• 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.

VegasBella

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
3,307
Reaction score
1,017
Points
398
Location
Vegas
Resorts Owned
Carlsbad Inn
Avenue Plaza
Riviera Beach & Spa
Aquamarine Villas
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).

Private domestic adoptions are unlikely to be affected by this ruling. Private agencies may be restricted from discriminating against prospective adoptive parents in the way that public agencies are. What that means is that they would have to accept them as clients and provide their services. But I doubt there will be any spillover from marriage law to adoption law.

Choosing a guardian for your child is a personal choice. Birth parents who have parental rights (not birth parents whose children were removed due to abuse or neglect and who have had their parental rights terminated) can choose not to make an adoption plan with anyone they choose for any reason. Similarly, adoptive parents can choose not to adopt a child for any reason. The state cannot interfere with that, in the same way the state cannot force you to marry someone you don't want to marry.

To reiterate: The adoption agency provides a service and is a business. Currently, in the US (not in the UK) private adoption agencies may discriminate against gay parents. They don't even need a religious exemption, they just can. (They can also discriminate based on other factors.) But that could change in the future. If it changes and agencies are no long allowed to discriminate, all that would mean is that they would have to allow gays to use their business and they would have to provide services. NOT that they would have to provide an adoptive child.

Women and couples who choose to place their children for adoption are NOT providing a business service. In fact, they are legally prohibited from receiving monetary compensation for placing their children. It's against the law to pay someone in order to adopt their child. You cannot buy a baby. Babies =/= cakes. The ins and outs of adoption law are governed by state family law (for the most part - ICWA notwithstanding), not by business law. A woman who doesn't want to make a wedding cake for a gay couple may be breaking the law by discriminating but a woman who doesn't want to make a baby for a gay couple would not.
 
Last edited:

am1

TUG Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
8,081
Reaction score
1,531
Points
448
For all the people who were in this for financial gain what is next for them?
 

Passepartout

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
28,463
Reaction score
17,214
Points
1,299
Location
Twin Falls, Eye-Duh-Hoe
For all the people who were in this for financial gain what is next for them?

Congratulations on the most nonsense post in a thread meant to celebrate an an amazing, wonderful week that went from despair over a senseless hate killing through the saving of affordable healthcare for millions of citizens and continued through our nation being united in marriage equality, and now all within a week the last fugitive prison breaker has been taken into custody.

What the [bleep] are you talking about?
 

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

dioxide45

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
47,374
Reaction score
18,932
Points
1,299
Location
NE Florida
Resorts Owned
Marriott Grande Vista
Marriott Harbour Lake
Sheraton Vistana Villages
Club Wyndham CWA
Congratulations on the most nonsense post in a thread meant to celebrate an an amazing, wonderful week that went from despair over a senseless hate killing through the saving of affordable healthcare for millions of citizens and continued through our nation being united in marriage equality, and now all within a week the last fugitive prison breaker has been taken into custody.

What the [bleep] are you talking about?

Just looking to rile up the populace. Nothing more it seems. Par for the course...
 

Ken555

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
14,522
Reaction score
5,638
Points
898
Location
Los Angeles
Resorts Owned
Westin Kierland
Sheraton Desert Oasis
Just looking to rile up the populace. Nothing more it seems. Par for the course...


Yeah...some posts are really meant to be ignored.


Sent from my iPad
 

Passepartout

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
28,463
Reaction score
17,214
Points
1,299
Location
Twin Falls, Eye-Duh-Hoe
Like a trophy trout. Sometimes ya gotta rise to the bait.
 

CO skier

TUG Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
4,106
Reaction score
2,357
Points
448
Location
Colorado
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.

That conclusion is what Justice Roberts with Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas reached:

"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.]"

Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens through the democratic process to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept."


and Justice Scalia with Justice Thomas, too:

"This is a naked judicial claim to legislative -- indeed, super-legislative power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices reasoned judgment. A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy."
 
Last edited:

Luanne

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
19,353
Reaction score
10,185
Points
1,198
Location
New Mexico
Resorts Owned
Maui Lea at Maui Hill
San Diego Country Estates
That conclusion is what Justice Roberts with Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas reached:

Good thing they were in the minority.
 

Clemson Fan

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
2,116
Reaction score
8
Points
398
Location
Ewa Beach, Hawaii
through the saving of affordable healthcare for millions of citizens

Bait taken.

There's nothing affordable about the ACA because it's still managed by and keeps in business all the health insurance companies and their redundant and superfluous infrastructures.

The only way to do affordable healthcare is to make it a single payer system (Medicare for all) and to get all the health insurance companies out of the game entirely. There are way too many layers of middle men that get between the doctor and patient. The ACA did nothing to change that and in fact it probably made it worse. There's no political will on either side of the aisle to do that due to the millions of health insurance jobs that would be lost.

Frankly the ACA is a big pile of legislative poo!
 

Passepartout

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
28,463
Reaction score
17,214
Points
1,299
Location
Twin Falls, Eye-Duh-Hoe
Originally Posted by CO skier:
"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."

The Court didn't 'legislate' the definition of anything. They simply made every person (or couple) who applies for a (government) Marriage License equal. That's all. Don't make this more complicated more than it needs to be.

The Founding Fathers never even considered interracial, let alone single gender marriage. The Constitution is a 'living document', subject to interpretation by the very institution who ruled this week that ALL couples, in every State and Territory, have the right to apply for and receive a Marriage license, and that that Marriage License (once completed and acted upon) will be recognized throughout the United States as valid.

Jim
 

Luanne

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
19,353
Reaction score
10,185
Points
1,198
Location
New Mexico
Resorts Owned
Maui Lea at Maui Hill
San Diego Country Estates
Bait taken.

There's nothing affordable about the ACA because it's still managed by and keeps in business all the health insurance companies and their redundant and superfluous infrastructures.

The only way to do affordable healthcare is to make it a single payer system (Medicare for all) and to get all the health insurance companies out of the game entirely. There are way too many layers of middle men that get between the doctor and patient. The ACA did nothing to change that and in fact it probably made it worse. There's no political will on either side of the aisle to do that due to the millions of health insurance jobs that would be lost.

Frankly the ACA is a big pile of legislative poo!

Totally agree that we should have a single payer system. But we don't, and didn't seem to be getting very far in promoting it. ACA may not be perfect, but it sure has been a lifesaver (in the real sense) for many. My dd for one couldn't get medical insurance do to a pre-existing condition before ACA. I've read posts from folks who were self-employed and went without medical insurance for themselves, insuring only their children, for years until now.
 

Passepartout

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
28,463
Reaction score
17,214
Points
1,299
Location
Twin Falls, Eye-Duh-Hoe
The only way to do affordable healthcare is to make it a single payer system (Medicare for all) and to get all the health insurance companies out of the game entirely.

I agree 1000%. But we had to start somewhere. There was no way to go from for profit, giant, health insurance 'middlemen' to single payer, British, German, Japanese, etc. health care systems. There simply would be too much political and economic push-back to EVER make the leap.

We already have single-payer health care for Veterans, for Medicare, but with the disallowing government from negotiating prescription prices, and other considerations, single payer was sunk before it ever left port.

It may happen. I hope I live long enough to see it. Not likely.
 

am1

TUG Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
8,081
Reaction score
1,531
Points
448
Congratulations on the most nonsense post in a thread meant to celebrate an an amazing, wonderful week that went from despair over a senseless hate killing through the saving of affordable healthcare for millions of citizens and continued through our nation being united in marriage equality, and now all within a week the last fugitive prison breaker has been taken into custody.

What the [bleep] are you talking about?

Lobbyists, lawyers, protester and other groups. Lots of people are in this for financial gain. Not for what is best for some or all people. Now their attention will be put to another issue. Wall Street and Washington will be watching.
 

Luanne

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
19,353
Reaction score
10,185
Points
1,198
Location
New Mexico
Resorts Owned
Maui Lea at Maui Hill
San Diego Country Estates
Lobbyists, lawyers, protester and other groups. Lots of people are in this for financial gain. Not for what is best for some or all people. Now their attention will be put to another issue. Wall Street and Washington will be watching.

Just like with everything else.

But those who this issue really matter to were not in it for financial gain, but for equal rights and human dignity.
 

Clemson Fan

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
2,116
Reaction score
8
Points
398
Location
Ewa Beach, Hawaii
Totally agree that we should have a single payer system. But we don't, and didn't seem to be getting very far in promoting it. ACA may not be perfect, but it sure has been a lifesaver (in the real sense) for many. My dd for one couldn't get medical insurance do to a pre-existing condition before ACA. I've read posts from folks who were self-employed and went without medical insurance for themselves, insuring only their children, for years until now.

While its increased the number of insured, it's anything but affordable as its name makes it out to be. I don't think it has any real staying power because it's going to become so expensive so quickly that the government will need to step in and make significant modifications and cutbacks to it. A good portion of your tax (and really deficit) dollars are going to go to the insurance companies and their massive infrastructure and not actual patient care.
 

Luanne

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
19,353
Reaction score
10,185
Points
1,198
Location
New Mexico
Resorts Owned
Maui Lea at Maui Hill
San Diego Country Estates
While its increased the number of insured, it's anything but affordable as its name makes it out to be. I don't think it has any real staying power because it's going to become so expensive so quickly that the government will need to step in and make significant modifications and cutbacks to it. A good portion of your tax (and really deficit) dollars are going to go to the insurance companies and their massive infrastructure and not actual patient care.

I blame the insurance industry, not the ACA.
 

Elan

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,455
Reaction score
409
Points
468
Location
Idaho
While its increased the number of insured, it's anything but affordable as its name makes it out to be. I don't think it has any real staying power because it's going to become so expensive so quickly that the government will need to step in and make significant modifications and cutbacks to it. A good portion of your tax (and really deficit) dollars are going to go to the insurance companies and their massive infrastructure and not actual patient care.
That's fine. It will undoubtedly need tweaking or perhaps even a complete overhaul. But at least the ball is rolling.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
 

Elan

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,455
Reaction score
409
Points
468
Location
Idaho
This thread makes me really wish there were national referendums for some of the key issues that face our society. Let the people speak, and be done with it.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
 

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
This thread makes me really wish there were national referendums for some of the key issues that face our society. Let the people speak, and be done with it.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Thinking of civil rights in particular, I agree with national referendums as opposed to individual states but not so much with the "let the people speak" thing. Think of all the times in our history when if the majority rule were allowed to stand then the minority would have been subjugated by the majority. There's a reason for the country's three-tiered system, a reason why majority rule isn't and shouldn't be the be-all and end-all. "Equal protection under the law" is a far superior tenet to "majority rule."
 
Last edited:

Elan

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,455
Reaction score
409
Points
468
Location
Idaho
Thinking of civil rights in particular, I agree with national referendums as opposed to individual states but not so much with the "let the people speak" thing. Think of all the times in our history when if the majority rule were allowed to stand then the minority would have been subjugated by the majority. There's a reason for the country's three-tiered system, a reason why majority rule isn't and shouldn't be the be-all and end-all. "Equal protection under the law" is a far superior tenet to "majority rule."
Not if done correctly. Obviously, the issues presented via national referendum would be very specific and limited. I'm not proposing that we have a national vote every Tuesday.
The fact of the matter is that ultimately, the majority should rule. I'd just like it to happen more efficiently.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Passepartout

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
28,463
Reaction score
17,214
Points
1,299
Location
Twin Falls, Eye-Duh-Hoe
This thread makes me really wish there were national referendums for some of the key issues that face our society. Let the people speak, and be done with it.

Actually a VERY bad idea. What you get then is the 'tyranny of the majority'. There soon becomes the subjugation of the minority who are unable to EVER get enough votes to rise above that level.

The American system of democracy- while far from perfect- built on election of the law makers by more or less popular election tends to keep more balance in the system. Of course, I feel that the recognition of money as speech tilts the balance too far towards the wealthy, but so far, it is what it is.

Jim
 

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
... The fact of the matter is that ultimately, the majority should rule. I'd just like it to happen more efficiently.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

I disagree. :) The US is a republic, not a democracy.
 

dominidude

TUG Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
794
Reaction score
104
Points
153
Location
maryland
Not if done correctly. Obviously, the issues presented via national referendum would be very specific and limited. I'm not proposing that we have a national vote every Tuesday.
The fact of the matter is that ultimately, the majority should rule. I'd just like it to happen more efficiently.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

I remember one day in high school being the lone dissenter in a math problem. All of those who had "solved" the problem, including the teacher, had arrived at a particular result, and I was the only one pointing out how everyone else was wrong.

Turns out I was right, and everyone else was wrong (yes, including the teacher).

Majority rule stinks. The rule of law is the only thing that lasts. As Benjamin Franklin said:
A Republic, if you can keep it.

http://www.bartleby.com/73/1593.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top