ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • United States Politics

The Scotus Decision on Same-Sex Marriages and 'Conservative' Reactions (Updated 2016)

Updated on February 10, 2018

A work in progress

Originally titled in 2013: Same Sex Marriages and the (Federal) Supreme Court

Will the Fed Supreme Court decide for the entire country, or defer back to individual state supreme courts? Is there really any justice for individuals or just corporations in the U.S.?

This truly remains a work in progress --

"it's not over until the fat lady sings...."

The original writing:

Will the Federal supreme court actually make one decision for the entire country, or defer back to individual state supreme courts? Once again passing the buck to someone else as a ploy to stall, and put off, making this decision? Is there really any justice for individuals in this country, or just for corporations, and the wealthy, who can buy their favorable decisions? We certainly have seen many instances where the courts rule in favor of the corporate entities over the individual.

((The first update: June 0f 2013))

As we all know by now the Supreme court did only half of a job, as is usual for them. God forbid they should make any decision that would make life easier for anyone but their benefactors - Corporate America.

They at least were on the right side of history in overturning proposition 8 in California making same sex marriages legal once again as it should be.

But by their limited ruling, they kept in place the rights of individual states to continue to discriminate at their pleasure against this minority.

And by their refusal to state that discrimination is illegal in every state, they have caused the uphill battle to continue for millions of American citizens to gain equality in this country. This need for a battle that should never have been allowed to continue. Hell, it should never have been allowed to even start.

Basic human rights are afforded to everyone under the constitution, without any specified exceptions based on any moral, legal or ethical arguments.

We have allow the ignorance of religious beliefs to cloud our judgments and continue their hateful discrimination against this minority. This is truly a shame on the American justice system.

Legal "double talk"

The following is a portion of an email sent to my niece today that spurred me to write this hub about this social injustice in this country:

"I listened to the arguments before the supreme court yesterday, by both sides, on the issue of whether same sex marriages should, or should not, be legal in the state of California. Those arguments in front of the court lasted 1hour and 20 minutes.

I have never before heard such double talk that meant absolutely nothing.

The feeling that these arguments leave you with is that the supreme court will NOT make any decision regarding this issue at all, but rather put it back in the hands of the California supreme court, and then each state will have to make their own decisions. What a bunch of bull crap.

The decisions that will effect billions of U.S. citizens as to whether they (we) will continue to be discriminated against will be rendered in June of this year.

There is certainly no reason to believe that this bigoted supreme court will actually find that states are illegally discriminating against a huge bloc of the U.S. population. I for one will be shocked beyond belief, if they do. I have little, if any, faith left in the intelligence, or the integrity' of our government in its present state."

And no faith at all in the biased federal supreme court. When bigots appoint bigots to serve on the supreme court what else can we expect of them?

Photos/video/links/and written text of the video are all Courtesy of AFER (American Foundation for Equal Rights)

The "rationale" based on ignorance

The U.S. Supreme Court has just released the audio, and written transcript, of today’s ( March 2013) historical arguments about whether the freedom to marry includes same sex couples or is privileged for only mixed couples. These innocuous arguments were the same made by the same mentality of people many years ago about interracial marriages, and how they would adversely effect the children produced in those marriages.

Those arguing to continue the ban on same sex marriages cite that marriage was originally intended for procreation purposes.

The court asked them why people who are infertile, and those over 55 years of age should not be banned from marriage as well, if this is their only arguments for banning same sex marriages. And how do they justify the government allowing prisoners to marry that are serving a life sentence?

Their preposterous response was that the reasons for allowing people over 55 and prisoners to marry is that in both instances the biological "possibility" to bear children still remains.

Their justification for allowing infertile couples to marry was never addressed in a logical manner except that they are not the same gender. In other words they are basing their arguments solely on they personal religious beliefs. And this, as an argument, should be discarded, as there is to be no religious influences on government laws regarding morality.

Throughout this article there are links provided to listen to the audio of the proceedings, and also links to other briefs and arguments filed from both sides' compellingly riveting and controversial issue if one would care to follow these proceedings through their Supreme Court processes.


The case is now fully submitted to the Federal Supreme Court for their "legal" consideration. The Justices will weigh all arguments in a private conference on Friday.

A final decision is expected by the end of June 2013. It will be interesting to see if this Court has the fortitude to rule in favor of equality throughout all states or simply shirk their responsibilities once again for the next generation to fix.

The consequential negative effects on the billions of gay Americans is of little interest, or of no concern, to the government, the courts, the heterosexual population, or the children involved in that discriminatory decision.

The only "winners" will once again be the religions bigots who seem to have an immense influence on the lives of those in control - no doubt in their fear of pissing off their gods who will condemn them to an eternity of hell fire and brimstone for defying the churches idiocy.

Another (final) conclusion ??

Will this controversy every reach a conclusion? Not as long as bigots remain bigots, haters remain haters, and religion is still in existence.

In June of 2015 the supreme court made their decision that same sex marriages would be legal and the "law of the land". One would think that this would have ended the controversy. But we soon found otherwise with the likes of the conservative movement condemning the supreme court's decision. The reason for this condemnation was of course that the supreme court did not find for the right of religions to continue their hate filled discriminatory practices. We saw how that turned out with their finding for Hobby Lobby's right to discriminate against people based on "religious" beliefs, and the dolt in Tennessee who refused to issue marriage licenses based on her ignorance of "religious intolerance". And now in January 2016 the bigots still cling to their misguided ignorance when the GOP presidential hopefuls condemn the supreme court and pledge to overturn their decision if they are elected to become the next President of the U.S.

So in view of these pledges this will undoubtedly not be the final conclusion after all. Only time will tell.

The drama continues in 2016

After the GOP presidential hopefuls have made their pledges to overturn the supreme court's ruling on same sex marriages, the individual GOP led states are beginning to weigh in on their own with attacks based on their own personal religious beliefs.

In January 2016 Alabama chief justice puts a halt to same sex marriages......(link provided to this article)

Of course this too will be overturned by the Fed SCOTUS - or will it? It is not over until the fat lady sings.......and i don't hear any fat lady singing today.

This country continues to wallow in religious ignorance and by virtue of their denial of basic human rights they are advocates of the terrorist group called ISIS that murders people for any reason they deem appropriate for their religious ignorant beliefs.

Is this the ultimate goal of U.S. conservatives as well?

We will just have to wait for that fat lady to start her final aria.

Let's all pray there will not be a need for another update on this matter ---

by: d.william 3/27/2013 - 2015 - 2016

Inequality in our laws. Discrimination at its worst.

© 2013 d.william


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • d.william profile image

      d.william 4 years ago from Somewhere in the south

      Thanks for your added comments. This is not my first encounter with sassysue. she is beyond reasoning with and there comes a point when i have to simply stop conversing with her. she tends to take over one's article and argues points that have nothing to do with its original intent. My last encounter with her ended with me telling her it would be more prudent if she stopped reading any of my articles, or at least refrain from making comments that have no relevance.

      It is difficult to expect anyone to be able to look at the global view of things, when they insist on nit picking to appear more knowledgeable than they really are.

    • d.william profile image

      d.william 4 years ago from Somewhere in the south

      Thanks for you input. although this should be common knowledge, there are still those who hold to their beliefs that this country was founded on Christianity and there is simply no changing their minds.

      Oddly enough North Carolina, now that it is totally controlled by the GOP, have introduce legislation that would make Christianity the Religion of the state of north Carolina.

      As several of the states have already done with banning abortion, this is simply a token gesture since they cannot override the federal laws regarding religion (as you explained above), and the fact that Wade vs Roe is a federal law. These individuals think they have the right to override federal law. When we have politicians who don't know what they are doing we can hardly fault their constituents from not knowing as well.

    • RavenBiker profile image

      RavenBiker 4 years ago from Pittsburgh, PA.

      d.William, good luck with SassySue, but, alas, you'd get further with a stone wall. In all sincerity, I don't not understand or comprehend as to what SassySue's discussion is about. All I do know is that your Hub is on the mark and your insistence in highlighting a divide between what we humans know as reason and illogic in your subsequent comments is well noted.

      Ultimately I believe that the law of the land will rise tot he occasion as it has in the past. We have the freedom of belief and expression as well as the freedom to deny, just to ourselves, both. More importantly, and to my chagrin, we need people like SassySue to reaffirm our rights and freedoms ---no matter how painful.

    • peoplepower73 profile image

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      There is Judeo Christian Law and there is Constitutional law. The two shall never meet. There is however reference to preventing a national religion in the first amendment. The Supreme Court is deliberating constitutional law, not religious law as to whether same sex couples should have the same legal rights afforded opposite sex couples.

      "The Establishment Clause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating,

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . .

      The Establishment Clause is immediately followed by the Free Exercise Clause, which states, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". These two clauses make up what are called the "Religion Clauses" of the First Amendment.

      The Establishment Clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause."

    • profile image

      SassySue1963 4 years ago

      How did I discriminate d.william? I said nothing negative about any group of people at all. Nor did I say that same sex marriage should not be allowed. Bit defensive are we? :) Further, didn't call you any name at all. Merely elaborated on your true agenda here, which is the eradication of religion. Nice to see you being honest about that at last though.

      Funny, really, that you jump to conclusions about people just because they happen to support the First Amendment right to freedom of religion. Because you see, I'm kind of on the fence on the whole religion thing. I don't practice any organized religion at all and was a child the last time I saw the inside of a church. I just happen to believe that equality is not reached by allowing discriminatory practices against another group of people.

      For the record, I don't hold any disdain for you because of your belief system. My disdain is solely based on your attitude that equality is for all, unless you're religious that is.

    • d.william profile image

      d.william 4 years ago from Somewhere in the south

      Your response is the absolute in hypocrisy. The last resort of those who cannot push their agendas onto others. When people who think they know everything are challenged they then turn to attack those who differ from their indoctrinated beliefs, by accusing them of exactly the same thing they themselves are doing. You do so, defending your beliefs, and it is OK because it is the defending of tradition whether that tradition is good, or bad for society in general, is irrelevant.

      And yes, i will go as far as to say that the total eradication of religion from our society would be more of a benefit than a bane.

      Discriminating in the name of religion does not make it somehow more palatable.

      I do agree that i have much disdain for what religions have done to our society in the form of negativity and control through fear, guilt and hatred - you are a prime example of that premise. but conversely you too have that same passionate disdain for anyone who disagrees with your belief system. So, lets be candid here - calling me names does not make your point of view more compelling - it actually diminishes it. You cannot call me discriminatory and then do the same thing as if your were defending your honor. Discrimination is what it is regardless of how you view your own.

    • profile image

      SassySue1963 4 years ago


      When we live in fear of wrathful gods, and base our 'logic' on supernatural fantasies we do an injustice to others who have already evolved into realism. This too, is discrimination, in its basest form.

      Methinks you've been reading too many fantasy novels fraught with wrathful gods. In a nutshell, therein lies the issue. You want respect, without any responsibility of offering respect to anyone who disagrees with your stance on religion. Equality is not the right to persecute another. You're a bit confused in that area. The very attitude you display here, dripping with disdain, is what will hold equality back.

      A lack of faith in a higher power certainly does not garner you any higher intelligence. That is the fantasy in which you dwell.

      I do thank you though for proving my point entirely. One which you tried to distance yourself from at first by claiming an archaic use of the term "cult". It is precisely your ilk that will hold equality back because it is your prevailing discriminatory attitudes towards any religion and subtle and cleverly phrased calls for its eradication, that drive the need to protect our First Amendment rights

      Congratulations d.william. You are part of the problem, not the solution.

    • d.william profile image

      d.william 4 years ago from Somewhere in the south

      Thanks for the lively debate guys. You are clearly coming from two different points of view. One from realism, and the other from fantasy.

      When we debate (argue) issues fraught with this kind of chasm between them, there can be no logical resolve.

      It seems, these days, that fantasy is fighting for control and losing at a rapid pace. We can only hope this trend continues.

      When we live in fear of wrathful gods, and base our 'logic' on supernatural fantasies we do an injustice to others who have already evolved into realism. This too, is discrimination, in its basest form.

      We need to let the religious have their fantasies, but those same 'religious' people must allow the more intelligent to evolve to a higher self awareness.

      Our destinies are in the future, not in the past. Mankind is slow at learning from their past mistakes when the past is incorrectly lauded as logic, or truth.

    • RavenBiker profile image

      RavenBiker 4 years ago from Pittsburgh, PA.

      It's a good thing I'm not fearful of heights, SassySue.

      I'd like to end this because clearly we are speaking to different issues. But allow me round out the talking points as clearly as I can.

      1. The Constitution's purpose is to protect rights. Currently the same-sex marriage issue is about due process. My estimation is that the Supreme Court will throw the issue of same-sex marriage back to the States.

      2. The conversation you are conjuring is moot. Religious institutions are Constitutionally protected. However, I am in favor of them being taxed if they actively campaign in political elections ---e.g. The Church of Later Day Saints gathered funding from many other institutions to campaign for Prop. 8. Prop 8 was a rare moment the Catholic Church cooperated with the Mormons. Moreover, what they say in the pulpit is protected and should not be challenged.

      3. Persecution is not relative. It is clear to me that you had not lived through the 1980's and watch everyone die (from AIDS) like I have. You are not seeing the financial and social rape going on in the LGBT community because if you did, you will be focused on not debating the marriage issue. What's belittling is the desire to engage in relativism.

      4. A corporation can choose who works for them and who they want as customers. We, you and I, can be outraged and protest and march against the injustice. But to what end? And why? IT DOESN"T MATTER. All we can do as individuals is to boycott them. The only good it does is that at least we can say we walk our talk.

      5. If the word "billions" is up you arse, then stick to that discussion. Don't bring in superfluous information.

      It's a good thing I'm not fearful of heights. But my horse is bigger than yours.

    • profile image

      SassySue1963 4 years ago

      RavensBiker, you should hold on tight to that horse you're riding, since it's sitting so high and all. :) No, I didn't mean those fighting for their rights actually, at least not as a group as you are trying to claim. See what happens when you jump on that high horse and start preaching? As stated earlier, in a discussion with someone, quite heterosexual actually, they claimed (and were quickly lauded) that any religious institution refusing to perform a same sex marriage should lose all rights to claim themselves a religious institution. In other words, if they don't believe as he (and his followers) then they are fair game for persecution and discrimination. I clearly, though less detailed, stated this in my first comment. Which you must have missed seeing while jumping so fast and quick to conclusions. :)

      Now, for comparisons that tick me off. Acting like this in any way, shape or form reaches the same level as that perpetrated against African Americans in this country. In a speech by then President Kennedy, the plight of African Americans in the 1960's is clearly defined, and any intelligent person can see the vast ocean of difference in the situations.

      ""The Negro baby born in America today, regardless of the section of the nation in which he is born, has about one-half as much chance of completing high school as a white baby born in the same place on the same day; one third as much chance of completing college; one third as much chance of becoming a professional man; twice as much chance of becoming unemployed; about one-seventh as much chance of earning $10,000 a year; a life expectancy which is seven years shorter; and the prospects of earning only half as much."

      None of this applies in this situation. None. The comparison belittles the real struggles and hardships faced by African Americans of that time period. That is disgusting.

      Again, speaking of the percentages, I stated clearly it was for fact checking since the Hub writer makes mention of the "billions" that are affected. I even state it was merely a fact check point. I guess those don't matter here? :)

    • RavenBiker profile image

      RavenBiker 4 years ago from Pittsburgh, PA.

      SassySue is, well...sassy!

      You are correct d.williams. She is splitting hairs. The hairs she splits is information that is clearly outside the scope of your Hub. Irrelevant.

      What I don't understand, is, and I quote from her, " It is about opening the door for those with less than honorable intentions to persecute anyone with a differing belief system." It is nearly said, excuse the pun, with a straight face.

      Her quote is insulting and prejudiced to the highest. Here's a persecution: How dare she believe, and say, a group of people fight for their rights is "less than honorable intent." Is this what you mean SasySue? My heart bleeds if it does.

      A reader of mine once said that "minorities are taking advantage of the spirit of the Constitution." I deleted it. It was disgusting. The Constitution is there for e-v-e-r-y-o-n-e to take "advantage of" when rights are publically voted.

      If the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's was voted on, African Americans would still be sitting on the back of the bus, drinking from separate (but equal!) water fountains and their votes in in elections taxed.

      SassySue ---get off of it.

    • d.william profile image

      d.william 4 years ago from Somewhere in the south

      There are several studies done on US and world population breakdowns and each are citing different percentages. We could spend hours debating which stats are more accurate, but that would serve no purpose.

      This hub was not about religion, per se, nor about the population numbers of each of the groups, and sub groups.

      But rather it is about equality, discrimination, and the law. So further debating other stats is sort of superfluous to the original intent of the article.

      Also, i suppose you might be right about me using terms that i would consider 'normal' without considering the words as used by the 'current popular culture' as you put it.

      Usually when people take offense to any of the words i use it is because they misunderstood my intended use of the word, and by their always assuming that anyone who disagrees with their principles is going to reply in a derogatory manner. I try not to play into those kinds of things, as they too, serve no purpose.

      Thank you for pointing this out to me, and in the future i will try to be more specific when using words that might be construed as derogatory. I tend to forget that many readers lack the capacity to fully understand the English language, so i try to over simplify at times, and when i cannot do so without compromising my intended thoughts, i specify which particular dictionary meaning a specific word is intended.

      Also, since i do not belong to, or believe in, any particular religion i am perceived as an opponent rather than received with any kind of respect. Religious rhetoric is a foreign language to me, and way beyond any kind of rationality, common sense or logic.

    • profile image

      SassySue1963 4 years ago

      No the percentage does not transfer from world to country if the figures you are reporting for the world are correct. Since the world population is irrelevant to the argument, here are the most current and conclusive US figures, with an error rate of plus/minus 1.

      "According to a Williams Institute review conducted in April 2011, approximately 3.5% of American adults identify themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual, while 0.3% are transgender—which would correspond to approximately 11.7 million Americans as of the 2010 Census."

      I do like when people claim an archaic definition when they use a term considered derogatory among current popular culture. It's funny really.

      "The word cult in current popular usage is a pejorative term for a new religious movement or other group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre by the larger society.[1]

      Usage of the word has been controversial. One reason is that the word "cult" (as used in the pejorative sense) is considered a subjective term, used as an ad hominem attack against groups with simply differing doctrines or practices, and without a clear or consistent definition.[2]"

      You seem quite intelligent enough to know that already though, but choose your rock to hide behind, so to speak.

      You talk nice circles, without really addressing any issue that was put before you in my comments. It is not about a religious basis at all. It is about opening the door for those with less than honorable intentions to persecute anyone with a differing belief system.

    • d.william profile image

      d.william 4 years ago from Somewhere in the south

      Firstly, the word cult (or cultus) is not derogatory. It is an all encompassing word meaning: "a system of religious beliefs and ritual". Nothing more, nothing less. Therefore it includes any system of religious worship, ceremony, rite, mode of worship, ceremonial, and/or ritual.

      Religions are cults in all respects - without any disrespect to any individual 'religious entity'. So, whatever 'other' names religions are known by, they are all the same status.

      It always baffles me when words are mistakenly assigned one definition from among many, and classified as good or bad.

      A cult by any other name is still a cult. If we can't discern between the meanings of any given word then how can we judge another person for who and what they are?

      The premise behind the Prop 8 in California is such an example. The constitution affords all citizens equal rights that cannot be taken away by a ''majority'' vote. So, Prop 8 must logically, and legally, be overturned.

      The same goes for DOMA. "Marriage" equality is one of those inalienable rights. The government cannot take a right away from any population based on percentages, or religious moral grounds.

      And FYI the census is the same whether national, or global. It is estimated that there are a minimum of 6-8% of the (U.S.) population born gay - probably higher due to non-disclosure by those who fear for their jobs and their very lives if they disclose their true birth right. I have no idea what percentage of the gay population is 'married', but even if you are right, and if it was only 1% of the population the premise is still the same. Our constitution affords the same inalienable rights for every single citizen - without differentiations.

      There is NO valid argument that can be justified by ANY religious dogma. And no laws of the land should EVER be based on religious beliefs.

      I am not denying any 'religious entity' the right to exist, but i am denying (opposing) their belief systems be imposed on all people the same as if it was something of a universal nature. As is the act of murder, for one example. These are not the same nor should they be treated as such. Murder is a crime against humanity. Morality is a self imposed limitation by ''religious entities" , to any degree, and only relevant to the "religious entity" (or cult) that one belongs to by virtue of their indoctrination.

      I do not deny anyone the right to their own opinions as long as those opinions are based on common sense, logic and the law. As i state often, there is no validity in having a discussion in which religion is the basis for anything.

    • profile image

      SassySue1963 4 years ago


      In the instance of Chick-Fil-A, an executive made a comment about his personal beliefs, the Lesbian&Gay community then issued a boycott. Chick-Fil-A, as an institution in and of itself, never made any statement that a certain type of people were not welcome to do business there nor be employed there. Starbucks, on the other hand, stated that "those against same sex marriage are not welcome there". Fairly large difference there.

      No, you've misinterpreted the story because you choose to, or you just take at face value what the media feeds you. The money is hers, period. The only issue at hand is whether or not the owed debt of back taxes are paid from that inheritance. That is only one case though. The other is about Prop 8. Let's take a look at Prop 8, because what is at stake is not equality, but the right of the people in a democracy to exercise their right to vote on measures put forth from the government. Better be careful what you wish for in that regard.

      @d.william It is a well written Hub and your thoughts are appreciated and taken to heart. I just think that articles should be written to include all points of view and not media driven. Sorry to say, the media cannot be trusted to deliver honest and factual news anymore from any side. It is driven by ratings and stirring the pot to garner those ratings.

      Regarding the make-up of the population, this is a matter of country and not the world. Contrary to the belief held by some, the US does not make laws for the world so your statement of percentage of the World is irrelevant to the topic at hand. In the US, same sex couples comprise only 3-4% of the population.

      Your reference to religion as a cult (I do believe we've been here before) speaks volumes in regard to your own tolerance of any view that differs from your own. It is that type of hypocrisy of which I was referencing.

      As for marriage, civil union, regardless, it is a marriage. I only stated that the definition need not be legally redefined in order to obtain equal rights under marriage. There is only one thing to be gained by such, and that is the ability to persecute those who hold a different view based on religious beliefs. I don't see how it would be separate either. It would still be a Marriage certificate, like any other couple would apply for. There are plenty of churches around that perform same sex marriages, so even the religious ceremony would be the same. Merely no re-defining of the term.

    • d.william profile image

      d.william 4 years ago from Somewhere in the south

      I just want to add on your comment regarding dropping the term "marriage" in favor of civil unions. That does nothing to solve the problem of discrimination. This issue will not be resolved until there is the same "equality" for everyone without exceptions that make the minority continue to have second class citizenry.

    • d.william profile image

      d.william 4 years ago from Somewhere in the south

      thanks for your added input. your points are valid and appreciated.

    • d.william profile image

      d.william 4 years ago from Somewhere in the south

      thanks for reading and leaving your comments. While there might be a point or two to be made by each side of this issue, those points are irrelevant when it comes to equality, and nothing more than opinions.

      Religion has no relevance to anyone but those who belong to what ever cult they belong to. Religion does not, ever did, and hopefully never will, have any significant say in matters of state.

      the arguments for 'assigning' a different name is still implying (stating really) that we have different classes in our citizenry that deserve either more or less equality than others do.

      It is a matter of pride that all people demand equality in all aspects of their lives.

      The matter of DOMA being considered before the supreme court is not one of individual greed - again, it is one of equality. Married people ALL deserve the same rights afforded by the law. No exceptions here.

      Businesses that discriminate in either direction deserve to be called out by the public. When the blacks were excluded from restaurants and other public places the people were outraged when the government deemed this unconstitutional. And so it goes for the gay community.

      Your comments about the gay thing being only 4% of the population is flawed on two levels. 1. the gay population is somewhere between 6 - 8 % of the worlds population.

      Discrimination must not be determined by the number of people effected. Even if there is only one person being discriminated against when it comes to denying our god given equal rights, that is one too many.

      Check out the census site for clarification, or my hub: World/U.S. Census Speaks for Itself. A Change is Gonna Come - Like it or Not. (Equal Rights for Everyone)

      Marriage is not a religious institution, it is a legally binding contract between two people. It does not matter whether that marriage is done in a church, or a justice of peace, the contract is still binding. The church may exclude same sex marriages if they so desire, but the church cannot change the laws set down by government.

    • RavenBiker profile image

      RavenBiker 4 years ago from Pittsburgh, PA.


      1. If Starbucks can enforce a "personal" opinion, why can't Chick-Fill-a? I speak from personal experience. Do you? A company can risk alienating customers but employees? ---different matter altogether.

      2. You've misinterpreted the story. Inheritance is absolutely the issue. And a Will can be and sometimes contested at the disadvantage of the surviving spouse. Another personal experience. This woman is trying to take the same rights reserved for ONLY opposite-sex couples; the same tax calisthenics opposite-sex couples have been enjoying for years. Greed, my friend, is the subtext to all taxes.

      3. Correct, semantics. You agree to make marriage licenses be called "civil union" licenses ---for everyone. What you appear to have issue with is equal rights being practiced by individuals who don't legally have legal marriage. I'm just calling a spade a spade.

    • profile image

      SassySue1963 4 years ago

      Hi RavenBiker,

      1. Chick-Fil-A never treated any employee differently. An executive of their company made a statement regarding his PERSONAL opinion on same sex marriage. There was never any discriminatory practices going on regarding either employees or customers. Nor was there a call for any, unlike Starbucks.

      2. No the inheritance is not the issue. She gets that money either way because it was left to her in a will. What she wants, is the right to claim injured spouse so none of the owed back taxes are paid. Greed.

      3. Semantics, really. Heterosexual couples have civil unions all the time. They still file married tax returns, but I'm fine with dropping the married term if it makes anyone feel better.

    • RavenBiker profile image

      RavenBiker 4 years ago from Pittsburgh, PA.


      1. That's Starbucks corporate decision much like Chick-Fill-a treating their LGBT employees differently.

      2. Taking from a spouse after the spouse is deceased is not "greed." It's something married people do all the time. In fact, on this point, the desire for LGBT people wanting to be married hinges on this and similar tenants of marriage.

      3. The term marriage is used by the state as in "Marriage License" and as in filing taxes as "Married Filing Jointly" and "Married Filing Separately." Petition the state to use the term "civil union" instead and drop the "marriage" word. Further, separate does not mean equal.

    • profile image

      SassySue1963 4 years ago

      This is an issue that divides me into myself really. I have no issue on a personal level with same sex marriage. What becomes problematic for me is the attitude I've seen from some very dear friends of mine that suddenly discrimination against those with an issue based on religious grounds is now A-OK.

      Case in point: Starbucks. They made a statement that anyone who was against same sex marriage need not frequent their business. "If you are against same sex marriage, we don't want your business." If a business were to make such a statement in reverse, imagine the outcry! But, that one is to be lauded. Hmmm.

      Also, let's be clear, while one case is indeed about the Prop 8 in California, one is about nothing more than the greed of one individual. Left by a will an inheritance from her significant other, she wants to be able to claim "injured spouse" with the IRS in order to avoid the back taxes they owed being taken out of that inheritance. Money, not any higher cause there. Greed. Yet, she is heralded as some champion.

      There is no reason to "redefine" marriage. Allowing civil unions of same sex couples would suffice to grant all rights under marriage. Redefining marriage opens up the door to persecution due to religious beliefs. A very slippery slope. When I brought this up, someone told me that would not be the case but they believed that any church that refused to perform a same sex marriage should lose their tax exempt status and any rights that goes along with a religious institution. Um...hello? That IS persecution based on religious beliefs. It's a very slippery slope.

      Now, to address one thing....let's talk about the "billions of citizens". Same sex couples make up 4% of the entire American population. Just a fact check item really.

    • d.william profile image

      d.william 4 years ago from Somewhere in the south

      What you say is probably the way it should be, but certainly not the reality of how it is. Public opinion was never in favor of the Supreme Court ruling that corporations be the same status as individuals - but with the the enormous difference of their being excluded from paying their fair share of taxes, given loopholes, and kickbacks.

      Individuals would be sent to prison for life for doing any part of what the corporate giants do every single day.

      They will never make those decisions that effect the entire nation. They will save face by chastising the states, and the congress for not doing their job before passing this off to them. Then they will kick these decisions back to the individual states and congress who will in turn screw them up like they have already done, and do so well. Politicians have not yet learned how to legislate anything that is not based on their religious convictions. They want to mandate morality, take over the women's right of choice, and corral the gay communities into some hidden corner to be ignored and treated like second class citizens.

      No, the supreme court will never be for the people who are most affected by this discrimination

    • profile image

      Sooner28 4 years ago

      If they rule against marriage equality, they will further delegitimize themselves as an institution. The Supreme Court cannot rule anything they desire; despite what they say, they must take public opinion into consideration. If they uphold bigotry, I think some states, and maybe even the federal government, will ignore them.

    • d.william profile image

      d.william 4 years ago from Somewhere in the south

      Thanks for reading and leaving a comment. I hope you are right, but i am not very optimistic when it comes to the supreme court. I keep looking at their bad decision to give corporations the same status as individuals, and they view corporate america as way more important than the rights of this 'abhorrent' minority.

      I am not usually wrong in my predictions, but in this case i really hope that i am.

    • profile image

      Sooner28 4 years ago

      I hope they make the right decisions. It's really hard to tell with this bunch. No one thought they would uphold the Affordable Care Act, but they did! It may be a narrow decision, but I think they will rule in favor of equality.

    • d.william profile image

      d.william 4 years ago from Somewhere in the south

      Thanks for you thoughtful comments. You have hit upon points that i missed in my reply to Sanxuary. Everything is so complicated in life today, that when we start fighting and discriminating against other people, it saddens me that it is because of the narrow mindedness we were brought up in. Things must change in this country, and in this world, and people must accept that every other person is as important as we are, and have the same rights to be here without undue burdens placed on us by others who think they are better than someone else.

      We should never be in this position to "discuss" whether gay people have the same rights in life as other "normal" people. That is an atrocity against our brothers and sisters. Every one born to this planet is "normal" as a birth right - we are born to be what we are meant to be.

    • d.william profile image

      d.william 4 years ago from Somewhere in the south


      Thank you for reading and taking time to leave your thoughtful comments.

      Things should never be looked at in terms of black and white (extreme contrasts).

      When we speak of believers versus non believers, this is actually a misnomer, or an improper designation of who people are, and what their beliefs are.

      The first thing we should understand is that God is not any religion. So to say that people who oppose the church's stance on anything, is to be interpreted as condemning god can not be farther from the truth.

      All religions fall short in being representative of God in the true nature of things. For each religion sees themselves as the ultimate authority on god's intentions for humanity, which cannot be known by anyone on this plane of existence.

      With that said, the majority of (non church going) people are actually believers in a higher power, and also that religions do not speak for God with full authority, other than the authority they have imparted upon themselves for various reasons.

      When we look at the matter of same sex marriages for instance, this is not a matter of what is right, or wrong, in the eyes of God, but rather it is nothing more than a discriminatory decision, by any point of view, to single out any minority that does not conform to any organized religious belief systems.

      We cannot mandate morality via government edict, as morality is really a fluid concept. If you were taught that same sex love is a sin, this will discolor your views about it in an impossible manner.

      God (the creators of all that is) does not make mistakes. For Instance, when the world's population is expanding exponentially at an alarming rate, would it not be prudent for the creator to slow down that destructive force by simply altering a gene or two to create a more androgynous species of humans? Or would we expect the creator to simply smite everyone who is of no importance on this planet?

      You are correct when you say we cannot have it both ways. There is no right and wrong, good or evil, in biological genetic shifting to save the human race from overpopulation that can only cause self annihilation.

      You say you do not expect me to understand the separation of living along earthly principals and spirituals - but that is you assuming that what you were taught to believe is the only truth. That is the danger of brainwashing children into any religious cult - it closes the mind to reality, common sense, logical, and rationalization. Free will is not a thing to fear, it is a gift from the creators, to allow minds to open, explore, expand and grow in knowledge, both spiritually and esoterically.

      So, when equality is meant for everyone, and any minority denied that equality demands it, it is far from being an attack on God - but it is an attack on injustices perpetuated by mankind in its infinite religiously taught ignorance.

      The world would be a much better and peaceful planet if religions were banned and children were actually taught love, acceptance, tolerance for diversity, and yes even the importance of acknowledging spirituality as a core component of the human make up. Instead they are brainwashed with silly fairytale stories, fear of a God that no one has any empirical proof of existing, and taught to ignore logic and reality or perish in hell fire forever. And you tell me that those who oppose religions are the ones in error?

    • lovemychris profile image

      Cape Wind Girl 4 years ago from Cape Cod, USA


      No one is forcing you to accept gay marriage in your beliefs...but hoping that the SC will accept them as equals under the law.

      Religion belongs in church.

      Civil rights belong to everybody.

      I mean, just think about it: Married couples have 1,100 statutes in their favor--And if they have kids, it's even more.

      Gay couples have to pay tax as singles: they pay more taxes for less rights!

      It's the same with a lot of issues today: The church is not the arbiter for all of America!

      Keep church in church.....they are delving into all kinds of things where they don't belong, IMO.

      The fact that churches don't pay taxes is enough to say: keep your policies out of the public arena.

      Or pay up and have a seat.

    • profile image

      Sanxuary 4 years ago

      I am all about free will but I believe that it must go both ways. In every discussion I have never been a part of, in the so called support of gay marriage, is the endless attack on those who follow a Biblical based faith. They condemn God and anyone who believes regardless of their position on free will. In so called purgatory we all get a choice and with or with out condemnation the rights to live a life based on free principals seems threatened. I can only see an endless attack on Faiths that refuse to perform gay marriage. A forced position of hypocrisy upon those who desire to protect their sanctuary in life. I would not come to this conclusion if it was not for the endless attacks on believers and God in this argument. I do not actively participate in any way in this argument and I do not attack the individual rights of others. Yet the attacks on those who believe in God occur daily on television and I can clearly see what comes next. This is not an argument where I have any desire to prevent the free will of others but wonder at what point will I have no choice but to fight for my own free will. Their are radicals on all sides but we are at a nexus in determining what the rights to personal sanctuary our. I do not care what your personal journey is in life and I have no real purpose in understanding a same sex life style. With that note, I do not expect you to understand the separation of living along Earthly principals and Spiritual principals. The question for every believer based on the constant attacks on all institutions that believe in God is. Why should we have no reason to not fear where this may be going?

    • d.william profile image

      d.william 4 years ago from Somewhere in the south

      I just wanted to add that if H.P. deleted your comments, then they must have contained some pretty nasty and negative things.

    • d.william profile image

      d.william 4 years ago from Somewhere in the south

      Thanks for your comments. Somehow my original response to them got deleted when i clicked the "post comment" button, so i will try to reconstruct my reply here.

      "marriage" is nothing more than a contract between two people binding them together with certain legal obligations.

      It has nothing to do with religion. Somehow religion has taken over this "contract" as if it was their personal invention by trying to make it a contract between two people and god - when in fact it is not, except in the eyes of the churches who perform these ceremonies.

      If one sees it as a contract between a couple and their god, then atheists should not be allowed to marry either. By trying to make another type of "union" contract between same sex couples, this implies that the love and commitment between these people is of lesser value than other types of unions.

      Our country was founded on equal rights for all citizens. There can be no exceptions based on bias. The majority may rule, as a general concept, but the original wording of the bill of rights was to make sure that the "majority" does not have the right to impose discrimination on, or take away the inalienable rights of, any person for any reason.

      We cannot re-write the constitution based on religious beliefs, and this is the reason there is to be that separation of state and religion. Religions cannot trump the laws of equality based on their narrow minded ignorance. So there is no logical reason why same sex marriages should not be as legal and binding as any mixed marriage.

    • d.william profile image

      d.william 4 years ago from Somewhere in the south

      F.Y.I. I just noticed the comment under your comment box above that says: COMMENT HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE USER.

      I did not delete your comments. If you deleted your own comments, that is my loss, as any and all comments are never deleted from my hubs, and add to the integrity, and the value, of what i write.

      The only time i have ever NOT allowed a comment to stand intact, is when it was rude, crude, threatening, or obscene - and even at that i will always leave a comment telling the commentor why their comments are not visible.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Cape Wind Girl 4 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      You are welcome d! I forget what they were, but I know I agree with you! And your niece's e-mail.

    • d.william profile image

      d.william 4 years ago from Somewhere in the south

      Thanks for your comments.

      Somehow H.P. labelled your comments as SPAM? This is the first time i have ever seen this happen.

      It certainly is not spam, as it is absolutely correct it its assertions.

      Again, thanks for taking the time to read and leave your comments.

    • d.william profile image

      d.william 4 years ago from Somewhere in the south

      Thanks for reading and leaving your comments. I am not quite sure what you mean by "So what?'

      The critical mass has already invoked its approval on many matters, but it is not the critical mass who passes laws now, is it?

      Politicians promise us the moon to get elected and then they sell themselves to the highest bidders. And they say "prostitution" is still against the law? That is only if you are not a politician.

      Laws were made to protect every single citizen of this country. There should NEVER be any single instance when the majority rules against equality for everyone, and certainly not based on religious ignorance, nor when that majority deliberately sets out to discriminate against any group of people who are decent and law abiding citizens that contribute, more often than not, more to society than the majority does.

    • d.william profile image

      d.william 4 years ago from Somewhere in the south

      thank you so much for your comments as well. I will be shocked if the supreme court EVER makes any decisions that affect the American people that does not also benefit corporate America (such as the affordable health care bill). By their finding that this bill is in fact constitutional, they assured the huge insurance companies billions of added revenues by forcing everyone to have some kind of health insurance coverage. Although this decision was the correct one for the people who actually pay for their own health insurance, it still benefits the insurance companies more. The fact that the GOP railed against this bill was only because they did not enact this instead so they could have gotten the "pat on the back" from corporate america whom they actually represent. I will be writing a hub on DOMA as well shortly.

    • RavenBiker profile image

      RavenBiker 4 years ago from Pittsburgh, PA.

      The Supreme Court may deter. So what? The critical mass need to invoke change is happening.

      Good summary! Voted up!

    • d.william profile image

      d.william 4 years ago from Somewhere in the south

      This supreme court will never have the courage to make a decision that does not favor the corporate or religious majorities in this country. I suspect, by their line of questioning during the arguments before them a couple of days ago, that they will undoubtedly push this decision making, on this subject, to a future date so the discrimination can continue to be a campaigning issue for the next election.

      These people have little, or no concern, for any minority, or even for the correct interpretation of the laws that state all men are created equal under the law.

      We have little hope of having equality for everyone in the near future when those in power are small minded people, inbred with unfounded religious biases themselves.

    • d.william profile image

      d.william 4 years ago from Somewhere in the south

      Thank you so much for reading and sharing your comments here. It has always amazed me to find in this 'modern' world that discrimination is still as rampant as ever, and sanctioned by a government that touts "equality for everyone". I guess, as with any sales pitch, there is always some fine print with exceptions to those claims.

      I just can't seem to find them written down anywhere except as interpreted by the 'religious' sectors' inbred vehemence. Most same sex partnerships last far beyond the majority of 'mixed' marriages - and so the argument for maintaining the "sanctity" of marriage is just another line of bull crap by the judgmentalists.

    • cat on a soapbox profile image

      Catherine Tally 4 years ago from Los Angeles

      If the term"marriage" was replaced with another term that applied to ALL couples who are legally wed, it might make the issue more amenable. For many, it's not an objection to gays having equal rights to partnerships with all the same benefits as marriage, it's taking the tradition of "marriage"with a bride and groom and trying to make it apply to 2 man or 2 woman unions. I'm frankly confused on the etiquette of introductions and titles, etc. , and I know I'm not alone!

    • suzettenaples profile image

      Suzette Walker 4 years ago from Taos, NM

      I just don't think the Supreme Court wants to touch these cases or make a real decision on these. I think they will defer them back to the states. They will make the least decision they can if they even rule on them. There is talk that because President Obama has told the Justice Department NOT to support DOMA, that there is no real controversy here. That's fine as long as we have Democratic presidents. But, what if we have a Republican president some day - they may full well have thee justice department back DOMA. It is the same old, same old. We can't seem to make a decision in this country.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Cape Wind Girl 4 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

      1,100 statues favoring married people of same sex. Add kids, and whammo! Imagine being together as a couple, and each one having to pay taxes as single?

      They pay more in taxes for less rights!

      Meanwhile, the churches advocating against equality pay no taxes at all!

      And I agree w that e-mail to your niece....double talk that meant nothing. Empty words.

      Trying to justify Injustice always sounds so trite.

    • thebiologyofleah profile image

      Leah Kennedy-Jangraw 4 years ago from Massachusetts

      Thank you for the summary of the situation although unfortunately I agree with you that what most likely will happen is nothing, no resolution of this issue and it will be pushed back onto California's plate. At the very least I think this debate is showing how much support the gay community has from other individuals, regardless of their own sexuality, and there is always hope that the Courts will make the right decision and allow equality in marriage.

    • peoplepower73 profile image

      Mike Russo 4 years ago from Placentia California

      I have a 45 year old son who came out last August. He and his partner couldn't be happier and so are my wife and I. It has changed his demeanor completely. He is much more relaxed and is not hiding behind any facade.

      My wife worked for an estate attorney who did trusts. She told me the story of a couple who had been together for many years. One partner was in the hospital for a terminal condition. The hospital would not allow the partner to visit the partner in the ICU because she was not next of kin. They said she had no legal right. When she passed away, she was not able to inherit any of her partner's property and assets. It all went to the next of kin, even though there was a trust established. She could have inherited it however, if she could come up with the funds to pay the estate tax, which was several thousands dollars. If they were a legally married couple, it would have been zero. As a result, she was left with nothing.

      It's not about the sanctity of marriage. It's about legal civil rights of people who live together and should be given the same legal rights as married couples. If they have children, it gives the children their legitimate rights as well. When 50% of marriage ends in divorce, who is to say having same sex parents is better or worse than heterosexual parents.

      Thank you for writing this hub. It has given me a platform to express my feelings on this issue. Voting up, Useful, and Sharing.