Same Sex Marriage Thread - Part III

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Quoting Scalia again in his brilliant dissent:
Ahahahahahaha.

Scalia's position seems to be that the people should vote on everything and the Supreme Court should do nothing ... when he's dissenting. And if you take that position, you better vote against everything, otherwise you're just a hypocrite.
 
Scalia's dissent was horseshit.

Everyone agrees on this. It's already been eviscerated, and not just in this case but in Lawrence v Texas as well.
 
But why try and win a debate when it's so much easier to just ban any debate.


We've won the debate. To claim there hasn't been a debate is flat out wrong.

Have you read the transcripts from the Prop 8 trial? That was a debate. An incredibly lopsided debate where Olsen/Boies obliterated their feeble opposition, one that couldn't even find a single witness to testify that gay couples marrying would create any sort of harm. Not. A. Single. Witness.

You have had your day in court. And more. And neither the GOPnnor Maggie Gallagher nor the Mormon Church could offer anything other than animus.

But continue to ignore me.
 
First of all:

1) Racists
2) Anti-semites
3) Islamic jihadists
4) Focus on the Family

What ever happened to liberal nuance?

Second, your attitude doesn't bode well at all for a great many things.

1) It doesn't bode well for the First Amendment protection of Free Speech. Can we assume the days of a Fortune 500 company president questioning gay marriage i.e. Chick-fil-a, are now over? That no school board will be allowed to remove materials referencing SSM without sanction from state or federal education authorities? Will churches that teach that homosexuality is wrong lose their tax-exempt status? How soon can we expect new hate-speech laws?
2) It doesn't bode well for the First Amendment protect of the free exercise of religion. Will a small bakery that refuses to cater a same-sex wedding or a bed & breakfast refusing accommodations on religious grounds be allowed to do so without lawsuits, demonstrations or worse?
3) It doesn't bode well for the first Amendment freedom of assembly. Can we assume that soon membership in any private organization that does not recognize SSM will be akin to membership in the Ku Klux Klan? That charities failing to "evolve" on the issues risk losing their charitable status?



Oh, how awful. It seems that life for people who dont like SSM might become slightly less comfortable when SSM is legal in all 50 states.

How awful. So many terrible things could happen. Keep listing them.
 
It's important to distinguish between an ideology being a punching bag and people being punching bags. I have a distaste for religion in general. I like Christian people in general.

I wasn't thinking of your recent tirades against religion when I made that statement. My statement covers about 7, 8, 9 years of "acceptable target" hypocrisy from the 'tolerant' Left of FYM. And it's not just Christians and it's not just regarding Christians and homosexuality.

In fact, your religion thread (and some of the reaction to it) where you had a nice go at Islam is a PERFECT illustration of what I really mean. You were picking on a target that wasn't acceptable. You should have gone after Christians. Then it would have been very popular. THIS is all I'm saying.
 
The fact that there are many Americans who don't support SSM, despite that it will be increasingly legal in the future, is still an issue here - especially with business owners. There have already been cases where people who have beachfront property, own party halls and even wedding cake businesses, have refused same-sex couples who wanted to use their business for their weddings. This is leading, and will continue to lead to lawsuits. Obviously if you don't support SSM, well, don't have one. But if you run a wedding-oriented business, that's where the problems arise.

I'm curious as to what legally can be done about this issue. Also, can FYMers in other countries - Canada, the Netherlands, etc. - tell how this problem is resolved in their countries?
 
It's illegal to refuse your services to people on the basis of skin color or religion. Why should sexual orientation be any different.

That said, I'd rather not give such people my business rather than sue them to make a point.
 
INDY, AEON: I invite you to come and visit Canada, where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2005. The moral fabric has not collapsed, in fact it is a complete non-issue.
 
INDY, AEON: I invite you to come and visit Canada, where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2005. The moral fabric has not collapsed, in fact it is a complete non-issue.

And Massaschusetts, which has has SSM since 2003, remains the state with the lowest divorce rate, best schools, etc.
 
That approach won't work with INDY as I've tried it several times and he counters with stories from right-wing papers about how bigots are being prosecuted under Canada's hate speech laws now, so apparently gay marriage has resulted in us losing freedom (not that we had a lot of that to begin with, being socialists).
 
You should care. Given we have a process, a system, in place for self-government you should care, regardless of the ruling, about the court's usurpation of power.

My "WHO CARES?" was directed at your continued rantings on the matter, the continued insistence that there was no debate (hello??), and your continued inability to accept the tides of change and the fact that by the time you reach old age, this will be an issue for almost nobody.

It just doesn't matter anymore.
 
I'd say the Muslim form of religion has the most tremendous act of self sacrifice of them all. :wink: Funny that they're not metnioned.

Self-sacrifice/agape love is essentially putting the needs of others before your own. Blowing others into bits - including yourself - does not qualify as agape love.
 
A little off topic: I'm crap with names and mostly associate people with their avatars. You used to have the Obi Wan avatar, right? If so, I remember thinking you were cool beans. Either way, welcome back.

Thanks, Jive. Yeah - I had Obi Wan at one point. Maybe I will go back to him, The "current" avatar was my World of Warcraft Paladin. But I don't play that much anymore - so maybe I'll bring back Obi Wan.
 
Thanks, Jive. Yeah - I had Obi Wan at one point. Maybe I will go back to him, The "current" avatar was my World of Warcraft Paladin. But I don't play that much anymore - so maybe I'll bring back Obi Wan.

Not digging the pandas?
 
It's illegal to refuse your services to people on the basis of skin color or religion. Why should sexual orientation be any different.

This a million times. It is so obvious a point that honestly I cannot believe there is even a question about it.
 
INDY, AEON: I invite you to come and visit Canada, where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2005. The moral fabric has not collapsed, in fact it is a complete non-issue.

Well, as it happens I was on the Canadian side of Niagra Falls for a week earlier this month. Couldn't have had a better time but the price of food... jeez. With the $10 hamburgers and $17 glasses of wine I fugure we must have paid for the healthcare of at least one Canadian for 2013.

But I'd also like to praise your country for this:

‘Hate speech’ no longer part of Canada’s Human Rights Act | Canadian Politics | Canada | News | National Post

Hate speech no longer part of Canada’s Human Rights Act

A contentious section of Canadian human rights law, long criticized by free-speech advocates as overly restrictive and tantamount to censorship, is gone for good.

A private member’s bill repealing Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the so-called “hate speech provision,” passed in the Senate this week. Its passage means the part of Canadian human rights law that permitted rights complaints to the federal Human Rights Commission for “the communication of hate messages by telephone or on the Internet” will soon be history.

“(Section 13) had actually stopped being used as a shield, as I think it was intended, to protect civil liberties, and started being used as a sword against Canadians, and it’s because it was a poorly-written piece of legislation in the first place,” said conservative MP Brian Storseth .

Various human rights lawyers and groups such as the Canadian Bar Association say Section 13 is an important tool in helping to curb hate speech, and that removing it would lead to the proliferation of such speech on the Internet.

Pretty sure I remember Anitram defending this law.

Unfortunately in this country "various human rights lawyers," gay-rights zealots and others in the media and politics will be sharpening their censorship swords.
 
and the fact that by the time you reach old age, this will be an issue for almost nobody.

It just doesn't matter anymore.

Most likely because, if current trends continue, "almost nobody" will be marrying. A trend started well before SSM to be sure but only exacerbated by this ruluing IMO.

But to my main point. A marriage law can't be constructed devoid of definitions or standards can it?

So who’s up to the task in your opinion because Justice Kennedy and the 4 liberals think Congress and the president aren't so they threw out their definition of marriage and Prop 8 is gone because We The People of California cannot be trusted either. Just the courts should make these decisions for us you see.

Is that the opinion of FYM as well?
 
The courts are designed to protect the civil rights of a minority, even if the majority votes to take those rights away.

We are all equal under the law, INDY, and even in the eyes of god, no matter how much this upsets you.

Off to the dustbin of history with you.
 
Most likely because, if current trends continue, "almost nobody" will be marrying.

True.

For example, a gay couple who will be attending my wedding in August is now going ahead with their own wedding, in the US, in September.

This has upset me and my heterosexual fiance so much and has cheapened our own union to such a degree that we have no choice but cancel our own wedding. What's the point anymore?
 
Pretty sure I remember Anitram defending this law.

Two things.

First, pretty sure I neither defended nor praised this law, but explained to you that our constitutional law operates in a different manner than yours and that therefore it was permissible to have this law as under s.1 of our Charter, you could justify the curtailment of rights.

Second, you are quoting a Conservative Senator's opinion on the law and taking that as fact. It's as if I quoted a Republican on why it's necessary to have mandatory ultrasounds for women and then state that as a fact.
 
People who wait to get married -- until they are ilder, more financially secure, have player the field, are established in their careers, and likely have lived together -- are much more likely to stay together for life.

They also tend to live in blue states.
 
Open question:

What now is the definition of marriage for federal purposes?

How many of you know that besides SSM couples, "Under provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, a person who is legally separated from his spouse, but not yet divorced, is treated as unmarried, as is a person whose spouse is a nonresident alien. Likewise, under the immigration laws, a marriage entered into for the purpose of gaining an immigrant's admission will be disregarded even though that marriage remains valid under state law."
--Ethics and Public Policy Center

Is “injury and indignity” brought on those couple also as Justice Kennedy said about SSM couple? If we withhold federal benefits from polygamists immigrating to America and legally married in other counties is that solely a “bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group”?
 
People who wait to get married -- until they are ilder, more financially secure, have player the field, are established in their careers, and likely have lived together -- are much more likely to stay together for life.

They also tend to live in blue states.

This is a really good point. The religious right has really perverted statistics of divorce to suggest that individuals who live together before marriage have higher probability of divorce. When you unpack the data, the following is actually true:

1. The lowest rate of divorce is seen among couples who lived together, but only lived with each other and no other partners before marrying.
2. The highest rate of divorce is with "repeat offenders" who lived together with multiple partners before marrying.
3. The individuals who are religious and do not believe in living together before marriage bias the data because they are also least likely to believe in divorce, which is to say nothing of the quality of marriage that they may have.
 
Open question:

What now is the definition of marriage for federal purposes?

How many of you know that besides SSM couples, "Under provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, a person who is legally separated from his spouse, but not yet divorced, is treated as unmarried, as is a person whose spouse is a nonresident alien. Likewise, under the immigration laws, a marriage entered into for the purpose of gaining an immigrant's admission will be disregarded even though that marriage remains valid under state law."
--Ethics and Public Policy Center

Is “injury and indignity” brought on those couple also as Justice Kennedy said about SSM couple? If we withhold federal benefits from polygamists immigrating to America and legally married in other counties is that solely a “bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group”?


Polygamy is against the law (religious freedom be damned!). Being gay isn't.

Next?
 
The courts are designed to protect the civil rights of a minority, even if the majority votes to take those rights away.

And every desire, want or petition can be couched as “a right” correct?

We are all equal under the law, INDY, and even in the eyes of god, no matter how much this upsets you.

And where was "equal protection" for the citizens of CA in front of the Supreme Court. They had no standing and CA officials refused to defend their own constitution. But you got what you wanted so let's not think about such things.
Off to the dustbin of history with you.

Thank you but I have other arrangements for my final destination.
 
The civil rights movement -- indeed, the end of slavary itself -- showed marriage to be a right.

Don't denigrate me. My reasons for getting married are likely no different from your own. How would you feel if you were denied them?
 
How many of you know that besides SSM couples, "Under provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, a person who is legally separated from his spouse, but not yet divorced, is treated as unmarried, as is a person whose spouse is a nonresident alien. Likewise, under the immigration laws, a marriage entered into for the purpose of gaining an immigrant's admission will be disregarded even though that marriage remains valid under state law."
--Ethics and Public Policy Center

There are RATIONAL reasons for why this is the case in each of the above examples.

None exist in SSM. No, religious reasoning and concern trolling about falling rates of marriage (which were falling long before those gays decided they wanted equal rights), polygamy, marrying goats, etc. are not rational reasons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom