With all due respect, I don't know if you are actually this ignorant, this bigoted, or like texxx and basso down here, have devolved to the point that you simply must belittle any victory for what is seen by your ilk as a victory for Liberals in this country. That some folks that happen to be gay are also conservative in many aspects of their beliefs just doesn't matter, does it. One of the plaintiffs, a woman who's female partner she had been with for decades, and married where it was thought to be legal, had to pay over $600,000 dollars in estate taxes after her partner passed away, simply because the union wasn't recognized. Perhaps money is something you might possibly understand. $600,000-plus is hardly "inconsequential." I'll stop there before I call you something you certainly deserve, but isn't allowed here.
Both cases regarding homosexuals should have been thrown out, based on stare decisis (literally, "let the previous decision stand") It is not the job of the Supreme Court to decide an issue that is culturally based.
The Supreme Court was confirming or overturning lower court rulings. In letting the previous decision stand, are you suggesting cultural issues should be decided by lower courts but not the Supreme Court?
I'm all for getting rid of tax preferences for marriage, and the estate tax your passive aggressive attempts at ad hominem are transparent and pathetic
You're all for getting rid of tax for economic reasons. but for some reason, it can't click in your head that a tax that hurts economically and morally (imposed on certain groups, but not another) is consequential? Because if it isn't, then you've admitted that basically everything you argue about it inconsequential. After all, they're just taxes, and economic penalties. boohoo.
By inconsequential, I mean some people not getting bennies or paying extra taxes is not Rosa-Parks-at-the-back-of-the-bus consequential, in a relative sense. It's certainly not enough to inspire a political movement. That's where moral superiority and righteous indignation come into play. As a single person I'm feeling oppressed by all this preferential treatment given to gay and straight married couples. Why should I be treated differently?
Seriously? That is patently absurd. If it's not allowed for everybody, it should not be allowed for anybody.
Conservatives should quit bull****ting and push to ban divorce if they really want to defend marriage. Possibly also look to have jail terms for infidelity. It would be good for society.
That's really absolutist thinking, frankly. We do set limits on marriage, to some degree no matter what. We set limits on speech, and the right to protest, and so on, because that helps to keep order and society running as much as libertarians want to shout FREEEEDDDDDOOOOMMMMM. It's a matter of debating what those limits are, and for now, gay marriage is among those limits. As for DOMA? *shrug* whatever.
I understand your point and agree with you. We do have limits put on us, but theoretically all of those limits apply equally to everyone. Or they should... I can't scream "FIRE" in a crowded theater, but neither can anyone of a different race, nationality, sexual orientation, socio-economic background, etc. If something is not equally applied to all of us, it's not right.
I'm often labeled on this site as a Conservative evangelical...but I applaud the decision. It was the correct one in my opinion.
For me it really just comes down to the rights. Why will we try to hinder people financially because of what we may or may not define as a true marriage? Even if gay marriage was not recognized, gay couples will still have families, there is no way to stop them. I am very glad for the results today.
