"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." Samuel Adams

Friday, June 26, 2015


4 comments:

Tom said...

when government starts putting social issues into tax law this is what can happen. You believe in fairness like a single tax rate for all, but how fair is it for 2 same sexers to wed in MD, move to SC, and not enjoy the lawful financial benefits that SC allows for heterosexual marriages. I have to wonder how the court would have ruled had congress had at least written a constitutional amendment defining marriage. I know one was introduced a few years back, but was never acted on.

All that said, another 5-4 vote in the court which makes me feel this was just as much a political decision as a constitutional one.

My prediction. nobody will even notice the change once all the hype goes away.

Tom said...

by the way. it works both ways....."It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." Samuel Adams

Dave said...

The solution was to change the tax laws, not the definition of marriage.

Tom said...

IN actuality, I tend to agree. Personally, I think the court went to far. Leave marriage up to the states. I remember when DC started allowing same sex marriages, the Maryland AG researched all law and the MD constitution to see if there was anything saying the state could not and or had to recognize same sex marriages. Far as I know there wasn't and the state just decided to treat them like any married couple. Had every state done similar, I wonder if the court would have ruled as they did. Not the first time I think the court overstepped its bounds and I am sure it won't be the last. IT's not like the states didn't know this was coming, especially after the DOMA ruling.