SCOTUS on CA Ban on Gay Marriage

[Accountable]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=12-144

I didn't realize the time. I'll comment later.

 

[porterjack]

if marriage of any shape or form were left to the individual states then these highly paid judges could be left to deal with bigger issues

 

[Jackass master]

if marriage of any shape or form were left to the individual states then these highly paid judges could be left to deal with bigger issues

Exactly. Let the states have their own rules. We don't need the feds involved.

 

[Accountable]

I don't want to leave it to my state, either. Marriage shouldn't even be on the law books at all, imo.

 

[porterjack]

I don't want to leave it to my state, either. Marriage shouldn't even be on the law books at all, imo.

just leave people to make up their mind then? and live with the consequence? surely there needs to be laws around certain issue like a minimum age

 

[Alien Allen]

I don't want to leave it to my state, either. Marriage shouldn't even be on the law books at all, imo.

I would agree with you if this was 150 years ago. However now there are too many legal and financial issues tied in with marriage. It never should have been anything but a religious issue but that is not the case. Pandoras box has been opened and there is no way to close it and go back to what should be.

 

[Francis]

I would agree with you if this was 150 years ago. However now there are too many legal and financial issues tied in with marriage. It never should have been anything but a religious issue but that is not the case. Pandoras box has been opened and there is no way to close it and go back to what should be.

Exactly..

If it had no real implications and no other meaning, nobody would give a rats ass..

 

[porterjack]

Exactly..

If it had no real implications and no other meaning, nobody would give a rats ass..

So now you want gay rats to get wed

You BC folk are nuts

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk 2

 

[Francis]

So now you want gay rats to get wed

You BC folk are nuts

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk 2

Rats in BC couldn't care less.. Rats in Ontario ( the capital of politicians in Canada ) do ..

 

[porterjack]

Rats in BC couldn't care less.. Rats in Ontario ( the capital of politicians in Canada ) do ..

Our criminals are rats
The politicians are dogs

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk 2

 

[Accountable]

just leave people to make up their mind then? and live with the consequence? surely there needs to be laws around certain issue like a minimum age

If there's no marriage, how can there be a minimum age? Besides, we have pedophilia laws, statutory rape, etc, etc.

I would agree with you if this was 150 years ago. However now there are too many legal and financial issues tied in with marriage. It never should have been anything but a religious issue but that is not the case. Pandoras box has been opened and there is no way to close it and go back to what should be.

I don't know anyone who had to prove they were married in order to claim married status on their tax forms.
Tax breaks for married couples are not necessary. What should happen is to loosen the criteria on those privileges of marriage so that anyone can designate who will receive some of those privileges, and eliminate other privileges so that no one gets them. We don't hold any sanctity for the institution of marriage, anyway. I can't think of any situation that couldn't be handled.

 

[Alien Allen]

I don't know anyone who had to prove they were married in order to claim married status on their tax forms.

you have a point there. I can not think of any time somebody was taken to task by the feds for falsely claiming their were married on their tax form.

Tax breaks for married couples are not necessary. What should happen is to loosen the criteria on those privileges of marriage so that anyone can designate who will receive some of those privileges, and eliminate other privileges so that no one gets them.

I don't disagree but you tell me how the govt is going to give up the chance to collect tons of inheritance taxes. For example the case the SCOTUS was hearing on today. Over $300k for just one person would be lost to the govt.

We don't hold any sanctity for the institution of marriage, anyway.

Again I can not disagree. It is way too easy to get a divorce. If there are no disputes it can be done without a lawyer. If there are disputes then it just boils down to spending money on a lawyer and court fees to sort it out.

I can't think of any situation that couldn't be handled.

This I disagree on. There is just too much precedent to over turn.

 

[Accountable]

This I disagree on. There is just too much precedent to over turn.

Such as ... ?