faetal on 29/6/2015 at 07:54
Tony, if you don't want to explicitly state your full point because it might be taken as the ramblings of a bigot, that ought to tell you something.
Also, requiring that someone read an entire book before continuing a conversation is as translucent an evasion as exists. If you've read said book, then quote some passages or admit that you don't really care enough about pressing your angle enough to remember the things which apparently shore up your steadfast views.
Gryzemuis on 29/6/2015 at 11:04
Quote Posted by demagogue
Interestingly, most US states already had a "civil union" status for gays that was equivalent to marriage in terms of the state rights and benefits couples got.
Whites can sit in the front of the bus. Blacks can sit in the back of the bus. But both can ride the bus, both pay the same price, and both can get where they wanna go. So what's the difference ?
Equality, dignity, acceptation, all those factors play a role.
heywood on 29/6/2015 at 12:52
Quote Posted by demagogue
Interestingly, most US states already had a "civil union" status for gays that was equivalent to marriage in terms of the state rights and benefits couples got. The claim that led to all of these cases was often that a civil union wasn't equal to marriage, since marriage was culturally connected to an ancient institution, and it was that that couples wanted to be a part of. A civil union in terms of state benefits wasn't enough. So the cultural/religious aspects of marriage are more intertwined with the politics of it than people might expect.
Except civil unions weren't really equivalent. They weren't universally recognized and transferrable, so if you moved to another state or another country, in most cases your civil union wouldn't be recognized and you wouldn't get the same protections and benefits. And you couldn't divorce where the union wasn't recognized. More importantly, the federal government didn't recognize civil unions. And there is a world full of laws, public and private policies, forms, etc. which refer to marriage and not civil unions.
In theory, I would be willing to go along with bjack's suggestion to have the state recognize civil unions and not marriage. Marriage could just be a ceremonial thing; with the word marriage becoming a colloquial alternative to civil union. This idea appeals to my libertarian side, but it's not a very practical alternative. To make it work, all public and private institutions that currently recognize marriage would have to go along with the change, and it would have to be harmonized internationally. I think it would have to be implemented via legislation and/or policy changes, which would offer anti-gay activists endless opportunities to fight the change and/or drag their feet on implementing it. That approach could leave many same sex couples in limbo for years or perhaps decades. And in the end, what would be achieved by writing marriage out of the legal code and out of the policies of private institutions? I think the answer is nothing, really. Most of us would still use the word marriage to describe our relationships, including same sex couples, and people with a religious objection to homosexuality would still argue for a narrow definition of marriage that excludes homosexuality. I think it would be a whole lot of effort and argument over a long time and we'd still end up in the same place. Having states issue marriage licenses to same sex couples is a much more rapid, direct, and pragmatic approach to the same end.
Queue on 29/6/2015 at 13:20
Quote Posted by faetal
Tony, if you don't want to explicitly state your full point because it might be taken as the ramblings of an idiot, that ought to tell you something.
Fixed.
What's most angering about the Supreme Court's ruling is that it was not unanimous -- this means that there are Justices who would twist their opinion to conform to personal beliefs instead of legality.
bjack on 29/6/2015 at 17:07
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
Marriage has impact on your income.
It has impact on the taxes you pay, tax-reductions and tax-refunds.
It has impact on child-custody.
It has impact on pensions.
etc… .
I call for the abolition of the marriage penalty (some call it a marriage benefit) tax wise. Social contracts and civil unions would cover custody, pension, inheritance, and other issues. They already do. I can already stipulate someone other than my wife for my private retirement funds (not Social Security), but she must agree to it. Really there is almost nothing different between my vision of a civil union and the current state of marriage, with the exception that exemptions would be abolished. This includes tax breaks, subsidized children, exemptions, etc. When the government has the power to exempt, they have the power to coerce. A simple flat income tax that does not kick in until a "reasonable" income amount (say $50K) per individual, regardless of status, number of children, etc. Implement something like that in the USA and hundreds of thousands of vampires that live off the current tax code would simply poof into dust. The majority of the beltway would become a ghost town.
We'll see if the ruling has high impacts elsewhere (such as plural marriage, or marrying a corporation). Corporate mergers may become a thing of the past. They can simply now get married. Time will tell. :D
Queue on 29/6/2015 at 17:58
Now it makes perfect sense.
...and I want my wife's slaves, dammit.
heywood on 29/6/2015 at 18:51
What a week for SCOTUS. Three more 5-4 decisions were announced today on environmental regulation, the death penalty, and independent redistricting commissions. And there was another important 5-4 decision last week in Horne v. USDA that didn't get any press coverage. Anyone else following this session?
I have to say, some of the latest decisions just seem political. Like in King v. Burwell where the majority opinion holds that the Premium Assistance Program applies to federally operated exchanges even though the ACA very clearly does not say that. It seemed like the majority justices were intent on "saving" the ACA from its own wording. Even though I generally support the ACA, it's hard not to see this as a case of the court making up legislation. Another one that has me baffled is the majority opinion in Michigan v. EPA. Despite there being ample evidence the EPA considered costs throughout the process of developing power plant emissions regulations, the majority struck down the regulation because the EPA had not considered cost in its initial decision to regulate power plant emissions. Not only does that seem like splitting hairs, it's also an absurd standard. How is the EPA supposed to estimate the costs of regulation before they consider what regulation might be appropriate? And what's to stop the EPA from considering the costs again and reaching the same decision to regulate.
The most interesting case to me is Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting. The Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution assigns the responsibility for determining Congressional districts to the State Legislatures. And the Arizona Constitution says that any law which may be enacted by the Legislature may also be enacted by Initiative, and that the Legislature shall not have the power to supersede an approved Initiative. So the people of Arizona passed an Initiative which established an Independent Redistricting Commission, and the Arizona Legislature fought to get that power back and lost. The winning argument was based on the idea that the Arizona Constitution, by establishing Initiative and related powers, extends the authority of the Legislature to the people. I think this case is interesting because it sets a precedent whereby any responsibilities and powers specifically allocated to a Legislature could now be exercised by the people through the Initiative process. I think that is a good thing.
Pyrian on 29/6/2015 at 19:46
Quote Posted by heywood
Like in King v. Burwell where the majority opinion holds that the Premium Assistance Program applies to federally operated exchanges even though the ACA very clearly does not say that.
It's not "very clear" at all, since the other ruling contradicts the law in multiple places (e.g. the law would explicitly require outreach programs to inform the very same specified individuals of benefits they're, oops, not actually getting; and the law would explicitly establish their eligibility for benefits that, oops, they're not actually getting), whereas the ruling chosen merely interprets that the fact that Federally established Exchanges are equivalent to State established Exchanges effectively overrides the cited drafting error.
(
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/25/politics/scotus-opinion-document-aca-subsidies/index.html) source
