It was ruled unconstitutional for a variety of reasons. It was a gross over step the federal government. Also it is important to remember states approve of marriages. Marriage rules are defined by the states and most of the rights attached to them by the states.
None of those reasons were "the federal government isn't allowed to have a definition of marriage". Because that's ridiculous.
All rights not outlined in the constitution is given to the states.
Marriage only existed at the state level as well. The definition of marriage is different in every single state.
What is DOMA then?
It was ruled unconstitutional for a variety of reasons. It was a gross over step the federal government. Also it is important to remember states approve of marriages. Marriage rules are defined by the states and most of the rights attached to them by the states.
Well, first and foremost, isn't this a legal question with an objective answer? Like, can't we just make a chart of rights and privileges granted by the law for marriage and a civil union and see if it's 1:1, and if not, then the answer is no, they're not the same thing?
You could they were the same thing. You even got to use the "married" tax status.
No. First of all, civil unions only exist at the state level, and so don't confer any of the federal benefits that marriage does, like federal tax breaks and social security benefits.
Marriage only existed at the state level as well. The definition of marriage is different in every single state.
Well, first and foremost, isn't this a legal question with an objective answer? Like, can't we just make a chart of rights and privileges granted by the law for marriage and a civil union and see if it's 1:1, and if not, then the answer is no, they're not the same thing?
You could they were the same thing. You even got to use the "married" tax status.
This topic was coming up a lot in the Trump thread for a few days now so I figured it could use its own thread.
It is equality to have same sex couples use a different term for their marriage?
Can a "separate but equal" policy really represent equality?
Is marriage a purely religious ceremony, or is it is a legal contract between two people sanctioned by the state, or even a combination of the two?
Do same sex marriages impede the religious freedoms of others?
Discuss
Well separate but equal is a value system. Things don't have to be the same to be viewed equal in my eyes.
As for the different name. Yes I would say it is, they have the same rights as everyone else they are not just called the same. Examples of are heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual. The people are not less because I point out it is different.
Marriage as currently defined is both. I have problems with marriage as a legal institution, and, organized religion as whole but that is a different topic.
Same sex marriages do not impede the freedom of others unless you are forced to participate in them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
All rights not outlined in the constitution is given to the states.
It was ruled unconstitutional for a variety of reasons. It was a gross over step the federal government. Also it is important to remember states approve of marriages. Marriage rules are defined by the states and most of the rights attached to them by the states.
Marriage only existed at the state level as well. The definition of marriage is different in every single state.
You could they were the same thing. You even got to use the "married" tax status.
Well separate but equal is a value system. Things don't have to be the same to be viewed equal in my eyes.
As for the different name. Yes I would say it is, they have the same rights as everyone else they are not just called the same. Examples of are heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual. The people are not less because I point out it is different.
Marriage as currently defined is both. I have problems with marriage as a legal institution, and, organized religion as whole but that is a different topic.
Same sex marriages do not impede the freedom of others unless you are forced to participate in them.