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.
I aint saying dont get married, I am not saying dont be with the one you love, what I am saying is the government should not be in the marriage/civil union business
its not a right, its a privilege....if it was a right, you would not be required to get a licence
as I have stated before, why do the married folks get over 1000 benefits, while the single (or shacking up) folks dont get those benefits
why should a married couple, get to pay as one entity, yet a couple that have been together for 20 years and not married has to pay as 2 signle people,,,,,are they not both couples.....
see the point
Actually, if you are living together and only one works, then the working individual can claim the other as a dependant.
And what are these 1,000s of benefits that married people get that singles don't?
I aint saying dont get married, I am not saying dont be with the one you love, what I am saying is the government should not be in the marriage/civil union business
its not a right, its a privilege....if it was a right, you would not be required to get a licence
as I have stated before, why do the married folks get over 1000 benefits, while the single (or shacking up) folks dont get those benefits
why should a married couple, get to pay as one entity, yet a couple that have been together for 20 years and not married has to pay as 2 signle people,,,,,are they not both couples.....
see the point
Because the paradigm of marriage shows more "finality" than "boyfriend/girlfriend".
If the government started extending benefits to every unmarried couple there ever was, then things would become clusterf'd rather quickly.
Which is why most states have "common-law marriages", which DO extend such benefits to unmarried couples that live together after 7 years or such.
While I do agree that government should get out of the "marriage" business, I do believe they should just hand out "civil unions" to all those seeking them.
Because the paradigm of marriage shows more "finality" than "boyfriend/girlfriend".
If the government started extending benefits to every unmarried couple there ever was, then things would become clusterf'd rather quickly.
Which is why most states have "common-law marriages", which DO extend such benefits to unmarried couples that live together after 7 years or such.
While I do agree that government should get out of the "marriage" business, I do believe they should just hand out "civil unions" to all those seeking them.
Just what is going on with the Circuit Court choosing to continue the stay on same sex marriages? in Judge Walker's ruling, he said that the prop 8 proponents had to have an "overwhelming" chance of victory in the CC and had to prove that they were the ones being adversely affected by Prop 8 among other things, both arguments considered to be weak. How could the CC have put the stay on ssm to occur this week?
Just what is going on with the Circuit Court choosing to continue the stay on same sex marriages? in Judge Walker's ruling, he said that the prop 8 proponents had to have an "overwhelming" chance of victory in the CC and had to prove that they were the ones being adversely affected by Prop 8 among other things, both arguments considered to be weak. How could the CC have put the stay on ssm to occur this week?
Probably so there wouldn't be any problems just in case Prop. 8's lawyers win in the appeals court.
Just what is going on with the Circuit Court choosing to continue the stay on same sex marriages? in Judge Walker's ruling, he said that the prop 8 proponents had to have an "overwhelming" chance of victory in the CC and had to prove that they were the ones being adversely affected by Prop 8 among other things, both arguments considered to be weak. How could the CC have put the stay on ssm to occur this week?
The stay gives them time to file their appeal. Then in December the 9th CC will determine if that appeal has merit. While Judge Walker can opinion that an appeal by the proponents would not have merit, in a legal sense, that's not his call to make... it's up to the 9th. So the stay is in effect until the proponents file their appeal, at which point the 9th will determine if the appeal has merit and whether or not they'll allow it to proceed.
But there's no way to judge the merit until it's filed, and they have to be given a reasonable amount of time to compile the appeal.
What the 9th ruled on, solely, was a request for a stay pending appeal, and the 9th granted it.
The stay gives them time to file their appeal. Then in December the 9th CC will determine if that appeal has merit. While Judge Walker can opinion that an appeal by the proponents would not have merit, in a legal sense, that's not his call to make... it's up to the 9th. So the stay is in effect until the proponents file their appeal, at which point the 9th will determine if the appeal has merit and whether or not they'll allow it to proceed.
But there's no way to judge the merit until it's filed, and they have to be given a reasonable amount of time to compile the appeal.
What the 9th ruled on, solely, was a request for a stay pending appeal, and the 9th granted it.
Two interesting aspects of the Ninth Circuit's order from yesterday:
1) Due to the stay, the Ninth Circuit has expedited the appeal process. Opening and Answering briefs are now due two months earlier than per the Ninth Circuit's previous order from last week. And the case will now be heard by the Ninth Circuit in early December, with a decision ensuing no later than March, in all likelihood. That is, if the Ninth Circuit finds that the appellants have standing to appeal.
2) If the Ninth Circuit finds no standing to appeal, then the issue is resolved for California. However, the case will not then go on to the Supreme Court. As noted in an article at SCOTUSblog (linked below), abandoning the appeals process at this point could be a worthy strategy for opponents of Proposition 8, as it would head off the possibility of the Supreme Court, sometime in 2012 or 2013, striking down all laws in the nation prohibiting same-sex marriage. Because when looking at the high court, there is no five-Justice coalition which can be considered likely to overturn Judge Walker's decision. It's possible, just by no means assured or even more likely than not.
I see each of those five Justices voting to uphold the decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger based on their records.
Their's record is that Homosexuals should have Equal Rights as Heterosexuals DO...My dear Friend (Domestic Partnerships)..... are Equal To Marriage at the very Least In The State Of California .....even if it's not on the Federal Level....that's MY POSITION ALSO DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP EQUAL HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE....
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.
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.
