SCOTUS: Gay Marriage Case Update

They are. Sexual acts don't change if they are done by a gay man then a straight man. The problem is that anal sex is the easiest way to transmit HIV, which, while common among gay men, is also done by straight men with their wives/girlfriends/whatever. So again, if your argument is about the disease factor, then you have to either make it illegal or raise medical insurance rates on those who engage in anal sex (good luck getting that on an insurance form).

Another thing to consider is that HIV rates among Black and Hispanics is much higher (both for MSM and for heterosexuals) then it is for Whites and others

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html

So should that be taken into consideration when it comes to medical needs and insurance? Should blacks and hispanics pay more because they are of the race that has a higher propensity?

Sure, by their actions. If you rape a kid, then I don't care what you say, your a pedophile (or whatever phile based on the age of the kid). But I see where your coming from, unfortunately, until we learn to actually Read Minds, then all we have to go on are the statements by people, penile and pupil dilation tests, which are generally found to be rather accurate.

That is why we use studies that have been done

here is one
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00926238408405945#

Also, one thing to note, is that they only used men because pedophilia amongs women is almost non-existent. So if being gay made you more inclined to be a pedophile, wouldn't more women be pedophiles?

And over the top rhetoric about the absurdity of my arguments, and how they are merely excuses is?

 

Yes, when the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v Virginia, popular opinion opposed inter-racial marriage in several states, yet the law superseded popular opinion in those states as well as others. That's what courts do - enforce law, not kowtow to majoritarian tyranny. (I like to think that the public has generally advanced in the matter.)

In 2004, the court in Massachusetts "forced", as you like to put it, that state to be the first to eliminate gender discrimination in its marriage contracts. Subsequent surveys confirm public support for the legal decision. Progress happens, and there is no reason to believe that has not occurred in other states.

 

Marriage grants a lot of financial and legal benefits. Gay people are denied those if same sex marriage is banned. Did you even think about this?

 

This is pointless. All you're doing is restating your position which was already addressed and dismissed. Religion is entirely irrelevant. The 14th amendment precludes discrimination based on gender, which is what same sex marriage bans do. States definition for marriage is subject to a he 14th amendment. See loving v Virginia.

 

Sure they do. But when they EXPLICITLY come out and say that it would be very difficult for the court to overturn millennia of precedent, it's more than simply asking a tough question.

 

I did no know any inter-racial couples when they were not allowed to enter into a marriage contract, but I have known same-sex couples both before they were allowed to and after, when they did marry.

Other than gaining a few calories from the cake, it has had no effect whatever on me or anyone else I know.

For what mysterious reasons would someone get so wee wee'd up about harmless, contractual equality and rail incoherently about it?

 

Not when you take into account the constitution which is what they are basing their decision upon...and not marriage tradition.

 

A millennia of precedent? The first same sex marriage case was heard in 1971.

 

And why do we give away our hard earned money to married couples in the form of those benefits? Just because we like giving our money away?

- - - Updated - - -

I was quoting Kennedy. Which you would know if you read.

And I'll answer that long post when I get to a comp. cubed.

 

I don't know enough to have expectations. I also doubt many people expected Roberts to do what he did in NFIB v Sebelius.

 

If you're so concerned with how marriage effects your taxes, why don't you go campaign for removing tax benefits from marriages?

 

So there's not a millennia of precedent. Thanks.

 

Just require States to recognizes marriages in other States and uphold States rights to ban SSM in their States, everyone should be happy they get something. States rights are upheld somewhat while same-sex couples get to marry (adoption and divorce would still be issues).

 

That is in fact my preference. I'm a capitalist. I don't believe in subsidies. However if you're goingto steal money from my pockets that I earned and use to support my family, you better have a damn good reason for doing so. And while I may not agree with providing marriage benefits to straight people, I can at least understand the economic justification for providing them marriage benefits. Homosexuals on the other hand are incapable of providing ANY benefit which is economically justifiable for receiving marriage benefits. As such they shouldn't receive them.

- - - Updated - - -

No (*)(*)(*)(*) Einstein I was quoting Kennedy. You know the one with the swing vote that's going to break your heart?

- - - Updated - - -

Why should states have to do that? They don't have to recognize an incestuous marriage that was performed in another state. Why would they have to recognize a homosexual one?

 

Because apparently money is more important than individual liberties.

 

No matter how much you want it to be, receiving marriage benefits is NOT a right.

 

14th amendment.

 

Your ridiculous interpretation of the 14th amendment isn't going to help you.

Kennedy already told you that in the DOMA decision. That was his ENTIRE point when he brought up the fact that it is PERFECTLY constitutional for some states to allow incestuous marriage and 13 yo's to marry while other states ban it and provide no legal recognition for their marriage...is that homosexual marriage should be treated the same way.

And that's how he voted when he supported state rights in the DOMA decision.

 

I'll let the Supreme Court speak for me in a short while.

 

You sound desperate to convince yourself, but it's not working. If your interpretation were correct, then Loving would have become a state-by-state matter. It didn't. Kennedy's point was that states have a limited, but very real, power to regulate marriage. The limitation is, they cannot violate the US Constitution. Loving ruled that states with anti-miscegenation laws violated the constitution.

Kennedy illustrated his argument by pointing out that states vary in the details of permissible regulation. They can (for example) determine their own age of eligibility, various wating periods, cost of marriage licence, degree of consanguinity, and so on. But again, within limits. And again for example, if a state decided the age of eligibility was 5 years old, this would not be permitted to stand. If states decided mother and son could marry, that wouldn't be allowed. If states decided marriage licenses cost 10 cents for straight couples and $10,000 for gay couples, THAT wouldn't be permitted either.

Your argument that Kennedy gave states a blank check is simply false.

 

LoL Let me go ahead and show you what they're going to say. This is from the DOMA decision:

By the way, that's Justice Kennedy... the swing vote.

Here is Kennedy again:

Notice what Kennedy did there... he said that the opinion and holding are confined to LAWFUL marriages. Meaning marriages that the PEOPLE of the state have chosen to support. If there is any question about that, Justice Roberts confirms:

Roberts also gives you a warning ... but I'm sure you were too busy celebrating to listen to him... I bet you won't be too busy celebrating soon... but this is what he said:

You can let the SCOTUS do the talking... but you're not going to like what they have to say.

 

EXACTLY. But there are no anti-homosexuals laws. There are no laws on the books denying them the right to marriage. There are simply no laws on the books which grant them legal recognition of marriage. Those are two separate concepts even if you don't want to admit it.

No what's false is your absurd presentation of the facts. Explain to me why one state is allowed to have incestuous marriage and another state can provide no legal recognition for that SAME EXACT marriage?

What you MEAN to say is that you and your homosexual brethren reject the JUSTIFICATION for why some of these states don't allow marriage. But your rejection of that justification is completely and utterly irrelevant. As long as the state can provide a justification then they have no obligation WHATSOEVER to provide legal recognition for marriage.

What you're not acknowledging is that if the State can justify their position, even if it's unpopular with the homosexuals and their advocates, then they have no obligation to provide legal recognition of marriage. Just like with every other deviant "marriage".

 

The courts interpretation is all that really matters.

We'll have to wait and see.

 

That's right, but the SCOTUS, specifically Kennedy, already addressed the 14th in the DOMA case:

Kennedy only mentions Loving ONE TIME in the DOMA decision... and that is to show that the states have EVERY right to define marriage UNLESS they're attempting to make it illegal like they were doing in Loving. And nobody is making it illegal. Homosexuals can go to any city, in any county, in any state in this country and have a marriage ceremony and nobody will stop them. They can go live with each other for the rest of their lives and nobody will stop them.

Loving v Virginia isn't going to save you

 

The laws that ban recognition are the ones in question.

Because that is something the states can decide. We are about to hear from the court whether or not states can decide regarding same sex marriage.

Any justification you've presented didn't seem to pass logical muster. And states justification seems a bit of a ruse.

So far it's pretty weak sauce. I'm not sure how it will hold up in court.