Brief Filed to Overturn Public Funding of Same-Sex Marriages

  • metta

    Posts: 39134

    Jan 19, 2011 3:21 AM GMT
    Brief Filed to Overturn Public Funding of Same-Sex Marriages

    http://www.eurweb.com/?p=78397
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 19, 2011 3:52 AM GMT
    People keep saying "gay bullying" is what's leading gays to suicide.
    I think it's shit like this that has the deeper impact.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 19, 2011 4:47 AM GMT
    Well ha, and ha, because gay men and lesbians can still marry each other and have been and so this is a little ridiculous. D'oh.

    -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 19, 2011 4:52 AM GMT
    I failed to see where "public funding" is involved with this. Other than gay marriage offends the sensibilities of certain religious groups, what is the funding issue? Because gay couples would receive Federal benefits that straight married couples do? The article wasn't very clear about that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 19, 2011 5:31 AM GMT
    The amicus brief they filed is crap. Total and complete crap. Their arguments have already been successfully picked apart by other courts (though without the results being binding on the First Circuit Court of Appeals).

    They're shaking in their boots now that they see their precious DOMA on the verge of being destroyed. And while I would like to believe the Supreme Court will find all of DOMA unconstitutional when the issue reaches them, I am fearful that we're still one justice short of a sure-thing victory. Let us hope the dynamics of the high Court change before that day comes.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jan 19, 2011 7:43 AM GMT
    "There is no Federal Constitutional Right to enter into a same-sex marriages."

    Ummm, there is no Federal Constitutional Right to enter into a heterosexual marriage, either!!
    --------------
    "US law reasonably reserves marriage and its benefits to opposite sex couples so as to promote both responsible procreation of children and the raising of those children by their biologically-related mother and father. "

    No. US law doesn't presume anything about marriage, except for the legal adjoining of assets. There is no requirement in marriage to bear and raise children in the legal sense.


    Notice how these people try to impose their religious dogma into civil society.
  • NickoftheNort...

    Posts: 1416

    Jan 19, 2011 9:13 AM GMT
    paulflexes saidPeople keep saying "gay bullying" is what's leading gays to suicide.
    I think it's shit like this that has the deeper impact.


    One of the problems with our advocacy groups and spokepersons is that they fail to put forward this case, that the limitations put upon gay and lesbian persons are responsible for much of the negative self-worth gay and lesbian persons feel about themselves. That the anti-gay religious, political, and social figures are the ones fundamentally responsible for this self-destruction. The direct in-person bullies are simply the means through which these figures impose their condemnation onto us.

    The next time another gay or lesbian kid commits suicide (which I hope won't, but have little doubt will happen), I hope some organizations will begin holding the feet of these figures to the fire. Go after Huckabee, Romney, and Obama (for his flip-flopping on same-sex marriage). Charge them with their accountability / complicitness in this culture that compels gay and lesbian persons to end their lives.
  • NickoftheNort...

    Posts: 1416

    Jan 19, 2011 9:26 AM GMT
    Why is there public funding for marriages at all?

    If we want to encourage child birth and child raising, we can provide public funds through tax credits and public child support.

    Trying to encourage this by publicly funding marriages is stupid as a marriage is not a commitment to have children nor does it require its participants to be capable of having children (this includes heterosexual marriages; correct me if I'm wrong, but I think infertility is no longer grounds for annulment).

    End all public funding for all marriages.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 19, 2011 9:30 AM GMT
    coolarmydude said
    Notice how these people try to impose their religious dogma into civil society.


    And in retaliation, I will impose my penis into their assholes. Wait, that's probably more torture for me because none of them are attractive. icon_mad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 19, 2011 7:54 PM GMT
    Marriage is a matter regulated by state laws in most jurisdictions.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 19, 2011 7:59 PM GMT
    And waaaaay back in the deeps of time and English Common Law, marriage was more of a church function that the state developed an interest in... first by certifying that a marriage was legal and valid (marriage certificates) and then by licensing marriage (marriage licenses).

    I'd rather see the tax ramifications of it all be considered as single, single with dependents, couple filing separately, couple filing jointly, or head of household.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jan 19, 2011 8:10 PM GMT
    alphatrigger saidAnd waaaaay back in the deeps of time and English Common Law, marriage was more of a church function that the state developed an interest in... first by certifying that a marriage was legal and valid (marriage certificates) and then by licensing marriage (marriage licenses).

    I'd rather see the tax ramifications of it all be considered as single, single with dependents, couple filing separately, couple filing jointly, or head of household.



    I was always of the belief that the Catholic Church developed an interest in marriage in order to steer people away from Pagan rituals. It's how they inserted their influence on everything else at that time.

    But either way, the historical origins are irrelevant in that there are two parts to marriage recognition, and not necessarily mutual: Legal and religious. The Catholic Church, for instance, would never view someone as married unless the ceremony was officially sanctioned by the Catholic Church, even if they were married in some other Christian denomination.

    The idea that marriage is somehow primarily a religious institution is also irrelevant to the legal approach to all marriage issues.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 19, 2011 8:38 PM GMT
    NickoftheNorth saidWhy is there public funding for marriages at all?

    If we want to encourage child birth and child raising, we can provide public funds through tax credits and public child support.

    Trying to encourage this by publicly funding marriages is stupid as a marriage is not a commitment to have children nor does it require its participants to be capable of having children (this includes heterosexual marriages; correct me if I'm wrong, but I think infertility is no longer grounds for annulment).

    End all public funding for all marriages.


    The public funding they are referring to is spousal benefits such as medical insurance provided to government employees.


    The Thomas More Society is named after a man who executed people for owning English language versions of the bible.