It's good day to be gay . . .

Mr. Deez

Mr. Deez

Beer Prophet
On a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down the gay marriage bans. Most people saw this coming, but what might be more noteworthy is that they applied the due process clause. The reason why that matters is that it's going to be tough to avoid striking down bans on polygamy without getting pretty arbitrary.

The next 20 years of family law will be a wild ride.
 
“In the late 20th century, following substantial cultural and political developments, same-sex couples began to lead more open and public lives and to establish families. This development was followed by a quite extensive discussion of the issue in both governmental and private sectors and by a shift in public attitudes toward greater tolerance.”
Click to expand...

This is from the majority opinion. The next 20 years of constitutional law in which the supreme court determines our constitutional rights by interpreting shifts public attitudes (a far more effective system than voting) should be a wild ride indeed.
 
What an interesting, some might say 'screwed up, SCOTUS we have. Maybe it's reflective of our times. Things are going to be quite interesting going forward, wording in laws do not really matter and 'love' whomever, or maybe whatever - time will tell.
 
I believe the gray area within how the words in laws can be interpreted as to meaning and context can either be constrained or expanded as rulings take place. The way the CACA, centralized affordable care act, has been just recently interpreted seems to be expanding how the words of any current or future law can be interpreted as to meaning and context.

That is how the CACA happens though.
 
I personally disagree with same-sex marriage on religious sacrament grounds...meaning I respect others with different religious views. I'm no lawyer, but the marriage laws as they existed were discrimnatory towards folks who wanted a same-sex relationship. So, while I think this system is still a cluster, it's less of a cluster than it was before.

However single people, gay or straight, still are getting f£%#*d (no pun intended) susidizing married/divorce couples.
 
This SCOTUS ruling reflects how rapidly our society is falling apart. The institution of traditional marriage that's existed since the dawn of recorded human history is being recklessly overthrown along with most other aspects of traditional American culture. In fact, we now have two irreconcilable cultures.

This is a watershed moment in our history and I believe it will contribute to the eventual breakup of the U.S. Maybe not for many years or decades, but one day, and quicker than most would think. History consistently shows that countries and societies don't survive when they reached a tipping point on the scale of cultural disunity and acrimony.
 
Agree 1982! I think we have proceeded beyond the 'slippery' slope stage. I am not homophobic, nor do I hate gays but I feel marriage is sacred between man and woman. I could accept civil union or whatever term worked with equal rights but, as silly as it sounds was opposed to the same sex marriage for the simple reasons of natural law. Doesn't matter now though, SCOTUS trumps all.

And sorry Chango, grammer probably matters more than the actual words, ........ for sure.
 
Today, Roberts said; "Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority's approach is deeply disheartening.". He went on to tell people not to celebrate the Constitution because it had nothing to do with this decision and then excoriated the "five lawyers" who took the law into their own hands. For once, I agreed with Roberts.
 
Doesn't matter now though, SCOTUS trumps all.
Click to expand...

Even the Constitution.... at least we got to vote on the justices..... oh wait.

We as Americans could vote on our fundamental rights like the founding fathers did with the bill of rights... or many generations did after with constitutional amendments. ALTERNATIVELY, we can let out fundamental rights be determined by 9 people, unrepresentative of the population, that are picked by partisan presidents every time one dies. I am sure an all conservative or all liberal supreme court making up our constitution on their own personal opinions would not lead to any disunity issues. We can trust them to interpret public opinion better than through democracy.... right?
 
Last edited:
1982 Horn said:
The institution of traditional marriage that's existed since the dawn of recorded human history is being recklessly overthrown along with most other aspects of traditional American culture.
Click to expand...
I don't have a dog in this fight, but what's so compelling about "tradition" in this case? Just because something has been around a long time doesn't make it sacrosanct.

My marriage is in no way threatened or devalued if same-sex marriages are recognized. I don't understand the grievance here.
 
I think SC Justices are not to interpret public opinion, they are to interpret the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Well someone ought to let them know.

Many posters here are arguing about gay marriage. Many will continue to do so in this thread. In a democratic system we would argue and vote. Your arguments about this OR ANY OTHER LIBERTIES are meaningless. What happened here today was the supreme court decided that our fundamental liberties will not ultimately be decided by the people through debate and voting, like the Bill of Rights or the constitutional amendments such as giving women the right to vote were decided. They will be decided by the Supreme Court. Stop debating gay marriage. It's not your place, it's the supreme court's place to decide and the supreme court's place alone now.
 
Last edited:
Driver 8,

Responding to your post above, tradition is compelling here due to both moral and pragmatic considerations.

Morally, America's major religions traditionally define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. My religion does so, and I adhere to this theological doctrine as a matter of moral faith. Of course there are many moral people who aren't religious, but it's safe to say that most ideas of conventional morality upon which American culture is based have underpinnings in religious teachings going back hundreds of years at a minimum.

Moreover, regarding your question of whether these traditions are "sacrosanct" just because they've been around a "long time," I'm not talking about goofy Aggie "traditions" no older than a few decades. Rather, this involves venerated religious traditions that have withstood the test of the past 2,000 years, not to mention the man-woman definition of marriage that is many thousands of years old -- even if today's major religions are not taken into consideration. I believe this encapsulates the very essence of sacrosanctity (if that's a word).

As to pragmatism, traditional mixed sex marriage reproduces our population and same sex marriage simply doesn't. Additionally, one effect of this ruling is to stigmatize everyone who adheres to the traditional definition of marriage as a bigot with all the expected consequential severe problems in dealing with government, employers, and society in general. And on top of that, this ruling now makes their conventional beliefs unconstitutional -- a majority of Americans in approximately 30 states!
 
1982 Horn said:
Morally, America's major religions traditionally define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...
Not everyone embraces those religious views, nor are they compelled to. So the faith-based position belongs in the private sphere, not the public. I don't have an argument against the religious view, I just think it needs to be recognized for what it is and addressed separately. Civil and religious "marriage" are two different things that are complicated by sharing the same name, I think.

Marriage, in the legal/civil sense, is a contract between individuals. Religious ceremonies to acknowledge or sanctify the union before God and community are fine, but that doesn't address things like child custody, tax law, health care, inheritance, and other such civil matters. So why deny those legal rights to others just because some don't approve of the lifestyle?
 
1982 Horn said:
Moreover, regarding your question of whether these traditions are "sacrosanct" just because they've been around a "long time," I'm not talking about goofy Aggie "traditions" no older than a few decades. Rather, this involves venerated religious traditions that have withstood the test of the past 2,000 years, not to mention the man-woman definition of marriage that is many thousands of years old -- even if today's major religions are not taken into consideration. I believe this encapsulates the very essence of sacrosanctity (if that's a word).
Click to expand...

Marriage as an institution has evolved tremendously over the past 2000 years. Defending it as rigid and sacrosanct is untenable. There are good arguments out there, but that isn't one of them.
 
1982 Horn said:
This SCOTUS ruling reflects how rapidly our society is falling apart. The institution of traditional marriage that's existed since the dawn of recorded human history is being recklessly overthrown along with most other aspects of traditional American culture. In fact, we now have two irreconcilable cultures.

This is a watershed moment in our history and I believe it will contribute to the eventual breakup of the U.S. Maybe not for many years or decades, but one day, and quicker than most would think. History consistently shows that countries and societies don't survive when they reached a tipping point on the scale of cultural disunity and acrimony.
Click to expand...

Omg, get a grip. Before this ruling, gays formed relationships, lived together, had sex, raised kids (using artificial insemination, surrogacy, or adoption), separated sometimes, etc. The only thing that changed today is that now gays can be married and enjoy the rights that go along with that. That's a major change for them but pretty ho-hum for you and me.
 
1982 Horn said:
Morally, America's major religions traditionally define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. My religion does so, and I adhere to this theological doctrine as a matter of moral faith.
Click to expand...
Right, 82, and how is the divorce/remarrigae rate in your religion? How many marriages in your religion remain faithful? This argument doesn't ring very true when people like Rush "Four Marriages" Limbaugh are the standard bearers.
 
So from a legal perspective, does the ruling mean that all consenting adults must be granted marriage licenses? Just curious. Seems like the ruling means opens the door for polygamy etc. Not sure how the state could ban any marriage given this ruling. Love to hear a lawyer's view.
 
Had to laugh at request for "lawyers view". That should clear things up.
But I know what you meant.
 
1982 Horn said:
This SCOTUS ruling reflects how rapidly our society is falling apart.
Click to expand...

Said some guy in 1954 after Brown v. Board, and another in 1973 after Roe v. Wade.

I'd argue that today's ruling doesn't change the world as much as the other two rulings, either. Probably way less.

As to the polygamy standpoint, everyone's probably correct that it's opening a can of worms regarding the legal marriages to multiple people. But as long as the Bible seems to be the standard for justice in terms for the traditionalists, there's polygamy in there too, so why not? Who's it harming?
 
As long as they are consenting adults, what about siblings? A parent and child? Seems like a very slippery slope to me.
 
The Supreme Court said today that it is CLEAR the Constitution and 14th Amendment grant equal marriage rights to same-sex couples but not to polygamists or siblings... because of made up fundamental rights and stuff. The Supreme Court said today they are above the Constitution. The opened the door to do whatever they want on anything until congress, the president or the people say they've had enough.

I am for the second amendment but I did not celebrate Heller, because Scalia simply did not follow the constitution and made up a right to self-defense. Today many celebrate this decision because they got the result they wanted paying no attention to the means. They seem to not realize that if the wrong partisan republican president is elected in 2016, the court can easily be turned around and start ignoring the Constitution to the left's disadvantage. Hell it's ridiculous what conservatives on the Court have already done to the 4th amendment.

Many say "but they expanded rights, how can that ever be bad?" Well in 1905 in a case called Lochner, the Court made up a "right to contract freely" and used it to invalidate workers' rights (legal protections and later rights to organize). We also had the Court make up a right to abortion in Roe v. Wade that created disunity and an issue that never seems to go away.

It would be really nice if this aggressive court would at least do something productive and f***ing enforce the anti-trust laws. The Court is letting businesses in this country grossly violate anti-trust laws unchecked to the detriment of society and the consumer.
 
Last edited:
1982 Horn said:
This SCOTUS ruling reflects how rapidly our society is falling apart. The institution of traditional marriage that's existed since the dawn of recorded human history is being recklessly overthrown along with most other aspects of traditional American culture. In fact, we now have two irreconcilable cultures.

This is a watershed moment in our history and I believe it will contribute to the eventual breakup of the U.S. Maybe not for many years or decades, but one day, and quicker than most would think. History consistently shows that countries and societies don't survive when they reached a tipping point on the scale of cultural disunity and acrimony.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. I am seriously concerned about the society my grandchildren will inherit.
 
Htown77 said:
The Supreme Court said today that it is CLEAR the Constitution and 14th Amendment grant equal marriage rights to same-sex couples but not to polygamists or siblings... because of made up fundamental rights and stuff. The Supreme Court said today they are above the Constitution. The opened the door to do whatever they want on anything until congress, the president or the people say they've had enough.

I am for the second amendment but I did not celebrate Heller, because Scalia simply did not follow the constitution and made up a right to self-defense. Today many celebrate this decision because they got the result they wanted paying no attention to the means. They seem to not realize that if the wrong partisan republican president is elected in 2016, the court can easily be turned around and start ignoring the Constitution to the left's disadvantage. Hell it's ridiculous what conservatives on the Court have already done to the 4th amendment.

Many say "but they expanded rights, how can that ever be bad?" Well in 1905 in a case called Lochner, the Court made up a "right to contract freely" and used it to invalidate workers' rights (legal protections and later rights to organize). We also had the Court make up a right to abortion in Roe v. Wade that created disunity and an issue that never seems to go away.

It would be really nice if this aggressive court would at least do something productive and f***ing enforce the anti-trust laws. The Court is letting businesses in this country grossly violate anti-trust laws unchecked to the detriment of society and the consumer.
Click to expand...

All the Supreme Court did today was correctly interpret the Constitution. How did this take so long?
 
Mr. Deez said:
On a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down the gay marriage bans. Most people saw this coming, but what might be more noteworthy is that they applied the due process clause. The reason why that matters is that it's going to be tough to avoid striking down bans on polygamy without getting pretty arbitrary.

The next 20 years of family law will be a wild ride.
Click to expand...
Read the ruling. It was exceedingly explicit.
I'm just shocked that it's taken until 2015 to give gays their rights.
 
56 Bells said:
Read the ruling. It was exceedingly explicit.
I'm just shocked that it's taken until 2015 to give gays their rights.
Click to expand...

I read it. What exactly are you taking issue with?

And you definitely shouldn't be shocked. Homosexuality had mostly been viewed as a moral issue, and until about 15 years ago gays were viewed mostly as sexual perverts that so-called normal people didn't trust near their children. You should be shocked at how fast they got their rights. Blacks had to wait a hell of a lot longer with a much stronger of a case.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top