After historic arguments, US Supreme Court to rule on same-sex marriage

[webfact]

After historic arguments, court to rule on same-sex marriage
By MARK SHERMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — Pivotal Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose vote could decide the same-sex marriage issue for the nation, did not tip his hand Tuesday in historic arguments at the Supreme Court. But Kennedy's record on the issue could give encouragement to gay and lesbian couples.

As advocates and protesters demonstrated outside, the author of the court's three prior gay rights rulings talked about the touchstones of dignity and concern for children in same-sex households that drove his favorable earlier opinions.

But he also worried about changing the definition of marriage from the union of a man and a woman, a meaning that he said has existed for "millennia-plus time."

"It's very difficult for the court to say 'We know better'" after barely a decade of experience with same-sex marriage in the United States, Kennedy told Mary Bonauto, a lawyer representing same-sex couples.

The 78-year-old justice's likely role as a key, perhaps decisive vote was reinforced during arguments that lasted 2½ hours in a rapt courtroom and appeared to divide the court's liberal and conservative justices over whether the Constitution gives same-sex couples the right to marry. Those couples can do so now in 36 states and the District of Columbia, and the court is weighing whether gay and lesbian unions should be allowed in all 50 states.

"Same-sex couples say, of course, 'We understand the nobility and the sacredness of marriage. We know we can't procreate, but we want the other attributes of it in order to show that we, too, have a dignity that can be fulfilled,'" Kennedy said in an exchange with lawyer John Bursch, who was defending the state marriage bans

Later, Kennedy also seemed concerned about adopted children in same-sex households if only one partner is considered a parent. "Under your view, it would be very difficult for same-sex couples to adopt those children," Kennedy said.

Tuesday's arguments offered the first public indication of where the justices stand in the dispute over whether states can continue defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, or whether the Constitution gives gay and lesbian couples the right to marry. In the court's last look at same-sex marriage in 2013, the justices struck down part of the federal anti-gay marriage law. Federal courts with few exceptions have relied on Kennedy's opinion in that case to invalidate gay marriage bans in state after state.

The court divided 5-4 in that case, with the liberals joining Kennedy in the majority. Their questions on Tuesday suggested they would vote to extend same-sex marriage nationwide, while conservative justices' questions and comments were much more skeptical.

Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor both said marriage was a fundamental right and a state would need a truly compelling reason to deny it to a class of people. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said heterosexual couples would retain the same marriage benefits they currently have, whether or not same-sex couples also could marry.

Bursch argued repeatedly that states could prohibit same-sex unions because marriage always has been about biological bonds between parents and their children.

Justice Elena Kagan said some people have difficulty with that argument, finding it "hard to see how permitting samesex marriage discourages people from being bonded with their biological children."

If the definition of marriage is changed, Bursch said, "then adults could think, rightly, that this relationship is more about adults and not about the kids."

The actual cases before the court involve same-sex couples in which both partners want recognition as adoptive parents. In one case, Detroit-area nurses April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse are seeking joint adoption of their four children, and Bursch was quick to say he was not talking about them.

"We all agree that they are bonded to their kids and have their best interest at heart," he said.

Most of the questions from conservative justices appeared skeptical of gay-marriage arguments.

Chief Justice Roberts said gay couples seeking to marry are not seeking to join the institution of marriage. "You're seeking to change what the institution is," he said to Bonauto.

Roberts also said people would be more accepting of change achieved through the democratic process, rather than imposed by courts. Only 11 states have granted marriage rights to same-sex couples through the ballot or the legislature. Court rulings are responsible for all the others.

Yet the chief justice also questioned the states' argument.

"If Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can't. Why isn't that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?" he asked.

Justice Samuel Alito suggested that basing marriage on lasting bonds and emotional commitment — instead of providing stable homes for children — might open the right to marry to siblings who live together, close friends who are not romantically or sexually involved and groups of more than two people. "What would be the logic of denying them the same right?" Alito asked.

Justice Antonin Scalia said he worried that a court decision in favor of same-sex marriage would force ministers to stop officiating at weddings altogether if they refused to perform same-sex weddings. Bonauto and some of Scalia's colleagues tried to persuade him that ministers have a right to refuse any couple for religious reasons.

Scalia also said the issue is not whether there should be same-sex marriage "but who should decide the point," embracing the states' argument.

Justice Clarence Thomas asked no questions, as is his custom.

The session was interrupted once by a protester who yelled that supporters of gay marriage "will burn in hell." He was removed by security.

In the last part of the session, devoted to whether states have to recognize same-sex marriages from elsewhere, both Kennedy and Roberts directed skeptical questions to a lawyer for same-sex couples, Douglas Hallward-Driemeier.

Why should one state "have to yield" in recognizing a marriage from another state? Kennedy asked.

And Roberts suggested that states' rights would be undermined if residents of states that forbid same-sex unions could get married elsewhere, then return home and demand recognition.

"One state would basically set the policy for the entire nation," he said.

People on both sides of the issue gathered outside the marble courthouse.

"Homo sex is a sin," read one sign. A man shouted into a microphone that gays violate the laws of God, while a group of same-sex advocates tried to drown him out by singing "The Star-Spangled Banner."

Cheers went up when the court's doors opened, allowing a lucky few who lined up days ago to get inside.

The cases before the court come from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee, four of the 14 remaining states that allow only heterosexual marriage. Those four had marriage bans upheld by the federal appeals court in Cincinnati in November, the only federal appeals court that has ruled in favor of the states since the Supreme Court 2013 ruling.

Massachusetts was the first state to allow same-sex marriage, in 2004. As recently as last October, barely a third of the states permitted it.

The Supreme Court decision is expected in late June.
___

Associated Press writers Connie Cass, Anne Flaherty and Sam Hananel contributed to this report


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-04-29

[Expat1]

The great American experiment...country rule by media.

[OMGImInPattaya]

I thought one interesting question posed by one of the justices was whether or not people involved in polyamory or polyamorous relationships (no matter what the makeup) should also be recognized in an "expanded" definition of marriage. Of course, the issue of polygamous marriage also falls under this general area of thought. I think this line of inquiry does raise an interesting philosophical question of what "marriage" means today and how big the tent should be within it. I don't really know enough about the issues involved but being of a libertarian bent I would probably be in favor of granting such recognition of how people choose to order their personal lives baring strong evidence that is somehow detrimental to society.

[Berkshire]

The fun part will be watching the far right's reaction if the Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/04/28/will-not-obey-christian-leaders-threaten-civil-disobedience-if-supreme-court/?intcmp=latestnews

Lawyers are going to have a field day suing the pants off these folks.

[Gonzo the Face]

Maybe I am just too old fashioned. And maybe, or should I say " No Doubt" someone will respond with answers to either direction.

For me the hang up is the use of the word/term " marriage" I have friends both male and female who are with same sex partners, but do not seem to be able to answer. If two people of the same sex choose within their own twosome to become a live together couple and wish to have all the benefits of any , what could be called normal couple, then I think that they should have that option. Why can not laws making all the legal benefits , tax wise and in all other respects , be enacted to make all these perks available to any same sex couple, as to any opposite sex couple? It would be called , of course, a "Civil Union" Why is this world so hung up on using the word "Marriage" ???

Marriage has always been a relationship solidified between a man and a woman. If a civil union would give same sex couples all the terms/conditions/benefits , why the hang up because it is not termed "Marriage"

I think this is a wrong approach to mandate the use of the term "Marriage" . As much as any man would want to nurture and maybe breast feed a infant, he just cannot do so. Does the opening to the same sex couples stop there??? What about the ones that just are madly in love with their pet sheep. Should they not then be allowed to have a "marriage" with the sheep or so loved dog? Where does it stop ???? Not so ridiculous or only so if it goes past your own set limits on reason or right or wrong. The whole bru-ha-ha could be over if same sex marriage advocates could be happy with having the benefits and utilizing the term and opponents happy just accepting that these people will be together in any event.

So to end this litany why does it have to be termed "marriage" and why not be termed "civil union".

I await the many varied answers I am sure will come from the TV Brain Trust.

[OMGImInPattaya]

The fun part will be watching the far right's reaction if the Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/04/28/will-not-obey-christian-leaders-threaten-civil-disobedience-if-supreme-court/?intcmp=latestnews

Lawyers are going to have a field day suing the pants off these folks.

I'm confused...who's going to sue whom...and for what?

Those who are opposed to same-sex marriage for whatever reason, if the Supremes should legalize it, will have the right to peacefully express their views; just as it is with those who are opposed to abortion. Hopefully, however, there will not be the major societal schism over the issue for decades like there has been vis-a-vis the abortion issue. Of course, these people would still be free to conduct themselves in their personal and private lives as they like, however, in the public realm, equality for LBGT people would be more firmly established.

The next issue to be addressed would be baring discrimination in employment and housing at the national level for GLBT folks.

[JetsetBkk]

Maybe I am just too old fashioned. And maybe, or should I say " No Doubt" someone will respond with answers to either direction.

For me the hang up is the use of the word/term " marriage" I have friends both male and female who are with same sex partners, but do not seem to be able to answer. If two people of the same sex choose within their own twosome to become a live together couple and wish to have all the benefits of any , what could be called normal couple, then I think that they should have that option. Why can not laws making all the legal benefits , tax wise and in all other respects , be enacted to make all these perks available to any same sex couple, as to any opposite sex couple? It would be called , of course, a "Civil Union" Why is this world so hung up on using the word "Marriage" ???

Marriage has always been a relationship solidified between a man and a woman. If a civil union would give same sex couples all the terms/conditions/benefits , why the hang up because it is not termed "Marriage"

I think this is a wrong approach to mandate the use of the term "Marriage" . As much as any man would want to nurture and maybe breast feed a infant, he just cannot do so. Does the opening to the same sex couples stop there??? What about the ones that just are madly in love with their pet sheep. Should they not then be allowed to have a "marriage" with the sheep or so loved dog? Where does it stop ???? Not so ridiculous or only so if it goes past your own set limits on reason or right or wrong. The whole bru-ha-ha could be over if same sex marriage advocates could be happy with having the benefits and utilizing the term and opponents happy just accepting that these people will be together in any event.

So to end this litany why does it have to be termed "marriage" and why not be termed "civil union".

I await the many varied answers I am sure will come from the TV Brain Trust.

Couldn't have put it better. Leave "marriage" to mean a man and a woman. Call the rest something else, eg. civil partnership, and give them the same rights, eg. pre-nuptial agreements, tax incentives, etc.

re. the man and sheep... I think if you venture into the hills of Wales, you may actually find... <snip>

[Jingthing]

Please stay on topic.

This historic case at the U.S. supreme court is ONLY about marriage equality.

The issue of civil unions as an alternative in the U.S. had relevance in the PAST.

The U.S. is way past that and will never go back.

It's a waste of time to even discuss that anymore in a U.S. context.

It IS relevant in the cases of other nations such as Thailand.

But not in the U.S. unless you are interested in that from a purely ACADEMIC angle to understand how and why the alternative of civil unions in the U.S. as an alternative in the U.S. ... is permanently over.

What's going on in the supreme court now is anything but academic and in the past. It is history in the making. Nobody knows yet for sure how they will rule but the smart money is that their decision will create marriage equality nationwide in the U.S.

In case they don't, which is possible, it will NOT revive a civil union debate alternative, you can take that to the bank.

It will simply mean the messy patchwork of some states allowing gay marriages and some not in a country where already these marriages ARE fully recognized at the FEDERAL LEVEL continues.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Jingthing

[OMGImInPattaya]

Maybe I am just too old fashioned. And maybe, or should I say " No Doubt" someone will respond with answers to either direction.

For me the hang up is the use of the word/term " marriage" I have friends both male and female who are with same sex partners, but do not seem to be able to answer. If two people of the same sex choose within their own twosome to become a live together couple and wish to have all the benefits of any , what could be called normal couple, then I think that they should have that option. Why can not laws making all the legal benefits , tax wise and in all other respects , be enacted to make all these perks available to any same sex couple, as to any opposite sex couple? It would be called , of course, a "Civil Union" Why is this world so hung up on using the word "Marriage" ???

Marriage has always been a relationship solidified between a man and a woman. If a civil union would give same sex couples all the terms/conditions/benefits , why the hang up because it is not termed "Marriage"

I think this is a wrong approach to mandate the use of the term "Marriage" . As much as any man would want to nurture and maybe breast feed a infant, he just cannot do so. Does the opening to the same sex couples stop there??? What about the ones that just are madly in love with their pet sheep. Should they not then be allowed to have a "marriage" with the sheep or so loved dog? Where does it stop ???? Not so ridiculous or only so if it goes past your own set limits on reason or right or wrong. The whole bru-ha-ha could be over if same sex marriage advocates could be happy with having the benefits and utilizing the term and opponents happy just accepting that these people will be together in any event.

So to end this litany why does it have to be termed "marriage" and why not be termed "civil union".

I await the many varied answers I am sure will come from the TV Brain Trust.

Wow...didn't take you long to bring up the beastiality argument did it.

I guess supporters of marriage equality could ask you the same thing...why are you so hung up on "protecting" the term "marriage." If you don't want your relationship lumped in the the fags and queers, why not give them the "marriage" moniker and opposite sexers take the "civil unions." I think the main point is that like Ginsberg said, giving all the benefits but not the name is marriage-lite. At least to me, "marriage" in this modern age is, two people who want to legally intertwine their lives and sigh-up to the civil contract that confers certain benefits and responsibilities for taking care of each other. Personally I think it's a bad contract but the force of habit is strong. It's really nothing more or less to it. I would think that those conservatives opposed to the idea should think again...aren't they the ones always promoting marriage so I would think the more married people, in stable and committed relationships, the happier they would be.

[Jingthing]

I think they will make a historic national ruling in favor of marriage equality in all states if nothing else than to clean up the messy state variance patchwork that exists now. If they don't, they make the patchwork even worse and cases will keep coming to the supreme court until they DO make the final marriage equality decision later. Why not now?

[JakeSully]

It would be about time but since the SCOTUS screwed up Bush v Gore I'm really cautious. I think it could be 6-3 for but could be 5-4 against.

However the bigger question is do the states have to recognize marriages performed in other states? That's something that is about as clear cut as it gets

[OMGImInPattaya]

Please stay on topic.

This historic case at the U.S. supreme court is ONLY about marriage equality.

The issue of civil unions as an alternative in the U.S. had relevance in the PAST.

The U.S. is way past that and will never go back.

It's a waste of time to even discuss that anymore in a U.S. context.

It IS relevant in the cases of other nations such as Thailand.

But not in the U.S. unless you are interested in that from a purely ACADEMIC angle to understand how and why the alternative of civil unions in the U.S. as an alternative in the U.S. ... is permanently over.

What's going on in the supreme court now is anything but academic and in the past. It is history in the making. Nobody knows yet for sure how they will rule but the smart money is that their decision will create marriage equality nationwide in the U.S.

In case they don't, which is possible, it will NOT revive a civil union debate alternative, you can take that to the bank.

It will simply mean the messy patchwork of some states allowing gay marriages and some not in a country where already these marriages ARE fully recognized at the FEDERAL LEVEL continues.

The Supremes actually have two issues before them to decide in the consolidated cases before them:

1. Is there a Federal constitutional right to marriage equality for all people in the United States; and

2. If they should decide the above in the negative, is it required for states that do not have marriage equality for themselves to recognize as married same-sex couples who have married in other states.

[OMGImInPattaya]

I think they will make a historic national ruling in favor of marriage equality in all states if nothing else than to clean up the messy state variance patchwork that exists now. If they don't, they make the patchwork even worse and cases will keep coming to the supreme court until they DO make the final marriage equality decision later. Why not now?

I concur with your assumption. Case closed

[Jingthing]

Nothing about civil unions.

The U.S. is PAST a civil union debate largely because same sex marriages done at the state level are ALREADY recognized at the FEDERAL level.

Depending on the decisions, a pro marriage equality ruling would instantly flow back to ALL states just as the historic decision about state bans on INTERRACIAL marriages did not all that long ago.

[Jingthing]

The justices aren't technically supposed to consider public opinion, but they are still human beings.

Polling now shows that the majority of Americans support marriage equality, and the vast majority of younger Americans do.

So as far as fear of major blowback such as with a major abortion decision is really minimal.

People won't be bombing gay weddings like they bomb abortion clinics.

The U.S. IS ready for this.

[Chicog]

Ricky Gervais has summed it up rather well:

"Same sex marriage isn't gay privilege. It's equal rights. Privilege would be something like gay people not paying tax. Like churches don't."

[JakeSully]

Lets start a gay polyamory church!

[OMGImInPattaya]

The justices aren't technically supposed to consider public opinion, but they are still human beings.

Polling now shows that the majority of Americans support marriage equality, and the vast majority of younger Americans do.

So as far as fear of major blowback such as with a major abortion decision is really minimal.

People won't be bombing gay weddings like they bomb abortion clinics.

The U.S. IS ready for this.

Traveled in the Deep South or the mid-West much (you know, that fly-over country)?

I don't expect major violence or resistance, like we had with equal rights for African-Americans, or the low-level violent and high-level peaceful resistance to abortion there is today but I do think that there will a substantial number of people, for whatever reason (and these will be legitimate to them and I can't condemn them for it) this will be a tough hurdle for them to cross. In time, however, I'm sure the objections will fade (or die) away.

As an aside, in prior threads on this subject, I think in relation to the Windsor decision of a couple years ago, I predicted that marriage-equality would likely be accepted by the Supremes within 18-14 months. As I recall, you were a little more sanguine on the prospect, fearing that it might take longer or not happen at all. My scheduling seems to have been spot on!

[Sewell]

Maybe I am just too old fashioned. And maybe, or should I say " No Doubt" someone will respond with answers to either direction.

For me the hang up is the use of the word/term " marriage" I have friends both male and female who are with same sex partners, but do not seem to be able to answer. If two people of the same sex choose within their own twosome to become a live together couple and wish to have all the benefits of any , what could be called normal couple, then I think that they should have that option. Why can not laws making all the legal benefits , tax wise and in all other respects , be enacted to make all these perks available to any same sex couple, as to any opposite sex couple? It would be called , of course, a "Civil Union" Why is this world so hung up on using the word "Marriage" ???

Marriage has always been a relationship solidified between a man and a woman. If a civil union would give same sex couples all the terms/conditions/benefits , why the hang up because it is not termed "Marriage"

I think this is a wrong approach to mandate the use of the term "Marriage" . As much as any man would want to nurture and maybe breast feed a infant, he just cannot do so. Does the opening to the same sex couples stop there??? What about the ones that just are madly in love with their pet sheep. Should they not then be allowed to have a "marriage" with the sheep or so loved dog? Where does it stop ???? Not so ridiculous or only so if it goes past your own set limits on reason or right or wrong. The whole bru-ha-ha could be over if same sex marriage advocates could be happy with having the benefits and utilizing the term and opponents happy just accepting that these people will be together in any event.

So to end this litany why does it have to be termed "marriage" and why not be termed "civil union".

I await the many varied answers I am sure will come from the TV Brain Trust.

The key difference is in 'consent'. Two adults in an opposite or same sex marriage are able to give their consent to being in that marriage, a sheep or a dog is not. I don't see why this is so difficult for some people to understand.

What's wrong with calling a relationship agreement with all the same rights and privileges of a marriage a marriage. Should non-heterosexual people also be entitled to a qualification with all the same teaching and assessment of a university degree and yet not be permitted to call it a degree? I see no need for 'othering' people in this discriminatory way.

[sirineou]

Maybe I am just too old fashioned. And maybe, or should I say " No Doubt" someone will respond with answers to either direction.

For me the hang up is the use of the word/term " marriage" I have friends both male and female who are with same sex partners, but do not seem to be able to answer. If two people of the same sex choose within their own twosome to become a live together couple and wish to have all the benefits of any , what could be called normal couple, then I think that they should have that option. Why can not laws making all the legal benefits , tax wise and in all other respects , be enacted to make all these perks available to any same sex couple, as to any opposite sex couple? It would be called , of course, a "Civil Union" Why is this world so hung up on using the word "Marriage" ???

Marriage has always been a relationship solidified between a man and a woman. If a civil union would give same sex couples all the terms/conditions/benefits , why the hang up because it is not termed "Marriage"

I think this is a wrong approach to mandate the use of the term "Marriage" . As much as any man would want to nurture and maybe breast feed a infant, he just cannot do so. Does the opening to the same sex couples stop there??? What about the ones that just are madly in love with their pet sheep. Should they not then be allowed to have a "marriage" with the sheep or so loved dog? Where does it stop ???? Not so ridiculous or only so if it goes past your own set limits on reason or right or wrong. The whole bru-ha-ha could be over if same sex marriage advocates could be happy with having the benefits and utilizing the term and opponents happy just accepting that these people will be together in any event.

So to end this litany why does it have to be termed "marriage" and why not be termed "civil union".

I await the many varied answers I am sure will come from the TV Brain Trust.

You are absolutely right, but there are other agendas involved in this issue

why not a civil Union?? with all the rights afforded to married heterosexuals, not only for gay people but for any two or more people that want to form a family and provide mutual support for each other?

For instance there used to be a TV show, "The odd Couple" where two divorced friends are living together, why couldn't they form a civil union and have the same rights as a married couple,

or could they?

I am not saying that a good answer does not exist, but So far no one has answered this question to my satisfaction, perhaps some one in this forum will.

[Chicog]

Maybe I am just too old fashioned. And maybe, or should I say " No Doubt" someone will respond with answers to either direction.

For me the hang up is the use of the word/term " marriage" I have friends both male and female who are with same sex partners, but do not seem to be able to answer. If two people of the same sex choose within their own twosome to become a live together couple and wish to have all the benefits of any , what could be called normal couple, then I think that they should have that option. Why can not laws making all the legal benefits , tax wise and in all other respects , be enacted to make all these perks available to any same sex couple, as to any opposite sex couple? It would be called , of course, a "Civil Union" Why is this world so hung up on using the word "Marriage" ???

Marriage has always been a relationship solidified between a man and a woman. If a civil union would give same sex couples all the terms/conditions/benefits , why the hang up because it is not termed "Marriage"

I think this is a wrong approach to mandate the use of the term "Marriage" . As much as any man would want to nurture and maybe breast feed a infant, he just cannot do so. Does the opening to the same sex couples stop there??? What about the ones that just are madly in love with their pet sheep. Should they not then be allowed to have a "marriage" with the sheep or so loved dog? Where does it stop ???? Not so ridiculous or only so if it goes past your own set limits on reason or right or wrong. The whole bru-ha-ha could be over if same sex marriage advocates could be happy with having the benefits and utilizing the term and opponents happy just accepting that these people will be together in any event.

So to end this litany why does it have to be termed "marriage" and why not be termed "civil union".

I await the many varied answers I am sure will come from the TV Brain Trust.

You are absolutely right, but there are other agendas involved in this issue

why not a civil Union?? with all the rights afforded to married heterosexuals, not only for gay people but for any two or more people that want to form a family and provide mutual support for each other?

For instance there used to be a TV show, "The odd Couple" where two divorced friends are living together, why couldn't they form a civil union and have the same rights as a married couple,

or could they?

I am not saying that a good answer does not exist, but So far no one has answered this question to my satisfaction, perhaps some one in this forum will.

But I would ask you the same question: Why not "marriage"? Just because a few religious devotees get offended?

How on earth does a pair of homosexuals getting married have any impact on a pair of heterosexuals getting married?

Does it make it harder to get cakes and flowers or something?

(Oh, and when you think about it, even in a civil ceremony, you still refer to a couple "getting married").

Edited April 29, 2015 by Chicog

[sirineou]

Maybe I am just too old fashioned. And maybe, or should I say " No Doubt" someone will respond with answers to either direction.

For me the hang up is the use of the word/term " marriage" I have friends both male and female who are with same sex partners, but do not seem to be able to answer. If two people of the same sex choose within their own twosome to become a live together couple and wish to have all the benefits of any , what could be called normal couple, then I think that they should have that option. Why can not laws making all the legal benefits , tax wise and in all other respects , be enacted to make all these perks available to any same sex couple, as to any opposite sex couple? It would be called , of course, a "Civil Union" Why is this world so hung up on using the word "Marriage" ???

Marriage has always been a relationship solidified between a man and a woman. If a civil union would give same sex couples all the terms/conditions/benefits , why the hang up because it is not termed "Marriage"

I think this is a wrong approach to mandate the use of the term "Marriage" . As much as any man would want to nurture and maybe breast feed a infant, he just cannot do so. Does the opening to the same sex couples stop there??? What about the ones that just are madly in love with their pet sheep. Should they not then be allowed to have a "marriage" with the sheep or so loved dog? Where does it stop ???? Not so ridiculous or only so if it goes past your own set limits on reason or right or wrong. The whole bru-ha-ha could be over if same sex marriage advocates could be happy with having the benefits and utilizing the term and opponents happy just accepting that these people will be together in any event.

So to end this litany why does it have to be termed "marriage" and why not be termed "civil union".

I await the many varied answers I am sure will come from the TV Brain Trust.

You are absolutely right, but there are other agendas involved in this issue

why not a civil Union?? with all the rights afforded to married heterosexuals, not only for gay people but for any two or more people that want to form a family and provide mutual support for each other?

For instance there used to be a TV show, "The odd Couple" where two divorced friends are living together, why couldn't they form a civil union and have the same rights as a married couple,

or could they?

I am not saying that a good answer does not exist, but So far no one has answered this question to my satisfaction, perhaps some one in this forum will.

But I would ask you the same question: Why not "marriage"? Just because a few religious devotees get offended?

Yes but that does not answer my question, just asks an other question.and if I answer that question we will end up arguing my answer and debating your question

[Gonzo the Face]

To be fully blount about it, ...... I see the proponents of this program, and there are those who may feel such on this forum are nothing but grown up versions of spoiled brats. I want, I want , I want ! ! ! Well let me tell you something whiners and whingers, there are just somethings that are not to be had, however much you stomp your feet and hold your breath. In a male / male union... neither one of the group will ever be a mother..... period, full stop. You may be able to perform some of the motherly duties, but a male will never be a mother.... [ common thought excepted] Just as a female will never be a father.

To accept legalization that gives you all the same identities and as marriage between a he and she, would give the you all the equality as the man and woman marriage that has been the true definition of "marriage" since the beginning or records. ....... Buuuuuttttttt Noooooo I don't want that ...... I want equality but in and under my terms..... Just like little spoiled brats. I want, I want, I want and I want it my way...... Why not huff and puff and hold your breath because you want it to be dark in the day time...... brats spoiled brats.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Gonzo the Face

[Jingthing]

Then disallow non breeding hetero marriages. Of course nobody wants to do that do they? Bloody hypocrisy.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[sirineou]

Maybe I am just too old fashioned. And maybe, or should I say " No Doubt" someone will respond with answers to either direction.

For me the hang up is the use of the word/term " marriage" I have friends both male and female who are with same sex partners, but do not seem to be able to answer. If two people of the same sex choose within their own twosome to become a live together couple and wish to have all the benefits of any , what could be called normal couple, then I think that they should have that option. Why can not laws making all the legal benefits , tax wise and in all other respects , be enacted to make all these perks available to any same sex couple, as to any opposite sex couple? It would be called , of course, a "Civil Union" Why is this world so hung up on using the word "Marriage" ???

Marriage has always been a relationship solidified between a man and a woman. If a civil union would give same sex couples all the terms/conditions/benefits , why the hang up because it is not termed "Marriage"

I think this is a wrong approach to mandate the use of the term "Marriage" . As much as any man would want to nurture and maybe breast feed a infant, he just cannot do so. Does the opening to the same sex couples stop there??? What about the ones that just are madly in love with their pet sheep. Should they not then be allowed to have a "marriage" with the sheep or so loved dog? Where does it stop ???? Not so ridiculous or only so if it goes past your own set limits on reason or right or wrong. The whole bru-ha-ha could be over if same sex marriage advocates could be happy with having the benefits and utilizing the term and opponents happy just accepting that these people will be together in any event.

So to end this litany why does it have to be termed "marriage" and why not be termed "civil union".

I await the many varied answers I am sure will come from the TV Brain Trust.

You are absolutely right, but there are other agendas involved in this issue

why not a civil Union?? with all the rights afforded to married heterosexuals, not only for gay people but for any two or more people that want to form a family and provide mutual support for each other?

For instance there used to be a TV show, "The odd Couple" where two divorced friends are living together, why couldn't they form a civil union and have the same rights as a married couple,

or could they?

I am not saying that a good answer does not exist, but So far no one has answered this question to my satisfaction, perhaps some one in this forum will.

But I would ask you the same question: Why not "marriage"? Just because a few religious devotees get offended?

How on earth does a pair of homosexuals getting married have any impact on a pair of heterosexuals getting married?

Does it make it harder to get cakes and flowers or something?

(Oh, and when you think about it, even in a civil ceremony, you still refer to a couple "getting married").

You asked a question consisting of one sentence

]But I would ask you the same question: Why not "marriage"? Just because a few religious devotees get offended?"

and pressed post

then while I was asking you went back edited your post to contain two additional questions

non of which answered what I asked

So I am still non the wiser

​Then you added a editorializing sentence

"(Oh, and when you think about it, even in a civil ceremony, you still refer to a couple "getting married")."

I really dont have much of an opinion on the subject, as I dont know enough about it, my opinion is limited by my level of education on the subject, which is not much, since my questions are not answered

I have no problem with everyone having equal protection under the law, Gay or not it is only the fair thing to do,

But why Marriage and not a Civil Union

A civil Union and a civil ceremony are not in my understanding the same thing,

a civil union would be a bilateral contractual obligation under the law requiring certain performances from both parties involved and offering certain protections under the law and support a social function.

​Not much different than a marriedge

a civil ceremony is one type of ceremony (process) by which one get's married and it would be desirable by those who dont want a religious ceremony of which there are many A married IMO performs a similar but different social function

So again

if one is only interested in equal protection under the law, why wouldn't a civil union that provides all these protections to anyone who wishes to enter such union not only gays , is not desirable?

I understand gay people, I think they want their union to be considered the same as a heterosexual union and be held at the same level and respect,

I think they are going the wrong way about it

​They are putting the horse before the cart,

A civil union that provides the same protections under the law I think is the path of least resistance, once people see that such unions present no dangers to society , the respect and acceptance will follow.

​Of course I could be wrong, and would change my position when some one provides a satisfactory argument why I should.

[Chicog]

Maybe I am just too old fashioned. And maybe, or should I say " No Doubt" someone will respond with answers to either direction.

For me the hang up is the use of the word/term " marriage" I have friends both male and female who are with same sex partners, but do not seem to be able to answer. If two people of the same sex choose within their own twosome to become a live together couple and wish to have all the benefits of any , what could be called normal couple, then I think that they should have that option. Why can not laws making all the legal benefits , tax wise and in all other respects , be enacted to make all these perks available to any same sex couple, as to any opposite sex couple? It would be called , of course, a "Civil Union" Why is this world so hung up on using the word "Marriage" ???

Marriage has always been a relationship solidified between a man and a woman. If a civil union would give same sex couples all the terms/conditions/benefits , why the hang up because it is not termed "Marriage"

I think this is a wrong approach to mandate the use of the term "Marriage" . As much as any man would want to nurture and maybe breast feed a infant, he just cannot do so. Does the opening to the same sex couples stop there??? What about the ones that just are madly in love with their pet sheep. Should they not then be allowed to have a "marriage" with the sheep or so loved dog? Where does it stop ???? Not so ridiculous or only so if it goes past your own set limits on reason or right or wrong. The whole bru-ha-ha could be over if same sex marriage advocates could be happy with having the benefits and utilizing the term and opponents happy just accepting that these people will be together in any event.

So to end this litany why does it have to be termed "marriage" and why not be termed "civil union".

I await the many varied answers I am sure will come from the TV Brain Trust.

You are absolutely right, but there are other agendas involved in this issue

why not a civil Union?? with all the rights afforded to married heterosexuals, not only for gay people but for any two or more people that want to form a family and provide mutual support for each other?

For instance there used to be a TV show, "The odd Couple" where two divorced friends are living together, why couldn't they form a civil union and have the same rights as a married couple,

or could they?

I am not saying that a good answer does not exist, but So far no one has answered this question to my satisfaction, perhaps some one in this forum will.

But I would ask you the same question: Why not "marriage"? Just because a few religious devotees get offended?

Yes but that does not answer my question, just asks an other question.and if I answer that question we will end up arguing my answer and debating your question

OK, let me rephrase my last post and you can debate it if you wish.

I consider the irrational indignation of a few religious devotees to the use of the word "marriage" by a couple, just because they happen to be of the same gender, to matter not the slightest jot.

I don't think a pair of gay people getting married has any impact on a pair of heterosexuals getting married.

When you think about it, even in a civil ceremony, you still refer to a couple "getting married", as opposed to "getting civil unioned".

Unambiguous enough?

[Jingthing]

The justices aren't technically supposed to consider public opinion, but they are still human beings.

Polling now shows that the majority of Americans support marriage equality, and the vast majority of younger Americans do.

So as far as fear of major blowback such as with a major abortion decision is really minimal.

People won't be bombing gay weddings like they bomb abortion clinics.

The U.S. IS ready for this.

Traveled in the Deep South or the mid-West much (you know, that fly-over country)?

I don't expect major violence or resistance, like we had with equal rights for African-Americans, or the low-level violent and high-level peaceful resistance to abortion there is today but I do think that there will a substantial number of people, for whatever reason (and these will be legitimate to them and I can't condemn them for it) this will be a tough hurdle for them to cross. In time, however, I'm sure the objections will fade (or die) away.

As an aside, in prior threads on this subject, I think in relation to the Windsor decision of a couple years ago, I predicted that marriage-equality would likely be accepted by the Supremes within 18-14 months. As I recall, you were a little more sanguine on the prospect, fearing that it might take longer or not happen at all. My scheduling seems to have been spot on!

Yes some regions are hostile just as in the case where banning interracial marriage was made unconstitutional. But overall, I think this is manageable and I think the supremes mostly do too.

Can't we all just get along?

(Recently seen outside the Supreme Court)

Edited April 29, 2015 by Jingthing

[Chicog]

A civil union that provides the same protections under the law I think is the path of least resistance, once people see that such unions present no dangers to society , the respect and acceptance will follow.

But you have not provided any legal or rational reason why a gay couple shouldn't get married.

The law is not there to accommodate irrational fears.

Nor is it there to accord respect or acceptance.

It is there to ensure fairness and justice.

I have still yet to hear a remotely convincing reason why a gay couple getting married is any business of someone else, or why it threatens heterosexual marriages.

Religious conservatives have no right (excuse the pun) to dictate what others do simply because it offends their particular moral code.

No-one should.

By way of illustration, I offer this letter written to moralising radio "Agony Aunt" Dr. Laura (yes, the one who was in fact exposed for having an extramarital affair and dismissed it because she wasn't "Jewish then").

It humourously illustrates how ridiculous it is to try and cherry pick the bible to back up ones arguments.

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that

Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord

(Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in

Exodus 21:7.In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness

(Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath.

Exodus 35:2clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination

(Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by

Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them?

(Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

[sirineou]

But I would ask you the same question: Why not "marriage"? Just because a few religious devotees get offended?

Yes but that does not answer my question, just asks an other question.and if I answer that question we will end up arguing my answer and debating your question

OK, let me rephrase my last post and you can debate it if you wish.

I consider the irrational indignation of a few religious devotees to the use of the word "marriage" by a couple, just because they happen to be of the same gender, to matter not the slightest jot.

I don't think a pair of gay people getting married has any impact on a pair of heterosexuals getting married.

When you think about it, even in a civil ceremony, you still refer to a couple "getting married", as opposed to "getting civil unioned".

Unambiguous enough?

we seem to be out of synch. LOL

By the time I answer you have either edited the post I was responding to or have added an additional responce

It is probably a factor of both of as thinking before we pull the trigger

Please see post #25

My Objections are not on religious grounds, I am an atheist

People might want to ascribe religious significance to marriage, this IMO is unfortunate to say the least

My Objections are sociological, and political

Different social systems have being tried, and the one that so far has worked the best for humans is the traditional family.

Gay people have being prosecuted and their lives have being compromised, and accommodations need to be made

A marriage and a civil union are in IMO different in that a marriage has both a social and a biological component where a Union only has a social component

To reduce Marriage to only a social component is nor only untrue, unwise, but it further reduces it's important and will IMO have a negative affect on the family.

Gay people and others can have what they need IMO with a civil union

removed post to allow reply

[JetsetBkk]

<snip>

Does it make it harder to get cakes and flowers or something?

<snip>

Well, yes actually.

Belfast-based Ashers Bakery refused to make a cake featuring an image of Sesame Street puppets Bert and Ernie below the motto 'Support Gay Marriage'.

http://goo.gl/mnACX6