U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-28-2015, 04:21 PM
 
5,574 posts, read 5,566,604 times
Reputation: 16473

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
If you need permission (LICENSE) - it is not a RIGHT.
If you have a right, you do not need permission.
How does that logic apply to the right to vote? Or the right to bear arms (states that require license to own or permit to purchase)?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-28-2015, 04:42 PM
 
Location: Phila Pa
2,549 posts, read 1,791,221 times
Reputation: 950
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident View Post
First take: No slam-dunk for same-sex marriage?



No clear reading on how the Court will decide. But, unlike some who were/are predicting a slam dunk for proponents of overturning marriage amendments as violations of the 14th Amendment, I never thought that this was was a slam dunk. To be clear, though, the "justice to watch" (aka Justice Kennedy) asked skeptical questions of both sides, though he seemed to be more skeptical of arguments forcing states to recognize SSM right here and now in my view. Interestingly, at least 5 justices seem to be ready to answer the second question presented in the case (regarding whether states that ban SSM must recognize SSM performed in states where they are legal) in the negative, which is a bit of a shock to me as I previously thought that the Court would answer the first question (whether states must allow SSM) in the negative and the second question affirmatively.

If I had to take a guess, and based on how the argument went today, I'd say that the Court will rule in the negative on both questions, BUT leave the door open to revisiting the question in a few years. In my view, Kennedy won't be willing to take what would be such a huge leap in requiring SSM throughout the nation just now. But, we'll see!
My prediction is they rule in favor of states as far as to whom they can issue a marriage license too, but will rule that they have to recognize marriages performed in other states. I just can not see how they can let a couple move across state lines and then their marriage means nothing, even though it would still mean something as far as Federal Marriage recognition is concerned.

The big question is if they rule no on both fronts, what happens to the states where the courts over-turned bans and what happens to those SSC's already married in those states?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2015, 05:35 PM
 
Location: Big Island of Hawaii & HOT BuOYS Sailing Vessel
4,758 posts, read 1,747,504 times
Reputation: 1724
So an employee working with benefits in State A would lose SSM benefits if moved to State B?

The SSM population is not as small as people may think.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2015, 12:13 PM
 
Location: Austin
668 posts, read 462,595 times
Reputation: 887
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzy jeff View Post
My prediction is they rule in favor of states as far as to whom they can issue a marriage license too, but will rule that they have to recognize marriages performed in other states. I just can not see how they can let a couple move across state lines and then their marriage means nothing, even though it would still mean something as far as Federal Marriage recognition is concerned.

The big question is if they rule no on both fronts, what happens to the states where the courts over-turned bans and what happens to those SSC's already married in those states?
I disagree. Roberts is the biggest swing vote obviously. On the first question (legalize gay marriage everywhere) he was asking questions very heavily of both sides. Then, later, when they take up the second issue of if states would have to recognize gay marriages from other states, his only input was to make the point that this question only matters if the first question is not resolved in favor of gay marriage.

He knows that his vote is the most likely decider. If he were to rule for the states in the matter of the first question, it would make sense that he would be more involved in the arguments around the second one. Instead his only input was to say it didn't really matter if the ruling in the first issue was against the states. To me that is a clear indicator he will vote against the states/for legalized gay marriage in the first question.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2015, 12:15 PM
 
Location: Austin
668 posts, read 462,595 times
Reputation: 887
Quote:
Originally Posted by raindrop101 View Post
IMHO, if they do not legalize same sex marriage in all states, they will hand Democrats the next election on a silver platter.
This. There will be serious repurcussions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2015, 12:16 PM
 
Location: Austin
668 posts, read 462,595 times
Reputation: 887
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
There is no "RIGHT" to gay marriage.

If you need permission (LICENSE) - it is not a RIGHT.
If you have a right, you do not need permission.
Wrong. Hetero couples also need a license, and the supreme court has ruled more than a dozen times that marriage is a "fundamental right". So your argument is wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2015, 12:25 PM
 
28,411 posts, read 14,258,752 times
Reputation: 19546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati View Post
Anyone else notice the irony of the fact that the same crowd that incessantly evokes the 'big government' bogeyman is dead-set against the notion that two consenting adults get to decide whether or not they marry each other, and instead want the government to be in charge of passing judgment on that?
I'm one of those "I don't like big government" people, and I feel I'm very consistent.

I don't want government in the marriage business at all. Government has no business with it.

If you want to be married, go to your priest, spiritual guru, flower worshiper, coven leader, bartender or the guy wearing pink spandex on rollerblades with the mohawk and get married.

IMHO, there should be no state sponsored or state approved marriage for anyone.

That being said, I believe it should be up to local municipalities to decide at this point in time.

This conservative TEA Party Christian male has no problem with gay people getting married. I also have no issue with two gay men or two lesbian women adopting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2015, 01:17 PM
 
1,025 posts, read 967,630 times
Reputation: 1775
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToddATX View Post
I disagree. Roberts is the biggest swing vote obviously. On the first question (legalize gay marriage everywhere) he was asking questions very heavily of both sides. Then, later, when they take up the second issue of if states would have to recognize gay marriages from other states, his only input was to make the point that this question only matters if the first question is not resolved in favor of gay marriage.

He knows that his vote is the most likely decider. If he were to rule for the states in the matter of the first question, it would make sense that he would be more involved in the arguments around the second one. Instead his only input was to say it didn't really matter if the ruling in the first issue was against the states. To me that is a clear indicator he will vote against the states/for legalized gay marriage in the first question.
I don't see Roberts as the deciding vote over Kennedy. Roberts may be a surprise vote, but I don't see him being the swing vote.

Why do you think Kennedy will side with the conservatives and make Roberts the swing vote?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2015, 01:35 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,093 posts, read 70,173,862 times
Reputation: 27525
Quote:
Originally Posted by pbmaise View Post
So an employee working with benefits in State A would lose SSM benefits if moved to State B?

The SSM population is not as small as people may think.
Benefits go with the job, not the state. The government has no say in corporate benefits to workers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2015, 01:57 PM
 
28,411 posts, read 14,258,752 times
Reputation: 19546
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Benefits go with the job, not the state. The government has no say in corporate benefits to workers.
I know. What started out as something companies decided to do as a "bonus" to help recruit and retain workers ended up becoming an entitlement which people felt they were owed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top