Slickdeals Saves U! Vote for our Slickdeals scholarship finalists! Learn More
Forum Thread

SCOTUS to address Homosexual Marriage

23,116 462 December 7, 2012 at 07:42 PM
Gay Marriage: Supreme Court to Examine Marriage Equality [go.com]

Quote :
Edie and thea were married -- but when thea died in 2009, edie got socked by the irs with $363,000 in estate taxes -- which no widow in a straight marriage would have to pay. Today, the supreme court decided to hear edie's case challenging the law she says discriminates against couples like her and thea.
No marriage contract would absolve Edie of estate taxes, and she was married, but did not have marriage rights.

The question is, what is the HARM of gays having marriage rights.

Please keep the discussion on the real pragmatic reasons for denying equal rights for gays to marry their sexual partner.

314 Comments

1 2 3 4 5

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Dec 2009
Defender of the West
5,103 Posts
224 Reputation
#2
.

Supreme Court Grants Prop 8, DOMA Cases [volokh.com]

Quote :
The justices granted a writ of certiorari in two of the eleven marriage cases pending before the High Court.

One is Hollingsworth v. Perry, which asks the question of whether the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution contained an implied fundamental right to gay marriage, such that no state may define marriage as the union of one man and one woman and all laws to that effect are unconstitutional.

The other is United States v. Windsor, which asks whether Section 3 of DOMA—saying that marriage is between one man and one woman for purposes of federal law—violates the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Blessed is the man, who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly. - Psalms 1
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Aug 2008
Permanently Banned
23,116 Posts
462 Reputation
Original Poster
#3
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Jan 2010
L10: Grand Master
6,785 Posts
955 Reputation
#4
Subscribed.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Quote from charles052
:
You have blind faith whereas I do not.

Quote from skiman
:
I can't escape the mental picture. theblaze.com is very clearly some sort of information anus yet some posters seem eager to attach their lips and deliver the product here.
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Jun 2008
Non-partisan idealogue
2,656 Posts
476 Reputation
#5
The answer is for the State to eliminate the Death Tax, not for the State to encourage homosexual behaviour.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Nov 2005
L10: Grand Master
28,056 Posts
3,706 Reputation
#6
the state should not be in the business of "marriage". I think most of the row that has happened over this is of semantics. "Marriage" has a religious connotation. we already have to go get marriage licenses from the town, then actually be married (ceremony). How about this instead - The state issues civil unions, then if you want to get married on top of it, go to your local house of worship or whatever. that way religions can decide who they want to "marry".
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Feb 2011
L6: Expert
1,782 Posts
14 Reputation
#7
Quote from Dr. J
:
the state should not be in the business of "marriage". I think most of the row that has happened over this is of semantics. "Marriage" has a religious connotation. we already have to go get marriage licenses from the town, then actually be married (ceremony). How about this instead - The state issues civil unions, then if you want to get married on top of it, go to your local house of worship or whatever. that way religions can decide who they want to "marry".
Because that would be to easy a compromise and most gay advocates would rather drag religion through the mud for the next 30 years.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Jun 2008
Non-partisan idealogue
2,656 Posts
476 Reputation
#8
Quote from Dr. J
:
the state should not be in the business of "marriage". I think most of the row that has happened over this is of semantics. "Marriage" has a religious connotation. we already have to go get marriage licenses from the town, then actually be married (ceremony). How about this instead - The state issues civil unions, then if you want to get married on top of it, go to your local house of worship or whatever. that way religions can decide who they want to "marry".
100% agree.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Apr 2009
MakeAmericaGrr..HateAgain
41,551 Posts
#9
Quote from BigBananaMess
:
The answer is for the State to eliminate the Death Tax, not for the State to encourage homosexual behaviour.
Because death tax or lack there of it is the ONLY benefit to married people?

And by allowing and protecting atheism, does the gov "encourage" atheism? And should it?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Last edited by TRNT December 8, 2012 at 06:28 AM.
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Sep 2004
.
11,206 Posts
#10
So this woman doesn't want to pay taxes on something like $4,000,000 in inheritance, and there's a problem. But if this woman was the daughter, rather than partner, she'd be 'greedy' and not paying her 'fair share'.

Am I getting this right?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Apr 2009
MakeAmericaGrr..HateAgain
41,551 Posts
#11
Quote from Sokiru
:
Because that would be to easy a compromise and most gay advocates would rather drag religion through the mud for the next 30 years.
First, I do not know of a single fgay person who would not jump to that compromise.

Second, and how these small minority of gays prevent the vast number of conservatives to agree to this compromise? Smilie Seriously, honestly, between those gays who would not accept this compromise because they want to destroy religion and vast number of conservatives in this country, which party is really standing in opposition to this compromise. Seriously, honestly.

I pray that the Supremes come back with a ruling that says the culprit is the gov when they decide to recognize a religious artifact.

Lastly I agree with Dr. J's proposal 100%.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Feb 2011
L6: Expert
1,782 Posts
14 Reputation
#12
Quote from TRNT
:
First, I do not know of a single fgay person who would not jump to that compromise.

Second, and how these small minority of gays prevent the vast number of conservatives to agree to this compromise? Smilie Seriously, honestly, between those gays who would not accept this compromise because they want to destroy religion and vast number of conservatives in this country, which party is really standing in opposition to this compromise. Seriously, honestly.

I pray that the Supremes come back with a ruling that says the culprit is the gov when they decide to recognize a religious artifact.

Lastly I agree with Dr. J's proposal 100%.
So would you consider it odd if in the states that offer civil union benefits for gay couples that it would be a low % of those gay couples apply for those benefits?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Apr 2009
MakeAmericaGrr..HateAgain
41,551 Posts
#13
Quote from Sokiru
:
So would you consider it odd if in the states that offer civil union benefits for gay couples that it would be a low % of those gay couples apply for those benefits?
I do not quite understand the question. (Would you like to re-state?)

Based on a guess of what the question is......Are those benefits the same as those for married couples? If not, then I understand people who would not participate in a law that makes a second hand citizen out of them.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Jun 2005
All downhill from here...
9,642 Posts
394 Reputation
#14
Quote from 124nic8
:

Please keep the discussion on the real pragmatic reasons for denying equal rights for gays to marry their sexual partner.
Well, that's a short thread.

Within our legal framework there are no justifications.

This may be tricky territory for politicians, but should be a slam dunk for the thinking people with robes and gavels.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
bulb TIP: To avoid the stigma of literacy, listen to audio books.
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Aug 2008
Permanently Banned
23,116 Posts
462 Reputation
Original Poster
#15
Quote from BigBananaMess
:
The answer is for the State to eliminate the Death Tax, not for the State to encourage homosexual behaviour.
So the argument is that anything not prohibited by the state is "encouraged"?

Please keep the argument on the pragmatic reasons for denying equal rights to gays to marry their sexual partner.

Cause AFAIK, there has to be valid reasons to deny equal rights.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Page 1 of 21
1 2 3 4 5
Join the Conversation
Add a Comment
 
Copyright 1999 - 2018. Slickdeals, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Copyright / Infringement Policy  •  Privacy Policy  •  Terms of Service  •  Acceptable Use Policy (Rules)  •  Interest-Based Ads
Link Copied to Clipboard