US Supreme Court rules that same-sex marriage is legal nationwide

[Keleynal]

My 2 cents:
The reason why the state is even involved in marriage is because marriage produces goods that the state is interested in. These goods being kids. To incentive this they give married couples benefits. And here is where my problem comes when people argue that gays shouldn´t get benefits, because they can´t have kids.
A. How many straight couples don´t have kids?
B. If you would allow adoption for gay couples, it would improve the life of a orphan considerably
C. How many parents have kids and raise them poorly?

In the end marriage is just a word, and if you want to label yourself as being married go ahead to do so. The state should give gay couples the same benefits as straight couples, because on average they raise a child just as well (according to recent studies it´s better, but the data might be biased).

Same sex couples have been allowed to get civil unions in America for a long time. Those provided most of the same benefits as marriage, such as the ability to file taxes jointly. I don't think the issue of child production is really a factor here. Married couples that don't produce children have the same marriage license as those with children.

 

[Passage]

I'm not sure what came over me, but in the midst of my crazy work day I had an ephemeral moment where I felt like we (gays) were acknowledged as human beings.

This is the only thing that matters about this ruling. Equality.

 

[Keleynal]

I'll take the overreach for jurisdiction over filibuster.



I can't decide if this is a serious comment. If you really read that paper in college, you must realize it's satire.

I didn't read it myself, but my wife is pretty quick to pick up on stuff. So I don't think the article was satirical. I think her comment there was a little short sighted though. I think that same sex couples likely already have experienced abuse and other issues. Having the title of marriage probably won't change that much. It'll just make it more troublesome to break up a couple.[DOUBLEPOST=1435347166,1435347092][/DOUBLEPOST]

This is the only thing that matters about this ruling. Equality.

That's where I depart ways so hard. The ends don't justify the means. I wish this had been handled better.

 

[Passage]

I wish this had been handled better.

I don't agree that it doesn't fall under the 14th. Mayhaps it was handled well, and saying that it doesn't apply is the overreach.

Doesn't look like it's the full doc, but there's a healthy bit of info below.

http://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=2111867-scotus-gay-marriage-decision

 

[Baldoraxx]

So, my standing is pretty in-line with Kel. Overreach of power and all that good jazz. As I have stated in my previous posts that I love the sinner but hate the sin and we all sin. Which is why I am usually VERY loving and always ready to give a helping hand to anyone when it is needed no matter their race, gender, or the gender they want to be with. I look at the individual and not consider where they have been or what they might be doing this instant. However, with this ruling, when does it stop? Will polygamy be the next fight? After that one what's next? Beasitiality being accepted freely? Being sin, when do we start making it legal to commit adultry and killing people. Back to the hand of overreach by the SC. Was it overreach? Is it law now? Yes and yes. I accept it but It definitely needs a second look. Why should 5 lawyers decide the future on this matter when it should have stayed down at the state level.

 

[Euchale]

Will polygamy be the next fight? After that one what's next? Beasitiality being accepted freely? Being sin, when do we start making it legal to commit adultry and killing people

Google:"Slippery slope argument"

Those provided most of the same benefits as marriage

The problem is the word "most", if it would be "all"...

Married couples that don't produce children have the same marriage license as those with children.

And this is why I consider marriage benefits stupid and would much rather have children based benefits.

 

[Keleynal]

Google:"Slippery slope argument"

It's only a fallacy if there's no reason or precedent for it to happen. We've been closely following Europe's tail when it comes to having sexually deviant activity become socially acceptable. There are signs that polygamy will be the next domino to fall there (http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/480, as an example).

I think he's spot-on. This has come as a result of accepting adultery, immorality, and divorce as cultural norms.

 

[Euchale]

(http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/480

This article is incredibly old and I can´t verify the source. I personally know of anybody in a polygamy relationship and I know that this is no measurement, but the amount of evidence for this seems to be very thin...

On the other hand, what´s bad about polygamy? If more than 2 people love each other and all of them are consenting to getting married in a polygamous relationship, where is the problem?

 

[Passage]

However, with this ruling, when does it stop? Will polygamy be the next fight? After that one what's next? Beasitiality being accepted freely? Being sin, when do we start making it legal to commit adultry and killing people.

I think he's spot-on. This has come as a result of accepting adultery, immorality, and divorce as cultural norms.

Sounds like:

 

[Keleynal]

This article is incredibly old and I can´t verify the source. I personally know of anybody in a polygamy relationship and I know that this is no measurement, but the amount of evidence for this seems to be very thin...

On the other hand, what´s bad about polygamy? If more than 2 people love each other and all of them are consenting to getting married in a polygamous relationship, where is the problem?

That, in a nutshell, is the slippery slope.

 

[Keleynal]

This article is incredibly old and I can´t verify the source. I personally know of anybody in a polygamy relationship and I know that this is no measurement, but the amount of evidence for this seems to be very thin...

On the other hand, what´s bad about polygamy? If more than 2 people love each other and all of them are consenting to getting married in a polygamous relationship, where is the problem?

I didn't put a lot of effort into finding that. It's from 2005. If Norway and the UK were starting to compromise then, it's safe to assume it has only progressed from there.

 

[Euchale]

I didn't put a lot of effort into finding that. It's from 2005. If Norway and the UK were starting to compromise then, it's safe to assume it has only progressed from there.

The point is that they were discussing making polygamy legal because of immigrants. In some less developed countries it´s still common and right now our laws can´t really handle it if somebody wants to immigrate and has several wifes/husbands. This is a paper that I found on the topic:
https://www.jus.uio.no/english/rese...014/wccl-cmdc/wccl/papers/ws6/w6-federico.pdf

That, in a nutshell, is the slippery slope.

Except it is not. If I were to say just marry whatever, then it would be a slippery slope. But I stated that everybody has to consent. This rules out stuff like marriage with objects, animals or children (since they cannot legally consent).

 

[Keleynal]

The point is that they were discussing making polygamy legal because of immigrants. In some less developed countries it´s still common and right now our laws can´t really handle it if somebody wants to immigrate and has several wifes/husbands. This is a paper that I found on the topic:
https://www.jus.uio.no/english/rese...014/wccl-cmdc/wccl/papers/ws6/w6-federico.pdf




Except it is not. If I were to say just marry whatever, then it would be a slippery slope. But I stated that everybody has to consent. This rules out stuff like marriage with objects, animals or children (since they cannot legally consent).

Nope, that's the very definition of slippery slope. Small, incremental changes that are easy to justify, but lead to big changes which many times aren't originally intended. It's natural social progression (or regression, as the case may be). It's a fallacy when there is no precedent of if the progression is not logical.

As to the immigrants with extra spouses, that's how stuff starts. You make small compromises to accommodate special situations, all rational and very reasonable. And tehn suddenly people start saying "Hey, if Ackmedt can have three wives, why can't I?" And suddenly they realize that you can't compromise morality without giving it up entirely.

 

[Euchale]

. You make small compromises to accommodate special situations, all rational and very reasonable.

But I would much rather say I make small compromises than to just stick with what I know. This is how we get new technology and other things n stuff. If the Europeans back then would have taken the compromise of living on a different country, there would be no modern Americans today.
If people in wouldn´t have taken the compromise of potential death while riding a train that is faster than 30 mph, there would be no fast travel available today.
If people wouldn´t have taken a compromise in Germany to let protestants and catholics live together, one of the sides would have been eradicated.

Life itself is all about compromises.

"Hey, if Ackmedt can have three wives, why can't I?

just because we make something legal, doesn´t mean you have to do it.

 

[Passage]

"Hey, if Ackmedt can have three wives, why can't I?"

I was totally thinking Mormon extremist before I read all that above. I would have used a god-fearing John Smith for my polygamy example.

That, in a nutshell, is the slippery slope..

Euch's example really wasn't.

 

[Crake]

It's gonna be a good night to be out on the town, people gonna be celebrating yo!

Too bad I'll be in Hoboken tonight. But seriously, I'm glad we can start putting all this nonsense behind us and start moving toward acceptance while still remembering what brought us here. Nice moves America.

As far as the overreach goes.. I think when there is a clear discrepency in rights between the majority and underserved groups and that right is being blocked by the powers that be it is acceptable for the government to step in and protect those rights.. especially when it is an issue that all polls point to being a majority opinion. This whole 'slippery slope' thing is alarmist and in my opinion directly in conflict with progress. I think we need to realize that this thing should have been a non-issue, and letting other Americans have the same rights as the rest of us is not going to lead to people banging animals legally.

 

[Cheese]

While I can say you have a point about State's Rights that argument is generally the last crutch of a desperate population.
Plus what sounds good on the bandwagon quickly falls apart under scrutiny.

The main case was about people being discriminated against based upon a federal amendment which applies to all things that the states set in their laws.
Even the states can not go against the constitution in their weighing of power.
Essentially the supreme court has made a statement (in concurrence with other decisions) that sexual orientation IS protected as a form of adverse discrimination.
Just like the state can not prevent mixed race, mixed language, or people who own a PS1 from marrying someone with an X-Box they cant set laws which violate higher laws.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

[tr1age]

The constitution.​

Sin.​

Governement rule.​

All of this shit is just man made bullshit, and if we know anything of out fellow man is that they can be WRONG. Sadly because it was written down on paper from years ago, we quote it and hold it over our heads while preaching it. Ever sent a text saying, "Be there in the sec" with a return text that says "Why the fuck are you being an asshole?" Lost in txtlation. Not everything is verbatim and not all verbatim is read equally. It all made a lot of sense back when, but guess what, times change. One thing that will always piss me off is the US dollar says RIGHT ON IT "In God We Trust", why the fuck is that on our MONEY. We reached for the golden statue and gripped on hard cause it was shiny a long time ago.

Give the founding fathers an ipad to write the constitution, I bet it would be a lot different.
Give a writer of the bible a computer and I bet it would be a lot different.

Everyone interprets this shit in their own way, we all grab the story that best fits our lifestyle, our way of coping with the inevitable end of days. We all grasp onto something to allow us to get up every morning and make meaning of the fact that we are one of the few species to realize they will die.

This happened with Civil Rights marriages and no one died from that, not needed the Christian guidance to make it through the "rough times ahead" because of the SCARY THING we call marriage. Oh the sanctity!

This allows people to choose who to love and to honor it with a tradition, nothing more, nothing less.

We can fact check, squabble, and write til we are blue in the face, but guess what? #FIRSTWORLDMOTHERFUCKINGPROBLEMS and at least in the heap of shit we live in called HUMANITY, there is something Humane to take away from this.

We are afforded the luxury to even fight for the right for something such as Gay marriage, so enjoy it, well deserved, and now let's please explain to more women that Hillary Clinton should not be in office because she in a woman, that doesn't maker her a feminist or good candidate. We don't need a trending topic in the white house we need someone who can make sure the system checks and balances are upheld, changed when need be, and adapted to an ever changing world.

 

[Cheese]

I get so angry when I read the language of the law in the dissent, calming myself.....

So let's take this statement for example:
"ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT [June 26, 2015] JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA joins, dissenting."

An argument being that judicial decisions take away from the rights of states because voters have amended states rights and state laws by enforcing laws which exist in one state be recognized in another.
Well, what if someone in [derfball southern state] gets married at 14 and wants their marriage and corresponding federal benefits recognized in [any normal state] where the law requires a higher age of consent. (remember people this is much more about the recognition of marriage as a legal term for benefits than a personal stance or opinion.)
Have not these out of state marriage standards laws been traditionally upheld in other states? Hell even other countries?
They have...
Get married overseas and you will have a solid crash course in this field.

The dissent mentions that "depravity of due process" has rendered the 14th amendment invalid, and "right of law" does not apply in this case of what sex, but other decisions (as mentioned) happily uphold age (an established adverse discrimination) because it is convenient.

The states have the right to set laws, set standards, set rules.
They do not have the authority to choose one set of discriminating factors to apply to interstate marriage and then others when they so choose.
If you reciprocate laws for one group which is slightly different from your own, you must also include those other goofball factors as they stipulate. That is the core argument, a state can not expect others to uphold its laws unless it is also willing to accept the rule of law from that state in return.
That is a MAJOR aspect of how our country changed for the better with the Constitution, as compared to the Articles of Confederation.

Now, I should have put this in much earlier: I don't know can you tell me? - When exactly was that original idea of marriage was voted on? Did anyone ever vote on that "Man and Woman" harped on so much? What are we really fighting here?

With that in mind -Argue me this batman:
When was the last time the voting populace defined what a marriage was?
Where exactly does this voting power to stop or change the definition come from?
If it's been in the hands of top level government for all these years, why do we argue now about these decisions?

Because it makes someone cash, that's why...


My personal opinion -


If anyone truly wished to end this statute on a legal State's Rights basis they would do so easily.
That state would end all marriage law reciprocation with all other stated by a majority vote and redefine what marriage is within that state. Everyone who was married out of state would now have to re-file that marriage.
That state would become an independent state where laws stop at their border and no other law applies.
They would break away from a nation and create their own system...
Wait a second? Doesn't this state's rights sound familiar?

The whole reason we have a Constitution instead of Articles of Confederation is because unless mommy and daddy force the kids to play nice nothing good happens.

EDIT:
Sorry tr1age, me anger added more than needed after some well placed words.

 

[Baldoraxx]

God bless you all