Same Sex Marriage Before the SCOTUS

DaveEstey wrote: Write a will. Right of attorney etc.

Marriage is simpler and covers far more situations. (E.G. visitation in hospitals. Simple things like who person effects get passed to.)

Marriage isn't more simple. A document stating power of attorney works in every single situation. A will ensures belongings get passed on correctly, something a marriage does not guarantee ie Carroll Shelby hanging out in a freezer for a month while his estranged wife (STILL MARRIED) and his kids fought it out.

Marriage adds in more convoluted tax structures as well as requiring state governments to process them in the first place. Then there's the whole business of handling divorces.

From where we are now, which seems like a more reasonable thing for those of us who support marriage equality to pursue, in terms of hoping for a reasonable outcome in the next lifetime or two:

A: Equal treatment under the current legal framework of "marriage"?

or

B: Eradicating the entire current legal construct of marriage and starting over from scratch?

Being utterly silly for a moment, the first hilarious (to me) thought is that opponents to option B would be saying to themselves "Wait, we already used the name 'defense of marriage'... What do we call the opposition to the actual eradication of marriage?"

Sky_Render wrote: I have nothing other than I would like to add a strategically-placed *R* to the "SCOTUS" acronym.

Supreme CouRt Of The United States

It's already in there, we just need to start using it.

a lot of what has been said here can also relate to mixed sex couples. My daughter has been living with her male so for about 15 yrs. and have two children. I told her a couple of times that they should get married. recently they broke up. She has been having all kinds of problems since most states do not recognize "common law marriage". Same thing only different.

+1 on "SCOTUS," not to mention "POTUS." Riding into work today, I was like "WTF? Why didn't GWAR's new guitar player's name involve the word SCROTUS?"

For me: I support gay marriage as long as we remove the tax breaks for married couples across the board.

Hell, why not just remove all tax incentives period and lower tax rates across the board?

Put me in the state recognized marriage shouldn't exist for any couples camp.

Oh and:

In reply to Datsun1500: we passed many god is great billboards.......if I ever had berkeley you money, I'd erect billboards promoting satanism every one after those.......

In reply to Beer Baron: way to completely miss the point and back out of the reasoning I replied that to......and we wonder why E36 M3 gets locked around here.

Take the religious terminology out of the government paperwork and you won't have a fight over it. Those people love the controversy.

Civil unions for all and call it a day.

In reply to yamaha:

Which religious terminology? "Marriage"? Civil term. Churches have nothing to do with connecting horses to carts.

Tim Baxter wrote: All I know is, everytime I see someone use the abbreviation SCOTUS, I think of Southern Culture on the Skids, and makes me happy, no matter what the judicial branch is up to.

QFT. 'Banana Puddin', anyone?

FWIW, I'm of the opinion that everyone should, in the eyes of the law, be able to join in a civil union with the person of their choosing which would include all of the rights and protections inherent in the current statues regardless of their sexual orientation.

Churches seem to be freaked out and want to have a lock on the term 'marriage', so I say let 'em. If two people want to enter a civil union and then also be married in the church of their choice, why have at it.

Beer Baron wrote: In reply to yamaha: Which religious terminology? "Marriage"? Civil term. Churches have nothing to do with connecting horses to carts.

What the guy above me said. Also, no offense, but acting like you know the nomenclature behind words thousands of years old makes you come off like a know-it-all who doesn't know anything. You really expect us to believe you (a guy who likes and brews beer, which presumably would mean I can trust your opinion on beer) has researched the word "marriage", where it comes from, and what it meant back to the origins of humanity?

Give me a break (insert rolleyes smilie here). Your just spouting the same things other people have said. It makes for good argument fodder as no one here can actually go, "well actually, I have a Bsc in language whatever and this is how it actually is".

So, as others have pointed out, quit being so narrow minded and focused on your opinion (which what you are saying is just that, opinion).

personally.. in this day and age, if two people love each other enough to want to get married.. let them! Almost all the straight couples I know have been divorced at least once. The few gay couples I am friends with have been together for what seems like forver (one couple at least 30 years)

If anybody is giving the term marriage a bad name.. it all the straights getting married and divorced in less than 5 years time!

I think the fact that this is a real debate is kind of awesome. It shows that we're thinking about gay people as people and their problems and issues and real issues.

I'm sure with all the Facebook profile picture changing going on, the whole issue will get straightened right up.

In reply to HiTempguy:

So... none of us can say we know and can claim ownership of the word. So the argument that it is a religious term and should only apply to religious ceremonies is equally invalid.

So we come back to how that term is used in our current legal system and whether people are being given equal rights and protections under the laws of this country.

HiTempguy wrote:

Beer Baron wrote: In reply to yamaha: Which religious terminology? "Marriage"? Civil term. Churches have nothing to do with connecting horses to carts.

What the guy above me said. Also, no offense, but acting like you know the nomenclature behind words thousands of years old makes you come off like a know-it-all who doesn't know anything. You really expect us to believe you (a guy who likes and brews beer, which presumably would mean I can trust your opinion on beer) has researched the word "marriage", where it comes from, and what it meant back to the origins of humanity? Give me a break (insert rolleyes smilie here). Your just spouting the same things other people have said. It makes for good argument fodder as no one here can actually go, "well actually, I have a Bsc in language whatever and this is how it actually is". So, as others have pointed out, quit being so narrow minded and focused on your opinion (which what you are saying is just that, opinion).

Dude, in case you haven't noticed, this is the Int4rw3bz. We're all experts on everything. I know, because I have a degree in...well...awesome...or I'm a doctor. Yeah, a DOCTOR!

Mitchell wrote: Hell, why not just remove all tax incentives period and lower tax rates across the board?

Also on my platform when I run for President in 2020 on the "Grassroots" ticket.

Osterkraut wrote: I'm sure with all the Facebook profile picture changing going on, the whole issue will get straightened right up.

Good, glad I'm not the only one who thinks this!

Osterkraut wrote: I'm sure with all the Facebook profile picture changing going on, the whole issue will get straightened right up.

Maybe not straightened up, but I've had a few distant friends that had no idea what was going on, and I explained it to them. They probably did the same. Spreading the word is a good start.

Osterkraut wrote: I'm sure with all the Facebook profile picture changing going on, the whole issue will get straightened right up.

No kidding. I am sure the Supreme Court cares so much about everyone's profile picture.

alfadriver wrote:

SCARRMRCC wrote: it should have nothing to do with taxes, or any legality.

So, if marriage has nothing to do with legality, then how do you let a spouse have legal rights to make decisions of a disabled spouse, or inherit the estate of the spouse, etc? There are very long standing laws surrounding marriage unions, and I suspect that estate laws have been around longer than this country has. Else women who's rich husbands died would be left out on the street. There are legal benefits to being married that need to be around. I'm curious how the world would look if there was no legal tie between spouses.

why does it HAVE to be a spouse? why can't you just designate SOMEONE, to be that person. a parent, a friend, whatever..

those legal benefits need to not be limited only to people that have sex. It should be open to anyone.. single, married, gay, non-sexual..etc. if someone depends on your income, possessions, and should be allowed to make decisions for you.. it should not be dictated by if you are having sex with them or not. (yes, I know it is a generalization.. but you get my drift.)

Ahhh, but what is simpler, eradicating marriage laws entirely, eradicating and/or modifying all legal rights laws already in use for centuries, or simply letting gays marry as if they were, you know, citizens?

In reply to Chris_V:

I am not talking about simpler... I am talking about what is fair and right.

simplest would be to do nothing and leave it how it is, giving special benefits to heterosexual married couples, above everyone else.

Just because something is hard to do does not make the wrong thing to do. we have been doing it wrong for centuries... the sooner we start making this country fair, and even, the easier it will be.