Prop 8 and the Supreme Court
Well, I was browsing +The New York Times online this (early) morning and I saw this article. The interesting part was buried about halfway through:
Well, I was browsing +The New York Times online this (early) morning and I saw this article. The interesting part was buried about halfway through:
Many of the questions directed to Charles J. Cooper, a lawyer for opponents of same-sex marriage, concerned whether there was any good reason to exclude same-sex couples from the institution.
Mr. Cooper counseled caution. “It is an agonizingly difficult, for many people, political question,” he said. “We would submit to you that that question is properly decided by the people themselves.”
Justice Elena Kagan asked him how letting gay couples marry harmed traditional marriages. “How does this cause and effect work?” she asked.
Mr. Cooper responded that “it will refocus the purpose of marriage and the definition of marriage away from the raising of children and to the emotional needs and desires of adults, of adult couples.” The key to marriage, he said, is procreation.
That did not seem to satisfy several of the justices.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer asked Mr. Cooper about sterile opposite-sex couples. “There are lots of people who get married who can’t have children,” he said.
Justice Kagan asked whether the government could ban a man and a woman who are over 55 from marrying because they would not be able to have children. Mr. Cooper said the court could not constitutionally ban such marriages, but he said that was no reason to alter traditional definitions.
Hmmmm...... Sounds like a few points that I've made. I would like to point out, though, that menopause does not universally occur at 55. Sometimes, it's earlier or later. But, if you can't constitutionally ban those marriages because of an inability to procreate.... Then why can you ban same-gender marriages for the same reason? "Tradition," would probably be the reply. Even though it shouldn't be.
The Supreme Court is cited as debating whether or not this is 'the time' to have this case come up? If there was no controversy on the topic, there would be no need for a case. Try again, please. We're not buying that one.
They're also arguing about who has the right to bring this case to them? Okay, I can see that. A court case should only be brought by those who have been injured. If you stub your toe on my coffee table, my next door neighbor can't file charges. So, the Prop 8 case may just be dismissed by the Court.
DOMA and the Supreme Court
The DOMA case is coming up soon. Today, actually. I have already made my arguments clear on this one, and I stand by it. The Federal government has no business telling us who can marry or what gender the spouse should be. There is some merit in the argument that the states should decide that.... Except that the states should not have the right to tell us that we can or cannot perform religious rites due to gender.
I've said it before: It's called Separation of Church and State.
As for the Church arguing against it, Christians are still split on the idea. An article on +USA TODAY's website (dated in 2010), showed that church committees in the Presbyterian Church were all for allowing blessing of same-sex unions and the ordination of LGBT priests. They have recently rejected a proposal supporting same-sex marriage by a change in language in the church charter. Though there is a potential for a two-year study being discussed, according to +The Christian Science Monitor.
Moving on, some companies - about 278 of them - are in agreement that DOMA is hurting their bottom line. According to this article on +NPR's site, it seems that the book juggling needed to handle same-sex couples, and the associated taxes, is increasing administration fees and opening them up to more potential fines. These employers, (including Citigroup, Starbucks and even the City of Boston), have filed a brief with the Court.
Why is it complicated? First, these marriages/unions/(insert other synonym here) are recognized at the state level in some states, but not at the federal level. So, your state income taxes would be at the married percentage and your federal at the higher single percentage. And, that doesn't even touch on the taxes and fees associated with insurance and other benefits.
Try figuring that out in QuickBooks Pro! It used to be that having multiple sets of accounting books was an indicator of malfeasance. Now, it's just a matter of doing business in nine specific states. I would have to agree that it's placing an unfair burden on the employers and, in the case of paying taxes, the employees. I imagine that tax preparation companies are seeing higher profits, though, as our citizens try to figure out what to fill in and where.
Non-Binary Genders
On a semi-related note, there is a petition on +The White House website asking for recognition of 'non-binary' genders. This is not a trail-blazing concept. Australia, New Zealand and the UK already recognize alternative gender identities. The petition ends April 2nd and is at over 25,500 signatures. It needs 100,000 to reach the President. If you want to allow for additional options (other than 'male' and 'female') on official forms, then get over there and sign it.
Comments
Post a Comment