You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
To even get the Supreme Court to hear this case is a major step forward.
Cristal Ball: The portion of the federal law which denies benefits to same sex married coupls will be struck down. It's the right thing to do.
6-3 in favor of repeal for both DOMA and Prop 8.
Kennedy and Roberts will side with history.
Govt should not be in the business of defining marriage - that is between individual people. Govt should be in the business of ensuring equality. Govt should do away with all marriage licenses - and call them all civil unions. Then how each union is defined is left upto the individuals.
My Crystal Ball says Gay Marriage and Pot both become legal across the country within 10 years.
Why is the Government defining marriage at all? What place dose the Government have to dictate what is and isn't a marriage? The answer is none. This issue should be left to individuals, Churches and communities. The fact this is even being debated shows how far the Government has over-reached and entered our personal lives.
'Why is the Government defining marriage at all?' I have noticed this question come up many times during legalization of same-sex marriage. Before 2004 (when Massachusetts became the 1st state to legalize) NO ONE mentioned this at all. All church-going heterosexuals seem just find with their state-issued marriage licenses and the benefits attached to them. If your against same-sex marriage just say that, don't sugar coat it by saying govt. should be out of marriage when the majority of religious folk have state-issued marriage licenses.
baw626 wrote "Why is the Government defining marriage at all?..." - Because marriage is a legal binding contract that the government regulates. As such they have rules as to who can enter into that contract. That's why minors can't get married without parental consent, because they can't legally enter into a legal contract as a minor. Likewise they can deny a license to siblings. There are some instances, such as incest, where a marriage could harm someone else (children produced of such a union). Other than those exceptions though, marriage should be simply be (as far as the government is concerned) a legal contract between consenting adults.
@baw626. Have you ever looked at your marriage license? It's issued by the county in which you were married, not by the church, individual, or community as you suggest. You can't go to a church and get divorced, because they have no legal authority to dissolve a legally documented contract between two consenting adults, which is what a marriage license is by definition. The government has been involved in marriage since the nation was founded, and to suggest that it should be left to "individuals, Churches and communities" is to ignore the fact that one can't be married without the legal contract as conferred by the government. Marriage is constantly being redefined, and will continue to be redefined as it has throughout human history.
freedomall - I completely stand for gay marriage and individuals freedom to choose. I've been saying for years that the government doesn't belong in marriage as it is. Why should people who choose to sign a license and co-habitate get benefits that those of us that don't choose that route don't get? But if the government is going to be involved in it then gays marriages should be included.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks