U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
 
Old 06-26-2013, 10:55 AM
 
Location: M I N N E S O T A
14,801 posts, read 17,668,136 times
Reputation: 9029

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by KC_Sleuth View Post
<----this kind of thinking still exists in 2013?
I know growing up is hard but you will learn that not everyone has the same beliefs as you, time to get used to it.

 
Old 06-26-2013, 10:55 AM
 
10,357 posts, read 7,957,384 times
Reputation: 4547
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
If we could take a brief moment to dispense with the insults. I'm actually wanting to know this information -

Question - how does this work now? You have a state where gay marriage is illegal. Gay couple, legally married in another state, moves there. According to opinion, states can continue to not recognize that gay marriage. Won't that complicate benefits though? A lot of benefits are based upon where you live.

Also, what about places which take Federal funding. Say a University doesn't offer a gay couple married insurance benefits. That University accept Federal funding but the state where it is located doesn't recognize gay marriage. Can the University not recognize it either for purposes of insurance?

I see this decision creating a myriad of problems and likely a ton more lawsuits.
One by one the states are going to have to start allowing gay marriage. It'll be like dominoes until the only states not allowing it are Texas, South Carolina, and Tennessee or something like that.
 
Old 06-26-2013, 10:55 AM
 
69,372 posts, read 55,398,572 times
Reputation: 9358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sco View Post
I think the drug war cases dealing with federal preemption might just be what brings down all of the state laws and constitutional amendments that prohibit same sex marriage. If federal laws like the Controlled Substances Act always trump state laws when it comes to full legalization or medical marijuana, why wouldn't that same concept apply to other state laws as well.

I will love it if the rabid drug warriors on the court like Scalia are hoisted by their own petard when their decsions are used against them to force the states to accept gay marriage.
Drugs cross state borders, and even federal ones, the federal government has long had the Supreme Courts support in legislationg drug laws.
 
Old 06-26-2013, 10:55 AM
 
Location: NC
1,673 posts, read 1,527,731 times
Reputation: 523
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
That's what I was thinking. I mean it does seem it would cause a lot of confusion. A lot of states base their tax returns on federal. I foresee a lot of work on hammering this all out.

Wonder how it affects places which accept Federal funding but are located in states that ban same sex marriage.
Any State that doesn't extend benefits is just holding off the inevitable, and wasting taxpayers time with arrogance. Just add an option for "other dependant" on the tax document and let people write in who it is. That way States with large populations against Same Sex marriages don't see "same sex union/marriage" and go nuts locally, and the State doesn't get mired in lawsuits.
 
Old 06-26-2013, 10:56 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,583 posts, read 8,265,108 times
Reputation: 4158
Default Supreme Court: People who wrote Calif Prop 8 don't have standing to defend it

California Proposition 8 was a ballot initiative voted on by a majority of Californians, to amend their state constitution to define a "marriage" as only a union between man and woman.

Gay advocates sued, and as the case worked its way through the courts, an election happened. Gov. Ahnold was out, and Gov. Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown was in (again). Gov. Moonbeam announced that, even though the Prop 8 lawsuit was against the Calif government, the government would no longer try to defend it. He basically repudiated a duly registered and passed initiative by the people. The legality of this refusal has not been established.

The people who had written Prop 8 and gotten it through all the legal hurdles and through the election where it was approved by the Calif electorate, stepped in and said they would defend it, and the Federal District Court agreed. The District Court held the trial, and said that Prop 8 violated the U.S. Constitution. It went on the the 9th Circus Court, who checked with the Calif Supreme Court whether the ballot-writers had standing to defend Prop 8 (the CA Supemes said they did), and then the 9th Circus also said Prop 8 violated the U.S. Constitution.

It went to the U.S. Supreme Court, and today that court announced that the people who wrote Prop 8 did NOT have standing to defend it.

HOLLINGSWORTH v. PERRY | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute

Some say that means the 9th Circus court's ruling (that Prop 8 is unconstitutional) stands, and same-sex couples can now get "married" (again).

I'm wondering if, since the people defending it do not have standing to do so... does that mean that the 9th Circus trial is also invalidated? And the Federal District court's trial before it?

But what it clearly means, is that no decision was made on the merits, by the Supreme Court. They just punted it back. So now it has to start all over again, with a new lawsuit, this time brought by people who DO have standing.

Umm... who exactly would that be? If the people who wrote it don't have standing, and the Calif government refuses to defend its own duly passed laws... who does that leave?

BTW, CAN the Calif govt refuse to defend its own laws in court? Or does an election mean, we can essentially throw out any laws we don't like, that were passed before this latest election? I don't think it's supposed to work that way. But then, this IS California....
 
Old 06-26-2013, 10:56 AM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
10,646 posts, read 9,014,353 times
Reputation: 5920
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint View Post
One by one the states are going to have to start allowing gay marriage. It'll be like dominoes until the only states not allowing it are Texas, South Carolina, and Tennessee or something like that.
Why? There's nothing in this decision today that compels them to do so. I think it causes any number of issues but there's nothing in this decision that even remotely defines marriage, other than saying that definition belongs exclusively to the states.
 
Old 06-26-2013, 10:57 AM
Sco
 
4,259 posts, read 4,229,887 times
Reputation: 3358
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardA View Post
If you openly support issues that not only contradict His word but mock Him you are without God. If you want to be with God follow His word. If you're offended then change.
What is Up with the weird Capitalization? Is that Some kind of Religious Thing?
 
Old 06-26-2013, 10:58 AM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
10,646 posts, read 9,014,353 times
Reputation: 5920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maabus1999 View Post
Any State that doesn't extend benefits is just holding off the inevitable, and wasting taxpayers time with arrogance. Just add an option for "other dependant" on the tax document and let people write in who it is. That way States with large populations against Same Sex marriages don't see "same sex union/marriage" and go nuts locally, and the State doesn't get mired in lawsuits.
That would be an interesting argument - a matter of logistics. Because ultimately, that is what this ruling did today for states that do not recognize same sex marriages. It makes logistics more difficult.
 
Old 06-26-2013, 10:58 AM
 
Location: NC
1,673 posts, read 1,527,731 times
Reputation: 523
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
It's not ignorance, it's arrogance.
He is both. Arrogant in attitude. Ignorant of Christianity as whole group.
 
Old 06-26-2013, 10:59 AM
 
69,372 posts, read 55,398,572 times
Reputation: 9358
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
Why? There's nothing in this decision today that compels them to do so. I think it causes any number of issues but there's nothing in this decision that even remotely defines marriage, other than saying that definition belongs exclusively to the states.
Correct, in fact they might have made it worse for the pro gay group because if the Supreme Court backs their position that marriage is a state issue, then nothing stops the states from not recognizing it..

Eventually it will come down to public pressure, but that takes a very long time to change.
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.


Closed Thread

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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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