Same Sex Marriage Thread-Part 2

[Irvine511]

actually, i was all like this:

 

[BEAL]

How many people were lined up to marry their goats?

How many were lined up to marry their brothers?

Surely Fox News has these stats somewhere, right?

My coworker would be one of those that believes we're on this route. Because SSM is a vile, disgusting act, what is to stop us from marrying our brother or cat?

It's not even worth talking to people like this anymore. As with any religious/god debate, their answers always change. In this case, the argument of consent is now being thrown out.

The next law to change regarding marriage is that of consent or incest with allowing SSM.

Scary days are ahead of us indeed!!! haha

Happy for those in the new states that allow SSM

 

[corianderstem]

actually, i was all like this:

That is frickin' glorious. Well done.

 

[redhotswami]

i teared up. i admit it.

this one is lovely too:

18 Joyful Declarations Of Love From Newlyweds In Seattle

I like the 2 Legit 2 Quit shirts.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

you guys are way off base with this whole marrying goats and cats thing.









pot's legal now. i bet people are marrying joints and bongs now. duuuuuh.

 

[digitize]

I'm expecting a 4000 foot tall tsunami to spontaneously arise in Puget Sound and take out Seattle any day now

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I literally was just going to post in here with a question for you, Alicia.

I was just concerned for your safety, given the calamitous events that have surely befallen your fine state the last 24 hours. What plague are you on? Fires? Locusts?

Yeah, BEAL, I've heard a few people saying the same thing. Just bitter losers talking-their time of trying to control people's lives is ending and they just don't know how to handle it.

I loved those links. Couples together for 20 plus years, people tearing up at being able to marry their loved ones, children happy to see their parents happy and able to marry their loved ones, families showing up for support. military people able to participate in a freedom/right that they fought for...

Yeah. What a truly horrible, evil, doomsday setting in those pictures, right, anti-gay marriage people? If people look at those pictures and feel angry or scared instead of happy for those couples, I have to conclude they have black, cold spaces where their hearts should be.

Congratulations to the people of Washington state who've been married thus far! Very happy for all of them, may they have many wonderful years together! Also, I heard stories about...West Point, I believe, conducting its first same-sex marriage ceremony recently, so yay for that, too.

 

[corianderstem]

I'm expecting a 4000 foot tall tsunami to spontaneously arise in Puget Sound and take out Seattle any day now

At least we'll be able to toke up on our way out.

 

[BoMac]

18 Joyful Declarations Of Love From Newlyweds In Seattle

Clearly, those people are out to destroy society as we know it.

 

[deep]

Every gay American's best friend

 

[Irvine511]

What a vile human being.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Geez, he just screams "unpleasant" based on his looks alone, doesn't he?

 

[Irvine511]

He compared "sodomy" to murder recently.

As in, if you can't object to "sodomy" than how can you object to murder? Will all morality itself collapse if the gays get married?

http://mobile.slate.com/blogs/xx_fa..._sodomy_to_murder_why_because_he_says_so.html

He seems to think so.

My guess: Roberts and Kennedy go with the liberals on this one, deciding that the states decide and that federal benefits must be extended to couples married.

SCOTUS doesn't want another Roe, but they see the polls and they know that homophobes are literally dying ('cause they are old) and Roberts is going to be around for a long, long time, and he wants to get this one right.

 

[deep]

I do think that Scalia did gay rights a huge favor.

Who would want to share an opinion with him. Clarence Thomas, ok,
Will Alito want to go with him, too?

I also think Roberts, will join with Kennedy and the rest.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

He compared "sodomy" to murder recently.

As in, if you can't object to "sodomy" than how can you object to murder? Will all morality itself collapse if the gays get married?

Scalia compares sodomy to murder: Why? Because he says so.

He seems to think so.

Well, Scalia, let's see, on this end we have a couple that's madly in love and wants to be married and live a happy, quiet life together. On the other end we have someone who wants to, say, stab someone to death and hack up their body, robbing their family of a loved one for all eternity and making life miserable for everyone.

Yeah. I can easily see where the two are so comparable, sure. Fucking dumbass.

My guess: Roberts and Kennedy go with the liberals on this one, deciding that the states decide and that federal benefits must be extended to couples married.

SCOTUS doesn't want another Roe, but they see the polls and they know that homophobes are literally dying ('cause they are old) and Roberts is going to be around for a long, long time, and he wants to get this one right.

Yeah, I think the second part of your post in particular is absolutely right. I'd like to think they vote for it simply because it's the right thing to do and not because of polls, but eh, that's politics for you, and so whatever their reason, if they vote in favor of rights for gay couples that's the most important thing. Here's hoping.

 

[anitram]

SCOTUS doesn't want another Roe, but they see the polls and they know that homophobes are literally dying ('cause they are old) and Roberts is going to be around for a long, long time, and he wants to get this one right.

You really do get the sense with Roberts that he is about legacy. He'd love to have a Warren-type court to leave behind. No way does he get on the wrong side of the law and history here. I would be very shocked if this wasn't in the bag. At that point you don't even need Kennedy, though he'll probably give in because it's the easier of the two decisions and he's not exactly shown himself to stand by the courage of his convictions.

I don't trust Alito as far as I can spit. Worst appointment to the court in a long time, particularly when you take into account his age.

 

[deep]

I have no reason to believe Alito will not stay in the stone age, except I am thinking his age and middling intellect may cause him to not want to go down in history as such a bigoted ass hat.


before June 2013, we will have more of this,

Britain's Conservatives to propose legalizing same-sex marriage

By Henry Chu

10:00 AM PST, December 11, 2012
Advertisement

LONDON – Championing a cause eschewed by fellow conservatives elsewhere, the British government said Tuesday it will sponsor a bill to allow same-sex couples to marry, including in churches, synagogues and mosques that look favorably on such unions.

Religious organizations against the idea would be legally protected from having to wed gays and lesbians, and the Church of England, as the nation’s established church, would specifically be barred. But civil marriage would be available to all couples under the new proposal.

“For some, this is contentious, a radical reform or, indeed, a reform too far,” said Maria Miller, the Conservative Party government minister who unveiled the plan in Parliament. “But the historical facts show that, over the generations, marriage has had a long history of evolution. ... For me, extending marriage to same-sex couples will strengthen, not weaken, this vital institution.”

The bill is likely to be introduced next month and voted on sometime later in the new year. Although church groups and some lawmakers have spoken out vehemently against opening up marriage to same-sex couples, polls show that a majority of Britons support the idea, and the legislation is almost certain to pass.

If so, Britain would become the latest European country to give gay and lesbian residents the right to get hitched. Marriage for same-sex couples is already possible in the Netherlands and Denmark, as well as in the predominantly Roman Catholic nations of Spain and Portugal. Lawmakers in France are expected to approve a bill authorizing gay marriage in the coming months.

The proposal in Britain is unusual because the sponsoring government lies on the right of the political spectrum. Supporters of marriage equality were delighted last year when Prime Minister David Cameron declared at a party conference: “I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I’m a Conservative.”

That stance, however, is far from universal within his party. On this issue, the most vociferous dissent in Parliament is not coming from the opposition Labor Party or the junior governing party, the Liberal Democrats, both of which are expected to back the bill overwhelmingly, but from Cameron’s own Conservative backbenchers.

“These proposals are a constitutional outrage and disgrace,” thundered one Tory member of Parliament, Stewart Jackson. “There is no electoral mandate for these policies.”

Other Conservatives accused Cameron and Miller of arrogance, religious intolerance and something close to sacrilege in pressing ahead with marriage equality for same-sex couples.

As many as 100 Tory lawmakers in the 650-seat House of Commons, including members of Cameron’s own Cabinet, could vote against the measure. But there are also senior party figures in Cameron’s corner, including former Prime Minister John Major.

To try to assuage the fears of some religious organizations, Miller said the bill would contain a “quadruple lock” of safeguards to guarantee that no religious groups would be compelled to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies against their will.

For example, only a religious institution’s overall governing body would be able to decide whether the organization will “opt in” on marrying gay couples. If it decides not to, individual ministers within that group could not take it upon themselves to perform such ceremonies.

More controversially, the bill will explicitly forbid same-sex marriages in the Church of England because of its special status as the established church. Even if its leaders decide in the future to change canon law to allow same-sex marriage, Parliament will have to ratify the move.

“We need to be fair to same-sex couples. The state should not be banning them from such a great institution” as marriage, Miller told the House of Commons. “Equally we need to be fair to people of faith.”

Religious groups in favor of conducting same-sex weddings include the Quakers and some liberal Jewish synagogues.

Currently, gay and lesbian couples can enter into “civil partnerships” in Britain that carry virtually all the same rights as marriage. About 50,000 partnerships have been registered since 2005.

Under the new proposal, a couple in such an arrangement would have the opportunity to swap their civil partnership for marriage. Civil partnerships would continue to be offered but for same-sex couples only; the government has no plans to make those available for opposite-sex couples because the demand is not there, Miller said.

 

[Irvine511]

Uruguay, too.

Uruguay's Gay Marriage Law Approved By Lower House

Uruguay, guys. Urugay.

 

[corianderstem]

I choked up scrolling through my friend's pictures from her City Hall experience. Just wonderful. They really did a nice job arranging this.

 

[deep]

if this court vote goes down 5-4 > dark ages

think of the advantage writing the descents will have over writing the majority opinion
can any of these people not think of history and their legacy, they will be used as examples in classrooms for centuries

 

[Irvine511]

think of the advantage writing the descents will have over writing the majority opinion

descents into SIN, maybe.

 

[deep]

ok, dissents

I blmae that on cell phone posting

 

[Irvine511]

i was making a funny.

 

[deep]

i guess I''m a little sensitive

i'm semi-literate (razed by wolves)

 

[martha]

bigoted ass hat.

Love this phrase. It made me chuckle.

i guess I''m a little sensitive

i'm semi-literate (razed by wolves)

I'd rather be razed by a bulldozer, myself. Quicker.

 

[Irvine511]

everyone and everything evolves, no matter how reptilian.

Newt Gingrich Supports “Reality” Of State-Sanctioned Marriage Equality

Posted Dec 20, 2012 12:17pm EST

WASHINGTON — Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said he can accept the "reality" of marriage between same-sex couples as a "legal document issued by the state" — as strong a sign as any that the landscape for marriage equality has changed dramatically in the past year.

"The momentum is clearly now in the direction in finding some way to ... accommodate and deal with reality. And the reality is going to be that in a number of American states -- and it will be more after 2014 -- gay relationships will be legal, period," Gingrich told The Huffington Post in a story published on Thursday.

Gingrich "continued to profess a belief that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman," Sam Stein and Jon Ward report, but "suggested that the party (and he himself) could accept a distinction between a 'marriage in a church from a legal document issued by the state' -- the latter being acceptable."

Of the change, though, Gingrich said, "I think that this will be much more difficult than immigration for conservatism to come to grips with."

The move from the former House speaker comes a month after voters in Washington, Maryland and Maine voted in favor of marriage equality ballot measures and after voters elected a record number of out LGBT politicians to Congress, including the first out LGBT senator in Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin.

Regarding the time when Gingrich served as House speaker and the Defense of Marriage Act, now before the Supreme Court, was put up for debate, he said, "I didn't think that was inevitable 10 or 15 years ago, when we passed the Defense of Marriage Act. It didn't seem at the time to be anything like as big a wave of change as we are now seeing."

Several others involved in the 1996 law's passage — including Rep. Bob Barr, who sponsored the legislation, and President Clinton, who signed it into law — have since said that they now oppose DOMA and support marriage equality.

In the interview, Gingrich acknowledged his half-sister, Candace Gingrich-Jones, who works at the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest LGBT political group. Stein and Ward report that Gingrich said he has gay friends who've gotten married in Iowa.

HRC's president, Chad Griffin called the move remarkable.

"Newt Gingrich has proven that leaders in the Republican party understand where the country is moving on marriage but he is also brave enough to say it out loud," Griffin told BuzzFeed. "It’s remarkable that Gingrich admits he didn’t see the coming power of the LGBT community and our allies back in 1996 but now understands the wave of change that’s sweeping over the nation."

As the Supreme Court considers whether DOMA's federal definition limiting "marriage" to one man and one woman is constitutional, Griffin noted of Gingrich's changed view, "His comments give room for other Republican leaders to reflect on the direction in which the country is heading and get on the right side of history."

Robert Raben, a lobbyist who was Democratic counsel for the House subcommittee that considered DOMA in 1996, had only one word in response to Gingrich's comments: "Wow."

A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, who is leading the defense of DOMA before the Supreme Court, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Newt Gingrich Supports "Reality" Of State-Sanctioned Marriage Equality

 

[martha]

"Wow" is right.

This has to be a sign of the end times.

 

[BoMac]

Stop what you're doing and read and watch this:

Embracing our gay children: a life and death matter

 

[BoMac]

Canada's a few hours away from having its first openly gay provincial premier. Looks like Kathleen Wynne will be the new premier of Ontario.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

salon.com

Gay marriage opponents are using the plot of “Knocked Up” in their defense of California’s Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Seriously.

In his brief for the defense on why the law should only recognize marriages between opposite-sex couples, Paul D. Clement, a solicitor general under George W. Bush, wrote that traditional marriage laws “reflect a unique social difficulty with opposite-sex couples that is not present with same-sex couples — namely, the undeniable and distinct tendency of opposite-sex relationships to produce unplanned and unintended pregnancies … Unintended children produced by opposite-sex relationships and raised out-of-wedlock would pose a burden on society.”

In summation: Gays require “substantial advance planning” to have kids and don’t suffer the same “threat of irresponsible procreation” as prophylactically challenged straights. Ipso facto, they don’t need equal access to a legal contract that carries close to 1,049 statutory provisions, including tax breaks, disability benefits and joint parenting rights.

This isn’t the first time the state’s “interest in the family tradition“ has been used to argue against gay marriage, just the most recent. (And maybe the only to identify the “threat” of irresponsible procreation.)

And while the high court prepares to hear the case, it remains unclear when exactly Clement will seek the annulment of 1.5 million infertile marriages in the United States. You know, the other people who don’t accidentally get pregnant.

Because undoing all those “unnecessary” marriages is going to take a lot of paperwork. He should probably get started.