Should the states decide for themselves whether same sex marriage is legal in that state OR should there be a single federal law for the United States?
Normally I am against federal intervention in state affairs... But in this particular case I opt for a single federal law.
How about you?
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
Should the states decide for themselves whether same sex marriage is legal in that state OR should there be a single federal law for the United States?
Normally I am against federal intervention in state affairs... But in this particular case I opt for a single federal law.
I agree with you. I'd like to see each individual state have more control over itself. However, in this case I believe it should be a Federal Law to allow it.
0
I agree with you. I'd like to see each individual state have more control over itself. However, in this case I believe it should be a Federal Law to allow it.
All depends on whether the right to guy marriage is determined to be a federally protected right by the SCOTUS. If yes, its a federal issue. If no, its up to the states. I tend to think it should be a federal issue personally or else it creates a complete cluster**** of legal problems if someone gets "married" in one state, moves to another state that doesn't recognize it -- how to handle child custody? divorce? death? taxes? A nightmare.
0
All depends on whether the right to guy marriage is determined to be a federally protected right by the SCOTUS. If yes, its a federal issue. If no, its up to the states. I tend to think it should be a federal issue personally or else it creates a complete cluster**** of legal problems if someone gets "married" in one state, moves to another state that doesn't recognize it -- how to handle child custody? divorce? death? taxes? A nightmare.
You can see the conservative judges in some of the oral arguments shying away from this as a federal issue with the "How can I decide this??? Isn't this for the states to handle?" responses.
Why?
Because they know the majority of Americans support happy marriage but they want an 'out' without taking a stance. It's pretty sad given that's why we have a Supreme Court in the first place, that is, NOT to defer to states on issues that have evolved into national ones that affect stigmatized groups and all states in a similar manner.
But to the Scalia's, Alito's, and Thomas' of the world, there is always an escape hatch when the issue at hand isn't favorable to their party line.
0
You can see the conservative judges in some of the oral arguments shying away from this as a federal issue with the "How can I decide this??? Isn't this for the states to handle?" responses.
Why?
Because they know the majority of Americans support happy marriage but they want an 'out' without taking a stance. It's pretty sad given that's why we have a Supreme Court in the first place, that is, NOT to defer to states on issues that have evolved into national ones that affect stigmatized groups and all states in a similar manner.
But to the Scalia's, Alito's, and Thomas' of the world, there is always an escape hatch when the issue at hand isn't favorable to their party line.
If a majority of Americans support "happy" marriage Scal, then one of the ways of ensuring it becomes a federal right is by passing legislation through Congress that would designate the right to "happy" marriage becoming a federally protected right or designated "happy" people are a historically stigmatized group that would deserve strict scrutiny under an equal protection analysis. Would take the issue right out of the hands of the judiciary.
0
If a majority of Americans support "happy" marriage Scal, then one of the ways of ensuring it becomes a federal right is by passing legislation through Congress that would designate the right to "happy" marriage becoming a federally protected right or designated "happy" people are a historically stigmatized group that would deserve strict scrutiny under an equal protection analysis. Would take the issue right out of the hands of the judiciary.
I agree with you. I'd like to see each individual state have more control over itself. However, in this case I believe it should be a Federal Law to allow it.
Absolutely agree with you...
0
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:
I agree with you. I'd like to see each individual state have more control over itself. However, in this case I believe it should be a Federal Law to allow it.
All depends on whether the right to guy marriage is determined to be a federally protected right by the SCOTUS. If yes, its a federal issue. If no, its up to the states. I tend to think it should be a federal issue personally or else it creates a complete cluster**** of legal problems if someone gets "married" in one state, moves to another state that doesn't recognize it -- how to handle child custody? divorce? death? taxes? A nightmare.
As Ktrain said... "Great points"
0
Quote Originally Posted by kaponofor3:
All depends on whether the right to guy marriage is determined to be a federally protected right by the SCOTUS. If yes, its a federal issue. If no, its up to the states. I tend to think it should be a federal issue personally or else it creates a complete cluster**** of legal problems if someone gets "married" in one state, moves to another state that doesn't recognize it -- how to handle child custody? divorce? death? taxes? A nightmare.
You are ALL wrong. No level of government should have any say whatsoever. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Daniel Boone, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt and millions of others were simply married by a church. For atheists, just avoid the church and live together.
Marriage is a civil right--nothing more. Neither partner should "owe" the other anything--that would eliminate all the divorce and property laws. If separated and have kids, they EQUALLY share financial and custodial duties. No more lazy-asss whoores living off their ex-husbands alimony and child support.
0
You are ALL wrong. No level of government should have any say whatsoever. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Daniel Boone, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt and millions of others were simply married by a church. For atheists, just avoid the church and live together.
Marriage is a civil right--nothing more. Neither partner should "owe" the other anything--that would eliminate all the divorce and property laws. If separated and have kids, they EQUALLY share financial and custodial duties. No more lazy-asss whoores living off their ex-husbands alimony and child support.
I think I might be in the minority here, as I believe this is the UNITED states and issues like this and the legalization of marijunia should be the same anywhere you live. I have never understood why you could be on the Oregon/Washington border and if you light one up on the Oregon side your breaking the law and if you take two steps into Washinton its legal.. As far as happy marriage honestly who gives a f.cuk if two people are in love and want to get married. I saw some body say that the instutition of marriage is for procreation? So whats next outlaw marriage for a couple 60 year olds? I read a great quote that said I am glad the federal government is protecting me and my wife from same sex marriage so that I can go out and buy an assault weapon..
0
I think I might be in the minority here, as I believe this is the UNITED states and issues like this and the legalization of marijunia should be the same anywhere you live. I have never understood why you could be on the Oregon/Washington border and if you light one up on the Oregon side your breaking the law and if you take two steps into Washinton its legal.. As far as happy marriage honestly who gives a f.cuk if two people are in love and want to get married. I saw some body say that the instutition of marriage is for procreation? So whats next outlaw marriage for a couple 60 year olds? I read a great quote that said I am glad the federal government is protecting me and my wife from same sex marriage so that I can go out and buy an assault weapon..
The only legal standing the act of marriage has is that it determines the paternity of any child borne to a married woman(all children are presumed to be issue of husband) and matters of inheritance and how property is divided in case of no will.
Each state has different terms as to who can marry,how old,which sex,how long residence,etc. 15 year old 2nd cousins might marry in Mississippi but would need to reside for 6months in Iowa.So how is this different for gaay people and to cite a common example why couldn't a stste still forbid a marriage between a black man/white woman.
Since this is a right not denoted to the federal it is the right of the state.
0
The only legal standing the act of marriage has is that it determines the paternity of any child borne to a married woman(all children are presumed to be issue of husband) and matters of inheritance and how property is divided in case of no will.
Each state has different terms as to who can marry,how old,which sex,how long residence,etc. 15 year old 2nd cousins might marry in Mississippi but would need to reside for 6months in Iowa.So how is this different for gaay people and to cite a common example why couldn't a stste still forbid a marriage between a black man/white woman.
Since this is a right not denoted to the federal it is the right of the state.
Alert the media. Randisist and I agree on something. I never understood why the federal government always kicks things back to the states when they know damn well it's going to be something normal to our future.
This is how you get a few states now prepared to offer online poker to their residents and the residents of only those states willing to join the program as described.
This is how in 2013 getting blowed is still a crime in Mississippi.
This is how Florida has no state taxes and then can't properly conduct an election in a timely manner, etc.
happy marriage will be a part of the American future. Why have every state create it's own language about how it will be implemented? FFS why can't things be uniform?
0
Alert the media. Randisist and I agree on something. I never understood why the federal government always kicks things back to the states when they know damn well it's going to be something normal to our future.
This is how you get a few states now prepared to offer online poker to their residents and the residents of only those states willing to join the program as described.
This is how in 2013 getting blowed is still a crime in Mississippi.
This is how Florida has no state taxes and then can't properly conduct an election in a timely manner, etc.
happy marriage will be a part of the American future. Why have every state create it's own language about how it will be implemented? FFS why can't things be uniform?
The problem is the government is using a religious institution to define couples. There needs to be a separation of church and state, with which marriage there isn't. Local, state, and federal governments need to discard the use of 'marriage' and start to use union/partnership/couple/companion or whatever you want to call it to define 2 people that recognize each other as their significant other. After that, you can leave it up to churches to decide whether they want to 'marry' same sex couples or not - even then still doesn't matter as any couple regardless of it's sex should have the same legal rights and benefits as far as government rights are concerned. As it is now, you have 2 different sides trying to shove a religious institution down each others throats which frankly doesn't belong in the local, state, or federal control.
0
The problem is the government is using a religious institution to define couples. There needs to be a separation of church and state, with which marriage there isn't. Local, state, and federal governments need to discard the use of 'marriage' and start to use union/partnership/couple/companion or whatever you want to call it to define 2 people that recognize each other as their significant other. After that, you can leave it up to churches to decide whether they want to 'marry' same sex couples or not - even then still doesn't matter as any couple regardless of it's sex should have the same legal rights and benefits as far as government rights are concerned. As it is now, you have 2 different sides trying to shove a religious institution down each others throats which frankly doesn't belong in the local, state, or federal control.
Shame on all of you who allow any government to decide anything about marriage or civil unions or anything else--they are no different than two people living together. And it is horrible that any of you think either the feds or the states should have any say whatsoever.
You are ALL wrong. No level of government should have any say whatsoever. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Daniel Boone, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt and millions of others were simply married by a church. For atheists, just avoid the church and live together.
0
Shame on all of you who allow any government to decide anything about marriage or civil unions or anything else--they are no different than two people living together. And it is horrible that any of you think either the feds or the states should have any say whatsoever.
You are ALL wrong. No level of government should have any say whatsoever. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Daniel Boone, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt and millions of others were simply married by a church. For atheists, just avoid the church and live together.
so you are against gaymarriage because giving homosexuals the right to marry means that a whole group of people will go from less government involvement to more government involvement...
so since all us hetero married people are already a part of the government marriage scam... we dont care if others end up in the same fate...
personally I kinda think that fair is fair... they should suffer also...
I hear you on divorce and alimony tho... some of the laws around that are completely insane... but perhaps gaymarriage will experience something similar...so much so that a prenupt might become common in gaymarriage...
0
so you are against gaymarriage because giving homosexuals the right to marry means that a whole group of people will go from less government involvement to more government involvement...
so since all us hetero married people are already a part of the government marriage scam... we dont care if others end up in the same fate...
personally I kinda think that fair is fair... they should suffer also...
I hear you on divorce and alimony tho... some of the laws around that are completely insane... but perhaps gaymarriage will experience something similar...so much so that a prenupt might become common in gaymarriage...
I think the real problem is with regular marriage or straight marriage. Think about all the problems that occur in a man/woman marriage and the nightmare of divorce and all the effects of that ... broken families etc, etc, etc. When do you hear of problems from a happy marriage? The only issue is the "should we legalize it" ... the wasted time and effort put into contemplating the legality of it ... but in reality, once the happy man or woman gets married, it's less drama than a regular one. Just my two cents.
0
I think the real problem is with regular marriage or straight marriage. Think about all the problems that occur in a man/woman marriage and the nightmare of divorce and all the effects of that ... broken families etc, etc, etc. When do you hear of problems from a happy marriage? The only issue is the "should we legalize it" ... the wasted time and effort put into contemplating the legality of it ... but in reality, once the happy man or woman gets married, it's less drama than a regular one. Just my two cents.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
