Supreme court

This is not something simpe. I see problems resulting from this.

1) What if a gay walks into a church, synagogue or mosque and demands to be married and the religious institution declines? Is that grounds for a lawsuit?

2) Where I am at there is "common law marriage" which means even if you do not go through the motions of getting married, legally you are considered. Ok I do see many a person being sued for alimony when years before they had a roommate that is now down on their luck, yet you have made a success of your self, so they see easy money. Now they sue you for alimony…

3) Does this now mean that in jails and prisons gays and lesbians should have "rights" in their incarceration? IF they get them should heterosexuals get more rights?

4) Can legally a homosexual marriage be "annulled?"

This is not something simpe. I see problems resulting from this.

1) What if a gay walks into a church, synagogue or mosque and demands to be married and the religious institution declines? Is that grounds for a lawsuit?

2) Where I am at there is "common law marriage" which means even if you do not go through the motions of getting married, legally you are considered. Ok I do see many a person being sued for alimony when years before they had a roommate that is now down on their luck, yet you have made a success of your self, so they see easy money. Now they sue you for alimony…

3) Does this now mean that in jails and prisons gays and lesbians should have "rights" in their incarceration? IF they get them should heterosexuals get more rights?

4) Can legally a homosexual marriage be "annulled?"

their love for each other is not a problem here. I was stating that due to their relationships being defined as "married" there would be an increase in benefits that came out of the tax payer pocket. The links I posted negated most of that argument. Per my understanding, they can’t at the moment file jointly for fed taxes or benefit from employee health plans

I would argue that California should set it’s own emission standards with out help from the federal tax payer. Why should other states incur that cost?

I don’t understand the $$ argument…

there is a cost to allowing two people who love each other to say they are married?

if  just thinking about $$, the wedding industry is huge.  you have to cater, take pictures, fly in the relatives (yes, annoying in-laws as well…even drunk uncle [write in name here], hotels.  lots of tax money waiting to be collected there.  lawyers, they will have lots more customers as well.  more, customers means more money, more people wanting to be lawyers, wanting to go to school, getting good grades to get into good schools, more $$ to spend on better schools…civil unions are for the most part marriages of a different name, entitling partners to many of the same benefits (good job on finding references, i’ll try to do that, to bolster the civil union argument, when I get some more time)

i wasn’t around when inter-racial marriages were allowed.  but i am sure there was a cost there as well once civil rights came around.

the gay men and women wanting to adopt, can and do now.  so that cost is already being felt by gov’t. but the profit being that the child now has kind, loving, parents and is much more likely to be a positive member of society, which far out weighs that child going in/out of juve or jail, comitting crimes…

would you argue that california not be able to set it’s own emissions standards so that we don’t choke on pollution because it would be too much hassel for the feds? 

i just don’t think the argument is anything other than rights-based.  two people love each other (a lot of straight people have their marriages annulled or are divorced within a year or two of marriage), don’t they have a right to be married?

These links answered my questions

http://www.lawfirmalliance.org/assets/attachments/40.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

Interesting…

"the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples."

If same sex marriages get the exact same benefits of traditional marriages – it could be very expensive on the city/state/federal tax payer. Now they have more families  getting benefits just  because they’re "married".

Employers – may now have to incur more insurance cost due to spouse and/or children (however they obtain them)  of same sex marriages/families.

Will same sex marriages be able to file jointly on their federal taxes or is this at the state level only?

Here’s a link to the ruling  (pdf) itself.