Today, the United States Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states nationwide.
This is a historic victory for civil rights and LGBT advocates, and the culmination of a decades long change in public opinion towards same-sex marriage.
“The court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. He was joined in the opinion by the court’s liberal justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
All four of the court’s most conservative members — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — dissented and each wrote separate opinions.
Fantastic news. Should've happened a long time ago.
The dissenting opinions are disgusting from the dissenting judges. I can't stand some of these justices that just throw around phrases like "revising/revisionist" or "active/overreaching judiciary" or anything similar when a decision doesn't go their way.
I agree with ssm, but disagree with gay adoption. I think that todays society is so caught up in trying to get away from the conservative nature of the last 100 years, that many people have jumped to the social far left in order to seem different from generations past. Just 1 mans opinion.
Edit: Therefore, in practice I am against all ssm.
On June 27 2015 00:52 FusionSC2 wrote: I agree with ssm, but disagree with gay adoption. I think that todays society is so caught up in trying to get away from the conservative nature of the last 100 years, that many people have jumped to the social far left in order to seem different from generations past. Just 1 mans opinion.
Edit: Therefore, in practice I am against all ssm.
Why on earth would anyone be against gay adoption?
there's plenty of absolutely retarded hetero people who are shit parents. Perfect example is Palin's stupid shit kid who got knocked up out of wedlock again (probably by a new guy) and made a goddamn post about how the kids unwanted. Talk about a mind fuck when that kid gets old enough to learn that one.
there's absolutely no reason to think that gay people would be any better or worse as a parent
On June 27 2015 00:52 FusionSC2 wrote: I agree with ssm, but disagree with gay adoption. I think that todays society is so caught up in trying to get away from the conservative nature of the last 100 years, that many people have jumped to the social far left in order to seem different from generations past. Just 1 mans opinion.
Edit: Therefore, in practice I am against all ssm.
Why on earth would anyone be against gay adoption?
there's plenty of absolutely retarded hetero people who are shit parents. Perfect example is Palin's stupid shit kid who got knocked up out of wedlock again (probably by a new guy) and made a goddamn post about how the kids unwanted. Talk about a mind fuck when that kid gets old enough to learn that one.
there's absolutely no reason to think that gay people would be any better or worse as a parent
Not to mention the plethora of research that shows that gay parents can raise kids just as well as heterosexual parents.
On June 27 2015 00:52 FusionSC2 wrote: I agree with ssm, but disagree with gay adoption. I think that todays society is so caught up in trying to get away from the conservative nature of the last 100 years, that many people have jumped to the social far left in order to seem different from generations past. Just 1 mans opinion.
Edit: Therefore, in practice I am against all ssm.
Ah, clearly spoken by somebody who has not had the questionable pleasure of growing up without parents in some shithole orphanage.
Also, Scalia's dissent is hilarious. I'm surprised Roberts ruled the way he did. Given his age, and some previous rulings, I thought he would go with the "be on the right side of history" approach.
Agreed. Not surprised by the ruling but thought one of the other conservative judges (Roberts) would vote for it as well since he does like to be on the right side of history.
It's about time. Glad to see another social issue where the US is not behind other developed nations.
On June 27 2015 02:50 andrewlt wrote: Agreed. Not surprised by the ruling but thought one of the other conservative judges (Roberts) would vote for it as well since he does like to be on the right side of history.
It's about time. Glad to see another social issue where the US is not behind other developed nations.
On June 27 2015 03:04 Sent. wrote: American legal system is weird, in Europe such decisions are left to democratically elected parliaments and not some appointed judges.
Ok, so it was up to the people. Then it got challenged in the courts and they ruled against gay marriage. It went up to the highest court and the court said "Its legal everywhere."
The Court just stopped people from challenging laws allowing gay marriage.
On June 27 2015 03:04 Sent. wrote: American legal system is weird, in Europe such decisions are left to democratically elected parliaments and not some appointed judges.
The point of the Supreme Court is to judge whether a law is constitutional or not. If a law is disputed by two parties, it is first ruled in a lower court. If after a lower court has made a ruling, an appeal can be submitted to the Supreme Court for review. If the Supreme Court accepts the case to review, they will then judge it and their ruling is final.
As such, their goal is to ensure that laws meet and abide by the Constitution, and in this case, equality for all (so that minorities are not disenfranchised). A democratically elected parliament can still have the ability, if left to themselves, to disenfranchise a minority group. The Supreme Court provides checks and balances against our parliament (i.e. Congress/House) in that respect.
five unelected justices deciding moral issues for america. victory indeed. everyone is fine with it as long as it goes their way, but wait until those five unelected justices decide morality against you then we will see what tune you are singing.
this is coming from someone who supports gay marriage, so leave your idiocy at the door.
On June 27 2015 03:21 dAPhREAk wrote: five unelected justices deciding moral issues for america. victory indeed. everyone is fine with it as long as it goes their way, but wait until those five unelected justices decide morality against you then we will see what tune you are singing.
this is coming from someone who supports gay marriage, so leave your idiocy at the door.
I think you misunderstood something. They're not judging morality, but rights.
On June 27 2015 03:21 dAPhREAk wrote: five unelected justices deciding moral issues for america. victory indeed. everyone is fine with it as long as it goes their way, but wait until those five unelected justices decide morality against you then we will see what tune you are singing.
this is coming from someone who supports gay marriage, so leave your idiocy at the door.
^^ Of course, very few people understand and appreciate the nuance here.
On June 27 2015 03:21 dAPhREAk wrote: five unelected justices deciding moral issues for america. victory indeed. everyone is fine with it as long as it goes their way, but wait until those five unelected justices decide morality against you then we will see what tune you are singing.
this is coming from someone who supports gay marriage, so leave your idiocy at the door.
It became abundantly clear the bigots of America would never stop filing lawsuits and challenging the right for same sex marriage, so I don't really see another way. I guess we could wait until there was the political will to change it, but that didn't really work for a lot of civil rights issues.
Its also nice to stand on principle when you are not the party being denied the right to marry.
On June 27 2015 03:21 dAPhREAk wrote: five unelected justices deciding moral issues for america. victory indeed. everyone is fine with it as long as it goes their way, but wait until those five unelected justices decide morality against you then we will see what tune you are singing.
this is coming from someone who supports gay marriage, so leave your idiocy at the door.
^^ Of course, very few people understand and appreciate the nuance here.
Some of us get it, but don't think its a huge issue. Or we take the good with the bad, just like very other American. I believe there was a voting rights ruling that I didn't agree with and I seem to be ok.
On June 27 2015 03:21 dAPhREAk wrote: five unelected justices deciding moral issues for america. victory indeed. everyone is fine with it as long as it goes their way, but wait until those five unelected justices decide morality against you then we will see what tune you are singing.
this is coming from someone who supports gay marriage, so leave your idiocy at the door.
It became abundantly clear the bigots of America would never stop filing lawsuits and challenging the right for same sex marriage, so I don't really see another way. I guess we could wait until there was the political will to change it, but that didn't really work for a lot of civil rights issues.
Its also nice to stand on principle when you are not he party being denied the right to marry.
its the right of the bigots to file lawsuits and challenge the rights of gay marriage within the confines of the law. why are you saying that like its a negative?
its not principle, its checks and balances. the supreme court has a very narrow role, but constantly expand that beyond what was originally intended. this isnt about gay marriage, its about the limited role of the supreme court.
i am pleased that gay marriage is now a done deal; i am not pleased about how it was done.
On June 27 2015 03:21 dAPhREAk wrote: five unelected justices deciding moral issues for america. victory indeed. everyone is fine with it as long as it goes their way, but wait until those five unelected justices decide morality against you then we will see what tune you are singing.
this is coming from someone who supports gay marriage, so leave your idiocy at the door.
It became abundantly clear the bigots of America would never stop filing lawsuits and challenging the right for same sex marriage, so I don't really see another way. I guess we could wait until there was the political will to change it, but that didn't really work for a lot of civil rights issues.
Its also nice to stand on principle when you are not he party being denied the right to marry.
its the right of the bigots to file lawsuits and challenge the rights of gay marriage within the confines of the law. why are you saying that like its a negative?
its not principle, its checks and balances. the supreme court has a very narrow role, but constantly expand that beyond what was originally intended. this isnt about gay marriage, its about the limited role of the supreme court.
i am pleased that gay marriage is now a done deal; i am not pleased about how it was done.
Its their right, but its also the right of people who are gay to not have to worry about their legal status for the rest of existence. It didn't matter how many laws were passed by state governments, the bigots were going to continue the challenge the laws until the Supreme Court ruled on it. They were never going to stop until the court told them it was 100% legal and a right.
Did you really see this ending any other way beyond congress amending the constitution?
I want to say what I really think of this decision but I'd probably get banned so I'll just say that I do not support this decision at all and if gay couples really want people to consider them "married" they wouldn't support it either because there's a huge difference between being married and being "married" just because the Supreme Court said you're married.
On June 27 2015 03:44 Ravianna26 wrote: I want to say what I really think of this decision but I'd probably get banned so I'll just say that I do not support this decision at all and if gay couples really want people to consider them "married" they wouldn't support it either because there's a huge difference between being married and being "married" just because the Supreme Court said you're married.
They care about being married in the eyes of the law. Not your bigoted version of married.
Grats USA ! And since I'm a noob when it comes down to law in the US : can State-wide parliaments still make SSM illegal via a local law? Or is this really a definitive decision that can't be challenged anymore?
On June 27 2015 03:50 OtherWorld wrote: Grats USA ! And since I'm a noob when it comes down to law in the US : can State-wide parliaments still make SSM illegal via a local law? Or is this really a definitive decision that can't be challenged anymore?
The Supreme Court's ruling is that gay marriage cannot be banned by a law, as it is their constitutional right to marry. So no, a local law cannot be enacted to ban gay marriage. That being said, I believe local laws can likely be enacted to make the method of gay marriages difficult - to which it could be brought to court again.
C.J. Roberts' dissent is what I have a problem with:
Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sexcouples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex.
But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us.Under the Constitution, judges have power to say whatthe law is, not what it should be. The people who ratifiedthe Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered).
Although the policy arguments for extending marriageto same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition. Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.
The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthagin- ians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?
It can be tempting for judges to confuse our own preferences with the requirements of the law. But as this Court has been reminded throughout our history, the Constitution “is made for people of fundamentally differing views.” Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 76 (1905) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Accordingly, “courts are not concerned withthe wisdom or policy of legislation.” Id., at 69 (Harlan, J.,dissenting). The majority today neglects that restrained conception of the judicial role. It seizes for itself a question the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that question. And it answers that question based not on neutralprinciples of constitutional law, but on its own “understanding of what freedom is and must become.” Ante, at 19. I have no choice but to dissent.
Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through theirelected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legaldisputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.
On June 27 2015 03:50 OtherWorld wrote: Grats USA ! And since I'm a noob when it comes down to law in the US : can State-wide parliaments still make SSM illegal via a local law? Or is this really a definitive decision that can't be challenged anymore?
The Supreme Court's ruling is that gay marriage cannot be banned by a law, as it is their constitutional right to marry. So no, a local law cannot be enacted to ban gay marriage. That being said, I believe local laws can likely be enacted to make the method of gay marriages difficult - to which it could be brought to court again.
On June 27 2015 03:50 OtherWorld wrote: Grats USA ! And since I'm a noob when it comes down to law in the US : can State-wide parliaments still make SSM illegal via a local law? Or is this really a definitive decision that can't be challenged anymore?
The Supreme Court's ruling is that gay marriage cannot be banned by a law, as it is their constitutional right to marry. So no, a local law cannot be enacted to ban gay marriage. That being said, I believe local laws can likely be enacted to make the method of gay marriages difficult - to which it could be brought to court again.
this happened with abortion after Roe v. Wade. Then Planned Parenthood v. Casey came out and said "no, no." it will be hard for local laws to be created and applied.
I wonder if Roberts would write the same dissent if the issue at hand were mixed-race marriage and he were deciding Loving v. Virginia. The argument for dissent seems pretty identical, you just have to tweak a couple words.
Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that mixed-race couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like same-race couples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of different races.
But this Court is not a legislature. Whether mixed-race marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us.Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratifiedthe Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered).
Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to mixed-race couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include mixed-race couples, or to retain their historic definition. Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize mixed-race marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of mixed-race marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over mixed-race marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.
The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthagin- ians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?
It can be tempting for judges to confuse our own preferences with the requirements of the law. But as this Court has been reminded throughout our history, the Constitution “is made for people of fundamentally differing views.” Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 76 (1905) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Accordingly, “courts are not concerned with the wisdom or policy of legislation.” Id., at 69 (Harlan, J.,dissenting). The majority today neglects that restrained conception of the judicial role. It seizes for itself a question the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that question. And it answers that question based not on neutral principles of constitutional law, but on its own “understanding of what freedom is and must become.” Ante, at 19. I have no choice but to dissent.
Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include mixed-race couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.
On June 27 2015 04:08 TheTenthDoc wrote: I wonder if Roberts would write the same dissent if the issue at hand were mixed-race marriage and he were deciding Loving v. Virginia. The argument for dissent seems pretty identical, you just have to tweak a couple words.
thats just the introduction. the next page he talks about the historical definition of marriage as between a man and woman.
Short of an amendment to the Constitution, I don't know how gay marriage becomes legal without the Supreme Court being forced to rule on the issue. Every state in the country could pass a law that allows it and it still would have been appealed up to them. Unless every appeals court upheld that law and then the Supreme Court gets dodge the issue. But that is about as unlikely as all 50 states passing the law before now.
On June 27 2015 04:08 TheTenthDoc wrote: I wonder if Roberts would write the same dissent if the issue at hand were mixed-race marriage and he were deciding Loving v. Virginia. The argument for dissent seems pretty identical, you just have to tweak a couple words.
thats just the introduction. the next page he talks about the historical definition of marriage as between a man and woman.
In 1967 there were plenty of states where the historical definition of marriage was between a man and woman of the same race (some since their induction to the Union) that all had their chance to democratically decided the issue taken away. He mentions California's statute in L v V wasn't written that way (which I honestly couldn't tell from his citation) but the intent was clear.
I don't really think his dissent is wrong per se, reading more of it, but I'm a little disappointed he doesn't just say he would have dissented in Loving v. Virginia under the same logic.
On June 27 2015 03:34 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: i mean it's a joke that the legal benefits of marriage are mixed in with the word "marriage" which has a bunch of cultural issues
shouldve just been "personal unions" all the way down or something
reposting this cuz it was at the end of a page and because like holy shit why should "traditional definition of marriage" ever matter
On June 27 2015 04:08 TheTenthDoc wrote: I wonder if Roberts would write the same dissent if the issue at hand were mixed-race marriage and he were deciding Loving v. Virginia. The argument for dissent seems pretty identical, you just have to tweak a couple words.
thats just the introduction. the next page he talks about the historical definition of marriage as between a man and woman.
In 1967 there were plenty of states where the historical definition of marriage was between a man and woman of the same race (some since their induction to the Union) that all had their chance to democratically decided the issue taken away. He mentions California's statute in L v V wasn't written that way (which I honestly couldn't tell from his citation) but the intent was clear.
I don't really think his dissent is wrong per se, reading more of it, but I'm a little disappointed he doesn't just say he would have dissented in Loving v. Virginia under the same logic.
can you send me a link to those historical definitions? i dont recall that when i read Loving v. Virginia in law school, but its been awhile.
On June 27 2015 03:34 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: i mean it's a joke that the legal benefits of marriage are mixed in with the word "marriage" which has a bunch of cultural issues
shouldve just been "personal unions" all the way down or something
reposting this cuz it was at the end of a page and because like holy shit why should "traditional definition of marriage" ever matter
Because the rights for legal unions were not consistent from state to state, nor were they recognized across state lines. Thus a gay couple with a legal union in New Jersey that moved to Virginia, or even just visiting, would have issues with their rights in Virginia.
I can't say I approve, otherwise that would make me a liar. But me not approving SSM doesn't make me love the people around me any less, even those who are LGBT(Q?A?).
Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sexcouples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex.
But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us.Under the Constitution, judges have power to say whatthe law is, not what it should be. The people who ratifiedthe Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered).
Although the policy arguments for extending marriageto same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition. Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.
The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthagin- ians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?
It can be tempting for judges to confuse our own preferences with the requirements of the law. But as this Court has been reminded throughout our history, the Constitution “is made for people of fundamentally differing views.” Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 76 (1905) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Accordingly, “courts are not concerned withthe wisdom or policy of legislation.” Id., at 69 (Harlan, J.,dissenting). The majority today neglects that restrained conception of the judicial role. It seizes for itself a question the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that question. And it answers that question based not on neutralprinciples of constitutional law, but on its own “understanding of what freedom is and must become.” Ante, at 19. I have no choice but to dissent.
Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through theirelected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legaldisputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.
This is a load of shit.
The judges didn't decide what the law was. They didn't make a new law or anything like that.
They ensured that all people are treated equally, as the Constitution already dictates.
C.J. Roberts' dissent is what I have a problem with:
Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sexcouples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex.
But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us.Under the Constitution, judges have power to say whatthe law is, not what it should be. The people who ratifiedthe Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered).
Although the policy arguments for extending marriageto same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition. Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.
The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthagin- ians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?
It can be tempting for judges to confuse our own preferences with the requirements of the law. But as this Court has been reminded throughout our history, the Constitution “is made for people of fundamentally differing views.” Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 76 (1905) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Accordingly, “courts are not concerned withthe wisdom or policy of legislation.” Id., at 69 (Harlan, J.,dissenting). The majority today neglects that restrained conception of the judicial role. It seizes for itself a question the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that question. And it answers that question based not on neutralprinciples of constitutional law, but on its own “understanding of what freedom is and must become.” Ante, at 19. I have no choice but to dissent.
Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through theirelected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legaldisputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.
This is a load of shit.
The judges didn't decide what the law was. They didn't make a new law or anything like that.
They ensured that all people are treated equally, as the Constitution already dictates.
the constitution doesnt require that all people be treated equally. you know how many laws would be unconstitutional if that were true?
On June 27 2015 04:08 TheTenthDoc wrote: I wonder if Roberts would write the same dissent if the issue at hand were mixed-race marriage and he were deciding Loving v. Virginia. The argument for dissent seems pretty identical, you just have to tweak a couple words.
thats just the introduction. the next page he talks about the historical definition of marriage as between a man and woman.
In 1967 there were plenty of states where the historical definition of marriage was between a man and woman of the same race (some since their induction to the Union) that all had their chance to democratically decided the issue taken away. He mentions California's statute in L v V wasn't written that way (which I honestly couldn't tell from his citation) but the intent was clear.
I don't really think his dissent is wrong per se, reading more of it, but I'm a little disappointed he doesn't just say he would have dissented in Loving v. Virginia under the same logic.
can you send me a link to those historical definitions? i dont recall that when i read Loving v. Virginia in law school, but its been awhile.
How does this matter? All this "definitions" or marriage arguments is Bullshit. There isn't ONE definition out there like conservatives like to pretend there is. Sure there is a CHRISTIAN definition of marriage, but I am pretty sure our politicians should not be using one religion's definition of marriage for everyone. The whole separation of church and state and all.
On June 27 2015 04:08 TheTenthDoc wrote: I wonder if Roberts would write the same dissent if the issue at hand were mixed-race marriage and he were deciding Loving v. Virginia. The argument for dissent seems pretty identical, you just have to tweak a couple words.
thats just the introduction. the next page he talks about the historical definition of marriage as between a man and woman.
In 1967 there were plenty of states where the historical definition of marriage was between a man and woman of the same race (some since their induction to the Union) that all had their chance to democratically decided the issue taken away. He mentions California's statute in L v V wasn't written that way (which I honestly couldn't tell from his citation) but the intent was clear.
I don't really think his dissent is wrong per se, reading more of it, but I'm a little disappointed he doesn't just say he would have dissented in Loving v. Virginia under the same logic.
can you send me a link to those historical definitions? i dont recall that when i read Loving v. Virginia in law school, but its been awhile.
How does this matter? All this "definitions" or marriage arguments is Bullshit. There isn't ONE definition out there like conservatives like to pretend there is. Sure there is a CHRISTIAN definition of marriage, but I am pretty sure our politicians should not be using one religion's definition of marriage for everyone. The whole separation of church and state and all.
There is a legal definition for "act of god", so of course there would be one for marriage. The separation of church and state does not prohibit the use of words that religion also uses.
C.J. Roberts' dissent is what I have a problem with:
Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sexcouples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex.
But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us.Under the Constitution, judges have power to say whatthe law is, not what it should be. The people who ratifiedthe Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered).
Although the policy arguments for extending marriageto same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition. Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.
The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthagin- ians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?
It can be tempting for judges to confuse our own preferences with the requirements of the law. But as this Court has been reminded throughout our history, the Constitution “is made for people of fundamentally differing views.” Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 76 (1905) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Accordingly, “courts are not concerned withthe wisdom or policy of legislation.” Id., at 69 (Harlan, J.,dissenting). The majority today neglects that restrained conception of the judicial role. It seizes for itself a question the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that question. And it answers that question based not on neutralprinciples of constitutional law, but on its own “understanding of what freedom is and must become.” Ante, at 19. I have no choice but to dissent.
Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through theirelected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legaldisputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.
This is a load of shit.
The judges didn't decide what the law was. They didn't make a new law or anything like that.
They ensured that all people are treated equally, as the Constitution already dictates.
the constitution doesnt require that all people be treated equally. you know how many laws would be unconstitutional if that were true?
Americans have a high opinion of their constitution and while I agree that constitutions deserve to be treated with a lot of respect, some folks act like it's sacred and perfect... The constitution of the US has quite a few issues.
Edit: That being said, CHEERS USA and fuck Scalia and Thomas.
On June 27 2015 04:08 TheTenthDoc wrote: I wonder if Roberts would write the same dissent if the issue at hand were mixed-race marriage and he were deciding Loving v. Virginia. The argument for dissent seems pretty identical, you just have to tweak a couple words.
thats just the introduction. the next page he talks about the historical definition of marriage as between a man and woman.
In 1967 there were plenty of states where the historical definition of marriage was between a man and woman of the same race (some since their induction to the Union) that all had their chance to democratically decided the issue taken away. He mentions California's statute in L v V wasn't written that way (which I honestly couldn't tell from his citation) but the intent was clear.
I don't really think his dissent is wrong per se, reading more of it, but I'm a little disappointed he doesn't just say he would have dissented in Loving v. Virginia under the same logic.
can you send me a link to those historical definitions? i dont recall that when i read Loving v. Virginia in law school, but its been awhile.
How does this matter? All this "definitions" or marriage arguments is Bullshit. There isn't ONE definition out there like conservatives like to pretend there is. Sure there is a CHRISTIAN definition of marriage, but I am pretty sure our politicians should not be using one religion's definition of marriage for everyone. The whole separation of church and state and all.
There is a legal definition for "act of god", so of course there would be one for marriage. The separation of church and state does not prohibit the use of words that religion also uses.
Sure they can use the same words, but they aren't supposed to be using a specific definition of marriage taken from christianity. Religion doesn't own the concept and the legal marriage recognized by the state is separate from the religious ceremony. Two different things but religious groups want the government recognition cover only their ceremony and definition of marriage. They combine this by pretending that historically and globally their definition is the only one which is horseshit.
On June 27 2015 04:08 TheTenthDoc wrote: I wonder if Roberts would write the same dissent if the issue at hand were mixed-race marriage and he were deciding Loving v. Virginia. The argument for dissent seems pretty identical, you just have to tweak a couple words.
thats just the introduction. the next page he talks about the historical definition of marriage as between a man and woman.
In 1967 there were plenty of states where the historical definition of marriage was between a man and woman of the same race (some since their induction to the Union) that all had their chance to democratically decided the issue taken away. He mentions California's statute in L v V wasn't written that way (which I honestly couldn't tell from his citation) but the intent was clear.
I don't really think his dissent is wrong per se, reading more of it, but I'm a little disappointed he doesn't just say he would have dissented in Loving v. Virginia under the same logic.
can you send me a link to those historical definitions? i dont recall that when i read Loving v. Virginia in law school, but its been awhile.
How does this matter? All this "definitions" or marriage arguments is Bullshit. There isn't ONE definition out there like conservatives like to pretend there is. Sure there is a CHRISTIAN definition of marriage, but I am pretty sure our politicians should not be using one religion's definition of marriage for everyone. The whole separation of church and state and all.
There is a legal definition for "act of god", so of course there would be one for marriage. The separation of church and state does not prohibit the use of words that religion also uses.
Sure they can use the same words, but they aren't supposed to be using a specific definition of marriage taken from christianity. Religion doesn't own the concept and the legal marriage recognized by the state is separate from the religious ceremony. Two different things but religious groups want the government recognition cover their ceremony and definition of marriage.
You do realize that law is something that adapts and changes over time? Its stone carving or math. The concept of marriage in law grew out of religion and that is why it was defined the way it was.
On June 27 2015 06:00 Plansix wrote: Exactly, lets get back to how much of a tool Scalia is.
I read Scalia's opinion in full, it made me sick on multiple levels. The interracial marriage point was already brought up by someone else but the whole opinion just reeked of a kid screaming for candy particularly in the critique of his colleagues.
On June 27 2015 06:03 Half the Sky wrote: As for the constitution of the US being perfect...hasn't it already been amended 20 times or something?
On another note, I am loving the banner. Well done TL.
Its why in theory it's good because its a living document that can change with the times as needed.
But the way in which it can be changed is contained in the document and it's getting increasingly difficult to change the obsolete parts of the constitutions for multiple reasons, one of them being that it's really hard to get to a 2/3 majority in Congress and 2/3 or (something about states) when those idiots in Washington can hardly get regular laws passed. Toss the States in the mix and you've got a mess on your hands.
Good job America. On some level I feel like this should have been accomplished through more democratic means, but I suppose the federalist system makes that difficult. Overall a pretty good day for humanity.
On June 27 2015 06:03 Half the Sky wrote: As for the constitution of the US being perfect...hasn't it already been amended 20 times or something?
On another note, I am loving the banner. Well done TL.
Its why in theory it's good because its a living document that can change with the times as needed.
But the way in which it can be changed is contained in the document and it's getting increasingly difficult to change the obsolete parts of the constitutions for multiple reasons, one of them being that it's really hard to get to a 2/3 majority in Congress and 2/3 or (something about states) when those idiots in Washington can hardly get regular laws passed. Toss the States in the mix and you've got a mess on your hands.
That's nothing new and has been that way in other points in history. The main problem right now with our politics is there is a section of Congress that actively loathes government and doesn't believe it's their job to lead by example or change things for the better. That needs to change and then amending the Constitution will be possible again.
C.J. Roberts' dissent is what I have a problem with:
Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sexcouples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex.
But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us.Under the Constitution, judges have power to say whatthe law is, not what it should be. The people who ratifiedthe Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered).
Although the policy arguments for extending marriageto same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition. Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.
The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthagin- ians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?
It can be tempting for judges to confuse our own preferences with the requirements of the law. But as this Court has been reminded throughout our history, the Constitution “is made for people of fundamentally differing views.” Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 76 (1905) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Accordingly, “courts are not concerned withthe wisdom or policy of legislation.” Id., at 69 (Harlan, J.,dissenting). The majority today neglects that restrained conception of the judicial role. It seizes for itself a question the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that question. And it answers that question based not on neutralprinciples of constitutional law, but on its own “understanding of what freedom is and must become.” Ante, at 19. I have no choice but to dissent.
Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through theirelected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legaldisputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.
This is a load of shit.
The judges didn't decide what the law was. They didn't make a new law or anything like that.
They ensured that all people are treated equally, as the Constitution already dictates.
the constitution doesnt require that all people be treated equally. you know how many laws would be unconstitutional if that were true?
Americans have a high opinion of their constitution and while I agree that constitutions deserve to be treated with a lot of respect, some folks act like it's sacred and perfect... The constitution of the US has quite a few issues.
Edit: That being said, CHEERS USA and fuck Scalia and Thomas.
i doubt many americans actually understand the constitution or its effect (as is readily apparent if you read any forum discussion discussing it). i dont disagree it has its flaw, just as the entire governmental system has its flaws.
On June 27 2015 06:03 Half the Sky wrote: As for the constitution of the US being perfect...hasn't it already been amended 20 times or something?
On another note, I am loving the banner. Well done TL.
Its why in theory it's good because its a living document that can change with the times as needed.
But the way in which it can be changed is contained in the document and it's getting increasingly difficult to change the obsolete parts of the constitutions for multiple reasons, one of them being that it's really hard to get to a 2/3 majority in Congress and 2/3 or (something about states) when those idiots in Washington can hardly get regular laws passed. Toss the States in the mix and you've got a mess on your hands.
That's nothing new and has been that way in other points in history. The main problem right now with our politics is there is a section of Congress that actively loathes government and doesn't believe it's their job to lead by example or change things for the better. That needs to change and then amending the Constitution will be possible again.
I wasn't saying it's anything new, I was also pointing out that the current context makes amendments to the constitution essentially impossible. It's unfortunate that this whole ordeal had to be done with the judiciary system when really it should've been done by the legislature. Not that in these times the legislative has much legitimacy anyway...
On June 27 2015 04:08 TheTenthDoc wrote: I wonder if Roberts would write the same dissent if the issue at hand were mixed-race marriage and he were deciding Loving v. Virginia. The argument for dissent seems pretty identical, you just have to tweak a couple words.
thats just the introduction. the next page he talks about the historical definition of marriage as between a man and woman.
In 1967 there were plenty of states where the historical definition of marriage was between a man and woman of the same race (some since their induction to the Union) that all had their chance to democratically decided the issue taken away. He mentions California's statute in L v V wasn't written that way (which I honestly couldn't tell from his citation) but the intent was clear.
I don't really think his dissent is wrong per se, reading more of it, but I'm a little disappointed he doesn't just say he would have dissented in Loving v. Virginia under the same logic.
can you send me a link to those historical definitions? i dont recall that when i read Loving v. Virginia in law school, but its been awhile.
How does this matter? All this "definitions" or marriage arguments is Bullshit. There isn't ONE definition out there like conservatives like to pretend there is. Sure there is a CHRISTIAN definition of marriage, but I am pretty sure our politicians should not be using one religion's definition of marriage for everyone. The whole separation of church and state and all.
There is a legal definition for "act of god", so of course there would be one for marriage. The separation of church and state does not prohibit the use of words that religion also uses.
Sure they can use the same words, but they aren't supposed to be using a specific definition of marriage taken from christianity. Religion doesn't own the concept and the legal marriage recognized by the state is separate from the religious ceremony. Two different things but religious groups want the government recognition cover their ceremony and definition of marriage.
You do realize that law is something that adapts and changes over time? Its stone carving or math. The concept of marriage in law grew out of religion and that is why it was defined the way it was.
No it didn't. Marriage has its origins as a way of making alliances between tribes and families.
On June 27 2015 04:08 TheTenthDoc wrote: I wonder if Roberts would write the same dissent if the issue at hand were mixed-race marriage and he were deciding Loving v. Virginia. The argument for dissent seems pretty identical, you just have to tweak a couple words.
thats just the introduction. the next page he talks about the historical definition of marriage as between a man and woman.
In 1967 there were plenty of states where the historical definition of marriage was between a man and woman of the same race (some since their induction to the Union) that all had their chance to democratically decided the issue taken away. He mentions California's statute in L v V wasn't written that way (which I honestly couldn't tell from his citation) but the intent was clear.
I don't really think his dissent is wrong per se, reading more of it, but I'm a little disappointed he doesn't just say he would have dissented in Loving v. Virginia under the same logic.
can you send me a link to those historical definitions? i dont recall that when i read Loving v. Virginia in law school, but its been awhile.
How does this matter? All this "definitions" or marriage arguments is Bullshit. There isn't ONE definition out there like conservatives like to pretend there is. Sure there is a CHRISTIAN definition of marriage, but I am pretty sure our politicians should not be using one religion's definition of marriage for everyone. The whole separation of church and state and all.
There is a legal definition for "act of god", so of course there would be one for marriage. The separation of church and state does not prohibit the use of words that religion also uses.
Sure they can use the same words, but they aren't supposed to be using a specific definition of marriage taken from christianity. Religion doesn't own the concept and the legal marriage recognized by the state is separate from the religious ceremony. Two different things but religious groups want the government recognition cover their ceremony and definition of marriage.
You do realize that law is something that adapts and changes over time? Its stone carving or math. The concept of marriage in law grew out of religion and that is why it was defined the way it was.
No it didn't. Marriage has its origins as a way of making alliances between tribes and families.
"The concept of marriage in law grew out of religion"
Law didn't draw from tribes and families, it drew from organized religion.
On June 27 2015 06:03 Half the Sky wrote: As for the constitution of the US being perfect...hasn't it already been amended 20 times or something?
On another note, I am loving the banner. Well done TL.
Its why in theory it's good because its a living document that can change with the times as needed.
But the way in which it can be changed is contained in the document and it's getting increasingly difficult to change the obsolete parts of the constitutions for multiple reasons, one of them being that it's really hard to get to a 2/3 majority in Congress and 2/3 or (something about states) when those idiots in Washington can hardly get regular laws passed. Toss the States in the mix and you've got a mess on your hands.
That's nothing new and has been that way in other points in history. The main problem right now with our politics is there is a section of Congress that actively loathes government and doesn't believe it's their job to lead by example or change things for the better. That needs to change and then amending the Constitution will be possible again.
I wasn't saying it's anything new, I was also pointing out that the current context makes amendments to the constitution essentially impossible. It's unfortunate that this whole ordeal had to be done with the judiciary system when really it should've been done by the legislature. Not that in these times the legislative has much legitimacy anyway...
I completely agree and its why I didn't find Robert's dissent to be persuasive in any way. If the government was functioning and the legislator was doing its job, maybe. But the gay couples seeking legal marriage protection don't shouldn't be required to wait and hope it will get better next election cycle.
Protecting minority rights against majoritarian abuse is one of the major purposes of the judiciary; since it's specifically known the legislature may not handle those well, due to its majoritarian nature. Thus I'd say its broader than the current specific dysfunction in the legislature, but a common occurrence in general that is planned for.
On June 27 2015 06:34 zlefin wrote: Protecting minority rights against majoritarian abuse is one of the major purposes of the judiciary; since it's specifically known the legislature may not handle those well, due to its majoritarian nature. Thus I'd say its broader than the current specific dysfunction in the legislature, but a common occurrence in general that is planned for.
the senate was originally designed around that too but it got rekt
Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sexcouples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex.
But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us.Under the Constitution, judges have power to say whatthe law is, not what it should be. The people who ratifiedthe Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered).
Although the policy arguments for extending marriageto same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition. Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.
The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthagin- ians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?
It can be tempting for judges to confuse our own preferences with the requirements of the law. But as this Court has been reminded throughout our history, the Constitution “is made for people of fundamentally differing views.” Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 76 (1905) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Accordingly, “courts are not concerned withthe wisdom or policy of legislation.” Id., at 69 (Harlan, J.,dissenting). The majority today neglects that restrained conception of the judicial role. It seizes for itself a question the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that question. And it answers that question based not on neutralprinciples of constitutional law, but on its own “understanding of what freedom is and must become.” Ante, at 19. I have no choice but to dissent.
Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through theirelected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legaldisputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.
The counter-argument is that you could apply the same logic of his dissent against Brown vs. Board of Education, or to many cases that the Supreme Court can and has presided over. The "overstepping judicial bounds" argument isn't a very strong one because it can be applied fairly liberally to accommodate many different cases and ends up getting used to drive personal politics more than anything else.
C.J. Roberts' dissent is what I have a problem with:
Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sexcouples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex.
But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us.Under the Constitution, judges have power to say whatthe law is, not what it should be. The people who ratifiedthe Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered).
Although the policy arguments for extending marriageto same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition. Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.
The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthagin- ians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?
It can be tempting for judges to confuse our own preferences with the requirements of the law. But as this Court has been reminded throughout our history, the Constitution “is made for people of fundamentally differing views.” Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 76 (1905) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Accordingly, “courts are not concerned withthe wisdom or policy of legislation.” Id., at 69 (Harlan, J.,dissenting). The majority today neglects that restrained conception of the judicial role. It seizes for itself a question the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that question. And it answers that question based not on neutralprinciples of constitutional law, but on its own “understanding of what freedom is and must become.” Ante, at 19. I have no choice but to dissent.
Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through theirelected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legaldisputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.
The counter-argument is that you could apply the same logic of his dissent against Brown vs. Board of Education, or to many cases that the Supreme Court can and has presided over. The "overstepping judicial bounds" argument isn't a very strong one because it can be applied fairly liberally to accommodate many different cases and ends up getting used to drive personal politics more than anything else.
isnt a very strong argument for what? the supreme court's role is constrained by the constitution, but when they overstep their role, who is going to call them out on it? impeaching a supreme court justice has never been done. they know they can do what they want and no one will do anything about it.
C.J. Roberts' dissent is what I have a problem with:
Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sexcouples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex.
But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us.Under the Constitution, judges have power to say whatthe law is, not what it should be. The people who ratifiedthe Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered).
Although the policy arguments for extending marriageto same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition. Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.
The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthagin- ians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?
It can be tempting for judges to confuse our own preferences with the requirements of the law. But as this Court has been reminded throughout our history, the Constitution “is made for people of fundamentally differing views.” Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 76 (1905) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Accordingly, “courts are not concerned withthe wisdom or policy of legislation.” Id., at 69 (Harlan, J.,dissenting). The majority today neglects that restrained conception of the judicial role. It seizes for itself a question the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that question. And it answers that question based not on neutralprinciples of constitutional law, but on its own “understanding of what freedom is and must become.” Ante, at 19. I have no choice but to dissent.
Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through theirelected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legaldisputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.
The counter-argument is that you could apply the same logic of his dissent against Brown vs. Board of Education, or to many cases that the Supreme Court can and has presided over. The "overstepping judicial bounds" argument isn't a very strong one because it can be applied fairly liberally to accommodate many different cases and ends up getting used to drive personal politics more than anything else.
I agree with the general idea and I understand that fundamentally the judiciary overstepping in stuff that should be legislative is bad but I'd argue that the US and much of the democratic world is in the middle of a crisis and I would argue that it's especially obvious in the US where representation of the citizens has never actually been a priority and people are starting to catch onto that. Big money is winning elections and especially in the upper house it's extremely difficult to dislodge an incumbent. I think it's something like 95-99% of senators get reelected and it costs millions of dollars to kick them out.
Not to mention the obvious problems like the one brought up by zlefin. Legislatures are by their nature a tool of the majority. It's not optimal, but frankly the US legislature is in a deadlock.
As far as I'm concerned, polls showing >50% in favor of gay marriage in the US are more legitimate than the congress's opinion on the matter, especially since you're definitely not FORCED to gay-marry now.
I'm disappointed that a a majority of judges think that they can retroactively insert implied meaning into the 14th amendment in the name of morality and worry that this weakens our constitution substantively.
I'm happy for those who can now enter the legal institution of marriage with the same sex, but this wasn't the right way.
im so annoyed by this whole discussion. why do so many people think they have the right to tell me what their sexual preferences are? i dont care what anyone does at home, i just dont want those people to shove it down everyones throat by these gay pride parades or "huge news" what stuff like this happens. why cant it be a normal thing for everyone to keep it for himself?
On June 27 2015 07:04 ampson wrote: I'm disappointed that a a majority of judges think that they can retroactively insert implied meaning into the 14th amendment in the name of morality and worry that this weakens our constitution substantively.
I'm happy for those who can now enter the legal institution of marriage with the same sex, but this wasn't the right way.
In Canada, the Supreme court can do these kind of things not based on implied meaning by the legislator or the legendary "founding fathers", but based on what the new context is. Knowing that the constitution is hard to modify given the rigidity of the legislature, I think it's reasonable for the justices to take reality into account, and not just shit out absurd out of date BS because the legislator is incompetent.
Not every governmental body needs to be slow and unresponsive. People will complain ad nauseum about how shitty and ineffective bureaucracy is and now that we have an example of an efficiently made decision which is aligned with the opinion of the majority of Americans, it's the wrong way? If it's the wrong way according to the constitution, consider the possibility that the constitution may have been wrong on that account.
On June 27 2015 07:08 graNite wrote: im so annoyed by this whole discussion. why do so many people think they have the right to tell me what their sexual preferences are? i dont care what anyone does at home, i just dont want those people to shove it down everyones throat by these gay pride parades or "huge news" what stuff like this happens. why cant it be a normal thing for everyone to keep it for himself?
Because medias, church etc picture homosexuals as "not normal"?
Apart from the obvious, that you can just look the other way. It's not that people think they have the right - they do have that right. And it's something americans point proudly at in every discussion - why is it different for gay people?
On June 27 2015 07:16 Barrin wrote: If the government is going to provide benefits to married couples (I'm not sure that it should) then all couples should be able to get married. +1
funny thing is that now gay couples will be subject to the same marriage tax penalties as the rest of us! =)
On June 27 2015 00:52 FusionSC2 wrote: I agree with ssm, but disagree with gay adoption. I think that todays society is so caught up in trying to get away from the conservative nature of the last 100 years, that many people have jumped to the social far left in order to seem different from generations past. Just 1 mans opinion.
Edit: Therefore, in practice I am against all ssm.
You don't understand that those kids would otherwise not have any parents at all
On June 27 2015 00:52 FusionSC2 wrote: I agree with ssm, but disagree with gay adoption. I think that todays society is so caught up in trying to get away from the conservative nature of the last 100 years, that many people have jumped to the social far left in order to seem different from generations past. Just 1 mans opinion.
Edit: Therefore, in practice I am against all ssm.
You don't understand that those kids would otherwise not have any parents at all
I used to be against 'gay adoption', and then someone informed me of this. I changed my mind immediately. 2c
Well it's a pretty convincing argument but at a more basic level, from my understanding, I believe studies showed that gay parents raised their kids just fine.
On June 27 2015 07:08 graNite wrote: im so annoyed by this whole discussion. why do so many people think they have the right to tell me what their sexual preferences are? i dont care what anyone does at home, i just dont want those people to shove it down everyones throat by these gay pride parades or "huge news" what stuff like this happens. why cant it be a normal thing for everyone to keep it for himself?
It's really annoying for me too.
Like out of all issues we are going to make a fuss about, instead of focusing on more important things, we will spend years discussing simple things like abortion and gay rights.
Hopefully with this, LGBT community will quiet down a bit, and behave like normal people (and get treated like normal people), so this shit stays out of news, as well as gaming communities. 99% of people here agree with gay rights already... These last 4 years have been like following cavemen learn about fire.
edit: Funny how 30 years ago communism was the biggest fear... And then in the last 10 years, all of western europe and north america have been becoming very socialist.
On June 27 2015 07:08 graNite wrote: im so annoyed by this whole discussion. why do so many people think they have the right to tell me what their sexual preferences are? i dont care what anyone does at home, i just dont want those people to shove it down everyones throat by these gay pride parades or "huge news" what stuff like this happens. why cant it be a normal thing for everyone to keep it for himself?
It's really annoying for me too.
Like out of all issues we are going to make a fuss about, instead of focusing on more important things, we will spend years discussing simple things like abortion and gay rights.
Hopefully with this, LGBT community will quiet down a bit, and behave like normal people (and get treated like normal people), so this shit stays out of news, as well as gaming communities. 99% of people here agree with gay rights already... These last 4 years have been like following cavemen learn about fire.
edit: Funny how 30 years ago communism was the biggest fear... And then in the last 10 years, all of western europe and north america have been becoming very socialist.
That's what's annoying to you? It's annoying to me that of all the fucking things to find annoying, important social issues are things you call "simple". Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but I find your approach to be a bit shallow.
Abortion and gay rights are simple, but they're not mundane, and the notion that the LGBT should quiet down to leave way to more important things is ridiculous. What more important things? The economy? Rest assured that the people who are actually working on this are not the same people who are working on social issues. And if you think politicians should just "focus on important things", well I must say I don't understand you. If you mean to say that "it goes without saying that the gays should marry" and "it goes without saying that abortions should be legal", then great but you're forgetting about a whole bunch of grey areas. They can marry, but what about discrimination? Abortion is fine, but what about repeat abortions, and until which term can you abort. Is it fully subsidized? If the LGBT community quiets down, will they perhaps lose ground? This could be overruled.
This "shit" definitely should be in the news because it's more relevant to the lives of more people than most of the shit we hear about.
As for the communism thing, that's another can of worms that involves a profoundly misunderstood concept and comparing welfare state business to communism is fucky.
I simply think the conversation distracts from how society organized in the first place. Gay rights are things that 10 year olds are capable to discuss at the same level the media discusses them at, there's little depth to the conversation.
And it's literally been the exact same thing from both sides forever... It's always god, bible, unnatural blah blah... And freedom and equality on the other side.
I guess I just dislike how shallow conversations are about topics that become widespread. The issues that are to me more interesting - like what is the most effective implementation of unions, and what roles should which parties in society play... Or why is nothing being done about the two-party system. But discussions like these, the average person isn't able to handle, so they don't support any movements there. The entire thing going on is just trying to convince sheep of something, and then supporting you with their voice.
It's simply annoying me, because the only thing that people raise in their arguments in their day and age are equality (which I don't believe in, but I believe in gay marriage and similar religion stemmed issues), and don't even look at what impacts or problems with implementation it has. Like the stupid rallies that NDP holds here, they just shout equality, and everyone shouts it out. No analysis of repercussion or anything. `
It's like how the damn Nazi's gained popularity, got on board with all these things. Of course, this is nothing like the Nazi's, but it's like some others pointed out, some far-left movement, where most people don't use any logic, they just do it, because they have a large community that support their actions, and want to feel a part of something.
edit: We can agree that communism and socialism are very different (my parents lived in eastern europe through communism), but some reoccurring themes do come up.
edit2: I'll stop posting for now, just getting angry, and can't formulate my thoughts effectively at the moment. Anyway, congratulations to the US.
On June 27 2015 07:08 graNite wrote: im so annoyed by this whole discussion. why do so many people think they have the right to tell me what their sexual preferences are? i dont care what anyone does at home, i just dont want those people to shove it down everyones throat by these gay pride parades or "huge news" what stuff like this happens. why cant it be a normal thing for everyone to keep it for himself?
edit: Funny how 30 years ago communism was the biggest fear... And then in the last 10 years, all of western europe and north america have been becoming very socialist.
lmao, seroiusly Fiwifaki, your posts are getting more ridiculous every time.
On June 27 2015 07:08 graNite wrote: im so annoyed by this whole discussion. why do so many people think they have the right to tell me what their sexual preferences are? i dont care what anyone does at home, i just dont want those people to shove it down everyones throat by these gay pride parades or "huge news" what stuff like this happens. why cant it be a normal thing for everyone to keep it for himself?
edit: Funny how 30 years ago communism was the biggest fear... And then in the last 10 years, all of western europe and north america have been becoming very socialist.
lmao, seroiusly Fiwifaki, your posts are getting more ridiculous every time.
Please tell me that we have not as a whole been moving quite far to the left? I know it was a crazy comparison, maybe a slight stretch. Maybe I feel it more than others, because Canada is almost surely going for the Conservatives to the NDP federal party in a couple months, but regardless.
Top 3 Saltiest Things, as of today: #3. Dead Sea- Called the Sea of Salt #2. NaCl- Literally table salt #1. Fox News- because of the Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage
On June 27 2015 09:00 Random() wrote: Why do people care so much about marriage. Such a stupid and pointless concept.
There are countless legal benefits to it, if you don't care about the whole lifelong vows of love and commitment thing.
I don't see why there should be any legal benefits, as in how people who've been living together for a while are any worse than people that were pronounced married by some dude couple of days ago. And I don't see how it helps commitment in any way either. If you are commited to a relationship, you are commited. You don't need any third party to validate your relationship. And it's not like if you're married you're magically less likely to break up.
On June 27 2015 07:08 graNite wrote: im so annoyed by this whole discussion. why do so many people think they have the right to tell me what their sexual preferences are? i dont care what anyone does at home, i just dont want those people to shove it down everyones throat by these gay pride parades or "huge news" what stuff like this happens. why cant it be a normal thing for everyone to keep it for himself?
On June 27 2015 07:08 graNite wrote: im so annoyed by this whole discussion. why do so many people think they have the right to tell me what their sexual preferences are? i dont care what anyone does at home, i just dont want those people to shove it down everyones throat by these gay pride parades or "huge news" what stuff like this happens. why cant it be a normal thing for everyone to keep it for himself?
Just to be clear, you're joking right?
Do you think you have the right to ask him whether he's joking?
On June 27 2015 07:08 graNite wrote: im so annoyed by this whole discussion. why do so many people think they have the right to tell me what their sexual preferences are? i dont care what anyone does at home, i just dont want those people to shove it down everyones throat by these gay pride parades or "huge news" what stuff like this happens. why cant it be a normal thing for everyone to keep it for himself?
Just to be clear, you're joking right?
Do you think you have the right to ask him whether he's joking?
Clearly not :D
I can't wrap my head around those who don't think people have even the most basic freedoms of speech and expression, and just as importantly the right to speak out and demonstrate against their own oppression. It's like telling blacks to privately talk about their problems in the back of the bus or at their separate water fountains, or asking women to complain to their ovens and stoves instead of their families and government... that publicly protesting prejudicial issues shouldn't be something that others need to acknowledge.
Fuck that. If you don't like parades, don't march in them. Don't look at them. But at least respect the fact that this is a huge win for an oppressed minority in America.
On June 27 2015 07:08 graNite wrote: im so annoyed by this whole discussion. why do so many people think they have the right to tell me what their sexual preferences are? i dont care what anyone does at home, i just dont want those people to shove it down everyones throat by these gay pride parades or "huge news" what stuff like this happens. why cant it be a normal thing for everyone to keep it for himself?
Just to be clear, you're joking right?
Do you think you have the right to ask him whether he's joking?
Clearly not :D
I can't wrap my head around those who don't think people have even the most basic freedoms of speech and expression, and just as importantly the right to speak out and demonstrate against their own oppression. It's like telling blacks to privately talk about their problems in the back of the bus or at their separate water fountains, or asking women to complain to their ovens and stoves instead of their families and government... that publicly protesting prejudicial issues shouldn't be something that others need to acknowledge.
Fuck that. If you don't like parades, don't march in them. Don't look at them. But at least respect the fact that this is a huge win for an oppressed minority in America.
Speaking of which, now that you guys can gay marry, do you think you can choose who you gay marry, or is one assigned to you?
On June 27 2015 07:08 graNite wrote: im so annoyed by this whole discussion. why do so many people think they have the right to tell me what their sexual preferences are? i dont care what anyone does at home, i just dont want those people to shove it down everyones throat by these gay pride parades or "huge news" what stuff like this happens. why cant it be a normal thing for everyone to keep it for himself?
Just to be clear, you're joking right?
Do you think you have the right to ask him whether he's joking?
Clearly not :D
I can't wrap my head around those who don't think people have even the most basic freedoms of speech and expression, and just as importantly the right to speak out and demonstrate against their own oppression. It's like telling blacks to privately talk about their problems in the back of the bus or at their separate water fountains, or asking women to complain to their ovens and stoves instead of their families and government... that publicly protesting prejudicial issues shouldn't be something that others need to acknowledge.
Fuck that. If you don't like parades, don't march in them. Don't look at them. But at least respect the fact that this is a huge win for an oppressed minority in America.
Speaking of which, now that you guys can gay marry, do you think you can choose who you gay marry, or is one assigned to you?
Obviously, every straight marriage is now legally divorced and everyone is forced to gay marry a person of the same sex randomly selected for them, even if you're straight
I just looked at my postcount... need to go work on my milestone blog now
On June 27 2015 07:08 graNite wrote: im so annoyed by this whole discussion. why do so many people think they have the right to tell me what their sexual preferences are? i dont care what anyone does at home, i just dont want those people to shove it down everyones throat by these gay pride parades or "huge news" what stuff like this happens. why cant it be a normal thing for everyone to keep it for himself?
Just to be clear, you're joking right?
Do you think you have the right to ask him whether he's joking?
Clearly not :D
I can't wrap my head around those who don't think people have even the most basic freedoms of speech and expression, and just as importantly the right to speak out and demonstrate against their own oppression. It's like telling blacks to privately talk about their problems in the back of the bus or at their separate water fountains, or asking women to complain to their ovens and stoves instead of their families and government... that publicly protesting prejudicial issues shouldn't be something that others need to acknowledge.
Fuck that. If you don't like parades, don't march in them. Don't look at them. But at least respect the fact that this is a huge win for an oppressed minority in America.
Speaking of which, now that you guys can gay marry, do you think you can choose who you gay marry, or is one assigned to you?
Obviously, every straight marriage is now legally divorced and everyone is forced to gay marry a person of the same sex randomly selected for them, even if you're straight
I just looked at my postcount... need to go work on my milestone blog now
On June 27 2015 07:08 graNite wrote: im so annoyed by this whole discussion. why do so many people think they have the right to tell me what their sexual preferences are? i dont care what anyone does at home, i just dont want those people to shove it down everyones throat by these gay pride parades or "huge news" what stuff like this happens. why cant it be a normal thing for everyone to keep it for himself?
edit: Funny how 30 years ago communism was the biggest fear... And then in the last 10 years, all of western europe and north america have been becoming very socialist.
lmao, seroiusly Fiwifaki, your posts are getting more ridiculous every time.
Please tell me that we have not as a whole been moving quite far to the left? I know it was a crazy comparison, maybe a slight stretch. Maybe I feel it more than others, because Canada is almost surely going for the Conservatives to the NDP federal party in a couple months, but regardless.
Aaand.. this is going offtopic.
moving to the left? maybe i am not sure. certainly not everywhere and not on every issue.
however, that's irrelevant. the claim that the west has become "very socialist" is so incredibly wrong that i am inclined to believe that you dont know what socialism is/stands for. but yeah, offtopic
It's sad that it took people this long to treat other people... as fucking people. Glad it happened but imo in the age of the internet, everything is taking too fucking long for people to catch up to what should be social norms.
On June 27 2015 10:31 SK.Testie wrote: It's sad that it took people this long to treat other people... as fucking people. Glad it happened but imo in the age of the internet, everything is taking too fucking long for people to catch up to what should be social norms.
Clearly it took so long because the US didn't invade the US to spread freedom.
On June 27 2015 03:21 dAPhREAk wrote: five unelected justices deciding moral issues for america. victory indeed. everyone is fine with it as long as it goes their way, but wait until those five unelected justices decide morality against you then we will see what tune you are singing.
this is coming from someone who supports gay marriage, so leave your idiocy at the door.
It became abundantly clear the bigots of America would never stop filing lawsuits and challenging the right for same sex marriage, so I don't really see another way. I guess we could wait until there was the political will to change it, but that didn't really work for a lot of civil rights issues.
Its also nice to stand on principle when you are not he party being denied the right to marry.
its the right of the bigots to file lawsuits and challenge the rights of gay marriage within the confines of the law. why are you saying that like its a negative?
its not principle, its checks and balances. the supreme court has a very narrow role, but constantly expand that beyond what was originally intended. this isnt about gay marriage, its about the limited role of the supreme court.
i am pleased that gay marriage is now a done deal; i am not pleased about how it was done.
Yes, the courts legislate too much. The actual legislature passes legislation with so many nonrelated things added that it makes your head spin and makes it really hard to know if many bills should have been passed or not. (I had this problem a few years back when something I wanted was passed, but in the passing of it two individuals that were completely unrelated were given multimillion dollar construction deals.../sigh).
And the Presidents have taken on the authority to make attack almost a country a year since the US was founded with very few of the operations which we would consider an act of war being properly approved (oh yeah limited window where the President can have a war before it has to be approved).
I think the US needs to start all over and rewrite all documents and make things meaningful to a modern society, well defined in definition, and work better and more appropriately in general. Just ratify everything with a 3/4s popular vote for consensus. One can only dream...
All that would take is a new constitutional convention. Though getting the consensus would be rather hard. If you get that many people, it might be better to just amend the flaws in the old one rather than make a whole new one. I do favor having a convention to do some serious amending.
On June 27 2015 03:21 dAPhREAk wrote: five unelected justices deciding moral issues for america. victory indeed. everyone is fine with it as long as it goes their way, but wait until those five unelected justices decide morality against you then we will see what tune you are singing.
this is coming from someone who supports gay marriage, so leave your idiocy at the door.
It became abundantly clear the bigots of America would never stop filing lawsuits and challenging the right for same sex marriage, so I don't really see another way. I guess we could wait until there was the political will to change it, but that didn't really work for a lot of civil rights issues.
Its also nice to stand on principle when you are not he party being denied the right to marry.
its the right of the bigots to file lawsuits and challenge the rights of gay marriage within the confines of the law. why are you saying that like its a negative?
its not principle, its checks and balances. the supreme court has a very narrow role, but constantly expand that beyond what was originally intended. this isnt about gay marriage, its about the limited role of the supreme court.
i am pleased that gay marriage is now a done deal; i am not pleased about how it was done.
Yes, the courts legislate too much. The actual legislature passes legislation with so many nonrelated things added that it makes your head spin and makes it really hard to know if many bills should have been passed or not. (I had this problem a few years back when something I wanted was passed, but in the passing of it two individuals that were completely unrelated were given multimillion dollar construction deals.../sigh).
And the Presidents have taken on the authority to make attack almost a country a year since the US was founded with very few of the operations which we would consider an act of war being properly approved (oh yeah limited window where the President can have a war before it has to be approved).
I think the US needs to start all over and rewrite all documents and make things meaningful to a modern society, well defined in definition, and work better and more appropriately in general. Just ratify everything with a 3/4s popular vote for consensus. One can only dream...
Yeah talking as if elected officials do things right as opposed to appointed judges is rather silly when you put this into perspective..
In the next few decades people will look upon this moment and wonder why it took this damn long. The less the US can focus on non-issues like gay marriage and move on to more pressing matters the better. Glad some members of the Supreme Court had the reason and progressiveness to move on to the 21st century.
On June 27 2015 03:21 dAPhREAk wrote: five unelected justices deciding moral issues for america. victory indeed. everyone is fine with it as long as it goes their way, but wait until those five unelected justices decide morality against you then we will see what tune you are singing.
this is coming from someone who supports gay marriage, so leave your idiocy at the door.
On June 27 2015 03:21 dAPhREAk wrote: five unelected justices deciding moral issues for america. victory indeed. everyone is fine with it as long as it goes their way, but wait until those five unelected justices decide morality against you then we will see what tune you are singing.
this is coming from someone who supports gay marriage, so leave your idiocy at the door.
Morality and law are not the same thing.
reading and reading comprehension are also not the same thing.
On June 26 2015 23:57 Half the Sky wrote: To those in America waiting for this - congratulations.
Wedding planners & divorce lawyers.
Give it 10 years and we'll see what'll really pans out lol. Be interesting if the statistics comes out to be that more traditional marriages end up in divorces because a partner, in that relationship, feels differently about his/her sexual orientation after committing.
On June 27 2015 03:21 dAPhREAk wrote: five unelected justices deciding moral issues for america. victory indeed. everyone is fine with it as long as it goes their way, but wait until those five unelected justices decide morality against you then we will see what tune you are singing.
this is coming from someone who supports gay marriage, so leave your idiocy at the door.
Morality and law are not the same thing.
reading and reading comprehension are also not the same thing.
The Supreme Court doesn't decide moral issues. It decides if laws are illegal.
On June 27 2015 11:19 PhoenixVoid wrote: In the next few decades people will look upon this moment and wonder why it took this damn long. The less the US can focus on non-issues like gay marriage and move on to more pressing matters the better. Glad some members of the Supreme Court had the reason and progressiveness to move on to the 21st century.
Is there any sign we are actually moving toward debating serious issues though? I see a couple of men were arrested for "Manspreading" on the NYC subway the other week... Meanwhile Glass-Steagal is still not in effect and the banks are back to doing what they were before the GFC, they now have far larger liabilities in the derivatives market than during the GFC!
Occupy Wall St was originally a collaboration between people who wanted more banking regulation (Like Glass-Steagal), the End The Fed people, Gold/Silver as sound money people etc.By the time Steven Colbert interviewed a woman proporting to speak for the entire movement (Who called herself "Ketchup" - go watch the video for yourself) it had become clear that the movement had lost it's original goals.This message board post from someone who was there explains it well
On June 27 2015 03:21 dAPhREAk wrote: five unelected justices deciding moral issues for america. victory indeed. everyone is fine with it as long as it goes their way, but wait until those five unelected justices decide morality against you then we will see what tune you are singing.
this is coming from someone who supports gay marriage, so leave your idiocy at the door.
Morality and law are not the same thing.
reading and reading comprehension are also not the same thing.
The Supreme Court doesn't decide moral issues. It decides if laws are illegal.
And RE: dAPhREAk's claim:
Legislature or state authority does not trump the Constitution. Yes, they have general power to make rules, but rules within the confines of the fundamental rights articulated by the Constitution. No, we should not have to wait for Congress to say that it is illegal to deny you a fair trial because that is a Constitutional right. No, we should not have to wait for Congress to say that it is illegal for restaurants to deny you service because of your race because that is a Constitutional right. No, we should not have to wait for Congress to say that it is illegal to deny gays the right to marry because the equal protection clause says that that, too, is a Constitutional right.
And yes, boohoo that five people have a major impact on this country. They would have had the same impact even if their decision had been otherwise. Voting serves merely to serve the majority, but our founding fathers made it very clear that this was not going to be a nation ruled by the tyranny of the majority. The LGBQT community is in fact a minority, which perhaps explains why society has been so slow to address the deprivation of their rights, but does not excuse the fact that it has taken so long to do so.
On June 27 2015 03:21 dAPhREAk wrote: five unelected justices deciding moral issues for america. victory indeed. everyone is fine with it as long as it goes their way, but wait until those five unelected justices decide morality against you then we will see what tune you are singing.
this is coming from someone who supports gay marriage, so leave your idiocy at the door.
Hypothetically, Roberts has a point. But I'm struggling with the practical implications of what he's arguing. There is a great deal of mobility in America, where people move to a different state to study and work. His argument would create a special disadvantaged class of citizens who will be unable to port their marriage from one state to another. Let's say one member of a gay couple is a member of the military or let's say it's a gay athlete who gets traded from a team in New York to a team in New Orleans. What happens to their legally adopted kid, for example, if they have to move to a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage?
Having each state craft their own marriage laws sounds like a logistical nightmare that would create second class citizens.
On June 27 2015 03:21 dAPhREAk wrote: five unelected justices deciding moral issues for america. victory indeed. everyone is fine with it as long as it goes their way, but wait until those five unelected justices decide morality against you then we will see what tune you are singing.
this is coming from someone who supports gay marriage, so leave your idiocy at the door.
Morality and law are not the same thing.
reading and reading comprehension are also not the same thing.
The Supreme Court doesn't decide moral issues. It decides if laws are illegal.
And RE: dAPhREAk's claim:
Legislature or state authority does not trump the Constitution. Yes, they have general power to make rules, but rules within the confines of the fundamental rights articulated by the Constitution. No, we should not have to wait for Congress to say that it is illegal to deny you a fair trial because that is a Constitutional right. No, we should not have to wait for Congress to say that it is illegal for restaurants to deny you service because of your race because that is a Constitutional right. No, we should not have to wait for Congress to say that it is illegal to deny gays the right to marry because the equal protection clause says that that, too, is a Constitutional right.
And yes, boohoo that five people have a major impact on this country. They would have had the same impact even if their decision had been otherwise. Voting serves merely to serve the majority, but our founding fathers made it very clear that this was not going to be a nation ruled by the tyranny of the majority. The LGBQT community is in fact a minority, which perhaps explains why society has been so slow to address the deprivation of their rights, but does not excuse the fact that it has taken so long to do so.
Absolutely. The 14th amendment exists to provide equal protection to all citizens of the united states.
Amendment XIV Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.
It's actually pretty clear. This was a discrimination issue.
A big victory for the LGBT community. Too bad marriage is so risky that even straight couples are wary of it these days.
It's going to be interesting to see how priests respond to this IMO. Hopefully those that continue to refuse to marry same sex couples are just ignored in favor of those who will, rather than same sex couples making a big deal out of it. Only time will tell.
On June 27 2015 03:21 dAPhREAk wrote: five unelected justices deciding moral issues for america. victory indeed. everyone is fine with it as long as it goes their way, but wait until those five unelected justices decide morality against you then we will see what tune you are singing.
this is coming from someone who supports gay marriage, so leave your idiocy at the door.
Morality and law are not the same thing.
reading and reading comprehension are also not the same thing.
The Supreme Court doesn't decide moral issues. It decides if laws are illegal.
And RE: dAPhREAk's claim:
Legislature or state authority does not trump the Constitution. Yes, they have general power to make rules, but rules within the confines of the fundamental rights articulated by the Constitution. No, we should not have to wait for Congress to say that it is illegal to deny you a fair trial because that is a Constitutional right. No, we should not have to wait for Congress to say that it is illegal for restaurants to deny you service because of your race because that is a Constitutional right. No, we should not have to wait for Congress to say that it is illegal to deny gays the right to marry because the equal protection clause says that that, too, is a Constitutional right.
And yes, boohoo that five people have a major impact on this country. They would have had the same impact even if their decision had been otherwise. Voting serves merely to serve the majority, but our founding fathers made it very clear that this was not going to be a nation ruled by the tyranny of the majority. The LGBQT community is in fact a minority, which perhaps explains why society has been so slow to address the deprivation of their rights, but does not excuse the fact that it has taken so long to do so.
Absolutely. The 14th amendment exists to provide equal protection to all citizens of the united states.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.
It's actually pretty clear. This was a discrimination issue.
the constitution allows for discrimination and that people are treated unequally. people read the words, but dont understand the real meaning.
On June 27 2015 03:21 dAPhREAk wrote: five unelected justices deciding moral issues for america. victory indeed. everyone is fine with it as long as it goes their way, but wait until those five unelected justices decide morality against you then we will see what tune you are singing.
this is coming from someone who supports gay marriage, so leave your idiocy at the door.
Hypothetically, Roberts has a point. But I'm struggling with the practical implications of what he's arguing. There is a great deal of mobility in America, where people move to a different state to study and work. His argument would create a special disadvantaged class of citizens who will be unable to port their marriage from one state to another. Let's say one member of a gay couple is a member of the military or let's say it's a gay athlete who gets traded from a team in New York to a team in New Orleans. What happens to their legally adopted kid, for example, if they have to move to a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage?
Having each state craft their own marriage laws sounds like a logistical nightmare that would create second class citizens.
roberts acknowledged that there are points to the argument for gay marriage. thats not the problem. the problem is who makes the decision, and it shouldnt be the supreme court.
also, saying a big gov't should trump the state gov'ts is basically advocating that the constitution be thrown out.
On June 27 2015 03:21 dAPhREAk wrote: five unelected justices deciding moral issues for america. victory indeed. everyone is fine with it as long as it goes their way, but wait until those five unelected justices decide morality against you then we will see what tune you are singing.
this is coming from someone who supports gay marriage, so leave your idiocy at the door.
Hypothetically, Roberts has a point. But I'm struggling with the practical implications of what he's arguing. There is a great deal of mobility in America, where people move to a different state to study and work. His argument would create a special disadvantaged class of citizens who will be unable to port their marriage from one state to another. Let's say one member of a gay couple is a member of the military or let's say it's a gay athlete who gets traded from a team in New York to a team in New Orleans. What happens to their legally adopted kid, for example, if they have to move to a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage?
Having each state craft their own marriage laws sounds like a logistical nightmare that would create second class citizens.
roberts acknowledged that there are points to the argument for gay marriage. thats not the problem. the problem is who makes the decision, and it shouldnt be the supreme court.
also, saying a big gov't should trump the state gov'ts is basically advocating that the constitution be thrown out.
Your political system stops your Supreme Court from ruling against Rights violations?
On June 27 2015 15:01 WolfintheSheep wrote: Your political system stops your Supreme Court from ruling against Rights violations?
In theory it stops the Court from ruling against violations of rights that aren't guaranteed by the constitution or some other legal source. Obviously, what constitutes a legally guaranteed right is a matter of debate. If this doesn't make sense to you, it's because we employ a much more rigid approach to constitutional rights than Canada and Europe (and India) and fetishize our written constitution.
On June 27 2015 07:08 graNite wrote: im so annoyed by this whole discussion. why do so many people think they have the right to tell me what their sexual preferences are? i dont care what anyone does at home, i just dont want those people to shove it down everyones throat by these gay pride parades or "huge news" what stuff like this happens. why cant it be a normal thing for everyone to keep it for himself?
It's really annoying for me too.
Like out of all issues we are going to make a fuss about, instead of focusing on more important things, we will spend years discussing simple things like abortion and gay rights.
Hopefully with this, LGBT community will quiet down a bit, and behave like normal people (and get treated like normal people), so this shit stays out of news, as well as gaming communities. 99% of people here agree with gay rights already... These last 4 years have been like following cavemen learn about fire.
edit: Funny how 30 years ago communism was the biggest fear... And then in the last 10 years, all of western europe and north america have been becoming very socialist.
What the heck has equal marriage rights to do with socialism?
I'm with you on the public displays of sexuality though! All those straight people should just stop shoving their sexuality in peoples faces and publicly announcing their straight marriages, and have romantic dinners in restaurants, and walk publicly arm in arm. Yesterday I was a young straight couple kissing! In public! Just shoving their sexuality down my throat as they were doing with each other's tongues! It's even on death notices! "Loving husband of [wife] for 48 years"! Why air your private matters like that? And media! All those obvious straight relationships everywhere! All those commy creator types just ramming their deviant worldviews down peoples throats! Gross! Keep it in the bedroom people!
I have two quick questions as I have heard many different views/opinions on the question:
1) Why is it okay for one group of people to boycott/tarnish a business because they are pro-heterosexual marriage but it's not okay to boycott/tarnish a business if they are pro-homosexual marriage?
2) If the term "marriage" was a religious term from thousands of years ago and only adopted by the U.S. government for legal and contractual means (an all encompassing group), can any religion refuse to marry on their religious beliefs as protected in the 1st Amendment?
Thanks for your answers everyone! Have a good day!
People can spend their money how they want. But really it just isn't in any business' interest to be very public about being against SSM at this point. It is both bad for their employees and bad because a large portion of people will cease doing business with them in most cases.
The church being able to refuse to marry people is an iffier issue and I am not sure but there is a lot of talk about it atm. Specifically about what happens to churches that refuse. From what I understand one has to have a marriage license in order to 'perform' marriages and there is concern that if a pastor or whoever refuses to perform a SSM that their license would be revoked. I guess it makes sense as a concern since if it is now illegal to deny SSM for the states and one has to have a license issued from the govt to perform marriages, only makes sense that people with the licenses aren't really at liberty to decide who can and can not marry.
On June 27 2015 20:38 catabowl wrote: I have two quick questions as I have heard many different views/opinions on the question:
1) Why is it okay for one group of people to boycott/tarnish a business because they are pro-heterosexual marriage but it's not okay to boycott/tarnish a business if they are pro-homosexual marriage?
2) If the term "marriage" was a religious term from thousands of years ago and only adopted by the U.S. government for legal and contractual means (an all encompassing group), can any religion refuse to marry on their religious beliefs as protected in the 1st Amendment?
Thanks for your answers everyone! Have a good day!
1) It's "ok" to boycott anything you please. I don't really understand this question, someone may disagree with you but you're free to do as you please.
2a) Marriage predates modern religion by a enormous timeframe. 2b). No one can force a church to perform a ceremony.
All this hubbub on what will happen to churches who do not perform gay marriages is premised on a false start; the Supreme Court's ruling deals with how the state recognizes marriage licenses obtained by couples, not the manner in which the state recognizes an a religious official's right to marry others. Now, yes, there is a question insofar as religious universities and other organizations who receive government tax benefits are concerned, but in terms of religions still being able to conduct their own marriage ceremonies as they see fit, nothing will change.
On June 27 2015 21:57 farvacola wrote: All this hubbub on what will happen to churches who do not perform gay marriages is premised on a false start; the Supreme Court's ruling deals with how the state recognizes marriage licenses obtained by couples, not the manner in which the state recognizes an a religious official's right to marry others. Now, yes, there is a question insofar as religious universities and other organizations who receive government tax benefits are concerned, but in terms of religions still being able to conduct their own marriage ceremonies as they see fit, nothing will change.
There are churches that are able to hand out marriage licenses. Those institutions are the ones in question I would think. At the moment it is a relationship of convenience between the states and the churches, but if the state allows a church, or any institution, to hand out marriage licenses as a matter of convenience (which tbh they shouldn't be doing anyways if you want to get technical), then one would think that that institution has to abide by whatever the laws are (which now is they would have to marry SS couples as well as heterosexual couples. If a church doesn't want to marry same-sex couples that is fine, but then they should not have the ability to hand out a marriage license
EDIT: Basically no one cares about what a church does within their own traditions or whatever, but if a church is able to give out marriage licenses (like many are able to do), then they have to follow the laws and give them to all people that are eligible imo, they aren't at liberty to choose who they would give a marriage license too and who they wouldn't. Like I said they shouldn't even be able to give marriage licenses to begin with but it is basically convenient for both parties..
On June 27 2015 21:57 farvacola wrote: All this hubbub on what will happen to churches who do not perform gay marriages is premised on a false start; the Supreme Court's ruling deals with how the state recognizes marriage licenses obtained by couples, not the manner in which the state recognizes an a religious official's right to marry others. Now, yes, there is a question insofar as religious universities and other organizations who receive government tax benefits are concerned, but in terms of religions still being able to conduct their own marriage ceremonies as they see fit, nothing will change.
There are churches that are able to hand out marriage licenses. Those institutions are the ones in question I would think. At the moment it is a relationship of convenience between the states and the churches, but if the state allows a church, or any institution, to hand out marriage licenses as a matter of convenience (which tbh they shouldn't be doing anyways if you want to get technical), then one would think that that institution has to abide by whatever the laws are (which now is they would have to marry SS couples as well as heterosexual couples. If a church doesn't want to marry same-sex couples that is fine, but then they should not have the ability to hand out a marriage license.
A church cannot issue a legally binding marriage license without the involvement of a local judge, clerk, or county/local administrator. Any sort of deviation from that scheme in the interests of convenience will not prove a ground for a constitutional question because the issue still revolves around state recognized licensure as opposed to church involvement in the process.
On June 27 2015 20:38 catabowl wrote: 1) Why is it okay for one group of people to boycott/tarnish a business because they are pro-heterosexual marriage but it's not okay to boycott/tarnish a business if they are pro-homosexual marriage?
Like the previous guy said, you're free to boycott whoever you want, but either way it will spur debates and since there are more people who are in favor of homosexual marriages (and those who are against tend to be quiet since they know their position is archaic), it leads to boycotts against "pro" businesses being more convincing, and by extension, the backlash against boycotts of pro-homosexual marriage is louder.
To put it simply, the balance of power, as well as the organisational capacity is in the favor of those who are pro-homosexual marriage.
And from a moral standpoint, it's "not okay" (unreasonable) to boycott or tarnish the reputation of pro-homosexual marriage businesses because that makes you a dumb cunt, but you're still allowed to do it. The downside is that if you believe your country to be founded on freedom and you actively prevent people from doing what they want even though it realistically poses no threat to your life or your quality of life, you're being a bit tyrannical. Why fight for these things?
It really is a state by state case on how/who can perform 'official' marriages. Many states allow recognized members of clergy to perform marriages, not just judges and county clerks. That is where the problem is/will be.
For example I am in Kentucky and afaik, state law allows ANY minister or priest to perform marriage ceremonies and they just have to turn in the paperwork to the county office within a month. And while most states require these individuals to meet licensing requirements, my state for example has no such requirements.
On June 27 2015 22:30 Kickstart wrote: It really is a state by state case on how/who can perform 'official' marriages. Many states allow recognized members of clergy to perform marriages, not just judges and county clerks. That is where the problem is/will be.
I was under the impression that all marriages were done by clergy and that judges and county clerks could only perform civil unions.
On June 27 2015 22:30 Kickstart wrote: It really is a state by state case on how/who can perform 'official' marriages. Many states allow recognized members of clergy to perform marriages, not just judges and county clerks. That is where the problem is/will be.
In the states where clergy are authorized to issue marriage licenses, said licenses do not become legally tender until a certified filing with the local government, so again, the church isn't actually in the practice of issuing marriage licenses because when state law grants them the ability, said "licenses" aren't actually legally valid until they are properly filed with a government authority.
IMO the SCOTUS did not base this decision on the Constitution. Fundamental rights are only those which are deeply rooted in our history and traditions. While yes, marriage is a fundamental right in and of itself, Michael H. v. Gerald D. decided that new fundamental rights are to be decided strictly, not broadly. So the fundamental right asserted is the right to gay marriage, not marriage, which is definitely NOTdeeply rooted in our history and traditions. Don't get me wrong, I personally don't care whether gays have the right to marry each other, I just disagree with defining gay marriage as a "fundamental right" that is necessary for system of ordered liberty. This was way more of a policy decision (which the SCOTUS is not supposed to decide) than it was based on the due process clause of the 5th/14th amendments.
On June 27 2015 22:30 Kickstart wrote: It really is a state by state case on how/who can perform 'official' marriages. Many states allow recognized members of clergy to perform marriages, not just judges and county clerks. That is where the problem is/will be.
In the states where clergy are authorized to issue marriage licenses, said licenses do not become legally tender until a certified filing with the local government, so again, the church isn't actually in the practice of issuing marriage licenses because when state law grants them the ability, said "licenses" aren't actually legally valid until they are properly filed with a government authority.
Is there no legal issue then if a church does this service for certain couples but not others? Like I said I don't know but I assume there will be . But iirc you are a Cali attorney? Like if a church did discriminate on whatever basis would the local government still let a representative from that church submit whatever unofficial paperwork and sign off on it or however its done. I guess technically there is nothing wrong going on but I'm sure someone will be able to argue some sort of discrimination issue over it.
On June 27 2015 22:40 Garuga wrote: IMO the SCOTUS did not base this decision on the Constitution. Fundamental rights are only those which are deeply rooted in our history and traditions. While yes, marriage is a fundamental right in and of itself, Michael H. v. Gerald D. decided that new fundamental rights are to be decided strictly, not broadly. So the fundamental right asserted is the right to gay marriage, not marriage, which is definitely NOTdeeply rooted in our history and traditions. Don't get me wrong, I personally don't care whether gays have the right to marry each other, I just disagree with defining gay marriage as a "fundamental right" that is necessary for system of ordered liberty. This was way more of a policy decision (which the SCOTUS is not supposed to decide) than it was based on the due process clause of the 5th/14th amendments.
Don't agree with me? Well, 4 justices do.
And 5 don't???? Lol @ that argument of 'hey minority of the justices agree with me' when the majority doesn't.
EDIT: and really you can argue it whichever way you want depending on which side of the issue you are on. I would just argue that they just ruled that no state can ban SSM, thereby making it legal everywhere. And they do have the authority to rule on whether SSM bans are constitutional or not.
On June 27 2015 22:30 Kickstart wrote: It really is a state by state case on how/who can perform 'official' marriages. Many states allow recognized members of clergy to perform marriages, not just judges and county clerks. That is where the problem is/will be.
In the states where clergy are authorized to issue marriage licenses, said licenses do not become legally tender until a certified filing with the local government, so again, the church isn't actually in the practice of issuing marriage licenses because when state law grants them the ability, said "licenses" aren't actually legally valid until they are properly filed with a government authority.
Is there no legal issue then if a church does this service for certain couples but not others? Like I said I don't know but I assume there will be . But iirc you are a Cali attorney? Like if a church did discriminate on whatever basis would the local government still let a representative from that church submit whatever unofficial paperwork and sign off on it or however its done. I guess technically there is nothing wrong going on but I'm sure someone will be able to argue some sort of discrimination issue over it.
Haha, nope, dAPHREAk is the Cali attorney; I'm only a law student/intern with a strong interest in this area of the law. (I'll be a lawyer in 2 years though!)
My guess is that both pro and anti gay marriage groups will attempt to instigate test cases using the formula you've described above. They'll attempt to solicit marriage licenses for gay couples from churches who refuse, and then they'll see if anything floats in federal district court. I'm almost 100% certain that district courts will either refrain from hearing the issue or simply make it clear that the holding of Obergefell deals in government recognition of marriage rather than the church's role in the process. The legality of some state laws might come into question but these conflicts won't be all that dramatic. In the end, churches do not have a legal obligation to perform marriages for anyone and everyone that asks for them, and the same will ring true moving forward. Naturally, the same can no longer be said for the government
The simplest solution would be for the US to separate the legal marriage from the religious one. Like in most of the Western countries. You want to be legally married with all the state given benefits? Go to the courthouse/city hall, sign a legal document. Done. You want to be married in the eyes of your god? Have second ceremony for your church/Wiccan circle/rabbi/... Religions can then keep their own rules for who they want to marry or not. All problems solved.
On June 27 2015 23:05 Thax wrote: The simplest solution would be for the US to separate the legal marriage from the religious one. Like in most of the Western countries. You want to be legally married with all the state given benefits? Go to the courthouse/city hall, sign a legal document. Done. You want to be married in the eyes of your god? Have second ceremony for your church/Wiccan circle/rabbi/... Religions can then keep their own rules for who they want to marry or not. All problems solved.
On June 27 2015 22:40 Garuga wrote: IMO the SCOTUS did not base this decision on the Constitution. Fundamental rights are only those which are deeply rooted in our history and traditions. While yes, marriage is a fundamental right in and of itself, Michael H. v. Gerald D. decided that new fundamental rights are to be decided strictly, not broadly. So the fundamental right asserted is the right to gay marriage, not marriage, which is definitely NOTdeeply rooted in our history and traditions. Don't get me wrong, I personally don't care whether gays have the right to marry each other, I just disagree with defining gay marriage as a "fundamental right" that is necessary for system of ordered liberty. This was way more of a policy decision (which the SCOTUS is not supposed to decide) than it was based on the due process clause of the 5th/14th amendments.
Don't agree with me? Well, 4 justices do.
And 5 don't???? Lol @ that argument of 'hey minority of the justices agree with me' when the majority doesn't.
EDIT: and really you can argue it whichever way you want depending on which side of the issue you are on. I would just argue that they just ruled that no state can ban SSM, thereby making it legal everywhere. And they do have the authority to rule on whether SSM bans are constitutional or not.
That argument was just to say that even the 9 most brilliant legal minds in the nation don't agree on this issue, so why should we?
On June 27 2015 22:40 Garuga wrote: IMO the SCOTUS did not base this decision on the Constitution. Fundamental rights are only those which are deeply rooted in our history and traditions. While yes, marriage is a fundamental right in and of itself, Michael H. v. Gerald D. decided that new fundamental rights are to be decided strictly, not broadly. So the fundamental right asserted is the right to gay marriage, not marriage, which is definitely NOTdeeply rooted in our history and traditions. Don't get me wrong, I personally don't care whether gays have the right to marry each other, I just disagree with defining gay marriage as a "fundamental right" that is necessary for system of ordered liberty. This was way more of a policy decision (which the SCOTUS is not supposed to decide) than it was based on the due process clause of the 5th/14th amendments.
Don't agree with me? Well, 4 justices do.
And 5 don't???? Lol @ that argument of 'hey minority of the justices agree with me' when the majority doesn't.
EDIT: and really you can argue it whichever way you want depending on which side of the issue you are on. I would just argue that they just ruled that no state can ban SSM, thereby making it legal everywhere. And they do have the authority to rule on whether SSM bans are constitutional or not.
That argument was just to say that even the 9 most brilliant legal minds in the nation don't agree on this issue, so why should we?
Woa, the idea that justices are actually selected on merit is ridiculous. Thomas was essentially slapped into a small court during the Bush era and went up from being a BS judge to the supreme court essentially for political reasons
On June 27 2015 23:05 Thax wrote: The simplest solution would be for the US to separate the legal marriage from the religious one. Like in most of the Western countries. You want to be legally married with all the state given benefits? Go to the courthouse/city hall, sign a legal document. Done. You want to be married in the eyes of your god? Have second ceremony for your church/Wiccan circle/rabbi/... Religions can then keep their own rules for who they want to marry or not. All problems solved.
I wish all people could think like this, but alas, it is an instinct to stuff religious restrictions on people for some reason
On June 27 2015 07:08 graNite wrote: im so annoyed by this whole discussion. why do so many people think they have the right to tell me what their sexual preferences are? i dont care what anyone does at home, i just dont want those people to shove it down everyones throat by these gay pride parades or "huge news" what stuff like this happens. why cant it be a normal thing for everyone to keep it for himself?
Just to be clear, you're joking right?
Do you think you have the right to ask him whether he's joking?
Clearly not :D
I can't wrap my head around those who don't think people have even the most basic freedoms of speech and expression, and just as importantly the right to speak out and demonstrate against their own oppression. It's like telling blacks to privately talk about their problems in the back of the bus or at their separate water fountains, or asking women to complain to their ovens and stoves instead of their families and government... that publicly protesting prejudicial issues shouldn't be something that others need to acknowledge.
Fuck that. If you don't like parades, don't march in them. Don't look at them. But at least respect the fact that this is a huge win for an oppressed minority in America.
Speaking of which, now that you guys can gay marry, do you think you can choose who you gay marry, or is one assigned to you?
I just looked at my postcount... need to go work on my milestone blog now
On June 27 2015 07:08 graNite wrote: im so annoyed by this whole discussion. why do so many people think they have the right to tell me what their sexual preferences are? i dont care what anyone does at home, i just dont want those people to shove it down everyones throat by these gay pride parades or "huge news" what stuff like this happens. why cant it be a normal thing for everyone to keep it for himself?
Just to be clear, you're joking right?
Do you think you have the right to ask him whether he's joking?
Clearly not :D
I can't wrap my head around those who don't think people have even the most basic freedoms of speech and expression, and just as importantly the right to speak out and demonstrate against their own oppression. It's like telling blacks to privately talk about their problems in the back of the bus or at their separate water fountains, or asking women to complain to their ovens and stoves instead of their families and government... that publicly protesting prejudicial issues shouldn't be something that others need to acknowledge.
Fuck that. If you don't like parades, don't march in them. Don't look at them. But at least respect the fact that this is a huge win for an oppressed minority in America.
Speaking of which, now that you guys can gay marry, do you think you can choose who you gay marry, or is one assigned to you?
Obviously, every straight marriage is now legally divorced and everyone is forced to gay marry a person of the same sex randomly selected for them, even if you're straight
I just looked at my postcount... need to go work on my milestone blog now
On June 27 2015 22:30 Kickstart wrote: It really is a state by state case on how/who can perform 'official' marriages. Many states allow recognized members of clergy to perform marriages, not just judges and county clerks. That is where the problem is/will be.
I was under the impression that all marriages were done by clergy and that judges and county clerks could only perform civil unions.
Nope, not true I have friends who casually got licenses to perform marriages, and they're in no way related to the church (they're not even religious lol). While clergymen often perform marriages, the job isn't specific to them
Nope, not true I have friends who casually got licenses to perform marriages, and they're in no way related to the church (they're not even religious lol). While clergymen often perform marriages, the job isn't specific to them
On June 27 2015 03:21 dAPhREAk wrote: five unelected justices deciding moral issues for america. victory indeed. everyone is fine with it as long as it goes their way, but wait until those five unelected justices decide morality against you then we will see what tune you are singing.
this is coming from someone who supports gay marriage, so leave your idiocy at the door.
Morality and law are not the same thing.
reading and reading comprehension are also not the same thing.
The Supreme Court doesn't decide moral issues. It decides if laws are illegal.
And RE: dAPhREAk's claim:
Legislature or state authority does not trump the Constitution. Yes, they have general power to make rules, but rules within the confines of the fundamental rights articulated by the Constitution. No, we should not have to wait for Congress to say that it is illegal to deny you a fair trial because that is a Constitutional right. No, we should not have to wait for Congress to say that it is illegal for restaurants to deny you service because of your race because that is a Constitutional right. No, we should not have to wait for Congress to say that it is illegal to deny gays the right to marry because the equal protection clause says that that, too, is a Constitutional right.
And yes, boohoo that five people have a major impact on this country. They would have had the same impact even if their decision had been otherwise. Voting serves merely to serve the majority, but our founding fathers made it very clear that this was not going to be a nation ruled by the tyranny of the majority. The LGBQT community is in fact a minority, which perhaps explains why society has been so slow to address the deprivation of their rights, but does not excuse the fact that it has taken so long to do so.
Absolutely. The 14th amendment exists to provide equal protection to all citizens of the united states.
Amendment XIV Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.
It's actually pretty clear. This was a discrimination issue.
the constitution allows for discrimination and that people are treated unequally. people read the words, but dont understand the real meaning.
Point 1:
The 14th amendment protects citizens against having their rights as citizens discriminated against. If you are a citizen, then you get the right. It doesn't matter if you are gay or not. The constitution allows for discrimination in some cases but not when it is the government discriminating against a citizen's right as a citizen. Did I miss something? Am I misunderstanding the 14th amendment here, if so please point it out with your superior understanding.
point 2:
Marriage is one of those rights, and since there is a separation of religion and state - marriage is not defined by religion and does not need to be solely between a man and a woman.
conclusion:
the 14th amendment should protect the right of a citizen to marry
On June 27 2015 22:40 Garuga wrote: IMO the SCOTUS did not base this decision on the Constitution. Fundamental rights are only those which are deeply rooted in our history and traditions. While yes, marriage is a fundamental right in and of itself, Michael H. v. Gerald D. decided that new fundamental rights are to be decided strictly, not broadly. So the fundamental right asserted is the right to gay marriage, not marriage, which is definitely NOTdeeply rooted in our history and traditions. Don't get me wrong, I personally don't care whether gays have the right to marry each other, I just disagree with defining gay marriage as a "fundamental right" that is necessary for system of ordered liberty. This was way more of a policy decision (which the SCOTUS is not supposed to decide) than it was based on the due process clause of the 5th/14th amendments.
Don't agree with me? Well, 4 justices do.
The 4 justices who voted against, lol.
Why does it matter if gay marriage is rooted deeply in our history and traditions? It's not rooted deeply in our history and traditions because homosexuality was taboo. What kind of F'd up logic are you using??
Gay marriage is still marriage dude. Gay marriage isn't the issue. The issue is gays being able to have marriage.
On June 27 2015 23:05 Thax wrote: The simplest solution would be for the US to separate the legal marriage from the religious one. Like in most of the Western countries. You want to be legally married with all the state given benefits? Go to the courthouse/city hall, sign a legal document. Done. You want to be married in the eyes of your god? Have second ceremony for your church/Wiccan circle/rabbi/... Religions can then keep their own rules for who they want to marry or not. All problems solved.
I wish all people could think like this, but alas, it is an instinct to stuff religious restrictions on people for some reason
They've been separate for ages, you can get married under whatever religion you want or under no religion at all.
On June 27 2015 22:40 Garuga wrote: IMO the SCOTUS did not base this decision on the Constitution. Fundamental rights are only those which are deeply rooted in our history and traditions. While yes, marriage is a fundamental right in and of itself, Michael H. v. Gerald D. decided that new fundamental rights are to be decided strictly, not broadly. So the fundamental right asserted is the right to gay marriage, not marriage, which is definitely NOTdeeply rooted in our history and traditions. Don't get me wrong, I personally don't care whether gays have the right to marry each other, I just disagree with defining gay marriage as a "fundamental right" that is necessary for system of ordered liberty. This was way more of a policy decision (which the SCOTUS is not supposed to decide) than it was based on the due process clause of the 5th/14th amendments.
Don't agree with me? Well, 4 justices do.
The 4 justices who voted against, lol. And only one of them even said anything like this.
Why does it matter if gay marriage is rooted deeply in our history and traditions? It's not rooted deeply in our history and traditions because homosexuality was taboo. What kind of F'd up logic are you using??
Gay marriage is still marriage dude. Gay marriage isn't the issue. The issue is gays being able to have marriage.
"Why does it matter if gay marriage is rooted deeply in our history and traditions? It's not rooted deeply in our history and traditions because homosexuality was taboo. What kind of F'd up logic are you using??"
I'm using the logic of prior case law that defines fundamental liberty rights being deeply rooted in our history and traditions and essential to our scheme of ordered liberty...the court is not in the business of creating new fundamental rights.
On June 27 2015 23:05 Thax wrote: The simplest solution would be for the US to separate the legal marriage from the religious one. Like in most of the Western countries. You want to be legally married with all the state given benefits? Go to the courthouse/city hall, sign a legal document. Done. You want to be married in the eyes of your god? Have second ceremony for your church/Wiccan circle/rabbi/... Religions can then keep their own rules for who they want to marry or not. All problems solved.
I wish all people could think like this, but alas, it is an instinct to stuff religious restrictions on people for some reason
The right to marry is separated from religious matters since like 18th century lol
On June 27 2015 03:21 dAPhREAk wrote: five unelected justices deciding moral issues for america. victory indeed. everyone is fine with it as long as it goes their way, but wait until those five unelected justices decide morality against you then we will see what tune you are singing.
this is coming from someone who supports gay marriage, so leave your idiocy at the door.
Morality and law are not the same thing.
reading and reading comprehension are also not the same thing.
The Supreme Court doesn't decide moral issues. It decides if laws are illegal.
And RE: dAPhREAk's claim:
Legislature or state authority does not trump the Constitution. Yes, they have general power to make rules, but rules within the confines of the fundamental rights articulated by the Constitution. No, we should not have to wait for Congress to say that it is illegal to deny you a fair trial because that is a Constitutional right. No, we should not have to wait for Congress to say that it is illegal for restaurants to deny you service because of your race because that is a Constitutional right. No, we should not have to wait for Congress to say that it is illegal to deny gays the right to marry because the equal protection clause says that that, too, is a Constitutional right.
And yes, boohoo that five people have a major impact on this country. They would have had the same impact even if their decision had been otherwise. Voting serves merely to serve the majority, but our founding fathers made it very clear that this was not going to be a nation ruled by the tyranny of the majority. The LGBQT community is in fact a minority, which perhaps explains why society has been so slow to address the deprivation of their rights, but does not excuse the fact that it has taken so long to do so.
Absolutely. The 14th amendment exists to provide equal protection to all citizens of the united states.
Amendment XIV Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.
It's actually pretty clear. This was a discrimination issue.
the constitution allows for discrimination and that people are treated unequally. people read the words, but dont understand the real meaning.
Point 1:
The 14th amendment protects citizens against having their rights as citizens discriminated against. If you are a citizen, then you get the right. It doesn't matter if you are gay or not. The constitution allows for discrimination in some cases but not when it is the government discriminating against a citizen's right as a citizen. Did I miss something? Am I misunderstanding the 14th amendment here, if so please point it out with your superior understanding.
point 2:
Marriage is one of those rights, and since there is a separation of religion and state - marriage is not defined by religion and does not need to be solely between a man and a woman.
conclusion:
the 14th amendment should protect the right of a citizen to marry
Did you read the decision at all? The majority opinion spent a long time on fundamental rights, and it seems like you're remembering the Windsor decision for some reason.
Where are you getting it that marriage is a "citizen's right as a citizen." It is routinely denied to young citizens, to citizens already married, and for a very long time, for citizens wanting to marry the same sex. Every legal mind in the history of the country is now a bigot, having overlooked that function of the 14th amendment for a hundred years. Every state in the country violated the Constitution for 135 years. Pretty pretentious if you ask me.
I think americans today are very proud of themselves as a nation (at least liberal ones) and I'm proud of them too (does not happen often). But I still believe the whole lgb battle has two sides, the law battle for equal civil rights, and the cultural one. With the homosexual marriage the lgbt community has won the first, but lost the second, showing a subordination to the dominant culture wanting so badly signs and traditions that are so old and unfitting that are going to expire soon by themselves. I think we have enough proofs monogamy itself has no space anymore in human society in a not distant future, funny enough maybe the last marriage will be gay, sadly enough both of the parts are very late to this day, eterosexual to permit gay marriage and homosexual to obtain it.
On June 27 2015 22:40 Garuga wrote: IMO the SCOTUS did not base this decision on the Constitution. Fundamental rights are only those which are deeply rooted in our history and traditions. While yes, marriage is a fundamental right in and of itself, Michael H. v. Gerald D. decided that new fundamental rights are to be decided strictly, not broadly. So the fundamental right asserted is the right to gay marriage, not marriage, which is definitely NOTdeeply rooted in our history and traditions. Don't get me wrong, I personally don't care whether gays have the right to marry each other, I just disagree with defining gay marriage as a "fundamental right" that is necessary for system of ordered liberty. This was way more of a policy decision (which the SCOTUS is not supposed to decide) than it was based on the due process clause of the 5th/14th amendments.
Don't agree with me? Well, 4 justices do.
The 4 justices who voted against, lol. And only one of them even said anything like this.
Why does it matter if gay marriage is rooted deeply in our history and traditions? It's not rooted deeply in our history and traditions because homosexuality was taboo. What kind of F'd up logic are you using??
Gay marriage is still marriage dude. Gay marriage isn't the issue. The issue is gays being able to have marriage.
"Why does it matter if gay marriage is rooted deeply in our history and traditions? It's not rooted deeply in our history and traditions because homosexuality was taboo. What kind of F'd up logic are you using??"
I'm using the logic of prior case law that defines fundamental liberty rights being deeply rooted in our history and traditions and essential to our scheme of ordered liberty...the court is not in the business of creating new fundamental rights.
The characteristics you are taking out of the tradition as defining characteristics are not what the majority of americans (or of justices) are taking as defining characteristics. They say, those aren't defining characteristics, those are the characteristics that existed because of the times.
Kennedy addresses your point, he spends a lot of time on it.
Loving did not ask about a “right to interracial marriage”; Turner did not ask about a “right of inmates to marry”; and Zablocki did not ask about a “right of fathers with unpaid child support duties to marry.” Rather, each case inquired about the right to marry in its comprehensive sense, asking if there was a sufficient justification for excluding the relevant class from the right.
This really isn't an easy quote to toss aside imo. Interracial marriage was not only something new, but something that just like gay marriage was specifically taboo and tons of people would argue "is not in the spirit of marriage". And yet now, it seems obvious that interracial couples should be allowed to marry right? I sure hope it does.
It's no different with gay marriage, and if someone disagrees with that I would argue that it's because they are using a religious definition of marriage. That isn't my definition of marriage! And it isn't the majority's.
No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law.
The court is not changing the definition of the right. The definition was always up to interpretation.
On June 27 2015 03:21 dAPhREAk wrote: five unelected justices deciding moral issues for america. victory indeed. everyone is fine with it as long as it goes their way, but wait until those five unelected justices decide morality against you then we will see what tune you are singing.
this is coming from someone who supports gay marriage, so leave your idiocy at the door.
Morality and law are not the same thing.
reading and reading comprehension are also not the same thing.
The Supreme Court doesn't decide moral issues. It decides if laws are illegal.
And RE: dAPhREAk's claim:
Legislature or state authority does not trump the Constitution. Yes, they have general power to make rules, but rules within the confines of the fundamental rights articulated by the Constitution. No, we should not have to wait for Congress to say that it is illegal to deny you a fair trial because that is a Constitutional right. No, we should not have to wait for Congress to say that it is illegal for restaurants to deny you service because of your race because that is a Constitutional right. No, we should not have to wait for Congress to say that it is illegal to deny gays the right to marry because the equal protection clause says that that, too, is a Constitutional right.
And yes, boohoo that five people have a major impact on this country. They would have had the same impact even if their decision had been otherwise. Voting serves merely to serve the majority, but our founding fathers made it very clear that this was not going to be a nation ruled by the tyranny of the majority. The LGBQT community is in fact a minority, which perhaps explains why society has been so slow to address the deprivation of their rights, but does not excuse the fact that it has taken so long to do so.
Absolutely. The 14th amendment exists to provide equal protection to all citizens of the united states.
Amendment XIV Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.
It's actually pretty clear. This was a discrimination issue.
the constitution allows for discrimination and that people are treated unequally. people read the words, but dont understand the real meaning.
Point 1:
The 14th amendment protects citizens against having their rights as citizens discriminated against. If you are a citizen, then you get the right. It doesn't matter if you are gay or not. The constitution allows for discrimination in some cases but not when it is the government discriminating against a citizen's right as a citizen. Did I miss something? Am I misunderstanding the 14th amendment here, if so please point it out with your superior understanding.
point 2:
Marriage is one of those rights, and since there is a separation of religion and state - marriage is not defined by religion and does not need to be solely between a man and a woman.
conclusion:
the 14th amendment should protect the right of a citizen to marry
Did you read the decision at all? The majority opinion spent a long time on fundamental rights, and it seems like you're remembering the Windsor decision for some reason.
Where are you getting it that marriage is a "citizen's right as a citizen." It is routinely denied to young citizens, to citizens already married, and for a very long time, for citizens wanting to marry the same sex.
Because marriage has a function... and the first 2 are outside the scope of the function of marriage.
Every legal mind in the history of the country is now a bigot, having overlooked that function of the 14th amendment for a hundred years. Every state in the country violated the Constitution for 135 years. Pretty pretentious if you ask me.
umm, well that's a loaded statement. But sure if you want to purposely lack understanding and oversimplify it let's say yes, yes exactly. Just like they did with interracial marriage. times change man, it's called progression. it's been happening for the entirety of this nation's history.
On June 27 2015 03:21 dAPhREAk wrote: five unelected justices deciding moral issues for america. victory indeed. everyone is fine with it as long as it goes their way, but wait until those five unelected justices decide morality against you then we will see what tune you are singing.
this is coming from someone who supports gay marriage, so leave your idiocy at the door.
Morality and law are not the same thing.
reading and reading comprehension are also not the same thing.
The Supreme Court doesn't decide moral issues. It decides if laws are illegal.
And RE: dAPhREAk's claim:
Legislature or state authority does not trump the Constitution. Yes, they have general power to make rules, but rules within the confines of the fundamental rights articulated by the Constitution. No, we should not have to wait for Congress to say that it is illegal to deny you a fair trial because that is a Constitutional right. No, we should not have to wait for Congress to say that it is illegal for restaurants to deny you service because of your race because that is a Constitutional right. No, we should not have to wait for Congress to say that it is illegal to deny gays the right to marry because the equal protection clause says that that, too, is a Constitutional right.
And yes, boohoo that five people have a major impact on this country. They would have had the same impact even if their decision had been otherwise. Voting serves merely to serve the majority, but our founding fathers made it very clear that this was not going to be a nation ruled by the tyranny of the majority. The LGBQT community is in fact a minority, which perhaps explains why society has been so slow to address the deprivation of their rights, but does not excuse the fact that it has taken so long to do so.
Absolutely. The 14th amendment exists to provide equal protection to all citizens of the united states.
Amendment XIV Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.
It's actually pretty clear. This was a discrimination issue.
the constitution allows for discrimination and that people are treated unequally. people read the words, but dont understand the real meaning.
Point 1:
The 14th amendment protects citizens against having their rights as citizens discriminated against. If you are a citizen, then you get the right. It doesn't matter if you are gay or not. The constitution allows for discrimination in some cases but not when it is the government discriminating against a citizen's right as a citizen. Did I miss something? Am I misunderstanding the 14th amendment here, if so please point it out with your superior understanding.
point 2:
Marriage is one of those rights, and since there is a separation of religion and state - marriage is not defined by religion and does not need to be solely between a man and a woman.
conclusion:
the 14th amendment should protect the right of a citizen to marry
Did you read the decision at all? The majority opinion spent a long time on fundamental rights, and it seems like you're remembering the Windsor decision for some reason.
Where are you getting it that marriage is a "citizen's right as a citizen." It is routinely denied to young citizens, to citizens already married, and for a very long time, for citizens wanting to marry the same sex. Every legal mind in the history of the country is now a bigot, having overlooked that function of the 14th amendment for a hundred years. Every state in the country violated the Constitution for 135 years. Pretty pretentious if you ask me.
And this is why a Constitution is written to be future-proof and not stuck enforcing hundred year old values.
Shockingly, countries can violate rights for a very long time, and "being pretentious" is the dumbest reason possible to avoid fixing them.
On June 27 2015 03:21 dAPhREAk wrote: five unelected justices deciding moral issues for america. victory indeed. everyone is fine with it as long as it goes their way, but wait until those five unelected justices decide morality against you then we will see what tune you are singing.
this is coming from someone who supports gay marriage, so leave your idiocy at the door.
Morality and law are not the same thing.
reading and reading comprehension are also not the same thing.
The Supreme Court doesn't decide moral issues. It decides if laws are illegal.
And RE: dAPhREAk's claim:
Legislature or state authority does not trump the Constitution. Yes, they have general power to make rules, but rules within the confines of the fundamental rights articulated by the Constitution. No, we should not have to wait for Congress to say that it is illegal to deny you a fair trial because that is a Constitutional right. No, we should not have to wait for Congress to say that it is illegal for restaurants to deny you service because of your race because that is a Constitutional right. No, we should not have to wait for Congress to say that it is illegal to deny gays the right to marry because the equal protection clause says that that, too, is a Constitutional right.
And yes, boohoo that five people have a major impact on this country. They would have had the same impact even if their decision had been otherwise. Voting serves merely to serve the majority, but our founding fathers made it very clear that this was not going to be a nation ruled by the tyranny of the majority. The LGBQT community is in fact a minority, which perhaps explains why society has been so slow to address the deprivation of their rights, but does not excuse the fact that it has taken so long to do so.
Absolutely. The 14th amendment exists to provide equal protection to all citizens of the united states.
Amendment XIV Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.
It's actually pretty clear. This was a discrimination issue.
the constitution allows for discrimination and that people are treated unequally. people read the words, but dont understand the real meaning.
Point 1:
The 14th amendment protects citizens against having their rights as citizens discriminated against. If you are a citizen, then you get the right. It doesn't matter if you are gay or not. The constitution allows for discrimination in some cases but not when it is the government discriminating against a citizen's right as a citizen. Did I miss something? Am I misunderstanding the 14th amendment here, if so please point it out with your superior understanding.
point 2:
Marriage is one of those rights, and since there is a separation of religion and state - marriage is not defined by religion and does not need to be solely between a man and a woman.
conclusion:
the 14th amendment should protect the right of a citizen to marry
Did you read the decision at all? The majority opinion spent a long time on fundamental rights, and it seems like you're remembering the Windsor decision for some reason.
Where are you getting it that marriage is a "citizen's right as a citizen." It is routinely denied to young citizens, to citizens already married, and for a very long time, for citizens wanting to marry the same sex. Every legal mind in the history of the country is now a bigot, having overlooked that function of the 14th amendment for a hundred years. Every state in the country violated the Constitution for 135 years. Pretty pretentious if you ask me.
Every legal mind...except a good chunk of the dozens of state and federal judges in lower courts that have ruled on anti-same sex marriage legislation in the past few years.
On June 27 2015 03:21 dAPhREAk wrote: five unelected justices deciding moral issues for america. victory indeed. everyone is fine with it as long as it goes their way, but wait until those five unelected justices decide morality against you then we will see what tune you are singing.
this is coming from someone who supports gay marriage, so leave your idiocy at the door.
Morality and law are not the same thing.
reading and reading comprehension are also not the same thing.
The Supreme Court doesn't decide moral issues. It decides if laws are illegal.
And RE: dAPhREAk's claim:
Legislature or state authority does not trump the Constitution. Yes, they have general power to make rules, but rules within the confines of the fundamental rights articulated by the Constitution. No, we should not have to wait for Congress to say that it is illegal to deny you a fair trial because that is a Constitutional right. No, we should not have to wait for Congress to say that it is illegal for restaurants to deny you service because of your race because that is a Constitutional right. No, we should not have to wait for Congress to say that it is illegal to deny gays the right to marry because the equal protection clause says that that, too, is a Constitutional right.
And yes, boohoo that five people have a major impact on this country. They would have had the same impact even if their decision had been otherwise. Voting serves merely to serve the majority, but our founding fathers made it very clear that this was not going to be a nation ruled by the tyranny of the majority. The LGBQT community is in fact a minority, which perhaps explains why society has been so slow to address the deprivation of their rights, but does not excuse the fact that it has taken so long to do so.
Absolutely. The 14th amendment exists to provide equal protection to all citizens of the united states.
Amendment XIV Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.
It's actually pretty clear. This was a discrimination issue.
the constitution allows for discrimination and that people are treated unequally. people read the words, but dont understand the real meaning.
Point 1:
The 14th amendment protects citizens against having their rights as citizens discriminated against. If you are a citizen, then you get the right. It doesn't matter if you are gay or not. The constitution allows for discrimination in some cases but not when it is the government discriminating against a citizen's right as a citizen. Did I miss something? Am I misunderstanding the 14th amendment here, if so please point it out with your superior understanding.
point 2:
Marriage is one of those rights, and since there is a separation of religion and state - marriage is not defined by religion and does not need to be solely between a man and a woman.
conclusion:
the 14th amendment should protect the right of a citizen to marry
Did you read the decision at all? The majority opinion spent a long time on fundamental rights, and it seems like you're remembering the Windsor decision for some reason.
Where are you getting it that marriage is a "citizen's right as a citizen." It is routinely denied to young citizens, to citizens already married, and for a very long time, for citizens wanting to marry the same sex. Every legal mind in the history of the country is now a bigot, having overlooked that function of the 14th amendment for a hundred years. Every state in the country violated the Constitution for 135 years. Pretty pretentious if you ask me.
I find your willful obtuseness amusing.
I have been having a good day watching the bigots of the internet bending themselves in all sorts of shapes with semi-legal waffling.
Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.
I can see concealed carry license holders taking the 2nd half of that decision and trying to do something with it, now that I think about it.
On June 27 2015 22:40 Garuga wrote: IMO the SCOTUS did not base this decision on the Constitution. Fundamental rights are only those which are deeply rooted in our history and traditions. While yes, marriage is a fundamental right in and of itself, Michael H. v. Gerald D. decided that new fundamental rights are to be decided strictly, not broadly. So the fundamental right asserted is the right to gay marriage, not marriage, which is definitely NOTdeeply rooted in our history and traditions. Don't get me wrong, I personally don't care whether gays have the right to marry each other, I just disagree with defining gay marriage as a "fundamental right" that is necessary for system of ordered liberty. This was way more of a policy decision (which the SCOTUS is not supposed to decide) than it was based on the due process clause of the 5th/14th amendments.
Don't agree with me? Well, 4 justices do.
"Rooted deeply in our history and traditions" is an absolutely horrible way to define a right.
A number of rights that we have aren't "deeply rooted in our history or traditions".
You can't just arbitrarily decide that "marriage" and "gay marriage" are two different things, therefore SCOTUS just gave everyone a new right. You'd have to actually argue that "marriage" and "gay marriage" are two different things (and therefore two different rights), and that's some questionable logic that Justice Kennedy even addressed.
Did you read the decision at all? The majority opinion spent a long time on fundamental rights, and it seems like you're remembering the Windsor decision for some reason.
Where are you getting it that marriage is a "citizen's right as a citizen." It is routinely denied to young citizens, to citizens already married, and for a very long time, for citizens wanting to marry the same sex. Every legal mind in the history of the country is now a bigot, having overlooked that function of the 14th amendment for a hundred years. Every state in the country violated the Constitution for 135 years. Pretty pretentious if you ask me.
Why yes, that is in fact what happened. It has happened on a wide range of issues. And no, it's not pretentious, it's reality.
Also, absolutely nothing that you mentioned precludes marriage from being a right. All rights have qualifiers. You just mentioned some of them concerning the right to marry.
I think americans today are very proud of themselves as a nation (at least liberal ones) and I'm proud of them too (does not happen often). But I still believe the whole lgb battle has two sides, the law battle for equal civil rights, and the cultural one. With the homosexual marriage the lgbt community has won the first, but lost the second, showing a subordination to the dominant culture wanting so badly signs and traditions that are so old and unfitting that are going to expire soon by themselves. I think we have enough proofs monogamy itself has no space anymore in human society in a not distant future, funny enough maybe the last marriage will be gay, sadly enough both of the parts are very late to this day, eterosexual to permit gay marriage and homosexual to obtain it.
I don't know what hipster paradise you live in, but you might want to come back to reality.
The idea that marriage or monogamy are outdated traditions that are going to go away soon it a joke.
Greece would know all about it wouldn't they :eyeroll: 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.
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.
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)
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 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.
In a purely legalistic sense, it's pretty simple to rule in favor of gay marriage here. The 14th Amendment holds that:
"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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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 ....
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.
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?
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 ....
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)...>
(gay citizens always had equal rights; at least based on a 130-some years old law) but the dots are: have your believes not anchored in fairy tales else bad things can and will happen again and again ...
Edit: how on earth can you say that gays now have equal rights because of ... love; because they can love.
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.
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?
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 ....
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)...>
(gay citizens always had equal rights; at least based on a 130-some years old law) but the dots are: have your believes not anchored in fairy tales else bad things can and will happen again and again ...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
I don't quite get what you're trying to say. But beyond love the core issue here is that the government denies rights and benefits to gay adults who want to consent to marraige simply because of their sexual orientation. That's why it's an equality issue. It has nothing to do with justifyin through love.
It's about time. I can't believe it takes us so long to get our heads around seemingly simple concepts like this, but it pleases me nonetheless that we're moving in the right direction. As some comedian said, "gays should have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us."
Civil marriage confers hundreds of rights, and is mandated by the state, and should not be limited from anybody.
Religious marriage deals with religion, and is mandated by religious beliefs and practice, and therefore is protected under the First Amendment and can be conducted in ways that are in line with their religious beliefs.
The real problem is that religious conservatives/advocates of traditional marriage conflated the two. Absolutely inexcusable and a violation of separation of church and state.
This is the moment when the Western world finally jumped the Shark.
Same sex marriage is a contradiction in terms and a defiance of both common sense and biology.
I’m not saying the end is nigh – I am saying that the the cultural and genetic legacy of people who don’t realize how babies are made nor give value to the people who sacrifice all to raise them is zilch.
I do not recall a time when the institutions of marriage and the family have faced such peril, or when the forces arrayed against them were more formidable or determined. Barring a miracle, the family that has existed since antiquity will likely crumble, presaging the fall of Western civilization itself. This is a time for concerted prayer, divine wisdom and greater courage than we have ever been called upon to exercise.
For more than 50 years, the homosexual activist movement has sought to implement a master plan that has had as its centerpiece the destruction or redesign of the family. Many of these objectives have largely been realized, including widespread support of the gay lifestyle, discrediting of Scriptures that condemn homosexuality or sexual immorality, muzzling of the clergy and Christian media, inclusion of gays and lesbians in all branches of the military, granting of special privileges and rights in the law, overturning laws prohibiting pedophilia, indoctrinating children and future generations through public education, and securing all the legal benefits of marriage for any two or more people who claim to have homosexual tendencies. By promoting what is known as LGBT, we must remember that the “B” stands for bisexuality. That would include acceptance of sexual relations between both genders in groups and among every category of sexual expression outside the bonds of marriage. Now the proponents of LGBT seek to legalize gay and lesbian marriage, which could mean anything or nothing in a few years.
Admittedly, there have been various societies in history where homosexuality has flourished, including the biblical cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, in ancient Greece and in the Roman Empire. None of these civilizations survived. Furthermore, even where sexual perversion was tolerated or flourished, the institution of marriage continued to be honored in law and custom. Only in the last few years has what is called “gay marriage” been given equal status with biblical male-female unions. In fact, to date only 18 countries in the world recognize the legitimacy of same-sex marriage. America appears on the verge of becoming No. 19. God help us if we throw the divine plan for humankind on the ash heap of history.
Let’s get to the bottom line. If the U.S. Supreme Court redefines marriage to include same-sex unions, I guarantee you that it will not be the end of the matter. An avalanche of court cases will be filed on related issues that can’t even be imagined today. Here are a few that we can foresee:
1. Religious liberty will be assaulted from every side. You can be certain that conservative churches will be dragged into court by the hundreds. Their leaders will be required to hire people who don’t share the beliefs of their denominations and constituents. Pastors may have to officiate at same-sex marriages, and they could be prohibited from preaching certain passages of Scripture. Those who refuse to comply will not only be threatened legally, but many will be protested and picketed by activists. Perhaps this is a worst-case scenario, but maybe not. Prison is also a possibility.
2. Christian businesses and ministries will be made to dance to the government’s tune. We’ve all seen examples of photographers, bakeries and florists being required to serve at gay weddings, on penalty of closure or bankruptcy. This kind of legal oppression is coming all across the nation.
3. Christian colleges may be unable to teach scriptural views of marriage. Any nonprofit Christian organization that opposes same-sex unions, including our own, will likely lose its tax-exempt status. Many will be forced to close their doors.
Marriage is not a religious right or liberty- that is called holy matrimony. Your views do not give you the right to deny or encroach on someone else's rights. Stop shoving your religion down everyone's throat. Pray, do as you like- even in public, but please respect the beliefs of others and knock it off with the obligatory "Let Us Pray" and other forced inclusive crap.
On June 29 2015 11:51 Grand Symphony wrote:By promoting what is known as LGBT, we must remember that the “B” stands for bisexuality. That would include acceptance of sexual relations between both genders in groups and among every category of sexual expression outside the bonds of marriage. Now the proponents of LGBT seek to legalize gay and lesbian marriage, which could mean anything or nothing in a few years.
Now there's a truly terrifying thought. Bisexuality. What could be next?
On June 29 2015 11:51 Grand Symphony wrote:In fact, to date only 18 countries in the world recognize the legitimacy of same-sex marriage. America appears on the verge of becoming No. 19. God help us if we throw the divine plan for humankind on the ash heap of history.
On June 29 2015 11:49 Grand Symphony wrote: This is the moment when the Western world finally jumped the Shark.
Same sex marriage is a contradiction in terms and a defiance of both common sense and biology.
I’m not saying the end is nigh – I am saying that the the cultural and genetic legacy of people who don’t realize how babies are made nor give value to the people who sacrifice all to raise them is zilch.
And rightfully so.
1. Appeal to common sense is a logical fallacy 2. Homosexuality is universal in nature and biology- countless species have gay animals 3. Getting married =/= Having babies. Many straight couples have no intention of having kids, or perhaps they're impotent or too old anyway. 4. Gay couples can totally raise children, just as well as straight couples can.
It's funny just how delusional you evangelicals are. First you say "I don't think the end is nigh or anything" but then go on a rant about how this is the start of the downfall of civilization and how you evangelicals will be persecuted. Rofl.
People have already pointed out how illogical each of your points are, not that I think logic actually matters to you and your ilk, it clearly doesn't or you would have realized how silly each of your points are.
Being religious gives you no right to discriminate against anyone. People's rights don't end where someone else's religious sensibilities begin. I know that fact is hard for the religious conservatives to swallow but they are just going to have to get used to it. If religious business owners don't want to follow the laws that do not permit them to discriminate against people, then they shouldn't have started a business in the first place.
In this country, your religious beliefs and teachings aren't above the law; if you want to live in a theocracy where everyone is ruled based on religious beliefs, then you can move to the middle east or something. But outdated beliefs and systems of rule have no place in the modern world~
It's just funny how predictable the outrage from this portion of the population would be. It is just sad that they are coming from a place so illogical and bigoted that all their outrage merits is laughter. It's the same old dated arguments and points that have been dealt with forever now. But like I said, they don't really care about reason or logic, only about their worldview, and no amount of anything that contradicts this predetermined worldview will change their minds.
TL:DR; the civilized world doesn't agree with your out-dated and irrelevant view of the world, get over it.
I think it is very important for us to all agree that those who do not believe gay marriage is permissible should not, under any circumstances, be forced to marry another person of the same sex.
The problem is that they will use the same line of thinking when it comes to business owners. While I agree the state can not force religious institutions to marry anyone, the state can force business owners to open their business to everyone. Being a religious person who owns a business does not give that person the right to discriminate against customers when such discrimination is against the law.
On June 29 2015 13:32 Kickstart wrote: The problem is that they will use the same line of thinking when it comes to business owners. While I agree the state can not force religious institutions to marry anyone, the state can force business owners to open their business to everyone. Being a religious person who owns a business does not give that person the right to discriminate against customers when such discrimination is against the law.
I think that issue with businesses is independent of the issue of gay marriage. It's not the marriage part that businesses have trouble with... it's the gay part. It was an issue even before the Supreme Court ruling. (As far as I'm aware, the Supreme Court ruling legalizes gay marriage, but doesn't make any new explicit rule about how businesses need to treat customers.)
On June 29 2015 13:32 Kickstart wrote: The problem is that they will use the same line of thinking when it comes to business owners. While I agree the state can not force religious institutions to marry anyone, the state can force business owners to open their business to everyone. Being a religious person who owns a business does not give that person the right to discriminate against customers when such discrimination is against the law.
I think that issue with businesses is independent of the issue of gay marriage. It's not the marriage part that businesses have trouble with... it's the gay part. It was an issue even before the Supreme Court ruling. (As far as I'm aware, the Supreme Court ruling legalizes gay marriage, but doesn't make any new explicit rule about how businesses need to treat customers.)
Indeed. I was just continuing from what the evangelicals are crying about now. See that dudes epitaph above~
I honestly try to keep away from most places that discuss this because in most online places the only people bothering to come on and rant are the fundies. But even from this thread you can see they are already going on about different issues relating to 'gays' in general. Or pulling nonsense like 'the gays wont be happy with just this victory' or equally silly things. They would prefer that the entire issue was dealt with like it was not long ago where society in general didn't want to know about it and if they found out about it the involved parties were expected to either kill themselves, go to prison, or be subjected to whatever other punishments were deemed appropriate.
Should serve as a reminder to everyone that there are still a number of people out there who would prefer to see peoples whom they dislike treated poorly. Such people need to be told off~
On June 29 2015 13:32 Kickstart wrote: The problem is that they will use the same line of thinking when it comes to business owners. While I agree the state can not force religious institutions to marry anyone, the state can force business owners to open their business to everyone. Being a religious person who owns a business does not give that person the right to discriminate against customers when such discrimination is against the law.
I think that issue with businesses is independent of the issue of gay marriage. It's not the marriage part that businesses have trouble with... it's the gay part. It was an issue even before the Supreme Court ruling. (As far as I'm aware, the Supreme Court ruling legalizes gay marriage, but doesn't make any new explicit rule about how businesses need to treat customers.)
Indeed. I was just continuing from what the evangelicals are crying about now. See that dudes epitaph above~
I honestly try to keep away from most places that discuss this because in most online places the only people bothering to come on and rant are the fundies. But even from this thread you can see they are already going on about different issues relating to 'gays' in general. Or pulling nonsense like 'the gays wont be happy with just this victory' or equally silly things. They would prefer that the entire issue was dealt with like it was not long ago where society in general didn't want to know about it and if they found out about it the involved parties were expected to either kill themselves, go to prison, or be subjected to whatever other punishments were deemed appropriate.
Should serve as a reminder to everyone that there are still a number of people out there who would prefer to see peoples whom they dislike treated poorly. Such people need to be told off~
On June 29 2015 13:51 Kickstart wrote: I honestly try to keep away from most places that discuss this because in most online places the only people bothering to come on and rant are the fundies. But even from this thread you can see they are already going on about different issues relating to 'gays' in general. Or pulling nonsense like 'the gays wont be happy with just this victory' or equally silly things. They would prefer that the entire issue was dealt with like it was not long ago where society in general didn't want to know about it and if they found out about it the involved parties were expected to either kill themselves, go to prison, or be subjected to whatever other punishments were deemed appropriate.
Male homosexuals are prone to cancer (especially anal cancer, which is almost unheard-of in male heterosexuals) and various sexually transmitted diseases, in part because of the high degree of promiscuity. The nature of sodomy contributes to the problem among male homosexuals. The rectum is not designed for sex. It is very fragile. Indeed, its fragility and tendency to tear and bleed is one factor making anal sex such an efficient means of transmitting the AIDS and hepatitis viruses.
On June 26 2015 23:40 Pandain wrote: Today, the United States Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states nationwide.
This is a historic victory for civil rights and LGBT advocates, and the culmination of a decades long change in public opinion towards same-sex marriage.
“The court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. He was joined in the opinion by the court’s liberal justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
All four of the court’s most conservative members — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — dissented and each wrote separate opinions.
On June 29 2015 13:51 Kickstart wrote: I honestly try to keep away from most places that discuss this because in most online places the only people bothering to come on and rant are the fundies. But even from this thread you can see they are already going on about different issues relating to 'gays' in general. Or pulling nonsense like 'the gays wont be happy with just this victory' or equally silly things. They would prefer that the entire issue was dealt with like it was not long ago where society in general didn't want to know about it and if they found out about it the involved parties were expected to either kill themselves, go to prison, or be subjected to whatever other punishments were deemed appropriate.
Male homosexuals are prone to cancer (especially anal cancer, which is almost unheard-of in male heterosexuals) and various sexually transmitted diseases, in part because of the high degree of promiscuity. The nature of sodomy contributes to the problem among male homosexuals. The rectum is not designed for sex. It is very fragile. Indeed, its fragility and tendency to tear and bleed is one factor making anal sex such an efficient means of transmitting the AIDS and hepatitis viruses.
On June 26 2015 23:40 Pandain wrote: Today, the United States Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states nationwide.
This is a historic victory for civil rights and LGBT advocates, and the culmination of a decades long change in public opinion towards same-sex marriage.
“The court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. He was joined in the opinion by the court’s liberal justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
All four of the court’s most conservative members — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — dissented and each wrote separate opinions.
Congrats USA. Why the hell did it took so long to allow people to be happy.
To be fair that's a silly comment. There are many ways some people would be made happy by changing laws, but that doesn't necessarily mean laws should be changed. The reason why the supreme court ruled the way they did was not to make gays happy.
On June 29 2015 13:51 Kickstart wrote: I honestly try to keep away from most places that discuss this because in most online places the only people bothering to come on and rant are the fundies. But even from this thread you can see they are already going on about different issues relating to 'gays' in general. Or pulling nonsense like 'the gays wont be happy with just this victory' or equally silly things. They would prefer that the entire issue was dealt with like it was not long ago where society in general didn't want to know about it and if they found out about it the involved parties were expected to either kill themselves, go to prison, or be subjected to whatever other punishments were deemed appropriate.
Male homosexuals are prone to cancer (especially anal cancer, which is almost unheard-of in male heterosexuals) and various sexually transmitted diseases, in part because of the high degree of promiscuity. The nature of sodomy contributes to the problem among male homosexuals. The rectum is not designed for sex. It is very fragile. Indeed, its fragility and tendency to tear and bleed is one factor making anal sex such an efficient means of transmitting the AIDS and hepatitis viruses.
All sexual promiscuity has the potential to lead to medical problems. Sexual promiscuity is not only an issue for male homosexuals. Anal sex is not limited to homosexual males. Neither are the mouth or hands or feet or any other body parts people use during intercourse 'designed' for sex. Point is irrelevant. Again STIs aren't solely a problem for homosexuals or a problem from anal sex.
But aside from all that. What is your point? Or your attempted point?~
On June 29 2015 13:51 Kickstart wrote: I honestly try to keep away from most places that discuss this because in most online places the only people bothering to come on and rant are the fundies. But even from this thread you can see they are already going on about different issues relating to 'gays' in general. Or pulling nonsense like 'the gays wont be happy with just this victory' or equally silly things. They would prefer that the entire issue was dealt with like it was not long ago where society in general didn't want to know about it and if they found out about it the involved parties were expected to either kill themselves, go to prison, or be subjected to whatever other punishments were deemed appropriate.
Male homosexuals are prone to cancer (especially anal cancer, which is almost unheard-of in male heterosexuals) and various sexually transmitted diseases, in part because of the high degree of promiscuity. The nature of sodomy contributes to the problem among male homosexuals. The rectum is not designed for sex. It is very fragile. Indeed, its fragility and tendency to tear and bleed is one factor making anal sex such an efficient means of transmitting the AIDS and hepatitis viruses.
Please stop talking out of your ass (pun intended). STD transmission can be curbed with proper contraception (i.e., wear a condom), and I'm fairly certain HIV transmission is more likely with blacks than homosexuals (and that lesbians have a pretty low transmission rate). There's a ton of random factoids you can throw down, but the fact of the matter is that none of these have anything to do with allowing gays to marry.
Besides, if you want gays to stop having sex, maybe they *should* get married... I'm sure plenty of married couples will tell you that that killed their libido lol.
On June 29 2015 13:51 Kickstart wrote: I honestly try to keep away from most places that discuss this because in most online places the only people bothering to come on and rant are the fundies. But even from this thread you can see they are already going on about different issues relating to 'gays' in general. Or pulling nonsense like 'the gays wont be happy with just this victory' or equally silly things. They would prefer that the entire issue was dealt with like it was not long ago where society in general didn't want to know about it and if they found out about it the involved parties were expected to either kill themselves, go to prison, or be subjected to whatever other punishments were deemed appropriate.
Male homosexuals are prone to cancer (especially anal cancer, which is almost unheard-of in male heterosexuals) and various sexually transmitted diseases, in part because of the high degree of promiscuity. The nature of sodomy contributes to the problem among male homosexuals. The rectum is not designed for sex. It is very fragile. Indeed, its fragility and tendency to tear and bleed is one factor making anal sex such an efficient means of transmitting the AIDS and hepatitis viruses.
Please stop talking out of your ass (pun intended). STD transmission can be curbed with proper contraception (i.e., wear a condom), and I'm fairly certain HIV transmission is more likely with blacks than homosexuals (and that lesbians have a pretty low transmission rate). There's a ton of random factoids you can throw down, but the fact of the matter is that none of these have anything to do with allowing gays to marry.
Besides, if you want gays to stop having sex, maybe they *should* get married... I'm sure plenty of married couples will tell you that that killed their libido lol.
Yeah I had a laugh at the thought that allowing marriage would translate to more sex. Because they totally need that.
On June 29 2015 13:57 Grand Symphony wrote: Male homosexuals are prone to cancer (especially anal cancer, which is almost unheard-of in male heterosexuals) and various sexually transmitted diseases, in part because of the high degree of promiscuity. The nature of sodomy contributes to the problem among male homosexuals. The rectum is not designed for sex. It is very fragile. Indeed, its fragility and tendency to tear and bleed is one factor making anal sex such an efficient means of transmitting the AIDS and hepatitis viruses.
On 2014 Catholic.com wrote: Male homosexuals are prone to cancer (especially anal cancer, which is almost unheard-of in male heterosexuals) and various sexually transmitted diseases, including urethritis, laryngitis, prostatitis, hepatitis A and B, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, and genital warts (which are caused by the human papilloma virus, which also causes genital cancers).52 Lesbians are at lower risk for STDs but at high risk for breast cancer.53 Homosexuals of both sexes have high rates of drug abuse, including cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other psychedelics, barbiturates, and amyl nitrate.54 Male homosexuals are particularly prone to develop sexually transmitted diseases, in part because of the high degree of promiscuity displayed by male homosexuals. One study in San Francisco showed that 43 percent of male homosexuals had had more than 500 sexual partners.55 Seventy-nine percent of their sexual partners were strangers. Only 3 percent had had fewer than ten sexual partners.56 The nature of sodomy contributes to the problem among male homosexuals. The rectum is not designed for sex. It is very fragile. Indeed, its fragility and tendency to tear and bleed is one factor making anal sex such an efficient means of transmitting the AIDS and hepatitis viruses.
You forgot to copy+paste the footnotes. Incidentally, you also skipped over the copyright notice stating the website's policy with respect to derivative works.
On June 29 2015 13:57 Grand Symphony wrote: Male homosexuals are prone to cancer (especially anal cancer, which is almost unheard-of in male heterosexuals) and various sexually transmitted diseases, in part because of the high degree of promiscuity. The nature of sodomy contributes to the problem among male homosexuals. The rectum is not designed for sex. It is very fragile. Indeed, its fragility and tendency to tear and bleed is one factor making anal sex such an efficient means of transmitting the AIDS and hepatitis viruses.
On 2014 Catholic.com wrote: Male homosexuals are prone to cancer (especially anal cancer, which is almost unheard-of in male heterosexuals) and various sexually transmitted diseases, including urethritis, laryngitis, prostatitis, hepatitis A and B, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, and genital warts (which are caused by the human papilloma virus, which also causes genital cancers).52 Lesbians are at lower risk for STDs but at high risk for breast cancer.53 Homosexuals of both sexes have high rates of drug abuse, including cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other psychedelics, barbiturates, and amyl nitrate.54 Male homosexuals are particularly prone to develop sexually transmitted diseases, in part because of the high degree of promiscuity displayed by male homosexuals. One study in San Francisco showed that 43 percent of male homosexuals had had more than 500 sexual partners.55 Seventy-nine percent of their sexual partners were strangers. Only 3 percent had had fewer than ten sexual partners.56 The nature of sodomy contributes to the problem among male homosexuals. The rectum is not designed for sex. It is very fragile. Indeed, its fragility and tendency to tear and bleed is one factor making anal sex such an efficient means of transmitting the AIDS and hepatitis viruses.
You forgot to copy+paste the footnotes. Incidentally, you also skipped over the copyright notice stating the website's policy with respect to derivative works.
On June 29 2015 13:57 Grand Symphony wrote: Male homosexuals are prone to cancer (especially anal cancer, which is almost unheard-of in male heterosexuals) and various sexually transmitted diseases, in part because of the high degree of promiscuity. The nature of sodomy contributes to the problem among male homosexuals. The rectum is not designed for sex. It is very fragile. Indeed, its fragility and tendency to tear and bleed is one factor making anal sex such an efficient means of transmitting the AIDS and hepatitis viruses.
On 2014 Catholic.com wrote: Male homosexuals are prone to cancer (especially anal cancer, which is almost unheard-of in male heterosexuals) and various sexually transmitted diseases, including urethritis, laryngitis, prostatitis, hepatitis A and B, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, and genital warts (which are caused by the human papilloma virus, which also causes genital cancers).52 Lesbians are at lower risk for STDs but at high risk for breast cancer.53 Homosexuals of both sexes have high rates of drug abuse, including cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other psychedelics, barbiturates, and amyl nitrate.54 Male homosexuals are particularly prone to develop sexually transmitted diseases, in part because of the high degree of promiscuity displayed by male homosexuals. One study in San Francisco showed that 43 percent of male homosexuals had had more than 500 sexual partners.55 Seventy-nine percent of their sexual partners were strangers. Only 3 percent had had fewer than ten sexual partners.56 The nature of sodomy contributes to the problem among male homosexuals. The rectum is not designed for sex. It is very fragile. Indeed, its fragility and tendency to tear and bleed is one factor making anal sex such an efficient means of transmitting the AIDS and hepatitis viruses.
You forgot to copy+paste the footnotes. Incidentally, you also skipped over the copyright notice stating the website's policy with respect to derivative works.
I thought it felt like copypasta shit. Knew it was a flame bait post, though.
On June 29 2015 11:51 Grand Symphony wrote: I do not recall a time when the institutions of marriage and the family have faced such peril, or when the forces arrayed against them were more formidable or determined. Barring a miracle, the family that has existed since antiquity will likely crumble, presaging the fall of Western civilization itself. This is a time for concerted prayer, divine wisdom and greater courage than we have ever been called upon to exercise.
For more than 50 years, the homosexual activist movement has sought to implement a master plan that has had as its centerpiece the destruction or redesign of the family. Many of these objectives have largely been realized, including widespread support of the gay lifestyle, discrediting of Scriptures that condemn homosexuality or sexual immorality, muzzling of the clergy and Christian media, inclusion of gays and lesbians in all branches of the military, granting of special privileges and rights in the law, overturning laws prohibiting pedophilia, indoctrinating children and future generations through public education, and securing all the legal benefits of marriage for any two or more people who claim to have homosexual tendencies. By promoting what is known as LGBT, we must remember that the “B” stands for bisexuality. That would include acceptance of sexual relations between both genders in groups and among every category of sexual expression outside the bonds of marriage. Now the proponents of LGBT seek to legalize gay and lesbian marriage, which could mean anything or nothing in a few years.
Admittedly, there have been various societies in history where homosexuality has flourished, including the biblical cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, in ancient Greece and in the Roman Empire. None of these civilizations survived. Furthermore, even where sexual perversion was tolerated or flourished, the institution of marriage continued to be honored in law and custom. Only in the last few years has what is called “gay marriage” been given equal status with biblical male-female unions. In fact, to date only 18 countries in the world recognize the legitimacy of same-sex marriage. America appears on the verge of becoming No. 19. God help us if we throw the divine plan for humankind on the ash heap of history.
Let’s get to the bottom line. If the U.S. Supreme Court redefines marriage to include same-sex unions, I guarantee you that it will not be the end of the matter. An avalanche of court cases will be filed on related issues that can’t even be imagined today. Here are a few that we can foresee:
1. Religious liberty will be assaulted from every side. You can be certain that conservative churches will be dragged into court by the hundreds. Their leaders will be required to hire people who don’t share the beliefs of their denominations and constituents. Pastors may have to officiate at same-sex marriages, and they could be prohibited from preaching certain passages of Scripture. Those who refuse to comply will not only be threatened legally, but many will be protested and picketed by activists. Perhaps this is a worst-case scenario, but maybe not. Prison is also a possibility.
2. Christian businesses and ministries will be made to dance to the government’s tune. We’ve all seen examples of photographers, bakeries and florists being required to serve at gay weddings, on penalty of closure or bankruptcy. This kind of legal oppression is coming all across the nation.
3. Christian colleges may be unable to teach scriptural views of marriage. Any nonprofit Christian organization that opposes same-sex unions, including our own, will likely lose its tax-exempt status. Many will be forced to close their doors.
This is kinda funny. There are several smart ways to attack this ruling/homosexual marriages but their oponents use arguments that are in no way suited to work on people already not convinced against them. The oponents of same sex marriages come off either as "mentally handicaped bigot" or "hiding behind pseudoscience hater". I dont mean to offend anyone but it certainly looks like hatred (or unsecurity or however You want to call it) is clouding Your judgment. You wont convince anyone that way.
I cant wait for a gay couple that wants to be married in the crystal cathedral. The church will say no because of their religious doctrine, and the gigantic lawsuit that occurs. This ruling is the beginning of something else.
Did that issue ever go to court over interracial marriage? I can't seem to fine a lawsuit that is completely on point. Mostly ones that revolve around religious schools discriminating against interracial couples.
On June 29 2015 23:47 whatisthisasheep wrote: I cant wait for a gay couple that wants to be married in the crystal cathedral. The church will say no because of their religious doctrine, and the gigantic lawsuit that occurs. This ruling is the beginning of something else.
This is a pop radio talking point, nothing more. Unless there's a change in actual legislation (unlikely given the separation of church and state), I'm pretty sure a church can turn down a wedding request from anyone for any reason they want.
You can have the right to get married without that implying a right to get married in a specific place officiated by a specific person.
Also getting married somewhere that doesn't want to marry you would be pretty insanely spiteful but that's just my thoughts.
On June 29 2015 13:51 Kickstart wrote: I honestly try to keep away from most places that discuss this because in most online places the only people bothering to come on and rant are the fundies. But even from this thread you can see they are already going on about different issues relating to 'gays' in general. Or pulling nonsense like 'the gays wont be happy with just this victory' or equally silly things. They would prefer that the entire issue was dealt with like it was not long ago where society in general didn't want to know about it and if they found out about it the involved parties were expected to either kill themselves, go to prison, or be subjected to whatever other punishments were deemed appropriate.
Male homosexuals are prone to cancer (especially anal cancer, which is almost unheard-of in male heterosexuals) and various sexually transmitted diseases, in part because of the high degree of promiscuity. The nature of sodomy contributes to the problem among male homosexuals. The rectum is not designed for sex. It is very fragile. Indeed, its fragility and tendency to tear and bleed is one factor making anal sex such an efficient means of transmitting the AIDS and hepatitis viruses.
I've seen this argument before from opponents of homosexuality, and I've never understood it. Why are conservatives all across the country suddenly showing concern for the rectums and overall health of gay men in this country? I'm pretty sure, if they are participating in homosexual sex, gay men are familiar with the process and know what risks it entails. I don't see anyone in this camp making similar efforts to protect smokers from destroying their lungs with their "unnatural ways" or alcoholics from destroying their livers. People are allowed to do unhealthy things in the name of freedom, that's what we're all about isn't it?
So admit it, you don't actually give a shit about the health of homosexual men, you are just looking for another excuse to argue that it is immoral, unnatural, or disgusting. And that's pretty pathetic.
On June 29 2015 13:51 Kickstart wrote: I honestly try to keep away from most places that discuss this because in most online places the only people bothering to come on and rant are the fundies. But even from this thread you can see they are already going on about different issues relating to 'gays' in general. Or pulling nonsense like 'the gays wont be happy with just this victory' or equally silly things. They would prefer that the entire issue was dealt with like it was not long ago where society in general didn't want to know about it and if they found out about it the involved parties were expected to either kill themselves, go to prison, or be subjected to whatever other punishments were deemed appropriate.
Male homosexuals are prone to cancer (especially anal cancer, which is almost unheard-of in male heterosexuals) and various sexually transmitted diseases, in part because of the high degree of promiscuity. The nature of sodomy contributes to the problem among male homosexuals. The rectum is not designed for sex. It is very fragile. Indeed, its fragility and tendency to tear and bleed is one factor making anal sex such an efficient means of transmitting the AIDS and hepatitis viruses.
I've seen this argument before from opponents of homosexuality, and I've never understood it. Why are conservatives all across the country suddenly showing concern for the rectums and overall health of gay men in this country? I'm pretty sure, if they are participating in homosexual sex, gay men are familiar with the process and know what risks it entails. I don't see anyone in this camp making similar efforts to protect smokers from destroying their lungs with their "unnatural ways" or alcoholics from destroying their livers. People are allowed to do unhealthy things in the name of freedom, that's what we're all about isn't it?
So admit it, you don't actually give a shit about the health of homosexual men, you are just looking for another excuse to argue that it is immoral, unnatural, or disgusting. And that's pretty pathetic.
Well a few posts above you someone quoted his actual, full-fledged argument, so I don't think you really need to 'read between the lines' here. I would celebrate these posts if anything; so long as the studies are legitimate they point out a real problem that gay people should generally be aware of. That's only a good thing; I mean if a doctor posted this I think a lot of people would have radically different reactions, yet the message of the post is the exact same, and its a helpful message that promotes safe sex.
So, uh, thanks to Grand Symphony. We'll do our best to help inform gay people about the dangers of sex without a condom, so that their marriages can be safe and happy ones. Also helpful reading material for Mr. Symphony, about the difference between civil marriage as a legal institution and the only alternative thus far, civil unions. Religion is something totally separate! Link
On June 29 2015 13:51 Kickstart wrote: I honestly try to keep away from most places that discuss this because in most online places the only people bothering to come on and rant are the fundies. But even from this thread you can see they are already going on about different issues relating to 'gays' in general. Or pulling nonsense like 'the gays wont be happy with just this victory' or equally silly things. They would prefer that the entire issue was dealt with like it was not long ago where society in general didn't want to know about it and if they found out about it the involved parties were expected to either kill themselves, go to prison, or be subjected to whatever other punishments were deemed appropriate.
Male homosexuals are prone to cancer (especially anal cancer, which is almost unheard-of in male heterosexuals) and various sexually transmitted diseases, in part because of the high degree of promiscuity. The nature of sodomy contributes to the problem among male homosexuals. The rectum is not designed for sex. It is very fragile. Indeed, its fragility and tendency to tear and bleed is one factor making anal sex such an efficient means of transmitting the AIDS and hepatitis viruses.
Sexual Orientation and Cancer Rates
More than 7,200 women and nearly 3,700 men reported being diagnosed with cancer as an adult. When the scientists looked at specific cancer types, they found some differences by sexual orientation.
Gay men had significantly lower rates of prostate cancer but higher rates of other cancers.
Whether or not buttfucking is unhealthy (seriously, how could it be healthy?) is completely irrelevant to the question at hand.
First of all, straights do it too. Guys get finger banged by their girlfriends all the time, some even get dildoed. Secondly, health issues don't determine if something is legal or not, especially not in the US. I'm pretty sure high fructose corn syrup and tobacco kill more people than enjoying the occasional ass-play.
This thread has gone amazing places. I look forward to the debate of gay sex vs fake sugar and booze. I would also point out that the sun isn't healthy either.
I'm with John Roberts. The judicial branch is not a legislature and frankly the justices that think the judicial branch is a legislature should be impeached(and would be if Obama wasn't president).
On June 30 2015 01:52 Ravianna26 wrote: I'm with John Roberts. The judicial branch is not a legislature and frankly the justices that think the judicial branch is a legislature should be impeached(and would be if Obama wasn't president).
You might want to look up how that process works before you throw around claims like that.
On June 30 2015 01:50 Plansix wrote: This thread has gone amazing places. I look forward to the debate of gay sex vs fake sugar and booze. I would also point out that the sun isn't healthy either.
The sun is incredibly healthy for you, in moderation.
On June 30 2015 01:50 Plansix wrote: This thread has gone amazing places. I look forward to the debate of gay sex vs fake sugar and booze. I would also point out that the sun isn't healthy either.
The sun is incredibly healthy for you, in moderation.
On June 30 2015 01:52 Ravianna26 wrote: I'm with John Roberts. The judicial branch is not a legislature and frankly the justices that think the judicial branch is a legislature should be impeached(and would be if Obama wasn't president).
Literally the only thing people are complaining about is that they finished it now rather than 5-10 years from now when the last gay marriage ban finally reaches the supreme court and gets ruled unconstitutional. They just stopped this moronic conservative dog and pony show earlier than conservatives expected.
On June 30 2015 01:52 Ravianna26 wrote: I'm with John Roberts. The judicial branch is not a legislature and frankly the justices that think the judicial branch is a legislature should be impeached(and would be if Obama wasn't president).
Literally the only thing people are complaining about is that they finished it now rather than 5-10 years from now when the last gay marriage ban finally reaches the supreme court and gets ruled unconstitutional. They just stopped this moronic conservative dog and pony show earlier than conservatives expected.
No. I disagree with the way it was done. It's judicial activism at its worst. There's no real constitutional basis for the decision, hence all 4 dissenting opinions.
And please don't give me that "Constitution is a living document" garbage. How could the states ratify it if the meaning of each clause is subject to wild interpretation?
Would you sign a contract that could suddenly change with no say on your part and still be legally binding?
There's a defined way to change the Constitution, its the amendment process. Taking advantage of judicial handwaving is a gross violation of the idea of checks and balances.
On June 30 2015 01:52 Ravianna26 wrote: I'm with John Roberts. The judicial branch is not a legislature and frankly the justices that think the judicial branch is a legislature should be impeached(and would be if Obama wasn't president).
Literally the only thing people are complaining about is that they finished it now rather than 5-10 years from now when the last gay marriage ban finally reaches the supreme court and gets ruled unconstitutional. They just stopped this moronic conservative dog and pony show earlier than conservatives expected.
No. I disagree with the way it was done. It's judicial activism at its worst. There's no real constitutional basis for the decision, hence all 4 dissenting opinions.
And please don't give me that "Constitution is a living document" garbage. How could the states ratify it if the meaning of each clause is subject to wild interpretation?
Would you sign a contract that could suddenly change with no say on your part and still be legally binding?
There's a defined way to change the Constitution, its the amendment process. Taking advantage of judicial handwaving is a gross violation of the idea of checks and balances.
Judicial activism is the worst for the majority. For minorities that are ignored by the majority or straight up repressed, its pretty great. The process you are talking about could take 10-15 years or longer depending on how long the legislator remains dysfunctional.
Of course, when folks are not part of the group who's basic rights are being denied, it is easy to complain about activist judges.
And please don't give me that "Constitution is a living document" garbage. How could the states ratify it if the meaning of each clause is subject to wild interpretation?
The way of interpreting the constitution has to change every generation or two, simply because in time, things make us think differently. Rules get outdated, ideologies change and paradigms shift. If you don't update your constitution every so often, you'll become North Korea's brother really fast.
On June 30 2015 01:52 Ravianna26 wrote: I'm with John Roberts. The judicial branch is not a legislature and frankly the justices that think the judicial branch is a legislature should be impeached(and would be if Obama wasn't president).
Literally the only thing people are complaining about is that they finished it now rather than 5-10 years from now when the last gay marriage ban finally reaches the supreme court and gets ruled unconstitutional. They just stopped this moronic conservative dog and pony show earlier than conservatives expected.
No. I disagree with the way it was done. It's judicial activism at its worst. There's no real constitutional basis for the decision, hence all 4 dissenting opinions.
And please don't give me that "Constitution is a living document" garbage. How could the states ratify it if the meaning of each clause is subject to wild interpretation?
Would you sign a contract that could suddenly change with no say on your part and still be legally binding?
There's a defined way to change the Constitution, its the amendment process. Taking advantage of judicial handwaving is a gross violation of the idea of checks and balances.
Pragmatically they ended it in one fell swoop rather than dragging it out ruling marriage bans unconstitutional one at a time at the expense of the citizens and their tax dollars. In case you haven't noticed, gay marriage bans have a terrible success rate in federal/supreme court. Delaying the inevitable to pander to moral panic is not the supreme court's job. States were infringing on the rights of the federal government and now that has been rectified.
Also, on the butthurt part about "no constitutional basis", the majority holds that there is a constitutional basis, as do the majority of federal courts. Try not to be a sore loser
And please don't give me that "Constitution is a living document" garbage. How could the states ratify it if the meaning of each clause is subject to wild interpretation?
The way of interpreting the constitution has to change every generation or two, simply because in time, things make us think differently. Rules get outdated, ideologies change and paradigms shift. If you don't update your constitution every so often, you'll become North Korea's brother really fast.
Even Scalia said the Constitution was a dead document for him and would remain so until he left the bench. He never precludes that it can't be a living document for other justices or the person who replaces him.
On June 30 2015 01:48 SixStrings wrote: Whether or not buttfucking is unhealthy (seriously, how could it be healthy?) is completely irrelevant to the question at hand.
First of all, straights do it too. Guys get finger banged by their girlfriends all the time, some even get dildoed. Secondly, health issues don't determine if something is legal or not, especially not in the US. I'm pretty sure high fructose corn syrup and tobacco kill more people than enjoying the occasional ass-play.
The answer to your question is right above your post I guess. And yeah you're completely right on your second point. I'm always amazed when people use "it's not healthy" arguments to discriminate individuals based on some practices they do, while ignoring completely wayyyy more prevalent and costly health issues.
On June 30 2015 01:52 Ravianna26 wrote: I'm with John Roberts. The judicial branch is not a legislature and frankly the justices that think the judicial branch is a legislature should be impeached(and would be if Obama wasn't president).
Literally the only thing people are complaining about is that they finished it now rather than 5-10 years from now when the last gay marriage ban finally reaches the supreme court and gets ruled unconstitutional. They just stopped this moronic conservative dog and pony show earlier than conservatives expected.
No. I disagree with the way it was done. It's judicial activism at its worst. There's no real constitutional basis for the decision, hence all 4 dissenting opinions.
And please don't give me that "Constitution is a living document" garbage. How could the states ratify it if the meaning of each clause is subject to wild interpretation?
Would you sign a contract that could suddenly change with no say on your part and still be legally binding?
There's a defined way to change the Constitution, its the amendment process. Taking advantage of judicial handwaving is a gross violation of the idea of checks and balances.
State governments were discriminating against gay couples by refusing them the state and federal benefits tied to marriage that are given to straight couples.
This is a textbook violation of the 14th amendment.
Oh, and it's some pretty weak logic to say that, "4 judges dissented and agreed with me, therefore I'm right" when more judges on that very same court disagreed with you, as did a whole lot of other judges in lower courts.
I hope people realise that although it's a huge victory, it's far from over: there are still many LGBT issues with legal aspects, for instance, regarding discrimination at work (including being fired), LGBT adoption, and especially transgender issues (in particular, many states not allowing one to get their gendermarker changed on their birth certificate, not even after them having had gender reassignment surgery).
On June 30 2015 04:20 MindBreaker wrote: Can anyone link me some ridiculously stupid real articles against gay marriage. I love to read stuff like that it makes me laugh.
On June 30 2015 04:20 MindBreaker wrote: Can anyone link me some ridiculously stupid real articles against gay marriage. I love to read stuff like that it makes me laugh.
That's essentially an article saying it is what it is, it's worked for all these years, no reason to change anything. Same with its comments, pretty apalling display of closemindedness.
On June 30 2015 01:52 Ravianna26 wrote: I'm with John Roberts. The judicial branch is not a legislature and frankly the justices that think the judicial branch is a legislature should be impeached(and would be if Obama wasn't president).
Literally the only thing people are complaining about is that they finished it now rather than 5-10 years from now when the last gay marriage ban finally reaches the supreme court and gets ruled unconstitutional. They just stopped this moronic conservative dog and pony show earlier than conservatives expected.
No. I disagree with the way it was done. It's judicial activism at its worst. There's no real constitutional basis for the decision, hence all 4 dissenting opinions.
And please don't give me that "Constitution is a living document" garbage. How could the states ratify it if the meaning of each clause is subject to wild interpretation?
Would you sign a contract that could suddenly change with no say on your part and still be legally binding?
There's a defined way to change the Constitution, its the amendment process. Taking advantage of judicial handwaving is a gross violation of the idea of checks and balances.
State governments were discriminating against gay couples by refusing them the state and federal benefits tied to marriage that are given to straight couples.
This is a textbook violation of the 14th amendment.
Oh, and it's some pretty weak logic to say that, "4 judges dissented and agreed with me, therefore I'm right" when more judges on that very same court disagreed with you, as did a whole lot of other judges in lower courts.
If there really was a constitutional basis, it wouldn't have been 5-4. The fact that it was so close shows that its just judicial activism.
On June 30 2015 01:52 Ravianna26 wrote: I'm with John Roberts. The judicial branch is not a legislature and frankly the justices that think the judicial branch is a legislature should be impeached(and would be if Obama wasn't president).
Literally the only thing people are complaining about is that they finished it now rather than 5-10 years from now when the last gay marriage ban finally reaches the supreme court and gets ruled unconstitutional. They just stopped this moronic conservative dog and pony show earlier than conservatives expected.
No. I disagree with the way it was done. It's judicial activism at its worst. There's no real constitutional basis for the decision, hence all 4 dissenting opinions.
And please don't give me that "Constitution is a living document" garbage. How could the states ratify it if the meaning of each clause is subject to wild interpretation?
Would you sign a contract that could suddenly change with no say on your part and still be legally binding?
There's a defined way to change the Constitution, its the amendment process. Taking advantage of judicial handwaving is a gross violation of the idea of checks and balances.
State governments were discriminating against gay couples by refusing them the state and federal benefits tied to marriage that are given to straight couples.
This is a textbook violation of the 14th amendment.
Oh, and it's some pretty weak logic to say that, "4 judges dissented and agreed with me, therefore I'm right" when more judges on that very same court disagreed with you, as did a whole lot of other judges in lower courts.
If there really was a constitutional basis, it wouldn't have been 5-4. The fact that it was so close shows that its just judicial activism.
I can't even take you seriously. You are essentially saying that any decision that is 5-4 (Bush v. Gore, Citizen's United, etc.) is invalid? What a joke. The court wasn't designed to be "6-3+ or bust". It was designed with the fact that 5-4 decisions could happen in mind. You're just being a bitter child over the fact that the Supreme Court came to a conclusion that you disagree with.
All you're doing is coming up with weak excuses to disagree with this because you don't have any legitimate complaints about the ruling. You couldn't even come up with anything to address my point about discrimination under the law.
So "established by state" means "established by state or federal government" if the court wants it to, "prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof" means "prescribed by the state's legislature unless the court decides the legislature isn't prescribing in the way the court wants it to," in which case the court makes up what the constitution says, and now the court has "discovered" that people have a "right" to legally recognized marriage, and treating everyone the same isn't sufficient for satisfying the 14th amendment because the court can decide how states must treat people.
Such a sad week for our country. I wonder if the constitution or even the legislative branch is going to be relevant in 100 years.
On June 30 2015 08:45 feanaro wrote: So "established by state" means "established by state or federal government" if the court wants it to, "prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof" means "prescribed by the state's legislature unless the court decides the legislature isn't prescribing in the way the court wants it to," in which case the court makes up what the constitution says, and now the court has "discovered" that people have a "right" to legally recognized marriage, and treating everyone the same isn't sufficient for satisfying the 14th amendment because the court can decide how states must treat people.
Such a sad week for our country. I wonder if the constitution or even the legislative branch is going to be relevant in 100 years.
This shit is hilarious. I wonder if people said the same shit when the court ordered that segregation wasn't cool. Likely I think.
On June 30 2015 08:45 feanaro wrote:I wonder if the constitution or even the legislative branch is going to be relevant in 100 years.
Of course they will, although the former's legal meaning will change, as it always has. In the past two-hundred-odd years, the Supreme Court has held, among other things, that courts have the power to review the constitutionality of legislation; the national bank was constitutionally permissible; African-American slaves couldn't enjoy the rights of citizens; separate but equal was permissible; government couldn't regulate interstate commerce; the government could broadly regulate interstate commerce; the Japanese Internment was permissible; separate but equal wasn't permissible; that there's a constitutional right to privacy; and so on. Heck, one of those decisions even led to a civil war. Last week, the Court decided whether a handful of words in a statutory provision should be read in isolation or together with those of other provisions and that it really meant what it said two years ago. We'll survive. (And I write this even as someone who sympathizes much more with Roberts' opinion than Kennedy's.)
On June 30 2015 01:52 Ravianna26 wrote: I'm with John Roberts. The judicial branch is not a legislature and frankly the justices that think the judicial branch is a legislature should be impeached(and would be if Obama wasn't president).
Literally the only thing people are complaining about is that they finished it now rather than 5-10 years from now when the last gay marriage ban finally reaches the supreme court and gets ruled unconstitutional. They just stopped this moronic conservative dog and pony show earlier than conservatives expected.
No. I disagree with the way it was done. It's judicial activism at its worst. There's no real constitutional basis for the decision, hence all 4 dissenting opinions.
And please don't give me that "Constitution is a living document" garbage. How could the states ratify it if the meaning of each clause is subject to wild interpretation?
Would you sign a contract that could suddenly change with no say on your part and still be legally binding?
There's a defined way to change the Constitution, its the amendment process. Taking advantage of judicial handwaving is a gross violation of the idea of checks and balances.
State governments were discriminating against gay couples by refusing them the state and federal benefits tied to marriage that are given to straight couples.
This is a textbook violation of the 14th amendment.
Oh, and it's some pretty weak logic to say that, "4 judges dissented and agreed with me, therefore I'm right" when more judges on that very same court disagreed with you, as did a whole lot of other judges in lower courts.
If there really was a constitutional basis, it wouldn't have been 5-4. The fact that it was so close shows that its just judicial activism.
Yep, the 4 judges who voted against it were clearly doing judicial activism, glad you agree.
I can never quite tell if the posts in this thread in as liberal a place as TL shows that there's still a long way to go, or that simply everyone of those sorts of opinions simply come out to play on this topic.
On June 30 2015 18:55 marvellosity wrote: I can never quite tell if the posts in this thread in as liberal a place as TL shows that there's still a long way to go, or that simply everyone of those sorts of opinions simply come out to play on this topic.
There is a way to go. I think the biggest thing is that there will always be a decent portion of the population who will always be against LGBT's, especially in the US where ~40% of the population are evangelicals.
Don't worry though they die off eventually and the younger generations seem to be having less and less of an issue with it~
On June 30 2015 01:52 Ravianna26 wrote: I'm with John Roberts. The judicial branch is not a legislature and frankly the justices that think the judicial branch is a legislature should be impeached(and would be if Obama wasn't president).
Literally the only thing people are complaining about is that they finished it now rather than 5-10 years from now when the last gay marriage ban finally reaches the supreme court and gets ruled unconstitutional. They just stopped this moronic conservative dog and pony show earlier than conservatives expected.
No. I disagree with the way it was done. It's judicial activism at its worst. There's no real constitutional basis for the decision, hence all 4 dissenting opinions.
And please don't give me that "Constitution is a living document" garbage. How could the states ratify it if the meaning of each clause is subject to wild interpretation?
Would you sign a contract that could suddenly change with no say on your part and still be legally binding?
There's a defined way to change the Constitution, its the amendment process. Taking advantage of judicial handwaving is a gross violation of the idea of checks and balances.
State governments were discriminating against gay couples by refusing them the state and federal benefits tied to marriage that are given to straight couples.
This is a textbook violation of the 14th amendment.
Oh, and it's some pretty weak logic to say that, "4 judges dissented and agreed with me, therefore I'm right" when more judges on that very same court disagreed with you, as did a whole lot of other judges in lower courts.
If there really was a constitutional basis, it wouldn't have been 5-4. The fact that it was so close shows that its just judicial activism.
Yep, the 4 judges who voted against it were clearly doing judicial activism, glad you agree.
They very well might have been. Just like the 5 judges that voted the other way. When 8 out of 9 judges voted along the lines of the political parties that put them on the court it looks very much like a ruling based on politics. And not like a straightforward "textbook" judicial case. Although I dont think any of us have the legal expertise to say one way or the other on our own. In general my impression due to media reporting is that the US supreme court is too partisan and "political" in general.
You never know. Social dynamics are very difficult to predict. Perhaps in 50 years we will see a conservatism on the rise. Ultimately there is no such thing as social progress, only change. As social "progress" may be defined differently depending on the basic ethical axioms You assume.
On June 30 2015 20:02 Silvanel wrote: You never know. Social dynamics are very difficult to predict. Perhaps in 50 years we will see a conservatism on the rise. Ultimately there is no such thing as social progress, only change. As social "progress" may be defined differently depending on the basic ethical axioms You assume.
Social conservatism, where it has risen, has generally been tied with the rise of religion. See Iran and Turkey for example.
Usually yes but one can imagine drastic change of social norms not stricly connected to religion. Rise of nazism is one example. Who knows what the future holds?
Cruz, Santorum, Trump, Bush... they all seem crestfallen. Trump actually seemed subdued in his post-Gaygeddon-interview. As if Obama personally raped each one of them.
Personally, I am all for equal rights and I think it's kind of sad that Germany is behind even the US in such matters.
On June 30 2015 23:10 SixStrings wrote: My reputation here is so in the shitter that people actually believe I want the poor to be homeless and without healthcare. Jesus...
On June 30 2015 22:50 SixStrings wrote: I have to side with senator Ted Cruz here:
"These are some of the darkest 24 hours in our history."
Healthcare, equality, housing for the poor... Living republicans must envy the dead.
You think "equality" = some of the darkest 24 hours in our history?
Charming.
I thought he was using sarcasm.
This is Ted Cruz. He is so loathed by his own party that other Republican senators won't talk to him. He is the banner bearer for the tea party idiots that think compromise is defeat. He shut the government down once and will do if again if he can. He is everything that is messed up about the America political system right now.
On June 30 2015 22:50 SixStrings wrote: I have to side with senator Ted Cruz here:
"These are some of the darkest 24 hours in our history."
Healthcare, equality, housing for the poor... Living republicans must envy the dead.
You think "equality" = some of the darkest 24 hours in our history?
Charming.
I thought he was using sarcasm.
This is Ted Cruz. He is so loathed by his own party that other Republican senators won't talk to him. He is the banner bearer for the tea party idiots that think compromise is defeat. He shut the government down once and will do if again if he can. He is everything that is messed up about the America political system right now.
He said sixstrings was using sarcasm, not ted cruz. The ted cruz character doesn't have sarcasm in its vocabulary.
On June 30 2015 22:50 SixStrings wrote: I have to side with senator Ted Cruz here:
"These are some of the darkest 24 hours in our history."
Healthcare, equality, housing for the poor... Living republicans must envy the dead.
You think "equality" = some of the darkest 24 hours in our history?
Charming.
I thought he was using sarcasm.
This is Ted Cruz. He is so loathed by his own party that other Republican senators won't talk to him. He is the banner bearer for the tea party idiots that think compromise is defeat. He shut the government down once and will do if again if he can. He is everything that is messed up about the America political system right now.
He said sixstrings was using sarcasm, not ted cruz. The ted cruz character doesn't have sarcasm in its vocabulary.
The chain was hard to follow and I assumed some folks not from the US might now be aware of how shitty a person Ted Cruz is.
I only know him from the Today Show and Real Time. But thus far, his thinking seems to be in line with the other republican candidates. Gives me hope for a Democrat president in 2016.
On June 30 2015 23:40 SixStrings wrote: I only know him from the Today Show and Real Time. But thus far, his thinking seems to be in line with the other republican candidates. Gives me hope for a Democrat president in 2016.
They are all matched in the loathing of Government in general and desire to make it just tiny enough to fit into our bedrooms and woman's doctors offices.
On June 30 2015 23:40 SixStrings wrote: I only know him from the Today Show and Real Time. But thus far, his thinking seems to be in line with the other republican candidates. Gives me hope for a Democrat president in 2016.
They are all matched in the loathing of Government in general and desire to make it just tiny enough to fit into our bedrooms and woman's doctors offices.
On June 30 2015 22:50 SixStrings wrote: I have to side with senator Ted Cruz here:
"These are some of the darkest 24 hours in our history."
Healthcare, equality, housing for the poor... Living republicans must envy the dead.
You think "equality" = some of the darkest 24 hours in our history?
Charming.
I thought he was using sarcasm.
This is Ted Cruz. He is so loathed by his own party that other Republican senators won't talk to him. He is the banner bearer for the tea party idiots that think compromise is defeat. He shut the government down once and will do if again if he can. He is everything that is messed up about the America political system right now.
He said sixstrings was using sarcasm, not ted cruz. The ted cruz character doesn't have sarcasm in its vocabulary.
The chain was hard to follow and I assumed some folks not from the US might now be aware of how shitty a person Ted Cruz is.
Do not worry, i do think that for most europeans whatever a republican says will sound like batcrazy.
On July 01 2015 00:44 SixStrings wrote: I hope they do incest and polygamy next. There has been progress, but let's not pretend we're done here.
Laugh as you will about rednecks fucking marrying their cousins, but as long as there won't be any offspring, I don't see a problem.
Why stop at cousins? We can have a sponsored program where you are allowed to marry your mother if you fulfill certain requirements! The age old insult will become a reality!
On July 01 2015 00:44 SixStrings wrote: I hope they do incest and polygamy next. There has been progress, but let's not pretend we're done here.
Laugh as you will about rednecks fucking marrying their cousins, but as long as there won't be any offspring, I don't see a problem.
Why stop at cousins? We can have a sponsored program where you are allowed to marry your mother if you fulfill certain requirements! The age old insult will become a reality!
No matter how hilarious or ridiculous the thoughts are, this is a serious problem that has much potential for being a reality. Polygamy is most likely the next on the hit list, except this time it won't even get to the SCOTUS. If their basis for the same sex marriage is that a marriage should be the individual right under the Constitution, then all bets are off from this point on. It's ironic to say the least.
On July 01 2015 00:44 SixStrings wrote: I hope they do incest and polygamy next. There has been progress, but let's not pretend we're done here.
Laugh as you will about rednecks fucking marrying their cousins, but as long as there won't be any offspring, I don't see a problem.
Why stop at cousins? We can have a sponsored program where you are allowed to marry your mother if you fulfill certain requirements! The age old insult will become a reality!
No matter how hilarious or ridiculous the thoughts are, this is a serious problem that has much potential for being a reality. Polygamy is most likely the next on the hit list, except this time it won't even get to the SCOTUS. If their basis for the same sex marriage is that a marriage should be the individual right under the Constitution, then all bets are off from this point on. It's ironic to say the least.
Its an interesting question. I wonder how religious people feel about this? Seems weird they are very much for 1 man 1 woman but many major figures in the bible had many wives and/or concubines. I wonder where the flip happened.
On July 01 2015 00:44 SixStrings wrote: I hope they do incest and polygamy next. There has been progress, but let's not pretend we're done here.
Laugh as you will about rednecks fucking marrying their cousins, but as long as there won't be any offspring, I don't see a problem.
Why stop at cousins? We can have a sponsored program where you are allowed to marry your mother if you fulfill certain requirements! The age old insult will become a reality!
No matter how hilarious or ridiculous the thoughts are, this is a serious problem that has much potential for being a reality. Polygamy is most likely the next on the hit list, except this time it won't even get to the SCOTUS. If their basis for the same sex marriage is that a marriage should be the individual right under the Constitution, then all bets are off from this point on. It's ironic to say the least.
Its an interesting question. I wonder how religious people feel about this? Seems weird they are very much for 1 man 1 woman but many major figures in the bible had many wives and/or concubines. I wonder where the flip happened.
Precisely that. There are religious gay people who absolutely oppose the polygamous marriage. With this "victory" in their hands, they have very little ammunition, in terms of legality, to stand against other types of marriage.
On July 01 2015 00:44 SixStrings wrote: I hope they do incest and polygamy next. There has been progress, but let's not pretend we're done here.
Laugh as you will about rednecks fucking marrying their cousins, but as long as there won't be any offspring, I don't see a problem.
Why stop at cousins? We can have a sponsored program where you are allowed to marry your mother if you fulfill certain requirements! The age old insult will become a reality!
No matter how hilarious or ridiculous the thoughts are, this is a serious problem that has much potential for being a reality. Polygamy is most likely the next on the hit list, except this time it won't even get to the SCOTUS. If their basis for the same sex marriage is that a marriage should be the individual right under the Constitution, then all bets are off from this point on. It's ironic to say the least.
Its an interesting question. I wonder how religious people feel about this? Seems weird they are very much for 1 man 1 woman but many major figures in the bible had many wives and/or concubines. I wonder where the flip happened.
Precisely that. There are religious gay people who absolutely oppose the polygamous marriage. With this "victory" in their hands, they have very little ammunition, in terms of legality, to stand against other types of marriage.
I mean, you can find any weird combination of ideology/traits/beliefs in people. But by and large pretending that any said combination is statistically relevant is a bit of the stretch. There are many gay religious people I'm sure. Some of them probably do oppose polygamous marriage. But I don't really see how that subset will shape the debate in any way. Point is most religious people are against it, even though in their own documents it is allowed and fairly prevalent; so in most cases any religious person is in a bit of a contradiction when they argue against polygamy, not just homosexual religious people.
On July 01 2015 00:44 SixStrings wrote: I hope they do incest and polygamy next. There has been progress, but let's not pretend we're done here.
Laugh as you will about rednecks fucking marrying their cousins, but as long as there won't be any offspring, I don't see a problem.
Why stop at cousins? We can have a sponsored program where you are allowed to marry your mother if you fulfill certain requirements! The age old insult will become a reality!
No matter how hilarious or ridiculous the thoughts are, this is a serious problem that has much potential for being a reality. Polygamy is most likely the next on the hit list, except this time it won't even get to the SCOTUS. If their basis for the same sex marriage is that a marriage should be the individual right under the Constitution, then all bets are off from this point on. It's ironic to say the least.
Why are you saying this is a problem? Should I not be allowed to marry my mother if I wish?
On July 01 2015 00:44 SixStrings wrote: I hope they do incest and polygamy next. There has been progress, but let's not pretend we're done here.
Laugh as you will about rednecks fucking marrying their cousins, but as long as there won't be any offspring, I don't see a problem.
Why stop at cousins? We can have a sponsored program where you are allowed to marry your mother if you fulfill certain requirements! The age old insult will become a reality!
No matter how hilarious or ridiculous the thoughts are, this is a serious problem that has much potential for being a reality. Polygamy is most likely the next on the hit list, except this time it won't even get to the SCOTUS. If their basis for the same sex marriage is that a marriage should be the individual right under the Constitution, then all bets are off from this point on. It's ironic to say the least.
Why the fuck is that a problem?
Why can't a woman marry two men, or a man marry his (of legal age) next of kin, or the average poster in the manga thread his waifu? The last one was a joke, but you get the idea. As long as you discourage procreation between too closely related adults, I don't see any rational argument against two or more consenting adults getting married.
In rural Germany, people fuck their cousins all the time. God forbid they should fall in love, get married a raise an adopted child together...
obviously love excuses everything again and again and again ... god forbid love doesn't exist and people just get to fuck whomever because .. animals + freedom = ?.
On July 01 2015 18:34 xM(Z wrote: obviously love excuses everything again and again and again ... god forbid love doesn't exist and people just get to fuck whomever because .. animals + freedom = ?.
On July 01 2015 00:44 SixStrings wrote: I hope they do incest and polygamy next. There has been progress, but let's not pretend we're done here.
Laugh as you will about rednecks fucking marrying their cousins, but as long as there won't be any offspring, I don't see a problem.
Why stop at cousins? We can have a sponsored program where you are allowed to marry your mother if you fulfill certain requirements! The age old insult will become a reality!
No matter how hilarious or ridiculous the thoughts are, this is a serious problem that has much potential for being a reality. Polygamy is most likely the next on the hit list, except this time it won't even get to the SCOTUS. If their basis for the same sex marriage is that a marriage should be the individual right under the Constitution, then all bets are off from this point on. It's ironic to say the least.
I think a big issue with polygamy is that, historically, it was pretty much always an institution that gave one individual (usually a male) an incredible amount of power over several other people (usually a set of females). While "normal" marriage was like this as well, polygamy is, at its core, different, due to the way it is structured (one over many), and I think this is an issue (the institution of polygamy being an inherently sexist or oppressive institution) that polygamy has to deal with that gay marriage didn't.
The other big problem is, legally, things would get exponentially more complex when you add another person to the marriage equation. Taxes would get far more complicated, parental rights would be off-the-wall confusing, and you can just imagine custody battles/next-of-kin lawsuits, arguments over what to do with someone that is ill or incapable of legally declaring/caring for themselves, etc.
So people may think that polygamy is the "logical next step", but the issues that polygamists face are in no way similar to the issues gay couples faced.
On July 01 2015 00:44 SixStrings wrote: I hope they do incest and polygamy next. There has been progress, but let's not pretend we're done here.
Laugh as you will about rednecks fucking marrying their cousins, but as long as there won't be any offspring, I don't see a problem.
Why stop at cousins? We can have a sponsored program where you are allowed to marry your mother if you fulfill certain requirements! The age old insult will become a reality!
No matter how hilarious or ridiculous the thoughts are, this is a serious problem that has much potential for being a reality. Polygamy is most likely the next on the hit list, except this time it won't even get to the SCOTUS. If their basis for the same sex marriage is that a marriage should be the individual right under the Constitution, then all bets are off from this point on. It's ironic to say the least.
Why the fuck is that a problem?
Why can't a woman marry two men, or a man marry his (of legal age) next of kin, or the average poster in the manga thread his waifu? The last one was a joke, but you get the idea. As long as you discourage procreation between too closely related adults, I don't see any rational argument against two or more consenting adults getting married.
In rural Germany, people fuck their cousins all the time. God forbid they should fall in love, get married a raise an adopted child together...
Legally marrying a fictitious figure is already possible... just saying. I remember some guy marrying a character of a Handheld Dating Sim game a couple of years ago (Japan ofc).
The problem with polygamy is that it would lead to a lot of complex new problems in today's legal system, that haven't been figured out yet. Legal marriage is nothing more than a regulation of the concept of marriage, and the more parties involved, the more complex problems become. Imagine the vast amount of situations that could occur. (Now, you might say, why regulate marriage in the first place? To protect the parties involved of course :D)
It's better for society to slowly find a way, and when the time is right, society will know what to do. Society already has a way to deal with polygamy, and it will evolve, until one day, it'll probably be legalized; probably not today, tomorrow, or next week... but one day.
Marriage is an anachronism anyways. Which is why I do not particularly care about this ruling.
On July 01 2015 00:44 SixStrings wrote: I hope they do incest and polygamy next. There has been progress, but let's not pretend we're done here.
Laugh as you will about rednecks fucking marrying their cousins, but as long as there won't be any offspring, I don't see a problem.
Why stop at cousins? We can have a sponsored program where you are allowed to marry your mother if you fulfill certain requirements! The age old insult will become a reality!
No matter how hilarious or ridiculous the thoughts are, this is a serious problem that has much potential for being a reality. Polygamy is most likely the next on the hit list, except this time it won't even get to the SCOTUS. If their basis for the same sex marriage is that a marriage should be the individual right under the Constitution, then all bets are off from this point on. It's ironic to say the least.
Why the fuck is that a problem?
Why can't a woman marry two men, or a man marry his (of legal age) next of kin, or the average poster in the manga thread his waifu? The last one was a joke, but you get the idea. As long as you discourage procreation between too closely related adults, I don't see any rational argument against two or more consenting adults getting married.
In rural Germany, people fuck their cousins all the time. God forbid they should fall in love, get married a raise an adopted child together...
It is a problem because the vast majority in the US oppose the polygamous marriage (or any other types of unfavorable marriage) while the SCOTUS has now bestowed the legal standing for those who seek a polygamy. This is a different set of challenge - one much harder and complex, than the gay marriage battle because the society isn't ready yet.
On July 01 2015 00:44 SixStrings wrote: I hope they do incest and polygamy next. There has been progress, but let's not pretend we're done here.
Laugh as you will about rednecks fucking marrying their cousins, but as long as there won't be any offspring, I don't see a problem.
Why stop at cousins? We can have a sponsored program where you are allowed to marry your mother if you fulfill certain requirements! The age old insult will become a reality!
No matter how hilarious or ridiculous the thoughts are, this is a serious problem that has much potential for being a reality. Polygamy is most likely the next on the hit list, except this time it won't even get to the SCOTUS. If their basis for the same sex marriage is that a marriage should be the individual right under the Constitution, then all bets are off from this point on. It's ironic to say the least.
Why the fuck is that a problem?
Why can't a woman marry two men, or a man marry his (of legal age) next of kin, or the average poster in the manga thread his waifu? The last one was a joke, but you get the idea. As long as you discourage procreation between too closely related adults, I don't see any rational argument against two or more consenting adults getting married.
In rural Germany, people fuck their cousins all the time. God forbid they should fall in love, get married a raise an adopted child together...
It is a problem because the vast majority in the US oppose the polygamous marriage (or any other types of unfavorable marriage) while the SCOTUS has now bestowed the legal standing for those who seek a polygamy. This is a different set of challenge - one much harder and complex, than the gay marriage battle because the society isn't ready yet.
I really doubt polygamy can be legalized using the same argument as gay marriage. 'If two people can marry, why can't three' sounds pseudo-reasonable, akin to the 'if a man and woman can marry, why can't two men' argument, but the legal benefits that are afforded to married couples are all defined with 2 people in the relationship, and if you go with more, then the laws don't work at all.
Marriage is an anachronism anyways. Which is why I do not particularly care about this ruling.
Damn, what a weak statement... at least give some arguments why it would be an anachronism.
It's not because 'marriage' is an old concept, that it's not of this time. It has been assimilated by modern society, and has been evolving over time: - marriage is a business now - marriage still has a massive social, cultural and psychological significance - marriage can strengthen a relationship - marriage provides a legal and practical framework that is easy to work with and provides a guideline that can be applied to most relationships - ...
And if you don't want to get married, so be it. There's probably nothing more modern than modern marriages.
EPT
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIb-4S9WUAAyQo1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9WDOl0j.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cfsR6C9.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4iVkQny.jpg)
. But iirc you are a Cali attorney?
