Gay Marriage Headed to SCOTUS: States have rights? Wuh?

[wizardwatson]

I meant to reply to you.

I brought up the aspect of this issue that transforms it from a 'the guy in the ivory tower says this is technically discrimination' kind of an issue to a 'I'm suffering monetary damage right here in the trenches every month' issue because that aspect of it is important, and I did this through a set of hypotheticals which I said flat out were hypotheticals. The next thing I know, I'm being told how I define words, how I think the state should define institutions (skipping right over the step where we establish if I think the state should define such institutions at all), and what I would remove.

Excuse me for ensuring that your assumptions make an ass only out of U and not me.

So I'm a propagandist and an ivory tower armchair intellectual? Still somewhat confused.

You say you are trying to highlight what you consider the core issue which is "I'm suffering monetary damage right here in the trenches every month". I specifically replied to that sentiment with "I get that you think government should stay out of it and I get that the moral consensus is that it's "unfair" for gay couples not to have the same government benefits as straight married couples.", which you quoted in your response.

All I've been saying, over and over and over, is that "suffering monetary damage" simply means gay couples feel they should get the same benefits as married straight couples AND I HAVE AGREED that the moral consensus in America is that they should.

My only "position" is that this is not a civil rights issue. The reality is that the outcome of all this is to redefine marriage to include gay couples. If America wants to do that, well, awesome sauce. But capitalizing on this "unfair" emotional trend to the point of concocting a bogus civil rights argument in order to accomplish it by judicial fiat instead of democratically through the legislative process is wrong and circumvents states rights (as usual). If the proper process was followed some states wouldn't implement it but with the false civil rights argument the 2% of people who are gay in this country are forcing it on states WHERE A MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION REFUSED TO REDEFINE MARRIAGE AND ALTERED THEIR CONSTITUTION TO THAT EFFECT.

Pretty simple position.

Do you actually have a position you want to take or disagree with my argument?

If you just want to point out or confirm I'm a douchebag then fine, I'm a douchebag. You win that argument.

 

[acptulsa]

So I'm a propagandist and an ivory tower armchair intellectual?

Are you asking me if I said that?

You can clearly see that I did not.

But thanks for asking instead of alleging this time. Otherwise I'd have had to quote Reagan...

 

[AFPVet]

Who cares... marriage never should've morphed from common law into a state institution.

 

[jmdrake]

I'm not sure the question even means anything. Is my lover prevented from enjoying my employer's family health care plan because my lover is the same gender as me, or because I'm attracted to my own gender?

Why shouldn't you be able to put your brother on your family health plan? You can put him on your car insurance. You can have him on your Sprint "framily" plan. You don't have the flexibility that you should have because of the federal tax code. Scrap the federal tax code.

Getting the government out of marriage is going to take a hell of a lot more than five minutes with a crowbar.

Of course. Auditing the fed is going to take a hell of a lot more than five minutes with a crowbar. Anything worth while is doing to do that. The question is do we expend energy on something that actually expands government just because it's reducing the role of government in general isn't going to be easy? Oh, and gay marriage will likely cause gay tax rates to go up. For people with similar incomes marriage is a tax liability, not a benefit.

 

[jmdrake]

Anyway, I hope the court will hurry up and rule one way or the other. It's a stupid distraction.

 

[wizardwatson]

Anyway, I hope the court will hurry up and rule one way or the other. It's a stupid distraction.

Bump for final day of stupid distraction!

SCOTUS hearing is today on gay marriage. Finally all you Christians can put this non-issue behind you and get down to the real Christian work of running non-winning candidates on evil platforms.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0

 

[TheCount]

SCOTUS hearing is today on gay marriage. Finally all you Christians can put this non-issue behind you and get down to the real Christian work of running non-winning candidates on evil platforms.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Another extreme progressive that advocates "gay rights." Another big government advocate that thinks contracting with government is akin to rights.

 

[TheCount]

Another extreme progressive that advocates "gay rights." Another big government advocate that thinks contracting with government is akin to rights.

Reading is not your strong suit.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Reading is not your strong suit.

Reading YOU and your intent on this site is my strong suit.

 

[Southron]

There is nothing as close to a god on earth as one of these black robed judges. They are finally going to define marriage for us peons.

 

[wizardwatson]

SCOTUS hearing is today on gay marriage. Finally all you Christians can put this non-issue behind you and get down to the real Christian work of running non-winning candidates on evil platforms.

Well, when I posted that I did think it was a little harsh. But it sounded nice so I went with it.