Half-Hour Wait at Chic-fil-A Today

[Thomas Rogers]

Redfish,



Thanks for the reply.



I agree there have been a lot of litigations prior to NYS passing its law allowing gay marriage. Seems there was a lot of litigation leading up to the law being passed, and some since. I have searched NYS examples and read all the info on the Wiki page related to NYS gay marraige. Funny, some say that gay marriage in NYS would GENERATE MILLIONS for the state. With NYS allowing gay marriage for more than a year, seems like all is still pretty good there, financially.



The same sex marriage issues is complicated and it is about many things. I will grant that most states and even the federal government may have a financial vested interest in NOT recognizing gay marraige just as it does traditional marraige for reasons of avoiding the payout of benefits to survivors. But most such benefits deal at the federal level (SSI), and of course at the state level for state pensions and the like.



As for litigation, states without gay marriage gets lots of gays filing lawsuits against the states, states that are working towards possibly passing laws that allow gay marraige get a lot of lawsuits filed by special interest groups, and in the absence of gay marriage being allowed there are a lot more civil claims within such states when private parties sue one another, again, most often over survivor benefits.



My own personal belief is that the #1 thing that gay couples SHOULD want from the right to marry is the joint community and survivorship rights that come from marriage. Without gay marriage these things get very messy, especially in families that may not approve of the lifestyle lead by their deceased member. You hear quite often of brothers, sisters, or adult children FIGHTING over the estate of a departed gay person, when rightfully that estate should go to their surviving gay partner of say 10, 20, or 30 years, because those two lived together, loved together, and made a life together, each supporting each other, etc.



It happens, and it happens a lot. Sure, one can bequeth in a will, but that is where the lawsuits come in with a brother, or a son, or a daughter with an axe to grind wanting what should rightfully belong to the partner.



So, there are financial incentives and disincentives at all levels, and with many parties.



There are also people that are just objecting to gay marriage because they don't agree with it due to their beliefs. For them, to me, it seems kind of like standing on a soapbox and barring your neighbor from painting his house yellow because you don't like yellow.



TJR

 

[Gavin Allan]

No matter what your opinion on gay marriage is, or what happens to the issue, this is one of the many issues that is dividing our country. We have become so polar in our beliefs and what we want- I don't think we will ever get along well or be able to mend all the hard feelings. It seems to me that it is time to start thinking about dividing the USA up into 3-5 smaller countries so that folks can have it their way and not bother the others. If we were to divide up the USA, it would have the wonderful effect of disassembling the overpowering federal government that has grown so many tentacles into our lives. I just don't see this once-great country coming together anymore.

 

[Richard L]

Gavin,

That was tried 150 years ago and became the Civil War? Even if we could become 3-5 separate countries, people would still not be happy and the same bureaucratic, grid locked government would take over each of the new countries. That's what has happened in eastern Europe over the last 100 years.



If you ever watched the History Channel show: "How the States got their Shapes" you would know that attempting to make anymore border changes will certainly result in another Civil War.



...Rich

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Gavin,



A strong federal government that upholds the Constituional rights for all and protects our country from foreign invaders is all I want from our "Union"...however, I want our federal government to start doing that.



That means SCOTUS needs to dismantle DOMA (defense of marraige act), or at least declare section 3 unconstitutional. Likewise, we should pass federal laws that essentially recognize gay marriage like any other marriage at the "federal level", and declare that a gay marriage in any state must be recognized as a marriage in any other state at least as it relates to state-run benefits, etc. States that wish not to comply can pay a penalty which will take a huge chunck out of federal aid to the state.



I think that would ultimately solve the problem...might create some problems along the way, but I think it will in the long run solve the problems.



Will it cause hurt feelings? Will it create protests...sure, just as Roe v Wade did, but that was the right ruling then, and will likely never be reversed. I'm not for killing babies, but I am for women's rights, and doctor/patient confidentiality.



We are not a country of majority rules when it comes to defining and following Constitutional law...for that I am MOST VERY HAPPY. Those that would seek to divide the union would seem to want a majority rule, or governments and boundaries of people that more or less think and act the same. That, IMHO, is a very dangerous desire.



A majority is often like a mob, and mob mentality isn't always right.



Again, there was a time when the majority thought that slavery was fine; that women shouldn't vote; that segregation was a good thing. Through our laws and the SCOTUS a "few" in the minority led the way to change.



We are seeing the same again. Close to 50% in this country by recent studies approve of gay marriage. There is no need for a majority to agree with it before the SCOTUS puts this issue to rest.



TJR