tenets have clearly been violated by every state that has forbade same-sex marriage (since those individuals were ineligible for legal and tax benefits, among many other things). Therefore, the court finally acted to protect those individuals’ rights. It seems pretty simple to me.[/quote]If that’s the case, why now? Why did it take so long? Why not grant civil union all the legal and tax benefits as marriage? Also, why limit it to just 2 people? I don’t think there are as many supporter for polygamy as same-sex marriage. Is it OK for them to have their rights limited as well?

[jeff303]

[quote=AN]If that’s the case, why now? Why did it take so long?[/quote]

I don’t know. Better late than never. Probably because it takes a loooong time for a suitable case to be brought and make it all the way to the Supreme Court, and for them to be able to rule on it in a broad way.

[quote=AN]Why not grant civil union all the legal and tax benefits as marriage?[/quote]

Why should we go to the time and massive expense to rewrite millions of laws, rules, instructions, forms, documents, etc.? Sounds like massive government waste to me, for no discernible purpose.

[quote=AN]Also, why limit it to just 2 people? I don’t think there are as many supporter for polygamy as same-sex marriage. Is it OK for them to have their rights limited as well?[/quote]

Why, indeed? You’re probably right about the level of support. As far as I’m concerned though, if the logistics could be worked out, I’d be all for it.

[poorgradstudent]

This is probably the nail in the coffin of opponents of gay marriage. The demographics just aren’t in their favor, even young Republicans favor gay marriage by a small majority. It seems unlikely that the newly minted 18 year old voters are going to oppose gay marriage anywhere near their 75 year old granparents who they replace.

As for the ACA, that issue is far from settled. All the Supreme Court did was agree that the law is what it is. It could easily be repealed and replaced tomorrow if the Republicans can swing a supermajority in the Senate. You’ll hear plenty about the ACA in the 2016 presidental election.

[scaredyclassic]

Marriage carries a TAX PENALTY for dual earners. I think this ruling was just to increase taxes.

[an]

That’s the main problem with this way of going about it. If in the future, there are 5-6 right leaning activist judges, they can do the opposite and there won’t be much we can do since this set the precedent, even if the majority at that time support gay marriage. Something as controversial as this, I want majority support instead of having the 5-6 judges dictating it.

[scaredyclassic]

I w Ish I were gay today. Be so cool.

[spdrun]

Once it’s entrenched, I don’t think anyone is going to want to invalidate hundreds of thousands of marriages.

[an]

[quote=spdrun]Once it’s entrenched, I don’t think anyone is going to want to invalidate hundreds of thousands of marriages.[/quote]
They’re not elected official, so why should they care? It’s still a small quantity in grand scheme of things. the

[FlyerInHi]

AN, I agree with you. For selfish reasons I would rather have had a state by state war of attrition.
We all knew that gay marriage would come about sooner or later. It would’ve been fun to see a lone state holding out against pressure from around the world and the business community (kinda like the confederate flag, but bigger).

But for thousands of gays who want to get married, justice delayed is justice denied. They cannot wait another decade or 2. So the Supreme Court did the right thing.

BTW, Obama already recognizes gay marriage at the federal level if couples married wherever gay marriage is legal. Very progressive as compared to the previous administrations.

What about Brown v board of education?
Should the Supreme Court have left it to the states?

[Coronita]

[quote=scaredyclassic]Marriage carries a TAX PENALTY for dual earners. I think this ruling was just to increase taxes.[/quote]

Ding ding ding!

[no_such_reality]

[quote=spdrun]Jeebus X. Khrist on a unicycle, no sense of humor here?

I’m all for watching a good political fight. ding-ding-ding BRING IT![/quote]

I’m not, we’ve had between 15-25 of mind-numbing political fighting for my side versus your side.

Where has it gotten us? 15 years of war. another $12 Trillion in debt, neutured corporate oversight, government by dollar.

Sure, gay marriage is a victory, while we’ve nibbled away on reproductive rights, turned the country into a police state.

So we’ve gained the right to to have gays get married by giving away how much more over the last 15 years of political fighting? This is the true cost of my side and the wrong side view to politics.

[spdrun]

Actually, there were several other decent decisions this week.

Read about the LAPD hotel data case for one. Baby steps.

Interestingly, Scalia (for all his other nutjobbery) is proving to be a strong supporter of the fourth amendment and often sides with more liberal justices.

[an]

[quote=FlyerInHi]AN, I agree with you. For selfish reasons I would rather have had a state by state war of attrition.
We all knew that gay marriage would come about sooner or later. It would’ve been fun to see a lone state holding out against pressure from around the world and the business community (kinda like the confederate flag, but bigger).

But for thousands of gays who want to get married, justice delayed is justice denied. They cannot wait another decade or 2. So the Supreme Court did the right thing.

BTW, Obama already recognizes gay marriage at the federal level if couples married wherever gay marriage is legal. Very progressive as compared to the previous administrations.

What about Brown v board of education?
Should the Supreme Court have left it to the states?[/quote]I want to done right. I don’t want it to be rush which open the door for possible overturn later. As I said, the way they did it today, it gives precedence to future over turning it if we ever get a 5-6 right leaning justices. I also don’t want 9 unelected people deciding what’s right/wrong for the country. I want to people to have a say in what they want from their country. Rightly or wrongly (to a certain extent), it’s up to Americans to decide their own destiny.

[an]

[quote=jeff303]Why, indeed? You’re probably right about the level of support. As far as I’m concerned though, if the logistics could be worked out, I’d be all for it.[/quote]What logistic? I personally think polygamy should be legal as well, along w/ gay marriage. If this decision is about restoring people’s right, then why are we not applying it for an even smaller minority w/in our population? I bet if you poll all the supporter of gay marriage, my bet is most would say no to polygamy. Which annoys me, because that show their hypocrisy.

[Author]

Posts