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.
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.
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".
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
This site is part of the Defy Media Gaming network
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!
The Pub 
6Likes
Supreme Court considering gay marriage cases 
Linear Mode
