9th Circus Court to rule on Calif Prop 8, changing defn of marriage to include same-sex

[dogtowner]

So, now you are admitting that your "moral" concern to "save the holly institution of marriage" is nothing more than greed and money related concerns?

Nice step in the direction of honesty at least!

However, this is a moot point! If a man is married toa man, obviously his spouse has the rightto his Survivor SSA! but then again, he wouldn't have a female spouse that would be collecting it, right?
so, what is the difference WHO receives the survivor benefit?

ther isactually more problem with that if a man has been marriedand divorced three times, after marriages that have lasted over ten years each!

Once again, the sex of the surviving spouse has nothing to do with this!

And, with the strong decrease in marriage of any kind over tha last 20 years, it seems that this trend would leave less survivors spouses anyway, which probably was not expected in the long term predictions and actuary charts of 30 years ago.

Your point is moot.

the difference is that all those scenarios ave been built into the formula.
if there is any savings based on changing trends the program can certainly use it given all the other vote buying that have rendered it bankrupt.

 

[dogtowner]

Yeah, this just seems like more lame excuses to deny equal rights. Gay people getting married is not going to kill off SSA... those in charge in government have been killing off SSA for a long time.

ergo why I asked where you set the bar (which you chose not to answer).

 

[Texas_tea]

I didn't read the california stuff, as honestly, I don't care about california... it is one of the most out of control places full of idiots, in the USA.

But again we have the 'forcing it' ... what exactly is being forced on people??? That others have equality as defined in the federal Constitution?

Oh my...

Has it occurred to you that possibly you are commenting on a topic that you have not informed yourself in any way about?

And, I am sure that the "We the People" thing is very difficult for you to fully grasp but, when the citizens of a state vote against same sex unions two separate times and the government of that state continues to attempt to overthrow the decision of the voters, that would be "forcing" the voters to accept what they have already voted two times against.

In general, everyone I have ever seen that stands against it, usually uses a religious backing to support their intolerance. I have never seen a single reason given in opposition that is valid.

Possibly you should get out a little more, or at least read the news on the topics you comment on. The world out there may be just a little bigger than what your self imposed blinders allow you to see!

 

[Arbopa]

ergo why I asked where you set the bar (which you chose not to answer).

What bar?

 

[Arbopa]

And, I am sure that the "We the People" thing is very difficult for you to fully grasp but,

Again with the typical 'forcing' thing right wingers like to use. Nothing is being 'forced' on you, except that old pesky Constitution and equal rights.

 

[dogtowner]

What bar?

I have never seen a single reason given in opposition that is valid.

that one

 

[Arbopa]

I don't there is ANY valid reason to deny anyone 'equal rights' as set forth in the constitution. Is that a high enough bar?

 

[dogtowner]

I don't there is ANY valid reason to deny anyone 'equal rights' as set forth in the constitution. Is that a high enough bar?

its your bar to set of course. your earlier post indicated that you simply had not heard one as opposed to one not being possible. my mistake if I misconstrued.

 

[BigRob]

and it is obvious that CA would have voted in favor of Gay marriage, if it had not been for the $70 millions spent by people fom Utah mostly to buy the vote to pass prop 8 .

This is actually not true. If you examine the turnout patterns and numbers, the reason Prop 8 passed was because of a huge increase in minority voting -- which was due to Obama being on the ballot.

It is simple fact (according to wide amount of polling data) that minorities (especially African-American) are adamantly against same-sex marriage -- and they voted accordingly.

 

[Openmind]

the difference is that all those scenarios ave been built into the formula.
if there is any savings based on changing trends the program can certainly use it given all the other vote buying that have rendered it bankrupt.

Trying (vainly) to make a quick recovery for a pretty silly comment!
That's okay, everyone can make mistakes, especially when they get desperate!

 

[Openmind]

This is actually not true. If you examine the turnout patterns and numbers, the reason Prop 8 passed was because of a huge increase in minority voting -- which was due to Obama being on the ballot.

It is simple fact (according to wide amount of polling data) that minorities (especially African-American) are adamantly against same-sex marriage -- and they voted accordingly.

Really, you mean the $70 millions sent by the good Mormons of Utah were just wasted than?
But that is YOUR point of view. . .and although it might (maybe) have entered into the sudden increase in pro- prop8 votes, I do not believe that would have been sufficient to move it to above the 50% level. . . although, I must admit that it is not much more than 50%.

 

[dogtowner]

Trying (vainly) to make a quick recovery for a pretty silly comment!
That's okay, everyone can make mistakes, especially when they get desperate!

only silly if you do not care how government spending gets accomplished.

 

[Openmind]

only silly if you do not care how government spending gets accomplished.

Would you tell me what is the difference between a man leaving his "survivor benefits" to a woman, or to a man?
In fact, if you are concerned about the "monetary implication of gay marriage," you might consider that, two gay men (or two gay women) would probably not have as many "surviving children" who would benefit from survivor benefits until they are 18 years old. . .or for life if they are disabled.

And, a greater percentage of gay couple would both be working, rather than adopting the old (and shrinking) ONE ONLY breadwinner in a family. . .I have not known of ANY gay couple with a "stay at home" wife (or husband), unless, obviously they were faced with unemployment!

So. . .if both are working, both are paying into social security, and neither may qualify for the other's survivor benefit, but rather qualify for their own (unless one has a much higher income and has contributed a lot more money in the SSI/SSA fund than the other, and it is that one who dies first).

Your little story doesn't hold water. But you can continue in that vein if you wish. . .I don't mind very much!

 

[BigRob]

Really, you mean the $70 millions sent by the good Mormons of Utah were just wasted than?

I do think it was a waste yes.

But that is YOUR point of view. . .

Yes -- and it is backed by polling and a lot of voter analysis on the issue.

and although it might (maybe) have entered into the sudden increase in pro- prop8 votes, I do not believe that would have been sufficient to move it to above the 50% level. . . although, I must admit that it is not much more than 50%.

Consider the following facts: (from NYT)
In 2008 Californians passed Proposition 8, which prohibited state recognition of same-sex marriage, with a 52 percent majority. Voting analyses suggest that between 58 and 70 percent of black voters backed the prohibition.

Think its just an one time thing? Think again.

Last April, as the successful push for same-sex marriage in New York picked up speed, a survey of state voters by the Siena College Research Institute found that 62 percent of white voters and 54 percent of Latino voters favored it. Only 46 percent of black voters did.
And in Maryland, which is almost certain to debate same-sex marriage next year, a recent poll by Gonzales Research & Marketing Strategies depicted a split among the state’s residents, with 48 percent in favor and 49 opposed. Among black Marylanders, though, support fell to 41 percent and opposition rose to 59.
The Maryland legislature already considered a bill to legalize same-sex marriage early this year. It passed the Senate but faltered in the House of Delegates, which in the end didn’t vote on it. Advocates said one reason was an outcry from black pastors and the chilling effect of that in a state whose percentage of black residents, 29.4, is much higher than the percentage nationally (12.6) or in New York (15.9), according to the 2010 census.

 

[Openmind]

I do think it was a waste yes.



Yes -- and it is backed by polling and a lot of voter analysis on the issue.



Consider the following facts: (from NYT)
In 2008 Californians passed Proposition 8, which prohibited state recognition of same-sex marriage, with a 52 percent majority. Voting analyses suggest that between 58 and 70 percent of black voters backed the prohibition.

Think its just an one time thing? Think again.

Last April, as the successful push for same-sex marriage in New York picked up speed, a survey of state voters by the Siena College Research Institute found that 62 percent of white voters and 54 percent of Latino voters favored it. Only 46 percent of black voters did.
And in Maryland, which is almost certain to debate same-sex marriage next year, a recent poll by Gonzales Research & Marketing Strategies depicted a split among the state’s residents, with 48 percent in favor and 49 opposed. Among black Marylanders, though, support fell to 41 percent and opposition rose to 59.
The Maryland legislature already considered a bill to legalize same-sex marriage early this year. It passed the Senate but faltered in the House of Delegates, which in the end didn’t vote on it. Advocates said one reason was an outcry from black pastors and the chilling effect of that in a state whose percentage of black residents, 29.4, is much higher than the percentage nationally (12.6) or in New York (15.9), according to the 2010 census.

Don't know if you realize this. . .but California is NOT the Bible belt, and the % of Black in CA is not as high as in the Bible belt, and not even as high as in NY!

So. . .even IF 41% of Black voters in CA voted in favor of prop 8, this would NOT have moved the total vote far enough to compensate for the large support among the White (and even the Latino) for gay marriage in CA.

As it is. . .it was not a landslide victory for prop 8, was it?

But one thing we can agree on is that, every year, every month, the public opinion moves more in favor of equal rights for the gay community. . .Gay marriage for all States is not a question of "if" it will happen, but "when" it will happen.