Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 11:26:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2014 7:56:40 GMT -5
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Nov 7, 2014 8:07:09 GMT -5
This will be overturned. The fact that we now have different positions in various jurisdictions makes it much more likely the supreme court will have to decide on the issue and put this nonsense to rest once and for all.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Nov 7, 2014 8:12:24 GMT -5
Good! The SCOTUS needs to speak on this issue, and they were never going to do without a split between circuits.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,327
|
Post by swamp on Nov 7, 2014 8:42:28 GMT -5
Good! The SCOTUS needs to speak on this issue, and they were never going to do without a split between circuits. and that means we're going to get a "gay sex is icky" opinion from Scalia in legalese! |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,514 
|
Post by Tennesseer on Nov 7, 2014 9:25:33 GMT -5
It was largely expected the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit would uphold the bans. I am pretty sure SCOTUS hoped for a different outcome so they could stay out of the fracas. Now it is in their hands to make the final decision.
While it would be nice to see SCOTUS legalize it throughout the land as the majority of states allow it, minimally, I could see them order the remaining states with bans to recognize out-of-state SSMs.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,514
|
Post by Tennesseer on Nov 7, 2014 10:07:27 GMT -5
"Depending upon how fast lawyers choose to move, the issue of same-sex marriage could be back before the Supreme Court in a matter of days. So far, only one option has been closed off. The remaining options have some, perhaps considerable, chances of success. The decision Thursday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, upholding bans on same-sex marriage in four states, has clearly increased the prospect that the Justices will now take on one or more appeals — perhaps even in time for decision in the current Term. Already, lawyers representing some of the same-sex couples involved have promised a swift appeal to the Supreme Court. A direct challenge to the Sixth Circuit’s ruling is one of a handful of potential ways to try to persuade the Court to step in now. When the Court on October 6 turned down seven petitions from five states, there was then no split in final decisions among federal courts of appeals in the most recent round of same-sex marriage lawsuits; all had struck down state bans. But the actual date of those denials is now decisive in taking away one option to appeal to the Court." Rest of article here: SCOTUS Blog - Analysis: Paths to same-sex marriage review |
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866 
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 7, 2014 10:22:50 GMT -5
Govt needs to stay out of the marriage business. It's no more the govts job to make people's unions legal than it is to make them not.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Nov 7, 2014 10:32:43 GMT -5
Good! The SCOTUS needs to speak on this issue, and they were never going to do without a split between circuits. and that means we're going to get a "gay sex is icky" opinion from Scalia in legalese! I really, really wanna read "gay sex is icky" in legalese!  |
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 7, 2014 10:38:11 GMT -5
I kinda do, too.  |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,514
|
Post by Tennesseer on Nov 7, 2014 10:39:41 GMT -5
Govt needs to stay out of the marriage business. It's no more the govts job to make people's unions legal than it is to make them not. Should local government issue marriage licenses and should all federal legal and financial benefits be tossed out? ETA: Should marriage even exist? |
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Nov 7, 2014 11:31:39 GMT -5
WOOOOOOO-HOOOOOOOOO
Federal marriage license in coming!
Down with states rights!
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Nov 7, 2014 12:13:39 GMT -5
Govt needs to stay out of the marriage business. It's no more the govts job to make people's unions legal than it is to make them not. As long as laws are written regarding what rights a person has when married, then they have to be involved. For example, if you are married more than 10 years, then you can draw on your spouse's or ex's SS when they retire. We can't have that be a possibility without a need to recognize who is & is not legally married.
If we throw out all the marriage related laws, then they could get out of the marriage business.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 7, 2014 13:45:20 GMT -5
Works for me. Marriage can be a religious/civil thing but the govt makes it a pita.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 11:26:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2014 14:09:23 GMT -5
Good! The SCOTUS needs to speak on this issue, and they were never going to do without a split between circuits. and that means we're going to get a "gay sex is icky" opinion from Scalia in legalese! It is icky, to a heterosexual. The local boys hangin at the only gas & eat within 5 miles of nothing over here refer to male homosexuals as rump rangers. They don't say anything about females so I guess it's OK by them, for the girl on girl sex. |
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,726
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Nov 7, 2014 15:00:23 GMT -5
Works for me. Marriage can be a religious/civil thing but the govt makes it a pita. Civil is government.
If it isn't standardized, i.e. government not involved at all - no legal definition, no rights, no responsibilities, I think it would be much worse than what we have now.
Can you imagine having a document signed by yourselves or your church and every hospital you went to it would be up to them to decide if you were married and had rights to see the patient?
No government involvement means no record of marriages. No legal marriage contracts. No guaranteed spousal inheritance. Just for starters.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Nov 7, 2014 15:31:13 GMT -5
and that means we're going to get a "gay sex is icky" opinion from Scalia in legalese! It is icky, to a heterosexual. The local boys hangin at the only gas & eat within 5 miles of nothing over here refer to male homosexuals as rump rangers. They don't say anything about females so I guess it's OK by them, for the girl on girl sex. I'm hetero and it's not icky to me.  |
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Nov 7, 2014 15:34:29 GMT -5
Has anyone been watching "How to get away with Murder"? I have been surprised at the amount of gay sex in the show that I think it on ABC. Definitely a shift in what is acceptable vs icky for the general public. A decade ago that never would have aired.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,483
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 7, 2014 15:40:56 GMT -5
It is icky, to a heterosexual. The local boys hangin at the only gas & eat within 5 miles of nothing over here refer to male homosexuals as rump rangers. They don't say anything about females so I guess it's OK by them, for the girl on girl sex. I'm hetero and it's not icky to me.    |
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,380
|
Post by NastyWoman on Nov 7, 2014 16:03:45 GMT -5
I'm hetero and it's not icky to me. JMO |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 11:26:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2014 16:04:32 GMT -5
Has anyone been watching "How to get away with Murder"? I have been surprised at the amount of gay sex in the show that I think it on ABC. Definitely a shift in what is acceptable vs icky for the general public. A decade ago that never would have aired. Haven't seen it. We already record 9 shows a week and tend to get behind (no pun) on watching them. I usually tend to watch the shows with good storylines and pass on the ones that only seem to push the latest trend in acceptablity. |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 11:26:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2014 16:11:30 GMT -5
It is icky, to a heterosexual. The local boys hangin at the only gas & eat within 5 miles of nothing over here refer to male homosexuals as rump rangers. They don't say anything about females so I guess it's OK by them, for the girl on girl sex. I'm hetero and it's not icky to me. I'm merely indifferent, each to his own I guess. I wouldn't search out video to watch or anything like that. Never did for hetero sex either. I might be a prime candidate for a low sex drive description. Might be why I choose to head to the kitchen for snack goodies when the sex scenes are on. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 7, 2014 16:14:51 GMT -5
the SCOTUS really has already commented on this, just not in a way that is very satisfying to people.
now they will have to do that. i think it is kind of a formality, personally. but i am occasionally surprised by the SCOTUS, and rarely in a pleasant way.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 7, 2014 17:22:32 GMT -5
You know what? After bio threw her hissy in the hospital and I was overruled even with the medical POA, the social worker on DFs transplant team said to just tell everyone we were married. No one ever asks for proof. I've done it ever since, no problem.
I have my own social security I can collect on. I still find it bizarre that there are actually people out there who have not worked enough to collect on their own.
Marriage should not be penalized or rewarded.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,726
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Nov 7, 2014 17:53:27 GMT -5
Zib, as long as the patient agrees with it, usually most medical facilities let it fly.
But that's today's world, not imaginary government has no involvement at all world. I suppose in that one your parents and friends treat you the same whether they love or hate your spouse. |
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Nov 7, 2014 17:55:04 GMT -5
Marriage has been unequal for 150+ years...why is there such a stink about it now? Even with gay marriage mbans being overturned, marriage is still unequal. As long as bigamy and polygamy laws are on the books, there will be inequality. Yet I don't hear shit about that in all of these "equality" celebrations  |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 11:26:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2014 18:23:36 GMT -5
I didn't mean to "post and run", but my internet connection crapped out (Thanks, Charter!) just after I posted the OP... So I went to bed.
I'm sad for the citizens of America, that inequality was upheld, but I'm happy that maybe this will be the "push" needed to get SCOTUS review.
(hopefully they won't screw it up like they did with Hobby Lobby and most of the Obamacare rulings).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 11:26:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2014 18:26:40 GMT -5
Govt needs to stay out of the marriage business. It's no more the govts job to make people's unions legal than it is to make them not. If there weren't 1,400-odd legal benefits that come with marriage... I might agree with you. But, since there are, the government kind of needs to be "in the marriage business"... what they shouldn't be doing is deciding who can/can't marry whom. |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 11:26:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2014 18:32:43 GMT -5
Marriage has been unequal for 150+ years...why is there such a stink about it now? Even with gay marriage mbans being overturned, marriage is still unequal. As long as bigamy and polygamy laws are on the books, there will be inequality. Yet I don't hear shit about that in all of these "equality" celebrations Polygamy should definitely be legal (heck, even the Christians should be able to get behind legalizing it... it's approved of in their book!). Bigamy is just illegal polygamy. Make polygamy legal and bigamy vanishes. |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,483
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 7, 2014 18:38:37 GMT -5
Marriage has been unequal for 150+ years...why is there such a stink about it now? Even with gay marriage mbans being overturned, marriage is still unequal. As long as bigamy and polygamy laws are on the books, there will be inequality. Yet I don't hear shit about that in all of these "equality" celebrations Polygamy should definitely be legal (heck, even the Christians should be able to get behind legalizing it... it's approved of in their book!). Bigamy is just illegal polygamy. Make polygamy legal and bigamy vanishes. I think some pre-nup requirements should be in place for anything other than two person unions (Divorce courts are Jerry Springer enough as it) but they shouldn't be illegal. |
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Nov 7, 2014 18:41:01 GMT -5
Good! The SCOTUS needs to speak on this issue, and they were never going to do without a split between circuits. and that means we're going to get a "gay sex is icky" opinion from Scalia in legalese!
Then he is perfectly free to refrain from, um, "indulging" . . . . just sayin' . . . .
and ETA: doesn't he realize "the ickyness" is going on all the time anyway? Whether he likes it or not? 
|
|
