SCOTUS strikes down gay marriage bans, legalizing marriage equality nationwide

Status
Not open for further replies.
metalslimer said:
Honestly we could have been stuck with 7 conservative justices for the next 30-40 years because Scalia and Thomas sure as hell would have retired. The thought of that should scare the hell out of anyone
Click to expand...
The good thing is that I really cannot see another Republican President in the near future. That party needs to get its shit together, it's dying.
 
Historic. This is a day that will be long remembered. Congrats to anyone out there who's been waiting for this news.

Equality is a fundamental human right.
 
hosannainexcelsis said:
No man is an island. It's short-sighted to think that people's personal decisions have no affect on other people's lives. And, whether you think it's good or bad, there's no doubt that the cultural acceptance of homosexuality, simply the latest step in the continual progress of the Sexual Revolution that places individual feelings as the ultimate authority and the person as open to unbounded self-definition and self-determination, has profoundly affected everyone living in the culture.



Here we get to the heart of the problem - what is marriage? Some people believe it is about procreation. Some people believe it is a sacrament ordained by God. Most people today, though, believe it is based on personal feelings of affection and those alone. I can certainly see why people who believe those feelings are the ultimate virtue resent anything they feel restricts their expression of those feelings, but I would hope some of them would at least try to understand why people who believe marriage is more than an arbitrary social construct believe that it is an institution
Click to expand...
Everything you say at least sounds reasonable, insomuch as it is reasoned

which needs some limits placed on it.
Click to expand...
Except it all falls apart here. Why? Why does it need limits placed on it, or rather why does it need these limits placed on it? If we're talking rationally I have never been presented with a rational set of reasons why marriage must be restricted against same-sex couples. It has always been either from appeals to emotion or to tradition. What are your reasons, if they aren't "thats how we've always done it" or "gay people are icky" or the widely scientifically discredited "its bad for the children"?
 
TheAbsolution said:
S1TsxpM.jpg
AcNxWd8.jpg
Ojf9Iyh.jpg
pU5taYi.jpg

Friends of mine getting married in Fulton County Courthouse in Atlanta, Georgia.
So happy. :)
Click to expand...
D'aww.
They look like a good match :)
 
Pepiope said:
The good thing is that I really cannot see another Republican President in the near future. That party needs to get its shit together, it's dying.
Click to expand...

I'm hoping we don't get another. This next election could be the most important ever in terms of the future of supreme court ruling.
 
Admiral Woofington said:
So have we had any conservative candidates inserting foot in mouth yet?
Click to expand...

Pretty standard reactions: States rights, unelected justices, etc.

Now that you mention it - I'm going to go through the whole list of declared candidates (yes it will take a while) and see if a single one is OK with the ruling.
 
Slacker said:
Pretty standard reactions: States rights, unelected justices, etc.

Now that you mention it - I'm going to go through the whole list of declared candidates (yes it will take a while) and see if a single one is OK with the ruling.
Click to expand...

if one of them outright says "you know what, I follow the law and won't be the one to fight happiness" then boom. that's the man.
 
hosannainexcelsis said:
Here we get to the heart of the problem - what is marriage? Some people believe it is about procreation. Some people believe it is a sacrament ordained by God. Most people today, though, believe it is based on personal feelings of affection and those alone. I can certainly see why people who believe those feelings are the ultimate virtue resent anything they feel restricts their expression of those feelings, but I would hope some of them would at least try to understand why people who believe marriage is more than an arbitrary social construct believe that it is an institution which needs some limits placed on it.
Click to expand...

Which I could understand if I experienced people speaking out against gay marriage being against marrying for love. The original purpose of marriage was to join families together and functioned basically as a business transaction. When arranged marriages were the norm. But I don't see the opponents of gay marriage having their own marriage arranged, or arguing a return to arranged marriage. And honestly there's really nothing in 2015 that would stop gay marriage from working the same way that actual traditional marriage would. Because of scientific advances, two gay men or two gay women could have a child that shares the genes of both parents.

As for the people who believe that marriage is a holy sacrament, they cannot have their cake and eat it too. If the government is going to recognize marriage and provide benefits, they cannot arbitrarily deny people those benefits based on the sex of the two married persons.
 
For all this bullshit talk by Tony Abbot about how "progressive" Australia is, sadly I don't think think we're getting gay marriage as long as he is in power.
 
the argument i hear against gay marriage by people with more tact is usually linguistically deterministic, and often prefaced by "i have plenty of gay friends/coworkers/etc."

they claim "marriage is between a man and a woman because that's what the word means" and may even cite leviticus (which is later invalidated by galatians 5:1 WOW HOLISTIC READING). however, they seem to be stuck in a concrete state of reasoning and cannot fathom that the definitions of words change, and have actually changed in the past from previous connotations to the current meaning. something ironic about clamoring for a "tradition" that was a (relatively) recent push to discriminate.
 
CornBurrito said:
Which I could understand if I experienced people speaking out against gay marriage being against marrying for love. The original purpose of marriage was to join families together and functioned basically as a business transaction. When arranged marriages were the norm. But I don't see the opponents of gay marriage having their own marriage arranged, or arguing a return to arranged marriage. And honestly there's really nothing in 2015 that would stop gay marriage from working the same way that actual traditional marriage would. Because of scientific advances, two gay men or two gay women could have a child. Even one sharing the genes of both parents.

As for the people who believe that marriage is a holy sacrament, they cannot have their cake and eat it too. If the government is going to recognize marriage and provide benefits, they cannot arbitrarily deny people those benefits based on the sex of the two married persons.
Click to expand...

Yes! Marriage is a civil institution and therefore has to work within the framework of our free and secular society. Churches can be free to practice their own idea of marriage. Have my fellow christians forgot? "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
 
CrimzonSamurai said:
Roberts is basically that.

Two are just "we don't think gay marriage is a human right."

And the fourth is, well, Clarence Thomas kind of defies explanation sometimes.
Click to expand...

You're being reductive and a little misleading.

The gist of the Alito and Scalia dissents is that same sex marriage is a policy issue that should be resolved legislatively. Scalia's has more jokes, but they're pretty close.

There's a bit of that in the Roberts dissent, but it's more concerned with attacking the legal framework of the Court's decision. His dissent boils down to an argument that marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, but the majority has altered the definition of marriage simply out of its own subjective beliefs in order to make its argument. I don't agree, but the dissent is pretty well thought out. He actually does make some points I agree with vis-a-vis the Court's Equal Protection argument as well as how the opinion would seem to compel constitutional protection for things like plural marriage.

Thomas's dissent is actually fairly typical of his jurisprudence in this area: he rejects the entire notion of substantive due process. In his view, "liberty" is a relatively narrow thing that does not encompass the broad panoply of things that judges have stretched it to cover since the passage of the 14th Amendment. He makes some other arguments about negative and positive liberty in support of this that are equally old-fashioned. He's still weird, but not inexplicably so.
 
Admiral Woofington said:
if one of them outright says "you know what, I follow the law and won't be the one to fight happiness" then boom. that's the man.
Click to expand...

Well I looked at 34 candidates's twitters and facebooks. Most were radio silence on the issue. The most noise was from Frothy Rick. Closest think I can find to a reasonable reaction came from Lindsey Graham:

I am a proud defender of traditional marriage and believe the people of each state should have the right to determine their marriage laws. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that state bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional, and I will respect the Court’s decision. Furthermore, given the quickly changing tide of public opinion on this issue, I do not believe that an attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution could possibly gain the support of three-fourths of the states or a super majority in the U.S. Congress. Rather than pursing a divisive effort that would be doomed to fail, I am committing myself to ensuring the protection of religious liberties of all Americans. No person of faith should ever be forced by the federal government to take action that goes against his or her conscience or the tenets of their religion. As president, I would staunchly defend religious liberty in this nation and would devote the necessary federal resources to the protection of all Americans from any effort to hinder the free and full exercise of their rights. While we have differences, it is time for us to move forward together respectfully and as one people.

Bolding mine. A surprisingly reasonable response from a leader in the party that has tried to repeal Obamacare 400 times.
 
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
462
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
544
AgatonSax replied
Microsoft is finally shutting down Skype in May
41
2K
MakeMudosGreatAgain replied
Top Bottom