Skip to comments.SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN FEDERAL PROVISION DENYING BENEFITS TO LEGALLY MARRIED SAME-SEX COUPLES
Posted on 06/26/2013 7:12:46 AM PDT by The Sons of LibertyEdited on 06/26/2013 7:25:51 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Text of decision here.
Maybe those 20,000 illegal aliens at one address who collected $46million in tax returns were an extended couple.
How is my statement that marriage has been recognized as a legal state for thousands of years a lie?
It’s a fact.
I don’t mean “legally recognized by the US federal government” obviously. Most civilizations recognized that “husband and wife” meant something different than “a man spending the night with a prostitute”.
I, being a white, Christian, self employed male shoukld be considered a minority.
Where are my "goodies?"
“Site your source on this.”
1. My company (3,000 workers) buys our health insurance from a pool comprised of similar companies in the same industry. Two years ago, the firm that manages the insurance pool conducted an audit of the names, addresses, and marital status of all of the insured in the pool, and discovered that about 8% of the people who were listed as spouses or children on family policies were ineligible.
2. The nonpartisan Tax Foundation in an article from last February on the Heritage Foundation blog:
Right on! And he didn’t even know about all the justices and politicians being blackmailed.
I agree with you. I am glad this is for state’s rights only..not federal. I am a stong believer in state’s rights..thankfully this upholds them only. And each state voted for this.
The study had nothing to do with gay marriage. I get your point a certain percentage of people cheat on taxes and lie for benefits. You seem to imply that theses percentages will be higher for gay couples. That is what I thought we were talking about.
I do not agree. There are many asexual people who are married. Not sexually consummating a marriage does not make them less married than you and I...well, not you and I...you and your spouse and me and mine...sorry.
Dunno probably now but now they will sue sue sue until either the Supremes rule on it or the States cave under the pressure.
“Not sexually consummating a marriage does not make them less married “
Actually it does in at least 13 states...
The cultural free fall continues, with no end in sight.
I know to what you are referring. Still the fact remains, marriage and the sanctity of same has nothing to do with the sex act. It is so much more.
Is anybody really surprised by this decision from the Øbama Supreme Court?
My husband and I know two couples who have been married almost as long as we have been married...47 years in Dec..neither have ever consummated their marriage. We also know a young couple who have been married for several. Because of injuries the husband suffered in Iraq, they will never consummate their marriage. These three couple’s marriages are ever bit as valid as mine. Sex does not a marriage make.
Next, no denying freebies to people married to their dogs or horses, or in polygamy or to family members.
This isn’t about marriage, never was. It was about homosexuals wanting in the early 1980’s to get free medical coverage from employers for their AIDS infected butt buddies.
Fact of the matter is, though, the states do have some degree of differing laws as to the requirements to get a state issued marriage license.
And WTF do you get off telling me I don't care of tradition and that I "care alot about sex." What kind of twisted jerk are you? There is zero, nada, zilch, nothing in anything I posted here on this thread (or in my entirety of being here on FR) that would back up any of the frivolous allegations you laid at my feet.
My first interaction with you was in regards to your post to another Freeper: "Whats your brilliant plan with spousal visas?'
To which I simply replied:
"I would assume, that the feds would handle a spousal visa the same way they currently handle a spousal visa.
If a state say's someone is married, then the feds go with that."
Shame on you for twisting what I said into some kind of degenerate filth.
Indeed they do have ‘some degree’, but they do not have the authority to change the definition of marriage.
This is not a states right issue - the federal government does have the authority to regulate the definition of marriage.
The reason why visas are important is because they help to demonstrate why state definition of marriage is inadequate. It’s a loophole that Obama is going to exploit through abuse of the immigration system.
I apologize for going off on you. I’m just annoyed and aggravated to find myself arguing with the liberaltarians here cheering on this horrific decision.
You did not deserve to be treated that way.
Actually it does in at least 13 states...
Is a law, a law, if it's not enforceable? I mean, pick any one of those states that has that law. How does the state know if people are consummating their marriage (as required by their state law)?
Excellent point, rxsid. And, whose business is it, really? Thank you for your reply.
“Is a law, a law, if it’s not enforceable? I mean, pick any one of those states that has that law. How does the state know if people are consummating their marriage (as required by their state law)?”
In the context of same sex marriage they will know, because the plumbing won’t fit...
This is not a states right issue - the federal government does have the authority to regulate the definition of marriage. To "some degree", otherwise, there would be no difference in marriage law from state to state are there exists now.
Thank you. I accept your apology.
I'm against the "state" (be it federal or state) siding with homosexual marriage not only because it's immoral (based on my religious belief), but it also goes against biology (mother nature) as it's a genetic dead end which is anti-natural.
That, of course, doesn't touch on the issue that has also been brought up here...in that this is a slippery slope. If two men are allowed to "marry", then there is nothing that would stop 5 men from marrying, or a father marrying his (of age) daughter. People would say, well, you can't do that because you might produce a genetically compromised offspring. Who says the marriage has to be about producing offspring? Obviously, that's God's will...but there are plenty of heterosexual marriages that are viable that don't produce offspring (for a variety of reasons). So, since offspring isn't (nor cant) be a requirement for marriage...what's is now to stop a father from marrying his daughter?
As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, the reason we had this decision today stems from the fact that the elected representatives (& courts) in the state of CA did not defend the will of the people of that state when they voted to ban same-sex marriage.
Cheers (& I mean it).
Thank you. Like I said earlier there were many folks cheering this on because, ‘it got the government out of marriage’. No, no, it didn’t.
SCOTUS clerks are very powerful these days. Evidently, Kennedy has a few on his ... staff that support SSM.
Keep in mind that any proposed Amendment requires a 2/3 majority vote in both houses of Congress before going to the states. That’s a pretty difficult hurdle to clear at present.
Back to the states?
But God isn’t happy.
I mean how do these politicians get there? The people vote for them. How do the judges get there? One way or the other, it's the people either either directly or indirectly. The judges are either voted for or appointed by elected officials. It's up to the people of a locality or state to throw the bums out and see to it that trustworthy and honorable take their place.
Either the people are in charge of the states (and this country) or we've got bigger problems than this "gay marriage" oxymoron nonsense.
People who say they're against big government don't seem to mind when the government directs their unconstitutional power in a direction they agree with. These people want big government to solve their local problems. Just like the Left.
What happened to the ideas of a free constitutional republic? Got lost in the shuffle I guess.
Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus!
At any rate, it's our last stop before outright war.
The people who will be truly damaged by this will be bakeries, florists etc. who are against gay weddings on religious grounds. You will be sued if you refuse to supply cakes, flowers and what have you for gay weddings. There will be vicious gay activism to drag those folks into court.
Once again I am totally in accord with you. I have hope with Cruz. Got Cruz Fever! catch it.
But a convention also opens the door to pretty much anything people want to try to put in there. Get what you wish for and you may end up with things you didn’t want.
They got their big government, their socialist healthcare, their taxpayer funded abortion. They're currently destroying the military and our industrial might, and Obama is making America the laughing stock of the world. From superpower to flat busted and defenseless in less than five years of Obama. If they now get "gay rights" and open-borders amnesty, our last hill is the 2nd amendment. And they're definitely ramping up to take that. I don't put much hope in the likes of McCain, Graham, Flake, Rubio, McConnell, Boehner, Ryan, and the rest of the hornless, wooly RINO herd to suddenly grow spines. Very few dependable conservatives left in the GOP. Tokyo Rove must be awfully proud of himself. The last stand will be up to we the people. Praying we're up for it. Praying the Chicoms, Russians and their ilk don't decide now is the time before we get a chance to recover.
Now when you walk in this country and you see two males or two
female that look androgynous...you will tilt your head and think to yourself (in a tenor voice)...Hmmmm?HOMOoooo? We are in our last days for sure. Between the voting rights act and this crap!!! Be prepared for the worse.
If played right, this is actually the best SCOTUS ruling we’ve seen in a long while. It should be a 10th amendment flood gate.
If Cali wants to ban guns and “marry” homos, more power to them. It has absolutely no affect on me whatsoever - so I don’t care, it’s their soul.
If Texas wants to build a border wall, deport illegals, and pass open carry... more power to them also. Austin will self-deport back to California and we can get back to not having traffic jams because it sprinkled a little bit.
A huge, heretofore hidden part of the gay agenda is the doing away of normal marriage.
It won't be long. In the meantime, keep your light burning brightly.
But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. Luke 17:29,30.
So likewise you, when you shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Matthew 24:33.
The main reason for “fake” marriages among heterosexuals now is employer-provided family health benefits, and I assume this will carry over to homosexuals in states where they can legally “marry”.
It is the duty of the conveners to manage the convention’s agenda. Any reasonably capable parliamentarian can keep the breadth under control.
Do you mean Robert Bork? He still wouldn't have been part of this decision since he died in December.
Kagan, the Mexican kkk member, and the 3rd hag who seeks to have the US ruled by the UN empire.
Talk about a no-win scenario!
Right. How I wish Bork had been on SCOTUS. Probably 30 million or more unborn babies would have been saved because Bork instead of O’Connor would have heard and ruled on Casey. What Kennedy did caused these deaths as much as anyone, IMO.
I’m praying earnestly for our country.
Hard to quantify. I would think it would be no higher than traditional marriage. We are going to get the chance to see. Within 3 yearS all states will have it. Kennedy in his ruling mention equal protection that means game over