Clinton Hails Supreme Court Overturning Law He Signed

[Old Dingus]

Originally Posted by jbravo_123

Why would it require special divorce lawyers to litigate gay divorce cases? Most of the issues would be pretty much the same as in heterosexual couples...

Exactly. If the courts (or laws) state that a gay marriage is a marriage, then the established law will apply. In Texas there will continue to be a presumption of community property and division accordingly. child custody and related rights will continue to be decided in the best interest of the child(ren).

The same lawyers will handle these divorces, although some will have reputations for various reasons that play better to the gay community.

There has already been a history of child possession cases when two (same sex)people have joint custody of a child.

Making gay marriage official will have an effect of further burdening the courts. Once the marriages are allowed, it will not take long to have them going bad to the point of people wanting to divorce.

I believe gay marriage will be allowed in all 50 states and the divorce proceedings will quickly follow - just like the heterosexuals.

Old Dingus

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by nwarounder

I still can't even figure out who was even for DOMA in the first place? Except for the bible thumpers I can't think of a single group, amazing how much power they (used) to have. Hopefully this is just the beginning of their downfall in government, and legalizing prostitution is next.

apparently, the Republican House and Senate passed it before it got to Clinton ... good call on the bible thumpers

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by Old Dingus

Beyond the "Bible Thumpers" views that marriage was sacred between a man and a woman, there were a number of "business" and "economic" considerations which clearly underlaid the official positions many took.

Expanding marriage means expanding benefits for married employees. This immediately transfers to a whole universe of people suddenly eligible for insurance as a spouse. From the Insurance company viewpoint (and I admit this argument is stereotyping) it opens up the possibilities of covering twice as many HIV cases and AIDS cases. Not good for business and profits.

Expanding marriage means affecting the laws of inheiritance. It maybe fair and appropriate to us, but it cuts income off from the states.

Expanding benefits means there will be surviving spouses to claim survivorship benefits from the deceased spouse's Social Security benefits. When we consider hundreds of thousands of beneficiaries living another 25 to 30 years or more, that is a sizable number.

Please note these are not my personal opinions, they are facts. It does help explain why the politics were in favor of the DOMA before they turned against it.

Old Dingus

Oh, I see. So they wanted to fund all these programs and benefits for straight couples, but they didn't want to fund it for the gay couples as well? Lol, pretty sure that is what the SCOTUS just said was discrimination and unconstitutional. Personally, I think the next challenge will be a single person suing the government for discrimination against single people. If I had the time I certainly would, can't see any reason why single people have to pay more in taxes than married people, gay or straight.

Or what about two guys right out of college marrying each other just for the tax deductions, then getting a divorce when they actually fall in love and want to really get married?

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by jbravo_123

Why would it require special divorce lawyers to litigate gay divorce cases? Most of the issues would be pretty much the same as in heterosexual couples...

He didn't say "require". Lawyers specialize in areas because they have expertise and they think they can charge higher rates.

Originally Posted by nwarounder

I still can't even figure out who was even for DOMA in the first place? Except for the bible thumpers I can't think of a single group, amazing how much power they (used) to have. Hopefully this is just the beginning of their downfall in government, and legalizing prostitution is next.

The board may have colored my opinion, but "women voters" more than "bible thumpers" are more to blame for why prostitution isn't legal and where I can put a strip club.

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Why do you think Obama "evolved" on gay marriage which he was absolutely against before 2012? Money, gay money for politics and his reelection campaign. I would hate to be so stupid and guillible as the liberal gays (and FuckZup).

So Bill's position "evolved" for the same 2016 reasons when she runs for a third term?

[jbravo_123]

Originally Posted by nwarounder

I still can't even figure out who was even for DOMA in the first place? Except for the bible thumpers I can't think of a single group, amazing how much power they (used) to have. Hopefully this is just the beginning of their downfall in government, and legalizing prostitution is next.

The US is still a very religious country and not only that, the religious right tends to be fairly organized and established.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

If children are involved there may be challenges to the legality of adoptions, etc.,

Sure, but I'm saying I don't see how it's very much different than with heterosexual couples, just like those who have adopted kids. Ie, I don't see why them being a homosexual couple would make the legality of an adoption any more in question than that of a heterosexual couple.

Originally Posted by nwarounder

Oh, I see. So they wanted to fund all these programs and benefits for straight couples, but they didn't want to fund it for the gay couples as well? Lol, pretty sure that is what the SCOTUS just said was discrimination and unconstitutional. Personally, I think the next challenge will be a single person suing the government for discrimination against single people. If I had the time I certainly would, can't see any reason why single people have to pay more in taxes than married people, gay or straight.

Or what about two guys right out of college marrying each other just for the tax deductions, then getting a divorce when they actually fall in love and want to really get married?

Heterosexual couples already do marry for financial benefits, why shouldn't two homosexuals get to do that too?

I don't have a problem either with single people getting the same tax rate as married couples. I think the amount of people who get married just for a lower tax rate is probably a very low percentage of the total.