Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=span-ab-top-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Well there you have it.

Rad

Good

This is good news, now we need to get rid of the words gay, straight, hetero, homo, black, white. Then we will have true equality.

Good news overall, but I don't like how close the vote was.

But people could still discriminate against gays even with this ruling so this person saying they will reallocate the hate is strange.

Originally posted by Surtur
But people could still discriminate against gays even with this ruling so this person saying they will reallocate the hate is strange.

Yeah, it is strange....almost satirical...

Okay yeah I didn't see it was from the Onion. Also because..that honestly sounds like something a person would legitimately state in this day and age.

I'd fix the link to the source, but KMC is doing that thing again where you can't edit.

Yea there is a edit problem.

Originally posted by Surtur
Okay yeah I didn't see it was from the Onion. Also because..that honestly sounds like something a person would legitimately state in this day and age.

No worries, there's actually a Law about that, can't remember the name though.

edit: Edit works now. It's Poe's Law.

Poe's Law


Getting good at this.

Still need to get rid of the words african american, black, white gay, lesbian, that is the only way to true equality.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Still need to get rid of the words african american, black, white gay, lesbian, that is the only way to true equality.
I would agree if you mean we need to stop categorizing people based on their racial and sexual properties, but just getting rid of the words themselves wouldn't do much good because you can always invent new words.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I would agree if you mean we need to stop categorizing people based on their racial and sexual properties

Yes thats what I mean.

I don't think we should get ride of words, we should get ride of the negative implications that come with words like 'Black' and 'Homosexual'.

Well it looks like there will a lot of weddings. God bless all of the people finally getting what they have wanted, needed, and even died for over these past long years of hatred and bigotry. Hopefully the people that were strongly against these civil unions will be able to get past their control issues, and adopt a live and let live attitude.

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't think we should get ride of words, we should get ride of the negative implications that come with words like 'Black' and 'Homosexual'.

Ride? U mean rid?

Obvious typo.

Thats why I was asking instead of correcting..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33290341

Opinions, criticisms, and comments?

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f11/t614148.html

Good, took too long, first second

This is awesome.

I hope you all realize this is not the end. There needs to be a constitutional amendment, or future legislation could undo this.

About time.

http://41.media.tumblr.com/e78a92357693cb11342d4d95c261897e/tumblr_nqk3q8LpR61r83d7lo1_1280.png

About time


Considering past precedents on similar marriage issues, it shouldn't have taken as long as it did or been so close, but it's happened now, so yes!

How close it was bothers me. But I'm seriously glad it happened. A very important move

Hopefully a Republican doesn't win the Presidential election in 2016 and try to reverse it.

One step at a time. But a really big, important step.

I'd remove government from marriage entirely if it were up to me. But I also realize the impracticality of that stance in our current system. As such, this is great news.

TI's "true equality" may be functionally impossible in a technical sense. But I'll go ahead and agree with the spirit of it...that the breaking down of cultural animosities is the longer battle. But decisions like this one are proof that the struggle is slowly being won.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I hope you all realize this is not the end. There needs to be a constitutional amendment, or future legislation could undo this.

It's fairly difficult for a Supreme Court decision to be overturned.

The Constitution would need to be amended to indicate that marriage is only allowed between a man and woman, like GW Bush tried to do in all his great wisdom or the Supreme Court would have to undo the decision themselves.

So while it is possible it could be undone, there's still great reason to celebrate over another step towards equality.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
This is good news, now we need to get rid of the words gay, straight, hetero, homo, black, white. Then we will have true equality.

That's the opposite of true.

People didn't talk about gayness for a long time. People argued against those trying to bring it to light, saying if they just stayed quiet, equality would happen. For decades, it didn't.


People then started bringing it up, bringing it to light. Showing what is already there, and showing people it's not bad.

Then change started happening. And the more people ignored the call to be quiet, the faster it happened. And that's how we got here today.


That's what worked with gay marriage. That's what worked with the black civil rights movement. That's how woman's suffrage worked. That is the only tactic that ever works- being quiet leads to problems being ignored, not solved. Being known is how improvement happens.


"Please don't talk about it," or "Acknowledging a difference is the real (racism/sexism/etc.)!" is a tactic used to stop change.

Bringing inequality to light is not the same as making it exist, it is merely showing what inequality already exists, and no matter how often those who don't want things to change and improve say it, acknowledging things is not the problem.

Removing labels from people is the way to reach true equality, regardless of what you think. Also removing labels does not ignore the problem. It addresses it head on. If all men and women are created equal, then why do they need to be labeled? This isn't the 60's and with all the recent stuff going on I think it could help. Why should someone be called a black man? Why not just a man? Or why when talking about a couple, does there need to be the label gay couple or straight couple. Just a couple sounds better and removes any negative connotation from past discrimination But hey we never agree so it don't matter.

Labels don't create inequality, though. Discriminatory labels do. Words can lose their negative connotation over time, even flip to a positive one. Removing prejudices surrounding them is the key, not removing the words themselves.

Try not to fight too hard, though. It sounds like you're getting at the same goal, just through different means.

I see it different, but it sounds like we agree enough on the basics. I dont think the N word will every lose it. But maybe the other ones will.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
This is good news, now we need to get rid of the words gay, straight, hetero, homo, black, white. Then we will have true equality.

I blame the Patriachy.....

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I see it different, but it sounds like we agree enough on the basics. I dont think the N word will every lose it. But maybe the other ones will.
Also some discriminatory labels are healthy for society. Pedophile for instance.

Originally posted by Digi
Labels don't create inequality, though. Discriminatory labels do. Words can lose their negative connotation over time, even flip to a positive one. Removing prejudices surrounding them is the key, not removing the words themselves.



Yep. And if people try and remove the words that describe the prejudices, that protects the prejudice by making it hard to address.

I think we should move on to a more serious topic and have the Rainbow Flag banned from American soil.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I hope you all realize this is not the end. There needs to be a constitutional amendment, or future legislation could undo this.

revoking millions of marriage licenses? doubt it.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
revoking millions of marriage licenses? doubt it.

Agreed, you and your husband will stay married.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Also some discriminatory labels are healthy for society. Pedophile for instance.

Completely different as that is a actual horrendous crime.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
revoking millions of marriage licenses? doubt it.

Do you want to take the chance? The opposition is more then willing to do that.

Name Calling is a Crime?


Welcome to America.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Do you want to take the chance? The opposition is more then willing to do that. they can talk all the shit they want. this is a supreme court decision, not 'thanks obama'.

I agree with John Roberts. The decision was not constitutinally based. The real problems from this decision will surface when conservative evangelical churches lose their tax exempt status for refusing to marry gay couples.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
I agree with John Roberts. The decision was not constitutinally based. The real problems from this decision will surface when conservative evangelical churches lose their tax exempt status for refusing to marry gay couples.

Oh wow, you think this decision could have such far reaching positive effect?

A lot of people are jelouse of other people's happiness and fought to prevent it. Lucky we had so good a President that he would risk it all so Gay Marriage would happen.

why 2 threads

Mergified.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
I agree with John Roberts. The decision was not constitutinally based. The real problems from this decision will surface when conservative evangelical churches lose their tax exempt status for refusing to marry gay couples.

Uh, Churches are never required to marry people. Like, a Rabbi doesn't have to agree to marry a Christian, a Voodoo Priest can pass on the Jewish couple, and so on.


Sometimes, like if you publicly offer space, you may have to follow business rules on renting, but you are never required to officiate.

Only government employees have to, never priests, and the fears of being forced to are entirely unfounded. Other people being able to get married is not an imposition or limitation on anyone's religious rights.


Also, there's a long history of 'what marriages are ok' rulings being within the ballpark of the supreme court. There is a supreme court justice who's married to a woman in a way that is only legal due to a supreme court decision 48 years ago *exactly* like this one!

Why did no-one raise this complaint until they lost? To put it another way, they were totally fine with the court ruling on this subject... but only if it was in their favor.

Originally posted by Wonder Man
A lot of people are jelouse of other people's happiness and fought to prevent it. Lucky we had so good a President that he would risk it all so Gay Marriage would happen.

This is insanely idiotic. Nobody was "jealous" of anyone's happiness. Liberals like to pretend that the majority of conservatives are against it (they're not, they don't care), so they can feel better about themselves and their "crusade". Who "fought" to prevent it exactly? I'm conservative and I didn't fight it, nor did any of my conservative friends. We care about much bigger issues (for us), than same sex marriage. We're happy for those that are happy now but that's it. And lets stop thanking the President for this because I'm not sure you are aware, but he's had a spectrum of different opinions on same sex marriages since 2006. Thank SCOTUS, regardless of constitutional validity.

Originally posted by psmith81992
This is insanely idiotic. Nobody was "jealous" of anyone's happiness. Liberals like to pretend that the majority of conservatives are against it (they're not, they don't care), so they can feel better about themselves and their "crusade". Who "fought" to prevent it exactly? I'm conservative and I didn't fight it, nor did any of my conservative friends. We care about much bigger issues (for us), than same sex marriage. We're happy for those that are happy now but that's it. And lets stop thanking the President for this because I'm not sure you are aware, but he's had a spectrum of different opinions on same sex marriages since 2006. Thank SCOTUS, regardless of constitutional validity.
Are those the marching orders from FOX News? "Pretend conservatives have never been against gay marriage!"?

Originally posted by psmith81992
This is insanely idiotic. Nobody was "jealous" of anyone's happiness. Liberals like to pretend that the majority of conservatives are against it (they're not, they don't care), so they can feel better about themselves and their "crusade". Who "fought" to prevent it exactly? I'm conservative and I didn't fight it, nor did any of my conservative friends. We care about much bigger issues (for us), than same sex marriage. We're happy for those that are happy now but that's it. And lets stop thanking the President for this because I'm not sure you are aware, but he's had a spectrum of different opinions on same sex marriages since 2006. Thank SCOTUS, regardless of constitutional validity.

The wide majority of opponents, were conservative, and poured large amounts of money into fighting it (proposition 8 was famously narrowly decided by a campaign fueled heavily by out-of-state money), and now the major conservative presidential candidates are in some cases accepting it, but mostly decrying it, and in some cases even proposing massive changes to the checks and balances of the branches of government to undo it.


Your friends specifically may not have- and good for them!- but the opposition to gay marriage was *within* the conservatives.


As for Obama- he appointed Supreme Court justices. One justice would've flipped the issue, and if a Republic president had been in his place, 'how they're likely to vote on the gay marriage issue' would have been the type of thing they would have been examined for.


Sure, Obama's stance has changed, starting from no comment, to pro civil union, to finally outright full gay marriage, but he very much was a supporter, and he nominated justices reasonable enough to similarly support it.


Even if it may not have been his thought at the time, his action in promoting some justices rather than who his opponent's would've picked made this possible.

I wouldn't know but if I were you I'd stop listening to your MSNBC masters. Also, where was the word "never" used? And I said majority of conservatives while you lumped them all together. I appreciate your feeble attempts but it seems like you're having major issues following along.


I suppose but I wouldn't give credit to presidents (republicans or democrats) that flip flop whenever it's politically convenient.

lol, equating MSNBC and FOX News....

Lol, thinking they're different when in reality they represent the shit on both sides. Very amusing indeed.

MSNBC is a left leaning news network. Fox News is a propaganda machine with no desire for journalistic integrity.

At any rate, there was heavy, active opposition to marriage equality almost completely from conservatives, and it will likely continue. Obama, while only being a small part, did support marriage equality, and it is very unlikely that the same would have happened under a conservative president.

The whole marriage equality issue is solely an issue because a large number, likely a majority, of conservatives are too petty, ignorant, malicious and selfish to accept that minorities should have rights as well.

We shouldn't whitewash history and absolve conservatives of this injustice perpetrated by them.

You're...Kidding right? They're exactly the same thing on different sides.


Yes, it would have more likely happened under a Democrat than a Republican, that's not debatable.


You're right, we didn't whitewash the historical injustices committed by liberals, so I'm not suggesting we do that.

Originally posted by psmith81992
You're...Kidding right? They're exactly the same thing on different sides.


Yes, it would have more likely happened under a Democrat than a Republican, that's not debatable.


You're right, we didn't whitewash the historical injustices committed by liberals, so I'm not suggesting we do that.

So we are agreed, except on the MSNBC thing. Conservatives fought tooth and nail to stop gay couples from being able to marry, Obama should get credit for helping...2 out of 3 ain't bad, especially considering your initial post.

I still maintain my initial point which is that most conservatives do not care about same sex marriage. While conservatives make up the bulk of the opposition, that doesn't indicate a majority. We care more about the first two amendments, economic stability, our troops, etc. The same sex marriage issue may have been important years ago but now it's sort of "meh".

Originally posted by psmith81992
I still maintain my initial point which is that most conservatives do not care about same sex marriage. While conservatives make up the bulk of the opposition, that doesn't indicate a majority. We care more about the first two amendments, economic stability, our troops, etc. The same sex marriage issue may have been important years ago but now it's sort of "meh".

There's obviously been some movement there, but conservatives have still come out in huge numbers to vote against gay marriage, wherever a vote was possible. Your claim of conservative apathy on the topic just doesn't ring true. It's a big deal to a lot of conservatives, and they will organise and vote against it.

Look, you seem like one of the good conservatives, but a large part of the Republican party and the conservative movements are not just people who think these conservative ideals are good, they are fundamentalists that want to uphold oppressive traditions against minorities (LGBT, Blacks, Immigrants and also women, although not a minority)

That may be so but I don't think it's a big deal to the majority of conservatives. I think the left needs a good guy/bad guy scenario here. I mean "love overcomes hate" for instance? Really? I didn't know that there's only love and hate and nothing in between. I wasn't aware of the fact that if I don't support gay marriage, I "hate". It's where the "all emotion no logic" card comes into play.

Originally posted by psmith81992
That may be so but I don't think it's a big deal to the majority of conservatives. I think the left needs a good guy/bad guy scenario here. I mean "love overcomes hate" for instance? Really? I didn't know that there's only love and hate and nothing in between. I wasn't aware of the fact that if I don't support gay marriage, I "hate". It's where the "all emotion no logic" card comes into play.

"love overcomes hate and there was also a lot of apathy on the sidelines, not really on either side, which I suppose is not really helpful but also not as harmful as the hate but we should really mention it" just doesn't have quite the same ring though, does it?

And there is a lot of hatred on the conservative side that had to be overcome. Whether that's 49% of conservatives or 51%...I don't know, it's not that important I suppose, it's a sizeable chunk of conservatives though, enough to have hindered progress significantly for years.

What is the purpose of "lover overcomes hate" if the central issue was "apathy"?

And when you say "progress", do you actually mean progress or do you equate any kind of change with progress?

The central issue wasn't apathy though. The central issue was hatred, and perhaps fear and ignorance. The apathy didn't help. But there were huge groups of people actively trying to stop gay couples from being able to marry.

I mean progress. I view people that have been oppressed and persecuted finally getting the same rights that the majority of the country enjoyed progress.

Which I will contend was a MINORITY.
I don't want to watch two dudes making out. Does that make me ignorant or full of hate? No, it's just not for me. If I don't support same sex marriage, does that make me a bigot, or ignorant? Or just someone who believes his concept of marriage involves one man and one woman (hypothetical here)? But advocates of same sex marriage like to reach and these are the types of conclusions they come up with.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Which I will contend was a MINORITY.
I don't want to watch two dudes making out. Does that make me ignorant or full of hate? No, it's just not for me. If I don't support same sex marriage, does that make me a bigot, or ignorant? Or just someone who believes his concept of marriage involves one man and one woman (hypothetical here)? But advocates of same sex marriage like to reach and these are the types of conclusions they come up with.

It was sizable enough to excessively slow the adoption of marriage equality.

Not wanting to watch two guys making out doesn't make you full of hate (lots of people don't want to watch other people make out regardless of their gender).
Not supporting same sex marriage does make you ignorant, imo.
Someone who believes the concept of marriage involves one man and a woman is probably a bigot, especially when we are talking about government sanctioned marriages, which are basically legal contracts and have nothing to do with ones religious or spiritual stance.

Explain. If I'm a religious jew, supporting same sex makes me ignorant. It coincides with my ideals and the ideals of the torah. The fact that I don't oppose it because most people aren't jewish and a lot of Americans aren't religious, kinda makes it the opposite of ignorant, don't you think?


MY concept of marriage, not THE concept of marriage. Things being said here CAN be mutually exclusive.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/opinions/connelly-same-sex-marriage-ruling/index.html
I also found this piece quite interesting, especially coming from CNN of all places.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Which I will contend was a MINORITY.

It was a major campaign stance of the conservative party.

Heck, support nationwide only very recently passed 50%, and that's clumped away from one end of things. Log Cabin Republicans are the minority.




Right. Just as it's ok to not like watching anyone kiss.



Eh, maybe a bit. After all, you're denying people something you have access to, the right to marry your loved one.

Which isn't some minor thing, that is a major factor in people's lives.


It's one thing to say, "I don't like something, but my likes don't affect their rights," and quite another to say, "I don't like something, so I'll support opposition to their rights."

The latter really isn't a good stance.




While MSNBC is definitely Dem-leaning, to my knowledge they've never been handed talking points directly from the party or been involved in astroturfing a political movement- Hannity at Fox was very active in pushing the tea party early on.

While they're as close to mirrors as you can find, they still aren't exactly equivalent and one's taken action the other hasn't.

This is awesome news! Now homosexuals will have to deal with the legal bullshit that comes with marriage too.

I don't think there are any real polls to accurately reflect this.


No, opposing it would maybe make me a bigot or at least intolerant.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I don't think there are any real polls to accurately reflect this.

Gallup did extensive polling

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/hpjqdoulk0cfzbrolkhzfw.png





Oh, just not-supporting it as opposed to opposing it... alright, yea, then I'll correct myself, my bad. Kinda apathetic maybe, but that's not the same thing as bigotry.

Interesting.

Oh, and I missed an even newer poll, showing the continuing shift:
From May this year

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/2ba5lvbvhew-fvqivfxv_a.png


And a bit on how it factors in to voting too:

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/4edqiiutlku1fuj0i8tbbq.png

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/xshbbs3qcuwsksosdcrqta.png


It's interesting how the pro-side went from 'candidates don't have to share' to 'you know, they do,' probably in large part because in the earlier years you couldn't find a candidate who would in most places.

While similarly, the anti-gay marriage side has also grown more insistent that their candidates share their views, probably as it became more apparent that things really were changing.

Apparently some states have decided that if gays can get married, then they'll just stop all marriages. Lol.

Divorce law is about to bank.

Originally posted by Digi
I'd remove government from marriage entirely if it were up to me. But I also realize the impracticality of that stance in our current system. As such, this is great news. Wow Digi, how libertarian of you. clapclap

I see this thread has been merged, which is the only reason I came here. As a mod, I try to be neutral and avoid taking a side in these threads. Mainly because KMC is an escape where I don't have be a serious adult. dur Most of the people who know me well already realize my political leanings. I'd consider myself a fiscal and Constitutional conservative and a social libertarian. I disclose this only for context of my post below.

This ruling from the Supreme Court, and recent prior rulings, concerns me. In 1 week the SC has rewritten laws and legislated laws. This is starling to me because the USA is a democratic republic. We elect people to Congress who are supposed to enact laws which reflect the will of the people. The SC justices are neither elected nor legislators.

I would rather not have the Federal Government involved in any way with marriage, and most aspects of American lives. I fear this overreach will continue. The Constitution is made of liberties for the American people. Every time the Feds overreach their authority, our (American) liberties are eroded.

I know many of you applaud this ruling, and believe it is just. I would like you all to consider possible future ramifications of overreach by the Federal Government. Because right now it doesn't appear that we have 3 co-equal branches of government. And believe me, I assign a lot of blame to the Republican led Congress.

Now, let's get real. Everybody in the USA should elect me supreme ruler. For a safe and prosperous future. Join me!

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
Rise of the Badabingites
http://www.ghostofaflea.com/archives/RaptorJesus.jpg
Under the rights that this, Nomi Sunrider Respect Thread, is my thread, I will be converting its function and purpose to the worship and aggression of the Badabingites. The Badabingites is a cult that praises the Velociraptor mongoliensis as its supreme leader on the Internet. As leader of this cult, I will establish the rules, members, and guidelines members must follow if they wish to post in this topic. Any who wishes to post must follow what I say or they will suffer persecution.

The Ten Mandates of the Crown
1. Thou shalt not have no other moderators before Badabing.
2. Thou shalt not consider any moderator better then Badabing.
3. Thou shalt take the judgment of Badabing as law and justice.
4. Remember the day of the Revanith, and keep it wankaful.
5. Honor your fellow members of the forum who have befriended you.
6. Thou shalt not be aggressive to any KMC member besides Beniboybling.
7. Thou shalt not befriend or give kindness to Beniboybling and his minions.
8. Thou shalt not take credit for work of other members.
9. Thou shalt not forge fake quotes, scans, or dialogue of any canon work.
10. Thou shalt not lust the perfection and beauty of Revan the Almighty.

Consequences of Breaking the Mandates
First Offense: You will lose all protection from insults and disease from SWTOR members.
Second Offense: You will be discarded as no longer one of our own, and exiled to the wastelands of SWTOR forums.
Third Offense: You will be considered a minion and disciple of Beniboybling, resulting in the capture and passing of your I.P Address.
Fourth & Fifth Offense: http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lrh4uxIkn11r34h1ko1_500.gif

Leaders and Members of the Crown
Every pureblood KillerMovies member who has commented on this thread is currently a member.
Selenial and Aurbere are also members, despite not being pureblood. I am leader of the cult. Second-in-command is FreshestSlice.

https://contemplans.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/raptorjesus1bv9.jpg

Good post..

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/opinions/connelly-same-sex-marriage-ruling/index.html

Originally posted by Badabing
Wow Digi, how libertarian of you. clapclap

I see this thread has been merged, which is the only reason I came here. As a mod, I try to be neutral and avoid taking a side in these threads. Mainly because KMC is an escape where I don't have be a serious adult. dur Most of the people who know me well already realize my political leanings. I'd consider myself a fiscal and Constitutional conservative and a social libertarian. I disclose this only for context of my post below.

This ruling from the Supreme Court, and recent prior rulings, concerns me. In 1 week the SC has rewritten laws and legislated laws. This is starling to me because the USA is a democratic republic. We elect people to Congress who are supposed to enact laws which reflect the will of the people. The SC justices are neither elected nor legislators.

I would rather not have the Federal Government involved in any way with marriage, and most aspects of American lives. I fear this overreach will continue. The Constitution is made of liberties for the American people. Every time the Feds overreach their authority, our (American) liberties are eroded.

I know many of you applaud this ruling, and believe it is just. I would like you all to consider possible future ramifications of overreach by the Federal Government. Because right now it doesn't appear that we have 3 co-equal branches of government. And believe me, I assign a lot of blame to the Republican led Congress.

Now, let's get real. Everybody in the USA should elect me supreme ruler. For a safe and prosperous future. Join me!

While I agree that there can be a discussion about a more powerful activist judicial branch in the US being worrisome, I see this ruling from a completely different angle, i.e. that the SC did what it was meant to do. The whole reason there is Supreme Court is to keep legislative and executive power from passing and enacting laws that are against the constitutional rights of the people, and in recent years there has been extreme popular support in denying certain minorities rights due to the opponents religious beliefs. This is most definitely against the spirit of what America is build on, and there is a constitution in place to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

I don't know what your opinions on this are, but generally I don't understand some libertarians belief that for some reason federal government is bad, while regional government is good, from my point of view it doesn't matter whether the federal government or the state government is taking your liberties, and if the supreme court uses its power to make the federal government stop state governments from discriminating and infringing on American people's rights, that's a win for liberty in my opinion.

So in theory I agree with Digi, and I assume what your stance is, and think government should just stay out of marriage contracts altogether (perhaps give some guidance, as with any other form of incorporation), but that's not the world we live in, in the current world government is completely involved in marriages, and some state governments discriminate against its citizens, that is obviously unjust and against the spirit of the constitution, and we shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good.

Indeed. This is exactly why the Supreme Court exists. Their decision here is no different than similar decisions they've made in the past, particularly about racial segregation and interracial marriage.

The fact is it is deeply immoral to allow the public to vote and decide on the rights of minorities, and the public have shown time and time again why the supreme court is needed. As Bardock mentioned, it's precisely to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

See, you seem to support the power of the federal government now because you feel what they've done is just. But what happens if/when they do something unjust? Hopefully you'll be clamoring for the federal government to get out of the way and leave the power in the hands of the states. It's really a lose lose scenario.



I think calling same sex marriage ban tyranny is really stretching it. This isn't the same as segregation or slavery, no matter how much people want to compare them.

What the Supreme Court did was not only unconstitutional however it went against what was the rights of the states. The judges did not upload the constitution they bipassed it. This is tottering rule where 9 unelected officials have absolute power.

The wording of Kenndy's vote said that religious people have a right to advocate their beliefs while the constitution says people have religions freedom. Advocate and freedom are two different meanings.

Furthermore Obama is lying to the Amercian people. Less then 3 years ago he did not support same sex marriage and spoke against it and said it was a state matter. He carefully pulled arms and strings with his Justices to get this ruling and make it seem as if he did not actually get it done himself. On top of it, after the ruling he was overjoyed. So he is either lying then or lying now. Or he's pulled a John Kerry "I voted for the war, before I voted against it."

Originally posted by BackFire
Indeed. This is exactly why the Supreme Court exists. Their decision here is no different than similar decisions they've made in the past, particularly about racial segregation and interracial marriage.

The fact is it is deeply immoral to allow the public to vote and decide on the rights of minorities, and the public have shown time and time again why the supreme court is needed. As Bardock mentioned, it's precisely to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

We face a tyranny now. You are just unaware of it because these moves have not impacted your beliefs. When they do you will revolt. However I doubt that will happen as you seem to be all for a government ruled by corporations special interest groups and the feelings of people. You have not thought about the real impact of this. How it will affect religious freedoms. How it will affect churches, Christian schools, and much more. Since you are an non believer you don't care however then you are biased in saying that a this protects tyranny of a majority, when actually now the monorties have tyranny and more power then the majority.

The right of gay couples to marry in no way effects the rights of Christians, unless they count "the right not to be offended" or "the right not to have to know that somewhere out there people are doing something that my interpretation of a two thousand year old book doesn't condone"

The entire gay marriage debate has been one of Christians trying to impose their values through the law. The outcry among certain religious groups over this decision shows that many Conservative Christians consider anything less than a complete stranglehold on the moral conversation of America as them being oppressed. They need to learn to coexist.

As I said before, MOST religious people do not care about same sex marriages. IT just so happens that those who are in power, do.

Prior to this how was certain stuff handled? For instance, if you were a man who had an actual sex change into a woman..could you legally marry a man? Or would you still only be able to marry another woman?

DER TAKIN MUH FREEDUMS!

Originally posted by Surtur
Prior to this how was certain stuff handled? For instance, if you were a man who had an actual sex change into a woman..could you legally marry a man? Or would you still only be able to marry another woman?

I don't know how they are going to proceed from this point on regarding transgender and polygamy, honestly. Those are important questions to ask on the basis of this ruling.

Originally posted by BackFire
Indeed. This is exactly why the Supreme Court exists. Their decision here is no different than similar decisions they've made in the past, particularly about racial segregation and interracial marriage.

The fact is it is deeply immoral to allow the public to vote and decide on the rights of minorities, and the public have shown time and time again why the supreme court is needed. As Bardock mentioned, it's precisely to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

The tyranny of the majority

Some people misuse "bigot", "tyranny", "hate", etc all because they're incapable of making a logical argument and instead elect to use emotional triggers.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Furthermore Obama is lying to the Amercian people. Less then 3 years ago he did not support same sex marriage and spoke against it and said it was a state matter. He carefully pulled arms and strings with his Justices to get this ruling and make it seem as if he did not actually get it done himself. On top of it, after the ruling he was overjoyed. So he is either lying then or lying now. Or he's pulled a John Kerry "I voted for the war, before I voted against it."

Nobody gives a sh_t about Obama.

I don't know. I've heard people singing his praises. I'm pretty sure those people are ignorant though.

People are starting to question the legitimacy of this court decision; whether the ruling was constitutional or not.

Some believe that rulings like these deprive freedom of speech.
The SC is given too much power over matters that should be decided by the people.

keep wishing really really hard.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
We face a tyranny now. You are just unaware of it because these moves have not impacted your beliefs. When they do you will revolt. However I doubt that will happen as you seem to be all for a government ruled by corporations special interest groups and the feelings of people. You have not thought about the real impact of this. How it will affect religious freedoms. How it will affect churches, Christian schools, and much more. Since you are an non believer you don't care however then you are biased in saying that a this protects tyranny of a majority, when actually now the monorties have tyranny and more power then the majority.

What they did here is not new. They did the exact same thing in the 60's, ruling that the interracial marriage ban that was on the books in several states was unconstitutional and overturning it despite the law having popular support in many areas. Things like this is why the SC exists.

Minorities don't have more power than the majority, but this ruling is a step in ensuring that they do have equal rights.

Same sex marriage is a good thing. I honestly can't fathom how anyone thinks they should have rights other people don't have just because they don't morally agree.

Originally posted by BackFire
What they did here is not new. They did the exact same thing in the 60's, ruling that the interracial marriage ban that was on the books in several states was unconstitutional and overturning it despite the law having popular support in many areas. Things like this is why the SC exists.

Minorities don't have more power than the majority, but this ruling is a step in ensuring that they do have equal rights.

Everyone's here but a few claims the U.S. Is a democracy. Yet these judges went against what 36 states out of 50 said.

So this was tyranny. The issue isn't same sex marriage. It's the shredding of the constitution and democracy.

It's imposing the will of the few on the many.


Gays already could get married in certain states and have civil union.If the issue is receptivity of liscenses across the states. Now gun owners that carry concealed permits for weapons have the same claim that a liscense is a license and and it should have reciprocity.

The only one that won here was the federal government taking away more of the consitition and divorce lawyers.

The US is a constitutional democracy. The constitution provides certain rights superseding democratic rule to protect citizens from the dangers of majority rule.

Says the guy who lives in Germany.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The US is a constitutional democracy. The constitution provides certain rights superseding democratic rule to protect citizens from the dangers of majority rule.

I think you mean constitutional republic.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Says the guy who lives in Germany.

Germany has something called the "Basic Law", which has a similar function, albeit better drafted.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I think you mean constitutional republic.

Oh no, you are not one of those "the US is only a republic, not a democracy" people, are you?

Originally posted by psmith81992
I think you mean constitutional republic.

Most of the tirades here are from people don't live here.

Bye welcome to the forum.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I think you mean constitutional republic.

*federal republic

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Everyone's here but a few claims the U.S. Is a democracy. Yet these judges went against what 36 states out of 50 said.

So this was tyranny. The issue isn't same sex marriage. It's the shredding of the constitution and democracy.

It's imposing the will of the few on the many.


Gays already could get married in certain states and have civil union.If the issue is receptivity of liscenses across the states. Now gun owners that carry concealed permits for weapons have the same claim that a liscense is a license and and it should have reciprocity.

The only one that won here was the federal government taking away more of the consitition and divorce lawyers.

No, it's following the constitution. It's the SC's job to ensure everyone has the same rights as in accordance with the constitution. It is unconstitutional to withhold basic rights from minority groups simply because the majority want it. The SC exists to look at each situation from a constitutional point of view and decide if it is following the constitution or if it isn't.

If gun owners feel their constitutional right is being infringed on then they can also appeal to the SC and see what decision they make.

*Constituional Federal Republic, for the sharpshooting clown.

Originally posted by BackFire
No, it's following the constitution. It's the SC's job to ensure everyone has the same rights as in accordance with the constitution. It is unconstitutional to withhold basic rights from minority groups simply because the majority want it. The SC exists to look at each situation from a constitutional point of view and decide if it is following the constitution or if it isn't.

If gun owners feel their constitutional right is being infringed on then they can also appeal to the SC and see what decision they make.

Show me what decision on Obama care and Gay Marriage is in accordance with the constitution. Which article.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
*Constituional Federal Republic, for the sharpshooting clown.

the accepted title is: 'federal republic'. getting mad at me about it wont change that.

Okay, so, whatever, the US is a democracy and it has a constitution, and it's constitution protects certain rights from democratic rule. That it is a federal republic, has a separation of powers, is a representative and not a direct democracy, really doesn't have anything to do with that first point.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Show me what decision on Obama care and Gay Marriage is in accordance with the constitution. Which article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/06/26/whats-in-the-same-sex-marriage-ruling/

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh no, you are not one of those "the US is only a republic, not a democracy" people, are you?
I'm one of those "the US is a republic because it more closely resembles a republic than a democracy" people. What's your basis for calling it a constitutional democracy?

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

Here joo go mang

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Show me what decision on Obama care and Gay Marriage is in accordance with the constitution. Which article.

Won't respond to Obamacare since that's not the topic here.

The 14th amendment is the relevant amendment when it comes to same sex marriage, though. It is the one that protects and addresses the rights of citizens. Particularly this part of section 1 - "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..."

Originally posted by psmith81992
I'm one of those "the US is a republic because it more closely resembles a republic than a democracy" people. What's your basis for calling it a constitutional democracy?

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

Here joo go mang
It's both a republic and a democracy, these are not mutually exclusive things.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's both a republic and a democracy, these are not mutually exclusive things.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's both a republic and a democracy, these are not mutually exclusive things.

Originally posted by Bardock42


That wasn't your initial statement. Make sure you're consistent

wat?

It was the statement you didn't reply to.

At any rate, even those people who don't know that the US is both a republic and a democracy generally seem to think it is only a republic because they wrongly assume that a democracy can not have constitutional protection.

So whether you know it's a democracy or wrongly think it's only a republic we can all agree that a constitution is there to protect citizens from the tyranny of unchecked majority rule.

I'm not saying you're wrong but people lean towards the "republic" side more because of:



So while it's more republic than democracy, it's in essence both.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I'm not saying you're wrong but people lean towards the "republic" side more because of:



So while it's more republic than democracy, it's in essence both.

People don't lean towards that side more. Most people know that the US is a democracy. There's some people who think they know better, but they are just wrong about what a democracy is.

The confusion comes because these people aren't aware that Democracy is not a form of government, but a method by which a government exists. Just as there are Monarchies that are Democracies (England, Spain) there are Republics that are Democracies (USA, France, Germany).

A government doesn't have to decide whether it is a Democracy or a Republic. It has to decide whether it is a Democracy, a Technocracy, an Aristocracy, an Oligarchy or maybe a Theocracy...

While that may be true, I think most people that think we're a democracy are unaware of what a democracy really is.


Granted, our form of government is a democracy which happens to exist in a republic. I suppose they're interchangeable unless someone decides to be pseudo intellectual douche.


Sure, but once a government decides it's a democracy, why not break it down further? Not that IT has to.

Originally posted by psmith81992
While that may be true, I think most people that think we're a democracy are unaware of what a democracy really is.


Granted, our form of government is a democracy which happens to exist in a republic. I suppose they're interchangeable unless someone decides to be pseudo intellectual douche.


Sure, but once a government decides it's a democracy, why not break it down further? Not that IT has to.

Perhaps, people are infinitely capable to surprise someone with ignorance.

The definition your source material used is just not accurate. It's one very specific usage of Democracy, that disregards the much more common usage of the word, both in every day life and in political theory.

Of course, and it does. Like Bashar said it's a Federal Republic. It has a separation of powers. It's a representative, not a direct, democracy. It has an electoral college. etc. etc. you can define the aspect of the government as granular as you want, my issue is just with people who are trying to be smartasses with their "Actually...the US is a republic, not a democracy", not only because they are being smartasses, but mainly because they are wrong.

Well, I meant to say it's more of a republic than a democracy but it's a democracy within a republic. All the same stuff.

Originally posted by BackFire
Won't respond to Obamacare since that's not the topic here.

The 14th amendment is the relevant amendment when it comes to same sex marriage, though. It is the one that protects and addresses the rights of citizens. Particularly this part of section 1 - "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..."

You think this is the first SC to come across that language in a gay marriage debate? No its not. Instead of everyone having a discussion about it, they ran to get a SC ruling to shove it down everyone's throat. You don't know what has been done cause you agree with it, however as long as they can take away our constitution and make you agree with it, that is them winning. One day it will be to late and they will decide to take more and more, then what will you do man? Pray for it back?

So what has been done that's so bad here? What do you think will follow because of this decision? Would you have been equally as alarmed by the almost identical situation that occurred in the 60's when they "shoved a ruling down everyone's throat" that forced the legalization of interracial marriage?

I just hope our Muslim overlords don't use the SC to promote their right to spread their culture of terrorism in our nation.

Ok there's way too many tin foil hat wearing nuts here.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You think this is the first SC to come across that language in a gay marriage debate? No its not. Instead of everyone having a discussion about it, they ran to get a SC ruling to shove it down everyone's throat. You don't know what has been done cause you agree with it, however as long as they can take away our constitution and make you agree with it, that is them winning. One day it will be to late and they will decide to take more and more, then what will you do man? Pray for it back?

The first US national supreme court? Yes, it is, gay marriage has never reached the supreme court of the United States before.

The first supreme court period? No, several state supreme courts have encountered such arguments. They largely sided in favor of gay marriage. Which is why it moved up to the US Supreme Court.


Also, 'ran to get a SC ruling'? The public debate over gay marriage has been going on at a national level for literally years, and it passed from lower courts to higher courts in multiple districts and states. It's got 60+% public support and has been debated regularly for the last several years, with multiple avenues of argument against it used by different parties in different courts (largely found, rightly, to be of legally questionable nature), with many complaining that the Supreme Court was dragging it's feet way too long to pick up one of the several court cases that had passed from local courts to state courts to circuit courts and were awaiting them.

The first court case that ruled in favor of gay marriage was in 1993!


This is like the Obamacare thing only more so. Complaining about a lack-of-input when there was a several month public debate where they were asked for input and Obama ran on it as part of his campaign... except instead of several months of explicit debate plus some campaigns, we've had about a decade of it being in the public eye, and much longer of it being an issue in courts and specific venues.

'Ran' in this case seems to mean 'had any progress toward a ruling whatsoever.'

Originally posted by BackFire
So what has been done that's so bad here? What do you think will follow because of this decision? Would you have been equally as alarmed by the almost identical situation that occurred in the 60's when they "shoved a ruling down everyone's throat" that forced the legalization of interracial marriage?

I imagine the ranters were ranting similar rants back then as well. "End of times", "people will marry their dogs now" etc.

Originally posted by BackFire
So what has been done that's so bad here? What do you think will follow because of this decision? Would you have been equally as alarmed by the almost identical situation that occurred in the 60's when they "shoved a ruling down everyone's throat" that forced the legalization of interracial marriage?

I'm trying to get you to understand this isn't about gay marriage bro.

So when is INCEST being legalized?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I'm trying to get you to understand this isn't about gay marriage bro. Correct, it's overall about equality. Letting any consenting adult marry another consenting adult.

Originally posted by Robtard
Correct, it's overall about equality. Letting any consenting adult marry another consenting adult.

If that was the case then polygamy would also be on the table, which it's not. But it certainly opens the door for multiple partners.

Originally posted by psmith81992
If that was the case then polygamy would also be on the table, which it's not. But it certainly opens the door for multiple partners.

That fits in with certain religious beliefs so that is of coarse not on the table.

Originally posted by psmith81992
If that was the case then polygamy would also be on the table, which it's not. But it certainly opens the door for multiple partners.

One step at a time and I see no reason why polygamy should be illegal if done between consenting adults and not the way those fringe-Mormons do it by trading their underage daughters with each other in a slave-like fashion.

So there goes your slippery slope

Originally posted by Robtard
Correct, it's overall about equality. Letting any consenting adult marry another consenting adult.
- Should a human be allowed to marry an animal?

- Should a brother be allowed to marry his sister? Should all incestuous relationships be legalized?

- Should a woman be allowed to marry multiple men?

My point is that where do we draw the line?

Humans came up with the norms of right and wrong (moral code) and outcome was an advanced civilization. It was better for humans to differentiate themselves from wild animals.

Now, thanks to this legislation, we are heading back towards the era of barbarism and bestiality. I suppose, pro-incest movement would be next.

Yes exact this^

There is already a movement of gay men wanting to have relationships with underage boys. Now of coarse when I posted on this. No one said anything. Everyone is to much of a pansy to come out and say that's wrong. They will ignore avoid, then when it's really a debate say "14th Ammendemnt!!!!"

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
- Should a human be allowed to marry an animal?

- Should a brother be allowed to marry his sister? Should all incestuous relationships be legalized?

- Should a woman be allowed to marry multiple men?

My point is that where do we draw the line?

Humans came up with the norms of right and wrong (moral code) and outcome was an advanced civilization. It was better for humans to differentiate themselves from the animals.

Now, thanks to this legislation, we are heading back towards the era of barbarism and bestiality. I suppose, pro-incest movement would be next.

You people and your ridiculous slippery slopes, anyhow:

-An animal can't give consent

-There are known medical issues with incest, why it is looked down upon

-I don't see a problem with polygamy if done between consenting adults. Lol, at your "a woman", and not "people" though.

You draw the line at consenting adults. Might like you use that line in other scenarios.

Care to answer my questions now: Why do you care if two men or two women that you don't know marry? How does a Tim and Tom getting married affect you?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Yes exact this^

There is already a movement of gay men wanting to have relationships with underage boys. Now of coarse when I posted on this. No one said anything. Everyone is to much of a pansy to come out and say that's wrong. They will ignore avoid, then when it's really a debate say "14th Ammendemnt!!!!"

NAMBLA has been a joke since its inception and people still recognize the "age of consent" under this ruling.

So another slippery slope

In short, this ruling only applied to people that were always considered able to get married, only not in specific combinations. This expanded the combinations in a sensible way, but didn't change who is considered legally capable of engaging in marriage one bit.


---

Puerto Rico updated it's laws, just-in-case

US Supreme court decisions already apply there, but the governor gave an executive order instructing compliance.

Originally posted by Robtard
NAMBLA has been a joke since its inception and people still recognize the "age of consent" under this ruling.

So another slippery slope

Doesn't matter, Gay Marriage used to be a joke as well.

I don't know how clearly I can be here. This is not about gay marriage, it's about the SC being turned into a legislative branch which it is not. Then changing the words of the constitution to fit their agenda.

How much you wanna bet churches, caters, bakers, wedding planners who don't believe in gay marriage will be sued now?

@Dave:

I know you don't like when people use "political correctness" as a measure for the validity of an argument. And in some cases, I agree; there are politically dangerous topics that nonetheless deserve a full hearing. But I hope that you can agree that there are some argumentative tactics that deserve to be shouted down because they are dishonest and deliberately hurtful. For example, let's look at this gem from Legend:


Now, I am perfectly capable of giving a careful, point by point discussion about how a gay relationship is different from an incestuous one. There are a number of factors ranging from psychological health to opportunity for abuse that distinguish incestuous relationships. The same can be said for other negative practices that are often brought up like pedophilia or bestiality. From a purely argument-based standpoint those are really very weak tactics for the anti-gay marriage crowd to use.

However, there is a rhetorical edge to these comparisons that is as profoundly emotion-based as the criteria of "political correctness" itself. Specifically, the anti-gay partisan who throws around these comparisons does so without using much page space. The insinuation that gay people are pedophiles, or engage in bestiality, or incest, is enough to tie the idea to those practices in the minds of the crowd. The proponent of gay rights can certainly counter the argument, but it is more difficult to counter an insinuation. To help prevent anti-gay arguments use these kind of emotional appeals, it is critical that the response also use emotional appeals. One of the most powerful such appeals is a reference to propriety. So lambasting an argument as being not-politically-correct is (usually) not done because it cannot be defeated rationally, but because it is using a sort of rhetorical poison that doesn't rely on argumentation. Politically incorrect terms are like dirty-bombs that spread filth even when their delivery is off-target.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Doesn't matter, Gay Marriage used to be a joke as well.

I don't know how clearly I can be here. This is not about gay marriage, it's about the SC being turned into a legislative branch which it is not. Then changing the words of the constitution to fit their agenda.

How much you wanna bet churches, caters, bakers, wedding planners who don't believe in gay marriage will be sued now?

Now it seems as if you're comparing consenting adults getting married to people who want legal child-rape

The writers of the Constitution had the intelligence to leave the Constitution open-ended in the form of Amendments. As pointed out here before by BF, the 14 Amendment is what the SC upheld in it's ruling. It's not a new Amendment.

Is that any different that a store being sued for not doing business due to race, religion, skin color etc?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Doesn't matter, Gay Marriage used to be a joke as well.

I don't know how clearly I can be here. This is not about gay marriage, it's about the SC being turned into a legislative branch which it is not. Then changing the words of the constitution to fit their agenda.

One, interpreting laws and the constitution is literally their job. Two, if they ruled the other way, your complaint would fit 100% as much. Three, this is nothing new, they have ruled on marriage in the exact same way in the past- most notably with interracial marriage 48 years ago. Four, a large number of other courts also examined things and four the an




Oh, fun fact for you: Priests and Churches are never required to perform marriages. If they want to only perform marriages on left handed-to-left handed couples who've been members of their congregation for a prime number of years, they can.

The government has to do marriages, churches don't. The "But priests will be forced to marry gay people against their beliefs!" thing is just stupid paranoia that doesn't reflect legal reality and has nothing to do with the current ruling.


Remember, there's priests who wanted to perform these marriages but weren't allowed. Religious freedom was previously being impinged against the churches who wanted, now churches get to make the choice.

That's what happened here.

Originally posted by Robtard
-An animal can't give consent
An animal cannot give consent, neither refuse. Ever seen animal porn?

Originally posted by Robtard
-There are known medical issues with incest, why it is looked down upon
Argument is about consent, not medical issues.

And if medical issues are an argument, then gay-ism should not be promoted either:

HIV remains the largest health issue facing the gay community. From 2008 to 2010, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), new HIV infections remained steady overall but rose a startling 22 percent in young gay men. At the current rates, more than half of college-aged gay men will become HIV-positive by the age of 50.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gay-marriage-is-great-but-how-about-some-love-for-the-aids-fightlove-will-tear-us-apart/2013/06/28/5b18c50c-ddd0-11e2-948c-d644453cf169_story.html

Originally posted by Robtard
-I don't see a problem with polygamy if done between consenting adults. Lol, at your "a woman", and not "people" though.
What about children? Whom they will call father and mother?

Originally posted by Robtard
You draw the line at consenting adults.
Then incest should be legalized too. Why not vouch for it?

Originally posted by Robtard
Care to answer my questions now: Why do you care if two men or two women that you don't know marry? How does a Tim and Tom getting married affect you?
You are not focusing on the long-term implications of gay marriage.

I believe in distinction between humans and wild animals and values that are productive for a civilization. People have spent centuries in defining moral code that define a civilization, why go back?

Originally posted by Robtard
Now it seems as if you're comparing consenting adults getting married to people who want legal child-rape

The writers of the Constitution had the intelligence to leave the Constitution open-ended in the form of Amendments. As pointed out here before by BF, the 14 Amendment is what the SC upheld in it's ruling. It's not a new Amendment.

Is that any different that a store being sued for not doing business due to race, religion, skin color etc?

IOW: homosexuals can get married, and everyone who doesn't believe in it has to agree.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
A
What about children? Whom they will call father and mother?


They can call both parents one or the other.

Also note, quite often the alternative is simply having *one* legal parent.

Also-also note, gay couples are likely to adopt, and we have a notable shortage of adoptee parents, meaning it's a replacement for having *no* parents.




I don't think you are, it's existed for decades in some countries without problem and helps alleviate some issues.




And that hasn't changed one bit. Note that 100% of people in a gay marriage were recognized as competent to marry before this, just not allowed to do so with each other. Entirely different than your animal obsession.



It's called going forward. People have been wrong about many things. They were wrong about slavery, about racial inequality, about duels being a good way to solve problems, and so on.

"It's old so therefore it must be right," Is not a good argument.