Did the LGBT community pick the wrong fight.

Another touchy subject that has religious and political connections. Please behave.

Ignore the tax stuff in the article. We already know where we stand on that one and have beat that horse to death on a number of occasions.

A decision has been made on gay marriage, I think it's the proper decision. However, should the small government crowd have joined the LGBT community to take marriage powers away from the government all together.

http://www.caintv.com/gays-win-gay-marriage-battle-i

Would we be better off with the government not having control of marriage licensing?

Why are we not just telling them who we are married to, rather than having to ask permission?

Discuss.

Reasonably please.

Marriage is a contract that gives out a huge number of rights that have to be recognized legally by the government, equally across all states. Things like visitiation rights, right to make decisions in case of medical emergency, rights to not incriminate your spouse, rights of estate transfer in case of death, and many, many more. Those rights are intrinsic to the contract of marriage.

This is why the fear of marrying animals or children is overblown as they aren't consenting, adult citizens that legally CAN sign for, or make decisions on behalf of, a spouse.

In reply to Chris_V:

True, but then all you would need is a form that tells the government that person A is now "married" to person B. Today's ruling would be a moot point because the government would have never had the power to tell a couple they couldn't get married.

Why license it at all.

In reply to Toyman01: You know i never even looked at this topic from that angle. The question was always "should govt allow certain people to marry?" but really it should have been "Should the people allow the govt to have say?" Excellent thinking sir!! This is why i like hanging out here.

Honestly, I would rather have seen government just get out of the marriage business altogether. I've always thought that if it's really a religious institution (as a lot of religious folks try to claim it is), then it violates the Establishment Clause. But, as most pro-small-government folks know all too well, trying to get the government to stop regulating something it already has decided it can regulate is next to impossible.

Toyman01 wrote: In reply to Chris_V: True, but then all you would need is a form that tells the government that person A is now "married" to person B. Today's ruling would be a moot point because the government would have never had the power to tell a couple they couldn't get married. Why license it at all.

Again, a form telling the government that you are married is what is done, be it a marriage in a church or in a courthouse. The government licenses it so that it's federally recognized and recognized in every state when any of those things comes up. Especially since taxation is involved.

The fight was so that same sex couples could recieve the same Rights listed above when married, and are recognized as such, AS CITIZENS federally and thus by every state (so that if you have a bad car crash in a state outside your own, that that state HAS to allow you the Rights of visitation and making decisions on behalf of your spouse). This is VERY important.

It doesn't give same sex couples SPECIAL Rights, it gives them the SAME RIGHTS as everybody else who gets married. Not a trivial thing.

psteav wrote: Honestly, I would rather have seen government just get out of the marriage business altogether. I've always thought that if it's really a religious institution (as a lot of religious folks try to claim it is), then it violates the Establishment Clause. But, as most pro-small-government folks know all too well, trying to get the government to stop regulating something it already has decided it can regulate is next to impossible.

It's not a religious institution. Holy Matrimony is the religious version, but due to the rights listed above, marriage is a SOCIETAL institution and thus under the perview of the government. Ttey have to recognize it in order to recognize those rights, and apply it to everyone, not just religious couples.

Toyman01 wrote: In reply to Chris_V: True, but then all you would need is a form that tells the government that person A is now "married" to person B. Today's ruling would be a moot point because the government would have never had the power to tell a couple they couldn't get married. Why license it at all.

The license is basically the contract that binds two people together. Instead of an actual contract that legally binds people in all aspects of their life- we just need the license. So it's needed.

Just having a church recognize the bind would not recognize any of those aspects.

The issue today was about people saying that A and B should not be allowed to enter into that contract, which today's ruling says that those people were wrong and that there are no restrictions based on gender of who could be married.

None the less, the legal binding process is needed.

It doesn't give same sex couples SPECIAL Rights, it gives them the SAME RIGHTS as everybody else who gets married. Not a trivial thing.

Definitely. I have gay friends and gay family members. That was always the fear in the back on my mind: If something bad happened to one of them, how much of a cluster will their spouse be in?

Why should the government have been able to deny it to start with.

It should be as simple as filling out a form and getting the signatures notarized and filing it. Done. No license required.

Instead, you ask for a license, wait the required time, get married, file the license.

As far as the taxes, that's as simple as checking the box that says married, filing separate or joint. Here's the name of the other person and the date we signed the contract.

David S. Wallens wrote:

It doesn't give same sex couples SPECIAL Rights, it gives them the SAME RIGHTS as everybody else who gets married. Not a trivial thing.

Definitely. I have gay friends and gay family members. That was always the fear in the back on my mind: If something bad happened to one of them, how much of a cluster will their spouse be in?

This is my point. We should be telling the government what we want, not asking them if we can or what they will allow.

David S. Wallens wrote:

It doesn't give same sex couples SPECIAL Rights, it gives them the SAME RIGHTS as everybody else who gets married. Not a trivial thing.

Definitely. I have gay friends and gay family members. That was always the fear in the back on my mind: If something bad happened to one of them, how much of a cluster will their spouse be in?

The closest-to-home case for me is actually kind of an amusing variation on that concern- one of the male dancers in SWMBO's show last weekend is (unsurprisingly) gay. He used to live in a state where it was legal for him to get married, and fell in love and got married very young there.

Things however did not work out and they split up- but since he (and possibly his husband, don't know) now lives and is a legal resident here in KY where his marriage was not even recognized, he hasn't been able to get divorced here. And since he's no longer a legal resident of the state where he was married, he couldn't file for divorce there either. So ironically the ruling on all 50 states having to recognize his marriage means that he can now actually get divorced and move on...

The SCOTUS decisions from yesterday and today will force citizens and Congress to address long-neglected issues.

Religious institutions will come under fire and will stand on 1st Amendment rights and they SHOULD win. One would hope that Congress gets off its' butt and enacts legislation that prevents that before it reached the upper courts.

It's also now up to voters to determine the fate of the PPACA. It has been deemed Constitutional via debatable interpretation and the fight now rolls into the 2016 election cycle.

We have witnessed judicial activism in action even though I'm no fan of the court granting ever more power to the federal government or itself. It's just my opinion but I think SCOTUS just batted .500 with the Chief Justice Roberts going 0-2 and Justices Kennedy and Scalia going 1-2.

If we drank every time someone has said "judicial activism" today, we'd all be berkeleyed up by now...

In reply to Chris_V:

Sometimes we drink to celebrate, drown our sorrows or both. The argument whether (or not) SCOTUS acted within its' powers or beyond is a different debate.

Another interesting question.

Why is a married couple granted special advantages over a single person? Are they more equal?

Okay, there are a couple different arguments going on around this issue:

Firstly, should government even be in the business of licensing and recognizing marriage? Yes. It's not just about taxes. It is about a whole bunch of other civil protections, obligations, and assurances that are pretty fundamental to keeping society running smoothly. It has to do with end of life decisions, survivorship and property rights, inheritance, right and obligation to parent, and providing for the physical, emotional, and financial care of a current or former partner. Yeah, they get tax credits, but that is more than offset by the social stability that an institution like marriage provides. One express purpose of our government is to "Promote the General Welfare", and institutionalizing marriage is a part of that.

There is also the argument in the original article that although this is a win for LGBT rights, it's a loss to the 10th amendment. Trickier, but no, not really. This ruling came about originally because a majority attempted to impose their morality upon a minority in such a way that would provide unequal rights. This was challenged in state courts, that ruled that these bans were against the the STATE constitutions. Then, one district court issued a ruling that went against all the others. It was now in contention. The SCOTUS stepped in and had to figure out which of these rulings it would side with.

This is not just about state autonomy, because marriage is meant to be a permanent institution. These rights and obligations to property and child rearing should not dissolve when you cross from Pennsylvania into Ohio. And yes, it was a federal issue. When doing my income tax returns for Ohio, there was a section in there for the special hoops a same-sex couple would have to jump through filing joint tax returns. Because their marriage, and the rights it affords were recognized by the Federal gov't, but not by the state. So a couple would have to do one joint return and another separate return. Heaven forbid they had shared income from a communal property or business based in another state that recognized their marriage, but lived in a state that didn't. That would be an income tax cluster berkeley.

Toyman01 wrote: Another interesting question. Why is a married couple granted special advantages over a single person? Are they more equal?

Because they are also saddled with additional responsibilities to care for each other and for any offspring. And because it provides security and flexibility for one to be a primary income earner and the other more responsible for being a home maker. They get tax deductions because we recognize the home maker is working in a capacity that doesn't bring in wages.

Toyman01 wrote: Another interesting question. Why is a married couple granted special advantages over a single person? Are they more equal?

The "advantages" are there to act as proxy. You can't act as proxy for yourself if, say, you are in a coma and nowhere near blood relatives, if you even have any alive. That's just one example. You can't inherit your own estate when you die unexpectedly. Those 100+ Rights that married couples are afforded don't make them special compared to single people, they just allow a spouse to act on behalf of a spouse, and allow Rights to insurance, childcare, inheritance, etc. And due to the regulatory nature of most of them vs blood relatives (who already have most of those rights), the governemtn has to be involved.

This isn't hard stuff to "get."

In reply to Beer Baron:

I agree they should recognize it, but license it? Why. Why should we ask if we can get married to a person or even persons.

As to the direct response:

Know any single parents? Should they get double tax advantage for doing twice the work?

Know any unwed couples that live together with children? I do. Why should I have an advantage over them.

Are we forcing couples that shouldn't be married, to get married for the tax advantages?

Toyman01 wrote: Why should the government have been able to deny it to start with.

Because it offends some when certain people are allowed to marry

70 years ago, people did want individuals of different race to marry, today is was about two people of the same gender.

Toyman01 wrote:

David S. Wallens wrote:

It doesn't give same sex couples SPECIAL Rights, it gives them the SAME RIGHTS as everybody else who gets married. Not a trivial thing.

Definitely. I have gay friends and gay family members. That was always the fear in the back on my mind: If something bad happened to one of them, how much of a cluster will their spouse be in?

This is my point. We should be telling the government what we want, not asking them if we can or what they will allow.

Agreed. At the federal level, marriage should be defined as loosely as possible consistent with guaranteeing equal access to all consenting adult citizens. Pretty much the same should be true at the State level.

You should file a certificate of marriage just like you file a deed for property - Here, I did this, put it in the official record.

The state or local government can provide officiating services, if requested, for those not being married by a church. For that matter, any Notary Public should be able to marry people.

Government marriage services should be available to all consenting adults. Churches should be free to determine who they will or will not marry, consistent with their beliefs and consciences.

In reply to oldsaw:

You do know churches don't have to wed anyone, right. Atheists can be denied to be married in a church.

This is about government recognition, nothing else.

I don't even get why this is an issue except for a bunch of bible beaters couldn't handle it when some gay dudes wanted to get married. Why can't everyone mind their own business and leave other folks to pursue happiness? No one is forcing anyone to get married so how does someone getting married somehow affect your life? It's like if a Jew were trying to outlaw eating bacon. Then again Jewish folks have enough sense to say "You know, I won't eat bacon because my God says not to but I won't stop you from eating bacon. That's your choice."

It's manufactured drama that does a good job of distracting the easily distracted from what really matters.

"Remember when you could beat a woman in public and no one would stop you from smoking while you did it?" - Anthony Scalia (He didn't really say that but don't you get the impression that's what he's thinking?)

And, the next $64,000 question: Assuming all parties are consenting adults, why are we limiting marriages to 2 people?