Gender Equality in Marriage Contracts: Geographical Disparities

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) (/ˈoʊbərɡəfɛl/ OH-bər-gə-fel), is a landmark civil rights case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all fifty states to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities.[2][3]

Pretty sure supreme court couldn't give two s**ts about winning more respect and dignity. It was about what is RIGHT.

 

And some Iike to demean the “bitter clingers” among us.

 

I merely support equality, especially when others enjoying the same rights that I do in no way impairs mine.

Apparently, that is not the case in Islamic theocracies and former Soviet Bloc nations.

 

Bingo!!!

 

Sexual orientation as an inherent trait of the individual is purely a human invention. Animals engage in homosexual behavior and then return to breeding with the opposite sex.

 

It was supposed to be about what is Constitutional but you are correct in that they instead determined what in their opinion was the "right" policy. Supplanting the role of the legislatures.

 

????No, you support INEQUALITY by design. Discrimination between the married and unmarried. Discrimination between those allowed to marry and those prohibited from marrying.

 

"Right" as in constitutionally correct. Man....you're really struggling with all this, eh?

 

Nope, you were right the first time.

 

I was right both times. You were just to dense to understand the first time.

 

Kennedys reasoning in Obergefell had nothing to do with the constitution and is instead based upon "Changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations."

 

Hahahaha...nice cherry picking. The fact of the matter it was unconstitutional to not allow gays to marry. It baffles me why you are bothered by this. Gays marrying affects you not one bit.

 

I am opposed to purposeful discrimination in order to win more "respect and dignity" for homosexuals. Not a proper role of government.

 

If you're truly opposed to discrimination then you should be in favor of gays finally being allowed to legally marry just as hetro couples have been for centuries.

 

I believe its stupid to make the parallel between eastern eu and islamic world regarding treatment of women or Gays. Its worlds apart...

I ve seen grown men with their ears picked by a granny if they misbehave, show me that in any islamic country.

Regarding, same sex merriage, i dont agree and I voted agaisnt it in the romanian referendum. They were planning to introduce LGBT classes in schools and I have kids.

I donț have any problem with same sex 'mariages' but make it different from a merriage certificate..with different rules like no option for an adoption.

We, over here, openly discriminate some minorities like gypsis. But se like others like the saxon community. We know better, call us backward and uncivilized, we dont care about your PC shiit, just dont export it here, thanks

 

The contrast between Western democracies and Islamic theocracies (and former Soviet Bloc nations) in public attitudes regarding gender equality in marriage contracts is stark.

Are there other differences? Of course.

 

I would instead be in favor allowing any two consenting adults to marry as opposed to special rules for gays because they are so special

 

My lord...again....there are no special rules for gays. Gays were the only group of people being excluded from legally marrying. Excluded...as in prevented...as in not allowed. The ruling simply stopped states from excluding the only group of people from legally marrying. Which means now that any two consenting adults can in fact get married. You should be happy about this.

 

Actually no law ever excluded gays from marriage. Sexual orientation of the parties is of no concern to the marriage laws. In contrast to closely related couples where the prohibition is spelled out in the law of 50 states. Rhode Island even had to enact new laws when they made same sex marriage available to gays. Their previous law only prohibited closely related opposite sex couples from marrying so they had to enact new laws to exclude closely related couples of the same sex. All while Rhode Island doesn't even prohibit incestuous sexual relations.

 

So you're saying gay couples could always LEGALLY marry in every state in the US and receive the same benefits as married hetero couples???

 

Weve been over this 100 times, yes they could legally marry, no they didn't get benefits. Can you grasp any better the 101st time?

 

No, the could NOT legally marry...as they were NOT recognized as equal by the law. Hence the landmark civil rights case Obergefell v. Hodges.

 

Again, I prefer the dictionary definition of legal and don't abide by your definition.

 

I prefer the definition of constitutional. Of which the courts abide by.