Same Sex Marriage Thread - Part III

[AEON]

Originally Posted by BVS

AEON, NBC, and DOMA being overturned all in one week?

Is this a sign of the end?

molecular manufacturing will be the sign you are looking for

[u2popmofo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErnleiIuUig

[martha]

YES.


fcl

[Pearl]

This is an important read!

10 Ways The DOMA Repeal Will Affect 'Traditional Marriage' (PHOTOS)

 

[INDY500]

Wow, great to see some old friends back in FYM. I hope God has smiled on you these past few years.

Re: DOMA.

Some of us long ago realized that government benefits accorded couples had to be given to all couples which is why we recognized the need for civil unions. So I have no problem with that portion of the ruling. But government benefits and the definition of marriage are two separate issues. There is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage as the Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage so equal protection does not apply to how the states or citizens wish to democratically construct their marriage laws (which the court kinda affirmed except when that princible stood in the way of their desired outcome). Also, the federal government is well within its rights to define marriage as it feels necessary for the purpose of federal law. There is nothing unconstitutional about a federal definition restricting marriage to one man and one woman. There is, however, something unconstitutional about benefits, or penalties, administered in an unequal way.

Even as some states legalized SSM the federal government was under no obligation to change its definition although at some point it might become prudent. For example, if California and Vermont adopt a law that allows dogs and cats to be accepted as dependents for state income tax purposes is the federal government obligated to accept dogs and cats as dependents on a federal 1040? Er, no. As of Wed the federal government now recognizes a form of marriage that 30+ states do not. How is that any less unfair to those states than states with SSM thought the law was until 2 days ago?

What should have happened is the people seek redress from their elected officials to CHANGE the law. This is how a Constitutional Republic works. The courts should be the last option and their intervention only sought when enumerated constitutional rights are being violated.
So I’m actually happy that gay couples will receive equal protection under the law. But I’m disgusted that, once again, a court has overstepped its constitutional role of interpreting law (like the 14th Amendment, the Separation of Powers is in the Constitution) to legislating law and in addition, now even the Supreme Court feels the need to impugn the motives and moral character of any American citizen seeking only to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.


Justice Antonin Scalia got it right.

“To be sure (as the majority points out), the legislation is called the Defense of Marriage Act. But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions … In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to “disparage,” ”injure,” “degrade,” ”demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence—indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history.

“It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.”

So five judges redefine marriage for the country... just as drawn up at the Constitutional Convention I'm sure. Could be worse, in California just one clown in a robe had the honors.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Some of us long ago realized that government benefits accorded couples had to be given to all couples which is why we recognized the need for civil unions. So I have no problem with that portion of the ruling. But government benefits and the definition of marriage are two separate issues. There is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage as the Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage

definitions. definitions. definitions.

Do you work for Merriam Webster? Is it the cost of printing new dictionaries that bothers you so much?

Who gets to define it anyway? Are you Christians claiming ownership over marriage as you do morals?

Either way, it doesn't even matter anymore. You lost. Maybe go micro for a while. Be sure to post pictures of the rivers of blood running through your streets whenever that happens

[BVS]

All the previous redefinitions were fine with INDY and the other conservative christians, but THIS is where they draw the line.

[Jive Turkey]

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Actually it makes things pretty clear to me.

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by INDY500

so equal protection does not apply to how the states or citizens wish to democratically construct their marriage laws

I assume you believe the court overstepped with Loving vs. Virginia as well?

[Galeongirl]

Originally Posted by BVS

All the previous redefinitions were fine with INDY and the other conservative christians, but THIS is where they draw the line.

Just like previous generations drew their lines elsewhere, like that slavery was very much okay, women should be kept stupid and children should be working... you'd almost think that they just refuse to look ahead and rather live in the past...

[Irvine511]

Hannah Arendt wrote this in 1959, in the midst of the civil rights movement:

"The right to marry whoever one wishes is an elementary human right compared to which ‘the right to attend an integrated school, the right to sit where one pleases on a bus, the right to go into any hotel or recreation area or place of amusement, regardless of one’s skin or color or race’ are minor indeed. Even political rights, like the right to vote, and nearly all other rights enumerated in the Constitution, are secondary to the inalienable human rights to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence; and to this category the right to home and marriage unquestionably belongs."

So, yeah, it actually is right there in the Constitution, it's just taking some longer than others to view gay people as actual people rather than a sex act (like, say, buttsex obsessed Scalia).

More to come.

[anitram]

When the SCOTUS decisions came out, Michele Bachmann, thinking she was still relevant, released this statement:

Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted.

For thousands of years of recorded human history, no society has defended the legal standard of marriage as anything other than between man and woman. Only since 2000 have we seen a redefinition of this foundational unit of society in various nations.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to join the trend, despite the clear will of the people’s representatives through DOMA.

What the Court has done will undermine the best interest of children and the best interests of the United States.

When asked to comment on the statement, Nancy Pelosi said:

"Who cares?"

And to be honest, when I read INDY's posts on this, that's pretty much the response I have.

Who cares?

This will remain an issue for fewer and fewer people who are inflexible and stuck in their ways and for the rest of us, life goes on just like it did before. I'm getting married in 7 weeks and I'm glad that the "new" definition of marriage is extended to all of our gay friends who will be celebrating with us, including one American couple who moved to Canada precisely because so many people in their country were hung up on dictionaries 8 years ago.

[Pearl]

If Nancy Pelosi really did say, "who cares?" that's the quote of the year.

I heard there's a Kansas Republican Congressman who wants to have the constitution amended to ban gay marriage. He said something like how the Supreme Court isn't Congress, they're not voted by the people,

Reality can suck, my friends.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by Pearl

If Nancy Pelosi really did say, "who cares?" that's the quote of the year.

It's on video:

http://jezebel.com/nancy-pelosis-res...best-588304840

[BoMac]

LOVED this:

Cover Story: Bert and Ernie Celebrate Gay Marriage : The New Yorker

[AEON]

As I'm reading through the responses to INDY I'm reminded on why I rarely come in here anymore. There really is very little tolerance for opposing opinions. And, instead of challenging the opinion of the person - many just attack the person. There really is no room for civil discourse here on "hot" issues.

If your intention is to create a forum where only "liberal" voices can post and congratulate each other on liberal victories in the world, you are succeeding. But it would probably be easier if all of you became Facebook friends and just collect "likes."

Anyway, I'm sure you don't care if AEON comes around that often. I admire that INDY remains here and continues to take a beating, but this place has too much bullying, hatred, and negative energy for me.

I will probably continue to poke my head in here from to time and test the waters, I enjoy learning and sharing. But until the environment becomes more tolerant - there are usually better ways to spend my time.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by AEON

As I'm reading through the responses to INDY I'm reminded on why I rarely come in here anymore. There really is very little tolerance for opposing opinions.

Because not all opinions require tolerance.

[BoMac]

Speaking for myself: I value listening to a diversity of voices on most topics. It makes for a more robust debate and, while a consensus is sometimes never reached, allow us to understand each other better.

But that's when it comes to hot-button political issues. On civil rights issues like the same-sex marriage debate, I simply do not tolerate intolerance toward other human beings.

I do hope you stay, AEON.

[Vlad n U 2]

It's not 'fully' liberal, I'm here sometimes after all.