Go Back   GameFront Forums > General Chit-Chat > The Pub

Remember Me?

The Pub Intelligent discussion and debate on real-life issues. You can also visit the History and Warfare forum | This is not a game support forum.

Like Tree6Likes

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 1st, 2013   #1
Notable Loser
 
Commissar MercZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: January 28th, 2005
Location: Texas
Status: Available
Posts: 7,958
Rep Power: 30
Commissar MercZ knows no limitCommissar MercZ knows no limitCommissar MercZ knows no limitCommissar MercZ knows no limitCommissar MercZ knows no limitCommissar MercZ knows no limitCommissar MercZ knows no limitCommissar MercZ knows no limitCommissar MercZ knows no limitCommissar MercZ knows no limitCommissar MercZ knows no limit
Send a message via MSN to Commissar MercZ Send a message via Yahoo to Commissar MercZ
Default Supreme Court considering gay marriage cases

One case, United States v. Windsor, relates to the Defense of Marriage Act, passed by the US in 1996 which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, and allowed states to refuse marriage or civil unions made in another state. More importantly though this had ramifications on benefits, taxes, and what not which would indirectly affect hiring.

Starting in 2011 several major businesses came out against DOMA, stating that it placed unnecessary burdens on their hiring when managing employees, taxes, and what not, and they were also joined by several municipalities who also report similar issues with their employees.

Over 200 business and cities signed on as Amicus curiae, essentially interested parties, by offering their own problems with DOMA.

Pg. 44/95 on document
Quote:
DOMA imposes on amici not simply considerable burden of compliance and cost. DOMA conscripts amici to become the face of its mandate that two separate castes of married persons be identified and separately treated. As employers, we must administer employment-related health-care plans, retirement plans, family leave, and COBRA. We must impute the value of spousal health-care benefits to our employees’ detriment. We must treat one employee less favorably, or at minimum differently, when each is as lawfully married as the other. We must do all of this in states, counties, and cities that prohibit workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and demand equal treatment of all married individuals. This conscription has harmful consequences. [...]
Pg 49-50/95

Quote:

Our principles are not platitudes. Our mission statements are not simply plaques in the lobby. Statements of principle are our agenda for success: born of experience, tested in laboratory, factory, and office, attuned to competition. Our principles reflect, in the truest sense, our business judgment. By force of law, DOMA rescinds that judgment and directs that we renounce these principles or, worse yet, betray them.
Some businesses of note:

Spoiler:

Adobe
Amazon
Apple
Armani
Bain and Company (one of Romney's former workplaces...)
CBS
Cisco Systems
Citigroup
Deutsche Bank
eBay
Electronic Arts
Facebook
Goldman Sachs
Google
Intel
JetBlue Airways
The Jim Henson Company
Johnson & Johnson
Levi Strauss
Marriot
Mars
Microsoft
Morgan Stanley
Nike
Oracle
Pfizer
Starbucks
Sun Life Financial
Twitter
UBS
Viacom
The Walt Disney Company
Xerox
Zynga

Cities

Baltimore
Boston
Los Angeles
New York City
Providence
San Francisco
Seattle


Notably the White House and some other politicians have also filed Amicus curiae to urge the court to see DOMA as unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court is also considering challenges to Proposition 8 referendum in California, passed in 2008 which overturned that state's legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Hollingsworth v. Perry is expected to be started on March 26th. The Justice Department took a more firm stand here, arguing that Proposition 8 violated the 14th amendment, but tried to restrict itself to concerning itself with Proposition 8 in California, rather than other states's similar laws, but it is possible that a decision against prop 8 would bode poorly for other similar laws.

Last edited by Commissar MercZ; March 1st, 2013 at 09:57 AM.
Commissar MercZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2013   #2
The Bad
 
MrFancypants's Avatar
 
Join Date: December 7th, 2003
Location: Germany
Status: Available
Posts: 15,717
Rep Power: 50
MrFancypants - the Honoured OneMrFancypants - the Honoured OneMrFancypants - the Honoured OneMrFancypants - the Honoured OneMrFancypants - the Honoured OneMrFancypants - the Honoured OneMrFancypants - the Honoured OneMrFancypants - the Honoured OneMrFancypants - the Honoured OneMrFancypants - the Honoured OneMrFancypants - the Honoured One
Default Re: Supreme Court considering gay marriage cases

You'd think that at some point these people would simple get bored and stop harassing homosexuals.
The idea that the government should be allowed to tell who gets married and under what conditions is rather annoying anyway.


MrFancypants is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2013   #3
Notable Loser
 
Commissar MercZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: January 28th, 2005
Location: Texas
Status: Available
Posts: 7,958
Rep Power: 30
Commissar MercZ knows no limitCommissar MercZ knows no limitCommissar MercZ knows no limitCommissar MercZ knows no limitCommissar MercZ knows no limitCommissar MercZ knows no limitCommissar MercZ knows no limitCommissar MercZ knows no limitCommissar MercZ knows no limitCommissar MercZ knows no limitCommissar MercZ knows no limit
Send a message via MSN to Commissar MercZ Send a message via Yahoo to Commissar MercZ
Default Re: Supreme Court considering gay marriage cases

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFancypants View Post
You'd think that at some point these people would simple get bored and stop harassing homosexuals.
The idea that the government should be allowed to tell who gets married and under what conditions is rather annoying anyway.
It still makes for a good political lightning rod though in some areas. Acceptance for the concept seems to be growing but the same people claim it's part of the "gay agenda" brainwashing the youth and sheeple and are just reacting even worse with it.

Plus there's some cushy language with the California case- that was a popular referendum in the same year that Obama was elected, in a state he carried handily, which at the same time approved of the measure. If the state overturns that referendum's results I can imagine certain groups would goosestep around their positions on homosexuality and instead turn it into a rant about "legislating from the bench".
Commissar MercZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2013   #4
The Revolutionist
 
Cpt.Karnas's Avatar
 
Join Date: February 8th, 2013
Location: South Carolina
Status: Available
Posts: 237
Rep Power: 0
Cpt.Karnas is nobody special
Send a message via Yahoo to Cpt.Karnas
Default Re: Supreme Court considering gay marriage cases

Traditional marriage should always be protected.
Cpt.Karnas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2013   #5
Notable Loser
 
Commissar MercZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: January 28th, 2005
Location: Texas
Status: Available
Posts: 7,958
Rep Power: 30
Commissar MercZ knows no limitCommissar MercZ knows no limitCommissar MercZ knows no limitCommissar MercZ knows no limitCommissar MercZ knows no limitCommissar MercZ knows no limitCommissar MercZ knows no limitCommissar MercZ knows no limitCommissar MercZ knows no limitCommissar MercZ knows no limitCommissar MercZ knows no limit
Send a message via MSN to Commissar MercZ Send a message via Yahoo to Commissar MercZ
Default Re: Supreme Court considering gay marriage cases

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpt.Karnas View Post
Traditional marriage should always be protected.
Great argument, that really made me change my views.

No but seriously, why does "traditional marriage" matter?
Commissar MercZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2013   #6
The Revolutionist
 
Cpt.Karnas's Avatar
 
Join Date: February 8th, 2013
Location: South Carolina
Status: Available
Posts: 237
Rep Power: 0
Cpt.Karnas is nobody special
Send a message via Yahoo to Cpt.Karnas
Default Re: Supreme Court considering gay marriage cases

Can two men have a baby no can two women have a baby again no a marriage is and always should be between a man and a woman. Please forgive me for adding this. It is in the Bible.
Cpt.Karnas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2013   #7
The forums staffers think I'm Cool
 
Kalessin's Avatar
 
Join Date: November 20th, 2006
Status: Available
Posts: 183
Rep Power: 0
Kalessin has disabled reputation
Default Re: Supreme Court considering gay marriage cases

It's similar to a war when you think about it: tell people they're attacked and get them to unite beneath you, use the external threat to secure your support at home. And when you start to lose the war, you're already in too far anyway to back out: if you do the people you've got around you will turn on you while giving in isn't likely to make the other side love you enough to forsake their current leaders for you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpt.Karnas View Post
Traditional marriage should always be protected.
Marriage in the nuclear family sense isn't traditional. Well, not exclusively anyway, not the sole Bible traditional. If you go back to the Bible Virgins who were raped had to marry their rapists, who paid their father 50 shekels of silver for property loss. Oh and concubines, that was fine too. And the wonderful bit where brides who couldn't prove their virginity were stoned to death.

Traditional marriage. Such a beautiful institution.

Last edited by Kalessin; March 3rd, 2013 at 06:57 PM.
Kalessin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2013   #8
Notable Loser
 
Commissar MercZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: January 28th, 2005
Location: Texas
Status: Available
Posts: 7,958
Rep Power: 30
Commissar MercZ knows no limitCommissar MercZ knows no limitCommissar MercZ knows no limitCommissar MercZ knows no limitCommissar MercZ knows no limitCommissar MercZ knows no limitCommissar MercZ knows no limitCommissar MercZ knows no limitCommissar MercZ knows no limitCommissar MercZ knows no limitCommissar MercZ knows no limit
Send a message via MSN to Commissar MercZ Send a message via Yahoo to Commissar MercZ
Default Re: Supreme Court considering gay marriage cases

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpt.Karnas View Post
Can two men have a baby no can two women have a baby again no a marriage is and always should be between a man and a woman. Please forgive me for adding this. It is in the Bible.
Well, this isn't like men and women can't marry anymore, I don't see what you are getting it. It's not like letting homosexuals marry prevents me, a straight man, from getting married to a woman.
Commissar MercZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2013   #9
Victim of Forgotten Hope
Forum bystander

 
Rikupsoni's Avatar
 
Join Date: April 26th, 2004
Location: Finland
Status: Available
Posts: 3,011
Rep Power: 24
Rikupsoni has a sound reputationRikupsoni has a sound reputationRikupsoni has a sound reputationRikupsoni has a sound reputationRikupsoni has a sound reputation
Default Re: Supreme Court considering gay marriage cases

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commissar MercZ View Post

No but seriously, why does "traditional marriage" matter?
People have values and traditions. Does anything matter? People act irrationally, and rationality itself is a value.

Doesn't it matter to you as a Muslim? The most patriarchal, traditionalist and restrictive religion. You take every opportunity to question Christian conservative values, and at the same time keep silent about your own bigoted religion. Why do many imams want to punish homosexuality with death, do you have any idea?
Rikupsoni is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2013   #10
The forums staffers think I'm Cool
 
Kalessin's Avatar
 
Join Date: November 20th, 2006
Status: Available
Posts: 183
Rep Power: 0
Kalessin has disabled reputation
Default Re: Supreme Court considering gay marriage cases

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rikupsoni View Post
People have values and traditions. Does anything matter? People act irrationally, and rationality itself is a value.
Rationality is a tool that people might value for a variety of reasons. Most of those reasons would be instrumental rather than terminal; few people are going to value rationality just because it's rationality rather than because it can get them money or happiness or something.

Most values are instrumental values. So it seems unlikely that this obsession with protecting traditional marriage is a terminal value of your utility function. It seems more likely that you have something else that you want, that you think this gets you.

And even if it were a terminal value, there'd still be some account for why that value existed. Though, granted, you might not know what that is.
Kalessin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7.







   
 
The best serving of video game culture, since 2001. Whether you're looking for news, reviews, walkthroughs, or the biggest collection of PC gaming files on the planet, Game Front has you covered. We also make no illusions about gaming: it's supposed to be fun. Browse gaming galleries, humor lists, and honest, short-form reporting. Game on!

GameFront Forums - Terms of Service - Top
Copyright © 2002-2012 Game Front. All rights reserved. Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Forum Theme by Danny King (FileTrekker), Sheepeep & Graeme(rs)