SCOTUS strikes down gay marriage bans, legalizing marriage equality nationwide

Status
Not open for further replies.
ElectricBlanketFire said:
Double rainbow currently over the White House.

CIb1Jz0VAAAFrkJ.jpg:large
Click to expand...

It's them chemtrails, the government put those rainbows there with black helicopters!
 
This is unbelievable (and yet believable since it was a long time coming)! Finally! Progress!

The anti-gay crowd never had any legitimate arguments, and now the Supreme Court finally struck them down. It's about time!

I can't believe I'm finding out about this here. I like Neogaf.
 
Slacker said:
Vikings CB Josh Robinson:

Josh Robinson ✔@JROB_2one
Love is love? So what will we say when the 30yr old loves YOUR 10 year old. When the dad loves HIS 6 year old? It's different?? Yea okay!
10:41 AM - 26 Jun 2015
Click to expand...

Between 2 CONSENTING ADULTS, you slow-witted POS.
 
ErasureAcer said:
On many things...they are. Hillary wasn't touting gay marriage until a year after Obama which in Obama's tenure as president should have been something he was touting from the start. There's some speech of Hillary's in the senate railing against gay marriage. A lot of these politicians have no spine to stand up for things that aren't popular(even when it's people's rights) and only jump on the bandwagon when they see public opinion change. That's good for a representative democracy but pretty bad when it means denying people their liberties and happiness. People's rights shouldn't be up for public opinion. Most national democrats done goofed for years and years by acting like Republicans.
Click to expand...
Change must be affected within the framework of the system we work in. Why is this so hard to understand?

Obama would have done more harm than good by championing same sex marriage early in his presidency. It was not a politically palatable stance to take, and it would have completely anchored any early policy - e.g. the ACA. These things take time, and he worked within the framework of our representative democracy with three branches of government.

If it was made a central point in the '08 election, McCain-Palin would have fucking loved to drumbeat this "assault on the family" bullshit narrative that's been around since 1908 (at that time, it was women going to work that was "assaulting the family"). But Obama's camp didn't give throw them a bone. Again, it would have done more harm than good to agree to polarize it.
 
Absinthe said:
I'm not sure how that works. I know some companies got sued for refusing service based on religious beliefs.

That would be within their religious rights correct?
Click to expand...

Churches have always been able to do whatever they want. This is only about civil marriage.

Some Churches have allowed gay marriage before legal.

That is why the whole religious liberties argument is so stupid. Some religions allow it.
 
Holy hell, Scalia's dissent is almost like a screwed up piece of modern art that is near impossible to make legitimate sense of. Definitely read it for the entertainment factor and the knowledge of what sort of meandering ranting and raving counts as a legal opinion in America's highest court. Let the saltiness flow freely, old man. Let it goooo...

If a state's right to either discriminate against a minority or not is so important to you in your libertarianesque nightmare of individual states basically deciding everything of worth and dividing the country further, why have a federal republic in the first place? If each state should be so sovereign to get to decide to provide civil rights or not to people, then you might not be living in the current reality. That issue was decided 200 years ago, Scalia.
 
benjipwns said:
They're disagreeing with the Supreme Court's ruling and articulating their alternative interpretation. The Supreme Court ruling doesn't invalidate their disagreement with that ruling because...they disagree with it. That's the entire point.
Click to expand...

I guess I'll just repeat myself for the third time. It depends on the purpose of the disagreement. If it's "In another world, I wish the Supreme Court had held this thing, because it would be better" then sure, of course one can disagree with the court. If it's "The 10th amendment says I don't need to grant gay marriage licenses regardless of what the court says" then obviously, no, that's not how things work--this ruling is binding.
 
This is the first time I've listened to Rush Limbaugh since one strange drive back in 2009. This is a whacked out radio show. Everything from the opinions to the vocal style. It's such a joke to any sane person.
 
Ignatz Mouse said:
Damn, my twitter feed is liberal.
Click to expand...

My facebook feed is usually split along age lines, with older people posting conservative stuff and the whippersnappers posting liberal updates. Today all of the young'ns are cheering, while the older crowd has gone completely silent. Good times.
 
There is not one negative post anywhere on my timeline nor in my Twitter feed. Seems Kansas City, Missouri is with the times. Going to the gay bar tonight for the first time on my 21st tonight sure is going to be interesting.. ;)
 
BobTheFork said:
What someone really need to pry him on is what he would have thought if the court agreed with him personally. The idea that the necessity of the supreme court is tied entirely to whether or not you personally agree with a single decision they've made is just stupid as hell.
Click to expand...

Test? There is no test. They have already spoken and their support of the Constitution is complete bullshit and they only use it when it supports their interests.
 
lumi7890 said:
............ I hate the gov. Of my state.
Click to expand...

I find it really interesting that the two Indian Americans that are currently governors (Jindal and Haley in SC) are pretty far right wing. I was under the impression that the Indian American community was mostly left wing (at least based on my friends and people I have met etc.).
 
boiled goose said:
Churches have always been able to do whatever they want. This is only about civil marriage.

Some Churches have allowed gay marriage before legal.

That is why the whole religious liberties argument is so stupid. Some religions allow it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think the main concern is that "next they will force us to perform same sex marriages".

Platy said:
7iS6sFr.jpg


some had more time to think about how to apply the rainbow than others
Click to expand...

Every time I see stuff it reminds me of the Demetri Martin quote:

"I’m in a weird position, because I like rainbows, but I’m not gay. So whenever I go out wearing a rainbow shirt, I have to put “Not gay.” But I’m not against gays, so under that I’ll have to put “… but supportive.” It’s weird how one group of people took refracted light."
 
I can't do nothing but laugh at the salty republicans. Feed me more salty comments, it's hilarious!

Will pop a bottle tonight and celebrate.

Just too bad this had to happen on such a grim day with multiple IS terrorist attacks.
 
Canada was the fourth country in the world to have gay marriage. We've only had it 10 years. This just reminds me how much positive change can happen in such a short amount of time if we are persistent :)
 
Look at it on the bright side. If this was all a scam to turn everyone gay and rule the world at least your wardrobe will be double.

And if somehow gay people did cause storms and rain you should now be able to fix the drought in California.


Or this could just be people just getting equal rights.
 
Stumpokapow said:
I guess I'll just repeat myself for the third time. It depends on the purpose of the disagreement. If it's "In another world, I wish the Supreme Court had held this thing, because it would be better" then sure, of course one can disagree with the court. If it's "The 10th amendment says I don't need to grant gay marriage licenses regardless of what the court says" then obviously, no, that's not how things work--this ruling is binding.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't think random people on twitter are probably in position to deny or grant marriage licenses. Or any GAFfer making an argument one way or another towards a ruling, as posters often do here. "Citizens United is poorly decided and here's why blah blah blah" isn't really shot down with "the Supreme Court said otherwise."

cascardian said:
If a state's right to either discriminate against a minority or not is so important to you in your libertarianesque nightmare of individual states basically deciding everything of worth and dividing the country further, why have a federal republic in the first place? If each state should be so sovereign to get to decide to provide civil rights or not to people, then you might not be living in the current reality. That issue was decided 200 years ago, Scalia.
Click to expand...
That's not anything to do with libertarianism.
 
brochiller said:
Test? There is no test. They have already spoken and their support of the Constitution is complete bullshit and they only use it when it supports their interests.
Click to expand...
You shouldn't be surprised. It's the same way they use the Bible. They should probably look up what it actually has to say about marriage.
 
Talon said:
Change must be affected within the framework of the system we work in. Why is this so hard to understand?

Obama would have done more harm than good by championing same sex marriage early in his presidency. It was not a politically palatable stance to take, and it would have completely anchored any early policy - e.g. the ACA. These things take time, and he worked within the framework of our representative democracy with three branches of government.

If it was made a central point in the '08 election, McCain-Palin would have fucking loved to drumbeat this "assault on the family" bullshit narrative that's been around since 1908 (at that time, it was women going to work that was "assaulting the family"). But Obama's camp didn't give throw them a bone. Again, it would have done more harm than good to agree to polarize it.
Click to expand...

Pretty much.

Many of us voted for Clinton in the 1990s because we were smart enough to play the long game. We knew he wouldn't be able to do much legislatively, but with enough winking-and-nodding about Supreme Court appointments, we had a pretty good idea about how change would come.

When he named Ginsburg - General Counsel of the ACLU - my suspicions about the prudent-ness of voting for Clinton were confirmed. Today, she gave one of those big votes.

I can be impatient with the pace of change, but still try to take a long perspective. It works.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Dave Grohl announces daughter outside of his marriage
2 3
143
9K
Dr.Morris79 replied
20 injured after Mexican Navy training ship strikes Brooklyn Bridge
News  2
56
455
Major Insano replied
Tragic News: Destiny open marriage fails
2 3 4
171
36K
Deleted member 1159 replied
  • Poll
The pull-down ad bar thing
Community 
44
525
AgatonSax replied
Microsoft is finally shutting down Skype in May
41
2K
MakeMudosGreatAgain replied
Top Bottom