Supreme Court extends federal benefits to married gay couples

Casper said:
To whom?

Rights are in place only to protect the minority against the majority. The majority doesn't need any rights because they can win any vote.
Click to expand...

If the rights are in place to protect the minority against the majority, and these rights are left up to popular vote, what is the point of having rights? Who is being protected?

edit: by definition, popular vote will go the way of the majority, and if the majority are bigots, does that make it acceptable to codify their bigotry?
 
augusttremulous said:
If the rights are in place to protect the minority against the majority, and these rights are left up to popular vote, what is the point of having rights? Who is being protected?

edit: by definition, popular vote will go the way of the majority, and if the majority are bigots, does that make it acceptable to codify their bigotry?
Click to expand...

The majority will answer you yes.

The point of rights is that you shouldn't be able to vote for them. An underlying truth in our society is that we inherently have no rights. Because rights aren't rights if they can be revoked.
 
APRIL said:
I agree with you, BUUUTTT these decisions need to be made by the states, NOT the federal government.
Click to expand...


Honestly, in this day and age, its a thing that shouldnt even NEED to be decided, legislated, or even considered an issue.
Two people of the same gender entering into a marriage contract damages exactly nothing. Harms no one, has no detrimental effect on the happiness of anyone.
So why are we so stupid about this?
 
Drool-Boy said:
Honestly, in this day and age, its a thing that shouldnt even NEED to be decided, legislated, or even considered an issue.
Two people of the same gender entering into a marriage contract damages exactly nothing. Harms no one, has no detrimental effect on the happiness of anyone.
So why are we so stupid about this?
Click to expand...
Well duh.
 
Thing is, congress was looking to make these rights available back in the late 80s/early 90s as a result of the aids epidemic and how many homosexual partners were denied rights straight couples would have, including benefits, health insurance, and such, and it was being more and more of an issue in the press. But then the GLBT community got just as hung up on the word 'marriage' and how it should apply to them as the ultracons got on how it shouldn't and the issue became one over a word. Now this ruling comes as a 'landmark', when in reality this could have been the case decades ago.

Both sides have done more harm than good to themselves on this issue.
 
Duke said:
Thing is, congress was looking to make these rights available back in the late 80s/early 90s as a result of the aids epidemic and how many homosexual partners were denied rights straight couples would have, including benefits, health insurance, and such, and it was being more and more of an issue in the press. But then the GLBT community got just as hung up on the word 'marriage' and how it should apply to them as the ultracons got on how it shouldn't and the issue became one over a word. Now this ruling comes as a 'landmark', when in reality this could have been the case decades ago.

Both sides have done more harm than good to themselves on this issue.
Click to expand...

It wasn't going to pass in the 80's and 90's because of the insurance lobby. They've been controlling a lot of this debate from behind the scenes. There have even been instances of insurance companies hiring religious leaders to speak out against gay rights to get the people behind the anti-gay movement. Like I said, this is all about money.
 
MapleySyrup said:
No it isn't a good thing really. What if you had to get a new drivers license if you wanted to drive your car in Georgia?
Click to expand...

Are you saying the Federal government requires states to share that info? I doubt that's the case, but welcome the knowledge.

edit: Now that I think about that, even the Feds do require that, I think that should be unconstitutional as well. There is nothing in the Constitution about drivers licenses. The states can cooperate on their own without parental intervention. The CCW permit is a classic example of it. Or traffic tickets following you to your home state.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back