Supreme Court to hear arguments on Same Sex Marriage

[robdawg1]

Marriage was meant for man and woman...pretty simple.
I dont care if people are gay....makes no difference to me.
If they want the same rights...then go for it..them give them those same right...but not under the name "marriage"
Call it bonded or whatever.

To allow gay marriage is to change the definition of a word..A word shouldn't evolve by definition rob.
Should be the same definition as when it was created centuries ago.
PC has no place in changing the definitions of words.

who meant the word to mean man and woman? what does the institution of gay marriage do to change the word or value of the word? that is not a position that is a statement for the less educated when they dont know why they believe what the preacher told them they just believe it.....come up with something logical TM

 

[Accountable]

This is why there should be no legal definition at all. Morality is for the church. Wanna get married? Do it there. Millions of people never get officially married; they live together just fine. If we have no legal definition then we have no controversy.

 

[The Man]

Words change all the time over centuries. The English language doesn't remain the same - it's constantly changing and evolving. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change

I find it hilarious that you are using the word gay, a word which means happy and the definition has evolved to mean homosexual, while saying words should remain the same! Unless you mean that happy marriages shouldn't be allowed

Which doesnt make it proper usage...it is merely accepted slang.

who meant the word to mean man and woman? what does the institution of gay marriage do to change the word or value of the word? that is not a position that is a statement for the less educated when they dont know why they believe what the preacher told them they just believe it.....come up with something logical TM

The word remained the same up until just a few years ago...due to PC pressure
We do not change the meaning a word to "fit" an argument.

A marriage is a union between a man and a woman
Marriage is a union.
However union does not mean marriage.

Example...A horse is an animal
That does not mean that an animal equals horse.

As said I have no objection to a union of same sex..but they need to come up with their own word.

 

[Accountable]

Really? It's a word? That's the real issue?
Bullshit.

 

[The Man]

Its the first obstacle
IMO if the gay community had stayed away from the word marriage and wanted to have a contract with the same benefits while calling it "bonded" "united" or similar..they could have had it years ago.

But then again..it would just be the beginning...how does a husband say..."this is my husband"...cant both be the husband...thus just another reason to stay away from the word married.
What if a frank meets another frank...they get married...both men...then who the fuck is who?..two mr frank smiths
And Both husbands.......who loses the maiden name?
Nope....marriage just doesnt apply to same sex...needs to be something else besides marriage.
Jesus allowing same sex marriage shows how stupid the courts can really be....another reason to cut the nuts out of every liberal currently living.

 

[Accountable]

But then again..it would just be the beginning...how does a husband say..."this is my husband"...cant both be the husband...thus just another reason to stay away from the word married.

What if a frank meets another frank...they get married...both men...then who the fuck is who?..two mr frank smiths
And Both husbands.......who loses the maiden name?

They say it all the time. You need to get out more. Lesbian couples routinely call each other "wife" and gay male couples routinely call each other "husband." My beloved and I call each other "spouse" because of long years in the military & using official nomenclature.

Jesus allowing same sex marriage shows how stupid the courts can really be....another reason to cut the nuts out of every liberal currently living.

You really should use punctuation. Jesus only mentioned marriage in stressing its permanence, and never mentioned anything about homosexuality at all. The federal court taking up the issue at all shows how far away we've drifted from the Constitution ... and another reason to cut the nuts out of the federal gov't, including your precious "conservatives." They're nationalists, and only divide left or right after agreeing on that.

 

[Natasha]

But then again..it would just be the beginning...how does a husband say..."this is my husband"...cant both be the husband...thus just another reason to stay away from the word married.
What if a frank meets another frank...they get married...both men...then who the fuck is who?..two mr frank smiths
And Both husbands.......who loses the maiden name?

It's really not that difficult. They are both "wife" or "husband"...my bestfriend refers to her SO as her "wife" and her SO refers to her as her "wife." Gay marriage is not legal in Georgia, so as of right now it's just a title, but it's how they see each other. No different than a couple that's not legally married referring to each other as "husband" and "wife" b/c they've been together so long it's how they feel.

As for the name, the couple decides what to do there...again, no different than a straight couple. You've got straight people hyphenating, not taking each other's last name's, whatever. My bestfriend is taking her wife's last name and will do so by putting in for a legal name change.

 

[The Man]

IMO they need to come up with something to make it all very simple...perhaps "unionization".
They gay couples can just say we are united verses married.

If not it gets pretty complicated on paper....the mr and mrs thing...who has whos last name etc.
Since the name is usually taken by the man..and it can get complicated in gay marriage.
One has to identify as the mister {common last name}

Hows this
Primary subject......offers unity......
Secondary subject...accepts....yes I will unite with you
The common name would be the primary subject....{as that is the common man role}

As said we would still need different forms at dr offices and such...as gay "marriage" doesnt fit the format.
Especially if we have frank and frank getting married ....2 mister frank jones..could get complicated
As said we need to have a way to separate "husbands"...one has to be primary..just for paper work

 

[Accountable]

IMO they need to come up with something to make it all very simple...perhaps "unionization".
They gay couples can just say we are united verses married.

If not it gets pretty complicated on paper....the mr and mrs thing...who has whos last name etc.
Since the name is usually taken by the man..and it can get complicated in gay marriage.
One has to identify as the mister {common last name}

Hows this
Primary subject......offers unity......
Secondary subject...accepts....yes I will unite with you
The common name would be the primary subject....{as that is the common man role}

You may have a point. That works for hetero or homo couples. So how about changing it so that everybody does that instead of making a whole new set of laws?

 

[porterjack]

So how about changing it so that everybody does that instead of making a whole new set of laws?

what is this equality you speak of pilgrim?

 

[Accountable]

what is this equality you speak of pilgrim?

You're right. We should stick with the tried-and-true Separate But Equal policy.

 

[The Man]

You may have a point. That works for hetero or homo couples. So how about changing it so that everybody does that instead of making a whole new set of laws?

It would be an easy law...different forms..different name....then model them to the same benefits as marriage.

 

[Minor Axis]

http://www.12newsnow.com/story/2029...hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-reignites-debate

If this country still gave a fuck about our Constitution this would not happen. Under the Constitution, this is not a federal issue. If we as a nation were honest, we'd retire the Constitution instead of pretending it matters.

Are you kidding? You are saying that discrimination issues have no place on the federal level?? Oh yeah, I all most forgot your personal liberty and God given right to discriminate against who comes into your store or restaurant...

But why stop at same sex marriage...why cant one marry say one of each if they are bi?
Or marry two women ....the horse or the dog...or how about ones self?
Sister or brother?....why not?
If one is going to be liberal...just as well do it proper.

You like sounding like an idiot don't you?

 

[The Man]

You like sounding like an idiot don't you?

It was obviously a joke....go drink another cup of coffee

 

[Tim]

http://www.12newsnow.com/story/2029...hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-reignites-debate




If this country still gave a fuck about our Constitution this would not happen. Under the Constitution, this is not a federal issue. If we as a nation were honest, we'd retire the Constitution instead of pretending it matters.

I honestly don't follow you here. How is this NOT a federal issue when the state courts can't settle it and it makes it to the supreme court? Isn't this exactly how it's suppose to work?
I could understand if the supreme court just decided to get into the game without the lower courts first addressing the issue, but that isn't the case here.

This is why there should be no legal definition at all. Morality is for the church. Wanna get married? Do it there. Millions of people never get officially married; they live together just fine. If we have no legal definition then we have no controversy.

But there is a legal definition and marriage licenses are given out by the state. You cannot get legally married without having the state involved. As long as this is the case the state cannot discriminate.

I understand where you are coming from that it shouldn't be defined by law, but it is and you would need to change that before addressing the gay marriage issue. You can't conflate the two without coming off as trying to deny equal rights.

 

[Tim]

It was obviously a joke....go drink another cup of coffee

And you are obviously a homophobic bigot.

You trying to "defend" the word marriage is as transparent as it gets.

 

[Accountable]

I honestly don't follow you here. How is this NOT a federal issue when the state courts can't settle it and it makes it to the supreme court? Isn't this exactly how it's suppose to work?

No, but it is how it's done anyway. The state courts can and did settle it. The judges don'e pass it to the appellate courts. The loser takes it to them. Since it's not a constitutional issue or federal law, then it shouldn't have made it into the federal courts to begin with. The judge could have refused to hear it.

But there is a legal definition and marriage licenses are given out by the state. You cannot get legally married without having the state involved. As long as this is the case the state cannot discriminate.

Agreed

I understand where you are coming from that it shouldn't be defined by law, but it is and you would need to change that before addressing the gay marriage issue. You can't conflate the two without coming off as trying to deny equal rights.

That grates the nerves, but I can't disagree. Settling the issue by eliminating civil marriage would definitely piss off people on all sides.

 

[Tim]

No, but it is how it's done anyway. The state courts can and did settle it. The judges don'e pass it to the appellate courts. The loser takes it to them. Since it's not a constitutional issue or federal law, then it shouldn't have made it into the federal courts to begin with. The judge could have refused to hear it.

I do understand that the looser has the right to appeal to a higher court... that's what I meant

As far as it not being a federal issue... Aren't there federal laws against discrimination? Wouldn't this fall under that umbrella?

I just don't agree that this isn't constitutional, it may be a bad move since I think it's a political one, but not unconstitutional

 

[Accountable]

I do understand that the looser has the right to appeal to a higher court... that's what I meant

Yes, but the court isn't obligated to hear it.

As far as it not being a federal issue... Aren't there federal laws against discrimination? Wouldn't this fall under that umbrella?

Federal laws against discrimination are pretty specific. I don't know of any offhand that would fit civil marri

I just don't agree that this isn't constitutional, it may be a bad move since I think it's a political one, but not unconstitutional

From what I can tell, the only part of the constitution that applies here is the Tenth Amendment.
(That is, of course, so long as you don't wander into the magical lands of Santa Commerce or Santa Welfare Clauses, where anything and everything is possible with just a pinch of fairy dust and a wish. )

 

[Tim]

The supreme court doesn't only look to the constitution to determine if something is constitutional. They also look to precedent which holds as much weight as the constitution itself.