US Supreme Court rules in favor of same sex marriage

[QUOTE] [b]Panchgani wrote:[/b]
Charming as usual ... I love you too honey. [/QUOTE]

was a little too much to expect YOU have some kind of reasoned thought out argument wasn't it?
what next Panchgani? equal rights for blue eyed people, fat people, tall people?

the 9 protected characteristics of Equality are there because they have been enshrined in law - due to lobbyists.
the ONLY reason these came about was because there was a need to protest/lobby in the first place, because:
BME people were discriminated against in comparison to white people
gay, bisexual and trans people were discriminated against in comparison to straight people
people with religions were discriminated against because of their beliefs
older and younger people were discriminated against on the basis of their age
and married people were discriminated against on the basis of them being married

these were addressed by law change - so creating legislation for single people will surely disadvantage married people...just stop and think for a change, instead on jumping on your conspiracy bangwagon

By the way, I'm married ...

"Single people pay more for health and car insurance than married people. They don’t get the same kind of tax breaks. Co-op boards, mortgage brokers, and landlords often pass them over. So do the employers with the power to promote them."

"U.S. Federal Code Title 5 Part III says: The President may prescribe rules which shall prohibit... discrimination because of marital status. Yet more than 1,000 laws provide overt legal or financial benefits to married couples. Marital privileging marginalizes the 50 percent of Americans who are single. The U.S. government is the main perpetrator, but private companies follow its lead. Thus marital privilege pervades nearly every facet of our lives. Insurance policies—ranging from health, to life, to home, to car—cost more, on average, for unmarried people compared to those who are married. It is not a federal crime for landlords to discriminate against potential renters based on their marital status. And so on."

[QUOTE] [b]Panchgani wrote:[/b]
I would like for civil marriage to be abolished.  It might end social & financial discrimination against single people. [/QUOTE]

Marriage by state license is a legal contract giving partners legal say in each other's health care, financial dealings including taxes and investments, in child rearing, child custody, estate sharing in cases of divorce, benefits in case of death of a spouse, etc. Without the marriage contract, each of those situations could turn into a costly and time-consuming civil lawsuit.

It’s plain, for me at least, that religious institutions should never have sole authority over families in this way - imagine the grief a child-free-by-choice couple would receive, for example, or a couple ready to end it that’s stuck with no option for divorce - yet the church would hold that authority over all married people if government authority were taken away. There are also couples of no faith to consider, and there are plenty of them with their numbers, in fact, growing. How would they declare or form their union if not with a license or contract saying they are a family unit entitled to the benefits of such? Some don't care either way and opt to live together without further ado. But most rely on the security marriage - by law - allows.

If anything, I think religious institutions should stay out of the marriage business except to offer a 'blessing', after-the-fact, for those who might seek it.

(I've been out of town so haven't read messages after the above quoted one. I'm sorry if I'm parroting comments made since)

"partners legal say in each other's health care, financial dealings including taxes and investments"

This is where single people get screwed over by the government.

http://singularcity.com/how-single-people-get-screwed/

I am not familiar with all the details of social security and tax laws in the USA but isn't it true that in the USA - like in all other countries - married people are legally obliged to provide for the spouse? If a married person has no job, is old or incapable to work, they won't get any public welfare as long as the spouse is able to provide for the costs of life. Therefore it is obvious that the government helps with taxes and health care to make it possible for the married couple to provide for themselves while single people usually have to be taken care of by the tax payers when they are in need - which is, of course, totally okay.

I am not challenging the fact that there might be financial injustice for single people but you cannot compare it to the legal discrimination gay people have had to face for so long and still have to face in many countries, mine included. Your government does not keep single people from basic rights because they are single. It is a huge difference if you are denied the same rights based on your sexual preference, race or gender or if you lose some $$ because you are not married. If you do not understand the difference, it is really hard to explain.

We have the same discussions with people who have no children: should they get the same pension when they did not provide for the next generation of tax payers? Should the get less money in old age even if they paid the same or even more into their pension funds? It is all about fair distribution of money and not about constitutional rights, please understand the difference.

[QUOTE]

[b]YourValentine wrote: [/b] We have the same discussions with people who have no children: should they get the same pension when they did not provide for the next generation of tax payers? Should the get less money in old age even if they paid the same or even more into their pension funds? It is all about fair distribution of money and not about constitutional rights, please understand the difference. [/QUOTE]

...

I agree, but I said nothing about the constitution.

It is all about the fair distribution of money (including insurance costs).

I am married and on the "correct" side of the law, but I still believe single and divorced people are getting a raw deal.