The Gays and SCOTUS

For those who aren't aware, California's Prop. 8 and DOMA are being challenged in the Supreme Court today and tomorrow.  This article gave a brief summary of some possibilities.  Hopefully, the court will make a broad ruling when it comes to federal recognition of gay marriage but I doubt that they will.

http://news.msn.com/politics/what-do-supreme-court-cases-mean-for-gay-marriage

I like the "Gay marriage is too new to know it's effects" argument.  It's like they think homosexuals didn't exist 50 years ago or something.

I dont understand why something being "new" or whatever makes any legal difference. Isn't there job to defend the constitution no matter what?

Well, looks like both will most likely be struck down. In a shocking turn of events, denying one group of citizens rights allowed to another group of citizens without any particularly good reason is not constitutional.

Let me just state my position, I have no issues with gay marriage, but there are already gay groups in the UK planning to sue churches for refusing to marry them despite promises from the UK government that this would not happen when they introduced the legislation. We will wait and see what happens.
If it passes it will cause legal nightmares down the line. As an example in a heterosexual marriage a wife has some predefined rights that a husband does not posses in instances of abuse and battery or rape. How will things like this be defined between a homosexual gay/lesbian couple? Will their be a legal requirement to protect one member of the marriage over the other? How are two husbands or wives going to be defined in law? If they adopt children who has presidency of custody if they divorce? How will it affect alimony law?

Let me just state my position, I have no issues with gay marriage, but there are already gay groups in the UK planning to sue churches for refusing to marry them despite promises from the UK government that this would not happen when they introduced the legislation. We will wait and see what happens.
If it passes it will cause legal nightmares down the line. As an example in a heterosexual marriage a wife has some predefined rights that a husband does not posses in instances of abuse and battery or rape. How will things like this be defined between a homosexual gay/lesbian couple? Will their be a legal requirement to protect one member of the marriage over the other? How are two husbands or wives going to be defined in law? If they adopt children who has presidency of custody if they divorce? How will it affect alimony law?

Gays should not be married in churches that don't want them to be. I'm sorry but it's just intrusion and blatantly rude of the gays that are trying to force these, essentially clubs/organisations, that don't allow this marriage between homosexuals to do so.

Discriminating against people under the pretenses of equality is the American way.

Quote from: OMEGA MAN on April 01, 2013, 10:06:32 PM

Let me just state my position, I have no issues with gay marriage, but there are already gay groups in the UK planning to sue churches for refusing to marry them despite promises from the UK government that this would not happen when they introduced the legislation. We will wait and see what happens.
If it passes it will cause legal nightmares down the line. As an example in a heterosexual marriage a wife has some predefined rights that a husband does not posses in instances of abuse and battery or rape. How will things like this be defined between a homosexual gay/lesbian couple? Will their be a legal requirement to protect one member of the marriage over the other? How are two husbands or wives going to be defined in law? If they adopt children who has presidency of custody if they divorce? How will it affect alimony law?

Gays should not be married in churches that don't want them to be. I'm sorry but it's just intrusion and blatantly rude of the gays that are trying to force these, essentially clubs/organisations, that don't allow this marriage between homosexuals to do so.

This.
Marriage in the eyes of the law is different from marriage in the eyes of religion and should remain as such.

Why is marriage a legal contract? That itself is a bit too religious for my taste. Why can't everyone have civil unions?

Why is marriage a legal contract? That itself is a bit too religious for my taste. Why can't everyone have civil unions?

Because marriage binds two people to one legal definition.
This allows one person to act legally for his/her spouse as though they were his/her spouse.

If hoppy and Rushy want to be married because they love each other who is anyone to say the can not? 

Let me just state my position, I have no issues with gay marriage, but there are already gay groups in the UK planning to sue churches for refusing to marry them despite promises from the UK government that this would not happen when they introduced the legislation. We will wait and see what happens.
If it passes it will cause legal nightmares down the line. As an example in a heterosexual marriage a wife has some predefined rights that a husband does not posses in instances of abuse and battery or rape. How will things like this be defined between a homosexual gay/lesbian couple? Will their be a legal requirement to protect one member of the marriage over the other? How are two husbands or wives going to be defined in law? If they adopt children who has presidency of custody if they divorce? How will it affect alimony law?

Yes, sometimes the law can get complicated. However, and I'm not suggesting you believe this, that doesn't mean we should make it unfair for the sake of simplicity.

Personally, I'm fucking sick of this entire debate. The fact that we have a notable enough portion of our society that wants to deny rights to a group of people based on what genitalia they like is fucking ridiculous. When we have a shit ton of legitimate problems we should be discussing, we're hung up on the fact that some boys like penises and some girls like titties and vaginas. It's god damn stupid.

I like the "Gay marriage is too new to know it's effects" argument.  It's like they think homosexuals didn't exist 50 years ago or something.

Or, you know, 2500 years ago.