Maybe the SCOTUS is about to connect some more dots!

[WorldWatcher]

True, it was suggested that a separate “gay marriage” institution be created. Actually that solved the issue.

But making something called “same sex marriage” created an absurd institution that includes heterosexual same sex unions which, is insulting to the institution itself.

Except, back in the day, these seperate but equal institutions WERE NOT acceptable alternatives.

Those, to a large degree, who opposed equal treatment under Civil Marriage laws also supported banning such things as "Civil Unions" and amended their state constitutions like mine did to ban them. And implemented the Federal DOMA which precluded recognitgion of Civil Unions AND barred the Federal governemnt from recognizing Civil Marriage even if the state choose to implement them.

The idea that it was suggested that these seperate but equal institutions were acceptable, isn't true.

WW
.
.
.

 

[HeyNorm]

Except, back in the day, these seperate but equal institutions WERE NOT acceptable alternatives.

Those, to a large degree, who opposed equal treatment under Civil Marriage laws also supported banning such things as "Civil Unions" and amended their state constitutions like mine did to ban them. And implemented the Federal DOMA which precluded recognitgion of Civil Unions AND barred the Federal governemnt from recognizing Civil Marriage even if the state choose to implement them.

The idea that it was suggested that these seperate but equal institutions were acceptable, isn't true.

WW
.
.
.

View attachment 1150365

Just stop it. Doma was the result of the assault on Marriage that ended with a Supreme Court ruling that proved its necessity (DOMA) as we now have included provisions that allow TWO STRAIGHT MALES TO MARRY EACH OTHER.

The absurdity of that is simply incomprehensible

 

[sparky]

Those, to a large degree, who opposed equal treatment under Civil Marriage laws also supported banning such things as "Civil Unions" and amended their state constitutions like mine did to ban them. And implemented the Federal DOMA which precluded recognitgion of Civil Unions AND barred the Federal governemnt from recognizing Civil Marriage even if the state choose to implement them.

so if i'm reading this right WW, the scotus ruled the feds defining 'marriage' unconstitutional, while individual states can do what they wish with it ?

that just plucks the strings of my old black tenther heart .........yet the specter of libertopia's wrath is in the details

what happens when say, a sanctuary state's civil union participants file for federal bennies?

~S~

 

[WorldWatcher]

so if i'm reading this right WW, the scotus ruled the feds defining 'marriage' unconstitutional, while individual states can do what they wish with it ?

that just plucks the strings of my old black tenther heart .........yet the specter of libertopia's wrath is in the details

Not quite:

• DOMA defined for Federal purposes that Civil Marriage only existed between a man and a woman. Regardless of whether there was a valid Civil Marriage.
• Since, for Federal purposes, there was not such thing as "Civil Unions" - that was always a red herring. Since Civil Unions didn't exist - in the eyes of the Federal government. That status carried no weight at the Federal level.
• DOMA also allowed States to NOT recognize Civil Marriages from other States but continue to recognize Different-sex Marriages from other States.

DOMA was passed in (IIRC) 1996, it was overturned by the SCOTUS in 2013 (Windsor v. United States) on Due Process grounds because the Federal government treated State sanctioned Same-sex Civil Marriages differently than State sanctioned Different-sex Marriages.

what happens when say, a sanctuary state's civil union participants file for federal bennies?

~S~

Nothing.

Federal benefits, rights, and responsibilities are not contingent upon Civil Union status. Only on State sanctioned Civil Marriage. Which is why "Civil Unions" were never going to be equal, in terms of Federal status, to "Civil Marriage".

WW

 

[sparky]

Not quite:

• DOMA defined for Federal purposes that Civil Marriage only existed between a man and a woman. Regardless of whether there was a valid Civil Marriage.
• Since, for Federal purposes, there was not such thing as "Civil Unions" - that was always a red herring. Since Civil Unions didn't exist - in the eyes of the Federal government. That status carried no weight at the Federal level.
• DOMA also allowed States to NOT recognize Civil Marriages from other States but continue to recognize Different-sex Marriages from other States.

DOMA was passed in (IIRC) 1996, it was overturned by the SCOTUS in 2013 (Windsor v. United States) on Due Process grounds because the Federal government treated State sanctioned Same-sex Civil Marriages differently than State sanctioned Different-sex Marriages.



Nothing.

Federal benefits, rights, and responsibilities are not contingent upon Civil Union status. Only on State sanctioned Civil Marriage. Which is why "Civil Unions" were never going to be equal, in terms of Federal status, to "Civil Marriage".

WW

what is most interesting here is the tug of war betwixt church & state WW

~S~

 

[Chuz Life]

what is most interesting here is the tug of war betwixt church & state WW

~S~

And (just as it is with respect to the abortion issue) it doesn't have to be.

 

[sparky]

And (just as it is with respect to the abortion issue) it doesn't have to be.

An apt comparison Chuz, one can feel the theocrats insidiously manipulating constitutionality ...... ~S~

 

[Chuz Life]

An apt comparison Chuz, one can feel the theocrats insidiously manipulating constitutionality ...... ~S~

Oddly enough (at least on the abortion issue) both, for and against.

 

[SweetSue92]

Supreme Court Faces Decision on Case Urging Overturn of Same-Sex Marriage​

Today at nullToday at null; Supreme Court faces decision on case urging overturn of same-sex marriage

"The U.S. Supreme Court is facing a choice about whether to take up a case filed by former Kentucky clerk Kim Davis urging the overturn its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark case that guaranteed the right to same-sex marriage nationwide."

I hope the SCOTUS takes this case and (just as the SCOTUS did in Dobbs) kicks it back to the individual States to decide for themself what they will and will not recognize as a "marriage."

If it's Constitutional for "personhood" to vary State by State, why not a legal construct like "marriage" too?

Should have never gone through in the first place. At best, I support a civil union, that gives partners financial security, next of kin, etc. But not marriage. Kick it down to the states!

 

[WorldWatcher]

what is most interesting here is the tug of war betwixt church & state WW

~S~

There is no tug of war really.

Religious Marriage is a social construct pertaining to a religious organization.

Civil Marriage is a legal status entered unto under secular law.

So...

• A couple can have BOTH Religious and Civil Marriage (both being separate entities)
• A couple can have ONLY a Religious Marriage with no Civil Marriage component. But that Civil Marriage is not recognized under the law.
• A couple can have ONLY a Civil Marriage with no religious component. That Civil Marriage is recognized under the law, but is not recognized by a Religious organization.

Many try to muddy the waters by conflating the two. But from a logic standpoint they are separate entities.

WW

 

[Chuz Life]

Why should any government incentivize or subsidize anything in the way of "marriage" that goes beyond or deviates from the most basic, most enduring workable model for a family, and by extension for a society, which just happens to be a one man one woman union.

As a minimalist (don't **** with what works) I don't see the reason to reward and incentivise all other "wanted" relatipnships. . . Just because they feel left out or not fairly recognized.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Why should any government incentivize or subsidize anything in the way of "marriage" that goes beyond or deviates from the most basic, most enduring workable model for a family, and by extension for a society, which just happens to be a one man one woman union.

As a minimalist (don't **** with what works) I don't see the reason to reward and incentivise all other "wanted" relatipnships. . . Just because they feel left out or not fairly recognized.

The most basic, most enduring workable model for a family is now two consenting adults , without regards to their respective genders. It has been working for a long time as well or better than your concept of a traditional family . Yet you keep trying to **** with it. If it isn’t broken it does not need fixing.

And it is not about "feeling left out: It's about the legal rights and benefits and status that goes with being married, for themselves and their children. It takes a special kind of stupid to not understand that,

You started this thread to celebrate an attempt to **** with same sex marriage by someone who has made a mockery of the institution of marriage -so called traditional marriage-in her own life. You’re not fooling anybody with your minimalist bullshit. Just leave it alone!! They are not bothering you or having a negative impact on society,

 

[WorldWatcher]

Why should any government incentivize or subsidize anything in the way of "marriage" that goes beyond or deviates from the most basic, most enduring workable model for a family, and by extension for a society, which just happens to be a one man one woman union.

As a minimalist (don't **** with what works) I don't see the reason to reward and incentivise all other "wanted" relatipnships. . . Just because they feel left out or not fairly recognized.

See that's it right there. No attempt to be argumentative, just to layout perspective, you choose not to view same sex couples as a family.

If the unit is a man and a woman:

• A Man & Woman with natural children (some from a prior relationship) = Family
• A Man & Woman with adopted children = Family
• A Man & Woman without children = Family

But choose to view same-sex couples:

• A Man & Man with natural children (some from a prior relationship) != Family
• A Man & Man with adopted children != Family
• A Man & Man without children != Family
• A Woman & Woman with natural children (some from a prior relationship) != Family
• A Woman & Woman with adopted children != Family
• A Woman & Woman without children != Family

The basic minimalist view is to say that no matter the gender composition, no matter the status of children the couple have (or don't have) - they should be treated the same under Civil Law.

WW

 

[HeyNorm]

See that's it right there. No attempt to be argumentative, just to layout perspective, you choose not to view same sex couples as a family.

If the unit is a man and a woman:

• A Man & Woman with natural children (some from a prior relationship) = Family
• A Man & Woman with adopted children = Family
• A Man & Woman without children = Family

But choose to view same-sex couples:

• A Man & Man with natural children (some from a prior relationship) != Family
• A Man & Man with adopted children != Family
• A Man & Man without children != Family
• A Woman & Woman with natural children (some from a prior relationship) != Family
• A Woman & Woman with adopted children != Family
• A Woman & Woman without children != Family

The basic minimalist view is to say that no matter the gender composition, no matter the status of children the couple have (or don't have) - they should be treated the same under Civil Law.

WW

2 siblings can raise a child, yet can’t get married?

If procreation have nothing to do with it then explain why

 

[WorldWatcher]

2 siblings can raise a child, yet can’t get married?

If procreation have nothing to do with it then explain why

Gaslighting.

If procreation is a condition of Civil Marriage, explain why a man can marry a woman that has had a hysterectomy?

WW

 

[HeyNorm]

Gaslighting.

If procreation is a condition of Civil Marriage, explain why a man can marry a woman that has had a hysterectomy?

WW

Discrimination based on disability? Cool, are you saying that gay couples are disabled?

 

[Chuz Life]

See that's it right there. No attempt to be argumentative, just to layout perspective, you choose not to view same sex couples as a family.

If the unit is a man and a woman:

• A Man & Woman with natural children (some from a prior relationship) = Family
• A Man & Woman with adopted children = Family
• A Man & Woman without children = Family

But choose to view same-sex couples:

• A Man & Man with natural children (some from a prior relationship) != Family
• A Man & Man with adopted children != Family
• A Man & Man without children != Family
• A Woman & Woman with natural children (some from a prior relationship) != Family
• A Woman & Woman with adopted children != Family
• A Woman & Woman without children != Family

The basic minimalist view is to say that no matter the gender composition, no matter the status of children the couple have (or don't have) - they should be treated the same under Civil Law.

WW

Two men in a loving sexual relationship can most certainly be a family, as can two women.

Especially if they are siblings.

But you would probably forbid two loving brothers or two loving sisters from marrying one another and demanding the rest of the world accept that as "a family."

Am I wrong about that?

Here's what Grok has to say about it.

It's a great read - especially toward the end!

https://x.com/i/grok/share/Ya8j7L89gUTefF43T66P3HZiZ

Good stuff!

 

[WorldWatcher]

Discrimination based on disability? Cool, are you saying that gay couples are disabled?

The discrimination desired by some isn’t based on disability.

It’s based on the biological sex of the couple.

WW

 

[Chuz Life]

The discrimination desired by some isn’t based on disability.

It’s based on the biological sex of the couple.

WW

"Societal norms"

Even Grok got it right.

 

[HeyNorm]

The discrimination desired by some isn’t based on disability.

It’s based on the biological sex of the couple.

WW

Amazing how some don’t understand why biological sex is important to the species.