p.s. this very smart, sexy woman got me to drive to
atlanta on the weekends for months and months,
and we had some great times, but her adrenaline-
junkie nature was just too much. . it was evident
that this was our last weekend, I guess, and she
wanted more and more, and then we were in bed,
with me saying "let me sleep, please" ....... -- j
.

A will specifies how you want your assets distributed post-mortem, and property bequeathed in a will certainly is called an inheritance even if the recipient is unrelated (at least I think it is). I was not specific enough when I claimed that inheritance cannot be fixed except by allowing marriage.

To clarify, in the absence of marriage or other gov't sanctioned union, no contract can address the *right of inheritance*. My property will not automatically pass to my male partner unless gov't recognizes our relationship. Additionally, property inherited by a spouse, without regard to a will, enjoys tax advantages. Without gov't sanctioned union those advantages won't apply to my partner.

And without regard to taxes, if I have children my property will pass to them in the absence of a will even if those are not my wishes. Everyone should have a will, of course, but people don't always do what they should.

Without gov't sanctioned union a hospital is unlikely to allow one of us to make major, critical decisions regarding the medical care of the other, even with legal documents. Same sex partners are routinely denied access to the ICU, which just adds a layer of cruelty and stress to an already difficult situation.

I choose my verbiage carefully, either to make a point or elicit a particular reaction, or both. I stand by my assessment that people who are OK with same-sex unions that are exactly like marriages but must not be called marriages under any circumstances because if they are it will hurt my feelings and make me feel like you don't respect my religious beliefs ARE having a tantrum. First, I recognize your *right* to be a believer, but I don't RESPECT your belief in god. How can I when I find the very concept to be completely absurd?

I recognize my friend's legal right to declare bankruptcy 3 times and stiff his creditors with no feelings of remorse. I recognize his right to continue to handle his finances in a way that would make 80% of us shake our heads and click our tongues. But I certainly don't RESPECT the way he handles money.

I recognize Bernie Sanders' and Elizabeth Warren's right to advocate for the destruction of American values and the ruin of our way of life by promoting gov't enforced collectivism. But I most certainly don't respect either of them. In fact, there's plenty of prima facie evidence that they violated their oath of office and should be prosecuted.

Most people probably recognize my right to love another man the way that most men love women (although far from all) but I would never demand that they respect my homosexuality. Respect is an expression of values. If you and I have opposing values then we can't possibly respect the other guy's views, even if we recognize his right to have them.

So back to the tantrum... If you're walking along and you see an animal that looks exactly like a duck, will you call it a duck? What if it doesn't perfectly resemble any of the duck species you're familiar with, will you still see that it's other characteristics make it a duck?

If so, then how does it make sense to grant same sex couples 100% of the rights and privileges of a marriage and then refuse to call it a marriage? It's childish. And it's worse that people are arguing that their religion doesn't allow them to call it a marriage as if that prohibition affects the federal and state government.

This ruling doesn't (ok, shouldn't) affect any individual or religious organization. It only serves to make marriage regular between the several states.

At least one person called me naive to think this won't spawn a million lawsuits as people (aka radical gay rights activists) try to force churches to recognize and even perform same sex weddings. Well, I'm not naive and I don't believe those lawsuits won't come. But two things are still true; the ruling only affects gov't AND people who bring these lawsuits are bad people and I disagree with their assertion that any private organization of any kind should be forced to recognize or perform same sex weddings.

And if the lawsuits are successful then it's also true that the courts made incredibly bad rulings. Alas, they do that all the time.

People must realize that this ruling and the ensuing lawsuits are virtually unrelated. It's true that without the ruling these suits probably wouldn't have been filed, but it's infinitely more important to step back and notice that this type of lawsuit began many years ago as a result of laws like the ADA, affirmative action, equal opportunity employment law (very Orwellian because there's no equal opportunity under this law) and all the other anti-discrimination laws.

Those laws are excellent when they apply to whom they were supposed to apply, and that's gov't. The gov't truly has no authority to play favorites or discriminate against anyone. But none of those laws should apply to the private sector. But we live in a world where they do because the courts are insane and rule that they apply to the private sector. So as far as lawsuits attacking religious organizations, this ruling just opens the door for one more group to join the dozens that are out there demanding non-existent rights - and getting them. The proper hue and cry would be to rise up against ALL laws that grant false rights, that give any person (or group) "rights" that supersede the rights of anyone else.

As an aside, I've been a staunch libertarian for nearly 20 years and I'm consistent, because principles are principles even if they can lead to some unpopular conclusions - like that ADA and anti-discrimination laws are bad.

Since the majority of gays are progressives, politically, I don't agree with them most of the time. I get all kinds of emails from LGBT and progressive organizations asking me to support causes that are 180 degrees from my value system. Sometimes I even take the time and trouble to write to them and explain why they're wrong, but not often.

As I'm typing this it has gotten very late and my brain is barely working. I hope I finished making my points because I've finished typing.

JohnConnor352 has expressed my thoughts and reasoning slightly differently, often more clearly. If you read his entries you'll get my thoughts from a slightly different angle. And one sentence where I disagree with him over a minor point.

I never mentioned the Bible...moral arguments can be made, both ways. There is no way to win, that I can see.

As for my comment...homosexual lifestyles ARE a perversion. This is a simple fact of nature. If you don't wish to believe me...research it, yourself.

First, in the animal world, which we are supposedly above, sex between two of the same gender is not instinctive. I know it occurs, from time to time, accidentally, but you never see "gay" pairs of same sex animals in nature.

Secondly (and I dare you to deny this), same sex couples cannot procreate, naturally. Oh, sure, they can adopt, but it's not the same thing. Components from BOTH sexes are necessary to reproduce a human being and THAT's nature at work.

Please...regale me with your logical defense, if you can. Until then, I remain unconvinced of the validity of the entire LGBT movement.

To answer the statement in your third paragraph, concerning items left "off the list"...my solution is...the Second Amendment.

Unless I'm mistaken...our rights are "guaranteed" by the Constitution. To me, that implies that my rights are protected by the same.
Perhaps it's a misinterpretation?

Only if your view is that marriage is a creation of government. Most societies view marriage as the very fundamental form of government over a family.

Here's what happens when you take the step of defining marriage to be government-defined:
there is no longer any such thing as parental rights. Government becomes the owner of all children, and by extension everyone. If you want to go down that path, you are an advocate of big government tyranny.

If you can't tell the difference between a man and a woman, I'm sorry, but I really can't help you.

Yes, but only within the scope of the explicitly designated powers enumerated in the Constitution. The ninth and tenth amendments specifically designate EVERYTHING else to the States to decide.

What the Federal Judges did was (1) unConstitutionally create a protected right and (2) designate that right to be under the purview of the Federal Government without any enumerated power to do so. It doesn't matter which side of the argument you were on, there was absolutely no legal authority at the Federal level to get involved.

well said

Timelord, are you not concerned that the SCOTUS decision will not infringe the rights of others? How about a church refusing to marry a couple? While I support gay unions, I wonder how many inalienable rights of gay individuals were infringed before the decision and whose rights may be infringed due to the application of this ruling, potentially? I do not in any way mean to inflate possibilities to probabilities and happily recognize gay marriage.

Timelord,
I knew when I started this blog the subject matter was controversial and sensitive, but I mean no disrespect. We may not come to complete agreement, but I respect that I am not infallible... that opinions vary. I am not unreasonable or immovable, or in any position to say my opinion is the last word. My opinion is but one.
Article III, section 2 does speak of controversies between states, etc... Does Article III, section 2. nullify state's rights and the tenth amendment? Does it grant specifically the right to say that people in one state have the right to everything legal in any other state? Would the corollary right not be that everything illegal in any state could be deemed equally illegal nationwide? I see nothing specific about issuance of licenses in the article. I believe we have a difference of opinion (as do the justices), but if you are correct about this article, then the tenth amendment and federalism could be easily nullified by the whims of the court. I wish to understand your reasoning.
Respectfully,
O.A.

I have a will; it was simple matter. I have an attorney and have entered into many contracts.

I read have read all of your words and would not use such derogatory terms regarding your arguments (tantrum is rather rude, condescending and unbecoming). I am sorry you do not share my concern for what I see as a continuing trend of abasement of our language and introduction of unnecessary complication. I am being very courteous and just trying to understand and learn from different perspectives. I could use some colorful epithets regarding your verbiage, and apparent lack of patience but I am bigger than that. Please make your case without unnecessary personal quips.

Hi CBJ,
I hope you are right, but the way this country has been going and our increasingly litigious society does not grant me your confidence,
Respectfully,
O.A.

I agree the denial to some of these benefits is unequal treatment. I know the Constitution well. From the very first SCOTUS ruling regarding marriage, and there have been over dozen now, they have made it a federal matter though the Constitution never granted them the powers not enumerated, but explicitly denied them. It was up to the states, but the tenth amendment has been rendered meaningless. These benefits should not exist in the first place, but since they do, we should all be treated equally as individuals and if necessary by contract law. I am treated unequally in that I have no children, but must subsidize those that wish to raise their own baseball team. Any benefits you speak of could be handled easily by a simple state issued civil contract (civil union or otherwise, anyone can enter into any contractual agreement), or something drawn up by any lawyer. It should be no more complicated than having to sign one before a notary and filing it away like any basic will. The courts would then protect your "rights" just like a will does. A "marriage" certificate is a religious document. It was only out of convenience and a different time that it took on a legal status. Well, it matters not now... It is water under the bridge except for the probable litigation and problems of comity that are likely to go on now for years to come just as the Roe v. Wade decision.

I am not as confident as you are regarding the upholding of religious freedom. This case will only embolden the lawyers and the malcontents. We are likely to see more of the following examples which are just a small sample of what has already occurred.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/busi...
A photographer forced to associate and participate?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/ap...
This is somewhat analogous:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/s...
And this is likely in our future too now that the SCOTUS has decided to adopt the same stance.
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/millio...

These things will not affect me personally, but I do believe they will be a problem for our courts and the expense will be born by all taxpayers.

Of course Lenin used those techniques, they had been time tested by various religions for 2 millennia or more. (Religious control started before the monotheistic movements after all)

Cranio-Rectal Inversion Party

CRIP for short

many thanks for your sentiments, Jan;;; about 8 years ago,
she (a computer systems trainer) sent me an e-mail at work.
from NH. . married, again. . haven't heard anything since.
I should never have had that "last drink" with her. -- j
.

The major issue is that "married" couples receive some preferential treatment under the law, specifically when it comes to taxation, filing joint income tax returns and unlimited spousal exclusion for estate taxes. Also Social Security survivors benefits, etc. To deny these federal benefits to same sex couples based on their state of residence is a clear violation of the equal protection clause. You ability to provide for the person you love cannot be subject to whether or not the gov't approves of your choice of partner.

Also I will point out that marriage has in various times included plural wives and, more rarely, plural husbands. The "one-man/one-woman" model is the most common we see, but not the only form of union that has been termed "marriage."

Now as for religious institutions, I am relatively certain that the court will respect their right to bless or not bless same sex marriages. I am sure there will be some litigation here, but ultimately religious freedom must trump.

" they still could have additionally issued civil union contracts. Barring that, anyone may enter into any contract they choose to insure they were protected in the mean time."

No, incorrect, inheritance cannot be fixed this way. Other tax matters cannot be fixed this way. The power to make medical decisions cannot be fixed this way.

But your argument isn't about rights, it's a tantrum about the word marriage. I wrote about that elsewhere; if you care then you can read those comments.

From the bleachers, it sounds like she was a power-junkie - and that she was the type of person who would have claimed that there was an abortion whether or not there was one. She seems to have been playing every card she could get her slimy hands on to gain dominance over you.

I hope that she is Long Ago and Far Away - preferably in another galaxy.

Jan

"Please show me where in the constitution the Federal government has any say whatsoever about marriage."

That's an easy one. It's the part where SCOTUS is assigned to resolve conflicting matters of law between the several states.

(I +1'd you, but I have comments...)

It's the very limiting of government that protects the rights of the people, so I think your semantic disagreement is misplaced.

The Bill of Rights very specifically outlines a number of rights that people have inherently. The fact that an individual is a person gives him these rights; they were not granted by man and they cannot be taken away by man. The BoR makes it explicit that government has no power whatsoever to abridge those rights. (Obviously that went out the window many, many years ago - even before 1800.)

I understand your objection to "government defining "rights" to be protected." The obvious problem is that anything left off the list is considered NOT a right and can be abridged by gov't. I don't think I have a solution to that. Absent a list, what kinds of "rights" will people make up that end up denying you some freedom?

I'll tell you what kinds because they're all over the place. The most obvious group would be all of the non-discrimination laws, which I've written about a few times on this thread. How did anyone ever conceive of a person's RIGHT to be able to walk into any business and demand that the business owner must conduct business with him? How did anyone conceive of a RIGHT that you can't refuse to hire me because of race/gender/marital status/health status, etc?

You and I clearly do not believe in discriminating against a person for reasons that aren't specifically germane to the situation. (Examples of acceptable reasons: It makes no sense to hire someone in a wheelchair as a UPS delivery driver. A t-shirt printer should not have to make 100 shirts that say "Kill (insert here).")

But how is it appropriate that the ADA can be used to force me to do a major remodel of my business, regardless of the cost, to make it handicapped accessible? Here's a real-life example that carries the absurdity even further. A restaurant had one section that was raised above the level of the rest of the seating area - raised by one step for an able-bodied person. The entrance to the establishment and the majority of the seating area were fully accessible. Under the authority of the ADA the restaurant was forced to create a ramp to that raised area. Creating that ramp took away seating from main seating area and also cost a lot of money. It didn't matter that nobody had ever complained and it didn't matter that if a chair-bound patron needed to be seated there that they were happy to do whatever it took to get it up that one step. Nope, too bad, do the renovation and lose seating to fix a non-problem.

The question is, does a chair-bound person actually have the RIGHT to sit in the raised area? Does he even have the RIGHT to eat at that restaurant?

Long-winded it may have been, but without an agreed-upon set of inherent rights people will invent all kinds of crazy rights that directly affect the legitimate rights of others. Every Objectivist understands that one person's rights cannot supersede the rights of another person. When such a situation arises it is obvious that one of the rights is not a right at all.

Yes. . using power for abuse. . sounds like government.

and the event with *her* was unfortunate. . I will never
know whether the abortion which she claimed she got
was for real. . I am closest to tears with this story. -- j
.