Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Do you think the Supreme Court made the right decision in directing the federal government to provide equal treatment to same-sex spouses?

  1. Yes
  2. No
 
 
 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(110)

Scarecrow57

Jun-27-13 8:13 AM

This is not about equality. This is not about love. This about giving a segment of our society, that many consider to be immoral, financial gain.

How about we practice true fairness and equality? Start by removing the benefits of marriage from the laws and tax codes. Why should a single person making $60,000 a year pa $3,000 more in taxes than a person who makes the same amount but is married. We can Blame Bush for this dumb idea of a marriage penalty. Remove marital status from the tax code if you want fairness. In fact, I would argue that since a married couple is using twice the services they should pay twice as much in taxes.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scarecrow57

Jun-27-13 8:19 AM

Secondly, some will proclaim that those who consider this immoral should keep their religious beliefs to themselves.

I counter, should it matter where you get your moral foundations from? Does it matter if it is the Bible, the book of Mormom, the Quaran, The Communist Manifesto, Liberal teachings, or Conservative Teachings? What matters is that on issues of such divisiveness the government should neither endorse nor prohibit. In this case, remove all references and benefits for marriage from tax laws as well as other laws. In the case of Abortion, neither prohibit it or fund it. In the case of fossil fuel usage, neither fund it, nor tax it, nor regulate it. For many of these things there is no clear majority or consensus amongst society ; neither side should be pushing their version of morality on the other.

5 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrBoB51

Jun-27-13 9:56 AM

The other shoe will fall soon. The President proclaimed he will not force Churches to marry same-sex couples which means it's next on the agenda. The purpose of which is to compel Religious Institutions to give up their tax exempt status in order to support the State, forget the Constitution. Of course this means ALL religious exemptions including Catholic, Mormons, Jewish, Buddhists, the cult of Islam, Hindus and any other group that practices their 'Religion' in America. It's was a sad day in America when centuries of tradition were wiped away by nine people in black robes. This administration and it's followers do not love America because of their desire to fundamentally change America into something the Framers would never recognize. The Bill of Rights has become a Bill of Wants under the Gimmiecraticans.

4 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrBoB51

Jun-27-13 10:02 AM

(cont) The counter to this plan would be a Flat-Tax for everyone but that's an argument for another day, so wait for the glow to fade when gays realize THEY are now subject to the Ben Dover Marriage penalty. They won't be saying 'thank you' very long. Yup, equal treatment. Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it, only it won't be what you expected.

3 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

taxtired

Jun-27-13 10:35 AM

The bible says Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Steve.

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Stackrat

Jun-27-13 10:53 AM

Stop the planet, I want to get off!

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

193755

Jun-27-13 11:37 AM

Sad day overall with the Supreme Court rulings. The ever changing world, not necessarily for the better.

6 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

drugsrus

Jun-27-13 11:59 AM

the SCOTUS should not be ruling on these matters. You can't legislate morality or sexuality.

When is the parade for straight people????

3 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rschweizer

Jun-27-13 12:49 PM

drugsrus, so the SCOTUS didn't rule on marriage. they struck down a California law that was deemed illegal.

7 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rschweizer

Jun-27-13 2:51 PM

drugsrus, also, there is nothing stopping you from having a parade for straight 'pride'. I'd be more than happy to organize.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hilltopper

Jun-27-13 3:40 PM

How will this effect divorce courts?Judges will not have the option to exercise the usual "woman gets all" ruling. This may pave the way for judges to truly be judicious. Did they cover this in law school? And don't say that isn't the case. Marriage splits up, judge orders joint custody, woman and man earn an equal salary, but the man has to pay support.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GReader

Jun-27-13 4:17 PM

One wonders if those who support unequal representation under the law based upon sexual orientation would feel the same way if their child(ren) or siblings were L, G, B or T. What matters it who one sleeps with as long as no one is hurt and both parties are consenting adults? This ruling would not have been necessary if the denial of equal treatment had never occurred.

Our governmental agencies needs to get out of people's bedrooms and back to doing the people's real business: writing and adopting policies and legislation that will improve the lives of their constituents.

9 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

getreal

Jun-27-13 4:35 PM

Taxtired...Not everyone believes in the Bible!

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

getreal

Jun-27-13 4:41 PM

Everyone keeps saying stuff like the founding father Blah Blah blah ETC....I guess people feel there should still be slavery..****e on... times change maybe not in your views to be better but you are only one out of millions who feel different. Maybe we should not have electric, cars, because maybe certain people feel that was evil back in the day... If that is the case we would still be back in the stone age...where im sure there was marraige and gay or lesbian people.

8 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

taxtired

Jun-27-13 5:23 PM

rs, WOW you do parades now also.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

drugsrus

Jun-27-13 5:43 PM

GReader, LGBT or "people of other persuasions" have been around forever. This is not a new phenomenon, what is new is the not so pleasant "in your face" attitude being displayed. I heard one part od a lesbian couple declare that if her partner should now die "I'll get some of her social security" -- What happens if she dies???? does her partner get some too?? This is not a two way street, wives get survivor benes, not husbands, so who takes on the male role???? Gov't should not be a factor in this. It is not their job.

swizzer -- set the straight pride parade for Labor Day, most of the working straight people might have the day off to participate. Unlike that other bunch

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rschweizer

Jun-27-13 6:31 PM

Hilltopper, that's a totally different area that unfortunately has been gray for years. Frankly, the 'woman gets all' doctrine is absurd if you ask me. I know a brain surgeon in Schenectady whose wife divorced him and he's left with no house (which was paid for) a used Ford Escape and has to pay her alimony and the kids' college tuitions after scholarships, and that was after years of child support.

New York needs to be a little more assertive with marriage law that allows professional wives who go about marrying rich man after rich man to the tune of 3 or 4 while never working a day in their lives while living the life despite not having earned a dime.

8 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rschweizer

Jun-27-13 7:02 PM

And on the LBGTQ topic, I don't buy the 'q' part. LBGT fine, but 'q' means 'q-ueer', which literally means 'weird.'

So why on earth do 'q' people accept that term of being 'weird' when they want so badly to be a part of everyday society?

The 'q' people want equal rights yet want to be better than the rest of society by parading through the town square.

You want equality, take it.

7 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rschweizer

Jun-27-13 7:52 PM

getreal, good points. You know what's funny is that some commenter here, 193755, alludes to the 'changing world, not necessarily for the better.'

But 193755 is probably in that group of 'conservatives' who want to take the country back to 1954 apparently.

Yesterday, for example, the SCOTUS ruled on the Voters Rights Act in a 5-4 decision that sent the Democrats into a tailspin as a Republican 'win.' In fact, Chief Justice Roberts said in the majority opinion of the court's decision that 'Our country has changed.'

So I question why no Republican or fake conservative believes the 'country is changing for the worse' with decisions like yesterday's. Or is it they just think it's 'changing for the worse' when the courts don't rule the way their whining hearts want them to?

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DaveGibson

Jun-27-13 7:54 PM

There was a time in this country when mixed race marriages were considered immoral and illegal. Being raised as a Catholic many years ago, I was forbidden to marry a non-Catholic without church approval and meeting strict rules about raising our children as Catholics. Times have changed.

Allowing gays to marry will have zero effect on most of us, but will have a profound effect on gay couples. They can make health decisions for their partners, have inheritance rights, pension rights, and many others, as well as being able to make a public commitment of love to their partners. This is long overdue.

12 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

drugsrus

Jun-27-13 8:18 PM

Sometimes it is good to be old. I just worry what or if our good old US of A will be recognizable for my granddaughters. Even now it is not what I grew up with. Kids can't even play outside a fenced and locked yard for fear of predators and other nondescript animals who deserve nothing more than to be shot and left for vulture food.

1 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

drugsrus

Jun-27-13 8:20 PM

The way things are going we should resurrect Caligula and vote him in as pres. He can't be worse than what we have now.

2 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

drugsrus

Jun-27-13 8:22 PM

the answer is still a big H * E * L * L NO

1 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rschweizer

Jun-27-13 9:57 PM

drugsrus, the decision wasn't ruled on by the president. it was the scotus.

downy.

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hilltopper

Jun-27-13 10:05 PM

Druggy: If you are comfortable in your own skin, you have no reason at all to feel threatened by anyone else's sexuality. Hate begets hate, compassion begets compassion.

10 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 110 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web