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.
Same-sex marriage affects such a tiny percentage of Americans that most people are simply not concerned with the issue. The ruling should be left as is.
I don't think anyone has a problem with civil unions or the sorts of legal arrangements for shared benefits that you mention. So when Obergfell is overturned, you can reasonably expect that these issues to be dealt with in a reasonably agreeable manner.
No... I would expect "civil unions" to AUTOMATICALLY offer the exact same benefits as marriages.
In other words, we would likely see ALL future unions legally referred to as "civil unions" and the seeking of marriages would be something people did in churches or from clergy.
Some clergy are fine marrying homosexuals. Some are not.
So, you'd have homosexuals getting church "marriages" if they want and having civil unions for the legal benefits conferred by the license and the filing of it.
They would not need to seek a lawyer to settle estate issues any more than a heterosexual couple would.
And, you'd still have plenty of married people in every state who were homosexual, so why waste the court's time with the case? It's nonsense.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
The ruling was fundamentally flawed and must be overturned. Same with Roe. Both of these issues should be legislated by the states, which is what will happen when they are overturned.
You'd think the Dems would wise up and not want to depend da federal da gubemrnt where its win or lose all. So women in some states have to go to another state in some cases. It would be cheaper and easier to just create a fund to bus women to a different state. Why leave to to chance to have the entire country go one way or the other? Also might want to find allies on the right who think the Federal da guberment should follow the Constitution and prevent them from imposing this law on any state.
This is to say nothing of the idiot feminist yelling and screaming "misogyny" when its pretty clear the pro-life thinks its a child rights issue. Why not just show the history of Romania showing what happens when abortions is illegal? Its not pretty.
That is not to say I have much use for the conservative here. You are so busy trying to save someone else's "children" when there is much at state for your own live children. Is a destructive wedge issue. Give it up. The god willed spark of life the moment of conception is arbitrary. Your turkey dinner had more sentience.
Sound law and winning on the facts and evidence.What a concept. That is why I am pro choice.
Unfortunately, there is more truth to that than you might imagine. I lived in the Bible Belt for a quarter of a century and those Baptists are something else. As mentally shutdown and inflexible as the Progs are.
Between the 2 groups, we rational people have got our work cut out for us. Exhausting....
You and I agree on this much, TC.
The zealots at both ends of the spectrum are certified kooks.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
As for marriage I think there should be no benefits. It was not about the adults . It was to create a fiscal union for the sake of the offspring. Children, one''s own and adopted between two people fits the intent of historic marriage laws. The ancient Greeks had marriage laws between a man and a women because of offspring. There were no laws on their homosexual relations because its pointless.
No... I would expect "civil unions" to AUTOMATICALLY offer the exact same benefits as marriages.
In other words, we would likely see ALL future unions legally referred to as "civil unions" and the seeking of marriages would be something people did in churches or from clergy.
Some clergy are fine marrying homosexuals. Some are not.
So, you'd have homosexuals getting church "marriages" if they want and having civil unions for the legal benefits conferred by the license and the filing of it.
They would not need to seek a lawyer to settle estate issues any more than a heterosexual couple would.
And, you'd still have plenty of married people in every state who were homosexual, so why waste the court's time with the case? It's nonsense.
And we agree on this, Red Zin, as well as a couple other of your posts on this thread. As I said to: don1945 today, when we agreed on something......there is common ground to be found. All real Americans should ask why many in the political class do not want us to discover it!
Frankly, the OP of this very thread, and many others like him on this website, are EXACT examples of those trying to DIVIDE us. I resent it, actually. They have a mountain of self-loathing they are trying slough-off into others and it's ugly.
Public Svc Announcement - People, deal with your personal junk yourself and let this country thrive. Thank you!
That's not something that people who have been enjoying those benefits for decades will want to surrender.
Absolutely many will not. We have far too much "I have mine, too bad for you".
Quote:
Some of them just don't want gay people to have any of that on an equal footing.
Doesn't matter now. I noted this before....even if Kennedy's replacement would vote no, the ruling still stands. It was 6-3.
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.
