EPTU.S. Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage - Page 10
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
| ||
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
Think most would agree that when we drop stone-age mentality and ideals that it is indeed progress. Not everyone shares this stupid notion that the glory days are long gone and everything should be how it was in the past or that the past was this mythical time and place where everything was better. I mean maybe for Greece it was but not for the rest of the world~ EDIT: But I think it shows a lot about a person when they find people being granted the same rights that everyone else has as disgusting and sad, rather than finding the fact that they were denied them the disgusting and sad part. But as I always say, that mentality will continue to die out and be of less and less relevance. The only reason these outdated views are even somewhat relevant today is because of the number of people who hold them, not because they have any actual merit. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18818 Posts
On June 28 2015 07:17 Steveling wrote: Disgusting and sad. Going backwards is "progressive" now apparently. One is left to wonder how exactly "disgusting and sad" became entangled with homosexual people loving each other in your mind. | ||
|
Thax
Belgium1060 Posts
On June 28 2015 07:17 Steveling wrote: Disgusting and sad. Going backwards is "progressive" now apparently. Don't you have other things to worry about? | ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
But I am somewhat relieved that the supreme court isn't just arbitrarily deciding moral values for millions of people and that today we lucked out and most agreed (it was only a 5-4 decision after all, and it could have gone the other way). Well heck I guess its pretty close to that, but at least they seem to have a strong basis for their decisions. I can't say I feel all that comfortable about it though. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On June 28 2015 09:25 radscorpion9 wrote: Reading Chief Justice Roberts dissent and then the responses in this thread about how the supreme court is meant to interpret rights as not being based on historical tradition was pretty fascinating, at first I thought this was a good thing passed for the wrong reasons, now I am a little bit more at ease. For the legal scholars here it might be nice to post the section of Justice Kennedy's rebuttal to the point Justice Roberts was making, I guess I'm not sure exactly where you'd find these things. But I am somewhat relieved that the supreme court isn't just arbitrarily deciding moral values for millions of people and that today we lucked out and most agreed (it was only a 5-4 decision after all, and it could have gone the other way). Well heck I guess that is what is happening. But at least they seem to have a strong basis for their decisions. In theory, rulings like this should be made right away so that unconstitutional laws don't last long, regardless of the political climate or the attitude of the populace. And in theory, the Supreme Court should decide such things with complete disregard to their personal values, and only care about the law in regards to constitutionally held rights. Unfortunately, what really ends up happening is that the Supreme Court waves issues like this for decades until they finally can't, and then there's always several that go with their gut more than the law. It's basically the same no matter what country you're in. (I kind of get the feeling that some judges vote just so people know where they stand, knowing that their vote won't change the outcome) | ||
|
farvacola
United States18818 Posts
On June 28 2015 09:25 radscorpion9 wrote: In a purely legalistic sense, it's pretty simple to rule in favor of gay marriage here. The 14th Amendment holds that:Reading Chief Justice Roberts dissent and then the responses in this thread about how the supreme court is meant to interpret rights as not being based on historical tradition was pretty fascinating, at first I thought this was a good thing passed for the wrong reasons, now I am a little bit more at ease. For the legal scholars here it might be nice to post the section of Justice Kennedy's rebuttal to the point Justice Roberts was making, I guess I'm not sure exactly where you'd find these things. But I am somewhat relieved that the supreme court isn't just arbitrarily deciding moral values for millions of people and that today we lucked out and most agreed (it was only a 5-4 decision after all, and it could have gone the other way). Well heck I guess its pretty close to that, but at least they seem to have a strong basis for their decisions. I can't say I feel all that comfortable about it though. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (the Equal Protection Clause, in italics, is the one to focus on) With that in mind, consider that the common law doctrine of judicial review established by Marbury v. Madison allows the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of laws, for "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803). Furthermore, the Supreme Court is able to review those constitutional decisions that have passed through the highest court of a state, for "...the appellate power of the United States must, in such cases, extend to state tribunals." Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304, 342 (1813). Accordingly, it isn't exactly hard for the Supreme Court to apply a reading of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to a state administered designation that confers certain kinds of rights to state citizens, namely marriage licenses. Kennedy cited to over 10 different landmark Supreme Court decisions in which a common law recognition of marriage is given ink, from Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965), which dealt with the right to privacy, to Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978), which dealt with a father behind on child support payments and his right to marry. The common law of the United States and the Constitution are clear that when the government bestows designations upon individuals that confer particular kinds of rights, the government must do so equally at all levels. Obergefell v. Hodges is just another reminder and a sorely needed one at that. | ||
|
G5
United States2863 Posts
 | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5276 Posts
On June 28 2015 07:54 farvacola wrote: One is left to wonder how exactly "disgusting and sad" became entangled with homosexual people loving each other in your mind. can you make this argument without the love part? (just curious) | ||
|
Maenander
Germany4923 Posts
On June 28 2015 19:01 xM(Z wrote: can you make this argument without the love part? (just curious) What's sad and disgusting about same-sex couples being able to form a social unit just like heterosexual couples can? | ||
|
Thax
Belgium1060 Posts
On June 28 2015 19:01 xM(Z wrote: can you make this argument without the love part? (just curious) One is left to wonder how exactly "disgusting and sad" became entangled with homosexual people existing in your mind. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5276 Posts
On June 28 2015 19:49 Maenander wrote: What's sad and disgusting about same-sex couples being able to form a social unit just like heterosexual couples can? that's somewhat fine(one can argue here that in the absence of love, the only reason heterosexual couples form social unions is to procreate) but it's just going around it, around love. the(my) premise here is that many people can and do justify a lot of things with love or in the name of love but once that's done with (ex: here comes the science and proves that love doesn't exist), once they lose their justification, they will ditch their whole pro-LGBT stance all together. this whole thing looks hollow to me. good but hollow. | ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On June 28 2015 20:08 xM(Z wrote: that's somewhat fine(one can argue here that in the absence of love, the only reason heterosexual couples form social unions is to procreate) but it's just going around it, around love. the(my) premise here is that many people can and do justify a lot of things with love or in the name of love but once that's done with (ex: here comes the science and proves that love doesn't exist), once they lose their justification, they will ditch their whole pro-LGBT stance all together. this whole thing looks hollow to me. good but hollow. So your waiting for science to prove love is bullshit and therefore gay people shouldnt be awarded equal rights ? Trying to connect the dots here .... | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5276 Posts
On June 28 2015 20:23 Rebs wrote: So your waiting for science to prove love is bullshit and therefore gay people shouldnt be awarded equal rights ? Trying to connect the dots here .... that's totally missing the point+ Show Spoiler + your question should've been - So you're waiting for science to prove love is bullshit so that no one could use it as an excuse to/for <...(in this case marriage)...> Edit: how on earth can you say that gays now have equal rights because of ... love; because they can love. | ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On June 28 2015 21:05 xM(Z wrote: that's totally missing the point+ Show Spoiler + your question should've been - So you're waiting for science to prove love is bullshit so that no one could use it as an excuse to/for <...(in this case marriage)...> Yeah I got that but it sounds rather generic. You could be talking about trying to finding unicorns. What does marriage requiring or not requiring love have to do with it? I ignored the point because it doesnt make any sense but since you brought it up again. No one is using love as an argument of any sort. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5276 Posts
| ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On June 28 2015 21:10 xM(Z wrote: look at my original quote. it can be taken to mean that love excuses everything. Not really. You could be in love with your goat. Doesnt make it okay to hump it. | ||
|
hfglgg
Germany5372 Posts
On June 28 2015 21:10 xM(Z wrote: look at my original quote. it can be taken to mean that love excuses everything. the key part is "loving each other" and two people loving each other can never be sad or disgusting. mostly because it doesnt affect you in the slightest. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5276 Posts
Disgusting and sad. i took it to mean that he was disgusted and sad that the supreme court legalized it; that's what this thread is all about after all.Going backwards is "progressive" now apparently. but then: One is left to wonder how exactly "disgusting and sad" became entangled with homosexual people loving each other in your mind. he took it to mean disgusted by what happens between homosexual people then used love? to justify it. latent stuff going on there imo. anyway, it's fairly off topic and i'm not that fond of pursuing it further. | ||
|
Thax
Belgium1060 Posts
On June 29 2015 00:23 xM(Z wrote: had nothing to do with me; it's all abstracts i took it to mean that he was disgusted and sad that the supreme court legalized it; that's what this thread is all about after all. but then: he took it to mean disgusted by what happens between homosexual people then used love? to justify it. latent stuff going on there imo. anyway, it's fairly off topic and i'm not that fond of pursuing it further. Then why start the tangent at all? It's not exactly a leap that someone who is "disgusted and sad" that SSM got legalized is actually just "disgusted and sad" by gay people in general. Since, really, the only reason to be against SSM is because you're an old fashioned bigot. | ||
| ||
