U.S. Supreme Court skeptical of federal marriage law

I've always been curious with the opposition to legalization of gay marriage. I just can't understand how one could be so repulsed of the idea of gay marriage that they would actively seek to limit and determine the rights of others. Seeing as this is the US where the protection of individual liberty is sacred, it seems incredibly hypocritical to fiercely advocate small government, yet at the same time call for the government to serve as a moral authority in order to enforce limitations on people's freedoms. I can't help but see this issue of gay marriage in the US as an ideological shift away from what the USA really stands for.

dcog, marriage itself is a religious instutution, first of all, and as such government has no standing in defining or regulating it. Civil unions, however, are fully within local governments' legislation. Pretty simple, really.

I completely agree with dcog. In 2013, there is no longer any justification in continuing to perpetuating these discriminatory practices, especially in a country that supposedly stands for freedom and justice for all. I believe the main opposition to same-sex marriage laws is that individuals who have enjoyed an (unfairly) elevated social standing due to their sexual orientation do not want this (unearned) privilege nullified. That, and the religious fundamentalists who purports that homosexuality is a sin. Both positions are obviously ridiculous, so let's hope that the supreme court gets it right this time!

http://thelastcivilright.org/2013/03/22/gay-marriage-is-not-a-conservative-cause-2/ by some smart black american females.

" In 2013, there is no longer any justification in continuing to perpetuating these discriminatory practices, especially in a country that supposedly stands for freedom and justice for all."

State-church separation, it's a two-way street.

Special perks are the problem, and shouldn't be offered to any particular group.

@Surf O'Holic - Well it really isn't a religious institution as much as a legal institution. If it's religious, what religion? Marriage exists in all cultures in the world, and has existed throughout human history be it nomads, pagans, ancient hellenes, etc.

Anyway say it is religious, why are federal policies being enforced and legal status being granted based upon religious practices?

Marriage exists in all cultures in the world, and has existed throughout human history be it nomads, pagans, ancient hellenes, etc.

Great point! Now can somebody tell me what culture in the world today has established and recognized Gay Marriage with the same rights benifits as a traditional marriage?

Maybe this is "uncharted waters" for the supremem court because this is actually being thought about for the first time in any society in the world today. I think Some people want to redifine something that was never created for them.

Shiningfinger.

Quiet a few countries(mostly european) already allow same-sex Marriages. aka Elton John, etc.

Quiet a few countries(mostly european) already allow same-sex Marriages. aka(?) Elton John, etc.

Elton John has a civil partnership, not a marriage.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/elton-john-the-historic-fight-for-equality-must-go-on-lets-get-on-and-legalise-samesex-marriage-8202686.html

" Well it really isn't a religious institution as much as a legal institution. If it's religious, what religion?"

Any religion. Some even practice polygamy. The point is that marriage has historically been in a religious context, whatever that local religion was. It's gotten mucked up because governments have gotten involved. Were it not for perks created by government (exclusiory ) there wouldn't be this mess.

cleo.

A rose is still a rose regardless of what name you give it. ;)

Marriage, civil partnership, civil union, etc are just that different labels for the same thing and that is why this whole discussion is pointless.

Any religion. Some even practice polygamy. The point is that marriage has historically been in a religious context, whatever that local religion was. It's gotten mucked up because governments have gotten involved. Were it not for perks created by government (exclusiory ) there wouldn't be this mess.

Yeah fair enough.

Admittedly the granting of legal status and the benefits that can some with it skewers peoples' priorities.

Either way the Supreme Court of the US will most likely rule in favour of the states deciding how to legislate on gay marriage.

It's not important. The dinosaurs will lose this fight eventually.

It'S ME - Personally I'm not fussed either way. If people want to share their lives, good luck to them. (I'd like to see an end to tax breaks/free benefits for childless couples who can afford to have one able-bodied half of the couple not working, regardless of the gender make-up of the couple).

But poor old Elton doesn't seem satisfied with his rose.

I think what the government is worried about is not getting their taxes due to giving the wrong kind of tax deductions. Now lets say you have a gay male couple and both of them are able bodied working adults. Both are working at stable jobs. Should they receive a tax break as a "married" couple just because they're married? Neither man will be out for maternity leave. And the only time when they would actually be able to claim "dependents' would be if they adopt a child or one of them becomes disabled and qualifies for disability. I think this should apply for heterosexual couples with no children and both stable careers unless the woman gets pregnant and will require maternity leave or one of the two becomes disabled. As for a lesbian couple, the same rules apply to the extent of the male couple with the exception that they CAN get maternity leave should they decide to have children and one or both of them become pregnant. This also affects insurance and healthcare providers and you'd better believe they'd wonder why they would have to cover 2 people completely capable of working (excluding the disability/maternity leave situation) and bringing in an income.

Issue number 2. Should either homosexual couple have a child the right to claim parental rights become very problematic should they split up or divorce. In cases where the child/ren are blood relatives to one of the parents then the parents with the same bloodline (which automatically is the father and the mother, donor or not...) will automatically get first priority. Unless of course both of them are deemed unfit to care for the child.

This is also true in the case of adoption (no blood relation to either of the homosexual parents) unless the blood relative is deemed to be an unfit parent for the child, in which case one of the adoptive parents would need to be determined as to how fit they would be to be a legal guardian for that child and the mess of getting visitation rights sorted out.

The only thing that is clear cut about gay marriage benefits is that they'll be able to get power of attorney rights over each other. The rest of it is going to be a mess of red tape and bureaucratic wrangling.

in nine states and the district of Washington,

Huh? Wazzat?

@Virtuoso. They mean the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.) It is the capitol of the U.S. It is a special territory and not part of any U.S. state.

As a matter of principle, the argument is charmingly simple: from where does the government derive the authority to prohibit consenting adults from marrying each other?

Though the word “traditional” has erroneously become attached to the concept, the state licensure of marriage contracts is not traditional in any sense of the word. State licensing regimes replaced church-and contract-based marriage only in the last few centuries, and are the byproducts of a sordid period of American history when governments took it upon themselves to prevent people of different races from marrying one another (licensing subsequently became a source of revenue generation for the same governments, which is why the practice continued even after the boogeyman of miscegenation was largely snuffed out).

In short, the state co-option of marriage was an exercise in massive government infringement on the natural rights of individual citizens, not a hearkening back to “traditional” values. Prior to that, marriage was widely considered a religious and contractual (i.e., a private) affair, not an institution of the state. For advocates of limited government who believe that the state has only the power to protect life, liberty, and property, it should be easy to condemn and oppose the racist, extortive practice of states usurping marriage regulation from churches and civil society.

@It's Me

Again my question was simple. What culture?

Maybe there are several european countries that have created laws that allow for same sex marriage, but a politically correct law created less than 30yrs ago isn't something that represents their culture.

To simplify this even more so people can understand. Look at prostitution for example. There are some euroopean countries where it has been legalized and their are some countries that it hasn't been made legal. But prostitution in and of itself has been apart of every european culture whether its socially acceptable or not.

But on the other hand, Gay Marriage has not. And i'm not talking about the act of homosexuality i'm talking about the legalized marriage aspect.

Better than getting into a marriage to scam the government for benefits though no? I think at the end of the day, all they want is the same benefits married couples get in society. Why is that a bad thing and how does it affect you, except for your personal disdain for the subject Shiningfinger?

Shiningfinger.

Define culture than for me. What is American culture for example.

Homosexual relationships existed and were accepted in many parts of europe for millenia. Many examples exist in History Books, etc.

Old saying: A Woman for having babies and a Man for having sex with.

Roman Commanders took teen boys with them on campaigns and long assignments away from home for just that purpose.