![]() |
SCOTUS poll - Printable Version +- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com) +-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: 'Friendly' Political Ranting (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6) +--- Thread: SCOTUS poll (/showthread.php?tid=150481) |
Re: SCOTUS poll - Lemon Drop - 03-27-2013 Ombligo wrote: Why should state's decide blood relationships? That has lead to discrepancies such as California allowing first cousins to marry, Michigan not allowing first cousins to marry and Texas making it a criminal offense for first cousins to marry. Is that much different than what was argued at SCOTUS yesterday? That's a complex question - yes the laws are inconsistent around the country. If first cousins do marry they should get genetic testing done to make sure they aren't passing along something deadly (which is unlikely but more possible than for unrelated couples.) Otherwise I have no problem with it. It is however a terrible mess if that couple divorces, because they share the same extended family. Also - slippery slope problem. This is the same genetic relationship as uncle/niece. Should they be allowed to marry? Re: SCOTUS poll - August West - 03-27-2013 LD wrote: Lemon Drop is correct. Oxford Analytica wrote: Emphasis mine. Re: SCOTUS poll - Lemon Drop - 03-27-2013 Day two: If DOMA is overturned, married gay couples would be treated the same as married straight couples under federal law, but states would remain free to outlaw gay marriage. “A majority of justices today appeared to regard DOMA for what it is: a pervasive program of discrimination that changes 1100 laws and touches every aspect of life,” said Judith E. Schaeffer, the vice president of the liberal-leaning Constitutional Accountability Center. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/03/supreme-court-doma.php Overturning Prop 8 would be far more reaching in terms of extending equality - overturning one section of DOMA is better than nothing though. Re: SCOTUS poll - Dennis S - 03-27-2013 "It is however a terrible mess if that couple divorces, because they share the same extended family." They've probably been banned from Thanksgiving dinner already. Re: SCOTUS poll - RgrF - 03-27-2013 Black wrote: How would that be any different from death panels? Re: SCOTUS poll - PeterB - 03-28-2013 I voted "Allow the state to marry who they will and allow churches to marry who they will" only because whether or not a church recognizes a marriage is up to that church, and immaterial to whether or not the marriage is recognized by the state. Churches can make up whatever (silly) rules they like, including excommunicating parishioners for marriage outside the church, etc. That should have no bearing on what is recognized by the state. Re: SCOTUS poll - davester - 03-28-2013 PeterB wrote: I didn't vote for that one because churches are already able to do whatever the hell they want and the cases before the court have no bearing on that right. The only thing before the court is the concept of marriage as a legal contract that is associated with certain privileges and obligations as recognized by and enforced by the government. The churches have nothing to do with that and so should STFU. Re: SCOTUS poll - Acer - 03-28-2013 The whole cousin thing is really a recent social taboo. Brother/sister parent/child not so much. But throughout human history we commonly married within our clans, with very few degrees of separation. It was this case even into the 20th century in the West. Darwin married his cousin, for example. OK, maybe bad example for the evangelicals, but you get my (genetic) drift. Re: SCOTUS poll - PeterB - 03-28-2013 davester wrote: I didn't vote for that one because churches are already able to do whatever the hell they want and the cases before the court have no bearing on that right. The only thing before the court is the concept of marriage as a legal contract that is associated with certain privileges and obligations as recognized by and enforced by the government. The churches have nothing to do with that and so should STFU. Agreed, but the likelihood of that happening is almost zero. The Founding Fathers clearly intended for there to be a separation of church and state, yet the Justices don't always follow the Constitution in that regard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#Interpretive_controversies Re: SCOTUS poll - $tevie - 03-28-2013 I'm unclear on how I feel about what I'm going to say, but it seems like everyone is all for letting individual churches refuse to marry gays but find it outrageous if individual churches refuse to marry interracial couples. I think I am of the opinion that, as wrong as it feels, churches should be allowed to be bigots because of the separation of church and state. That said, the federal government should never have passed that stupid DOMA bill and Clinton should be ashamed. |