The Supreme Court refuses to block gay marriages

[CShine 0]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...rriage_courts_4

[DKW 86 7,726]

And within a short time, we will see pedophile marriages legalized too.

Nambla is just around the corner from being front page news.

[Tigermike 3,426]

And within a short time, we will see pedophile marriages legalized too.

Nambla is just around the corner from being front page news.

Oh no David have Al, channonc and CShine already assured us that would never be a problem.

[keoson7 28]

It's a great day to be a democrat ain't it

[tiger88 934]

Oh boy here we go with this total ridiculousness again.

I mean alcohol is legal for those above 21 so soon all ages will be able to buy and consume it legally.

And of course those 16 and above can drive so soon infants will be behind the wheel.

Pornography is legally sold to those 18 and above so soon it will be available to toddlers at every store in america.

Oh wait!!!!! :bonk: Children are viewed differently by the eyes of our society and there are laws that will always be there to protect them. That is unless the law decides to inexplicably offer them up to all the chickenhawks of the world.

[rexbo 104]

Children will be protected, that is a no brainer. But, protecting the children argument doesn't work when someone says if 2 consenting adults want to get married, why not 3?

[tiger88 934]

Children will be protected, that is a no brainer.

Not to many on this board if you have ever followed these type of threads in the past.

AFA polygamy. I'm more of a one man with one woman kinda guy myself. If someone else wants to try it and they are adults I'm not sure how that is going to ruin society. I say keep it illegal, but if it were to be legalized I might lose about 1/10th of a second sleep over it.

[auburnatl 0]

Issues with polygamy are cultural, legal, and INSURANCE related. Homosexual marriages creates similar issues but is definately more of a political hot button.

I doubt either one will be a real problem in Opp.

[quietfan 233]

Why, when the issue of gay marriage comes up, do people so often bring up the issue of pedophilia as an analogy? There is ZERO correspondence between the two. Gay marriage involves consensual acts between consenting adults. Pedophilia is rape, an assault on a child too young to give his/her consent by an adult predator. Relating the two is an insult to the both victims of pedophilia and to consenting adult homosexuals. I don’t think any sane adult nor any court ever suggesting we approve of rape or statutory rape.

Also, it seems to me, since sodomy is now protected under the Constitutionally recognized right of privacy, that by opposing gay marriage we’re merely saying its okay to engage in fornication outside the bonds of marriage, but we don’t want the same consenting adults making promises of fidelity, monogamy, and life-time commitment & support to each other.

*******

Personally, in the spirit of the First Amendment and separation of church & state, I think the government should get out of the marriage business entirely. The state should merely recognize civil/domestic partnerships between any consenting adults in they same way they recognize business partnerships. Homosexuality and/or polygamy should not be a factor in civil partnerships—the government isn’t interested in the number or gender of my business partners.

What those factors mean religiously is a personal spiritual question. If individuals wish to join into a spiritual/religious union, they should do that through the church or religion of their choice. That’s not the government’s business.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

I agree that the pedophilia argument has too many differences to make it easy to equate it with homosexual marriage. I do believe that the polygamy argument is closer and one that hasn't been mentioned so far, incest (consenting adults of course), is even more possible. And don't rule incest out because of the issue of birth defects if they have kids. You could legalize incest and keep the prohibition on them procreating for the birth defect reason.

The pedophilia argument does have some sway in that as we progress down a path that continues to legitimize aberrant and perverted sexual behavior, society becomes desensitized in general. NAMBLA isn't going away anytime soon and they have sympathizers who, while they may not argue for being able to have sex with a 7 year old, they do want to lower age of consent laws down to as early as 12 or 13.

[channonc 466]

Personally, in the spirit of the First Amendment and separation of church & state, I think the government should get out of the marriage business entirely. The state should merely recognize civil/domestic partnerships between any consenting adults in they same way they recognize business partnerships. Homosexuality and/or polygamy should not be a factor in civil partnerships—the government isn’t interested in the number or gender of my business partners.

What those factors mean religiously is a personal spiritual question. If individuals wish to join into a spiritual/religious union, they should do that through the church or religion of their choice. That’s not the government’s business.

Totally agree with you on this.

[AUJarhead 70]

Does anyone know if these people will be taxed as normal married people are?

[Tiger Al 0]

Does anyone know if these people will be taxed as normal married people are?

I would think so since legal rights/obligations is one of their goals.

[AUJarhead 70]

Does anyone know if these people will be taxed as normal married people are?

I would think so since legal rights/obligations is one of their goals.

Thanks, Al.. Little research, and I could have answered my own question. Looks like the won't be filing jointly for Federal Taxes, just Mass State Tax.

Married couples are entitled to hundreds of right and protections under Massachusetts law, including the ability to file joint state tax returns, automatic preference for making medical decisions for a disabled spouse and workers' compensation benefits. But other rights, such as the ability to jointly file a federal tax return, are not available because federal law defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/17/samesex....e.ap/index.html

Thanks again.

[Tiger Al 0]

This will be challenged in the Supreme Court as being against the full faith and credit clause as well as challenging the Defense of Marriage Act as being unconstitutional.

[CCTAU 3,369]

HELL / HANDBASKET.........

And all from the GREAT state that gives us so many wonderful politicians!

[quietfan 233]

This will be challenged in the Supreme Court as being against the full faith and credit clause as well as challenging the Defense of Marriage Act as being unconstitutional.

I agree. It's all going to end up with the federal Supremes as soon as one of these couples tries to carry their certificate to another state.

Not being an expert on constitutional law (or any law actually), I have a question about the ex post facto clause of the Constitution. As I understand it, it says the federal government can't pass a law today and charge me for having broken it last week.

How, if at all, might this apply to couples married legally in Massachusetts today should a national constitutional amendment outlaw the same tomorrow? [Obviously I'm making a leap from the state of Mass. to the Feds, but again, the full faith & credit clause will put it in the Feds lap soon enough.] I.e., will those gay couples legally married now remain legally married and only future gay marriages be outlawed, or would past legal marriages be broken up as well?

I suppose this is one place where comparison to polygamy might be appropriate. Can any legal historians out there tell me what happened to pre-exiting polygamist marriages in Utah when polygamy was outlawed? I'm asking 'cause i don't really know.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

The ex post facto clause wouldn't affect the couples themselves except to invalidate their "marriage." It would mainly apply to those who performed the marriage ceremonies. They couldn't be prosecuted for breaking the law before it was actually enacted.

[DKW 86 7,726]

Oh boy here we go with this total ridiculousness again.

I mean alcohol is legal for those above 21 so soon all ages will be able to buy and consume it legally.

And of course those 16 and above can drive so soon infants will be behind the wheel.

Pornography is legally sold to those 18 and above so soon it will be available to toddlers at every store in america.

Oh wait!!!!! :bonk:  Children are viewed differently by the eyes of our society and there are laws that will always be there to protect them. That is unless the law decides to inexplicably offer them up to all the chickenhawks of the world.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Supreme Court Justice argues that Adulthood begins at 12.

Ginsburg and ACLU

"When U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an attorney for the ACLU, she co-authored a report recommending that the age of consent for sexual acts be lowered to 12 years of age," the article points out.

Knight and York's footnoted documentation on this is as follows: "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code," Report for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, April 1977, p. 102, quoted in "Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Feminist World View," The Phyllis Schlafly Report, Vol. 26, No. 12, Section 1, p. 3. The paragraph (from the Ginsburg report) reads as follows: "'Eliminate the phrase "carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of 16 years" and substitute a federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense. ... A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person. ... [and] the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old.'"

And again...

Based on a report she co-authored ("Sex Bias in the U.S. Code," Report for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, April 1977) and on her previous decisions, these are some of the positions she has expressed in the past:

The traditional family concept of the husband as a breadwinner and wife as a homemaker must be eliminated.

The federal government must provide comprehensive child care.

The Homestead Law must give twice as much benefit to couples who live apart from each other as to a husband and wife who live together.

In the military, women must be drafted when men are drafted, and women must be assigned to combat duty.

Affirmative action must be applied to equalize the number of men and women in the armed forces.

The age of consent for sexual acts must be lowered to 12 years of age.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

The stunning thing is that a wacked-out, far-left justice like this gets an up/down vote in the Senate for the Supreme Court while Estrada, Owens, Pickering, and others get stalled by filibustering, even though they were approved in committee...and this was just for the federal judiciary.

[tiger88 934]

Oh boy here we go with this total ridiculousness again.

I mean alcohol is legal for those above 21 so soon all ages will be able to buy and consume it legally.

And of course those 16 and above can drive so soon infants will be behind the wheel.

Pornography is legally sold to those 18 and above so soon it will be available to toddlers at every store in america.

Oh wait!!!!! :bonk:  Children are viewed differently by the eyes of our society and there are laws that will always be there to protect them. That is unless the law decides to inexplicably offer them up to all the chickenhawks of the world.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Supreme Court Justice argues that Adulthood begins at 12.

Ginsburg and ACLU

"When U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an attorney for the ACLU, she co-authored a report recommending that the age of consent for sexual acts be lowered to 12 years of age," the article points out.

Knight and York's footnoted documentation on this is as follows: "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code," Report for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, April 1977, p. 102, quoted in "Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Feminist World View," The Phyllis Schlafly Report, Vol. 26, No. 12, Section 1, p. 3. The paragraph (from the Ginsburg report) reads as follows: "'Eliminate the phrase "carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of 16 years" and substitute a federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense. ... A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person. ... [and] the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old.'"

And again...

Based on a report she co-authored ("Sex Bias in the U.S. Code," Report for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, April 1977) and on her previous decisions, these are some of the positions she has expressed in the past:

The traditional family concept of the husband as a breadwinner and wife as a homemaker must be eliminated.

The federal government must provide comprehensive child care.

The Homestead Law must give twice as much benefit to couples who live apart from each other as to a husband and wife who live together.

In the military, women must be drafted when men are drafted, and women must be assigned to combat duty.

Affirmative action must be applied to equalize the number of men and women in the armed forces.

The age of consent for sexual acts must be lowered to 12 years of age.

Well if you had been more specific I wouldn't have made so strong a statement. You said pedophilia would be legalized and that is much different than lowering the consent age. It is however very disturbing to me to see that a supreme court justice is of this opinion. I think the age of legal consent is fine where it is at and you already have enough pedophiles going after underage kids as it is. Lower the age to twelve and imo it would only encourage them more (for kids under twelve as well). If there was ever a serious movement to change the age to 12 if there was anyway possible, I would participate in protests against it either in person or however.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

And on what basis would you protest it?

[TexasTiger 13,556]

HELL / HANDBASKET.........

And all from the GREAT state that gives us so many wonderful politicians!

Well, perhaps we're spoiled by how high the bar has been set in Alabama for so many years. Afterall, it's damn hard to top Big Jim, Little George, Fumbling Fob, Bill Baxley, Shorty Price, Charles Woods, Jeff Sessions and Roy Moore.

[Tiger Al 0]

HELL / HANDBASKET.........

And all from the GREAT state that gives us so many wonderful politicians!

Well, perhaps we're spoiled by how high the bar has been set in Alabama for so many years. Afterall, it's damn hard to top Big Jim, Little George, Fumbling Fob, Bill Baxley, Shorty Price, Charles Woods, Jeff Sessions and Roy Moore.

Don't forget Guy Hunt, the Apostle.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

HELL / HANDBASKET.........

And all from the GREAT state that gives us so many wonderful politicians!

Well, perhaps we're spoiled by how high the bar has been set in Alabama for so many years. Afterall, it's damn hard to top Big Jim, Little George, Fumbling Fob, Bill Baxley, Shorty Price, Charles Woods, Jeff Sessions and Roy Moore.

Don't forget Guy Hunt, the Apostle.

And Amway salesman. And the father of the modern Republican Party in Alabama.