Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court will tackle the contentious issue of same-sex marriage, agreeing to hear two constitutional challenges to state and federal laws dealing with the recognition of gay and lesbian couples to legally wed.
In a one-page order on Friday, the court took on what will be one of the most important issues in its history. The decision to review the matter came just weeks after voters approved same-sex marriage in three states.
Oral arguments will likely be held in March with a ruling by late June.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/07/us/court-marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
Hopefully they'll get this one right too. These same-sex couples have been discriminated against long enough. :yes:
To call it a civil union and give them the same rights as married couples, yes, but to call it a traditional marriage is another thing entirely. I believe if those who are screaming "gay rights" would word things a little differently and approach it in a different manner most people would agree. It would actually be the same thing but there are that select few who get all uptight and bent out of shape just because of the wording which causes them to turn a deaf ear to what the gay's are really wanting which is the right to the same things married couples have like, benefits, tax deductions, and say over health decisions or, heaven forbid, funeral arrangements. When you talk to people who object the usual answer is that they agree they should be entitled to the benefits but not joined in marriage in the traditional sense. One thought did occur to me though. Do they realize they, the gay's, would then be subject to having to get a divorce and all that goes with that too?
Especially after hearing comments from the Supreme Court Justices, I think the attorneys arguing for gay marriage are going about it all wrong and have completely overlooked the real winning argument - the contract argument.
For all the claptrap marriage is imbued with by the RW/Conservative/Evangelicals/religious types, the reality is that marriage - for ALL governmental intents and purposes - is merely a contract...
...a contract for conferring property rights, legitimizing heirs, and other benefits between individuals.
No government entity - federal, state, or local - can delegitimize the inherent right of individuals of legal age and sound mind to enter into a contract for their mutual benefit - regardless of their sexual persuasion.
There's no reason I can see for falling into the religious/social BS trap of the opponents of gay marriage and arguing on any of their faulty grounds.
Argue on the issue that's a sure fire winner, and can't legitimately be argued against!