US Supreme Court to Hear Case on Same-Sex Marriage

[mvaliz]

Who cares what the word means...is this seriously a thing?

That's kinda my stance on it...

But, given how behaviorally restrictive the Church is about the word, I'd like to see the copyright legal papers from the Catholic/Christian church to find out when they would seemingly have filed a trademark for the word Marriage™. :P

[Healing Rain]

There's nothing in the Constitution about marriage so I don't see why they are hearing this case. Unless that's what they are going to say, that there is nothing in the Constitution about marriage so it's a states issue.

[Themius]

I'm fine with gay couples being couples, I just dislike the attempt to misuse a word's definition. If for the entirety of the word "marriage" it was defined as "A union between two people" and not "A union between a man and woman" then I would be fine with them "getting married."

Sure, there's always the argument of "Just change the definition" etc, but I don't feel you should be forced to change the definition of a word just because a small group of people demand it. I'm fine with them having the same tax breaks and all that, but don't change the definition of a word.

Last I checked marriage were performed for many years BEFORE the definition. Let us also not forget that the catholic church ordained gay marriages for a couple hundred years before it was banned.

This man woman definition is an alteration to a definition that had already existed.

---------- Post added 2012-12-07 at 07:28 PM ----------

There's nothing in the Constitution about marriage so I don't see why they are hearing this case. Unless that's what they are going to say, that there is nothing in the Constitution about marriage so it's a states issue.

Actually marriage is a civil liberty and no state has the right to ban any group of marrying simply because they are gay. It is like saying "gays get no free speech" a state can not infringe upon civil liberties without taking away that liberty to EVERY member of that state. Targeting me because I'm gay and refusing to let me marry because you want to force your interpretation of your religion down my throat, in a country founded upon freedom of religion and separation of church and state, is out of order.

It is unconstitutional but allowed to happen, which is why the case goes to them.

[Wells]

I was very happy to see they decided to hear this case.

---------- Post added 2012-12-08 at 12:36 AM ----------

There's nothing in the Constitution about marriage so I don't see why they are hearing this case. Unless that's what they are going to say, that there is nothing in the Constitution about marriage so it's a states issue.

Equal protection under the law.

[Reeve]

There's nothing in the Constitution about marriage so I don't see why they are hearing this case. Unless that's what they are going to say, that there is nothing in the Constitution about marriage so it's a states issue.

It's a 14th amendment issue.

---------- Post added 2012-12-08 at 12:48 AM ----------

Yeah, because instead of saying one word someone says another is the same as segregation, you nailed it on the head. That's just absolutely ridiculous.

What's ridiculous about it? Saying it's ridiculous doesn't make it so, especially when there are many many people in this country who would agree with me. I think the Supreme Court will as well.

[Themius]

Yeah, because instead of saying one word someone says another is the same as segregation, you nailed it on the head. That's just absolutely ridiculous.



Well, considering that I've never heard anyone define it as anything else up until recently (And I've done my research as well) I'd say that that's not enough reason to say that the word needs to be changed for (Less than) 10% of the population.



Yes, but the definition of this one word hasn't changed as far as I've researched. Again, less than 10% of the population and especially including the fact that less than that will get married.



No, it's been around for thousands of years. Other cultures may have had same sex unions but that's not the same as now, people also used to get stoned for being gay.

Let's go back to the day where blacks and whites couldn't marry. Let's say they decided it was wrong to say blacks and white can't marry and now they can marry but it won't be called marriage, it'll be called "inter-relation partnership".... would you be fine with this? Is this now segregation?

[Chrysia]

I never said "THIS IS TRUE, STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE." I simply said that this is my opinion on the issue. I forgot that most people on these forums insist on their opinion being fact and that most of the time I'll be considered wrong simply because I don't agree with the politically correct BS.

Go ahead and all of you agree with eachother, I'm not going to stick around just to have my opinions shitted on by your PC crap.

I realize this is useless at this point, but here I go anyway:

I've not insulted you in anyway. I've not seen anyone attack you. Nor have I claimed you have no right to your opinion on the matter. I've disputed your supposed "fact" that the one man, one woman definition is thousands of years old. You've linked no evidence supporting this, and anyone with slight historical knowledge is well aware it is bullshit. So you can have your opinion, but I don't let bullshit "facts" stand.

[semaphore]

Very glad to see this. Even though it won't stop the debate, at least it will be a good opportunity to finally provide legal equality.

---------- Post added 2012-12-08 at 03:10 AM ----------

I am curious what mmoc'ers would consider as an alternative word then for "marriage" for same-sex individuals?

"Separate but equal".

---------- Post added 2012-12-08 at 03:11 AM ----------

From my understanding of the bible marriage if the union of a man and a woman.

Marriage has nothing to do with your bible.

[Slybak]

Call me crazy, but I don't think this is a typical SCOTUS case. In fact, it's pretty much one of the biggest decisions they'll make since striking down interracial marriage bans and/or Brown v. Board. I'm pretty sure each and every Justice realizes that. They all must realize that this case is how they'll be remembered - rightly or wrongly. That's some powerful stuff for any human being to confront.

So while normally your analysis would be spot on, I think it all goes out the window given the context of the case and the environment it's decided in. I think we're going to see a very strong decision for Marriage Equality here, for those reasons.

Antonin Scalia is an irredeemable bigot when it comes to homosexuals, as is Thomas. Both maintain that it is well within the right of states to criminalize homosexuals as a class of people. Read Scalia's dissents in Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, which Thomas joined.

There's nothing in the Constitution about marriage so I don't see why they are hearing this case. Unless that's what they are going to say, that there is nothing in the Constitution about marriage so it's a states issue.

The right to marriage has been consistently held by the Supreme Court to be a fundamental right, beginning with Loving v. Virginia in 1967, the case that struck down state laws barring interracial marriage:

"These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

[semaphore]

I'm fine with gay couples being couples, I just dislike the attempt to misuse a word's definition. If for the entirety of the word "marriage" it was defined as "A union between two people" and not "A union between a man and woman" then I would be fine with them "getting married."

Language changes. Suck it up.

Besides, the fundamental meaning of marriage is to be with someone you love/want to start a family with/spend the rest of your life with. Randomly holding fast to a recently conjured up definition of "man and woman" is an ad hoc argument from the anti-equality camp.

[loganroth51]

I would be deeply, deeply surprised if the Supreme Court ruled against gay marriage. Any logical thinker should realize it is unfair to discriminate against gay people. Just seems like a no brain er.

[Gothicshark]

At a guess from what I understand of the constitution. The Government of the United States of America has no clause about marriage in the constitution. But it has a Clause about the establishment of a State Religion.

What this means with the two issues that they have to decide on is the Religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, which has been placed into several State Constitutions. On this part the judges if they are true to the constitution have no choice but to over turn a law based on religion.

The Second part is related but might have an even larger impact on the world, and that is does the Federal Government recognize a same sex marriage. On this if they find in favor on the first part than Gay Marriage is universally Legal in the US and the second part is automatic, however in the off chance they say no, they can shut down gay marriage federally.

My take on it is simple the bias against gay marriage comes only from religion. The United States was founded to be a secular state with no favoritism towards a religion.

[dd614]

The way America is going, which is downhill, the DOMA will be overtuned with every SC judge voting to throw it out. Emperor Obama will claim it's a great victory for freedom and continue to fiddle as his country falls deeper into debt slavery.

[Gothicshark]

I'm fine with gay couples being couples, I just dislike the attempt to misuse a word's definition. If for the entirety of the word "marriage" it was defined as "A union between two people" and not "A union between a man and woman" then I would be fine with them "getting married."

Sure, there's always the argument of "Just change the definition" etc, but I don't feel you should be forced to change the definition of a word just because a small group of people demand it. I'm fine with them having the same tax breaks and all that, but don't change the definition of a word.

Um the basic definition:

any close or intimate association or union.

---------- Post added 2012-12-07 at 08:23 PM ----------

Frankly, in the end, I just don't see it making a damn bit of difference. The Justices are so ego driven, which one of them is honestly going to say "hey, I want to go down as part of one of the worst decisions of all time and get reversed 20 years from now." Scalia, maybe. Thomas, perhaps. But you won't find 3 others to join them on that list.

You bring up a good point, these guys want to be remembered. In the legal world there have only been a few cases that hit the Supreme Court that will be remembered for the next hundred years. I thing the Judges are always hoping for the big one, and this is pretty big.

---------- Post added 2012-12-07 at 08:26 PM ----------

Male and Female bathrooms, for example.

Bad example actually, some people are born looking male or female but they are not their apparent birth gender.

[Deleted]

Is there actually something wrong with seperate but equal?

[Rukentuts]

Is there actually something wrong with seperate but equal?

It's unconstitutional in the USA.

[Spectral]

There's nothing in the Constitution about marriage so I don't see why they are hearing this case. Unless that's what they are going to say, that there is nothing in the Constitution about marriage so it's a states issue.

I wonder what it's like to "know" things that are just plain wrong.

[Orlong]

I have a problem with ALL marriages and think they should ALL be made illegal. The financial benefits of being married is discriminatory to single people. Married people get all kinds of tax deductions and benefits that us single people dont get which in turn means they get more money.

---------- Post added 2012-12-07 at 11:41 PM ----------

Let's go back to the day where blacks and whites couldn't marry. Let's say they decided it was wrong to say blacks and white can't marry and now they can marry but it won't be called marriage, it'll be called "inter-relation partnership".... would you be fine with this? Is this now segregation?

The difference is you dont choose to be black or white, but you choose to be gay

[Rukentuts]

but you choose to be gay

*headdesk*

[Deleted]

The difference is you dont choose to be black or white, but you choose to be gay

Multiple rage comments inc.