HeliX Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 It's about time. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gay-marriage-and-other-major-rulings-at-the-supreme-court/2015/06/25/ef75a120-1b6d-11e5-bd7f-4611a60dd8e5_story.html?tid=sm_tw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Paging spook to Topic#59251 to post something vile about homosexuals being anti christian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarne Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Yep, about time. 10 years ago I never would have said that, but it just shows changing attitudes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merkin Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Ace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 The US's Culture Wars will continue though with 4/9s of the Supreme Court and their right wing supporters veracious in their denunciation of the the activism of the other 5/9s. Because this is a show stopper it entrenches those so against equality in marriage. I presume Scalia's dissent has already been published.* You just hope tolerance will grow, but the case for that isn't clear cut in the US with its political system damming up conservatism which might have been reduced if referendums and legislatures had continued the process. The trouble is leaving it to the slow process of political and social change creates another big problem - making whether people are treated equally a matter of legislative decision - and where people are so conservative they cannot see the injustice this creates they will cling to their prejudices. Which is a better approach? I'm not sure, but in Ireland and the UK the right wing has felt the social shift far more than in the US. And the right wing in America has long been resentful at its loss of power. I suspect this decision will intensify that resentment and not defuse it. Edit: it has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bear Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Well that's rather radical for the USA. I bet it's just ruined the weekend for some disgruntled bigots in Texas though. How long before the Westboro Baptist church announce that this was why God is punishing the whole world with a killer heatwave. (Or whatever natural disaster comes to hand.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 You might think this is some kind of good thing but I don't think the Supreme Court or any other branch of government has any business in marriage. Now, don't get me wrong here - I 100% support the right of gays to marry. However, I believe marriage should be no business of the state. I believe gays would be better served by the advancement of individual rights and liberty - including the right to freedom of association (incl. marriage) - rather than focusing on group rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulgarian Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 You might think this is some kind of good thing but I don't think the Supreme Court or any other branch of government has any business in marriage. Now, don't get me wrong here - I 100% support the right of gays to marry. However, I believe marriage should be no business of the state. I believe gays would be better served by the advancement of individual rights and liberty - including the right to freedom of association (incl. marriage) - rather than focusing on group rights. What are you on about? Individual vs group rights? This is a group rights issue because a certain group (homosexuals) are being denied access to marriage. In what way are gay people supposed to campaign for their right to marry by stressing individual rights? Marriage is a state institution. It confers certain rights and privileges to a couple that are only extended through this institution, such as things relating to pension entitlement, tax, etc. Things that the state deals with. Obviously marriage in a less strict and more general sense can mean a community's internal means of affirming and controlling relationships. This is fine but it doesn't carry any legal weight. I could say that I am married to my dog but it would be meaningless in a legal sense. My dog wouldn't be entitled to inherit my pension on my death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 You might think this is some kind of good thing but I don't think the Supreme Court or any other branch of government has any business in marriage. Now, don't get me wrong here - I 100% support the right of gays to marry. However, I believe marriage should be no business of the state. I believe gays would be better served by the advancement of individual rights and liberty - including the right to freedom of association (incl. marriage) - rather than focusing on group rights. What are you on about? Individual vs group rights? This is a group rights issue because a certain group (homosexuals) are being denied access to marriage. In what way are gay people supposed to campaign for their right to marry by stressing individual rights? Marriage is a state institution. It confers certain rights and privileges to a couple that are only extended through this institution, such as things relating to pension entitlement, tax, etc. Things that the state deals with. Obviously marriage in a less strict and more general sense can mean a community's internal means of affirming and controlling relationships. This is fine but it doesn't carry any legal weight. I could say that I am married to my dog but it would be meaningless in a legal sense. My dog wouldn't be entitled to inherit my pension on my death. I wish people could understand me. It's like everything I say just gets totally taken the wrong way. Marriage is not a state institution - it predates the existence of the state and it also predates religion. Marriage is an individual right. When I said they should focus on individual rights instead of group rights, I mean if individual rights were fully respected then gay individuals wouldn't even need to work together or with others for the advancement of their rights - it would be a moot point if their individual rights were being honoured. To deprive gays of the right of marriage is a violation of their individual rights. When you bring the state into the equation to insist on a group right to marriage, it sets a precedent that the state has power over marriage. That, to me, is equivalent to the state having power over intercourse and procreation. What business is it of the state if I want to marry Eve or Steve? It's none of their business. Although yes I appreciate that the current status quo does have that arrangement. I disagree with it and consider it contrary to individual liberty. Less government involvement in our rights, the better. It's good that gays now have their right acknowledged, but the cost is that now their right is derived from government which means they are effectively also reversible and subject to the whims of government. What can be given by government can be taken by government. Whereas natural and inalienable rights of the individual are inviolable. The latter is where my focus would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Don't see what all the fuss is about. If they're gay or straight, if a couple want to marry then just let them. Good luck and have a great life - enjoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulgarian Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 You might think this is some kind of good thing but I don't think the Supreme Court or any other branch of government has any business in marriage. Now, don't get me wrong here - I 100% support the right of gays to marry. However, I believe marriage should be no business of the state. I believe gays would be better served by the advancement of individual rights and liberty - including the right to freedom of association (incl. marriage) - rather than focusing on group rights. What are you on about? Individual vs group rights? This is a group rights issue because a certain group (homosexuals) are being denied access to marriage. In what way are gay people supposed to campaign for their right to marry by stressing individual rights? Marriage is a state institution. It confers certain rights and privileges to a couple that are only extended through this institution, such as things relating to pension entitlement, tax, etc. Things that the state deals with. Obviously marriage in a less strict and more general sense can mean a community's internal means of affirming and controlling relationships. This is fine but it doesn't carry any legal weight. I could say that I am married to my dog but it would be meaningless in a legal sense. My dog wouldn't be entitled to inherit my pension on my death. I wish people could understand me. It's like everything I say just gets totally taken the wrong way. Marriage is not a state institution - it predates the existence of the state and it also predates religion. Marriage is an individual right. When I said they should focus on individual rights instead of group rights, I mean if individual rights were fully respected then gay individuals wouldn't even need to work together or with others for the advancement of their rights - it would be a moot point if their individual rights were being honoured. To deprive gays of the right of marriage is a violation of their individual rights. When you bring the state into the equation to insist on a group right to marriage, it sets a precedent that the state has power over marriage. That, to me, is equivalent to the state having power over intercourse and procreation. What business is it of the state if I want to marry Eve or Steve? It's none of their business. Although yes I appreciate that the current status quo does have that arrangement. I disagree with it and consider it contrary to individual liberty. Less government involvement in our rights, the better. It's good that gays now have their right acknowledged, but the cost is that now their right is derived from government which means they are effectively also reversible and subject to the whims of government. What can be given by government can be taken by government. Whereas natural and inalienable rights of the individual are inviolable. The latter is where my focus would be. If you want to be understood you need to explain yourself better. Everyone understands that marriage predates states. However, it has always come with conditions and rules. Communities regulated their own rules and conditions. The union was endorsed by the community and that's what made it significant. If you broke the rules the community would enforce whatever rules they had that dealt with that. There is no marriage without the framework of community. It would be almost meaningless, unless you just mean a statement of commitment between two people, but that doesn't amount to marriage. So it's not an inalienable right but something created by communities. Fast forward several thousands of years and the state has taken over many of the roles of community. They regulate the institution of marriage. They also decide who pays what tax, who gets a pension and how much, and who can marry who. Since marriage gives you access to special privileges from the state, and we now believe that these should be extended to people of the same gender, we have asked the state to alter its rules. So marriage isn't some natural inalienable right, it's just a construct of human societies. People are entitles to "marry" whoever they want. I could very well "marry" my dog. But without the endorsement of the state you aren't going to get those perks of marriage that the state controls. It's just a legal thing. It's like who can drive a car, who can fire a gun. Talking about being understood, I think sometimes you argue based on what you think should be the case, rather than what the reality is. I'm not saying that I'm in favour of the current set-up but that's how it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 When a marriage license is required by the state, and the resulting marriage certificate is issued by the state, and the laws of the state are different depending on whether you are married or not (inheritance, etc), then you better believe that the state should be ruling on marriage. And you have to petition the courts to have a divorced or an annulment All this bullshit about freedom of religion and how the "religious" are having this gay marriage thing forced on them, I say good. How does it feel to be on the other end of another "faction" pushing their way of life on you for a change? And all the "religious" cake bakers saying they will refuse to bake gay wedding cakes? Sucks to be you then, because market forces will decide whether you are still in business, not God(s). Do you know what sucks more than a gay hating Southern Baptist? The rent boy sucking off the gay hating Southern Baptist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Paging spook to Topic#59251 to post something vile about homosexuals being anti christian I can't. Homosexuals are not de-facto anti Christian. What's more the whole subject of homosexuality is far from the simple 'it's a SIN! Stone them' thin that bigots, REAL bigots pretend that it is. Clue --- the bible is a collection of books written over a very long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Clue --- the bible is a collection of books written over a very long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guzzi Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 As well as the welcome equality, there is also this to look forward to: "Rick Scarborough, the antigay Texas pastor who already made headlines with a full-page newspaper ad announcing that he had at least 44,500 followers who pledged to go to jail to defend so-called traditional marriage, is now threatening to set himself on fire to stop marriage equality." http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2015/06/22/we-will-burn-texas-pastor-set-himself-aflame-if-marriage-equal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.