U.S.A! U.S.A!

"505Turbeaux" (505turbeaux)
06/26/2015 at 10:33 • Filed to: None

finally something good to come out of the courts. Congrats to all who have been waiting for this for a long time!

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

DISCUSSION (80)

Bad Idea Hat > 505Turbeaux
06/26/2015 at 10:39

It’s good news, but it was only 5-4.

Also, there are a lot of seriously pissed off people right now, with all the stuff hitting the far-right hard this week. Stay safe out there folks.

Sn210 > 505Turbeaux
06/26/2015 at 10:40

Kinja'd!!!

(...its kind of rainbow)

Stapleface-Now Hyphenated! > 505Turbeaux
06/26/2015 at 10:41

Word. I don’t see why there are so many people who oppose this. Homosexuals should have the same right to be happy (or unhappily) married.

Speaking of gay, this gives me an opportunity to post one of my all time favorite clips. Every time I watch this I crack up.

BTW, this is not meant as a slight towards gays, it’s just a damn funny clip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9uBvo…

davedave1111 > 505Turbeaux
06/26/2015 at 10:42

Whatever happened to the separation of church and state? I was rather hoping that SCOTUS would rule that all marriage is religious in nature and therefore that state-sanctioned marriage is illegal in the US.

That would have stuck one up the conservatives and the big-government liberals at the same time.

As it is, while one group of people is now able to marry, what’s been done is to confirm that the government does have the right to decide who can get married and who can’t. One step forward, two steps back.

Milky > 505Turbeaux
06/26/2015 at 10:42

About fucking time, suck it Michigan.

EL_ULY > 505Turbeaux
06/26/2015 at 10:45

Kinja'd!!!

LongbowMkII > Bad Idea Hat
06/26/2015 at 10:46

between their golden family harboring a child molester, stupid flag being publicly decried, another public failure of the abstinence system, and now this?

feels good man.

WesBarton89 - The Way to Santa Fe > 505Turbeaux
06/26/2015 at 10:47

I’m extremely pleased about this news. It’s definitely major progress. Even 10 years ago, I don’t think something like this would have passed. Still, there’s a massive amount of opposition, and it was a narrow win. But a win is still a win regardless of how wide or narrow.

I hope this sets us on a path towards a naturally more accepting nation, and world, as a whole.

Every person deserves to be happy.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > 505Turbeaux
06/26/2015 at 10:48

It’s about damn time.

and 100 more > davedave1111
06/26/2015 at 10:49

Very good point.

LongbowMkII > davedave1111
06/26/2015 at 10:51

but then your taxes would go up.

JQJ213- Now With An Extra Cylinder! > 505Turbeaux
06/26/2015 at 10:51

This is honestly some of the best news I’ve heard from the government in a while!

Never understood why it was such a big deal in the first place. I got so annoyed hearing people get made fun of for who they were

BigBlock440 > davedave1111
06/26/2015 at 10:51

I don’t know how it would have stuck one up the conservatives, I know a few who think the government shouldn’t have anything to do with marriage. It absolutely is a religious institution, and it would (should) have made both sides happy getting rid of state sanctioned marriages. But nope.

spanfucker retire bitch > davedave1111
06/26/2015 at 10:51

Marriage these days doesn’t have jack shit to do with religious institutions as far as what these people were fighting for. You can get married in a court by a judge.

The issue at hand was benefits given to married couples; tax benefits, being able to see them in the hospital, covered under your spouse’s insurance, adopting children, etc. None of which has anything to do with the religious views of marriage.

spanfucker retire bitch > 505Turbeaux
06/26/2015 at 10:54

Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion was great. So well written. Profound even.

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

Scalia can still take a long walk off a short cliff though.

Bad Idea Hat > LongbowMkII
06/26/2015 at 10:56

I’m a hardcore moderate, who loves watching people get all twisted on things that are, when standing back and looking at them, simple fixes if you think about civics in general.

Granted, I’m 67-33 on the confederate flag. 33% for banning it, because it’s a symbol of oppression of black folks, but 67% for allowing it, because it marks people in a similar way that Ohio’s party plates mark people (to be avoided), and it’s also just a big dumb flag for big dumb people.

505Turbeaux > spanfucker retire bitch
06/26/2015 at 10:56

@scalia, yeah man no doubt

Steve Zissou > davedave1111
06/26/2015 at 10:58

If marriage is changed to solely religious in nature, we’d have to go back and right a whole bunch of laws to wipe out any mention of it. Not gonna happen.

spanfucker retire bitch > 505Turbeaux
06/26/2015 at 10:58

Seriously, he is just the most obstinate fuck in the entire Supreme Court. I can’t stand him. Even Justic Kennedy - appointed under Reagan for crying out loud - basically believes that marriage is just between two people who love each other, and to try and restrict that at the state level despite what the 14th Amendement says is just legally and constitutionally screwy.

But Scalia’s dissent is just “LOL THIS UNDERMINES DEMOCRACY.”

Steve Zissou > Bad Idea Hat
06/26/2015 at 10:59

“Hey we just won the Super Bowl, but we should have won by 4 touchdowns. This makes me so sad.”

Glass is half full dude...enjoy yourself sometimes.

davedave1111 > spanfucker retire bitch
06/26/2015 at 11:01

I think you misunderstood me. Marriage is an inherently religious* concept, so the state should not be handing out benefits to married couples, whatever their sex/gender.

*Not any particular organised religion. It’s a matter of personal belief, and that personal belief is indistinguishable from religion.

davedave1111 > Steve Zissou
06/26/2015 at 11:03

It’s not a change. The definition of marriage is a matter of personal faith, ergo marriage is inherently religious. But yes, you’re right that that’s why we’ve had this kludge in so many countries instead of actually sorting out the problem.

LongbowMkII > Bad Idea Hat
06/26/2015 at 11:03

I’m all about individuals having the flag (for the reasons you say) but I’m against the state flying the flag (with the obvious exception for museum/historical sites). Someone shouldn’t have to do government business under a symbol that represents...what it represents.

Pixel > Milky
06/26/2015 at 11:05

On cool thing, Michigan started issuing marriage licenses to gays in several counties once this decision was handed down, and several clerks have said they’d stay open all night if needed.

R Saldana [|Oo|======|oO|] - BTC/ETH/LTC Prophet > 505Turbeaux
06/26/2015 at 11:08

....soooo, ready for my hot take?

Here goes:

Basically the agenda of these appointees served to further undermine the right of state government. There is no federal marriage licensing bureau, the only bureaucratic organization that has any access to marital status (be it civil union or otherwise) is the IRS. This is an irrelevant decision that has put the people of this country in a great state of peril. The justices do not speak for the people, that is their intended design and goal, but they are appointed by other elected officials with absolutely zero input from the citizenry.

This decision while noble in its cause undermines and sets a precedent for the complete unification of government, in which the voters have little to no say on many of the issues that affect their everyday lives.

The federal government should have zero say in whom marries whom, be it race, gender, orientation, etc. The federal government has furthered its cause in establishing totalitarian rule over the people of this nation.

For those of your who are now recognized in the eyes of the law as legally able to marry. Do so, be happy, be excellent to each other; but be wary of what may yet come around the bend. For you too will reach a turning point in which your voice will no longer be heard.

CalzoneGolem > 505Turbeaux
06/26/2015 at 11:12

As my buddy said one day, “Why shouldn’t they be as miserable as us?”

Why not indeed.

Gamecat235 > davedave1111
06/26/2015 at 11:12

As a lifelong areligious person (I don’t identify with any religion, or with the underlying concept behind agnosticism or atheism, it’s a long story, but the history of both of those have to do with disbelief, and I’ve never elected not to believe, I simply don’t), I resolutely disagree with that stance. As soon as the government recognized marriages at all, and then became a party to them, that argument went out the window. They can’t have it both ways. The government performs, sanctions, and has laws governing marriages, and has for hundreds of years.

This is a victory for civil rights and the rule of law.

WiscoProud > Bad Idea Hat
06/26/2015 at 11:13

There was no doubt it was going to be close. Hell, the split was pretty much predicted beforehand. Glad it passed though.

spanfucker retire bitch > davedave1111
06/26/2015 at 11:13

Except that definition isn’t true anymore as has already been explained. You can get married in a completely secular way and have nothing to do with any religious institution.

WiscoProud > Bad Idea Hat
06/26/2015 at 11:14

I’m with ya. It doesn’t belong on state buildings, but it shouldn’t be banned from games or the general lee. That and it makes it very easy to identify mouth breathers at a distance.

WiscoProud > davedave1111
06/26/2015 at 11:15

They didn't rule that a church has to marry you, just that the legal protections marriages afford in our culture are now available to everyone. This doesn't force the catholic church into performing gay weddings.

davedave1111 > spanfucker retire bitch
06/26/2015 at 11:16

You’re still misunderstanding me. I’m not talking about organised religion or religious institutions. You cannot get married without having some belief about the definition of marriage. That belief is a matter purely of personal faith - no-one gets to tell you what to think. That is indistinguishable from religion.

davedave1111 > Gamecat235
06/26/2015 at 11:17

“As soon as the government recognized marriages at all, and then became a party to them, that argument went out the window.”

Eh? Somehow it’s wrong to argue that the government should reverse that position?

“ They can’t have it both ways.”

How is it having it both ways to say that marriage should not be a matter for government?

R Saldana [|Oo|======|oO|] - BTC/ETH/LTC Prophet > spanfucker retire bitch
06/26/2015 at 11:18

Literally all of these things you just said are exclusive to married couples are included in the civil union amendments in even the most “backward” of state governments.

davedave1111 > WiscoProud
06/26/2015 at 11:18

What does that have to do with anything?

R Saldana [|Oo|======|oO|] - BTC/ETH/LTC Prophet > WiscoProud
06/26/2015 at 11:19

...but it will.....see the Denver bakery incident circa 2014

spanfucker retire bitch > R Saldana [|Oo|======|oO|] - BTC/ETH/LTC Prophet
06/26/2015 at 11:19

When it comes to the issue of constitutionally protected civil rights, what the voters want is quite honestly meaningless. When segregation was forcefully ended in the south, many people had the same arguments back then. Congress should have done something. You can’t override the States rights.

But it doesn’t matter if the people in those States, or the State governments, or the representatives in Congress felt that equal rights shouldn’t be granted - because those rights were already granted by the Bill of Rights. They were already there and they were being ignored until the Supreme Court stepped in.

Granting equal civil protections that are already there under the law doesn’t need nor require Congress to come in. Nor should it rely on enough people to finally realize what a stupid thing it was they were trying to ban this whole time. These are universal civil rights and they shouldn’t be allowed to be restricted by the ebb and flow of political views.

R Saldana [|Oo|======|oO|] - BTC/ETH/LTC Prophet > spanfucker retire bitch
06/26/2015 at 11:20

Think about the implications in which a federal government has over-ruled a state governments laws. The state government speaks and acts for its people. A federal government looks out for the states and corporations.

spanfucker retire bitch > R Saldana [|Oo|======|oO|] - BTC/ETH/LTC Prophet
06/26/2015 at 11:20

Actually, it doesn’t. Because States could still refuse to recognize if you were married out of state. One of the plaintiffs in this case was refused to be put on his husband’s death certificate because the State said they didn’t recognize their union.

So you’re quite wrong.

spanfucker retire bitch > R Saldana [|Oo|======|oO|] - BTC/ETH/LTC Prophet
06/26/2015 at 11:21

Think about the implications in which a federal government has over-ruled a state governments laws.

You mean nothing new?

A federal government looks out for the states and corporations.

That’s fucking laughable. As if a state legislature is somehow immune from corporate lobbying. Go look up ALEC.

BigBlock440 > WiscoProud
06/26/2015 at 11:24

We’ll see about that, but I’m sure there will be people that try.

BrtStlnd > davedave1111
06/26/2015 at 11:24

All marriage is not religious in nature. The benefits given to married couples by the government are universal from Wiccans to atheists to evangelical Christians. There is zero reason, other than an individual’s personal religious views to keep these benefits from same sex couples. In my mind, I see the prevention of same sex marriage as an endorsement of Christian views at the expense of non-Christians. That’s not ok.

WiscoProud > R Saldana [|Oo|======|oO|] - BTC/ETH/LTC Prophet
06/26/2015 at 11:25

A church is distinctly different than a business.

WiscoProud > BigBlock440
06/26/2015 at 11:27

Of course. But freedom of religion is enshrined in the first amendment. Forcing a church to perform a service against their beliefs clearly violates that.

But you're right. Someone will try and it will likely go to court. There are crazies on both sides of the debate.

Gamecat235 > davedave1111
06/26/2015 at 11:30

Taxes, property, income, insurance, custodial/parental rights, travel, banking, loans, and dozens if not hundreds of other issues are intricately tied to the institution of marriage as it stands and is regarded by the government. None of these things have even the slightest thing to do with religion, and nor do I.

Or to put this much more bluntly : Are you actually saying that I should have no right to be married in the eyes of the government because of religion ?

davedave1111 > BrtStlnd
06/26/2015 at 11:30

I’m not talking about organised religion, or belief in god, but about matters of conscience. What anyone believes marriage is is their own personal opinion indistinguishable from a religious belief.

“ There is zero reason, other than an individual’s personal religious views to keep these benefits from same sex couples.”

I quite agree, it would just be homophobic bigotry not to hand them out if you have them at all . But you shouldn’t have them for anyone, whatever their sex, gender, orientation, genitalia, etc.

“I see the prevention of same sex marriage as an endorsement of Christian views”

Not just Xtian, but yes, I agree. Who mentioned preventing anything, though? I’m talking about giving people the freedom to marry whoever and however they want, rather than just slightly broadening the group of people the government permits to marry.

TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. > 505Turbeaux
06/26/2015 at 11:32

Kinja'd!!!

R Saldana [|Oo|======|oO|] - BTC/ETH/LTC Prophet > spanfucker retire bitch
06/26/2015 at 11:36

yet again not resolving the actual problem. The discrimination, while proliferated by the government by not getting involved for so long, exists in the individual person. The “segregation” of anyone or thing can still continue no matter the changing of laws. The Jim Crow laws, while abolished were and actually are still in affect in many of the most remote places in America. The south in the later 60s and 70s post Civil rights Act were still as dangerous for PoC as before the federal government stepped in.

God, why am I getting into this, I told myself I would stay out of any of this stuff this week. I’ve done gone and goofed now.

The federal government should have ZERO say in who marries whom. It is not a federal institution. The federal government only profits from the change in tax status of married couples.

Either way, I respect your opinion, I am pissed that it got to this level (that we as Americans, as a whole can;t just be excellent to each other all the time) and I am wary of what may yet come.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

davedave1111 > Gamecat235
06/26/2015 at 11:38

“Are you actually saying that I should have no right to be married in the eyes of the government because of religion ?”

No. Not in the slightest, I can’t believe that’s what you’ve somehow understood from my comments. I’m saying something pretty close to the exact opposite of that. I don’t believe the ‘eyes of the government’ should ever look at marriage at all.

Your personal belief about what marriage means is the only thing that matters, and that belief is something that cannot be differentiated from a religious belief: it’s purely a matter of conscience. As such, it is not something the government should have anything to do with - they should not have the right to interfere in your personal choice to get married to whoever you want, your choice to make whatever arrangements you want.

“Taxes, property, income, insurance, custodial/parental rights, travel, banking, loans, and dozens if not hundreds of other issues are intricately tied to the institution of marriage as it stands “

Yes, but that could and should be changed.

R Saldana [|Oo|======|oO|] - BTC/ETH/LTC Prophet > spanfucker retire bitch
06/26/2015 at 11:38

Accurate.

I have nothing to add. I better just keep my mouth shut, and just keep treating people as I have almost always done, excellently.

R Saldana [|Oo|======|oO|] - BTC/ETH/LTC Prophet > davedave1111
06/26/2015 at 11:40

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Marriage should be irrelevant to all except the couple who is married.

BrtStlnd > spanfucker retire bitch
06/26/2015 at 11:40

It’s really twisted how Scalia thinks this undermines democracy even though a majority of Americans are in favor of same sex marriage. Isn’t that actually a great example of democracy?

itschrome > 505Turbeaux
06/26/2015 at 11:44

It will never cease to amaze me why this was or is even an issue? How is it any bodies right to tell any body how to live their lives? Especially when they are not harming any one by their life decisions? It bothers me to no end that people out there think they have that right! An individual has the right to choose how they choose to lives their lives so long as they do not cause harm or interfere with any one else in the process.

wether we are talking about gay marriage, sexual identity and life style in general, what they do to their bodies, with their bodies or put in their bodies. Whether it’s body modification, abortion, drugs or other peoples genitals what business is it of you or any body else what some one else is doing?! Now I do agree the second their choose does cause harm or other wise interfere with others then yes we as a society need to intervene. But if I choose to do drugs responsibly well married to some one of the same gender in the privacy of my home while getting abortions all day, then damn it you have no right to tell me not too!

But if I start breaking into your home to steal money or goods to buy drugs and also rape you or your child, then yes of course there are limits here people. But I’m sick and fucking tired of hearing about what I should or shouldn’t be doing because some one else does it like it even though in no way are they affected by my actions!

I’m also kind of sick about hearing about other peoples shit too for that matter. Oh your trans, gay, bia, what ever. I don’t care. You do you and I’ll do me and if your a good person and not an asshole I could care less what you do with your genitals. Why do we need to be constantly barraged by it? It’s a none issue as far as I am concerned.

Gamecat235 > davedave1111
06/26/2015 at 11:45

My marriage has nothing to do with religion, and no religion has anything to do with my marriage. My marriage is two things, and two things only.

1. It is a declaration to my wife to be her partner until death claims one of us. I shall stand beside her through thick and thin, and she will do the same (hopefully).

2. it is a civil union for the purposes of all of the reasons I listed above and more.

We could not undo the civil and legal ties of marriage from all of these subjects. Most of our civil laws, and more than a few of our criminal laws have direct ties to the institution of marriage and the governments role in it. And many many more have indirect ties which would take decades to unravel. This would be akin to separating currency from the government.

Gamecat235 > R Saldana [|Oo|======|oO|] - BTC/ETH/LTC Prophet
06/26/2015 at 11:53

Because in spite of yourself, you are still passionate about the subject and your beliefs.

Gamecat235 > davedave1111
06/26/2015 at 12:02

I don’t see government as a necessary evil, I see government as a necessary structure. There are many things that need to prioritized over the debate whether marriage, as an institution, has any role in the that government plays.

I understand your passion, and have long stated that what I have is a civil union, and I wish that the government would recognize it as such so that I wouldn’t muddy the water. I understand the argument that civil unions are for the government and marriage is historically religious in nature. But the institution of marriage (legally speaking, as a civil union) is a legal necessity in today’s world. That can’t, won’t, and shouldn’t change.

Hooker > 505Turbeaux
06/26/2015 at 12:07

I’m thankful for this. It is the way the country was (rightfully) moving anyway. Love is love.

Bad Idea Hat > Steve Zissou
06/26/2015 at 12:11

Yeah, but my worry lies with the fact that it only takes one person flipping and this gets shot right back down 4-5.

I’m happy, and happy for a lot of people, but it’s depressing that 4 people voted against civil liberty, and a 5th vote against was probably a lot closer to happening than we’re comfortable admitting.

davedave1111 > Gamecat235
06/26/2015 at 12:18

So can you force people to believe that marriage is what you say it is? Or is it just like, say, believing that Jesus was the son of god? That’s the sense in which it’s like religion, nothing to do with organised religions. It’s a matter of conscience, just as belief in some deity is.

“It is a declaration to my wife to be her partner until death claims one of us. I shall stand beside her through thick and thin, and she will do the same (hopefully).”

And is the important part that declaration, or the fact that you filled out a form and paid a fee to the government?

“Most of our civil laws, and more than a few of our criminal laws have direct ties to the institution of marriage and the governments role in it. “

But they shouldn’t. Or they should encompass all long-term partnerships, if it’s right for them to encompass some. That a problem is hard to solve doesn’t mean we shouldn’t solve it.

davedave1111 > Gamecat235
06/26/2015 at 12:20

The problem is that the government shouldn’t get to decide who can marry whom. They’ve expanded the group they permit to marry, but they still exclude many.

“ I understand the argument that civil unions are for the government and marriage is historically religious in nature”

That’s the exact opposite of the argument I’m making. A government or church (or person) can tell me whether they consider me married, but they can’t change whether I think I am or not.

R Saldana [|Oo|======|oO|] - BTC/ETH/LTC Prophet > Gamecat235
06/26/2015 at 12:25

But at the same I believe in your right to believe in whatever you want. So I am so damned conflicted. on one hand great win for liberty and freedom, on another I do believe that it is a sin, but then again we are all sinners and Christ has already forgiven us. So if I get so up in arms about this worldly desicion, am i doubting Christ ability to forgive even the most heinous sins?

So much conflict, so little worth in arguing something that genuinely does not affect me, except that some people will be a little happier (I hope) and others with be much more angry (I choose to not be one of them). So at the end of my life will I be proud of my convictions about gay marriage and LBGTQ (is that the right order) interpersonal civil rights?

If I follow my belief that Christ forgives all and that liberty and freedom are the greatest creations we have as a human species (I am leaning now more that we should not allow ourselves to be separated by the social construct of “race”) then this is a good and just thing.

Find happiness, but most of all, be excellent to each other.

Thank you for having a genuine, informative and non-oppressive conversation with me. You have allowed me to think deeply within my mind about the value and purpose of separatist distinctions.

Have some gifs, because life should be love, and love should be the way of life.:

Kinja'd!!!

davedave1111 > spanfucker retire bitch
06/26/2015 at 12:27

Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

Them, but not, say, Mormons? I’d like to think that was put in on purpose so polygamous people can win when they sue, but I rather suspect it’s just an example of the way people manage to believe contradictory things.

spanfucker retire bitch > davedave1111
06/26/2015 at 12:32

Who knows, Mormons might be able to win.

Gamecat235 > davedave1111
06/26/2015 at 12:33

The first part of what my marriage is, as you quoted, is purely between my wife and I (and our children, and family). The second part is the part where the government comes into play, and while that part, with all of the paperwork and fees that come with it, is largely bureaucratic.

Marriage isn’t what I say it is, but, rather is a well defined legal term. And also a historically significant religious term as well. And the two don’t always see eye to eye... even less so after today.

Our civil laws absolutely should encompass all long term partnerships, and with the decision today, we’ve moved (leaped) toward that.

Gamecat235 > davedave1111
06/26/2015 at 12:36

We’re veering off into the domain of free will, which is an area where laws only govern consequence (well, they used to anyway). No one can make you believe anything other than yourself.

The exclusion list is smaller and smaller. And this ruling may serve to clarify some of those as well in the relatively near future.

What you hold in your heart is yours, and how you view yourself is yours. It doesn’t have to match up with reality, but often it is ‘easier’ to navigate what we perceive as real when these align internally and externally.

davedave1111 > BrtStlnd
06/26/2015 at 12:40

No. I hate to say it, but Scalia has a point. Democracy involves voting, not judges creating law, even when the majority of voters support them: if that’s the case, have a referendum/election and change the law the right way.

Judicial over-reach is a long-standing problem with the US system, and allowing a massive extension of it, even in a good cause, is a bad thing. The Supreme Court is not supposed to have the power to change a law, even if it’s disgusting and wrong: they’re supposed to interpret what the laws are, not fiddle with them.

davedave1111 > Gamecat235
06/26/2015 at 12:44

“We’re veering off into the domain of free will”

No veering, that’s where I’ve been the entire time. What someone believes is a marriage is no different to a religious belief, and so is not a matter for government: the Constitution explicitly says that.

“What you hold in your heart is yours, and how you view yourself is yours. It doesn’t have to match up with reality”

It is reality.

davedave1111 > Gamecat235
06/26/2015 at 12:46

“Marriage isn’t what I say it is, but, rather is a well defined legal term.”

Well, no, it’s not well-defined. That’s why there’s an argument about it. And even if it were well-defined, that definition only reflects one particular interpretation of marriage that was current in the US when the law was made. This whole idea of a ‘traditional’ definition of marriage is nonsense: marriage has always meant different things to different people around the world.

“Our civil laws absolutely should encompass all long term partnerships, and with the decision today, we’ve moved (leaped) toward that.”

No, you’ve moved directly away from it by affirming the government’s right to decide which long term relationships are deserving of recognition.

spanfucker retire bitch > davedave1111
06/26/2015 at 12:53

No one created a new law. They did what a court does and interpret an existing one - the 14th Amendment.

The idea that we need to put to a vote whether to grant homosexuals the same constitutional rights as heterosexuals have is ridiuclouse on its face. 90% of this nation’s voters could be against it and their opinions would still be meaningless as it doesn’t matter what they want, it only matters what rights are granted to them by the Bill of Rights.

rb1971 ARGQF+CayenneTurbo+E9+328GTS+R90S > 505Turbeaux
06/26/2015 at 13:14

Agreed! I’m happy to say it’s been a good week for the USA and a bad week for the bigots and blowhards.

rb1971 ARGQF+CayenneTurbo+E9+328GTS+R90S > davedave1111
06/26/2015 at 13:15

My wife and I are both atheists. Are you saying we shouldn’t be married?

Horseshit.

505Turbeaux > rb1971 ARGQF+CayenneTurbo+E9+328GTS+R90S
06/26/2015 at 13:18

agreed on this point too

Cixelsyd > R Saldana [|Oo|======|oO|] - BTC/ETH/LTC Prophet
06/26/2015 at 14:13

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Dude, your use of this is utter bullshit (and offensive, to boot). A government recognizing the rights of consenting adults to marry isn’t remotely the same thing as “them coming for you.” Quit it with the victimhood. Allowing a gay dude to marry the man he loves DOES NOT give you the right to compare yourself to a Holocaust victim.

R Saldana [|Oo|======|oO|] - BTC/ETH/LTC Prophet > Cixelsyd
06/26/2015 at 14:27

....please move further down the thread....you will see how things can go full circle and a person with beliefs can realize that his/her beliefs need not infringe on law or other human lives.

In other words:

\dismissed until you do your due diligence and continue the conversation to which you were not a party to.

Kinja'd!!!

davedave1111 > rb1971 ARGQF+CayenneTurbo+E9+328GTS+R90S
06/26/2015 at 15:16

No, that’s the opposite of what I said.

davedave1111 > spanfucker retire bitch
06/26/2015 at 15:20

Thing is, four(?) of the Supreme Court justices seem to think that the Supreme Court doesn’t have the power to do this. Five think they do. It’s hardly clear-cut, and if you’ve actually read Scalia’s opinion, he makes a decent case for it.

It is of course absurd to differentiate between people based on sexual orientation, but this is a question of the right way to fix the problem.

rb1971 ARGQF+CayenneTurbo+E9+328GTS+R90S > davedave1111
06/26/2015 at 15:37

Own your words. Here is what you said:

“ was rather hoping that SCOTUS would rule that all marriage is religious in nature and therefore that state-sanctioned marriage is illegal in the US.”

Therefore, since I am not religious, you were hoping that SCOTUS would rule that I can’t be married. And that in fact my “state sanctioned marriage” would be “illegal”.

I’m not misquoting you here. You’re just backing off because your position is untenable and frankly foolish given how the modern world works. (Also, as a lawyer, I can tell you that the relief you were “hoping” for was not actually an available remedy.)

Listen, if you’re a bigot, or a blowhard, I get that it’s been a tough week here in America, what with health care, potential limits on government endorsement of slavers coming to and end, gay marriage, dogs and cats living together, etc. Probably hard. But that doesn’t mean you get to ignore logic as well.

davedave1111 > rb1971 ARGQF+CayenneTurbo+E9+328GTS+R90S
06/26/2015 at 15:52

You’ve understood the exact opposite of what I said. Just read my other comments here, then I’ll accept your apology.

rb1971 ARGQF+CayenneTurbo+E9+328GTS+R90S > davedave1111
06/26/2015 at 15:59

No thanks, I’d rather not waste my time with bigots on an important day. If you can’t express yourself properly, that’s not really my issue. As for any apology, you’ll be waiting a long time.

davedave1111 > rb1971 ARGQF+CayenneTurbo+E9+328GTS+R90S
06/26/2015 at 16:03

Silly troll, go find another forum to play your games. I’m not going to get upset if you call me silly names that are the exact opposite of what I am. Or if you can’t bring yourself to admit your mistake and apologise, if there was any actual mistake rather than just silly trolling.