Religion and homosexuality

[Michchamp]

Maybe the court should have not taken the case and allowed things to play out through the states?

yes, and it's not absurd for a citizen in Iowa to have their marriage (for the confused, I mean a secular marriage, conducted according to law, not in a church/temple/mosque/dojo, etc.) recognized by the state, but not in Alabama, for federal tax purposes.

this was something that needed federal solution and got one. everyone is happy, or should be.

 

[turok]

everyone is happy, or should be.

Not to those who believe that it is a harmful affront to their faith and/or their pocketbooks, obviously. They will be able to better express their displeasure(s) in their district's voting booths next year, unfortunately.

Most rightwing voters seem to becomemuch more motivated to action when they feel that they got royally reamed by, for example, voting NObama to a second term as POTUS, Congressional legislation, or most recently, judicial decisions. Democratic activists and campaign supporters will likely need to work harder to get out the vote in crucial swing states such as OH, FL, PA, and maybe even MI, IL, IN and WI as well.

The Republicans have the astroturf Tea Party to push their buttons. The Democrats do not, and IMO, badly need to be challenged within, perhaps by a truly liberal/progressive grassroots movement. I seem to recall a proposed "Coffee Party" counter back in '09, but it obviously never took root or spread.

 

[Thumb]

Sorry, Thumb, that's where you're not nuanced in your thinking. Did the Court pass a law? Technically no, but effectively yes. Gay marriage was going to happen throughout the land. It was happening, state, by state, by state. Naturally, over time and by the will of the people, the way things are supposed to happen. Rather than to let things evolve, however, the Court inserted itself and its activist behavior had the unquestionable effect of making law.

Another factor is that two of the justices, Ginsburg and Kagan, had already presided over multiple gay weddings. Impartial jurors? Hardly. Shame on them for failing to recuse themselves.

Its a brave new world. Get used to it.

No. No. No. No.

Don't you understand? Law has nothing to do with it. The only "Law" was the one that discriminated certain peoples rights in certain states. LGBT people never needed any "Law" to marry before, because as US citizens they share all the same rights as every other US citizen.

The Supreme Court simply ruled (after rightfully hearing the case, since Federal Tax code is involved it's not a "State only" issue) that certain state legislation and ballot proposals were unconstitutional, discriminating against certain US citizens, and struck them down.

Now matter how you want to spin this in your angry, bigoted head, the court was not only right to hear this case, but to reach the conclusion it did.

 

[tomdalton22]

so under the constitution it is legal for a mother to marry her daughter

 

[jwlcosu]

so under the constitution it is legal for a mother to marry her daughter

We may have to run that one by nine robed Supremes to be certain but recent evidence suggests yea, it's cool.

 

[Thumb]

so under the constitution it is legal for a mother to marry her daughter

We have covered this Mr. broken-record.

 

[tomdalton22]

We have covered this Mr. broken-record.

I'm just waiting for a straight answer. A yes or no.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I'm just waiting for a straight answer. A yes or no.

Not legal, I'm pretty sure.

Do you know a mother/daughter couple who want to marry?

Have you heard of one?

Also still not legal for earthlings and Martians to marry.

The next great frontier.

 

[tomdalton22]

Not legal, I'm pretty sure.

Do you know a mother/daughter couple who want to marry?

Have you heard of one?

Also still not legal for earthlings and Martians to marry.

The next great frontier.

OK, if it isn't legal they would be discriminated against. That is my only point. Even if it is a group of 2...discrimination is discrimination. Liberals should want to make that legal too.

 

[jwlcosu]

Not legal, I'm pretty sure.

Yea, there is a law but why shouldn't a mother and daughter who really, really and I mean really love each other, why shouldn't they receive equal protection? That law must now be unconstitutional, no?

 

[tinselwolverine]

OK, if it isn't legal they would be discriminated against. That is my only point. Even if it is a group of 2...discrimination is discrimination. Liberals should want to make that legal too.

Here's a little civics lesson -

The Judicial branch doesn't go around all day, looking for shit to do.

The decision on same sex marriage was the result of numerous individuals seeking relief from state laws that those people who brought suits viewed as discriminatory.

Are there any actions being brought by people seeking relief from being denied incestuous marriage?

I doubt it.

Are there any actions being brought by people seeking relief from being denied a bestial marriage (I just added this because it's part of the whole "what if I want to marry my sister? - what if I want to marry my dog?" thing)?

I doubt it.

So until that happens, the question has no more relevance than the earthling/martian marriage question.

EDIT: Oh, I should include the disclaimer, really, I'm not a liberal - at least I don't consider myself liberal, and I doubt the liberal posters on this board see me as being all that liberal - I'm liberal on some things; I'm conservative on other things, and I'm on record on this issue as saying we should just get government out of marriage entirely - create a completely secular class of "Civil Union" that conveys the rights and entitlements of those currently contained under the law with marriage - and then let people who want to get "married" under any kind of non-governmental status they want to.

Oh, and all you libs, if you feel like I jumped over you in this response, since I'm responding to a post that was kind of addressed to the liberals - sorry about that.

 

[tomdalton22]

Here's a little civics lesson -

The Judicial branch doesn't go around all day, looking for shit to do.

The decision on same sex marriage was the result of numerous individuals seeking relief from state laws that those people who brought suits viewed as discriminatory.

Are there any actions being brought by people seeking relief from being denied incestuous marriage?

I doubt it.

Are there any actions being brought by people seeking relief from being denied a bestial marriage (I just added this because it's part of the whole "what if I want to marry my sister? - what if I want to marry my dog?" thing)?

I doubt it.

So until that happens, the question has no more relevance than the earthling/martian marriage question.

EDIT: Oh, I should include the disclaimer, really, I'm not a liberal - at least I don't consider myself liberal, and I doubt the liberal posters on this board see me as being all that liberal - I'm liberal on some things; I'm conservative on other things, and I'm on record on this issue as saying we should just get government out of marriage entirely - create a completely secular class of "Civil Union" that conveys the rights and entitlements of those currently contained under the law with marriage - and then let people who want to get "married" under any kind of non-governmental status they want to.

Oh, and all you libs, if you feel like I jumped over you in this response, since I'm responding to a post that was kind of addressed to the liberals - sorry about that.

I didn't say that the judicial branch should hear the case. I just said that if it is against the law and they want to get married they are being discriminated against. They are two women just like a gay couple...not a woman and a dog or a woman and a martian.

Edit: I am with you....I don't consider myself a liberal or a conservative.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I didn't say that the judicial branch should hear the case. I just said that if it is against the law and they want to get married they are being discriminated against. They are two women just like a gay couple...not a woman and a dog or a woman and a martian.

Edit: I am with you....I don't consider myself a liberal or a conservative.

There is no case to hear.

No incestuous couple has ever sued any state government or the federal government for being denied equal protection under the law because incestuous marriage is not legal.

No one has ever sued any state government or the federal government for being denied the right to marry their dog.

There are no incest pride parades.

There are no incest rights organizations.

There are no bestiality pride parades.

There are no bestiality rights organizations.

It is a moot and irrelevant question that doesn't have to be answered.

 

[tomdalton22]

There is no case to hear.

No incestuous couple has ever sued any state government or the federal government for being denied equal protection under the law because incestuous marriage is not legal.

No one has ever sued any state government or the federal government for being denied the right to marry their dog.

There are no incest pride parades.

There are no incest rights organizations.

There are no bestiality pride parades.

There are no bestiality rights organizations.

It is a moot and irrelevant question that doesn't have to be answered.

so now there has to be a parade or an organization in order to be discriminated against?

 

[tinselwolverine]

so now there has to be a parade or an organization in order to be discriminated against?

There has to be a person who claims that they're being discriminated against, and is seeking relief in court.

No such person exists.

I highly doubt any such person ever will.

 

[Michchamp]

...

Oh, and all you libs, if you feel like I jumped over you in this response, since I'm responding to a post that was kind of addressed to the liberals - sorry about that.

no problemo. nice job, you can pinch hit for our team anytime.

we won't even begrudge you the occassional selfish, bigoted post if you feel you need to make one now and then to preserve your rep as a "not liberal!"

 

[tinselwolverine]

no problemo. nice job, you can pinch hit for our team anytime.

we won't even begrudge you the occassional selfish, bigoted post if you feel you need to make one now and then to preserve your rep as a "not liberal!"

Thanks, dago.

EDIT: I didn't know whether to go with "dago" or "fag," but I went with dago because it's milder and a little less offensive...and also white people still using the ethnic pejoratives of yesteryear with each other is pretty funny, just like in Gran Torino.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXD8yOxIPB0

 

[tomdalton22]

There has to be a person who claims that they're being discriminated against, and is seeking relief in court.

No such person exists.

I highly doubt any such person ever will.

no, you don't have to seek relief in court in order to be discriminated against. As far as some couple that is so closely related wanting to benefit from the laws of marriage not existing....I highly doubt that in our fucked up country!

For the record, I feel that two people that are closely related being together is disgusting and wrong. I feel that being homosexual is unnatural and probably lean towards it being wrong. However, I really don't care...if that is what they want to do...go right ahead. And as far as them getting the same benefits that I receive being married...I agree that they are entitled to them. I have my personal beliefs just like everyone else...I just don't shove them in your face like some on the far right.

Guns...need more control
Abortion...I feel it is wrong but let the woman decide

 

[jwlcosu]

.I just don't shove them in your face like some on the far right.

Way more shoving coming from the left. Not even close. It's settled.

 

[jwlcosu]

I highly doubt any such person ever will.

I had you pegged as being more visionary than that, Tinsel. Everything is possible in the brave new world.