General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Supreme Court really SHOULD talk about the LAW. Not “Millennia”.
https://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2015/04/29/the-supreme-court-really-should-talk-about-the-law-not-millennia/
Yesterdays potentially historic hearing on Marriage Equality seemed to focus on almost everything BUT the law. Lots of yakkity yakyakyak about millennia, dignity, and culture, and only a few mentions of the legal ramifications of the matter. So this writer will step in and remind everyone of what the court ignored:
Number A: The current law robs gay people blind at tax time. Remember Edie Windsor, who was jacked out of $363,000.00 dollars by the IRS, because she is a lesbian? And she is not alone: manifold state and federal laws permit and enforce these gay taxes. Anybody who is gay gets ripped off by the government at tax time and its legal in most cases. The Supremes need to either allow LGBTQ Americans to pay no taxes, or to pay the same taxes as hetero citizens. Law.
Letter 2: LGBT citizens often have no right to visit their loved ones in the hospital. Because they cant be married, they have no legal relationship, and they can (and are) denied entrance to medical facilities when their family members are in need. The Supremes need to ensure that the law treats all of us equally. Law.
Thirdly: There are many hundreds of discriminatory laws across the nation that cover schools, property, health, civil rights, inheritance, and on and on. And on. They treat gays like second-class citizens, or worse. Anybody who DOESNT see the constitutional violations has their head in a very dark and smelly place. Laws.
Yeah, we need to think about culture and honor traditions. Absolutely. But is that where the Supreme Court should FOCUS their efforts? Absolutely not. Courts need to do their own f***ing jobs, which is, you know, LAW.
Our government as a whole is spending too much time dicking around in the private lives of its citizenry, and not nearly enough taking care of their legally mandated responsibilities.
Law. LAW, God-f***Ing-dammit.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)"...too much time dicking around in the private lives of its citizenry...." is exactly right. Legislating morality (or some random person's definition of it) is not the job of the government.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)The court is making a mockery of judicial independence.
Politics is not law, as you say....so stick with the law, politics is not your job.
CU was in fact decided by an unprecedented mixture of politics and avoidance of law....America can not afford many more years of a mockery of a Supreme Court.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Partisan hacks.
malthaussen
(17,216 posts)But it obviously is not, it is a question of power and prejudice masquerading under the cloak of law. And I am not sanguine that sufficient members of the court have an objective enough view of the question to decide it in point of law, although they are capable of the odd surprise in that area.
-- Mal
riqster
(13,986 posts)Like past discriminatory policies that were enabled by law, they can only be undone via law.
malthaussen
(17,216 posts)... unless you believe in wild ideas like natural rights. And I tend to agree with you, it is easier to change statutes than the hearts and minds of the people, although unless and until the latter do change, the law will continue to be a ping-pong ball between ideologies. But my point here is that, despite being superficially a discussion of law, the questions in front of the Court probably will be decided on other bases, since it shouldn't even be a question if natural rights apply to all persons. In other words, they're not talking about what they're talking about, since if they were there would be nothing to talk about.
-- Mal
mopinko
(70,208 posts)no culture had gay marriage? how about the many, many cultures that had NO marriage? dont know but assume that there are many around still.
many first nations right here had a great tolerance for gays. whatever they had that might be defined as equivalent to marriage would most certainly have applied to same sex relationships.
plural marriage remains common throughout the world. one man and one woman?
a century or 2 ago, marriage was about land and wealth. more of an economic alliance than a love alliance. one estate and another estate is more like it.
the idea of marriage has evolved greatly over those "millennia". these people are just flat out perjuring themselves.
Judeo-Christian insertion into the law. Unconstitutional.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)it isn't even Judeo-Christian, since the bible has a wide range of marriage customs that have long since been abandoned (I'd like to see the biblical citation regarding marriage as one man/one woman. It would be as easy to find as Jesus' prohibitions about abortion and homosexuality). As usual, it is a bunch of random someones' ideas that have become customary
Orsino
(37,428 posts)That's all.
riqster
(13,986 posts)tridim
(45,358 posts)Single people have to pay extra taxes as well. Nobody gives a damn about us.
riqster
(13,986 posts)central scrutinizer
(11,661 posts)slavery, child labor, primogeniture. Doesn't automatically make it "right".
riqster
(13,986 posts)Orrex
(63,224 posts)Yet they're willing to embrace "millennia of tradition" to support their own views.
I'm not really strong on history, but how many millennia has the US Constitution been around?