Prop 8 Overturned

#5
#5
I think this is a usurpation of power by the Federal government, but I agree with the ruling.
 
#6
#6
what's next?
111466.jpg
 
Last edited:
#8
#8
Predictable ruling from the 9th. Sort of surprised there was a dissent, though. It is hard to legally defend it, even if people feel passionately about it from a moral point of view.
 
#9
#9
I'd like to see it go all the way to SCOTUS so we can get a final answer.
 
#13
#13
Not a fan of Constitutional amendments for something like this - also not a fan of judges deciding if gay people have a "right" to marry. Waste of time on both parts IMHO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#14
#14
volinbham said:
Not a fan of Constitutional amendments for something like this - also not a fan of judges deciding if gay people have a "right" to marry. Waste of time on both parts IMHO.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with this, however if having this issue brought to SCOTUS leads to some sort change in federal policy or at least starts a process of change, I think it could be a good thing.

As a gay man I personally do not care about getting married, but I am interested in having equal rights from a federal perspective. I do not think the federal government should be involved with the marriage issue but unfortunately it already is. There are many legal benefits and responsibilities awarded to married persons by the federal government today. I would be all for replacing marriage benefits with some sort of civil union setup - would solve issues most important to me. And while many of the federal benefits have a financial focus, there are also others which involve health and critical events with partners which to me is a very big deal. POAs can mitigate much of this, but not all.

Interesting topic of conversation for sure.
 
#16
#16
gcbvol said:
I tend to agree with this, however if having this issue brought to SCOTUS leads to some sort change in federal policy or at least starts a process of change, I think it could be a good thing.

As a gay man I personally do not care about getting married, but I am interested in having equal rights from a federal perspective. I do not think the federal government should be involved with the marriage issue but unfortunately it already is. There are many legal benefits and responsibilities awarded to married persons by the federal government today. I would be all for replacing marriage benefits with some sort of civil union setup - would solve issues most important to me. And while many of the federal benefits have a financial focus, there are also others which involve health and critical events with partners which to me is a very big deal. POAs can mitigate much of this, but not all.

Interesting topic of conversation for sure.
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting this.

More or less what I've been saying about this issue for quite some time.

The problem is that marriage is a legally defined term that carries with it a number of benefits, many of which include various property rights, which even libertarians can agree should be within the realm of government.

I support the ruling. It should be the place of a state supreme court to determine whether or not legislation passed by that state is unconstitutional, and placing bans on same-sex marriage, specifically denying equal property rights based on discrimination against sexual preference is unconstitutional IMO.
 
#17
#17
gcbvol said:
I tend to agree with this, however if having this issue brought to SCOTUS leads to some sort change in federal policy or at least starts a process of change, I think it could be a good thing.

As a gay man I personally do not care about getting married, but I am interested in having equal rights from a federal perspective. I do not think the federal government should be involved with the marriage issue but unfortunately it already is. There are many legal benefits and responsibilities awarded to married persons by the federal government today. I would be all for replacing marriage benefits with some sort of civil union setup - would solve issues most important to me. And while many of the federal benefits have a financial focus, there are also others which involve health and critical events with partners which to me is a very big deal. POAs can mitigate much of this, but not all.

Interesting topic of conversation for sure.
Click to expand...

First openly gay man on VN that I'm aware of. Welcome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#18
#18
gcbvol said:
I tend to agree with this, however if having this issue brought to SCOTUS leads to some sort change in federal policy or at least starts a process of change, I think it could be a good thing.

As a gay man I personally do not care about getting married, but I am interested in having equal rights from a federal perspective. I do not think the federal government should be involved with the marriage issue but unfortunately it already is. There are many legal benefits and responsibilities awarded to married persons by the federal government today. I would be all for replacing marriage benefits with some sort of civil union setup - would solve issues most important to me. And while many of the federal benefits have a financial focus, there are also others which involve health and critical events with partners which to me is a very big deal. POAs can mitigate much of this, but not all.

Interesting topic of conversation for sure.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your perspective. Thanks.
 
#19
#19
gcbvol said:
I tend to agree with this, however if having this issue brought to SCOTUS leads to some sort change in federal policy or at least starts a process of change, I think it could be a good thing.

As a gay man I personally do not care about getting married, but I am interested in having equal rights from a federal perspective. I do not think the federal government should be involved with the marriage issue but unfortunately it already is. There are many legal benefits and responsibilities awarded to married persons by the federal government today. I would be all for replacing marriage benefits with some sort of civil union setup - would solve issues most important to me. And while many of the federal benefits have a financial focus, there are also others which involve health and critical events with partners which to me is a very big deal. POAs can mitigate much of this, but not all.

Interesting topic of conversation for sure.
Click to expand...

I think this is the most viable solution.
 
#21
#21
gcbvol said:
I tend to agree with this, however if having this issue brought to SCOTUS leads to some sort change in federal policy or at least starts a process of change, I think it could be a good thing.

As a gay man I personally do not care about getting married, but I am interested in having equal rights from a federal perspective. I do not think the federal government should be involved with the marriage issue but unfortunately it already is. There are many legal benefits and responsibilities awarded to married persons by the federal government today. I would be all for replacing marriage benefits with some sort of civil union setup - would solve issues most important to me. And while many of the federal benefits have a financial focus, there are also others which involve health and critical events with partners which to me is a very big deal. POAs can mitigate much of this, but not all.

Interesting topic of conversation for sure.
Click to expand...

It wasn't clear in my statement but I separate out the symbolism of marriage from the government sanctioned benefits.

I fully believe the contract benefits that married couples are privy to should be equally available to gay couples and more than two person couples.

The word "marriage" itself appears to have some value due to the symbolism and I just don't see how you legislate symbolism in either direction. A constitutional amendment banning the use of the word in association with civil unions is dumb. Likewise, a judge mandating all civil unions must be called "marriage" is dumb too.
 
Last edited:
#22
#22
volinbham said:
It wasn't clear in my statement but I separate out the symbolism of marriage from the government sanctioned benefits.

I fully believe the contract benefits that married couples are privy to should be equally available to gay couples and more than two person couples.

The word "marriage" itself appears to have some value due to the symbolism and I just don't see how you legislate symbolism.
Click to expand...

This, why in world would you give it up to the gubment?
 
#23
#23
volinbham said:
It wasn't clear in my statement but I separate out the symbolism of marriage from the government sanctioned benefits.

I fully believe the contract benefits that married couples are privy to should be equally available to gay couples and more than two person couples.

The word "marriage" itself appears to have some value due to the symbolism and I just don't see how you legislate symbolism.
Click to expand...

All reasonable people would agree with this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#24
#24
Would there be a problem with marriages being specifically a religious thing, and just viewed as a civil union as for as the government is concerned?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top