SCOTUS strikes down gay marriage bans, legalizing marriage equality nationwide

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Dord said:
Local 4 News and Fox 2 News Detroit's Facebook feeds are going apeshit -_-

(I see so much homophobia)
Click to expand...

They cater exclusively to the farthest right of the right wing because that's the ratings base they have.

It's sad. But MSNBC is no better on the opposite end of the spectrum.

It's important to remember that these people are ALSO a minority.
 
Pepiope said:
RIP pastor Rick Scarborough :(
Click to expand...

lmao whoever fills out the lil bios for when bing makes an entity match gets a cookie:

7Fkkunn.png
 
hosannainexcelsis said:
Well, the argument that men and women are complimentary isn't just restricted to their ability to have children together. The argument is that men and women can experience a special kind of physical and emotional intimacy together that people of the same sex cannot experience because of the way the different innate strengths and weaknesses and the different physical makeup of the two genders are designed to work together to create something greater than each individual part. That happens whether or not the couple end up having children.

.
Click to expand...

This just added a layer of sexism to your lame argument too. Fantastic.
 
Christine said:
How do you test this? When a same sex couple tells you that, no, they can and do experience the same physical and emotional intimacy together, on what basis do you gainsay their testimony?
Click to expand...

We could just ask bisexual people who have been in relationships with both men and women.
 
The only shocking part of it is that it was a 5-4 decision. I think people expected 6-3 at worst. Just like when 4 justices wanted to nullify the entire ACA during the challenge to the Medicaid expansion (I don't think legal scholars thought that more than 2 or 3 justices would rule to strike down the entire ACA), the Supreme Court has shown itself to be frighteningly more conservative and ideologically driven than any of us realized. The civil institute of marriage and all the statuses and associated privileges and rights are bilateral in nature without respect to gender or sexuality. Restricting it based on gender is arbitrary at best, discriminatory when the topic of sexuality is factored in, and denies individuals their 14th amendment rights.

Shame on all 4 justices who dissented.
 
Cyan said:
I'm very confident that this is not true.
Click to expand...

Dude is a Harvard educated lawyer who has been basically near the top of his class, worked with the Supreme Court as a clerk, etc etc. Just because we disagree with someone doesn't make them stupid.

Trey said:
We can prognosticate; it's an ability we humans have. Predictions using past events and trends tend to be very accurate. SSM will definitely continue gaining support, especially now that it is law. Unless some emergent situation occurs that no one - not even John Roberts - can account for, the majority think and will continue to think that homosexuality is valid.

And smart people can have stupid opinions, too. No need for the appeal to authority. What will change about the concept of sexuality in the future that will validate or invalidate Roberts' stance? Why must we wait until some far off time to reason if there is a difference between hetero and homosexual marriage?
Click to expand...

Second part first; it wasn't an appeal to authority - it was a reply to someone snarking that Roberts doesn't understand what an analogy is. As for what can change - I will point you to the graphic showing how freaking quickly gay marriage went from "completely abhorrent" to "generally accepted" in this country. This entire process has been a very, very fast 180 from what was believed to be a very "duh, of course gays can't get married" mindset within 10-15 years.

As to your first part...I humbly submit this:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

Making things laws doesn't mean they'll gain more support. Roberts isn't pulling this concept out of his butt. I think he's wrong - I agree that this will be more like inter-racial marriage rather than abortion; but its not an innately wrong argument he is making.

GaimeGuy said:
The only shocking part of it is that it was a 5-4 decision. I think people expected 6-3 at worst. Just like when 4 justices wanted to nullify the entire ACA during the challenge to the Medicaid expansion (I don't think legal scholars thought that more than 2 or 3 justices would rule to strike down the entire ACA), the Supreme Court has shown itself to be frighteningly more conservative and ideologically driven than any of us realized. The civil institute of marriage and all the statuses and associated privileges and rights are bilateral in nature without respect to gender or sexuality. Restricting it based on gender is arbitrary at best, discriminatory when the topic of sexuality is factored in, and denies individuals their 14th amendment rights.

Shame on all 4 justices who dissented.
Click to expand...

It's worth pointing out that Roberts is probably quite pro-gay rights himself; hell, he worked pro-bono on Romer v Evans as an advocate for gay rights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts#Early_legal_career). FWIW, Roberts' dissent is probably purely on the "This is a good thing, but we did this a bad way" line.
 
GaimeGuy said:
The only shocking part of it is that it was a 5-4 decision. I think people expected 6-3 at worst. Just like when 4 justices wanted to nullify the entire ACA during the challenge to the Medicaid expansion (I don't think legal scholars thought that more than 2 or 3 justices would rule to strike down the entire ACA), the Supreme Court has shown itself to be frighteningly more conservative and ideologically driven than any of us realized. The civil institute of marriage and all the statuses and associated privileges and rights are bilateral in nature without respect to gender or sexuality. Restricting it based on gender is arbitrary at best, discriminatory when the topic of sexuality is factored in, and denies individuals their 14th amendment rights.

Shame on all 4 justices who dissented.
Click to expand...

I mean justice Roberts dissented because he objects to the usage of the SC as a legislative body because congress can't get jack shit fucking anything done.

Which is a fair argument.
 
If you guys are interested in salt, found this conversation on my Facebook feed via a High School friend of a friend. I'm just using their initials.

JVR: It's official -- we're no longer a Constitutional republic

RH: That ended in 2008 with the coronation of Emporer Obama and his Royal Court!

KAW: Hurray for fascism!! What clear-minded person DIDN'T see this coming under the head homo in charge?

CJ: That's right. It's official now!

MW: It actually ended with the passage of the 17th Amendment

PT: Yep
Click to expand...

Suck it up losers!
 
Not to scatter rain clouds on everyone’s parade, but while slugging down flutes of pink champagne and hurdling fistfuls of confetti in the air, a troubling thought occurred to us: Have any of you heard from Rick Scarborough?
As we reported Wednesday, the pastor promised — we’re imagining on a stack of bibles — to set himself on fire should American homosexuals win the right to marry.

\Well.

It’s been several hours since the announcement was made, and yet we haven’t heard a peep (or sky-piercing death rattle) out of him. (Even Wikipedia is on Christian Deathwatch today.) If any of you live near Texas, could you pop ‘round the pastor’s pad and let us know if you find his charred husk chillaxin’ on the front stoop?

Please exercise caution: the 65-year-old opined that “the preachers need to get out front, the leaders need to get out front, out front of these ordinary citizens and say, ‘Shoot me first.’” You may find yourself trapped in a hail of gunfire, so dress accordingly. Vigilance is key.”

If he does happen to set his pants on fire today, it could be another landmark event: The first time a Christian fundamentalist practiced what they preached.
Click to expand...

If he doesn't set himself ablaze, I suppose we could still say he's burning... with ether.
 
PlayALLtheGames said:
I will respect only their ability to have those feelings; not the feelings themselves. Let's be clear: just because someone is sad about something, doesn't mean they deserve sympathy. People cried over the ending of segregation. In this case, anyone who is sad about the expansion of civil rights is simply misguided and wrong.
Click to expand...

Good point from a fellow Gatorlander.

Her truly sad tone disarmed me. The religious south is confusing. Up north they would be openly assholish. Down here it's like "let's layer ten levels of kindness over this bigotry so we can feel righteous" and it always disarms me. Like "how can you hate so genuinely kindly?" I had someone once tell me they believed our earth is meant to be used up and destroyed so that the sinners can wallow in the Raptured's filth and they said it so sweetly that you would think they were giving a toast at their best friend's wedding.
 
Frozenprince said:
They cater exclusively to the farthest right of the right wing because that's the ratings base they have.

It's sad. But MSNBC is no better on the opposite end of the spectrum.

It's important to remember that these people are ALSO a minority.
Click to expand...

It was surprisingly refreshing that my facebook friends were accepting of today's news.
 
bengraven said:
Good point from a fellow Gatorlander.

Her truly sad tone disarmed me. The religious south is confusing. Up north they would be openly assholish. Down here it's like "let's layer ten levels of kindness over this bigotry so we can feel righteous" and it always disarms me. Like "how can you hate so genuinely kindly?" I had someone once tell me they believed our earth is meant to be used up and destroyed so that the sinners can wallow in the Raptured's filth and they said it so sweetly that you would think they were giving a toast at their best friend's wedding.
Click to expand...

It's just how we intermingle religious beliefs with southern charm and hospitality.
 
Frozenprince said:
I mean justice Roberts dissented because he objects to the usage of the SC as a legislative body because congress can't get jack shit fucking anything done.

Which is a fair argument.
Click to expand...
But this is not a legislative issue. The problem is that marriage as a civil, federal institution is managed by the states (like birth certificates and residencies.) When the rights afforded individuals by federal statutes and constitutions clash with the rights and privileges afforded by a state, that's not a legislative issue. That's 1. A constitutional issue which the courts are meant to address, and 2. The result of flaws in the fundamental structural design of our government.
 
Anyone see the cognitive dissonance going on with the Republican party in regards to the legality of Obamacare and gay marriage? But when it comes illegal wiretapping and torture, its all good and legal.
 
Frozenprince said:
They cater exclusively to the farthest right of the right wing because that's the ratings base they have.

It's sad. But MSNBC is no better on the opposite end of the spectrum.

It's important to remember that these people are ALSO a minority.
Click to expand...
Local Fox 2 Detroit is absolutely nothing like their national network.

Those network's Facebook feeds are blowing up because, in general, Michigan is the South of the North and filled with more bigots than one can imagine.

And ugly people. Bigots and uggos.
 
CDX said:
I've just been smiling all day every time I think about this ruling today. June 26th what a great day.

June 26th 2003 - sodomy is no longer illegal anywhere in the U.S.

June 26th 2013 - DOMA is overturned, allowing the Federal government to recognize same sex marriages.

June 26th 2015 - same sex marriage legal in all 50 states.
Click to expand...

The Stonewall riots started on June 28, 1969, which is why many Gay Pride parades are right around that time of year...
 
xbhaskarx said:
How often does social change of this magnitude happen so rapidly?
0jpgH3d.gif


Compare 2007 to where we are in June 2015...
Click to expand...

I'm talking out of my ass on this but my gut feeling is that a lot of it was due to the religious right suddenly trying to nuke even the chance of getting civil unions for gay couples. As you see the big wins starting piling in after they got "fuck you, can't have anything" laws passed in a bunch of states. This fired up the gay rights movement and informed straight people that it was something being actively attacked.

Sometimes I honestly think if the conservatives hadn't try to play for all or nothing, we would be sitting at civil unions right now instead of full on marriage, because people would have gone "well, you at least have all the legal rights, right? you're fine now".

tl;dr Church went for broke and busted
 
Master Yoshi said:
Oxrv75S.jpg


Holy shit. This is definitely worth a watch if anyone enjoys the taste of salt like I do.
Click to expand...

A step forward for humanity, and a very very embarrassing next few days for some who are going to run their mouths and make idiots of themselves. No surprise on that guys website it's "please give me money".

Consensual love shouldn't be restricted outside of age barriers to protect undeveloped (mentally and physically) minors.
 
Christine said:
How do you test this? When a same sex couple tells you that, no, they can and do experience the same physical and emotional intimacy together, on what basis do you gainsay their testimony?
Click to expand...

There's obviously no way anyone can define what other people's feelings are, so I don't think that can be quantified. If personal feelings are all there are to consider, then there is, again, no reason to deny marriage to anyone to declares they feel that way. The argument would be that a different kind of intimacy exists regardless of people's personal feelings on the matter, that there is an innate specialness to different-sex relationships that happens regardless of people's personal feelings on the subject.

CrimzonSamurai said:
I know someone else will get to countering the rest of your post, but as for this part this ruling and thereby US Law is only concerned with civil marriage. Religious institutions are, by order of the decision, exempt from being compelled to perform same sex marriages if they have a conscientious objection. So, any argument informed by religion or other cultural tradition isn't going to work.

And the argument that you can't believe in evolution and a creator at the same time is simple, evolution by definition functions with random mutations as the mechanism for change and adaptation. A creator, also by definition, would not allow for the necessary randomness that the system needs.

I mean, sure, you can say "god did it" but if you're honest with yourself it's kind of a cop out. Better to go the deist route and say he left the primordial ooze and then just sat back and watched until it gained sentience, or something.
Click to expand...

Yes, an argument based on religion isn't going to work in any attempt to define US law. That's exactly what I was trying to say.

The evolution issue is getting really off-topic, so I won't progress with it farther than saying I think it's possible to say that mutations that happened through evolution weren't really random but were directed along the way they were directed by a higher force.

Fenderputty said:
This just added a layer of sexism to your lame argument too. Fantastic.
Click to expand...

I don't see how it's sexist. Saying men and women are different from each other isn't saying that one or the other is a second-class citizen. Difference does not imply inferiority.
 
TheZink said:
Because he has a different opinion than others he gets banned? Ok. I happen to agree with him. I've seen more hate in the thread towards Christians and religious people than I have against gays. So should everyone be banned?
Click to expand...

Because he's a bigot he gets banned. And you say you agree with his "chaos and destruction" view?
 
Congratulations to United States indeed.

At least so far haven't seen any shit about it on my facebook feed, but through other channels seen plenty from Finnish people. So many people here seem to have no clue about the Supreme Court and its position.

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...
Thanks for this. My sister posted about a rainbow nearby her with a caption about it being a sign of God's covenant with people and I wondered if she just made it up or if it's actually in the Bible (I've read the book, but didn't remember that).

I wonder if she's going to post about the rainbow on top of the White House. Well, I don't really, because she's a hardcore believer (used to be very liberal before she started believing) and is against gay marriage so yeah.. of course she chooses when it's a sign of God's covenant and when not.
 
Applesauce said:
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Dallas-County-Prepares-for-Same-Sex-Marriage-Ruling-310043781.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_DFWBrand
Click to expand...

Jack Evans, 85, and George Harris, 82, who have been together for 54 years, received their license Friday and were married by a member of their church, Judge Dennise Garcia.
Garcia was on vacation Friday and had a clear docket. She tweeted that she'd spend as much time as needed at the courthouse to marry as many people as she could.
Click to expand...

Like I'm sure that just "happened" by coincidence. These activist judges with their transparent agendas.
 
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