• The TUGBBS forums are completely free and open to the public and exist as the absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 30 years!

    Join Tens of Thousands of other Owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered 24 hours a day!
  • TUG started 30 years ago in October 1993 as a group of regular Timeshare owners just like you!

    Read about our 30th anniversary: Happy 30th Birthday TUG!
  • TUG has a YouTube Channel to produce weekly short informative videos on popular Timeshare topics!

    Free memberships for every 50 subscribers!

    Visit TUG on Youtube!
  • TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $21,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!

    Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $21 Million dollars
  • Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free!

    60,000+ subscribing owners! A weekly recap of the best Timeshare resort reviews and the most popular topics discussed by owners!
  • Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!

    All T-shirt options here!
  • A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!

Historic week in America!!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Passepartout

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
28,462
Reaction score
17,213
Points
1,299
Location
Twin Falls, Eye-Duh-Hoe
It's always been interesting to me that although a U.S. Supreme Court decision sets precedent, the Court can only take on a case like this when an individual comes to them with an actual instance of injustice. Here are some of the human stories in the case.

[Big Snip]

Their stories reveal that they seek not to denigrate marriage but rather to live their lives, or honor their spouses' memory, joined by its bond.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

When the law is 'humanized', rather than 'conceptualized', it becomes clear that the court took the proper course.
 

am1

TUG Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
8,081
Reaction score
1,531
Points
448
My other concern is there a need for spouses to receive support payments, medical benefits, %50 of pension etc? If there are no kids involved I would expect both partners to work if need be. If not that is their choice. How big will the financial cost be from this for employers, social security etc.
 

wilma

TUG Review Crew: Elite
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
1,057
Reaction score
301
Points
443
Location
Point Richmond
Resorts Owned
Red Wolf Lakeside Lodge, Hanalei Bay Resort, Sweetbriar Lake tahoe, Marriott Canyon Villas, Hyatt High Sierra, Point at Poipu
My other concern is there a need for spouses to receive support payments, medical benefits, %50 of pension etc? If there are no kids involved I would expect both partners to work if need be. If not that is their choice. How big will the financial cost be from this for employers, social security etc.

Same cost for all married couples. Most large businesses have already seen the future and provided coverage for all couples.
 

Jason245

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2014
Messages
1,920
Reaction score
171
Points
173
My other concern is there a need for spouses to receive support payments, medical benefits, %50 of pension etc? If there are no kids involved I would expect both partners to work if need be. If not that is their choice. How big will the financial cost be from this for employers, social security etc.
Administrative costs actually decrease since now they can get rid of the domestic partner benefits many were previously offering. . This is actually good for business. Thanks to the marriage penalty, this is also good for the treasury of America.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk
 

DaveNV

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
22,003
Reaction score
29,217
Points
1,348
Location
Mesquite, Nevada
Resorts Owned
Free Agent
You know how you have "read" posters for years and have never met them? You form the voice you have assigned them in your head...and you might even imagine what they look like...and this takes the form of your imagination every time you read their posts?

YOU, Sir, are one of the kindest and most gentle people I have ever "read" and no second banana is Jim. Passepartout. Keep doing your thing. Both of you!

So true!! Certain posters I always look forward to reading.


Thank you both so very much. Your words are very kind praise I take sincerely to heart. I am miles from perfect, but I try to be a kind and helpful person someone would want to know. I live by the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you") and as is said in Matthew 7:1. "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Everything else changes without notice. I blame my Mother. :)

Dave
 

CO skier

TUG Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
4,106
Reaction score
2,357
Points
448
Location
Colorado
But to call discrimination, 'religious rights' is wrong. It isn't religious, and it isn't right.

The issue is not as simple and straightforward as it may sound.

Does anyone believe that many church sponsored adoption agencies can continue to exist under this ruling? Doesn't this impact the religious freedom of the women who use these services?

And what about the faith-based and secular adoption agencies that do continue to operate? Can the birth mothers choose (some people would say discriminate) the home life for their children?
 

davidvel

TUG Member
Joined
May 9, 2008
Messages
7,432
Reaction score
4,477
Points
648
Location
No. Cty. San Diego
Resorts Owned
Marriott Shadow Ridge (Villages)
Carlsbad Inn
There are more than two sides to the Court's ruling, and that is where so many people are so uninformed.

Most people want to cast and align this as "pro" or "anti" gay marriage. This is insignificant compared to the real issue. The third, and really the only, important issue is that the Supreme Court essentially legislated the definition of Marriage for all Americans, against the will of a number of States whose citizens had spoken through their State Legislatures. Our founding fathers would be aghast; they would not care a whit about the specific issue, they would object to how casually the Court dismissed the Constitution in this issue.
I don't see how this conclusion could be reached by reading the Court's opinion. The Court did not define marriage, the opponents to gay marriage did. Opponents stated that marriage is fundamental. The Court deftly used the opponents' definition against them.

The opponents to same-sex marriage said that gays shouldn't marry because marriage is:
- a timeless institution
- it has ancient origins
- there is a transcendent importance of marriage
- there is a special beauty to marriage
- there are important privileges and responsibilities to marriage

The Supreme court did not redefine marriage, it accepted the definition given by those that oppose gay marriage. It then said to those that oppose gay marriage, You are Right. Marriage is so important that it is a fundamental right, and States cannot withhold this from gay couples. The reasons given why marriage is a fundamental right "apply with equal force to same-sex couples." States cannot withhold from gay couples the benefits (emotional, legal and economic) that are conferred by the State when one marries.

(Opponents also stated, often as their primary argument, that their religion forbids it; a reason the Court obviously can't consider as a basis for denying a fundamental right and State-granted benefits.)
 

falmouth3

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
3,417
Reaction score
22
Points
38
Location
Burlington, MA
There's no way a conservative minister will be forcefully compelled to perform a gay marriage. Catholic priests will only marry members of the Catholic Church. Muslims will only marry Muslims, etc. etc. Any religion (Muslim, Catholic, Southern Baptist, etc. etc.) will still be allowed to practice their religion however they see fit including refusing to perform gay marriages.

I found this to be true when preparing for my first wedding. My husband to be, who was not Catholic, had to agree to raise his children as Catholics before the priest would agree to marry us. Luckily that marriage produced no children anyway.
 
Last edited:

rickandcindy23

TUG Review Crew: Elite
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
31,898
Reaction score
9,001
Points
1,049
Location
The Centennial State
Resorts Owned
Wyndham Founder; Disney OKW & SSR; Marriott's Willow Ridge,Shadow Ridge,Grand Chateau;Val Chatelle; Hono Koa OF (3); SBR(LOTS), SDO a few; Grand Palms; WKORV-OF (2),Westin Desert Willow.
I don't even know when government got involved in marriage. Does anyone know? 100 years ago it was a ceremony with witnesses. Government wasn't involved.

I don't think the government should stand in the way of any couple wanting to marry, even if it's a same-sex couple. If government must be involved, then of course I applaud the decision to make it "legal."

Still I am questioning why it has anything to do with the law. A couple can live together for several years and have a common law marriage, so divorce laws apply. So I see no reason for government to be involved at all. Maybe I am just too libertarian.

Then again, I don't want people sued because they don't want to bake a cake for a wedding, for whatever reason. Others' religious liberties should not be infringed. Or put another way, people should be allowed to refuse business to anyone they want. Why does any person's freedom have to impinge on another person's freedom? And why would you want to force someone to do flowers or take pictures or bake a cake for a wedding, if his/her heart isn't going to be in it. Move on and find another person.
 

Passepartout

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
28,462
Reaction score
17,213
Points
1,299
Location
Twin Falls, Eye-Duh-Hoe
Does anyone believe that many church sponsored adoption agencies can continue to exist under this ruling? Doesn't this impact the religious freedom of the women who use these services?

And what about the faith-based and secular adoption agencies that do continue to operate? Can the birth mothers choose (some people would say discriminate) the home life for their children?

So, are you saying that being an unwanted child or a child in a single parent household is somehow preferable to being raised in a loving, two parent household? How so? And if the single gender household is somehow broken by death or divorce, the guardianship of the children, under existing law, is already defined. No need to re-invent the wheel.

I am no expert on adoption agencies, but would presume that the birth mother fills out some sort of application that would include preferences for an adoptive family.
 

Conan

TUG Review Crew: Elite
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
3,138
Reaction score
595
Points
498
Location
Connecticut
Since I quoted some paragraphs from the Opinion of the Court, let's give Justice Scalia equal time. Rather than quote at length from Scalia's dissent in Obergefel, which he begins by saying "The substance of today's decree is not of immense personal importance to me," here he is speaking more frankly in his dissent in the sodomy case, Lawrence v. Texas:

[The Supreme Court] has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct. I noted in an earlier opinion the fact that the American Association of Law Schools (to which any reputable law school must seek to belong) excludes from membership any school that refuses to ban from its job-interview facilities a law firm (no matter how small) that does not wish to hire as a prospective partner a person who openly engages in homosexual conduct.
....
Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children's schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive. The Court ... is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of [homosexual] culture are not obviously "mainstream"; that in most States what the Court calls "discrimination" against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html
 
Last edited:

DaveNV

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
22,003
Reaction score
29,217
Points
1,348
Location
Mesquite, Nevada
Resorts Owned
Free Agent

Beaglemom3

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,026
Reaction score
92
Points
433
Location
Boston
I have always viewed this as a civil rights/civil liberties issue, period.

Justice Scalia was scathing and I feel he was very biased. Chief Roberts was more objective in saying that the Constitution had nothing to do with it, but was more objective in his opinion.

Here is what Justice Kennedy wrote (preamble from a piece in Mother Jones):

"Penned by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the 5-4 opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to allow same-sex couples to marry. "[T]he reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples," Kennedy wrote. The court's four conservative justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, dissented.

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family," Kennedy concluded in his opinion. The challengers "ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."
 
Last edited:

wilma

TUG Review Crew: Elite
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
1,057
Reaction score
301
Points
443
Location
Point Richmond
Resorts Owned
Red Wolf Lakeside Lodge, Hanalei Bay Resort, Sweetbriar Lake tahoe, Marriott Canyon Villas, Hyatt High Sierra, Point at Poipu
What was very moving is seeing my 20-30 year-old kids, nieces & nephews, and their friends (primarily heterosexual) send out updated facebook profile photos with the rainbow colors in the background. they are the future of this country.:cheer::cheer:
 

SueDonJ

Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2006
Messages
16,612
Reaction score
5,778
Points
1,249
Location
Massachusetts and Hilton Head Island
Resorts Owned
Marriott Barony Beach and SurfWatch
What was very moving is seeing my 20-30 year-old kids, nieces & nephews, and their friends (primarily heterosexual) send out updated facebook profile photos with the rainbow colors in the background. they are the future of this country.:cheer::cheer:

Same here, Wilma. It's so good to see the next generation on the whole being much more tolerant of differences than the generations before them, and they're more creative with social media than I'd ever think to be!
 

CO skier

TUG Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
4,106
Reaction score
2,357
Points
448
Location
Colorado
So, are you saying that being an unwanted child or a child in a single parent household is somehow preferable to being raised in a loving, two parent household? How so? And if the single gender household is somehow broken by death or divorce, the guardianship of the children, under existing law, is already defined. No need to re-invent the wheel.

I am no expert on adoption agencies, but would presume that the birth mother fills out some sort of application that would include preferences for an adoptive family.

You missed my point. I have no objection to same-sex adoptive parents.

My point is entirely how the new law affects the birth mothers' rights and their ability to "discriminate."

Both of my children were adopted through a private, secular agency. (Ours was an "open" adoption where everyone knew everyone, to the extent possible. We maintain contact with both birth mothers to this day; it worked out great).

The mission of the adoption agency is, as much as possible, to make sure that everyone involved is as comfortable as possible with the placement . Part of our process involved a very tough, but very necessary, questionnaire that could be viewed as highly discriminatory, if one wanted to adopt that perspective. The adoptive parents would prepare a short introductory report describing interests, vacations, hobbies, or anything else that might be of interest to prospective birth mothers (it was recommended to include a lot of pictures in the report as examples of what was written).

The birth mothers would, presumably, fill out a similar questionnaire (but no profile report). The adoption agency would match adoptive parents and birth mothers based on the answers to the respective questionnaires and provide to the birth mothers the three profile reports that seemed the best match . The birth mothers would then choose the adoptive parents. (Some birth mothers wanted to see ALL the profiles. They always seemed to choose one of the first three, though. That is how well the questionnaire process worked.)

Maybe there have been lawsuits in the intervening years and the selective process is no longer allowed. My hope is that the government kept their nose out of a process that was working just fine.
 
Last edited:

CO skier

TUG Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
4,106
Reaction score
2,357
Points
448
Location
Colorado
Chief Roberts was more objective in saying that the Constitution had nothing to do with it, but was more objective in his opinion.

I think you might misunderstand Judge Roberts' comment.

He meant that the Constitution does not give the Court the power to do what it did.

Here is a quote from his dissent:

"But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise [neither force nor will but merely judgment]."
 
Last edited:

TTom

Moderator
Joined
Jun 16, 2004
Messages
316
Reaction score
16
Points
678
Location
Brooklyn
Showing my bias?

I think this would all work better for all parties involved if it were not for the existence of a number of JERKS who delight in causing controversy.

I would never think to try to engage someone for something as important as a wedding (or a funeral or an anniversary or an adoption) if their personal preference was not compatible with my own or, more precisely, if their personal preference precluded them from providing the best, most committed possible service.

To try to litigate that a particular service provider serve me when they do not want to is asking for an unpleasant and unsatisfactory experience. What is to be gained by that, other than proving you are somehow "right?"

That having been said, I would also expect that people who provide services make decisions based on something other than inherent prejudices. It's one thing for a member of the clergy to choose not to unite people who are not of their faith, it is a completely different story for a restaurant to say, "no blacks (or gays or women or Muslims) allowed." There are limits on both sides.

Of course, I also had to shake my head at the couple in New York who is(?) suing the Waldorf because one of their wedding guests accidentally(?) shot someone, and the Waldorf cancelled the reception.

I am not gay, but, being in the performing industry for a long time, many of my colleagues certainly were. They were always respectful of my choice, and I of theirs. For us, it was never an issue. I am happy that they are now able to openly share a commitment the same way I can, and that they will enjoy the "benefits" of marriage, should they choose it.

Tom
 

Beaglemom3

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,026
Reaction score
92
Points
433
Location
Boston
I think you might misunderstand Judge Roberts' comment.

He meant that the Constitution does not give the Court the power to do what it did.

Here is a quote from his dissent:

"But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise ?neither force nor will but merely judgment. ? ?

Yep, I see your point and I get it, totally. No misunderstanding. I just did not want to synthesize more of his 29 page opinion. It boiled down to that for me. We could go on & on re: his opinion, but in the interest of time and space, I just touched on it, skimmed it.

My focus was to put out there what Justice Kennedy said, in essence, but again, skimming isn't always clear to others.

I have a law degree and see things a bit differently than most posting here. I write briefs (not boxers) for a living.

-
 
Last edited:

Passepartout

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
28,462
Reaction score
17,213
Points
1,299
Location
Twin Falls, Eye-Duh-Hoe
You missed my point. I have no objection to same-sex adoptive parents.

My point is entirely how the new law affects the birth mothers' rights and their ability to "discriminate."

I didn't miss your point either. What you want is the right to discriminate and be able to call it 'based on your religious beliefs'. But discrimination is discrimination.
 

DaveNV

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
22,003
Reaction score
29,217
Points
1,348
Location
Mesquite, Nevada
Resorts Owned
Free Agent
I am happy that they are now able to openly share a commitment the same way I can, and that they will enjoy the "benefits" of marriage, should they choose it.

Tom



The tongue-in-cheek joke I've always made is that married gay couples deserve to enjoy the same pain and suffering married straight couples enjoy. :D

Dave
 

presley

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
6,313
Reaction score
1,121
Points
448
The tongue-in-cheek joke I've always made is that married gay couples deserve to enjoy the same pain and suffering married straight couples enjoy. :D

Reminds me of what I've always said:

The definition of gay is happy. Why only let miserable people get married? ;)
 

Clemson Fan

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
2,116
Reaction score
8
Points
398
Location
Ewa Beach, Hawaii
I didn't miss your point either. What you want is the right to discriminate and be able to call it 'based on your religious beliefs'. But discrimination is discrimination.

There are many forms of legal discrimination. Affirmative action, freedom of religion, even men's and women's bathrooms, etc. etc. Like it or not, all of us discriminate every single day in the daily choices we make.

Do you not believe that those people actual truly have those religious beliefs and instead are just hiding behind them and using them as an "excuse" to discriminate? That's what it sounds like to me.
 

wilma

TUG Review Crew: Elite
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
1,057
Reaction score
301
Points
443
Location
Point Richmond
Resorts Owned
Red Wolf Lakeside Lodge, Hanalei Bay Resort, Sweetbriar Lake tahoe, Marriott Canyon Villas, Hyatt High Sierra, Point at Poipu
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top