California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I just don't like seeing judges doing what legislatures should be doing.

Now we get to your point. And I understand it.

[GooniePDT49]

Originally Posted by Kevin

So far, our definition of marriage has only included as between a man and a woman. This court decision alters that distinction. I think such definitions are solely the province of legislatures and I agree with many that this is about as "activist" a decision as I've ever seen.

I have no problem with gay marriage. I'm 100% for it. I just don't like seeing judges doing what legislatures should be doing.

Judges have always done this throughout American history. Just read the Dred Scott case of 1857. A judge overturned the federal govts decision that slaves were free and citizens above the 36' 30 line in Missouri. The court ruled in fact that slaves were not free in this part of Missouri, and therefore could not sue. Only citizens are allowed to sue, not slaves. It was the federal court that overturned the federal legislature's as well as the ST Louis's court decision. How is THAT possible?

[DSTCHAOS]

It challenges people's notions of traditional family (as do all deviations from the two-parent, male and female, traditional gender norm family structure does), religious and moral stances, and of course there has to be $$$$ interest in there somewhere to keep all the protest worth it.

What about tax breaks, employee benefits for spouses and dependents, alimony, and other stuff that people think should be reserved for God's chosen few? People tend not to protest for years and years and years over something if there's no $$$$ at stake.

ETA: Particularly in times of economic downturn, people are more protective over their dwindling pot of gold.

[JonoBN41]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

What about tax breaks, employee benefits for spouses and dependents, alimony, and other stuff that people think should be reserved for God's chosen few?

Interesting, but what about the chosen "few" themselves? Actually it's the majority, isn't it. Not once in my life have I heard anyone try to stop a marriage solely on the basis of the negative financial impact their marriage would have on those already married. Not once.

Alimony? Do you mean to say if the gay guys across the street get married and then divorced, I'll have to pay them alimony? I did not know that. Good point.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

Interesting, but what about the chosen "few" themselves? Actually it's the majority, isn't it. Not once in my life have I heard anyone try to stop a marriage solely on the basis of the negative financial impact their marriage would have on those already married. Not once.

Alimony? Do you mean to say if the gay guys across the street get married and then divorced, I'll have to pay them alimony? I did not know that. Good point.

What are you typing about?

[DSTCHAOS]

I'll answer your question.

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

It challenges people's notions of traditional family (as do all deviations from the two-parent, male and female, traditional gender norm family structure does), religious and moral stances, and of course there has to be $$$$ interest in there somewhere to keep all the protest worth it.

What about tax breaks, employee benefits for spouses and dependents, alimony, and other stuff that people think should be reserved for God's chosen few? People tend not to protest for years and years and years over something if there's no $$$$ at stake.

ETA: Particularly in times of economic downturn, people are more protective over their dwindling pot of gold.

If you don't understand my post, let me know your confusion in a clear manner.

[JonoBN41]

I understand your post.

"It challenges peoples' notions of traditional families." On any given night there's something on the news that challenges my notion of traditional family, be it politicians who cheat on their wives with prostitutes or have another wife and daughter in another state, or a married man in Austria who committed incest with his daughter for 24 years and fathered numerous children by her.

"What about tax breaks?" What about them?

I thank you for attempting to answer my question, but you simply have not.

[shinerbock]

Unfortunate, but not surprising.

This is what happens when judges decide what feels right and then seek to back that up with law.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

I understand your post.

"It challenges peoples' notions of traditional families." On any given night there's something on the news that challenges my notion of traditional family, be it politicians who cheat on their wives with prostitutes or have another wife and daughter in another state, or a married man in Austria who committed incest with his daughter for 24 years and fathered numerous children by her.

O.K. You asked the question and I told you why many people feel it challenges their notions of traditional families. Whether you or I agree with it is a different discussion as far as I'm concerned.

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

"What about tax breaks?" What about them?

I thank you for attempting to answer my question, but you simply have not.

I thought you understood my post.

I began my post with the moral foundation for not wanting gay marriage and I concluded with the material foundation. Every social conflict and social inequality has a material foundation. If not for material foundations, and the belief that there isn't enough pie to share with everyone, many people would've gotten bored with fighting over morality and moved on to something that really impacts their life chances.

People who feel that any tax benefits (joint filer or dependents claims, for instance) should be reserved for a certain type of family would be opposed to people in same sex unions (for example) being able to file joint taxes, claim dependents, or get certain benefits.

While we don't pay the alimony, it doesn't stop people from feeling that any monetary exchange (and legal costs associated with separations and divorces) should only occur within a certain type of marriage because this money ultimately comes from somewhere (the belief that we're all economically connected and your paycheck isn't just about you and yours).

These are a couple of the financial reasons for the claim that same sex marriage threatens the traditional family (and its economic incentives/benefits). Again, as with every other social conflict, the battle over gay marriage has a financial foundation. You can find homosexuals who want their partner to be included in employee/spousal benefits/etc. and you can find heterosexuals who do not want this to happen (partly because they feel there simply aren't enough benefits for everyone).

You don't have to agree to understand the moral and material roots of the conflict.

[PhiGam]

Im not sure how I feel about the courts stepping in here even though I agree with the legalization of gay marriage. Every state that this is on the ballot for in November will see an increase in the number of evangelical voters, if I were a campaign strategist I would try to get either gay marriage or partial birth abortion bans on the ballot in every key state.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

Im not sure how I feel about the courts stepping in here even though I agree with the legalization of gay marriage.

Wow, I did NOT see that coming from you, PhiGam. I'm impressed!

Every state that this is on the ballot for in November will see an increase in the number of evangelical voters, if I were a campaign strategist I would try to get either gay marriage or partial birth abortion bans on the ballot in every key state.

Paging Karl Rove... blech

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Wow, I did NOT see that coming from you, PhiGam. I'm impressed!

Paging Karl Rove... blech

Assumptions... I'm not religious so I guess it doesn't bother me.
Either way, a ban is not unconstitutional and this judge should lose his office.

[Coramoor]

Once again you have a handful of liberal activist judges squashing the vote of some thirty odd million people that settled this already. Wasn't this one of the things the Founders warned us about some 200 years ago?

The left is becoming more fascist by the day.

[TSteven]

Originally Posted by Coramoor

Once again you have a handful of liberal activist judges squashing the vote of some thirty odd million people that settled this already. Wasn't this one of the things the Founders warned us about some 200 years ago?

The left is becoming more fascist by the day.

FYI:

Originally Posted by jon1856

"The decision was a bold surprise from a moderately conservative, Republican-dominated court that legal scholars have long dubbed "cautious," and experts said it was likely to influence other courts around the country."

[jon1856]

^^^^^^LOL-I was in the middle of posting the same thing