Supreme Court Arguments Today

[LisaC]

The Supreme Court will be hearing arguments on two gay marriage issues: Prop 8 in Californa and the Defense of Marriage Act. These decisions will be pivotal to gay marriage laws in the U.S.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court-gay-marriage-cases-could-set-stage-084728709--politics.html;_ylt=A2KJ2UijbFBRnTIATF2PIsF_

 

[Guard Dad]

Though I'm opposed to SSM, I support the rights of the individual states to regulate it. I'm just concerned the SCOTUS will empower the federal government to override state's rights on marriage. Pretty much anytime the feds get control of something, they screw it up.

 

[ShoeDiva]

I have a few friends that have the info on their pages. They are watching.

 

[LisaC]

I have a few friends that have the info on their pages. They are watching.

I do too. Friends from both sides of the argument have stated that they are "praying" for the right decision. I think it's pretty cool that some of my friends have realized the power of prayer...

 

[unionmom]

Hearing cases this week means we'll hear decisions when, June-July?

 

[LisaC]

Hearing cases this week means we'll hear decisions when, June-July?

I think the average is 3-4 months, but it can sometimes take 6 months.

 

[Grey Colson]

That's one of the popular functions of the Supreme Court these days. If you can't get an issue passed by the will of a majority of the people, circumvent everything and take it to the high court.

They need to go ahead and approve polygamy while their changing all the social issues of our society. Maybe next week they can take time to tell my boss to be nicer to me and grant me an extra week of vacation for heaven's sake. :'(

 

[Guard Dad]

That's one of the popular functions of the Supreme Court these days. If you can't get an issue passed by the will of a majority of the people, circumvent everything and take it to the high court.

They need to go ahead and approve polygamy while their changing all the social issues of our society. Maybe next week they can take time to tell my boss to be nicer to me and grant me an extra week of vacation for heaven's sake. :'(

I wouldn't want multiple wives. They'd all get PMS at the same time.

 

[Grey Colson]

That's one of the popular functions of the Supreme Court these days. If you can't get an issue passed by the will of a majority of the people, circumvent everything and take it to the high court.

They need to go ahead and approve polygamy while their changing all the social issues of our society. Maybe next week they can take time to tell my boss to be nicer to me and grant me an extra week of vacation for heaven's sake. :'(

I wouldn't want multiple wives. They'd all get PMS at the same time.

I could use some extra help with the yard. Not that I want one mind you, I just feel like I'm entitled to one ;D

 

[unionmom]

That's one of the popular functions of the Supreme Court these days. If you can't get an issue passed by the will of a majority of the people, circumvent everything and take it to the high court.

They need to go ahead and approve polygamy while their changing all the social issues of our society. Maybe next week they can take time to tell my boss to be nicer to me and grant me an extra week of vacation for heaven's sake. :'(

I wouldn't want multiple wives. They'd all get PMS at the same time.

I could use some extra help with the yard. Not that I want one mind you, I just feel like I'm entitled to one ;D

So you want a husband?

 

[Grey Colson]

That's one of the popular functions of the Supreme Court these days. If you can't get an issue passed by the will of a majority of the people, circumvent everything and take it to the high court.

They need to go ahead and approve polygamy while their changing all the social issues of our society. Maybe next week they can take time to tell my boss to be nicer to me and grant me an extra week of vacation for heaven's sake. :'(

I wouldn't want multiple wives. They'd all get PMS at the same time.

I could use some extra help with the yard. Not that I want one mind you, I just feel like I'm entitled to one ;D

So you want a husband?

Those were not quite my thoughts :huh

 

[unionmom]

)

 

[lotstodo]

They will also hear new arguments on Affirmative Action this week. Hopefully this will be its death knell.

 

[Waski_the_Squirrel]

This might not make me popular around here, but here goes:

First, none of this means a church will be forced to hold a gay marriage ceremony.

Second, homosexual behavior is not a crime in this country, so I'm not sure how the government can say homosexuality is ok, but homosexuals cannot get married.

Third, polygamy is a crime in all 50 states in this country, as is bestiality, pedophilia, etc. There are no federal laws against polygamy, so it is possible that it may at some point fall under the same category as Lawrence vs. State of Texas (the anti-sodomy law). Bestiality is not illegal under federal law, but we will not see marriage between humans and animals because of the issue of consent. Pedophilia is against federal law, so that kind of marriage will never become legal. These are the federal statutes regarding sex crimes.

Personally, I think government should get out of the business of marriage altogether. I don't need the state of North Dakota to approve my marriage to the woman I love. All that matters is our relationship and recognition by my friends and family, most likely through a church wedding. A state marriage certificate is meaningless and is actually a symbol of control. (At times, government has prevented marriage based on race, perceived mental handicap, and even religion.)

As for the legal benefits of marriage: I think a contract could cover those. That is the argument those opposed to gay marriage use to explain why gays don't need marriage, and it is a valid argument.

However, as long as government keeps its snout in marriage, I don't see a constitutional basis for limiting it because of gender.

 

[lotstodo]

This might not make me popular around here, but here goes:

First, none of this means a church will be forced to hold a gay marriage ceremony.

Second, homosexual behavior is not a crime in this country, so I'm not sure how the government can say homosexuality is ok, but homosexuals cannot get married.

Third, polygamy is a crime in all 50 states in this country, as is bestiality, pedophilia, etc. There are no federal laws against polygamy, so it is possible that it may at some point fall under the same category as Lawrence vs. State of Texas (the anti-sodomy law). Bestiality is not illegal under federal law, but we will not see marriage between humans and animals because of the issue of consent. Pedophilia is against federal law, so that kind of marriage will never become legal. These are the federal statutes regarding sex crimes.

Personally, I think government should get out of the business of marriage altogether. I don't need the state of North Dakota to approve my marriage to the woman I love. All that matters is our relationship and recognition by my friends and family, most likely through a church wedding. A state marriage certificate is meaningless and is actually a symbol of control. (At times, government has prevented marriage based on race, perceived mental handicap, and even religion.)

As for the legal benefits of marriage: I think a contract could cover those. That is the argument those opposed to gay marriage use to explain why gays don't need marriage, and it is a valid argument.

However, as long as government keeps its snout in marriage, I don't see a constitutional basis for limiting it because of gender.

:thumbsup

Get the government out of the marriage business.

 

[Guard Dad]

This might not make me popular around here, but here goes:

First, none of this means a church will be forced to hold a gay marriage ceremony.

Second, homosexual behavior is not a crime in this country, so I'm not sure how the government can say homosexuality is ok, but homosexuals cannot get married.

Third, polygamy is a crime in all 50 states in this country, as is bestiality, pedophilia, etc. There are no federal laws against polygamy, so it is possible that it may at some point fall under the same category as Lawrence vs. State of Texas (the anti-sodomy law). Bestiality is not illegal under federal law, but we will not see marriage between humans and animals because of the issue of consent. Pedophilia is against federal law, so that kind of marriage will never become legal. These are the federal statutes regarding sex crimes.

Personally, I think government should get out of the business of marriage altogether. I don't need the state of North Dakota to approve my marriage to the woman I love. All that matters is our relationship and recognition by my friends and family, most likely through a church wedding. A state marriage certificate is meaningless and is actually a symbol of control. (At times, government has prevented marriage based on race, perceived mental handicap, and even religion.)

As for the legal benefits of marriage: I think a contract could cover those. That is the argument those opposed to gay marriage use to explain why gays don't need marriage, and it is a valid argument.

However, as long as government keeps its snout in marriage, I don't see a constitutional basis for limiting it because of gender.

:thumbsup

Get the government out of the marriage business.

The problem there is, the government gives certain incentives for marriage. So if they are to get out of the marriage business, any incentives or penalties for being married needs to go away.

 

[mei lan]

Hearing cases this week means we'll hear decisions when, June-July?

Jamie Dupree on WSB said today on Herman's show that it would be the last week of June, IIRC.

I agree with Waski. Get the government out of the whole thing.

 

[Madea]

The government got involved in marriage to "promote the general welfare". Well, we've pretty much made a mess of that.

I still support traditional marriage. However, my preference for traditional marriage in NO WAY diminishes any one else.

 

[lotstodo]

This might not make me popular around here, but here goes:

First, none of this means a church will be forced to hold a gay marriage ceremony.

Second, homosexual behavior is not a crime in this country, so I'm not sure how the government can say homosexuality is ok, but homosexuals cannot get married.

Third, polygamy is a crime in all 50 states in this country, as is bestiality, pedophilia, etc. There are no federal laws against polygamy, so it is possible that it may at some point fall under the same category as Lawrence vs. State of Texas (the anti-sodomy law). Bestiality is not illegal under federal law, but we will not see marriage between humans and animals because of the issue of consent. Pedophilia is against federal law, so that kind of marriage will never become legal. These are the federal statutes regarding sex crimes.

Personally, I think government should get out of the business of marriage altogether. I don't need the state of North Dakota to approve my marriage to the woman I love. All that matters is our relationship and recognition by my friends and family, most likely through a church wedding. A state marriage certificate is meaningless and is actually a symbol of control. (At times, government has prevented marriage based on race, perceived mental handicap, and even religion.)

As for the legal benefits of marriage: I think a contract could cover those. That is the argument those opposed to gay marriage use to explain why gays don't need marriage, and it is a valid argument.

However, as long as government keeps its snout in marriage, I don't see a constitutional basis for limiting it because of gender.

:thumbsup

Get the government out of the marriage business.

The problem there is, the government gives certain incentives for marriage. So if they are to get out of the marriage business, any incentives or penalties for being married needs to go away.

Yes.

 

[LisaC]

This might not make me popular around here, but here goes:

First, none of this means a church will be forced to hold a gay marriage ceremony.

Second, homosexual behavior is not a crime in this country, so I'm not sure how the government can say homosexuality is ok, but homosexuals cannot get married.

Third, polygamy is a crime in all 50 states in this country, as is bestiality, pedophilia, etc. There are no federal laws against polygamy, so it is possible that it may at some point fall under the same category as Lawrence vs. State of Texas (the anti-sodomy law). Bestiality is not illegal under federal law, but we will not see marriage between humans and animals because of the issue of consent. Pedophilia is against federal law, so that kind of marriage will never become legal. These are the federal statutes regarding sex crimes.

Personally, I think government should get out of the business of marriage altogether. I don't need the state of North Dakota to approve my marriage to the woman I love. All that matters is our relationship and recognition by my friends and family, most likely through a church wedding. A state marriage certificate is meaningless and is actually a symbol of control. (At times, government has prevented marriage based on race, perceived mental handicap, and even religion.)

As for the legal benefits of marriage: I think a contract could cover those. That is the argument those opposed to gay marriage use to explain why gays don't need marriage, and it is a valid argument.

However, as long as government keeps its snout in marriage, I don't see a constitutional basis for limiting it because of gender.

:thumbsup

Get the government out of the marriage business.

The problem there is, the government gives certain incentives for marriage. So if they are to get out of the marriage business, any incentives or penalties for being married needs to go away.

Yes.

I've learned that the incentives are greater for those who are unmarried, with not job and multiple kids... :whistle