For the past several years, a couple of us on the RCSC Board of Directors tried to change our outdated rules on how rec cards were distributed/assessed. Only "married couples" were given the exemption where one of them was under 55 being eligible (but both on the deed) were entitled to two rec cards. In Arizona, marriage was between a "man and a woman." It was just announced, the Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote said all states must recognize same sex marriages. That will force the RCSC to finally do the right thing. Now if we could only get them to recognize other family living arrangements like a daughter/son living with their mom/dad we'd be in a better place. Trying to squeeze the cost of a privilege card out of someone who is already paying their lot assessment has always been one of my frustrations. There's a couple of other rubs, but in time we'll change them. Thanks SCOTUS for doing at least a part of what a few of us saw as the right thing to do.
YES...I am also happy with the ruling. I hope couples step up and take advantage of this ruling. Sun City has another issue that is also age related. So many legally married couples are on their 2nd or 3rd marriages and some just co-habit because of financial reasons(insurance, pensions, inheritance issues etc.). A home may be just held in one of the spouse's name because of these issues. I would like to see a privilege card given to the legal spouse even if they are not a deeded owner. It's easy enough to ask for a copy of the marriage certificate.
Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in Arizona since October 17, 2014. So, shouldn't the RCSC already be changing the rules on the cards? As for today ruling, my opinion: Justice Roberts dissent was a little dramatic. The best part being: "...ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and father committed to raising them in the stable conditions of a lifelong relationship." But Justice Scalias' dissent hit the nail on the head: "...So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today's decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court..." I can only imagine what some of the ultra-conservatives are thinking. Perhaps something with a "Ghost Busters" flair: “…We now must accept the fact that this country is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions. Old Testament, real wrath-of-God type stuff! Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes! The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats, living together! Mass hysteria!...” I love that movie.
Spot on aggie; this has been another one of those hot button topics the board has played deaf and dumb on. I guess what galls me the most is we rewrote Board Policy 12 (from 12A) and one of the more stellar arguments was about the importance of a more fair document. And of course giving the clubs more flexibility was a blessing as well. Curious how we could buy into the whole fairness argument, but when it came to fairness regarding rec cards, it was lost on the board as they did their best Ray Charles impression. Yesterday a woman asked me when I would run again for the board. My answer was simple; when I can put together a slate with 2 others who will be willing to tackle the bigger issues facing Sun City. I've written this many times: Sun City is facing changes due to the societal issues we have no control over. This is the perfect example of one of them. It just seems to me the community would have been better off to make the change because it was the right thing to do, not because we are forced to do it. And therein lay the reasons to be more open and aggressive in looking to the future and what will be coming down the road.
Dang V, you missed the best part as Scalia moaned about what something meant, his answer... "ask a hippie." Gospel truth, it's in the dissent. Good question regarding the AZ law. Guess no one had applied for it.
If that's the only reason for marriage, then people past childbearing age should also not be allowed to marry.
