1. Gay marriage declared legal across the US in historic supreme court ruling

    Well. About time. Such a beautiful news.
  2. congratulations to all the gay brothers and sisters out there. you finally did it.
  3. While I am in agreement with the results (equal rights for homosexual couples), I still starkly disagree with how it is implemented. This issue could have been avoided entirely if the government just said "we're not doing marriages any more, only civil unions." Allowing the churches to use the marriage institution as their practice saw fit - which could allow marriage of homosexual couples depending on the church - while the government issued civil unions (which is exactly what they are) would have completely deflated any argument put forth by the anti-homosexual crowd and still achieved equal rights.

    Most distressing however, have been the snippets of the opinions I've read in this case and the ones recently regarding the 4th amendment. I should reserve my opinion until I read the actual opinions, but I'm having less and less faith in the supreme court each year.
    Digital Masta and Zuzu like this.
  4. Oh, now it makes sense. Did not dare to ask why some people were posting stuff like this "Today, I weep for this country. Our United States is not ours anymore." on FB.
  5. Most people refer to it as marriage instead of civil union, but that is beside the point. The church still has the right to refuse to marry same sex couples because of the separation of church and state, but now the states can't refuse it.

    The thing I don't like about this whole thing is that it took for the supreme court to say that something that is blatantly unconstitutional should not be occurring. But then again, they had to do the same thing on June of 1967 30% of the country had laws forbidding interracial marriages. But hey, at least we became the 21st nation to legalize same sex marriage.
  6. It's true - but the crux of the argument against same sex marriage was always "the sanctity of marriage" (who cares that there's a 50% divorce rate). That's what the politicians with anti-same sex marriage use to get elected. Mike Huckabee has already said he wants a constitutional amendment passed to ban same sex marriage, because he knows it fires up his political base.

    If the government had just said "we're going to allow adults to create a union (or whatever you want to call it) for the purposes of xyz benefits" - what argument do they have against that? Functionally it will be the same as what marriage is today. The legalese would make it far less of a nightmare, and it would also keep the door open for multiple unions in the future. What we got today was the equivalent of someone winning a fight on a technicality. The loser wants a rematch, to keep fighting - they don't accept the judgement. It seems silly to keep wasting resources on what, as you said, should be incredibly apparent - all of us deserve equal rights - when we simply reframing the conflict would just end it.

    Maybe politicians don't want to end it - maybe they think it's what gets voters out to the polls to vote for them. I don't know.
  7. since when was marriage a right??

    personally...i think it was dumb all around

    two guys or two girls getting married means exactly jack shit as to the quality or commitment of my marriage to my beautiful wife
    ....a guy and a girl getting married means exactly the same

    ...if anything, like you said...the government should have either said 1. everyone gets these particular benefits for being in a union or 2. no one does (what Id prefer...Id LOVE a flat tax)
    problem solved.

    the only part that i REALLY dislike about this now is that...you KNOW it will not end here...theyve already started saying things that hint at targetting churches and businesses that refuse to serve them..."its ok to have your beliefs and opinions...but you do not have the right to force them on me!" ---while they force their lifestyle on others

    if you go to a cake shop that doesnt want to make you a wedding cake...go to the one next door that will...competition in the market place will either put cake maker 1 out of business or make them change their stance...it's not the government's place to MAKE them comply or close their doors or face prison time

    honestly...most of these hot button issues are not that difficult to solve...its just political hot potato to keep both parties relevant

    also...they quoted the 14th amendment (gave citizenship to all born here) as the basis for SS marriage...not sure how that works tho
    Digital Masta likes this.
  8. And they used the same argument when the interracial marriage laws were being opposed. It didn't work then, and it shouldn't have worked now. Pretty much all they are doing with that kind of rhetoric is just preaching to the choir.

    Nah, this pretty much covers the rest of marriages unless people want to start marrying things like animals and inanimate objects.

    There are certain things that get voters riled up to want to vote. Same sex marriage and immigration are two of the biggest. We keep wasting money on it because as you said, it can get you elected. There are far bigger and more important bills and laws that need attention, but they aren't as popular with the public so we keep getting the same old same old.
  9. Nothing will happen with the churches because they are exempt due to the constitution. Businesses on the other hand are not exempt. So if they refuse service to a certain demographic of the populace, then they better make damn well sure they have their bases covered. And that has pretty much been the case for them since the civil rights act.
  10. It doesn't cover 3+ adults who all want to marry each other or the ability to marry other intelligent life forms.

    That last one seems like a joke - but if we discover intelligent life or otherwise create it, this issue will come up again. Granted terminology like "adults" or "people" would also confuse that.

    @Killa - the problem is that marriage has gotten intertwined with too many things. Hospital visitation rights, for example. Person A gets sick, person B can visit person A because they are married and thus family - unless they were a same sex couple.

    As for multiple marriages - I can already dictate how my money will be distributed when I die however I like. Why can't those benefits be distributed in life as well?
  11. Polygamy is illegal in the US. And high intelligent life forms that aren't humans are not presently afforded the same rights in the US. Though that mostly stems from humans not having found any other form of high intelligence. As for creating intelligent life, or artificial intelligence, well that will come down to how the government chooses to define life forms. To that end, we have plenty of movies that speculate on how such a thing will go about.

    Again, because polygamy is illegal in the US. The biggest group of polygamist in the US is still the Mormons if I recall correctly. And not even they get to have more than one marriage recognized by the government at any one time.
  12. Welcome to fucking 2015. Took America long enough.
    dreed likes this.
  13. This was a ruling of semantics true, but regardless of that you're advocating the creation of a legal distinction that's almost aristocratic in its formula. You're separating marriage into two distinct classes, with "Traditional marriage" possessive of a connotation that implies a greater historical claim which, forgive me, sounds very reminiscent of "Separate but equal". If marriage is only marriage in name only to heterosexual couples, and civil unions are ultimately a synonym in all practicality for homosexuals then it is absolutely frivolous to implement such a variation all in the name of placating one side over the other.

    Distinguishing two subset groups of the same institution that enjoy both the same rights and privilege's by law is an utterly unnecessary division that accomplishes nothing more or less than the contrary across the board equalization.

    So what the fuck is the point? Call a spade a spade, sit back, have a beer and enjoy not concerning yourself with trifles.
  14. It's not really equivalent to separate but equal. I wasn't looking to create two legal classes - just one (the unions). All people get civil unions. "Marriage" would be a term relegated to churches or whoever else wanted to use it and it wouldn't have any legal standing.

    That said, I agree with that last statement. I'm just irked it's done in a way that's seemingly designed to promote conflict and an attempt at repeal / subterfuge.

    And so was gay marriage in several states until today.
  15. I get that, but it would still be a pointless distinction to make and would create a frenzy of needless legal disputes about the right's to a "Word". Best cut the head off the snake and spare everyone the migraine inducing circle jerk wasting taxpayer money and fomenting further division. Granted, this undoubtedly will exacerbate the divisive rhetoric of the pious but give it a good 20 or so years and no one will give two shits about their meaningless hollow claim, for the simple fact that absolutely NOTHING has been stripped from them.
  16. No. Same sex marriage was not illegal. It just wasn't recognized and or performed in all of the states. Polygamy is illegal in all states, and practicing it will get you arrested.
  17. Sorry for the delay, had to fact find.

    Apparently I had my terminology wrong to begin with - polygamy isn't actually legally recognized (it's a spiritual marriage), bigamy is the legal definition. Both are against the law for... no discernible reason other than it was done to piss off the Mormons back in the 1800s. I don't know that it would stand up to a legal challenge today - part of Utah's state law against polygamy was struck down in 2013 when it was challenged.

    As for enforcement, it pretty much doesn't happen unless it's used in situations such as child endangerment, in which case it's used to tack on extra charges or arrest someone and hold them for longer periods of time (when making a case of polygamy was easier than the actual charge they were hoping to stick).

    The difference between gay marriage and bigamy in a legal sense is that gay marriage is easy to identify - two guys or gals say they're married in a state with a ban and anyone can say "well, no you're not." Bigamy (and especially polygamy) is much easier to get away with without being detected. There's no need for a penalty for the former - it's not particularly exploitable. In order to get a marriage license as a gay couple you'd have to commit some level of perjury by lying before a judge (or on your application to a judge), which carries its own penalties. The penalty for the latter again was derived from anti-mormon sentiments, and you can mistakenly commit bigamy if (for example) you don't realize that your divorce isn't as finalized as you think it is.

    So really the law against bigamy and polygamy is apparently even more hateful than the one banning same sex marriage. Special. If we're going with the "stop caring what consenting adults are doing in their homes" mentality though, I'm not sure how we can justify making one legal and not the other. You'd have to find some other reason to keep the bans against polygamy and bigamy, but given the success of the one challenge against the ban it may just be a matter of time for that one too.
  18. There is one other type of marriage that I did forget about, a incest marriage. They are legal in some states, but only after meeting certain requirements. Though the subject is so taboo that I don't think there will ever be any challenges to make it fully legal without any requirements.
  19. With good reason - sibling / parental relationships carry a really high rate of birth defects. If I remember correctly the rate dropped significantly if you went out to at least first cousins. Wikipedia shows that first cousin marriages are completely allowed in what look to be a combination of the bluest states and the southeast, whereas some states criminalize it.
  20. To be perfectly honest, I think a business should have the right to refuse anyone they want. I honestly don't care. However, if you refuse to serve gays or minorities...okay. That's fine. I'm just never going to your business and I will tell everyone else not to go to your business as will others. Word gets out that you're doing this and your business will likely suffer. But you shouldn't be forced to do shit.

    People hear stuff like this and immediately jump to doomsday scenarios that have never happened before like doctors refusing them and I'm always like, "Have you ever even heard of that happening? Why are you talking about scenarios that haven't ever actually happened? Plus do you have any idea what would happen to the doctor who would actually refuse patients for being gay or a minority? They'd likely lose their job, never be hired anywhere else and be socially ostracized. Imagine the shit storm the hospital they worked for would face. Plus, just because a doctor doesn't agree with gay marriage or doesn't want me to date their daughter doesn't mean they want us all sick, unhealthy and dead."

    I will admit though, over the past year or so I've become very interested in volunteerism, the free market, non-aggression and stateless societies so that has been painting my way of thinking.

    My FB blew up over the decision but once again, I really didn't care all that much. I knew it was going to happen so it's more like, "Okay...moving on now. Let's focus on some more important things."

Share This Page