SCOTUS strikes down gay marriage bans, legalizing marriage equality nationwide

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cybit said:
Roberts has a darn good point about the Supreme Court basically functioning as a legislative body right now; which is not its intention, as well as pointing out that they may have turned something that was inevitably going to pass across all states (gay marriage) over time into abortion 2.0 by allowing it from on high. I do think that's a reasonable fear, that people who would have eventually acceded to letting gays marry (or just passed away, as gay marriage was one of those issues that was harshly split amongst age, even on the conservative side) are now going to calcify their opinions even more so.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is a particularly sensible theory, though. Gay marriage had already won in 37 states and was on track in several more. The majority of Americans already support it. By contrast, abortion was pretty evenly split and remains pretty evenly split. So why would gay marriage, which was so close to being a settled issue that basically everybody had predicted this opinion, suddenly become controversial just because the Supreme Court agreed with everybody else in America?

Also, like, even if you're correct and people who were going to get over gay marriage are now never going to get over it, the courts and governments don't exist to mollify the feelings of reactionaries. They exist to dispense justice and protect equality. If the far right never gets over it, but we still have gay marriage, that's pretty much an unalloyed win. It's not a win-win -- it's, you know, a win-lose -- but a win's still pretty good.
 
CrimzonSamurai said:
Obama didn't really have much to do with it. You can make the argument he influenced public opinion, and therefore the court, but the 5 justices who affirmed were always going to. Public opinion doesn't really matter too much to the court, as has been stated Loving v. Virginia, which established the right to interracial marriage, was super unpopular across the entire country at the time it was decided.
Click to expand...

Well, like said before, at the least, Obama did appoint 2 of the judges
 
malfcn said:
3y0ouPp.jpg
Click to expand...

Is this for real? That's awesome.
 
ElTorro said:
I'd really like to hear an explanation of the religious right for this. *g*
Click to expand...

This proves God has not abandoned us and that his wrath will be directed to those responsible for turning our nation into the new Sodom! Gods judgement is imminent! /fundamentalist channeling
 
Stumpokapow said:
Still circular; you (substitute "you" for the argument, if you do not agree with it personally but are advancing it as a reasonable example of a position) define marriage in such a way to exclude gay marriage, and then you use that definition to demonstrate that marriage excludes gay people.
Click to expand...

And, just to be clear, this can be flipped around, too. Arguments for gay marriage often begin with a particular definition of marriage which cannot reasonably prohibit same-sex couples from being married (loving commitment between two consenting adults), then argue that under that definition, same-sex couples should have a legal right to be married.

What you seem to be getting at, of course, is that the debate should be about the merits of each definition, not whether a definition does or does not permit same-sex couples to marry.
 
Novoitus said:
This is a huge day. Good stuff.


gotta love fox

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP4B5d8zDVo
Click to expand...


The Supreme Court's decision means gay rights now trump religious liberty. And if you think the cultural purging of the Southern States has been breathtaking, wait until you see what LGBT activists are about to unleash on American Christians.

“If pastors are going to be forced to provide marriage services for gay couples, I’m not going to do it,” Graham declared.

Churches and faith-based business should prepare for lawsuits and government investigations. Pastors who refuse to perform gay marriages and preach from the Bible should prepare for hate crime charges. All dissent will be silenced by the government and the activists.

But I believe that an overwhelming number of Christians will defy the law.

Governor Mike Huckabee posted this message on Facebook: "I will not acquiesce to an imperial court," vowing to "resist and reject judicial tyranny."

In closing, I am reminded of something the late Charles Colson wrote: "If we're not willing to fight this, even to the point of breaking the law, or refusing to recognize the law, then we will lose everything."

Given the choice of obeying God or the government, I believe Christians will obey God - even if there is hell to pay.
Click to expand...


You have to be kidding me......
 
AzureTranquility95 said:
So this makes Obama the best president in a long while, right?

This is pretty huge.
Click to expand...

This train was coming regardless if Obama changed his opinion or not. I give him credit for changing but he hopped on when it was safe to do so. But I guess you could give him credit for appointing the right judges to the court. Though they just replaced retiring liberals so the old court probably comes to the same conclusion.
 
E-Cat said:
I'll give it a try: Rainbows are straightforward physical phenomena subject to nature's laws, not omens from above. Except when they conveniently are--which they aren't this time, cause it would be so ironic.
Click to expand...
Actually, in the Bible the rainbow is God's promise that he will not flood us again and that is why we have rainbows after rain!
I can see a Bible buff using that as God's way of telling us he will punish us, because, a just God would punish us for expanding love instead of hate.
 
hosannainexcelsis said:
No, the argument being made in this case is that men and women fit together in a way that men and men, or women and women, don't, and it is that fitting together of the two opposite genders that defines the special relationship and intimacy of marriage. That two people of the same sex cannot compliment each other in that way. The argument is marriage is not just people who have strong feelings for each other, but it is the coming together of two people to make one person, and that that can only happen when two different genders are combined.
Click to expand...

What a bastardization of the concept of love, that you'd use it to demean other people.
 
Thequietone said:
Actually, in the Bible the rainbow is God's promise that he will not flood us again and that is why we have rainbows after rain!
I can see a Bible buff using that as God's way of telling us he will punish us, because, a just God would punish us for expanding love instead of hate.
Click to expand...

ha, this is a de-rainbow. The floods are back on!
 
Man, I just saw Obergefell's speech. I had no idea this started because Ohio wouldn't let him put his name on his husband's death certificate.

What the fuck Ohio?
 
massoluk said:
Well, like said before, at the least, Obama did appoint 2 of the judges
Click to expand...

Exactly.

When we voted for Bill Clinton, we knew he wouldn't be able to do much personally for us on this.. but there was the chance that his judges would. Ginsburg and Breyer came through.

I'm not wild about Hillary, but I really hope that this week drives home how damn important judges are, and how very long these presidential appointments can affect our lives. Ginsburg has been on the bench now for 22 years now - 1993.

1993.
 
Hah, wonderful. Really happy for everybody who can finally get married to their loved one :) Wonder how long it'll take other countries to follow now.
 
LegendofLex said:
What you seem to be getting at, of course, is that the debate should be about the merits of each definition, not whether a definition does or does not permit same-sex couples to marry.
Click to expand...

To be slightly more specific, the debate should be about the merits of each definition in a civil context. If people want to consider marriage a sacrament to which gay people are not entitled, they have the right to do so, although I don't consider it particularly Christian, but that right explicitly doesn't extend to our legal institutions.
 
Stumpokapow said:
Yeah, just like the court did with interracial marriage*, which had significantly less support during Loving v. Virginia than same-sex marriage does now, and totally ignoring the stronger argument that the court endorsing something in fact helps continue to drive change and solidify support behind the legitimacy of the movement.

* Roberts disagrees with the analogy between interracial marriage and gay marriage, using the sophisticated argument that you can't compare the two because one is about race and one is about sexual orientation. He spends about 5 pages talking about how no previous changes to marriage can be compared to gay marriage because those changes were not about gays, they were about other things. It's not entirely clear to me that he understands what an analogy or comparison is.
Click to expand...

Based on the demographics (and the response today) - I'm of the opinion that gay marriage will go the way of interracial marriage rather than abortion - but to say that it definitely will go that way (and be more or less commonly accepted) is not something I'm willing to say. It *could* end up like abortion; and Roberts is pointing that out.

Also, I'm pretty sure John Roberts is smarter than you and I combined and then squared. I'm pretty sure all of the justices are, actually. (Thomas might be crazy pants, but he's probably smart). He just doesn't think they're the same, and history (and time) will show whether he is right or not.

Balphon said:
Yeah, there is a definite "my personal beliefs are irrelevant" vibe in the Roberts dissent, which is always good to see from a judge.

I don't entirely buy the exercising legislative judgment bits, though, as much as he and his constant harping on Lochner seem to want me to. They rest on the notion that the Court is redefining "marriage" in its ruling, and I just don't see how that is meaningfully different than what the Court did regarding, e.g., miscegenation in Loving. And to that end, I don't really see the Court as acting differently than it has in the past in the sense that it is riding a bit behind the wave of social change. It's certainly much farther behind than the Warren Court was in Brown, for instance.

I mostly agree with Roberts in his argument that the Court's EP argument boils down to "oh, and this too" and is pro forma at best. I also agree that a rational reading of the opinion should extend constitutional protection to things like plural/group marriage as well, though I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing per se.
Click to expand...

I think between this and the ACA in quick back to back succession; the Court probably feels annoyed that they're basically dealing with the issues that Congress is incapable of dealing with. Also, I agree w/ Roberts in that this absolutely opens the door to polygamy. They're going to have to define marriage to be between "two people" now in order to shut that door, and as today has shown, previous definitions of marriage are most certainly not absolutes.
 
As a Christian, I honestly don't see a problem with this, congrats to those who couldn't express their love through marriage.

Excuse the hate coming from the pews...
 
2002whitegt said:
As a Christian, I honestly don't see a problem with this, congrats to those who couldn't express their love through marriage.

Excuse the hate coming from the pews...
Click to expand...

Everybody knows real Christians aren't the ones who ignore what Jesus said for what a preacher told them he said. :)

At least everybody should know.
 
BravesCountry said:
Well it was the judicial branch but the President's support definitely matters for the movement as a whole.
Click to expand...

Officially, it was the judicial branch's decision, but since it happened during Obama's presidency, when people look back on this day, people will associate it with Obama, you know?

Pretty sure this is the case with most major events (Whether they're good or bad). It's the reason why people consider Bill Clinton top-tier and George Bush low-tier... unless that opinion has changed or never existed. I'm not exactly on-point when it comes to politics, but when things like this happen, I tend to get a little more interested. lol
 
Cybit said:
Also, I'm pretty sure John Roberts is smarter than you and I combined and then squared. I'm pretty sure all of the justices are, actually. (Thomas might be crazy pants, but he's probably smart). He just doesn't think they're the same, and history (and time) will show whether he is right or not.
Click to expand...

I'm very confident that this is not true.
 
Raistlin said:
seriously


I didn't realize in states that already approved same-sex marriage, priests were forced to preside over gay weddings. Oh wait, they're not >_<

That's not how it works lol
Click to expand...

Can a Catholic walk into a Mosque and demand the Imam marry them in a traditional Catholic ceremony?

Then wtf is the argument here? Nobody is going to try and impose anything on someone that doesn't want it. The whole point of SSM is that we're finally free of having these things imposed ON US.
 
Absolutely fantastic news, I nearly teared up when I read the decision and Im from the dam UK

Also its not really related but I'm looking for a video of a state congressman talking about gay marriage. I think it was from a woman and I think it was in a southern state but it was a really passionate exchange.
 
A family member just told me to remove my Fb posts about this.

"For every gay couple that's happy there's a good Christian couple who are sad by this - you would do well to respect their feelings too".
 
pigeon said:
To be slightly more specific, the debate should be about the merits of each definition in a civil context. If people want to consider marriage a sacrament to which gay people are not entitled, they have the right to do so, although I don't consider it particularly Christian, but that right explicitly doesn't extend to our legal institutions.
Click to expand...

That's the part I find most baffling about this whole thing. Sacramental marriage continues to be a distinct institution from civil marriage. Even if God only blesses "true sacramental marriages," then no one but the people whose marriages won't be blessed by God stands to lose anything from same-sex marriages being legal civil marriages.
 
bengraven said:
A family member just told me to remove my Fb posts about this.

"For every gay couple that's happy there's a good Christian couple who are sad by this - you would do well to respect their feelings too".
Click to expand...

Tell them statistically speaking, there is a gay person in their family, on their street and making their food...WITH THEIR GAY HANDS!!!
 
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
555
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
643
AgatonSax replied
Microsoft is finally shutting down Skype in May
41
2K
MakeMudosGreatAgain replied
Top Bottom