SCOTUS/Prop 8 predictions?

My opinion applies to individual states as well.

"Yeah, we know the people decided this, but we're FedGov and we're going to side with a tiny fuckin' minority -- not because we're for individual rights, mind you, but because we fucking hate the American people."

the majority of "the american people" have a pretty solid track record of fucking up until someone smacks them upside their collective head.

Not to say whether or not the court is always or ever the right venue to deliver the blow - that's a separate debate. But I'll not bow the knee to the herd either.

A person is often smart, people collectively are usually stupid as hell.

No. No. That's not 'fucking up.' That's 'standing for their principles.' You don't like their principles? Well, that's hard fuckin' cheese for you, sweetheart. You convince them that what you want is in line with their principles, and you're all good. You don't and it continues to be tough shit for you. But your personal agenda is nobody's but yours. You have to earn support for that, dig?

And that's just what has been going on. People have been earning support for it, by appealing to Americans' shared desire to not be fucked with by the state. That's how it's done.

See, here's the thing -- you think it's about equal rights. The opposition thinks it's about a special right. Could straight men marry straight men before? Nope. Could straight women marry straight women before? Nope. Men could marry women. Gay men could also marry women. Gay women could also marry men.

Gay couples weren't being denied a right that everybody else had, because nobody else could marry members of the same sex either. Y'see?

Y'all weren't fuckin' asking for something everybody else had, y'all were asking for something nobody else had.

But while you were all yowling for us to put ourselves in your shoes, you selfish fucks weren't putting yourselves in anybody else's shoes. And that makes you not only selfish, it makes you selfish fuckin' hypocrites.

The fact that the US apparently gives preferential treatment to married couples in some ways doesn't act as an argument against government recognition of marriage, but instead is instead purely an argument for looking at those areas of unfair treatment.

The fuck are you smoking? "The government gives preferential treatment to this minority. That doesn't mean it should stop giving preferential treatment, it means it should give preferential treatment to another minority!"

The hell? Dude, the shit under the sink is for cleaning your counters, not expanding your consciousness. Fuckin' freak.

Huh?

Last time Clyde brought this up I seem to remember him having some examples of situations of where married couples are given an unfair legal advantage over single individuals. Opposing that is entirely different to thinking that the concept of marriage should be abolished entirely.

Never once have I championed abolishing marriage, quite the opposite actually. Two adults wanting to wed is their business and they shouldn't need our governments stamp of approval.

Government recognition shouldn't be a factor.

How then would things like shared ownership of property, next of kin status and the like be established?

Marriage isn't a prerequisite for either being established.

So SCOTUS has probably ruled by now. Probably. Don't know for sure. Don't care. Here's what it will do. It will rule against the will of the majority and in favor of the will of the minority. Because that's what it's been doing. Letting the few rule the many.

Which is not what it's supposed to do, being that this nation was founded on Christian Deist principles. But never mind that.

No, the minority will get to run roughshod over the majority, because this is neither the Constitutional Republic it was founded as, nor is it the Democracy leftist shitass politicians convinced most of you that it is, either.

Yeah, it would make sense for people to sign a legal document establishing those things right. Some kind of crazy legal framework that joins them together, marries them if you will.

Joint ownership of property and establishing next of kin status already requires signed documents.

Ain't got to marry a bank to get a loan!

Seriously, look at it from the other side, how do you justify denying benefits to single folks?

I don't, I think that marriage makes sense as a basic recognition of the fact that most people join into long term relationships which make their partner into their closest family and in many ways make the two halves of the same person. There shouldn't be benefits purely for being married though.

Do you think there should be a limit on the amount of joint rights that can be assigned to each other in one contract?

One of the reasons for being a republic is protection against the passions of the mob. It's not about hating the majority, it's about protecting the minority. But then, I'm sure you know that, so why don't you shut the fuck up.

I know you like to play for the reaction in every thread since you confuse being a wanker with trolling, but the majority is on the pro-same sex marriage side in most recent polls.

You're a dumbass. I already explained that this country isn't a majority rule democracy, but guess what, the majority actually does favor marriage equality, so again, just shut the fuck up and go back to writing your scissor porn.

Some people can get that from a single document. Why do you want to make things more complicated for them,in order to avoid making things less complicated for others?

You wanna talk about polygamy sans marriage?

Two word answer - Hugh Hefner.




Serious answer - Property is typically owned by multiple non-married folks.

Another false motivation ascribed to my perspective.

It hasn't. You're an idiot.

The DOMA case looks more interesting and it will probably get struck down which is good but I wonder if the court will have the balls to actually make this into what it needs to be: Another Lovings style landmark case.

Since the argument is that the 14th amendment allows gay marriage, it is a very legit question.

It's a dumb question for a Supreme Court Justice to be asking. The second sentence of the 14th Amendment answers his question. I question his credentials as a Justice.

Whether or not the culture of the time accepted or envisioned the possibility of gay marriage is an irrelevant question. The amendment quite clearly states no law shall be made to abridge a citizen's privileges, nor to deny them of liberty without due process, nor to deny them equal protection of the law.

Here's an example: interracial marriage was not exactly viewed favorably at the time the 14th Amendment was adopted, and for a long time afterward. However, SCOTUS ruled that banning interracial marriage was unconstitutional based on the 14th Amendment, nearly 100 years later. It violated the due process clause and the equal protection clause, just as anti-gay marriage laws violate those same clauses.

Using the "constitution at the time it was written" argument can severely limit citizens' rights if an idiot like Scalia cannot recognize that the country has changed from 100+ years ago. There are so many things that the founding fathers or writers of various amendments could not have envisioned, but that does mean those things aren't constitutionally protected.

If you did a little reading, you would discover that the founders were actually very much against democracy. They believed it would lead to chaos and "the tyranny of the majority," which is why they went with a republican form of government and not a straight-up democracy.

So "Married couple filing jointly" shouldn't get a break on their income taxes?

So "Un-Married couple filing jointly" shouldn't get a break on their income taxes?