You knew what I meant about "impact".
What did I make up?
Are you just really bored?
Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules, 5-4
- Thread starter -LEK-
- Start date
- Status
You knew what I meant about "impact".
What did I make up?
Are you just really bored?
My response was to Mime directly (and those like him). The only argument you get is two consenting adults that love each other should be able to get married, it's none of your business and impacts no one.
That's purely emotional (wedding bells lovey dovey ********), and ignores all the estate, child custody, tax, etc. issues that depend on marriage.
I honestly haven't read this full opinion yet. I know the Windsor case was an estate tax case. And that resulted in complications with gay couples being able to MFJ for federal tax purposes, but OH did not recognize same sex marriage, and typically requires you to follow you federal filing status.
That's purely emotional (wedding bells lovey dovey ********), and ignores all the estate, child custody, tax, etc. issues that depend on marriage.
I honestly haven't read this full opinion yet. I know the Windsor case was an estate tax case. And that resulted in complications with gay couples being able to MFJ for federal tax purposes, but OH did not recognize same sex marriage, and typically requires you to follow you federal filing status.
Yeah, I haven't read the entire opinion, only the parts people are front paging on news websites, which are the emotional side of the opinions. Have followed the case some as two households on my block are older gay couples who are really worried about some of the implications, and they are good people that I hoped didn't have to deal with huge messes after one of them passes.
He didn't. And you didn't either. But it is sounding like that is being insinuated. Love dovey ********?
Yes. The argument in favor of gay marriage was (is) incredibly flawed. It ignores all the underlying factors and focuses on the emotions of love and marriage (i.e. lovey dovey ********).
So yeah, if I come across as being against gay marriage, I'm really just against ****** arguments.
(Although having the Supreme Court forcce the issue basically resolves the conflict of laws issues).
So yeah, if I come across as being against gay marriage, I'm really just against ****** arguments.
(Although having the Supreme Court forcce the issue basically resolves the conflict of laws issues).
So now they can be on the same footing as all of the businesses that have provided benefits to domestic partners for years. If that business supplemented benefits for the spouse then in essence all single and employee only coverage employees were supplementing that cost. Otherwise all the employer has to do is to make benefits available...they don't have to pay for them.
FWIW, gay couples are more likely to be two income earning households than traditional male/female couples therefore both likely already have benefits from their current employers. Add the fact that they are far, far less likely to require coverage of pregnancies...
Two years ago my employer who has allowed domestic partner benefits for 10+ years reviewed their health care costs of same sex couples vs traditional...same sex couples had nearly 20% lower costs in claims paid per policy holder...
You don't think that denying some one rights makes those underlying factors irrelevant?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. State's have forever been doing this to local counties/cities. You want to sell beer on Sunday in Jackwhat, Miss.? Too bad, it doesn't matter if the community wants it, the state says no. Georgia is the worst for infringing on local communities right to self rule.
I think a better question is, "Why is the government in the marriage business anyway?".
Oh, so they can no at what levels to tax us. Something just doesn't seem right about that.
Oh, so they can no at what levels to tax us. Something just doesn't seem right about that.
That's the entire crux of this matter. It's ludicrous to observe all these moralists that get into such a hissy fit over losing their ability to control the lives of others, over an issue that has absolutely no effect on themselves.
Really, thought as a citizen we are guaranteed an unalienable right for the "pursuit of happiness".
God will not sit idly by as we affront His moral decorum. Expect divine retribution.
It's called 'docking' and you promised you wouldn't say anything about our private lives on this board! I'm canceling the bike ride to the BNB this weekend, Jason!
Not intended as sarcasm. Didn't our forefathers set the foundation for such liberties to all citizens?
The gay population is so small the economic impact is a nonissue compared to the flood of illegal immigrates and mommas/daddies that can't support one child more less five.
The "pursuit of happiness" line comes from the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. It has zero legal authority.
The Bill of Rights laid out the inherent rights of the people that are protected from government infringement.
The Bill of Rights laid out the inherent rights of the people that are protected from government infringement.
Federally approved tummy-sticking FTMFW [banana] [banana]
Up next.....polygamy.
Up next.....polygamy.
That is a hell of a marketing strategy, replacing Confederate Flag merchandise with Confederate *** merchandise
Did the states Supreme Court over throw the locals laws to enforce this?
Yet it is the foundation and spirit our country was made upon.
Any legal authority can be construed in the 14th amendment which personifies such rights.
No. In fact, I think most people think why stop with the gays.
If consenting adults want to get married and enjoy the same treatment as other married people, let them. Whether you're against the particular perversion/persuasion or not.
[laughing]
Gays are going to break Social Security!!
All of our "systems" are strained, no reason to keep discrimination on the books just to buy an extra month of benefit distributions. Gay marriage will have ZERO (or I guess the number is more like 0.000000000000000000000001%) to do with any solvency issues of SSD/SSI.
[laughing]
Put this over the capital doom and call it a "bi-partisan compromise".
:bomb:
I know. I thought he would have intervened when we conquered the Native Americans and when we had slaves but that Old Testament God loves conquering nations and slave owning
This ruling will not impact you in the least. Not a bit. Unless you are gay and wanted to get married.
You will see no change in your disability benefits.
This ruling will have the same impact as legalization of interracial marriage outside of those who can now get married = Zero.
From your article:
"Uniformity in state marriage laws will save employers a bundle -- about $1.3 billion, according to one analysis. Because same-sex couples have not had equal access to benefits or equal treatment in taxation, employers have had to set up and manage separate systems to manage benefits and calculate taxes.
It will also make it easier and less costly for companies with business in multiple states to manage employee benefits, and it will free workers to take jobs anywhere."
I stand corrected, only positive impact.
If we are all wringing our hands on the impact this may have we should also roll back interracial marriage rights. Let's give the tax guys and lawyers some relief, they're the real victims in all this.
They should. It's the how that is important. if it was a matter of snapping fingers to fix the problem this could have been settled awhile ago.
As a business owner who provides medical coverage to my employees, I am impacted. You are wrong again. Keep trying.
Too much ignorance about the constitution.
The great part about the Supreme Court is that they convene to interpret the law, not to make the law. They are tasked to provide "equal justice under law" which is paraphrased of the 14th amendment quote "the powers of the States in dealing with crime within their borders are not limited, but no State can deprive particular persons or classes of persons of equal and impartial justice under the law.". They do not meet to interpret the Koran, the teachings of Buddha, and in fact, not even the Bible. And for that I am extremely grateful and proud.
I think it is very clear from this quote from Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, and "Founding Father" what principles this country was founded upon. "We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
Religious persecution was the issue at hand in the late 1700's. Not the only reason, but a large portion of why the U.S. is even in existence today. My point is that any knowledgable person can extrapolate that statement to today's ruling. One day, someone without your religious beliefs may be in a position of power. If you are praying today, you should be praying that they too are able to draw a separation between church and state. Today was a win for freedom. I have been fortunate to live a life mostly free from persecution and bigotry. We all deserve that right. And that is what the United States is about... to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty.
Like
The great part about the Supreme Court is that they convene to interpret the law, not to make the law. They are tasked to provide "equal justice under law" which is paraphrased of the 14th amendment quote "the powers of the States in dealing with crime within their borders are not limited, but no State can deprive particular persons or classes of persons of equal and impartial justice under the law.". They do not meet to interpret the Koran, the teachings of Buddha, and in fact, not even the Bible. And for that I am extremely grateful and proud.
I think it is very clear from this quote from Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, and "Founding Father" what principles this country was founded upon. "We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
Religious persecution was the issue at hand in the late 1700's. Not the only reason, but a large portion of why the U.S. is even in existence today. My point is that any knowledgable person can extrapolate that statement to today's ruling. One day, someone without your religious beliefs may be in a position of power. If you are praying today, you should be praying that they too are able to draw a separation between church and state. Today was a win for freedom. I have been fortunate to live a life mostly free from persecution and bigotry. We all deserve that right. And that is what the United States is about... to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty.
Like
You don't own a business. If you did you wouldn't be on here.
But if you did, you probably wouldn't have gay employees. And lastly if you did have gay employees, you benefited by not having to shell out the small $$$ to cover their spouses through discriminatory laws up until now.
I think Alito hits the right note:
"Most Americans — understandably — will cheer or lament today's decision because of their views on the issue of same-sex marriage. But all Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority's claim of power portends."
Between the Obamacare case yesterday and this one, it's hard to imagine a situation in which this Court demurs. It, evidently, has superpowers. And that should worry everyone. Even if you love the decisions yesterday and today, there will soon enough be decisions you don't like.....
"Most Americans — understandably — will cheer or lament today's decision because of their views on the issue of same-sex marriage. But all Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority's claim of power portends."
Between the Obamacare case yesterday and this one, it's hard to imagine a situation in which this Court demurs. It, evidently, has superpowers. And that should worry everyone. Even if you love the decisions yesterday and today, there will soon enough be decisions you don't like.....
- Status