Supreme Court Bombshell: No Right to Remain Silent

[toycar]

so, separate but equal?

LOL@Your pic







I see your point. No in a perfect world equal would mean equal.


I just think that everyone has a valid point. Traditional marriage is not a *** marriage, they are not the same.


The rights are what matters, who cares about the title of traditional vs same sex. If that was all they had to do to make everyone happy, I would be all for it.


BTW, I am NOT really for same sex marriage, but, I understand the hardship that they are dealing with now and so I cant help but sympathize with their position. I want them to have equal rights, but I will never think/feel like their marriage is the same as my own. There are plenty of broken homes from traditional marriage, plenty of straight cheaters, women beaters etc etc. Plenty of examples why traditional marriage is flawed too yanno.


Maybe thats my personal flaw, who knows. It is different, so why not just call a spade a spade and move on?

[toycar]

So I think this story kind of confirms my theory about this ruling and how it applies to the IRS scandal;


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...fth-amendment/





Food for thought anyways. I know fox isn't exactly a reliable source, but lots of new agencies are reporting on this right now-not just fox.


You think they can force her to testify like they are suggesting? I think they are legally going to fuck this woman around until she comes out and says exactly who ordered targeted auditing.


Maybe its just me, what do you guys think?

[reklipz]

I wish I knew about law, regarding my concerns about rights as a citizen vs corporation and representing government.

First off, from the article:

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the committee, said at the opening of Friday's meeting that "I believe Lois Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment privileges."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...#ixzz2XXHc51un

Since when are rights privileges?! The reason it is a right is to distinguish it from a privilege... This is concerning.

Second, can't you exploit your right at any time? Meaning anything you say can and will be used against you, but if you suddenly stop talking, then you simply aren't talking, suddenly exploiting your fifth amendment right. The way I read it: you don't have to say anything, but you can say whatever you want, even incriminate yourself if you wish, but you can't be forced to incriminate yourself, no matter what you have (or have not) said.

The one thing I like that my friend said: The person (police, whoever) that interviews you should be able to give their account of the interview process as testimony if it comes up. If you're squeamish during the response, then that can be used against you. However, that squeamishness is (should be) easily defendable, as noted.

Also from the article:

"That's not how the Fifth Amendment works," Gowdy said. "You're not allowed to just say your side of the story ... She could have sat there and said nothing."

It sounds like he's being authoratative. Is there not already a clear pecedant on the interpretation of the 5th amendment? I mean, this goes back to what you were saying toycar; the whole system is basically ruined if there is not. The interpretation of the constitution / bill of rights should already be clearly defined. If it needs updated then so be it, but we don't just get to reinterpret what it says every few months...

--

So, even though I believe (perhaps ignorantly) what I do about the fifth amendment (see above), I don't believe that the government officials have those rights in a case like this, making this whole argument moot.

[Ralphie]

so, separate but equal?

That's exactly what i thought.

[toycar]

Because man on man action is the same as traditional marriage right? Because two women can fuck and make babies? Because FOREVER its been condemned, but, the REASONABLE PEOPLE OF AMERICA have changed their minds so THE OTHER 10,000 YEARS OF HISTORY NOW MEAN NOTHING?


I hate that people have such a hard time wrapping their head around peoples objection to this but still trying to be reasonable about this. Forever things have been one way. Now theres what, about 10% of the population getting down with same sex. 35 states in the country have put forward effort to BAN it. Not just a law that forgot to include same sex marriage, but actually fucking banned the idea of same sex marriage.


So yeah, 10% or so of the population gets down with it. Another 40-50% of people trying to be understanding(wow big surprise that half the population thinks its an issue, the other half does not). And just because the two groups now equal enough people that are OK with it, that somehow means that people that have always (longer than *** people could even talk about being ***) felt different its our fault and we are the enemy? I mean this shit has NOT BEEN OK for thousands of years. Now 2-3 generations in a row feel different, and the BILLIONS OF PEOPLE that previously and currently feel traditionally, we are the enemy?


You guys are the ones pushing the envelope and changing the way shits been for thousands of years. Its not enough that I can sympathize with the situation, even though I don't approve of the idea-I am trying to be rational. Its not like people need my approval to be same sex you know. I don't really agree with it. I don't agree with lots of things, it doesn't come between me and being able to be civil or friendly with people though.



Seriously, its like the pro *** people push the reasonable into a corner on the issue.



Bottom line here, IT IS DIFFERENT.

[Ralphie]

You're not being rational at all dude, and frankly your attitude is quite disgusting.

So women were oppressed for the longest time....

blacks were segregated for the longest time...

and if no one had spoken up and said this isn't right, nothing would have changed.

So because something has been one way for 10000 years, it should remain?

Wake up buddy, times change, people change. All the *** people in the world will not change the fact that you need man+women to bring life into this world. They are ok with that, they can adopt or lead a childless life.

All they fucking want is to be able to get married and then share benefits married couples share...

IT IN NO WAY EFFECTS YOU.

So what's the fucking problem?

[toycar]

Can't believe you compare the *** rights to any of that and feel like they are equal issues.


No matter what happens in America, the other 90% of the world population still feels different. Why don't you go take up your case with them?


My grype is that "being sympathetic" isn't enough. I am supposed to accept it(refuse to) or else.


It's not enough to understand why those people need rights. Oh no, I'm an asshole until I think they are just like me.


But they are not. Plain and simple.


You want to act like I'm such a dick for refusing to admit that one small point, be ause being rational isn't enough.

Whatever I guess. It's not the same

[Ralphie]

No matter what happens in America, the other 90% of the world population still feels different. Why don't you go take up your case with them?


I am supposed to accept it(refuse to) or else.

Countries that Legalized *** Marriage-

Argentina
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
Denmark
France
Iceland
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Uruguay

90% eh?

via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

Our country is on it's way towards it now, thanks to DOMA being turned down.

You're supposed to accept it, refuse it, or else?

Or else what?

Again no one is knocking down your door telling you that if same sex marriage passes, your marriage to your wife is now null and void.

How can you not see this??

It will affect you in no way, unless one of your sons grows up and determines that he is ***.

Then when he is denied his right to live a normal life like everyone else, im sure you will change your tune.


The only thing I can think of for you to be worried remotely about passes of same sex marriage, is some misconstrued idea that the human race will be wiped out because two men or two women can't have a baby.

Please for the sake of all that is holy, tell me that's not what you think.

Because outside that, there is no argument you can conjure up that will prove otherwise.

If so, then it would be only an "American ideal" but countries that do far better then us AND far worse, both have stepped up to legalize it.

Your move.



Edit- and btw im not trying to tell you how you should feel or anything of the sort, im just trying to show you that clearly your the minority in this pool of thought.

Much like women have all their rights today, and African Americans etc...

so will ***s....just a matter of time.

[toycar]

Taking me all wrong


Do I understand the problem, yes

Do I understand the solution, yes

Do I understand that *** marriage needs to be recognized legally equally, yes

Is it weird to me, yes

Do I personally agree with it, no

Is it that big of a deal to me, yes I think it's shitty *** people are dealing with this


Do I think *** marriages are the same as traditional, no, it's not. It isn't. And that's the only part I'm holding onto, but am an asshole for that though right?

[Ralphie]

So then there isn't anything else to discuss.

You understand why it needs to be, you're free to disagree and be unhappy about it.

You can even try your hardest to keep it from happening if you'd like, that's what makes America great, but I think we both know you'd just be wasting your time.

And for the record, no one called you an asshole but yourself.

What I don't get though, is what makes a traditional marriage any different then a *** marriage, taking out ALL religious aspects.

The ability to go to the court and get married "legally" without any religion or god or special ideals, has long been available.

So what really is the difference if two *** guys go down to the court and get married?

Nothing.

You don't have to swear by god, or anything if you don't want too, that is what makes it YOUR marriage.

All you have is vows to basically become one with that person, look after them, stand by them in better and worse yada yada.

I had my ceremony done by a Rabbi. I said my vows. I stepped on my glass. We had a chuppah, we have a Ketubah etc.


At the end of the day, I still had to get a marriage license and make it legal through NYC. So all of it aside, it doesn't have to be a man and women.

When two ***s marry, people don't just fucking disintegrate. Aliens don't flock down on us. God kills no kittens.

I just don't see this big difference.

[reklipz]

So what's the fucking problem?

The problem lies here:

All they fucking want is to be able to get married and then share benefits married couples share...

First, marriage is a religious term. Second, the benefits given to married couples is based on (I believe) the couple raising a family and having children of their own and however that affects (presumably contributes, as we're talking about benefits here) society/the nation.

I think there's enough evidence to show (though perhaps not, but the evidence should be what drives the decisions) that you don't need to be "married" in the common sense (man+woman, under god, etc.) in order to have the same affects on society. Homosexual couples can lead lives and have families in capacities the same as "traditionally married" couples can, and if the benefits are based on these capacities and metrics, there's no reason the non-traditionally married couples shouldn't receive them. Of course, this is all based on there being evidence to support this, and not evidence supporting the opposite.

Please let me know if the above doesn't make sense or didn't come across clearly, because it's the basis for my whole reasoning. Basically, "marriage" and it's associated benefits should be re-evaluated, and we should stop calling it marriage and call it a civil union or similar, because that's really what the benefits are for. If there were benefits related to the religious "marriage," they should be scrapped or re-evaluated. Plain and simple, IMO.

[Ralphie]

But marriage is just a term.

And again, take the child aspect out. ***s can't produce children, but they can adopt.

They can also use surrogate parents.

Lesbians can do in vetro.

So bring up children is null and void.


Marriage doesn't need to be re-evaluated.

Why must everything be re-evaluated.

THE FUCKING EVIDENCE IS ALREADY THERE!


Iceland-

Prime Minister Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir and her partner were among the first married same-sex couples in the country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage


A fucking prime minister!?!?!?!

Why should anything be evaluated.

Just give these people their right to legally be married as everyone else, and let them move on with their lives.

What harm is it doing anyone?

[reklipz]

Allow me to try again:

Traditionally married couples receive benefits based on some reasoning. I do not know what this reasoning is, but someone in a position of power at some point did. I assume it is based on their contribution to society being "better" than it is if they stay single. As well, I expect some of it is because raising a family is no easy task, but the rewards to society are immense, and therefore there is some benefit to help make this easier.

Now, if there is evidence to support it (which I believe there is...), any sort of marriage, not just traditional marriage, that produces the same effects on society should have the same benefits. That's it. Plain and simple.

All of the benefits should be based on evidence, and should be fair and equal. I have a feeling that there are some current marriage benefits that are not fair and equal. I expect there are some benefits that presume a mother going through pregnancy and maternity. If so, clearly not all marriages deserve this benefit, even current traditional ones. These kind of things should be re-evaluated and fixed if they exist, though it's not a pressing issue really, just a matter of principle (the same one that is driving this whole conversation, however).

There, how was that?

[Ralphie]

Here is an article discussing some of the benefits *** couples would now recieve-

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...ctice/2464091/

Obviously the IRS and Obama administration still have to iron out some things, but a quick glance over that article, and most of the benefits are tax breaks etc.

Like an IRA contribution...

or tax breaks for children that aren't biologically your's.


So, again, I don't think benefits and marriage has to be re-evaluated on a grand scale...

they just need to put policy in place to reflect the additions of same sex marriages.


Do I make sense?!

[Tnwagn]

Making *** marriage legal is a huge issue for the people who write tax codes. The tax codes, as they stand now, would take an incredible amount of work to respond to *** marriage being passed into law across the entire country. It's not just a matter of changing a few words but involves taking a look at what the intent of the language entails and what would be the appropriate rewording given a new definition to legal marriage.

The fact that there are benefits isn't the issue, it's that currently the language of the law is firmly fixed to man+woman marriage definition.