I feel like this deserves to be in Open Discussion instead of the Politics forum. Because finally, this isn't a matter of politics anymore. This isn't legislation that can be overturned, there doesn't have to be a lengthy political process to specify the details of what this means. The Supreme Court has defined it to be unconstitutional for any state to deprive anyone the right to marriage based on sexual orientation. Good stuff.
A little different perspective, but I don't know why the government is in the marriage business.... for anyone. I don't feel I deserve a tax break or special visitation rights in a hospital because I'm married. Less government......
Good point John. However if the government shouldn't be in it in the first place, it was even more f***** if they also upheld discrimination regarding marriage IMO
I don't like those terms, mind you. They're the ones used in a parallel debate regarding capital punishment.
I agree wholeheartedly. There are 3 basic laws that are themselves unconstitutional that put government in the business of granting marriage, tax law, property rights and privacy rights. This is now extended to the newly defined. That is what this means in basic terms. The fact that government has anything to do whatsoever with what 2 people want to do is really the part that everyone should be concerned about. Separating groups for favorable tax, property and privacy status itself is a blatant violation of the basics of equal protection. To extend that to another "separately defined" group just extends the application of government inequity. Think of it this way. If two women want to live together, buy a house together, raise a family together but are atheists and don't believe in marriage of any kind what is there protection in this? They were not offered the separate rights today were they. This is what defines slippery slope in legal circles. The slope was breeched years ago when marriage laws were enacted to keep the races from mixing. Tax advantages were given to encourage marriage and so on. Using government coercion to create social outcomes always has unintended circumstances. The religious groups that pushed for those laws (unconstitutional as they were) are now seeing the circle complete. The way the decision was written is really scary stuff if you read it and understand what power the court took in making this ruling. I suggest that everyone read it word by word and relate it to the 14th Amendment which it extends by nothing more than majority rule. There is no basis found in the previous standard of law for it. btw.... I fully support any kind of marriage. If you can get a clergy to do it then have at it. That isn't what this was about however. The majority believed that there was a social injustice and they corrected it without the basis of law. Pretty spooky precedence set IMHO. This will result in a lot of witch hunting now by anti-religious groups. Sorry for the rant but I work for a famous "Libertarian think tank" and we've been researching this subject for a while in preparation for this ruling. Those inside the beltway have known this ruling for a few weeks now. While I'm happy that people who were excluded are now "included" I'm also saddened by the lack of understanding of how it happened in the first place.
The fact that this matter was a political issue is beyond me. Shouldn't have been, and now that the supreme court has laid down the law, there should be no more debate on it...
That's kind of like saying there shouldn't have been a debate before that vote, or that there should be no further discussion on abortion, euthanasia, immigration, or public health care because it's already been voted on.
