|
Title: Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling Post by: Douchepool on June 26, 2015, 08:38:43 AM http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gay-marriage-and-other-major-rulings-at-the-supreme-court/2015/06/25/ef75a120-1b6d-11e5-bd7f-4611a60dd8e5_story.html
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf#page=41%7Cwebsite=Supreme A good decision. Scalia and Thomas' dissents are respectable and bring up some good points. Title: Re: Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling Post by: undercover-m on June 26, 2015, 08:55:16 AM This is amazing. I'm so happy this finally happened! America, sometimes you're OK :)
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling Post by: the captain on June 26, 2015, 08:56:38 AM Whoops, sorry, I started a thread on this too. Feel free to join it into this.
Here is what I posted in my unintentional, duplicate thread: This morning the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Obergefell v. Hodges that gay and lesbian couples have a right to marry (and that the states currently forbidding it must recognize other states' legal marriages and allow their own). I'm personally very glad for the decision, even while trying to be respectful of people who aren't. (Those people include family members, including the closest of them, who for religious reasons disagree.) It's my opinion that there isn't a nonreligious reason to disallow those people's rights, and in this nation solely religious reasons are not valid under the law. There will almost certainly be ongoing controversies about religious exemptions: what happens to religious organizations (and their tax exemptions) that don't want to comply, for example with respect to their employees; what happens to individuals or entities that claims religious conscience forbids them from recognizing or participating in such marriages; etc. And my last comment: this is another example of a complexity the Roberts court has demonstrated beyond its reputation. I strongly dislike the decision in Citizens United. I didn't like the decision in AT&T Mobility v Concepcion (which basically affirms the rights of companies to impose binding, individual arbitration clauses in lieu of potential future class action cases). I'm uncomfortable with Shelby County v Holder, which overturned part of the Voting Rights Act. Each of these were strongly conservative (or at least Republican) leaning decisions. Yet we have Obergefell and Windsor (which overturned DOMA) affirming gay rights and two decisions upholding the legality/constitutionality of the ACA. For better or worse, this court is not a one-trick pony. Last (meaning yes, I lied last time I said I was making my last comment), I'm glad that even when our rhetoric is heated on issues including those mentioned above, we're spared from the kind of ideological violence happening elsewhere in the world today: France, Tunisia, Kuwait, at least 55 dead. We're nowhere near immune to ideological violence here, either, as we've seen too often, but at least we do have the structure and culture to promote peaceful disagreement. Title: Re: Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling Post by: Mike's Beard on June 26, 2015, 10:04:19 AM Lucky gay people, now they too can get to experience the joys of divorce.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling Post by: Awesoman on June 26, 2015, 01:33:41 PM Whilst I support marriage as it is defined in the traditional sense, can't say I'm all that bothered by today's outcome decision as I knew it was coming. Congrats to those who were in support of it. The thing that does bother me however are those whom supported this cause by trashing, vilifying and shouting down *anyone* with a different point of view on the cause. Sure, you got some hateful bigots running around that say awful things. That being said, not everyone with a differing point of view is fueled by hatred. As long as it is done in a tactful and respectful way, you should be able to come to a different conclusion on a topic without fear of getting ambushed by others that don't share your view. If tolerance is what you champion, practice what you preach. Stop targeting those with differing point of views as hateful.
Not directing this at anyone here in particular, just giving my honest 2¢. Title: Re: Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling Post by: the captain on June 26, 2015, 01:59:12 PM Whilst I support marriage as it is defined in the traditional sense, can't say I'm all that bothered by today's outcome decision as I knew it was coming. Congrats to those who were in support of it. The thing that does bother me however are those whom supported this cause by trashing, vilifying and shouting down *anyone* with a different point of view on the cause. Sure, you got some hateful bigots running around that say awful things. That being said, not everyone with a differing point of view is fueled by hatred. As long as it is done in a tactful and respectful way, you should be able to come to a different conclusion on a topic without fear of getting ambushed by others that don't share your view. If tolerance is what you champion, practice what you preach. Stop targeting those with differing point of views as hateful. Not directing this at anyone here in particular, just giving my honest 2¢. Well put, and (other than our positions on the matter itself) I agree with you completely. Title: Re: Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling Post by: alf wiedersehen on June 26, 2015, 03:19:08 PM Yay for gay people and human rights.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling Post by: JK on June 26, 2015, 03:29:39 PM At last----some good news among all the bad. :=)
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling Post by: bluesno1fann on June 26, 2015, 06:15:38 PM Congratulations to the United States! Now it's Australia's turn....
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling Post by: Bean Bag on June 26, 2015, 06:47:44 PM Congratulations to the United States! Now it's Australia's turn.... Congratulate 5 lawyers. Title: Re: Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling Post by: the captain on June 27, 2015, 05:49:41 AM Congratulations to the United States! Now it's Australia's turn.... Congratulate 5 lawyers. Funny how the right is using the term lawyers instead of judges to try to give it a derogatory spin. We can also thank "five lawyers" for deciding Citizens United or to rescind parts of the Voting Rights Act. In this decision, those "five lawyers" also ruled in line with 60% of the American people according to a May 2015 Gallup poll. This was hardly some fringe decision against the people of the nation. (Against the people of some states? Yep.) When they are ruling for equality--equal treatment under the law--they should not have to apologize for going against popular opinion, either. Liberty is a conservative value, maybe the conservative value. Title: Re: Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling Post by: Douchepool on June 27, 2015, 05:59:10 AM Whilst I support marriage as it is defined in the traditional sense, can't say I'm all that bothered by today's outcome decision as I knew it was coming. Congrats to those who were in support of it. The thing that does bother me however are those whom supported this cause by trashing, vilifying and shouting down *anyone* with a different point of view on the cause. Sure, you got some hateful bigots running around that say awful things. That being said, not everyone with a differing point of view is fueled by hatred. As long as it is done in a tactful and respectful way, you should be able to come to a different conclusion on a topic without fear of getting ambushed by others that don't share your view. If tolerance is what you champion, practice what you preach. Stop targeting those with differing point of views as hateful. Not directing this at anyone here in particular, just giving my honest 2¢. We're assuming, of course, that the progessives are tolerant. "Tolerance" to progressives is just a euphemism for "accept it or else." Title: Re: Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling Post by: the captain on June 27, 2015, 06:10:57 AM Whilst I support marriage as it is defined in the traditional sense, can't say I'm all that bothered by today's outcome decision as I knew it was coming. Congrats to those who were in support of it. The thing that does bother me however are those whom supported this cause by trashing, vilifying and shouting down *anyone* with a different point of view on the cause. Sure, you got some hateful bigots running around that say awful things. That being said, not everyone with a differing point of view is fueled by hatred. As long as it is done in a tactful and respectful way, you should be able to come to a different conclusion on a topic without fear of getting ambushed by others that don't share your view. If tolerance is what you champion, practice what you preach. Stop targeting those with differing point of views as hateful. Not directing this at anyone here in particular, just giving my honest 2¢. We're assuming, of course, that the progessives are tolerant. "Tolerance" to progressives is just a euphemism for "accept it or else." That's an offensive over-generalization that I think you're too smart to really mean. Title: Re: Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling Post by: Bean Bag on June 27, 2015, 07:21:42 AM Oh, can we please ease-off with the over-generalization cries. :lol. Nothing's 100%, yes we know that. But in order to express opinions on ideologies and their outcomes, we need to understand and be tolerant of the fact when something's a fair generalization vs an actual over-generalization.
TRBB is right about the intolerance that spews like a fountain from the Progressive movement. It's a fascist movement from its core to its fingertips. That's a fair assessment based on honest observation. To demand it be 100% true of every sample before it can be uttered, is intolerance itself, clothed with a faux sheen of borrowed reason. It's a fair assessment and you don't like it, because you equate soft tyranny with tolerance. Mild mannered thieves may win favor with romantics, but the aggression is still there. TRBB is being honest, which is smart enough in my book to be traded. This article explains it better. Please read it, it's mild-mannered and honest. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419871/there-are-two-americas-and-only-one-truly-free-david-french Title: Re: Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling Post by: Douchepool on June 27, 2015, 07:30:35 AM I've defended the bakery owner who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple because it's their business and they have a right to refuse to do business with people for any reason. I'd say the same to a Christian couple who were refused service by gays. Tolerance goes both ways; progressives are, for the most part, intolerant. They hold others up to standards that THEY THEMSELVES cannot be bothered to live up to.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling Post by: the captain on June 27, 2015, 10:00:18 AM Oh, can we please ease-off with the over-generalization cries. :lol. No. I don't think we can. You're welcome to keep it up, of course. And I'm welcome to call it out. Not that you hurt my feelings: I don't care. I don't know you, TRBB, or anyone else on this board personally, and I'm welcome to stop participating here anytime (as are you). Sticks and stones, etc. But the reason I don't want to stop with calling out overgeneralizations is, the grand "we"--audiences in general--don't necessarily know that nothing is 100%. People often really do overgeneralize (in negative ways), especially about populations with which they're not especially familiar. I'm not especially worried about TRBB because I know from his posts he's an intelligent person with intellectual consistency in his thought-through positions. But I do worry about other people who read and hear overgeneralizations. I think they're really, really damaging to our society. And they're just not factual. As for the criticism--a theme I refer to a lot--I think you need to separate the concept from the establishment. The overarching concepts of the progressive movement were about using expertise and objective measurements in reforming government: both in terms of more efficiency to achieve the goals (certainly something a classical liberal/modern conservative can get behind) and in setting--and yes, expanding--those goals (the classical liberal or conservative, not so much) as society changes over time, so that government relates to the members of the society that compose it. Those are concepts I 100% identify with. The reality of what those within its establishment (then and now) thought, I don't have to agree with, and often don't. Progressivism, like classical liberalism or modern conservatism, is more like a framework in and over which different beliefs, facts, situations can be considered. One could say it's like science, and certainly the original progressives would have liked that. Science doesn't believe anything; science is a way in which things can be proved, disproved, or understood. At any given time, there are incorrect understandings held by people using science. Similarly, a progressive (or liberal, or conservative) might at any given time be wrong. Very wrong. And that's just how life goes. But it doesn't mean, for this example, that my belief in using evidence to drive policy, or qualifications to drive governmental appointments (instead of the unabashed cronyism that preceded the progressive era), or to alter government's priorities as society changes, is wrong. It does not mean that. Establishment anyone, as their influence or power grows, sucks. Inevitably, the human natures of greed, corruption, and self-preservation creep in. Progressives have, over time, held absurd and horrific views, including the well documented fact that they believed in eugenics. There are moderns who want to speak for progressivism who fit exactly TRBB's description of intolerant people. But much like conservatives refuse to let "false conservatives" speak for them, so to will I refuse to let others speak for me. I would wager that most "on the ground," small-p, self-identified progressives are pretty tolerant people, just like I am confident of their conservative counterparts. And the various parties, institutions, and assorted other machinery tends to crawl (or run) otherwise. And Bean Bag, please don't tell me what I equate with what. You clearly either don't know, or are making a straw man to tear down. I read the article, and guess what: it doesn't really contradict much of what I've said. Never have I proclaimed so-called liberal cities, or institutions, bastions of truth. Never have I decried conservatives as backward inbreds or Bible thumpers. Never have I said opposing opinions must be quieted. The writer's experience is the writer's experience, and I take him at his word. It doesn't sound unbelievable to me. But it's irrelevant to what I'm saying. It's irrelevant to what I believe. His experience with being, in effect, shouted down by so-called liberal or progressive institutions does not mean liberal or progressive ideas are wrong. It more likely means institutions tend to do that. Similarly, my (very conservative) mother tells of similar shout-downs in Bible studies at her (very very conservative) church when someone expresses a liberal idea. This happens. It isn't good. But it isn't the liberal or conservative concept shouting anyone down. It's the mob mentality that happens among people, and it's the nature of institutions. Sorry for participating in dragging this thread off its topic. Title: Re: Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling Post by: undercover-m on June 27, 2015, 11:10:58 AM https://twitter.com/BrianWilsonLive/status/614853058166693889
:D Title: Re: Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling Post by: alf wiedersehen on June 27, 2015, 11:45:38 AM No, never mind. I regret getting involved.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling Post by: Moon Dawg on June 27, 2015, 11:48:36 AM Congratulations to the United States! Now it's Australia's turn.... Congratulate 5 lawyers. You have to be a lawyer before you can be a judge. :3d Title: Re: Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling Post by: Bean Bag on June 27, 2015, 11:54:28 AM I've defended the bakery owner who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple because it's their business and they have a right to refuse to do business with people for any reason. I'd say the same to a Christian couple who were refused service by gays. Tolerance goes both ways; progressives are, for the most part, intolerant. They hold others up to standards that THEY THEMSELVES cannot be bothered to live up to. Yes, exactly. It is a one way street with these types. And that's not an over-generalization, because the evidence of the results - or the truth -- is abundantly clear. It's happening. And this grotesque abuse of judicial power clearly sets up the next phase of the fascist's war on freedom. People just need to listen and watch what happens next. And to the Captain's point, if there are folks of his political mindset who are in fact tolerant then I would like to point out that they're being silent -- like most people naturally are in the face of fascism. They should be saying "not like this, not like this." Which was one of the points Roberts made. Title: Re: Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling Post by: Bean Bag on June 27, 2015, 11:58:39 AM Congratulations to the United States! Now it's Australia's turn.... Congratulate 5 lawyers. You have to be a lawyer before you can be a judge. :3d Yet there was no law involved in their judgement. Title: Re: Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling Post by: the captain on June 27, 2015, 12:02:01 PM And to the Captain's point, if there are folks of his political mindset who are in fact tolerant then I would like to point out that they're being silent -- like most people naturally are in the face of fascism. They should be saying "not like this, not like this." Which was one of the points Roberts made. Isn't that explicitly what I've been? Or don't I count of being of my mindset? Title: Re: Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling Post by: Bean Bag on June 27, 2015, 12:10:09 PM Congratulations to the United States! Now it's Australia's turn.... Congratulate 5 lawyers. You're right, Bean Bag, we should be acknowledging those lawyers for doing something wonderful. To think they would take time out of their busy fascist schedules to accomplish something progressive (*gasp*) for America and help improve the lives of its citizens is something to be admired. Say, you like butterflies? I like butterflies. My favorite is the ones with perty colors on 'em. I just read online that weed killers are hurting the Monarch Butterfly reproductive rates. http://www.nationofchange.org/2015/05/03/how-to-save-the-monarch-butterfly/ Title: Re: Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling Post by: alf wiedersehen on June 27, 2015, 12:16:33 PM :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol Title: Re: Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling Post by: Bean Bag on June 27, 2015, 12:27:10 PM And to the Captain's point, if there are folks of his political mindset who are in fact tolerant then I would like to point out that they're being silent -- like most people naturally are in the face of fascism. They should be saying "not like this, not like this." Which was one of the points Roberts made. Isn't that explicitly what I've been? Or don't I count of being of my mindset? Yes, you have. Sorry I was agreeing with you. I do believe many moderates are not pushy and quite tolerant. By definition. They don't want to rock the boat. But they're also not likely to speak up, because no one wants to confront a fascist. I have to take a deep breath every time I go to the sandbox ("do I really want to do this?"). Then I remember how unbelievably easy it is to piss off a fascist. Because, you know, they're uptight and living in a fantasy world where all us people are "props" in their little fantasy. So, I guess I see myself as a prop that talks back -- like the kid in the school play who's supposed to be part of the scenery, like a tree or something. I whisper, "hey dingus, your play sucks." And they turn around and yell "shut up, shut up!" The crowd laughs and I say, "dude you're talking to a tree!" Sorry.... :lol. You gotta have fun with this stuff! Anyway, I see the Progressives and the Liberals as the source of intolerance. The "debate is over--before there was a debate" types, that were mentioned in the article. Title: Re: Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling Post by: Bean Bag on June 27, 2015, 12:40:58 PM :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol Title: Re: Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling Post by: alf wiedersehen on June 27, 2015, 12:42:58 PM :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol No, it's fine. I regret saying what I did. We all have different opinions, and that's okay with me. Title: Re: Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling Post by: the captain on June 27, 2015, 01:07:45 PM I have to take a deep breath every time I go to the sandbox ("do I really want to do this?"). And we finally find another place to agree. Because our wildly different concepts of how differences should (or can?) be discussed, let's just leave it at that. Best wishes to you. Title: Re: Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling Post by: sea of tunes on June 27, 2015, 01:31:10 PM I'm pleased now that gays/lesbians are free to enjoy the misery straights have known for all time. :lol
It's a long time overdue, I'm glad it's done being legislated and debated and all the rest. I say that knowing there will be future suits brought before courts about churches being forced to perform the gay marriages (they shouldn't be, IMO) and probably further suits about cake makers and photographers being forced to provide services to gay couples (they should, IMO) Hopefully people (those religious objections) can move on with their lives and realize that at the end of the day, this will not adversely affect them in any way. And if there are objections to yesterday's SCOTUS ruling on the basis that it was 9 unelected individuals made this decision...well, it's a mater of personal liberty to gays/lesbians and since all other avenues were exhausted, SCOTUS was asked to decide and has. I've evolved on this issue over my 39 years and hopefully the rest of America can as well. Title: Re: Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling Post by: Wirestone on June 27, 2015, 01:32:27 PM Just one point, and I will vamoose.
(As a gay person married to a man, I am obviously hopelessly biased on this topic and therefore am unqualified to comment.) However, those who have religious objections to gay people and gay marriage are protected by perhaps the strongest law imaginable -- the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They may say and preach whatever they want, and that will not change as long as this nation survives. Gay people, however, can be fired, can be turned out of their homes, can be legally discriminated against in 29 of the 50 states -- simply for their sexual orientation. There is no federal law that protects gay people from the hatred of others. If you are gay in Kansas or Texas or Florida or Arizona or Ohio, you can go to work, tell your boss, "I'm gay," -- or your boss can merely suspect it -- and he or she can terminate you for that. And tell you so. Landlords or banks can then refuse you a lease or mortgage -- simply because you're gay. And tell you so. And when you try to buy food, a grocery store and restaurant can refuse you entrance. Because you're gay. So by all means, talk about how the intolerant liberal fascists are taking over the country, and talk about how unelected judges are ruining our Constitution. A lot of liberals will point to Citizens United and agree on the second point! But you might spare a bit of sympathy for your brothers and sisters in humanity in the majority of states who only live -- who only survive -- based on the goodwill of others. Title: Re: Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling Post by: sea of tunes on June 27, 2015, 01:39:52 PM Just one point, and I will vamoose. (As a gay person married to a man, I am obviously hopelessly biased on this topic and therefore am unqualified to comment.) However, those who have religious objections to gay people and gay marriage are protected by perhaps the strongest law imaginable -- the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They may say and preach whatever they want, and that will not change as long as this nation survives. Gay people, however, can be fired, can be turned out of their homes, can be legally discriminated against in 29 of the 50 states -- simply for their sexual orientation. There is no federal law that protects gay people from the hatred of others. If you are gay in Kansas or Texas or Florida or Arizona or Ohio, you can go to work, tell your boss, "I'm gay," -- or your boss can merely suspect it -- and he or she can terminate you for that. And tell you so. Landlords or banks can then refuse you a lease or mortgage -- simply because you're gay. And tell you so. And when you try to buy food, a grocery store and restaurant can refuse you entrance. Because you're gay. So by all means, talk about how the intolerant liberal fascists are taking over the country, and talk about how unelected judges are ruining our Constitution. A lot of liberals will point to Citizens United and agree on the second point! But you might spare a bit of sympathy for your brothers and sisters in humanity in the majority of states who only live -- who only survive -- based on the goodwill of others. As someone who lives in the fringe of Karl Hess Libertarianism and Barry Goldwater Republicanism, I feel like today we are probably more free than we have ever been and I'm very happy that that gays and lesbians are no longer subjugated as separate but now equal to all. The more personal freedom and liberty we have the better and modern conservatives would be wise to get on the bus before it leaves them to the dustbin of history. Title: Re: Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling Post by: Douchepool on June 27, 2015, 01:49:53 PM I don't really care about gay marriage per se; I see it as a distraction from much bigger issues (Trans-Pacific Partnership, Greek debt crisis potentially leading to more trouble in the recession, a league of presidential candidates in both major parties who have already proven they aren't worth sh*t hence their endless appeals to emotion). It was just a problem that was created because government decided to involve itself in the personal dealings of consenting adults (also against the First Amendment).
Anything government touches turns to sh*t, and from where I sit, government magically allowing gays the "permission" to marry only goes to prove who is really in charge. Get the government out of the marriage business and stop legislating personal matters. The law is not a barometer for morality. Title: Re: Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling Post by: Awesoman on June 27, 2015, 02:08:28 PM Just one point, and I will vamoose. (As a gay person married to a man, I am obviously hopelessly biased on this topic and therefore am unqualified to comment.) However, those who have religious objections to gay people and gay marriage are protected by perhaps the strongest law imaginable -- the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They may say and preach whatever they want, and that will not change as long as this nation survives. Gay people, however, can be fired, can be turned out of their homes, can be legally discriminated against in 29 of the 50 states -- simply for their sexual orientation. There is no federal law that protects gay people from the hatred of others. If you are gay in Kansas or Texas or Florida or Arizona or Ohio, you can go to work, tell your boss, "I'm gay," -- or your boss can merely suspect it -- and he or she can terminate you for that. And tell you so. Landlords or banks can then refuse you a lease or mortgage -- simply because you're gay. And tell you so. And when you try to buy food, a grocery store and restaurant can refuse you entrance. Because you're gay. So by all means, talk about how the intolerant liberal fascists are taking over the country, and talk about how unelected judges are ruining our Constitution. A lot of liberals will point to Citizens United and agree on the second point! But you might spare a bit of sympathy for your brothers and sisters in humanity in the majority of states who only live -- who only survive -- based on the goodwill of others. Wirestone, I think you bring up some good points (although I have yet to go to or work at a grocery store where any gay people were ever turned away). No one should be unfairly fired or rejected solely based on their sexual orientation. On the flip side, there have been plenty of decent people with opposing views on this subject that also have been scrutinized unfairly for their beliefs. That little Christian-themed pizza place in Nowhere, Indiana comes to mind. A news crew visited the town, saw their religious-themed restaurant and decided to make an example of these people. The owners were immediately attacked, vilified, and threatened by thousands of people and were briefly forced to close down their place of business. A public school P.E. teacher even wanted to burn their restaurant down. Hundreds of online Yelp and Google reviews popped up desecrating these people and their restaurant. You may not have agreed on their stance but their comments were totally benign. Title: Re: Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling Post by: Bean Bag on June 27, 2015, 06:09:37 PM Excellent points by all. I feel like the last few post really frame and some up the issue succinctly. However, I will add two points...
First I am proud to defend the religious institution of marriage. Not from gays or politics or anything -- but everything that attacks it. 99.9% of the attacks come from idiots who enter into it for all the wrong reasons. Marriage is a religious institution where a man and woman are joined by God. Not a partnership. Anybody can have a partnership. Or a friendship. Business relationship. Spiritual bond. Love. Affection. Kinship. Lust. Wavelength groove. Omertà. Oath. Marriage was defined by the joining of the two halves of physical humanity. And it still is, despite what people say or pretend or legislate. That change needs to happen for real. The second point is, you don't have to buy into any of that. No one was forcing you to. However now, people will be forced to do things that they don't want to. For example -- if you don't like golf, you don't play it. But if you don't like golf, legislate it changed to be more like football, then force others to do the same and make allowances to retro fit the game of golf and golf courses to now include field goal posts, refs, and end zones -- lest face a lawsuit of horrendous social consequences -- Well then you're a dink. And you deserve to be called a dink. That's why the smart Justices feel so bad about what this has done. This is not progress. In fact, they warned, much progress may even be lost. We love all of you. And this isn't Love. This is fascism. I'm sorry, Love did not win. It's just not that easy. And I know nobody wants to hear that. I'm sorry. :'( Title: Re: Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling Post by: Moon Dawg on June 27, 2015, 10:58:08 PM Just one point, and I will vamoose. (As a gay person married to a man, I am obviously hopelessly biased on this topic and therefore am unqualified to comment.) However, those who have religious objections to gay people and gay marriage are protected by perhaps the strongest law imaginable -- the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They may say and preach whatever they want, and that will not change as long as this nation survives. Gay people, however, can be fired, can be turned out of their homes, can be legally discriminated against in 29 of the 50 states -- simply for their sexual orientation. There is no federal law that protects gay people from the hatred of others. If you are gay in Kansas or Texas or Florida or Arizona or Ohio, you can go to work, tell your boss, "I'm gay," -- or your boss can merely suspect it -- and he or she can terminate you for that. And tell you so. Landlords or banks can then refuse you a lease or mortgage -- simply because you're gay. And tell you so. And when you try to buy food, a grocery store and restaurant can refuse you entrance. Because you're gay. So by all means, talk about how the intolerant liberal fascists are taking over the country, and talk about how unelected judges are ruining our Constitution. A lot of liberals will point to Citizens United and agree on the second point! But you might spare a bit of sympathy for your brothers and sisters in humanity in the majority of states who only live -- who only survive -- based on the goodwill of others. I wasn't aware this could happen in Ohio. I live in Columbus, OH, which is generally considered to be a gay friendly city. Title: Re: Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling Post by: Moon Dawg on June 27, 2015, 10:59:29 PM Excellent points by all. I feel like the last few post really frame and some up the issue succinctly. However, I will add two points... First I am proud to defend the religious institution of marriage. Not from gays or politics or anything -- but everything that attacks it. 99.9% of the attacks come from idiots who enter into it for all the wrong reasons. Marriage is a religious institution where a man and woman are joined by God. Not a partnership. Anybody can have a partnership. Or a friendship. Business relationship. Spiritual bond. Love. Affection. Kinship. Lust. Wavelength groove. Omertà. Oath. Marriage was defined by the joining of the two halves of physical humanity. And it still is, despite what people say or pretend or legislate. That change needs to happen for real. The second point is, you don't have to buy into any of that. No one was forcing you to. However now, people will be forced to do things that they don't want to. For example -- if you don't like golf, you don't play it. But if you don't like golf, legislate it changed to be more like football, then force others to do the same and make allowances to retro fit the game of golf and golf courses to now include field goal posts, refs, and end zones -- lest face a lawsuit of horrendous social consequences -- Well then you're a dink. And you deserve to be called a dink. That's why the smart Justices feel so bad about what this has done. This is not progress. In fact, they warned, much progress may even be lost. We love all of you. And this isn't Love. This is fascism. I'm sorry, Love did not win. It's just not that easy. And I know nobody wants to hear that. I'm sorry. :'( Ok then. Prey tell how this could have been done the right way. Marriage isn't about religion- atheists wed. It isn't about procreation - many unions never produce children. At the beginning, at least, it is about love. Gay people have as much right to make lives together legally as anyone else. And trust me, many will exercise their rights to divorce. Title: Re: Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling Post by: Peter Reum on June 27, 2015, 11:46:40 PM Quite simply, LBGT people were unable to access important benefits that M//F marriages had,such as insurance and helping make decisions about partners who are terminally or critically ill. The lack of access to insurance alone made LBGT couples earn 20 percent less disposable income than M/F marriages. LBGT couples experienced 45% higher discrimination than M/F couples in employment. We all know about the higher rate of suicide by LBGT youth primarily due to bullying and ridicule...I love that Wirestone,who has adopted children,has taken orphans and given them a home.
The number of children who don't have parents is sky high. In several states, LBGT couples can't adopt, even if they want to. For all these reasons and others too numerous to mention , I applaud the decision of the Supreme Court. This is a civil rights decision,pure and simple. The same right wing BS was spouted when the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed in 1988. Now there are curb cuts in most municipal intersections, and no one thinks twice about it. That will be what happens with the Supreme Court rulings on the ACA, the Fair Housing Act, and LBGT marriage 25 years on, when the Millenials take over. Flush Rimbaugh has lost his show in 65% of media markets. That brand of what's mine is mine, and what is yours is mine too with respect to civil rights is not okay with any moderate or progressive American. Title: Re: Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling Post by: Mike's Beard on June 28, 2015, 03:50:22 AM The biggest issue now is who gets to change who's surname?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling Post by: Jim V. on June 28, 2015, 05:36:32 PM Congratulations to the United States! Now it's Australia's turn.... Congratulate 5 lawyers. And I'm sure you congratulated the five "lawyers" who decided that they should give the 2000 presidential election to Dubya despite the fact that there were still votes being counted? Oh wait, the five that did that are surely patriots who take their responsibility to the constitution oh-so-seriously. Right? Title: Re: Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling Post by: drbeachboy on June 28, 2015, 06:08:11 PM Congratulations to the United States! Now it's Australia's turn.... Congratulate 5 lawyers. And I'm sure you congratulated the five "lawyers" who decided that they should give the 2000 presidential election to Dubya despite the fact that there were still votes being counted? Oh wait, the five that did that are surely patriots who take their responsibility to the constitution oh-so-seriously. Right? Title: Re: Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling Post by: sea of tunes on June 28, 2015, 07:26:46 PM I wasn't aware this could happen in Ohio. I live in Columbus, OH, which is generally considered to be a gay friendly city. I also live in Columbus. Go Bucks! Title: Re: Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling Post by: Moon Dawg on July 02, 2015, 04:12:48 AM I wasn't aware this could happen in Ohio. I live in Columbus, OH, which is generally considered to be a gay friendly city. I also live in Columbus. Go Bucks! That's right! Go Bucks! |