Gays Denied Marriage: The Economic Cost

Mar 28, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: WISW-AM Columbia

What is the cost to gay people of not being allowed to marry? A University of Massachusetts economist believes the lifetime cost averages $500,000 per couple.

Comments
181 - 200 of 394 Comments Last updated May 2, 2013
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188
Apr 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Way to be out of context Wondering. The 14th Amendment is no without limitation,
Me? You're the moron that said it. So, now your brain farts are "out of context." BWAHAHAHAHA!
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#189
Apr 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lides wrote:
It's funny to watch you make so many posts, and say so little.
It's really funny to watch you try to wiggle out of what you did say. To pretend you don't remember. Oh well, you pretend you're a justice.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190
Apr 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lides wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not "tough" to find the concept of equal protection of the laws.
Let's PRETEND what you claim is true that "It's not "tough" to find the concept of equal protection of the laws."
Polygamy is a religious practice. History proves it. Polygamy is a practice of many societies regardless. Freedom of religion should have protected the practice of polygamy by Mormons inspite of their being laws against bigamy, the unlawful practice of being married and without that person's knowledge, the other marries someone else without their knowledge. That was the original law because it was done mostly by men throughout the centuries.
Point being, polygamy is a religious practice. It should have fell under the umbrella protection of freedom of religion. And it didn't. And the 14th amendment had been in place for a couple decades when scotus reviewed polygamy and neither it or freedom of religion protected it. Christianity's view of polygamy being evil and wrong prevailed, not the laws that should have protected the practice.
Thus, same sex marriage without any protections from any laws prior to the 70s I believe also came under fire from popular opinion and religious opinion that it's an evil and wrong practice. People went to the polls and voted it into their constitution that marriage was between one man and one woman. Doing this simply verified the on going prejudice against polygamy and same sex marriage.
The only reason same sex marriage is finding any legal footing is because of legislators, not the will of the people. And it's because of those legislators that the will of the people is now doing a turn about. That and the fact that the 20 to 30 crowd today is heavily pro same sex marriage.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191
Apr 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lides wrote:
As for the "definition" in play for thousands of years, it is an inept and irrelevant argument. The reality is that the constitution has only existed for 200+ years, not thousands, and it is the supreme law of the land. Now, it includes an amendment that mandates states to provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.
You can argue the 14th Amendment is irrelevant. You will just be wrong.
If the ongoing definition of marriage is so inept and irrelevant, then why has same sex marriage had so many hurdles to cross with so many more to cross in the future? Seems something so inept and irrelevant would actually not be a problem to deal with according to your logic :)

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192
Apr 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lides wrote:
You can argue the 14th Amendment is irrelevant. You will just be wrong.
You cannot, and have not, illustrate any legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry.
By the way, I keep telling you the 14th amendment isn't irrelevant. But at times it's not applicable. The 14th amendment can protect an existing law. The 14th amendment cannot protect laws that don't exist. Understand the difference?
As for your other statement, the people of various states have proved their interest by voting is to not allow same sex marriage. That vote became law against same sex marriage for many many states. Therefore it's in the state's best interest to serve the law regardless.
Just as with some states, voters have voted for same sex marriage. That vote became law. So now it's in the state's best interest to serve the law regardless.
Understand?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#193
Apr 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's PRETEND what you claim is true that "It's not "tough" to find the concept of equal protection of the laws."
Polygamy is a religious practice. History proves it. Polygamy is a practice of many societies regardless. Freedom of religion should have protected the practice of polygamy by Mormons inspite of their being laws against bigamy, the unlawful practice of being married and without that person's knowledge, the other marries someone else without their knowledge. That was the original law because it was done mostly by men throughout the centuries.
Point being, polygamy is a religious practice. It should have fell under the umbrella protection of freedom of religion. And it didn't. And the 14th amendment had been in place for a couple decades when scotus reviewed polygamy and neither it or freedom of religion protected it. Christianity's view of polygamy being evil and wrong prevailed, not the laws that should have protected the practice.
Thus, same sex marriage without any protections from any laws prior to the 70s I believe also came under fire from popular opinion and religious opinion that it's an evil and wrong practice. People went to the polls and voted it into their constitution that marriage was between one man and one woman. Doing this simply verified the on going prejudice against polygamy and same sex marriage.
The only reason same sex marriage is finding any legal footing is because of legislators, not the will of the people. And it's because of those legislators that the will of the people is now doing a turn about. That and the fact that the 20 to 30 crowd today is heavily pro same sex marriage.
Polygamy is a social custom about which many different religions, in many different place and times, have had opinions.

Strive for clarity. It helps.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#194
Apr 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamy is a social custom about which many different religions, in many different place and times, have had opinions.
Strive for clarity. It helps.
Look to Justice Dumbass. All citizens have the right to marry without limitation. Clear enough?

“Come and get it! ”

Since: Jan 09

Traverse City

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#195
Apr 19, 2013
 
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Look to Justice Dumbass. All citizens have the right to marry without limitation. Clear enough?
Right. Next it'll be farmers marrying their cows and car nuts marrying their vehicles. After all, isn't it our right to marry the object of our affection??
Judge Horndog

Alpharetta, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196
Apr 19, 2013
 
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Look to Justice Dumbass. All citizens have the right to marry without limitation. Clear enough?
Where does Justice Dumbass work?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#197
Apr 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Sneaky Pete wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. Next it'll be farmers marrying their cows and car nuts marrying their vehicles. After all, isn't it our right to marry the object of our affection??
How will the cow or car demonstrate Informed Consent to the contract?

Typical male ... thinks the only decision that matters is his.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#198
Apr 19, 2013
 
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamy is a social custom about which many different religions, in many different place and times, have had opinions.
Strive for clarity. It helps.
You don't read well. What didn't you get of the following hmm?

"Polygamy is a religious practice. History proves it".
I then stated for further clarification...
"Polygamy is a practice of many societies regardless."
And you needed further clarity? lol...

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#199
Apr 19, 2013
 
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
How will the cow or car demonstrate Informed Consent to the contract?
Typical male ... thinks the only decision that matters is his.
Prearranged marriages have existed for thousands of years. They exist to this very day in many, many societies. And the two people married didn't give consent. How barbaric of these people you would say because they didn't give consent.
Rich people are leaving their wealth to their animals. How will the animal display/demonstrate informed consent to the legal contract?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#200
Apr 20, 2013
 
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Prearranged marriages have existed for thousands of years. They exist to this very day in many, many societies. And the two people married didn't give consent. How barbaric of these people you would say because they didn't give consent.
Rich people are leaving their wealth to their animals. How will the animal display/demonstrate informed consent to the legal contract?
Most States do not allow bequests to non-humans.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#201
Apr 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Me? You're the moron that said it. So, now your brain farts are "out of context." BWAHAHAHAHA!
Clearly you lack the intellectual ability to grasp basic concepts. Ergo, you are a waste of my time.

I'll return to ignoring you, to address you is a waste of my time.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#202
Apr 20, 2013
 
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's PRETEND what you claim is true that "It's not "tough" to find the concept of equal protection of the laws."
Polygamy is a religious practice. History proves it. Polygamy is a practice of many societies regardless. Freedom of religion should have protected the practice of polygamy by Mormons inspite of their being laws against bigamy, the unlawful practice of being married and without that person's knowledge, the other marries someone else without their knowledge. That was the original law because it was done mostly by men throughout the centuries.
Point being, polygamy is a religious practice. It should have fell under the umbrella protection of freedom of religion. And it didn't. And the 14th amendment had been in place for a couple decades when scotus reviewed polygamy and neither it or freedom of religion protected it. Christianity's view of polygamy being evil and wrong prevailed, not the laws that should have protected the practice.
Thus, same sex marriage without any protections from any laws prior to the 70s I believe also came under fire from popular opinion and religious opinion that it's an evil and wrong practice. People went to the polls and voted it into their constitution that marriage was between one man and one woman. Doing this simply verified the on going prejudice against polygamy and same sex marriage.
The only reason same sex marriage is finding any legal footing is because of legislators, not the will of the people. And it's because of those legislators that the will of the people is now doing a turn about. That and the fact that the 20 to 30 crowd today is heavily pro same sex marriage.
And? Polygamy is not equal protection under the law, the only people who would advance such an argument are those who cannot count.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#203
Apr 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

No Surprise wrote:
If the ongoing definition of marriage is so inept and irrelevant, then why has same sex marriage had so many hurdles to cross with so many more to cross in the future? Seems something so inept and irrelevant would actually not be a problem to deal with according to your logic :)
Take this argument, and replace same sex marriage with "interracial marriage", "voting rights" (excluding women), or "segregation". Each of which illustrate that this is a historically inept argument.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204
Apr 20, 2013
 
No Surprise wrote:
By the way, I keep telling you the 14th amendment isn't irrelevant. But at times it's not applicable.

Fell free to prove as much. I don’t think you can.
No Surprise wrote:
The 14th amendment can protect an existing law. The 14th amendment cannot protect laws that don't exist. Understand the difference?
The right to marry exists in every state in the union, does it not?

Can you indicate even so much as a rational basis to deny equal protection for same sex couples to marry? Of course, you cannot, which is why you moronically argue that the 14th Amendment is inapplicable.
No Surprise wrote:
As for your other statement, the people of various states have proved their interest by voting is to not allow same sex marriage. That vote became law against same sex marriage for many many states. Therefore it's in the state's best interest to serve the law regardless.
Just as with some states, voters have voted for same sex marriage. That vote became law. So now it's in the state's best interest to serve the law regardless.
Understand?
Grow a brain. The US Supreme Court has found marriage to be a fundamental right. Not once, but 14 times.

Separately it has held that,“One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

Do you notice how my opinion is substantiated by fact, and yours is substantiated by, well... nothing.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#205
Apr 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

lides wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Clearly you lack the intellectual ability to grasp basic concepts.
2. Ergo, you are a waste of my time.
3. I'll return to ignoring you, to address you is a waste of my time.
1. Can you be more original? That's my line for you.
2. You say things then deny you said them. You often respond to the wrong poster. You lack the intellectual ability to grasp basic concepts. You're unusually biased for someone who claims to be straight. I read your posts for the humor.
3. You know that's one of your biggest lies. A promise often made but never kept. It is usually I that ignore your posts when they become boring or lack entertainment value.
Quest

Broad Run, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#206
Apr 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way, I keep telling you the 14th amendment isn't irrelevant. But at times it's not applicable. The 14th amendment can protect an existing law. The 14th amendment cannot protect laws that don't exist. Understand the difference?
As for your other statement, the people of various states have proved their interest by voting is to not allow same sex marriage. That vote became law against same sex marriage for many many states. Therefore it's in the state's best interest to serve the law regardless.
Just as with some states, voters have voted for same sex marriage. That vote became law. So now it's in the state's best interest to serve the law regardless.
Understand?
Under what specific circumstances is a majority allowed to create laws designed to harm and marginalize a specific minority?

Can this just be done on a whim? Because of religious beliefs? Or must there be some valid state interest being served by the denial of those basic civil rights?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#207
Apr 20, 2013
 
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Under what specific circumstances is a majority allowed to create laws designed to harm and marginalize a specific minority?
States have the power to ban that which is deemed inappropriate and not conforming to state or even community standards. These laws are often dictated by the majority and enacted by the state or community they reside in.

Public domain and obscenity laws are two examples. It can also work the other way. A minority can create laws that change things for everyone. Example, in Concord, MA single serving plastic bottles of water can't be sold.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/02/plas...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••