Posted on 11/29/2004 7:54:58 AM PST by areafiftyone
Sorry Jr, I doubt she was in it for the social security. Take your homo defending comments elsewhere.
I had the same thoughts when I read this article. Most states reject gay marriages so this is a step in the right direction.
You are totally misreading my comment and my position.
If voters can overrule the judicial branch by voting for a state constitutional amendment, has the republican form of government been taken away?
What in the US constitution gives the SCOTUS the power to overturn the Massachusetts case, in your opinion?
Well, perhaps you can enlighten the audience as to how, in your word, the desires of a older rich oil tycoon's to marry a big breasted blond Texas woman can be used as an analogy for an AIDS infested homosexual marrying some young gay stud so the stud can have his social security benefits?
Widows and widowers don't get Social Security retirement benefits until they are of retirement age themselves.
Widows and widowers of persons receiving a pension won't get survivor's benefits unless the retired person opted for survivor's benefits, which meant that he/she received reduced payments during his/her lifetime.
Oh, also you can't qualify for your spouse's retirement benefits unless 1) you were married for at least ten years and 2) you never remarried.
And if the younger person made more money during hisur lifetime, his own benefits would be higher anyway.
You can't get BOTH benefits, only your own retirement benefit OR survivor benefit.
Thanks for clearing that up. I'm not sure you're correct on the required 10 years of marriage though.
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10084.html#2
OK, there is a provision for survivor's benefits for spouses who are caring for minor children of the decedent. But the scenario you described, a man who is dying of HIV marries a young man, doesn't seem conducive to minor children being in the picture.
It's certainly possible for men to adopt children, even gay men, but I would imagine that cases in which one man was staying home to care for minor children while getting the other man's Social Security benefits are few and far between.
It's far more likely that a man with AIDS would marry another man in order to get health care benefits.
Interesting question. The Constitution guarantees a republican form of government in each and every state. Now it gets sticky, what satisfies that definition? The citizens of Mass can overturn the SJC by voting for a constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage. If they do that and the SJC rules that amendment is unconstitutional and they have the guns on their side then SCOTUS would have to take the case and slap down the SJC. As it is, there's no way they'd take the case.
Of course this same SCOTUS will overturn any state court that rules killing a baby on the way out is a crime. Wonderfully consistent in their inconsistencies.
The SCOTUS consistently holds that state constitutions can give MORE rights than the US constitution, but not LESS.
Thus, it is not inconsistent to let stand a Massachusetts case giving MORE rights than the US constition gives - in this case, the "right" to gay marriage, while striking down a Texas case that gives less rights than the US constitution gives -- in the case of Roe v. Wade, the "right" to abortion.
I am not saying that I agree with the reasoning in Roe v. Wade. I don't. But it's not inconsistent to rule in favor of abortion but refuse to rule against gay marriage. In fact, it's completely consistent.
The right which was advanced in this case, the "right" not to have activist judges striking down state laws, is non-existent. Striking down state laws which are unconstitutional is a fundamental obligation of the judiciary. Disagreement with the results does not make that go away.
False, many of the states have given rights to the unborn that SCOTUS has declared constitutional. In most other areas, you're statement would be correct.
Thus, it is not inconsistent to let stand a Massachusetts case giving MORE rights than the US constition gives - in this case, the "right" to gay marriage, while striking down a Texas case that gives less rights than the US constitution gives -- in the case of Roe v. Wade, the "right" to abortion.
Wrong again, their inconsistency was not in taking the mass case as a Supremcay Case, but in striking down laws granting more rights to unborn children. Roe, alone, does not allow for late term abortion. Read it.
I am not saying that I agree with the reasoning in Roe v. Wade. I don't. But it's not inconsistent to rule in favor of abortion but refuse to rule against gay marriage. In fact, it's completely consistent.
Their inconsistency is that, as you pointed out, SCOTUS has given states the freedom to expand rights in all cases but for killing unborn children. It is the height of hypocrisy and inconsistencey.
The right which was advanced in this case, the "right" not to have activist judges striking down state laws, is non-existent. Striking down state laws which are unconstitutional is a fundamental obligation of the judiciary. Disagreement with the results does not make that go away.
The states are guaranteed a republican form of government. Judicial tyranny doesn't qualify but in this case there are remedies at the state level so SCOTUS takes a pass as they should. SJC didn't strike anything down, it ordered the legislature to pass new law. Sound like a republican form of government to you?
Article IV Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.
No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.
Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
If Gay Marriage is allowed in Massachusetts then all states have to recognize their marriages.
I saw that provision, but thats not what I was talking about. I thought the 10 year rule was in regards to how long the dying man had to work before his spouse (no mention of how long they had to be married) got survivor benefits.
The ten year rule applies if you are getting benefits as a spouse or former spouse.
It doesn't apply if you are getting benefits because you are taking care of a minor child of yourself and a deceased person of retirement age.
If you die, your widow or widower will get benefits if you and he/she had a minor child under the age of 16, but the benefits end when the child turns 16. This benefit is regardless of the length of the marriage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.