Supreme Court rules in spite of what the law says

[rotor]

Gays want to get married doesn't bother me although I don't agree with it on a philosophical basis. More money for lawyers though as the divorce courts will be filled with vicious cases and I can tell you that the child custody cases will be terrible and they do have children. I know many lesbian couples that decide to have children where one has the first, the other is supposed to have the next and they split up. Nasty fights. Now at least the courts can decide who mommy and mommy really are.

That doesn't make sense to me. Marriage has nothing to do with having children in this day and age and divorce courts have nothing to do with how well people can divide assets. It can be just as ugly among non-married couples and potentially just as litigious. Just because we've now got a potential divorce court, that doesn't result in additional break-ups and broken households.

The ACA case really bothers me and touches me financially though as my insurance premium for my wife is $532 a month for a $6000 deductible now and it was about $220 with a $5000 deductible before ACA. We don't get any of those subsidies that make it "affordable" I guess. I am on Medicare and my premiums with plan D and supplement run probably another $550 or so a month. So I am **ssed that Joe Schmoe that never worked a day in his life can still keep his affordable health insurance (paid for by my taxes- and yours) while we try to struggle through retirement and are told that what we are getting is an entitlement which we are not really entitled to but Joe Schmoe is entitled to getting subsidized or free health insurance, food stamps, housing vouchers, free cell phones, and whatever other goodies there are. Now all the big insurance companies are consolidating, Humana, Cigna, Aetna, all going to try to merge. You realize what this means don't you? Target pharmacy being sold to CVS. All one big controlled universe. Massive government-industrial complex. Watch the prices go through the roof.

1) Entitlements are progressive. It's not exactly all or nothing.
2) Joe Schmoe who never worked a day in his life and has medical bills, you and I are already paying for them. We're paying for them with $10 / aspirins and our already-ridiculous healthcare costs pre-Obamacare. Largely, the difference is that you and I weren't as directly billed for it before Obamacare. Where do you think Joe got his healthcare before?
3) It wasn't on a sustainable path before. It's not on a sustainable path now.
4) Your listed premiums pre and post Obamacare are striking. Are your coverages exactly the same? Apples to Apples. Not discounting your story at all, but again, all of the data is important. One thing that makes Obamacare much more expensive for many people is that they threw out some plans that had much lower levels of coverage.

On the divorce issue, when there are children involved it makes a tremendous difference and the fighting over custody rights especially over which mommy gets the child, the birthing mom or moms will bring tremendous headaches to the legal system especially if one mom has one child and the other child is born by the other mom. Before there was marriage the issue of who got to keep the kid was not an issue. Now the real fight will start.

On the insurance for my wife, she had BC policy one day and the next it was a new BC policy, higher deductible, higher premium, maybe now she had ob but at her age who cares and she already had a hysterectomy. Less drug coverage. Lucky to get it. What can I say. I would be better off being Joe Schmoe, at least financially.

[VMI77]

My comment wasn't really about different religions being married in a Catholic church, but that there is not going to be a movement to try to force the Catholic church to marry people of different religions.

Whether or not the SJWs will be successful in forcing Churches to marry homosexuals is another question....it might go either way. What I'm saying is that the left will try to force them to do so. And probably succeed, given that the SC is now just openly making up law as it goes along. Gays have other options for procuring wedding cakes than Christian run bakeries too, doesn't stop them from using the legal system to force a Christian baker to provide one. That's the whole point....to use the power of the State to force those with contrary views into line. The other options are irrelevant since the objective is to force people to embrace homosexuality (not mere tolerance) and destroy the Christian church (all denominations).

Forcing a christian business to make a gay wedding cake.....I mean... is that any different than forcing a business to accept CHL customers? According to the Supreme Court both have equal protection under the law.

The biggest difference is this: the RKBA is a specific right guaranteed by the Constitution. There is no right to marriage gay or otherwise in the Constitution, and the Constitution does not grant any power to the Federal government to regulate or define marriage. I'd be more supportive of the concept of prohibiting CC by businesses as a property right if property rights were consistently respected.

If property rights are the guiding principle then Christian bakers should be able to refuse to bake wedding cakes for gay weddings. Since they can't, I see no reason why a business should be able to deny my right of self-defense. There is no consistent guiding principle to what is and is not allowed for a public business, just which direction the political winds are blowing. CHL holders aren't part of a protected political class so a political compromise was required to get CC enacted.

[Tracker]

My comment wasn't really about different religions being married in a Catholic church, but that there is not going to be a movement to try to force the Catholic church to marry people of different religions.

Whether or not the SJWs will be successful in forcing Churches to marry homosexuals is another question....it might go either way. What I'm saying is that the left will try to force them to do so. And probably succeed, given that the SC is now just openly making up law as it goes along. Gays have other options for procuring wedding cakes than Christian run bakeries too, doesn't stop them from using the legal system to force a Christian baker to provide one. That's the whole point....to use the power of the State to force those with contrary views into line. The other options are irrelevant since the objective is to force people to embrace homosexuality (not mere tolerance) and destroy the Christian church (all denominations).

Forcing a christian business to make a gay wedding cake.....I mean... is that any different than forcing a business to accept CHL customers? According to the Supreme Court both have equal protection under the law.

The biggest difference is this: the RKBA is a specific right guaranteed by the Constitution. There is no right to marriage gay or otherwise in the Constitution, and the Constitution does not grant any power to the Federal government to regulate or define marriage. I'd be more supportive of the concept of prohibiting CC by businesses as a property right if property rights were consistently respected.

If property rights are the guiding principle then Christian bakers should be able to refuse to bake wedding cakes for gay weddings. Since they can't, I see no reason why a business should be able to deny my right of self-defense. There is no consistent guiding principle to what is and is not allowed for a public business, just which direction the political winds are blowing. CHL holders aren't part of a protected political class so a political compromise was required to get CC enacted.

Yep and Along these same lines there's nothing in the constitution that defines personhood either. But that didn't stop the SC from defining it themselves in Roe v Wade. Liberal justices define laws liberally...to the point of making their own laws

I've asked others, usually pro abortionists, what's the scientific discription of a person. There was isn't one. "Person" is a moral entity. Human yes, person no.

[C-dub]

That's not true, the Catholic church can marry a Methodist and a Catholic. It'll likely be a wedding ceremony without a mass. I have my doubts that churches will be forced to legally marry homosexuals precisely because gays have other legal options, such as a JP.

And they could also go down the street to another baker or florist, but now don't have to unless the Christian one they went to first doesn't want to support their lifestyle. I hope churches aren't forced to comply, but fear they will.

[C-dub]

There is one other thing that is bothering me about this ruling today.

Roberts, in his dissent of today's ruling, said that we are a nation of laws, but used the exact opposite reason in his ruling about obamacare yesterday. Same Roberts, right? Is he schizophrenic or have a split personality disorder or something?

[mojo84]

There is one other thing that is bothering me about this ruling today.

Roberts, in his dissent of today's ruling, said that we are a nation of laws, but used the exact opposite reason in his ruling about obamacare yesterday. Same Roberts, right? Is he schizophrenic or have a split personality disorder or something?

Exactly

[Tracker]

Next stop...a gay couple in the White House....preceded by the inaugural ball

[cb1000rider]

Next stop...a gay couple in the White House....preceded by the inaugural ball

Shoot, or maybe an interracial couple. Maybe even a black president... What's the world come to?

[C-dub]

Next stop...a gay couple in the White House....preceded by the inaugural ball

Shoot, or maybe an interracial couple. Maybe even a black president... What's the world come to?

The Unaffordable Care Act for one thing.

[cb1000rider]

The Unaffordable Care Act for one thing.

My guess is that a Republican president and a Republican congress will probably take a big chunk out of that.

[Tracker]

"SCOTUS Says Yes To Gay Marriage, And (Maybe) Also Constitutional Carry; Here’s Why"
http://concealednation.org/2015/06/scot ... heres-why/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Did Liberal SCOTUS Justices Just Box Themselves Into Taking a Gun Case?
By Dan Zimmerman on June 26, 2015
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/0 ... -gun-case/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
By Ripcord (via TheTruthAboutGuns.com)


Today’s ruling by SCOTUS on same sex marriage has the left jumping for joy and many on the right disparaging the Court. People of the gun should take solace in today’s ruling. Today, all 50 states must allow for the legal marriage of two individuals of the same sex. They must also recognize those marriages that were performed outside their state. While the opinion tries to zero in on the Court’s previous discussions of the issue, it seems they spent much more time looking at marriage than the Second Amendment over the years, they have given us some nuggets to pull from . . .

[jimlongley]

SCOTUS is full of disappointment this week, this and the other decision just now.

I personally have no problem with all Americans having equal protection under the law. Whether you agree with it or not, their right to have equal protection outweighs your right to perceived harm done to "the sanctity of marriage". I may get flamed on this, but it's the way our current society regards this no matter what the past has been. It's a freight train and it's not going to stop.

Additionally with this wedge issue off of the table, it will be easier for Republicans to compete with Dems in the minds of some independent voters.

Do you agree the same equal protections extend to religious liberties for those deciding not to participate in activities which go against their religious beliefs?

Absolutely. A Catholic church won't marry a Methodist and a Catholic, they shouldn't have to and won't have to marry two men or to two women either.

Don't count on it. Methodists and Catholics aren't in a privileged class unless they possess some other distinguishing characteristic. Forcing the churches to marry homosexuals is what's coming next.

That's not true, the Catholic church can marry a Methodist and a Catholic. It'll likely be a wedding ceremony without a mass. I have my doubts that churches will be forced to legally marry homosexuals precisely because gays have other legal options, such as a JP.

I would not be surprised to see states cancel state issued marriage licensing altogether. http://www.clarionledger.com/story/poli ... /29327433/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; At that point a legal marriage is simply a civil contract between two people and/or common law.

Maybe the Catholic Church has changed its rules since my late wife and I married. She, a failed (divorced) Catholic was not allowed to marry in the Church, so we (I being nominally Episcopal) married in a Lutheran church. A few years later we went through a Marriage Tribunal which granted her a Church annulment, her first marriage and within the Church. At that time, in the 70s, she still was not allowed to marry me in the Church, Mass or not because I was not Catholic and it would have been considered a venial sin, and actually her marriage to me, both civil and in the Lutheran church, was considered a continuing sin which she was allowed to confess to after the Church granted her annulment.

I took the training and converted and with that hurdle cleared we were finally married in the Catholic Church, May 9th 1980.

[Tracker]

SCOTUS is full of disappointment this week, this and the other decision just now.

I personally have no problem with all Americans having equal protection under the law. Whether you agree with it or not, their right to have equal protection outweighs your right to perceived harm done to "the sanctity of marriage". I may get flamed on this, but it's the way our current society regards this no matter what the past has been. It's a freight train and it's not going to stop.

Additionally with this wedge issue off of the table, it will be easier for Republicans to compete with Dems in the minds of some independent voters.

Do you agree the same equal protections extend to religious liberties for those deciding not to participate in activities which go against their religious beliefs?

Absolutely. A Catholic church won't marry a Methodist and a Catholic, they shouldn't have to and won't have to marry two men or to two women either.

Don't count on it. Methodists and Catholics aren't in a privileged class unless they possess some other distinguishing characteristic. Forcing the churches to marry homosexuals is what's coming next.

That's not true, the Catholic church can marry a Methodist and a Catholic. It'll likely be a wedding ceremony without a mass. I have my doubts that churches will be forced to legally marry homosexuals precisely because gays have other legal options, such as a JP.

I would not be surprised to see states cancel state issued marriage licensing altogether. http://www.clarionledger.com/story/poli ... /29327433/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; At that point a legal marriage is simply a civil contract between two people and/or common law.

Maybe the Catholic Church has changed its rules since my late wife and I married. She, a failed (divorced) Catholic was not allowed to marry in the Church, so we (I being nominally Episcopal) married in a Lutheran church. A few years later we went through a Marriage Tribunal which granted her a Church annulment, her first marriage and within the Church. At that time, in the 70s, she still was not allowed to marry me in the Church, Mass or not because I was not Catholic and it would have been considered a venial sin, and actually her marriage to me, both civil and in the Lutheran church, was considered a continuing sin which she was allowed to confess to after the Church granted her annulment.

I took the training and converted and with that hurdle cleared we were finally married in the Catholic Church, May 9th 1980.

Here's my understanding. the church recognizes 7 holy sacraments, baptism and marriage being two. Just like the Eucharist isn't just a symbol neither are these other sacraments. If a baptized catholic got married by a JP, or other religion, the church doesn't recognize that marriage as a sacramental bond. Legal bond, yes. I've been to plenty of catholic weddings were one of the couple wasn't catholic. I have friends who are married in the church but one is not catholic. I was in high school in the 70s and can't remember back that far. I don't know couples who went through annulment and then got married in the church.

[cb1000rider]

So I had a college friend over who basically runs some hospital out of Houston. I asked him about the indication that was posted that ACA made no difference in hospital billing, as those who abuse continue to abuse...
He indicated that for those that were truly indigent that ACA is basically free insurance... And if they go to the ER, they're *more* covered than they were before. And that ACA gives them non-emergency alternatives.

For the portion of the population who is indigent and can't do ACA, it makes no difference. People in this bracket are usually illegal. They continue to behave as before. And Texas has a lot of this demographic.

The net to his hospital was a difference in 6-7 million a year in billing, net gain, after ACA. But that's on a hospital that bills near 1B... Basically not a huge difference.

I full admit that it's just one point of data and I didn't get to see the budget actuals... Might be different somewhere else.

[talltex]

I disagree that striking it down would impact a a "huge" part of the population. I work in emergency departments in Houston. Since the law was enacted I see the same population of patients utilizing the ER as their primary care provider now ,without providing proof of insurance, as before the ACA was passed. What that tells me is that those who abused the system before the ACA will continue to abuse the system because there is no disincentive.

I don't know what the basic demographic is for the Houston ER. Obamacare doesn't subsidize people who aren't here legally (despite what opponents say).

The part of the population that it would impact is 6-7 million people. Apparently that's the number of government subsidized health insurance plans.

I'll throw this out there once more because everyone just seems to be concerned with the number of people receiving subsidies under ACA as the only ones affected by this decision. There are also a HUGE number of other people...primarily self employed and small business groups that have been unable to obtain health insurance at all due to "pre-existing conditions" that they have no control over. The insurance lobby has kept any legislation from passing to change that for 30 + years. Those same people, if they were part of a "large group plan" (50 employees), could not be singled out for exclusion and would pay the same rate as anyone else without that "pre-existing condition". All the politicians....Republicans and Democrats...have had years and years to correct that situation and have done nothing. When the ACA was first being pitched, they still had two years to come up with a viable alternative plan to present and did nothing except complain and then talk about repealing it since then. In the last week, prior to the SCOTUS ruling, all those same politicians kept spouting off about how they will repeal it and replace it with a good plan that fixes all the problems with the ACA. IF they have such a plan and can do so, why didn't they present it before and why don't they present it now ? If they really do have a plan...GREAT... then lets see it, instead of just continuing to make the same empty promises and rhetoric. I had a discussion with a good friend after golf today who had been disparaging the SCOTUS all morning about both rulings made last week. He was ranting about them forcing churches to marry gays, and making all of "us" pay for insurance for deadbeats. I let it slide until we were out in the parking lot loading up then told him I was going to pick on him a little bit. I explained that the decision only said that all states have to recognize that same sex couples have the right to a legal civil union and the tax break and other benefits that go with it...that they pay the same taxes as he and I and should get the same benefits from them, and that there's a difference between that and a religious ceremony. I talked to him about the problems faced by self employed and small business owners and he said "well the state government should fix that", and I agreed and pointed out that it's been that way for 30 years and they refused to buck the insurance lobby. Then I asked him what dollar amount of insurance subsidy did he receive from the state as a teacher...a subsidy that myself and all the other taxpayers and business owners were paying for? He just stared at me and finally said "what do you mean?" I told him that he and every other teacher in the state of Texas receives a MINIMUM subsidy of $225 per month and that most districts add to that amount based on years of service, and given that he had been a science teacher for over 30 years please correct me if you and your wife (a retired teacher) are not receiving at least $500 credit on your monthly health insurance premium. He started to argue that it wasn't the same then stopped and shook his head and laughed and said "I get your point and thanks for not bringing it up in front of the group".