Winkie Check

December 07, 2012 By: Juanita Jean Category: Uncategorized

The Supremes are going to decide if the government needs to check your private parts before you get married.

Let me just remind everybody that marriage equality has a higher approval rating from the American public than any Republican official, Congress in general, and ironically, the Supreme Court.

Be Sociable, Share!

20 Comments to “Winkie Check”


  1. Cheryl Ann says:

    Like I’ve been saying for years, if marriage is a government entity, it HAS to open to all people. If marriage is a church entity, the government needs to get out of the business of selling licenses.
    All churches have rules about who gets married in them. But they don’t get mad at the people who choose to marry some where else. I don’t understand how gay marriage affects those good church goers.
    It is also good for the government bottom line, sell more licenses. More court fees for divorces. Then, there is how it adds to sales for flower vendors, halls, rings…..

    1
  2. Can it POSSIBLY be more obvious that most civilized Americans finally want freedom and equality for all? If the SCOTUS renders a negative finding, then all faith will be lost, and I will throw my old, fat, white, married hetero life away standing on the steps, screaming my heart out until they drag me into a Homeland Security facility, where I will convert all the inmates into decent, justice-junkie Democrats, canned pudding be damned.

    2
  3. There are plenty of church-goers who are in favor of gay marriage, but that’s not newsworthy. I’ve said for years that the only people who can destroy a marriage are the people in it. If there were married gay people living all around us, it wouldn’t affect our marriage…WE affect our marriage.

    But people who look for someone to blame (certain Elephantine types and, alas, some of us Donkeys) look outside themselves and blame others for their own failings.

    3
  4. TexasEllen says:

    Church weddings and civil marriages have the same value before the law with regard to inheritance, property ownership, etc. The Supremes get to rule on the civil part. If folks wish to wrestle with their own denominations, fine, but the civil aspect of marriage should fall under the equality of citizens.

    4
  5. Cheryl Ann, if government gets out of the marriage license bidness, it also needs to get out of the divorce bidness. I mean, this is a religious issue or a legal issue, but it can’t be both under some legal mumbo-jumbo about how never the twain shall meet and all that. I understand that the church is pretty much opposed to divorce, but if they’re going to be in charge of marriage, they ought to get divroce, too. And then we can see how a whole lot of “constituents” like them apples…

    5
  6. OldMayfly says:

    As Texas Ellen points out–

    marriage is more than one thing– it is

    1. a civil contract between consenting adults.

    2. A sacrament of the church. As that, any church can make its own rules about what it would endorse as marriage. For example, in the Church of Mayfly, no one could be married until he/she presents a background check.

    3. A contract under prevailing laws. Therefore, in Texas, and most other states only two adults may enter into it at a time. Multiple wives and/or multiple husbands would not be allowed legal marital status. (But they would under #1.)

    6
  7. Corinne Sabo says:

    To make the rightwing nuts happy, maybe all marriage ceremonies will require full frontal nudity from the participants.

    7
  8. Corinne Sabo, that would really cut down on the number of weddings I attend.

    It should be obvious to anyone who reads the 14th Amendment that banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. I just hope that a majority of the Supremes have read it.

    8
  9. Sam in Kyle says:

    Corrine, I wouldn’t get any more invitations but I would sure try to attend more weddings. The problem for me is I can get my suit pressed to remove wrinkles…….

    9
  10. I personally have known too many gay people who had long-time partners and worried a whole lot about what would happen when one of them died. Especially if they had antagonistic parents, children, or siblings. All the contracts and legal documents in the world wouldn’t protect their surviving partners from the courts. At least, in DC and nine other states, you don’t have to go through all of that.

    At least until now.

    The thing is: the Supremes consist of 6 Roman Catholics and 3 Jews. No Protestants of any denomination. Scalia has already said publicy:”Gay Marriage? That’s a slam dunk.” I don’t think he meant that in a good way.

    I fear what they are going to do.

    10
  11. I’d have to dig it out, but having been ordained one time by the Universal Life Church (and so was the Labrador Retriever I had at the time), I suppose I can authorize contracts relating to pensions, income taxes, social security payments, etc. If marriage was only a civil contract (like in Mexico and most European countries) 99 percent of the rationale for forbidding same-gender marriage dries up. What you do in Church is your own business, not the state’s.

    11
  12. I think they are going to rule that a marriage that is recognized in one state must be recognized in all states, but uphold the rights of states to determine their own marriage policies.

    12
  13. SomedayGirl says:

    Barb, I don’t think most of the justices will hinge their decision on their personal religious views. Kennedy is Catholic and wrote, in strong language, the majority opinion in the Lawrence case.

    I think Windsor will win decisively – 6-3 minimum. There’s a clear 14th amendment violation there. The Prop 8 case? I don’t know. My feeling is they will weasel out of making a decision on standing and send the thing back to the lower courts.

    13
  14. Ralph Wiggam says:

    They are setting themselves up for failure and giving us another opportunity to celebrate a victory.

    SCOTUS can’t deny gay marriage without creating a class of people who don’t have equal protection. Even the activist conservatives don’t want to be known for a modern day Dred Scott decision.

    14
  15. SomedayGirl and Ralph Wiggam: I hope you are both right.

    15
  16. OldMayfly, I may be mistaken, but I think that what TexasEllen was trying to convey is the same thing I’ve said for a long time. A Wedding is a religious ceremony or sacrament and as such should be conducted according to the beliefs or traditions of each church. A Marriage, however, is a civil agreement to enter a partnership and should not have any religious rules, just fall under normal legal codes.
    For example, my SO and I would be getting married, with a license, and if we wish to dissolve it we would have to go to court and obtain a divorce. However, we would not have a Wedding or be Wed as we are not Christians. Following our beliefs we would be getting Handfasted, which has different rules and traditions attached to it.
    I strongly oppose marriages and weddings being given the same legal weight for that reason, and because it has led to what we have today where so many do not have the same civil rights as others. In protest I will not get a marriage license until it is not based on one set of beliefs but open to all citizens as a legal contract.
    Blessings

    16
  17. I am so sick of something so basic needing all the argument.
    So are these guys, and man, did I laugh while they got their point across! Yeah…I think if I get another husband it should be a gay guy!!

    17
  18. Aggieland liz says:

    Been arguing the position that the state needs to license and have a civil ceremony for all civil unions as civil contracts between consenting adults for aeons now As an RC in a family of staunchly conservative RCs no less! A secular nation based upon the rule of law has no business decreeing that consenting adults cannot enter into a ccontractual partnership! I’m not even sure that polygamy ought to be illegal, if everyone involved is of the age of consent. What business is it of mine?

    18
  19. As a lawyer, this case will be fun to watch. The challenge to DOMA is that it violates the 10th Amendment which reserves certain areas like marriage to regulation by the individual states. Defense of DOMA depends on federal law being the supreme law of the land that trumps state laws on marriage.
    Whoa! That means the conservative state-rights justices must render the 10th Amendment irrelevant in order to defeat recognition of legal gay marriages by the federal government. This opens the door to federalization of other normally state regulated areas like health insurance, education and gun control. The Supremes have a lot to think about.
    I’m buying all my GLBT friends “Don’t Tread on Me” flags so they will be welcomed at the Tea Party rallies against federal intrusion into our personal lives. Gonna be fun!

    19
  20. Aggieland liz says:

    Won’t there be a commerce clause argument in favor? Recognition of contracts across state lines, etc? I think it’s a due process issue myself, but I’m not a lawyer! Think at worst it will be 5-4, but really expecting 6-3 with Thomas, Alito, and Scalia dissenting. Thinking Roberts has more sense than I gave him credit for, and I really dont see Kennedy going against, but I’ve been wrong before. Anyone else want to encourage or discourage?

    20