Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal nationwide in landmark ruling

[Douchepool]

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.

[undercover-m]

This is amazing. I'm so happy this finally happened! America, sometimes you're OK

[the captain]

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.

[Mike's Beard]

Lucky gay people, now they too can get to experience the joys of divorce.

[Awesoman]

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¢.

[the captain]

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.

[alf wiedersehen]

Yay for gay people and human rights.

[JK]

At last----some good news among all the bad. :=)

[bluesno1fann]

Congratulations to the United States! Now it's Australia's turn....

[Bean Bag]

Congratulations to the United States! Now it's Australia's turn....

Congratulate 5 lawyers.

[the captain]

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.

[Douchepool]

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."

[the captain]

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.

[Bean Bag]

Oh, can we please ease-off with the over-generalization cries.  . 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

[Douchepool]

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.

[the captain]

Oh, can we please ease-off with the over-generalization cries.  .

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.

[undercover-m]

https://twitter.com/BrianWilsonLive/status/614853058166693889

[alf wiedersehen]

No, never mind. I regret getting involved.

[Moon Dawg]

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. 

[Bean Bag]

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.

[Bean Bag]

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. 

Yet there was no law involved in their judgement.

[the captain]

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?

[Bean Bag]

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.

Oh, I think you know full well judicial activism is their schedule. Actually... never mind.   .

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/

[alf wiedersehen]

[Bean Bag]

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....  . 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.