- Joined
- Sep 18, 2011
- Messages
- 83,705
- Reaction score
- 58,410
- Location
- New Mexico
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
This is a bad week for America and Americans. The moral fabric of the USA is coming apart at the seams. The SCOTUS has just redefined "marriage". The Red Diaper Doper babies are succeeding in taking down America from the inside without even firing a shot. Just as Krustev promised a half century ago.
Ok then, the federal judiciary recognized marriage to be a fundamental right in three well known cases, however, the question of who could marry outside of race, and ethnicity, was left to the states to regulate. They said nothing about same sex, or plural marriage, or any other kind of marriage because, those things were, as it were, unrecognizable. Now the USSC has said, oh, wait, sorry states, we know say that you are free to regulate marriage BUT, you must not regulate gender, or sexual orientation as criterion... Next it will be, oh sorry states, yes you are free to regulate marriage as you see fit, however, you may not regulate marriage to exclude multiple partners.. But other than that, go ahead and regulate to your hearts content.
Tim-
Apparently they argued it is both a fundamental right and a necessity under equality under the law.
Scalia was...pissed. Not really any other word to describe him. His dissent reads like a rant.
It would be hard to legitimately strike down those restrictions based off this decision, because there is no distinction of people bring discriminated against there, are legitimate legal considerations for such restrictions on number of legal spouses a person has, as well as very few if any of the arguments made for or against polygamy are the same arguments for or against same sex marriage.
Why should a minority of American citizens, whether in same sex marriages or heterosexual marriages, get special tax and benefit treatment when large and growing numbers of people, particularly young people, have never been married and believe that priorities other than marriage and children are equally or more important to them?
Add to that the obscene level of divorce in our society, well over 50% of all marriages failing, what's the national interest in treating this group differently?
How about actually believing and implementing equal protections under the law and having each individual, regardless of race, gender, and marital status treated equally by government?
Unless the government has a societal interest in the well being of divorce attorneys, that's just bull**** in the 21st century.
Other than for purposes of procreation and child rearing, marriage is irrelevant to government.
A religious college has the right to dictate the morale compliance of it's students. it is a religious college. that should be a protected right.
however as was told during the trial this ruling tramps on religious organizations protected religious freedoms.
Masha Gessen:
I agree that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it is a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. . . Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again, I don’t think it should exist.
I sometimes think that gay marriage advocates are acting in bad faith.
Let's see if you're still so arrogant about it in 2016. It's gonna be a rout.
Why would god create people with the ability to piss him off so badly he punishes them for eternity. Yea, sounds like love to me. :roll:
Why should a minority of American citizens, whether in same sex marriages or heterosexual marriages, get special tax and benefit treatment when large and growing numbers of people, particularly young people, have never been married and believe that priorities other than marriage and children are equally or more important to them?
Record Share of Americans Have Never Married | Pew Research Center
Add to that the obscene level of divorce in our society, well over 50% of all marriages failing, what's the national interest in treating this group differently?
How about actually believing and implementing equal protections under the law and having each individual, regardless of race, gender, and marital status treated equally by government?
Hmm...it's been a busy week at the Supreme Court, it seems.
the problem with that argument is that the slave's KNEW they were slaves and people who couldn't vote KNEW they couldn't vote. a gay man who died in 1990 did was never DENIED marriage because he didn't KNOW he was being denied it. this....this....thing....issue of being denied "rights" he didn't even know he was being denied until the lefte decided to MAKE IT a right they were being denied.
i know, it makes absolutely NO SENSE to me either. why try to understand it. I'm just going to smile and nod like I know what's going on. enjoy your victory.
Looks like in this instance ungodly men have kicked god's ass.
This isn't the end of it. There will be lawsuit after lawsuit against churches who refuse to marry same-sex couples. Religious freedoms are now being violated.
you must be to young to have been around then, but I was. So take my word for it: this wasn't an issue anyone ever heard of until the mid to late 90s. go ask anyone alive then and they will be happy to verify that.
It's good that gays get equality. I'm sick of hearing Christian Southern Conservatives sit there and lecture straight Atheists such as myself on their rigid versions morality then turn around and openly discriminate against gays for no better or more logical reason than they discriminate against atheists such as myself.
They're all Republicans too. So comical to see Christian Republicans sit here and claim conspiracy after conspiracy when we all know they're the ones out in real life that make life hard on everyone else simply because we don't share their Christian religiosity fanaticism.
You said in your post that the idea of SSM wasn't even conceived until the 90's. You also asked for proof of gay groups demanding marriage in the '80s because "there were none" (paraphrased).
Guess what, I just showed you that you were wrong on both counts.
And fyi, I remember the 80's just fine. I remember quite clearly that SSM was being talked about.
I said this earlier in the thread, but I suspect old polygamy challenges can be dusted off and made more compelling by adding most of the majority opinion. Roberts' decent made this exact point.
It would be hard to legitimately strike down those restrictions based off this decision, because there is no distinction of people bring discriminated against there, are legitimate legal considerations for such restrictions on number of legal spouses a person has, as well as very few if any of the arguments made for or against polygamy are the same arguments for or against same sex marriage.
Well let me play devil's advocate and tell you why heterosexual marriage should have been protected and preserved as well as encouraged by the federal government in order to fulfill its constitutional obligation to promote the general welfare:.
How very "moderate" of you. What do you think about Christian Democrats, and Christian Northern Liberals, such as the overwhelming majority of black people of faith, who oppose same sex marriage?
Perhaps you need to get out more.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?