Supreme Court extends same-sex marriage nationwide

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Freenrgy2

Well... Someone's been eating some sour grapes this morning.

Makes me wonder what he will do someday, when the first transsexual woman is elected President.... of course he might not even be alive at that point but who knows?

a reply to: JadeStar

Avatar

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
I know a certain cake shop that's going to lose a lot of business...

IMO this is a common sense decision, but there will be some stubborn mules who will stamp their hooves and call this a populist decision.

From what I learned in history and social studies, much was the same reaction to Lyndon B. Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act.

Most people either got over it or had one foot in the grave already.

a reply to: JadeStar

I may not be...who knows.

Don't worry, all be o.k. in the end.

a reply to: Megatronus

Shhhhh don't show them our secret agenda.. now all the straights are going to show up at brunch

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: JadeStar

Avatar

Should I run?

I'm eligible in 15 years.

Lets see.

I'll run as a Social-Libertarian (after both the Democratic and Republican parties have fallen to ashes).

I will run on a pro-education, (everyone gets 2 years of college education covered automatically as by then it probably will be the minimum required to work in the 2030 s workplace), anti-discrimination (every human being, sentient AI and trans-human of every ethnicity, sexual orientation and gender identity in the U.S.A will have the same rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution and the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights.) type platform uniting both humans, transhumans and artificial intelligences under the same "big tent" coalition. No longer will we bicker over who has rights and who doesn't. If you're conscious and sentient, you have the same rights AND responsibilities as anyone else.

My economic stance will be to take back the U.S.A's edge as THE nation of note in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (after we were surpassed in the mid 2020s by China and India) with favorable contracts awarded to companies which further develop and drive down the cost of space tourism, on-orbit manufacturing and resource mining on the moon, or are involved with the empowerment and education of those who have been left out of work from automation and other technological advances.


My pro-singularity platform would promote economic growth as well as ecological reclamation by replacing old coal and nuclear power plants with orbiting Solar Power Satellites which beam energy collected in orbit down to Earth cleanly. I'd also encourage the remaining polluting industries to plan in the future to set up shop on Mars where their byproducts which are pollution to Earth actually would help terraform Mars.

People would be encouraged to become involved in the new era of discovery and development, in this new gold rush to the stars. No one will want a "hand out" when they can make more money doing very interesting things which they love.

Welfare will no longer mean a direct deposit into a bank account but a direct ticket to ride to the many opportunities in the new industries of transgenic medicine, nanotechnology, orbital manufacturing, quantum computing and ecological reclamation.

My economic advisor would help transition the USA to a resource based economy of abundance rather than a fiat currency based economy of scarcity.

I'd appoint Michio Kaku as my science advisor and Neil DeGrasse Tyson or Sara Seager as NASA Administrator

In a nod to John F. Kennedy I would state that before this decade was out we'd see the first mission land and establish the first steps of a colony on Mars.

"Jadestar 2032 for a better nation and two better worlds"

a reply to: xuenchenThe supreme court can not make laws. The Congress and Senate of the United States make laws, the individuals states Congress and Senate make laws. The only thing the SCOTUS have done is created a huge problem with lower state courts and individual rights. The gay marriage thing is not over. Actually the Congress and Senate the United States should not even be involved with what individual states do to determine what is right and wrong for their states.

a reply to: Ceeker63

Wrong. The Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of existing laws. That is to keep states from passing laws like making it okay to lynch blacks, or confiscating all guns. If the Supreme Court rules that an existing law is unconstitutional, that is not making a new law - it is voiding an existing law. It is what the Supreme Court is there to do - for all our protection.

originally posted by: Ceeker63
a reply to: xuenchenThe supreme court can not make laws. The Congress and Senate of the United States make laws, the individuals states Congress and Senate make laws. The only thing the SCOTUS have done is created a huge problem with lower state courts and individual rights. The gay marriage thing is not over. Actually the Congress and Senate the United States should not even be involved with what individual states do to determine what is right and wrong for their states.

This view taken to the extreme would mean all states operate as their own countries. Is that what you want?

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Ceeker63

Wrong. The Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of existing laws. That is to keep states from passing laws like making it okay to lynch blacks, or confiscating all guns.

^^^^ THIS.

originally posted by: markosity1973

originally posted by: grandmakdw

Beezer, we are old and out of date.

If one now says anything that disagrees with the socialist liberal progressive agenda, one is engaging in hate speech.

No, you are experiencing a difference of opinion that is now in the minority.

Because I disagreed with the Supreme Court getting involved rather than letting States decide, which they had been doing and all would eventually do: I have been called (subtly, a racist and now anti-womens rights)
No matter I said I thought gays should be allowed to marry, because I see unfortunate unintended consequences in the ruling, I have been branded a hater.

One can no longer disagree with any liberal idea
one can no longer disagree with any socialist idea
one can no longer disagree with any progressive idea
regardless of the idea, be it a tiny issue or a big issue
without being bullied by the liberal socialist progressives
and being called a hater and engaging in hate speech

And we were smashed by you guys for trying to bring society to a new low for wanting to have the same simple right as you do.

This is a double edged sword my dear. Everything you are feeling, we have felt for thousands of years as gay people. It's called being in the minority - popular opinion has washed over you and now you are smarting, tis all. You'll live and the world won't end. And YES, you can still have your opinions but expect to find that most disagree with you now.

The very fact that you support the right of people who disagree
to disagree with the ruling
automatically in the eyes of the liberal socialist progressive
makes you a hater and engaging in hate speech.

The liberal socialist progressive can not tolerate free speech
if the speech in any way differs from the proscribed and
accepted ideas of the liberal socialist progressive left.

My dear we all believe in freedom of expression and opinion. I might disagree with you stance on the view of gay marriage, but I support your freedom to disagree. That is how liberal and pluaralistic views work - There are many roads to a single destination. We don't all need to be on the same road, but we are all moving forward to the same place.

My dear, I disagree with you.

The current popular culture is very repressive and judgmental
of those who disagree with their viewpoints.

It seeks to destroy people who disagree.

Witness the climate change worshipers who call for jail or death of those who disagree.

Witness those who seek out people to goad into saying something politically incorrect and then trying to drive them out of business (as in the pizza parlor where a reporter was seeking a story and goaded the owner into saying something she should not have; who never actually denied anyone anything but was asked a hypothetical and then excoriated and sent hate mail and death threats by the very people you defend)

Witness the 70 year old flower shop owner who hired gay people and had gay people on her staff who knew her feelings and trapped her into not wanting to provide flowers for a wedding, then attempting to driver her out of business, and sending hate email and death threats.

If someone disagrees with the "popular cultural" stance on things,
they are judged by the people you defend to be guilty of a crime,
and are set up to be sent massive hate mail and massive death threats,
and run out of business
for simply disagreeing.
That my dearest is quite dangerous to everyone in society.

Witness the owner of a sports team who on the job was fair
and treated all his black players with respect and fairness
and paid them millions,
yet when he said something in private to his mistress,
with no one else present,
his words caused him to lose his team even though
his actions were completely non-racist.
He not only lost his team, he received hate mail and
death threats from those you, my dear,
are defending.

What I see is a concerted effort to destroy
free speech
to destroy, what those you defend
claim to be "incorrect thought".
It is an extremely repressive and judgmental
and totalitarian behavior.

Behavior,
totalitarian behavior in particular
which is being exhibited by those
you are trying to defend,
is quite dangerous to us all, my dear.

What happens when Islam becomes
the majority religion since Christianity
is waning. Also, Islamist's are breeding
far faster than all other groups in the US
who are not breeding at replacement rates.
There is an excellent chance that Islam
will become the predominant religion
and become the majority in the US.
When that culture becomes the popular
culture, will you then defend the Supreme
Court making popular culture the standard
by which to make law?

Sweetie pie,
I have no problem with gay marriage,
my darling,
I have a problem with the Supreme Court
making a decision that makes
popular culture the standard by which
all decisions are legally make now.
I still feel, this should have been left
to the states, where a great deal of
headway was being made, and would
eventually have changed in all states,
in my opinion.

Now that popular culture is the guiding
force for laws and decisions by the Supreme Court,
we are entering a possibly dangerous
time since highly judgmental and totalitarianism
is becoming the guiding force of those you defend.

That my dear sweetie, is the problem I have with
the decision.

For me, sweetie pie,
gay marriage is not the issue,
and I defend it,
the issue is making law based on
the popular whims of the current culture.

I am not defending racism or homophobia,
I am defending the right of people to hold
private points of view
which disagree with popular culture.

Incorrect "private thought" is now deemed
criminal and worthy of hate mail and death threats
by those you are defending.

You my dear, are defending popular culture
as the standard by which everyone should
base laws and morality and the way "everyone" should live
and think. I highly disagree and find those you defend
to be going down a path of unintended consequences
that will be bad for everyone, my dearest.

The Supreme Court decides the validity of laws as it did when it said that laws regarding the ownership of black humans was indeed valid and binding. It ruled that blacks were property, chattel, etc.

Now we know the Supreme Court was wrong in that decision as it is in this one. And time will and should correct the error.

That homosexuals want to call what they have as a marriage is never going to exist as a marriage in the minds of most heterosexuals. It will still be offensive behavior and rejected rather than accepted.

The reason is that it is a behavior issue and nothing more. What will be next, three party marriages, animal-human marriages. or incest marriages? It is an open game now and we have begun to walk to the edge of the slippery slope.

The government said blacks were property, reality said they weren't.
The government said that homosexual partners are a marriage, again the reality is, it is not. It is a partnership and nothing more. Oh, they will have a piece of paper, and they will have ceremonies, and even eat cake. And the government will pretend and even give them benefits. But in the traditional sense it will mean little to nothing as homosexuals are less than 3 percent of the population. The only thing the Supreme Court decision did was embarrass the nation.

a reply to: Ceeker63

[X] [X] [X]

Thanks for playing.

The Federal Constitution is and has been the supreme law of the land:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

COTUS, Article 2, Clause 6

Wouldn't it be wonderful if those who want to tell us what the Constitution means had actually read it?

Has anyone considered why the LGBTQ lobby isn't going after the whole "identity" thing?

Maybe they should be targeting the entire big government system of classification.

I heard somebody saying this.....

An example would be the gender classification:

Why even have a male-female class on government documents in the first place?

Does anybody know where the big government legal classifications originated?

Another example was about the legal classification of marriage....

If people want religious recognition, why even have a government legal classification?

Religions have outlasted all governments anyway.

Where did the government legal classification of marriage originate.

I don't know the answers.

a reply to: Fromabove

The facts do not agree with your postulates.

There are more Americans now (55-60%) who agree with marriage equality than at any other time.

That trend will continue.

Your antiquated views on your fellow citizens notwithstanding.

Dred Scott was reversed because it enshrined inequity; it was reversed because Americans stood up for themselves.

Marriage equality has been established because Americans stood up for themselves.

Gay Americans are citizens and now have the same rights and privileges as other Americans.

Your bitter opinion is in the diminishing minority; enjoy your fantasies of inequity while they last.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Homosexuals never lost the right to be homosexual. No one will stop two men from having sex. No one will stop two women from having sex.

What the Supremes did was to open Pandora's box of feelings and desires so that now how I feel and what I desire can be rights under the Constitution.

The result is that now a father and daughter will petition the Court for rights.

A man and his animal will want rights as well.

Three, four, and perhaps ten people marriages will be the next petition.

Perhaps old people marrying infants will be demanded if the little girl can want it.


So, the Supreme Court went over the cliff, lost all credibility and respect, and by it's own merit lifted feelings to a protected class and institution. How sad for us all.

a reply to: Seamrog

You know, the God I know and worship, and the God that knows and cares for me, is a God of LOVE. Perhaps I could introduce my God of Love to your "god of wrath" - maybe he can learn a thing or two...




But I digress. I'm so glad the US lawmakers finally decided to join us in the 21st century of equality.

a reply to: Fromabove

How are we now an embarrassment?

Most of our allies are ahead of us on this measure, and I don't mind being an embarrassment to Russia or the backwards middle east.

In the land of freedom and from the party of small government we were telling poeple who they can marry...
Mental gymnastics for sure.

originally posted by: Fromabove
...
A man and his animal will want rights as well.
...
How sad for us all.

No. The sad thing is how you jumped from two consenting adults allowed to being married, to a man marrying a goat...

Father marry his daughter?

1. Homosexuality and incest are not the same thing. Not even close.
Incest is an attraction to a single person, i.e. a niece, a sister, an uncle. It doesn't necessarily mean it will last for ever, nor does it mean that if a person has a sexual/romantic attraction to a family member, that he/she will be sexually attracted to all family members for the rest of their life.
Homosexuality is an orientation. You will always be homosexual, i.e. always be attracted to a specific gender.

When an incestuous "relationship" ends, the parties involved doesn't move on to the next family members. I.e. their dating pool doesn't consist just out of family members.
When a homosexual relationship ends, the parties involved will keep dating members of the same gender. I.e. their dating pool consists of members of the same gender that are also attracted to the same gender.

Let's pretend that homosexuality and incest are both apples and we can compare them:
2. Genetic problems - already covered by previous posts.

3. "Family values". The anti-gay movement hammers on and on about "family values" when it comes to homosexuality. While there is no proof that a same-sex marriage causes damage to a family, there is undeniable issues that will arise if incestrial marriages were lawful. Incest disrupts normal relationships between child and sibling, or child and parent. Fullstop.

4. Percentages:
- Between 1% and 4% of the population is known to be gay, but it may be as high as 10%. They are born that way and there's no changing that.

- Incest: Here it gets a bit complicated because the statistics come from two directions.
Sexual abuse:

... in adult retrospective surveys, victims of abuse indicate that no more than 10% to 30% of offenders were strangers, with the remainder being either family members or acquaintances.
Source
A 2006–2007 Idaho study of 430 cases found that 82% of juvenile sex offenders were known to the victims (acquaintances 46% or relatives 36%).
Source

One study of adult women in San Francisco estimated that 17% of women were abused by stepfathers and 2% were abused by biological fathers. Source

In other words a child is more likely to be sexually abused by a family member, than a stranger. And any sexual interaction between family members are considered incest. That is to say incest does not always happen between two consenting adults. Do you really want to make that legal?

...heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1...
Source

Yes, 90% of all pedophiles identify as "heterosexual".

So, if you do your calculations you'll find that homosexuality does not equate to pedophilia (as is the popular believe). There is a much, much higher relation between incest and pedophilia. Incest does equate to pedophilia.

The TLDR version: Many, if not most, incest relationships are the result of sexual abuse.

Do you really want to open that door? Really?

5. I'm not even going to touch the topic from a religious angle, seeing that the (Old Testament) Bible is much more open to incest than it is to homosexuality... And polygamy is actually pretty much suggested by the Bible...

To sum up:
Don't compare apples with bananas. And leave the goats outside please.

Or perhaps, you could be happy for someone else, just for a single day, and then you can go back fearing how your neighbor is going to marry a rosebush, and what a big influence that is going to have on your life...

a reply to: Fromabove

The tiny smidgen of hope I had for a productive conversation with you just evaporated:

1. No one has made any claims about the "rights" to be homosexual or green-eyed, left-handed, tall, short ... or any other physical characteristic.

2. Your own fantasies about incest, bestiality and child molestation say more about you than your opinions on this issue.

3. Aside from the legal complexity, there is no reason not to allow plural marriage, so long as all members are cognizant and consenting adults.

Enjoy shaking your fetishes and rattling your bones; the rest of us are moving into the future.

Best.