Supreme Court strikes down same-sex marriage bans

[byco42]

how exactly should the Supreme Court not have agreed to take this case?

like I responded to jdilco on the other forum there, it's more or less exactly the sort of petition they should agree to hear... you have a right being denied to some citizens and granted to others based on their state of residence, that affects federal tax policy, among other things.

hear that shit! adjudicate it wisely. let justice be done.

I read Article 3. The flaw in this argument is that marriage is not a fundamental right. It still isn't. No one's rights were being violated here!

 

[Michchamp]

I read Article 3. The flaw in this argument is that marriage is not a fundamental right. It still isn't. No one's rights were being violated here!

I think given that the state grants rights and privileges to legally-married couples that non-legally married couples do not get, it is, and they are.

 

[byco42]

I think given that the state grants rights and privileges to legally-married couples that non-legally married couples do not get, it is, and they are.

When did the "state" ever obtain the power to confer rights on anyone?

 

[turok]

When did the "state" ever obtain the power to confer rights on anyone?

They don't have such power.

But conversely, they do not have the power to deny or interpret what are or are not civil rights to anyone either.

 

[byco42]

They don't have such power.

But conversely, they do not have the power to deny or interpret what are or are not civil rights to anyone either.

He said "the state" not "the states" ... which is semantics. And if the "state" or "states" do not have the power to grant rights, why does the Supreme Court? This is a "right" invented, and not one that has been denied.

 

[Michchamp]

When did the "state" ever obtain the power to confer rights on anyone?

are you just arguing semantics now?

yes, we have inalienable rights which the state may not restrict, though often does.

then we have certain other priviliges afforded us by virtue of our citizenship & place of residence.

 

[Michchamp]

He said "the state" not "the states" ... which is semantics. And if the "state" or "states" do not have the power to grant rights, why does the Supreme Court? This is a "right" invented, and not one that has been denied.

just because it was never called a right explicitly doesn't mean it isn't one. for that reason I don't think it really matters in this context.

if you went back to 1775 and George III said you are free to marry, unless you're Catholic, then the state will not recognize your marriage and your children will be considered born out-of-wedlock, well then maybe the drafters of the Constitution would have included it.

but the simple fact that they omitted it shouldn't mean the Court is now inventing it out of whole cloth; the majority here were essentially forced to clarify the meaning for old dinosaurs who refused to join the 21st century, and were passing laws to specify that certain consenting adults could not freely choose who they wanted to marry.

That's the way I see it.

[insert baseless "slippery slope" argument about "why can't we marry our brothers and fathers now? or goats?" or "why this means soon the Catholic Church will be forced to offer gay marriages"]

 

[turok]

He said "the state" not "the states" ... which is semantics. And if the "state" or "states" do not have the power to grant rights, why does the Supreme Court? This is a "right" invented, and not one that has been denied.

A few states at first enacted statutory bans on gay marriage and that grew to most states doing likewise. Then a couple of states took it further and enacted constitutional bans, which also grew to most.

That is de-facto acknowledgement that LBGTs as a group do in fact exist from a legal standpoint. Otherwise they should not have been allowed to file lawsuits vs their states in the first place. Then their lifestyle would be considered as merely a frivolous personal choice, and completely ignored, as if for example, a horse owner brought a steed and a mare to court, and demanded that they be allowed to legally wed.

 

[byco42]

just because it was never called a right explicitly doesn't mean it isn't one. for that reason I don't think it really matters in this context.

if you went back to 1775 and George III said you are free to marry, unless you're Catholic, then the state will not recognize your marriage and your children will be considered born out-of-wedlock, well then maybe the drafters of the Constitution would have included it.

but the simple fact that they omitted it shouldn't mean the Court is now inventing it out of whole cloth; the majority here were essentially forced to clarify the meaning for old dinosaurs who refused to join the 21st century, and were passing laws to specify that certain consenting adults could not freely choose who they wanted to marry.

That's the way I see it.

[insert baseless "slippery slope" argument about "why can't we marry our brothers and fathers now? or goats?" or "why this means soon the Catholic Church will be forced to offer gay marriages"]

I see it as a manner that maintains the powers-that-be in power and we are all being played. In the meantime, what intelligent person segments existence by "centuries" and mandates that we are obligated to somehow "join" the "crowd" that subscribes to the notions that "change" is always a good thing?

This is not a good thing.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Obergfell vs. Hodges.

That's the name of the case.

I actually heard this attorney who has a radio show referring to the decision as some such or other "Act."

The Supreme Court doesn't do "Acts;" the Supreme Court makes rulings on cases.

So you guys who like to show off how academic you are, this 4th of July weekend as we're all celebrating the birth of our nation, drinking booze and stuffing our faces with barbecue and doing three legged races and discussing the legalization of same sex marriage, you can show how smart you are by telling everybody when somebody refers to the decision as anything other than Obergfell v. Hodges, you can say "actually, it's a decision on a case, and officially, it's 'Obergfell v. Hodges.'"

I would come up with a clever word association technique to remember it.

As for me, I'm going to think of "Uber," then I'm going to think of all the transportation for hire establishment entities trying to take Uber down; "Uber fell; - Obergfell;" sadly, I cannot think of anything more easy to remember for Hodges that is happier than"Hodgkin's" disease.

 

[turok]

Obergfell vs. Hodges.

That's the name of the case.

I would come up with a clever word association technique to remember it.

How about "Overkill by the Dodgers?"

 

[tinselwolverine]

How about "Overkill by the Dodgers?"

That works too.

 

[turok]

Gearge Takei, aka Mr. Sulu of "Star Trek TOS" under fire for dissing conservative SCJ Clarence Thomas:

"During an interview with Fox 10 Phoenix, Takei, who is gay, discussed the Supreme Court’s recent landmark ruling to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide. Takei said he was “angry” at Thomas, who dissented to the decision, for his position on the issue."


“He is a clown in blackface sitting on the Supreme Court,” said Takei. “He gets me that angry. He doesn’t belong there.”




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_7719110.html


I remember watching ST-TOS during prime time when I was a kid, and thinking that Sulu was a little weird, esp in the episode when he got viraled, and ran around the Enterprise's corridors half naked, and threatening the uninfected crew with a samurai sword. But I wouldn't have guessed that he was ghey IRL, after his evil alternate universe version hit on the "good" Uhura.

But all of the regular males on the set by that time were getting pretty femme on the eyeliner and eyelash mascara, likely b/c they were envious of Mr. Spock, who also was using eyeshade along with his pointy Vulcan ears, "green" blood, near super-human strength, and stage makeup.....>

 

[Thumb]

I remember watching ST-TOS during prime time when I was a kid, and thinking that Sulu was a little weird, esp in the episode when he got viraled, and ran around the Enterprises corridors half naked, and threatening the uninfected crew with a samurai sword. But I wouldn't have guessed that he was ghey IRL, after his evil alternate universe version hit on the "good" Uhura.

But all of the regular males on the set by that time were getting pretty femme on the eyeliner and eyelash mascara by then, likely b/c they were envious of Mr. Spock who also was using eyeshade along with his pointy Vulcan ears,, "green" blood, near super-human strength, and stage makeup.....>

It was actually a rapier, or an Epee, and he was acting out that he was D'Artagnan.

 

[turok]

It was actually a rapier, or an Epee, and he was acting out that he was D'Artagnan.

Thanks for the correction, I was gonna edit to just sword, since I wasn't sure what type it was, but discovered that I had to clear my browser's cache first. Kept getting a blank edit box.

 

[turok]

Oh my..I had no idea:

George Takei: King of the Internet

 

[tinselwolverine]

The organization that Murray-O'Hair founded has been re-named American Atheist.

I called there and talked to their PR guy Nick, to find out if in fact the John Lauritsen she was responding to was (is, he's still with us and in his 70s) was indeed the early gay rights activist whose bio I linked to.

He couldn't confirm that, but he was aware of the letter and said it was "regrettable," and he had heard, in fact, that in correspondences between two, whether that Lauritsen is the gay activist or not, Murray-O'Hair perceived him to be something of a chauvinist.

So I looked up Pagan Press, and found a phone number to a Calamus book store in Boston, that carries the gay rights activist's books.

The guy at the book store also couldn't verify that that Lauritsen is the one whom Murray O'Hair was addressing, but said "yeah, in all probability is."

"Who would know?"

"John would."

So he suggested I send him the inquiry at the e-mail contact at Pagan Press.

So I sent this:

Hi, John;

I have an academic question for you - are you the John Lauritsen that Madeline Murray O'Hair responded to on May 20, 1976 with profanity laced homophobic tirade in response to a correspondence you sent to the California Chapter of her seperationist organization that had been been forwarded to her, that is linked to beneath here?

http://www.discord.org/~lippard/Lauritsen-OHair.pdf

If so, could you be so good as to provide me the text of your correspondence that she would have been responding to?

Thank your for your attention and assistance.

Jeff

So we'll see what, if anything, comes back.

Anyway, I received a reply:

"Jeff, Yes, I'm the one. I'm afraid I'm quite busy right now, and
it would take some time to find the correspondence. I've moved
twice since I was living in NYC, and my folders are poorly
organised, if at all. Do you need it for a particular project?

Best,
John Lauritsen"

So I replied to him:

"John, thank you so much for responding.

No, I don't need the original document; however, when you get a moment I would truly appreciate a summary of what you said to the California Chapter of the Society of Separationists in that correspondence.

Once again, thank you.

Jeff"

So once again, we'll see what, if anything comes back.

But at least we know to whom Madelyn Murray O'Hair was responding, and have made contact with that individual.

 

[Michchamp]

Anyway, I received a reply:

"Jeff, Yes, I'm the one. I'm afraid I'm quite busy right now, and
it would take some time to find the correspondence. I've moved
twice since I was living in NYC, and my folders are poorly
organised, if at all. Do you need it for a particular project?

Best,
John Lauritsen"

So I replied to him:

"John, thank you so much for responding.

No, I don't need the original document; however, when you get a moment I would truly appreciate a summary of what you said to the California Chapter of the Society of Separationists in that correspondence.

Once again, thank you.

Jeff"

So once again, we'll see what, if anything comes back.

But at least we know to whom Madelyn Murray O'Hair was responding, and have made contact with that individual.

This is excellent work.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Wow. This is some top-shelf message boarding.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Tinsel needs to call up Netflix: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthr...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer