<p>It would have technically been very difficult for the SC to do that, as it would have required them to step beyond the legal issues that were before them. The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the case in front of them – so because it was a challenge to the federal law (DOMA), that is what they were charged to decide. (Whether or not DOMA could be enforced; not whether or not a state law like DOMA could be enforced). </p>
<p>The only way that the SC could have issued a ruling impacting the inter-state question would have been with an extremely broad ruling, that prohibitions on gay marriage were alway unconstitutional. But I don’t think the court is quite ready to go there-- so I never expected to see that holding, as that is just an extra step they did not need to take. There are cases where the SC does issue such broad rulings, but that is relatively rare – it is more common that they reach the issues necessary to determining the case in front of it, rather than issue sweeping determinations.</p>
<p>The state v. state issue will come up – but it will require a set of married gay plaintiffs who can set forth a claim of discrimination based on the laws of the state where they live. We may see it showing up first in adoption or custody cases.</p>
<p>Separation of Church and state. Also, all of the religious morals on which this country was founded upon are not in the Constitution, sorry to burst your bubble. I think the Supreme Court ruled that section 3 of DOMA violated the 14th Amendment (which came to pass in the 1860s, nearly 100 years after the birth of America).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>All of my friends and family in Pakistan think I live in a Godless country.</p>
<p>:rolleyes: Name’s not even in the ballpark…</p>
<p>I will not respond to your questions as this will close down for bickering, but I will clarify: </p>
<p>I want the law to read “consenting adults” without reference to sex and/or gender. That would encompass father/daughter if they so choose. I will not protest for THAT issue specifically though.</p>
That’s a bit insulting to Christian colleges… </p>
<p>
Personally, I don’t concern myself with politics (TBH, I don’t have enough hope in this country to do so), but I think the concern that some conservatives have with legalizing gay marriage (that I’m not sure if I completely agree with) is that it isn’t a completely private matter. Like you mentioned before, marriage is a public institution. Private lives often aren’t completely private- to an extent, they’re shared.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, I don’t really know what the benefits of being legally married are, so I can’t comment much on it.</p>
<p>I am disagreeing in a way where all sides can be heard. I am not debating, rather discussing different opinions so somehow, somewhere, someone could maybe hear me out and understand what I am saying. The language I use is used so as to provoke change, and maybe even heart. Sorry if I seem condescending.</p>
<p>I can give you one that happened to me recently. My partner passed out on the bathroom floor with a very high fever and I had to take him to the hospital (he smashed his head). From that point on, I could do nothing because we’re not legally married yet. I had to call his parents to come down if any decisions needed to be made. If something major had been wrong, I wouldn’t have been able to see him or make decisions for him if his family so chose. And we’re a STRAIGHT couple! Thankfully, he was fine, but if he wasn’t his family WOULD have overruled me despite the fact that I know his wishes better than they do. It’s irrelevant without the license. </p>
<p>On top of that, there are well over 1,000 financial and legal benefits. It’s worth knowing about.</p>
People are protesting for legalizing marriage regardless of gender and/or sex, but they aren’t protesting to allow marriages between “consenting adults.” There’s a difference.</p>
<p>Legalizing gay marriage will not legalize polygamy or marriages involving incest.</p>
<p>America was not founded as a theocracy (a government operated under divine rule). Just the opposite, in fact --the founders saw the great danger in allowing the government to become entangled with religion. </p>
<p>BTW, the pledge of allegiance has nothing to do with the founding of America. It was written more than 100 years later, not by Congress or any other official body, but by a private individual. “Under God” wasn’t added until 1954, almost 200 years after the founding. And it has no force of law.</p>
The best way to introduce some perspectives is to do so politely No one wants to listen to someone who is insulting them.</p>
<p>
I’m not sure if I see a problem here. It seems fair that his family would get “first pick” (for lack of a better term) in what was to happen.</p>
<p>The insufficiencies of the benefits or lack thereof that one receives by being married, related, etc. to another seems like a natural flaw of law in general. It doesn’t cater to every situation, and it can’t know exactly who to give the most benefits to, so it estimates. I can think of two people I know who are very distantly related, but who are very well-qualified to make decisions for each other (perhaps more qualified than immediate family) were one of them to end up in the ER.
Sometimes the law simply doesn’t give responsibility to whom it should be given. But they way responsibilities are given out seems good enough to me in that it isn’t inherently detrimental (unless, of course, you get the highly unfortunate case of, for example, abusive parents, but that is an extremely rare scenario, and like I said, just a natural flaw of law).</p>
<p>So you think that even married couples should defer to their parents for medical decisions?
If not, then this is the issue. When you make the choice to marry someone, you make the choice to allow them (generally) to make medical decisions and the like for you if you can’t. We are lucky in that we can get married as we happen to be the “correct” sexes. However, same-sex couples would never be able to make that decisions in many states. </p>
<p>That’s the problem. I am not saying that I should now be able to make decisions for him instead of his family because we’re not legally married. However, we have the option to make that happen. My best friend and his future husband do not have that option.</p>
<p>That’s not what she meant, romani. When a couple married their spouse decides but unt then the family decides. What’s the difference between a friend and a girlfriend besides the touchy feely stuff? Nothing.</p>
<p>
From what I remember they weren’t legally married so the family would get the decision. It’s unfortunate, but given the laws and procedures, expected.</p>
<p>Then you clearly do not come from a family where your parents wishes are much different than yours.
My father hasn’t spoken to his mother in close to 20 years. She has never been in our lives (her choice). The idea that she could come in and make a medical decision for my dad over my mom (his wife) is terrifying.
IMO, you should almost always defer to the spouse. You can choose your spouse and you can’t choose your family. Your end-of-life wishes might be MUCH different than what your parents would want for you.</p>
[quote]
I am not saying that I should now be able to make decisions for him instead of his family because we’re not legally married. However, we have the option to make that happen. My best friend and his future husband do not have that option. <a href=“The%20end%20of%20that%20quote%20should%20be%20%22in%20our%20state%22%20as%20he%20plans%20on%20moving%20to%20another%20state”>/quote</a>
Btw, fiance, not girlfriend.</p>
</p>
No one wants to listen to someone who is insulting them.</p>