DOMA unconstitutional (5-4); Court punts on gay marriage (no standing)

Illinois' law allows men and women to enter together civil unions. Why they would do it, I have no idea, but they can.

 

This sort of underlines my point regarding civil unions' alleged "separate but equal" status.

 

Words do have meanings but those meanings often change, just as our understanding of what marriage is has changed over time.

 

The issue isn't religious in nature, it's governmental. There are more than 1,300 federal benefits to being married — tax breaks, hospital visitation, inheritance, adoption.

I applaud the people who are so steadfast in their religious beliefs that they will stand up for them. But the religious angle is not a valid legal reason to deny someone equal access to benefits offered by the government.

I firmly believe that you should take marriage out of religious hands. Then let everyone who wants to get married do so through a civil ceremony. If the happy couple wants to also have a religious ceremony, more power to them. If they want to live their married life according to the tenets of their faith, great for them.

But don't tell me that I have to live by the rules of their faith. I don't and I won't.

 

Why?

(Given that the rest of your post aligns with my own thoughts pretty much completely.)

 

We're veering deeper into the political waters here, but you're right. Neither Clinton nor Obama has any business trying to attach themselves to this as some sort of victory.

 

Yes!

The gay marriage purity test!

 

Because if you believe in a higher power, I think you should be a strong proponent of your faith. My problem with organized religion comes from religious people telling me how to live my life.

If you want to live your life in your way, I'm happy for you that you have found that it works for you. But you don't ever have the right to create laws based on your faith that goes against the faith of others.

This is not just a marriage issue stance, but an overall stance for me on religion. I respect the right of a person to believe and promote his religious faith. But that person, in turn, must respect that I don't have to legally live my life by his or her beliefs. And those beliefs cannot be used to make laws in this country.

 

Fair enough. As we've talked about ad nauseum on here - oop says I'm a "bigot" - my applause dies down swiftly when that faith is used as a source of unreasoned moral judgment on the private actions of others.

 

You are a bigot. You keep demonstrating it over and over again. You judge people of faith exactly the way you say they judge others.

 

One thing I've learned from this -- the Alabama state legislature has a gay member, and she's looking at strategies to overturn that state's ban.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/27/gay-marriage-ban-challenge-alabama/2463403/

Someone would have to apply for something — dealing with an issue such as taxes, an estate or health insurance coverage — and be denied to move forward with a legal issue, she said.

Recall that Edith Windsor won her case not because she was denied the love of her life, but because she was stuck with a $300,000 estate tax bill upon her love's demise.

So I can see this legislator applying for some benefit for her soon-to-be-wife (whom she's marrying in Massachusetts), and then working the system until they're denied something -- which at some point, they will. Then they use the wording in Scalia's dissent to sue, and it works its way up, and, boom, you can get gay-married in Alabama. Or, even if the state doesn't grant the license, it would have to recognize the marriage from another state.

 

Oh, totally. It's so obvious.