bush_cheney2004 Posted June 26, 2013 Report Posted June 26, 2013 As expected, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled for court challenges to provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), mainly federally recognized benefits now denied. The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that legally married same-sex couples should get the same U.S. benefits as heterosexual couples. The court invalidated a provision of the federal Defence of Marriage Act that has prevented married gay couples from receiving a range of tax, health and retirement benefits that are generally available to married people. The vote was 5-4. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/06/26/supreme-court-us-gay-marriage.html Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Boges Posted June 26, 2013 Report Posted June 26, 2013 Denying same sex couples the legal benefits that hetrosexual couples have is pretty heartless. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 26, 2013 Author Report Posted June 26, 2013 Denying same sex couples the legal benefits that hetrosexual couples have is pretty heartless. OK, but the same can be said of single vs. married. The state makes such choices based on social norms, which are changing. DOMA was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, with support on both sides of the aisle. It was a purposeful federal barrier to same gender marriage, which is controlled by each state. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Boges Posted June 26, 2013 Report Posted June 26, 2013 OK, but the same can be said of single vs. married. The state makes such choices based on social norms, which are changing. DOMA was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, with support on both sides of the aisle. It was a purposeful federal barrier to same gender marriage, which is controlled by each state. Times change. Democrats supported the War in Iraq initially too. What benefits are single people being denied? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 26, 2013 Author Report Posted June 26, 2013 Times change. Democrats supported the War in Iraq initially too. What benefits are single people being denied? There are many benefits available to married couples that are denied to single people (and unmarried partners) because of their (lack of) marital status. Taxes, adoption law, military benefits (pay, housing), property law, Social Security, workplace benefits and job assignments, etc. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Boges Posted June 26, 2013 Report Posted June 26, 2013 (edited) There are many benefits available to married couples that are denied to single people (and unmarried partners) because of their (lack of) marital status. Taxes, adoption law, military benefits (pay, housing), property law, Social Security, workplace benefits and job assignments, etc. I think in Canada that once you live together for a certain time you're considered "common-law" and can claim benefits. But Marriage should come with special benefits as it's a legal contract a couple signs. There was a high profile case in Quebec where a women who had 3 children from a billionaire man but never actually married him wanted half of his estate when they broke up. She lost the case. https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/quebec-billionaires-ex-loses-common-law-case-107681 Edited June 26, 2013 by Boges Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 26, 2013 Author Report Posted June 26, 2013 I think in Canada that once you live together for a certain time you're considered "common-law" and can claim benefits. But Marriage should come with special benefits as it's a legal contract a couple signs. There was a high profile case in Quebec where a women who had 3 children from a billionaire man but never actually married him wanted half of his estate when they broke up. She lost the case. https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/quebec-billionaires-ex-loses-common-law-case-107681 Yes, I remember the case well. The laws have changed more readily when it comes to children and dependents, regardless of marital status, mostly because government wants to force child support cost issues and care for children. Being single has its benefits as well, but government has set up preferences for marriage. My own opinion is that such things should be neutral, with no bias or rewards to citizens based on marital status. The state should not even be in the marriage contract business. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
jacee Posted June 27, 2013 Report Posted June 27, 2013 There are many benefits available to married couples that are denied to single people (and unmarried partners) because of their (lack of) marital status. Taxes, adoption law, military benefits (pay, housing), property law, Social Security, workplace benefits and job assignments, etc. Not sure I understand how a married person benefits over a single person ... Quote
guyser Posted June 27, 2013 Report Posted June 27, 2013 Not sure I understand how a married person benefits over a single person ... Doesnt have to wait until the second or third date Quote
Shady Posted June 27, 2013 Report Posted June 27, 2013 Not sure I understand how a married person benefits over a single person ... Tax benefits. Quote
Shady Posted June 28, 2013 Report Posted June 28, 2013 You gotta love the mainstream media bias. Yesterday, they described the 5-4 decision regarding the voting rights act as "ideologically divided." Today they're describing the 5-4 gay marriage decision as "historic." Quote
cybercoma Posted June 28, 2013 Report Posted June 28, 2013 It's both ideologically divided and historic. Quote
kimmy Posted June 28, 2013 Report Posted June 28, 2013 Every US supreme court decision is ideologically divided, due to the current composition of the US supreme court. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 28, 2013 Author Report Posted June 28, 2013 Every US supreme court decision is ideologically divided, due to the current composition of the US supreme court. Nothing new about that....always the case. Prez gets to appoint justices for life. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GostHacked Posted June 28, 2013 Report Posted June 28, 2013 Can one defend the traditional marriage when divorce is so easy these days? Take into account that many marriages don't last more than a few year, what really is there to defend? Quote
cybercoma Posted June 28, 2013 Report Posted June 28, 2013 How is denying marriage to gays defending anything anyway? Whether they can get married or not, they're still going to get together and have relationships. Denying them the right to marry is indefensible. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 28, 2013 Author Report Posted June 28, 2013 (edited) Ask President Bill Clinton....he signed DOMA into law. The US Supreme Court did not legalize same gender marriage, it just struck down provisions of DOMA that denied federal benefits to couples. Edited June 28, 2013 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
dre Posted June 28, 2013 Report Posted June 28, 2013 How is denying marriage to gays defending anything anyway? Whether they can get married or not, they're still going to get together and have relationships. Denying them the right to marry is indefensible. Right but if you think homosexuality is a mortal sin, and just plain dont like these folks, then it kinda makes sense to stand in the way of stuff they want. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
cybercoma Posted June 28, 2013 Report Posted June 28, 2013 Yes. Because you're trying to be helpful by stopping them from suffering eternal damnation. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 28, 2013 Report Posted June 28, 2013 Ask President Bill Clinton....he signed DOMA into law. The US Supreme Court did not legalize same gender marriage, it just struck down provisions of DOMA that denied federal benefits to couples.It's terrible how Clinton outlawed gay marriage. Until that happened, everyone was happily getting married. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 28, 2013 Author Report Posted June 28, 2013 It's terrible how Clinton outlawed gay marriage. Until that happened, everyone was happily getting married. Clinton did not outlaw "gay" marriage....he signed into law federal restrictions on benefits and recognition of such marriages by the states. At the time, "gay" people couldn't even get married in....Canada. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
cybercoma Posted June 28, 2013 Report Posted June 28, 2013 Clinton did not outlaw "gay" marriage....Since it apparently wasn't obvious, my previous post was sarcasm. Quote
BC_chick Posted July 7, 2013 Report Posted July 7, 2013 (edited) Ask President Bill Clinton....he signed DOMA into law. The US Supreme Court did not legalize same gender marriage, it just struck down provisions of DOMA that denied federal benefits to couples. A lot changes in 20 years. Think back at society's views on civil rights between 1950 and 1970. Night and day really. Same thing happened with SSM between the 90's and present-day. That's why Clinton wrote a lengthy op-ed expressing his views that it's time to overturn DOMA. That's the difference between Democrats and Conservatives. The former know when history has turned the page. The latter clings to the past. Edited July 7, 2013 by BC_chick Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 7, 2013 Author Report Posted July 7, 2013 That's the difference between Democrats and Conservatives. The former know when history has turned the page. The latter clings to the past. This doesn't make much sense, as Democrats can be "conservative". Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.