Supreme Court Extends Marriage Equality

[+paradox]

the government controls marriage because there's government rights that you automatically receive once you get officially legally married, which not all marriages can be legit or legal...

the government has their hands in marriages because that's what government does...

once you get married you get marriage rights...

having marriage rights is not all about money, it's about many things, and that's why it's an official act with the two parties and with the government...

Nonsense. Those are rights you can have without government controling marriage. It's about power and money and nothing else. It's just lying to yourself to say otherwise.

i'm not saying that i like the system, i'm just telling you how it is...

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

the government controls marriage because there's government rights that you automatically receive once you get officially legally married, which not all marriages can be legit or legal...

the government has their hands in marriages because that's what government does...

once you get married you get marriage rights...

having marriage rights is not all about money, it's about many things, and that's why it's an official act with the two parties and with the government...

Nonsense. Those are rights you can have without government controling marriage. It's about power and money and nothing else. It's just lying to yourself to say otherwise.

i'm not saying that i like the system, i'm just telling you how it is...

But in today's world it's not how it is. Put aside benefits and money give me examples.

 

[+paradox]

the government controls marriage because there's government rights that you automatically receive once you get officially legally married, which not all marriages can be legit or legal...

the government has their hands in marriages because that's what government does...

once you get married you get marriage rights...

having marriage rights is not all about money, it's about many things, and that's why it's an official act with the two parties and with the government...

Nonsense. Those are rights you can have without government controling marriage. It's about power and money and nothing else. It's just lying to yourself to say otherwise.

i'm not saying that i like the system, i'm just telling you how it is...

But in today's world it's not how it is. Put aside benefits and money give me examples.

examples of what?

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

the government controls marriage because there's government rights that you automatically receive once you get officially legally married, which not all marriages can be legit or legal...

the government has their hands in marriages because that's what government does...

once you get married you get marriage rights...

having marriage rights is not all about money, it's about many things, and that's why it's an official act with the two parties and with the government...

Nonsense. Those are rights you can have without government controling marriage. It's about power and money and nothing else. It's just lying to yourself to say otherwise.

i'm not saying that i like the system, i'm just telling you how it is...

But in today's world it's not how it is. Put aside benefits and money give me examples.

examples of what?

Show me examples of what rights you get besides money and benefits under government controling it.

 

[+paradox]

the government controls marriage because there's government rights that you automatically receive once you get officially legally married, which not all marriages can be legit or legal...

the government has their hands in marriages because that's what government does...

once you get married you get marriage rights...

having marriage rights is not all about money, it's about many things, and that's why it's an official act with the two parties and with the government...

Nonsense. Those are rights you can have without government controling marriage. It's about power and money and nothing else. It's just lying to yourself to say otherwise.

i'm not saying that i like the system, i'm just telling you how it is...

But in today's world it's not how it is. Put aside benefits and money give me examples.

examples of what?

Show me examples of what rights you get besides money and benefits under government controling it.

*sigh*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

the government controls marriage because there's government rights that you automatically receive once you get officially legally married, which not all marriages can be legit or legal...

the government has their hands in marriages because that's what government does...

once you get married you get marriage rights...

having marriage rights is not all about money, it's about many things, and that's why it's an official act with the two parties and with the government...

Nonsense. Those are rights you can have without government controling marriage. It's about power and money and nothing else. It's just lying to yourself to say otherwise.

i'm not saying that i like the system, i'm just telling you how it is...

But in today's world it's not how it is. Put aside benefits and money give me examples.

examples of what?

Show me examples of what rights you get besides money and benefits under government controling it.

*sigh*

as you wish TL...

There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law. [1] Because the Defense of Marriage Act defines "marriage" as only a legal union between one man and one woman, same-sex couples - even if legally married in their state - will not be considered spouses for purposes of federal law.

The following is a summary of several categories of federal laws contingent upon marital status.

Overview of Federal Benefits Granted to Married Couples

As I said with the link you provided it is all about money and government politicians having power and influence to provide freebies.

 

[+paradox]

you're right, all marriage rights are just about money... you win...

 

[Dee]

If that's the case then all marriages are only about money, whether you're gay, straight, bisexual, pansexual, polygamous, etc. No one has married for love, for the status of bringing two lives together. Every married couple is a thief and a greedy, money grubbing poor excuse for a human being.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

If that's the case then all marriages are only about money, whether you're gay, straight, bisexual, pansexual, polygamous, etc. No one has married for love, for the status of bringing two lives together. Every married couple is a thief and a greedy, money grubbing poor excuse for a human being.

You might think that but I don't. I think government has done a good job brain washing on people decade's after decade's made to believe the only way a person can get married is if government somehow endorses it.

Where many gays have been convinced and learned that they are missing out on the tax payers freebies others are getting.

 

[Nebulous's iconNebulous]

If that's the case then all marriages are only about money, whether you're gay, straight, bisexual, pansexual, polygamous, etc. No one has married for love, for the status of bringing two lives together. Every married couple is a thief and a greedy, money grubbing poor excuse for a human being.

You might think that but I don't. I think government has done a good job brain washing on people decade's after decade's made to believe the only way a person can get married is if government somehow endorses it.

That's the reality of today, and its obvious you accept it as reality because you went and got legally married yourself.

 

[Dee]

If that's the case then all marriages are only about money, whether you're gay, straight, bisexual, pansexual, polygamous, etc. No one has married for love, for the status of bringing two lives together. Every married couple is a thief and a greedy, money grubbing poor excuse for a human being.

You might think that but I don't. I think government has done a good job brain washing on people decade's after decade's made to believe the only way a person can get married is if government somehow endorses it.

That's the reality of today, and its obvious you accept it as reality because you went and got legally married yourself.

It's pretty hypocritical to me that someone married by law under the eyes of the government would say that, and then say that it's totally different in anyone else's case. Why don't people--whatever orientation they are--just get "married" with a ceremony and no legal ties to the government? Why should that be exclusive to straight people, a man and a woman, and not be considered hypocritical or not greedy? That doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Nebulous's iconNebulous]

If that's the case then all marriages are only about money, whether you're gay, straight, bisexual, pansexual, polygamous, etc. No one has married for love, for the status of bringing two lives together. Every married couple is a thief and a greedy, money grubbing poor excuse for a human being.

You might think that but I don't. I think government has done a good job brain washing on people decade's after decade's made to believe the only way a person can get married is if government somehow endorses it.

That's the reality of today, and its obvious you accept it as reality because you went and got legally married yourself.

It's pretty hypocritical to me that someone married by law under the eyes of the government would say that, and then say that it's totally different in anyone else's case.

I agree, it kind of makes all his arguments null & void.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

If that's the case then all marriages are only about money, whether you're gay, straight, bisexual, pansexual, polygamous, etc. No one has married for love, for the status of bringing two lives together. Every married couple is a thief and a greedy, money grubbing poor excuse for a human being.

You might think that but I don't. I think government has done a good job brain washing on people decade's after decade's made to believe the only way a person can get married is if government somehow endorses it.

That's the reality of today, and its obvious you accept it as reality because you went and got legally married yourself.

It's pretty hypocritical to me that someone married by law under the eyes of the government would say that, and then say that it's totally different in anyone else's case.

I agree, it kind of makes all his arguments null & void.

Not all of us can see the light of day on government when we are young and foolish. So I will refer you back to the first and second page about that with my responses.

 

[Nebulous's iconNebulous]

If that's the case then all marriages are only about money, whether you're gay, straight, bisexual, pansexual, polygamous, etc. No one has married for love, for the status of bringing two lives together. Every married couple is a thief and a greedy, money grubbing poor excuse for a human being.

You might think that but I don't. I think government has done a good job brain washing on people decade's after decade's made to believe the only way a person can get married is if government somehow endorses it.

That's the reality of today, and its obvious you accept it as reality because you went and got legally married yourself.

It's pretty hypocritical to me that someone married by law under the eyes of the government would say that, and then say that it's totally different in anyone else's case.

I agree, it kind of makes all his arguments null & void.

Not all of us can see the light of day on government when we are young and foolish. So I will refer you back to the first and second page about that with my responses.

As long as you remain legally married, your arguments hold no credibility. Im sorry you feel your marriage was a "foolish" thing to do. Nobody is forcing you to stay legally married. You must like it and want it that way, or you would fix it.

 

[Dee]

If that's the case then all marriages are only about money, whether you're gay, straight, bisexual, pansexual, polygamous, etc. No one has married for love, for the status of bringing two lives together. Every married couple is a thief and a greedy, money grubbing poor excuse for a human being.

You might think that but I don't. I think government has done a good job brain washing on people decade's after decade's made to believe the only way a person can get married is if government somehow endorses it.

That's the reality of today, and its obvious you accept it as reality because you went and got legally married yourself.

It's pretty hypocritical to me that someone married by law under the eyes of the government would say that, and then say that it's totally different in anyone else's case.

I agree, it kind of makes all his arguments null & void.

Not all of us can see the light of day on government when we are young and foolish. So I will refer you back to the first and second page about that with my responses.

As long as you remain legally married, your arguments hold no credibility. Im sorry you feel your marriage was a "foolish" thing to do. Nobody is forcing you to stay legally married. You must like it and want it that way, or you would fix it.

Nebulous's got a point. If it bothers you so much that marriage is just a legal sham, then get divorced and just be married in the eyes of each other. Otherwise, you have absolutely no credibility in your argument.

 

[steel bat]

When I got married there just wasn't any thought of tax benefits or the like, it was simply because I wanted to share the rest of my life with someone and hoped they'd feel the same about me.
Must have worked cause we've been together now 34 years.

 

[Webster]

...from what bizarro world does the federal judge in the story below come from?

In an opinion that frequently crosses the line from visible rage to outright belligerence towards his judicial colleagues, a federal judge in Puerto Rico became one of just two federal judges to deny equal marriage rights to same-sex couples on Tuesday. Judge Juan Pérez-Giménez’s opinion accuses the overwhelming majority of federal judges who have sided with marriage equality of “inexplicable contortions of the mind or perhaps even willful ignorance.” At one point he appears to mock his colleagues, claiming that while the supposed fact that “this Court reaches its decision by embracing precedent may prove disappointing . . . there are some principles of logic and law that cannot be forgotten.” At another point, he claims that, if gay couples enjoy the same rights as straight couples, that will lead to a world where “laws barring polygamy, or, say the marriage of fathers and daughters” are “now of doubtful validity.”

The concluding section of Judge Pérez-Giménez’s opinion reads less like a judicial opinion than it does like a press release from the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage: Recent affirmances of same-gender marriage seem to suffer from a peculiar inability to recall the principles embodied in existing marriage law. Traditional marriage is “exclusively [an] opposite-sex institution . . . inextricably linked to procreation and biological kinship,” Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2718 (Alito, J., dissenting). Traditional marriage is the fundamental unit of the political order. And ultimately the very survival of the political order depends upon the procreative potential embodied in traditional marriage. Those are the well-tested, well-proven principles on which we have relied for centuries.

Notice the citation in this passage. Judge Pérez-Giménez relies on a quote from Justice Samuel Alito’s dissenting opinion in United States v. Windsor. Dissenting opinions are, by definition, not the law because they reflect the views of the judges or justices who were unable to persuade a majority of their colleagues. Alito, in fact, was unable to persuade any of his fellow justices to join his opinion in full, although Justice Clarence Thomas did join parts of it.

Despite the angry and, at times, outright vicious rhetoric that pervades his opinion, Pérez-Giménez relies on a narrow technicality to dismiss the plaintiffs’ plea for equal treatment. Although the Supreme Court currently has a great deal of discretion over which cases it wants to take and which cases it will simply pass over, the Court’s mandatory jurisdiction — i.e. those cases that it has no choice but to decide — used to be much larger. Under the previous legal regime, the justices would sometimes get rid of a case within their mandatory jurisdiction that they did not want to hear by proclaiming that the case did not present a “substantial federal question.” That’s what the Court did in a 1972 marriage equality case called Baker v. Nelson.

Few judges believe, however, that Baker v. Nelson has any bearing on whether federal courts may consider marriage equality cases today. Indeed, Pérez-Giménez acknowledges this fact with a lengthy citation to other court decisions holding that Baker is no longer binding on lower courts. The list of cases that disagree with him is so long that it takes up nearly an entire page of his opinion.

So, while Pérez-Giménez clearly holds very passionate views on the question of whether same-sex couples are entitled to the same rights as everyone else, his views are unlikely to persuade many of his fellow judges. It’s even possible that his opinion could ultimately wind up bolstering the case for marriage equality. That’s because his decision will appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, a court dominated by Democratic appointees (although, it is worth noting that Pérez-Giménez was appointed to the bench by President Jimmy Carter). All four of the states that comprise the First Circuit — Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Rhode Island — are already marriage equality states, so a decision out of a federal court in Puerto Rico is the only path to bring a marriage equality case before this circuit.

Given the makeup of the First Circuit, the overwhelming consensus among federal judges in favor of marriage equality, and the belligerent tone of Pérez-Giménez’s opinion, it is unlikely that his decision will be upheld on appeal.(Think Progress)

 

[+paradox]

what a crack-pot judge...

saying that same-sex marriages will lead to people wanting the option of marrying their family members is beyond stupid...

 

[Webster]

what a crack-pot judge...

saying that same-sex marriages will lead to people wanting the option of marrying their family members is beyond stupid...

I don't see it going anywhere, Justice; even if it gets to the 1st Circuit, odds are it - and the judge in question - will get knocked down a few pegs by the appellate court.

 

[+paradox]

what a crack-pot judge...

saying that same-sex marriages will lead to people wanting the option of marrying their family members is beyond stupid...

I don't see it going anywhere, Justice; even if it gets to the 1st Circuit, odds are it - and the judge in question - will get knocked down a few pegs by the appellate court.

i don't either... and i agree...