OMG! Common Sense!

[ziggy]

Court Rules No Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Marriage

 

[Tactically Fat]

Corollary: No constitutional right to marriage at all.

Get. Government. Out. Of. Marriage. Period

 

[mrjarrell]

All they did was insure that the SC will have to hear it and we can be reasonably sure how they will rule, given the last time a case went up before it, (hint: Indiana became a same sex marriage state).

 

[CathyInBlue]

Just because someone agrees with you does not make that agreement common sense, nor, indeed, common in any sense.

 

[skulhedface]

All they did was insure that the SC will have to hear it and we can be reasonably sure how they will rule, given the last time a case went up before it, (hint: Indiana became a same sex marriage state).

It's interesting because if the supreme court would like to uphold same sex marriage, they'll have to hear the case. They simply chose not to hear Indiana's case.

 

[mrjarrell]

It's interesting because if the supreme court would like to uphold same sex marriage, they'll have to hear the case. They simply chose not to hear Indiana's case.

There was nothing "simple" about it. By choosing not to hear they chose to uphold the lower courts rulings. That shows agreement with those rulings. I couldn't see the court refusing to hear this case and leaving a patchwork of rulings intact.

 

[Dean C.]

No what the SCOTUS was doing was slowly letting all of the federal circuit courts overrule the bans and let it happen in its own time. Now that a circuit court upheld the ban the supreme court will be forced to take it and make same sex marriage legal now. So congrats this debate will soon be over once and for all. Cant wait till this is viewed in the same light as interracial marriage, and school segregation.

 

[Tactically Fat]

I just wish more people would want the .gov, on ALL LEVELS, to be out of the marriage game all together.

Why the gov't control / oversight / permission?

 

[mrjarrell]

I just wish more people would want the .gov, on ALL LEVELS, to be out of the marriage game all together.

Why the gov't control / oversight / permission?

The government being in marriage has been going on for hundreds of years, at the request of the churches. They've worked hand in hand for ages on marriage. While having them out of it would be ideal, it's not likely to happen. They're too intertwined and the religious community likes being the government arbiters on it, apparently. Haven't heard any churches calling for a dissolution of the state/church/marriage thing, yet.

 

[Henry]

Corollary: No constitutional right to marriage at all.

Get. Government. Out. Of. Marriage. Period

EXACTLY!!!

 

[Cola76]

The government may not need to facilitate marriage, but it has to have some sort of policy about recognition of marriage. Otherwise, there would be many things in life that would be even more of a legal mess than they already are (i.e. estates, medical decisions, etc.).

Edit: So the question of gay marriage was inevitable no matter one's ideal.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Haven't heard any churches calling for a dissolution of the state/church/marriage thing, yet.

LOL. You should really study Orson Pratt and the Utah War.

But, we might be INGO-blocked from discussing it.

 

[JTScribe]

The government may not need to facilitate marriage, but it has to have some sort of policy about recognition of marriage. Otherwise, there would be many things in life that would be even more of a legal mess than they already are (i.e. estates, medical decisions, etc.).

Edit: So the question of gay marriage was inevitable no matter one's ideal.

Nonsense, those are simply contracts. At the end of the day there's no need for the government at any level to be giving a stamp on marriage. Don't want a certain person to have control over your estate, or want your best friend Bob or Sue to be able to visit you in the hospital and have power of attorney? Contract law.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Contract law.

And if there is no contract?

 

[Cola76]

Nonsense, those are simply contracts. At the end of the day there's no need for the government at any level to be giving a stamp on marriage. Don't want a certain person to have control over your estate, or want your best friend Bob or Sue to be able to visit you in the hospital and have power of attorney? Contract law.

The point is that when there is no legal documentation someone has to be the default beneficiary/decision maker. Unless you just want the government to handle those things.

 

[JTScribe]

Be about the same as not having a will or POA if you need one then, wouldn't it?

I mean, no offense, but lack of planning doesn't merit government hand-holding, IMO. When you're in a relationship with someone, these are the type of things you need to prepare for. My wife and I are young but we've already spoken about life issues, who we want to take care of our kids if something happens to us, etc.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Be about the same as not having a will or POA if you need one then, wouldn't it?

If one dies intestate then state law decides who is the spouse (for the spousal third) and the share that the children receive--the default rules are state law and how it views marriage.

Get the government out of marriage, LOL.

 

[Cola76]

Be about the same as not having a will or POA if you need one then, wouldn't it?

I mean, no offense, but lack of planning doesn't merit government hand-holding, IMO. When you're in a relationship with someone, these are the type of things you need to prepare for. My wife and I are young but we've already spoken about life issues, who we want to take care of our kids if something happens to us, etc.

Right. Which turns into a mess when there is no spouse to defer to. Have all your discussions been legally documented in the form of a will or alike? If your wife wasn't legally recognized as your spouse, your discussions would mean nothing. It has nothing to do with hand holding, its making sure the government doesn't have any more room to meddle than they already do.

 

[mrjarrell]

Nonsense, those are simply contracts. At the end of the day there's no need for the government at any level to be giving a stamp on marriage. Don't want a certain person to have control over your estate, or want your best friend Bob or Sue to be able to visit you in the hospital and have power of attorney? Contract law.

While I agree that getting government out of the equation would be a good thing, who would adjudicate the contracts? That's right. Government. So, they'd still be involved. And, as we have seen many times, contracts between consenting adults and POA's can, and have been ignored and overturned in the case of gay people. Right here in Indiana we had the Adkin's case where the parents basically turned away their sons lifemate and overturned his wishes so they could impose their viewpoint and take over the care of the man, despite his stated wishes.

A state recognised marriage is just a package deal of contracts, (that doesn't cost anything but a small fraction of what it would to have a lawyer draw up). You marry and the contracts come into force from day 1 and will be enforced by the state, just as other contracts would be in the case of governmental "non-involvement".

Contracts and POA's drawn up between two people (and a lawyer) are not inviolable. A state recognised marriage, and the unwritten contracts it brings into play, are damned near unbreakable, unless you go to court and dissolve them.

 

[Expat]

It seems clear that this is the Court that actually relied upon SCOTUS precedent.