Started By
Message
re: Supreme Court listening arguments today
Posted on 4/30/15 at 2:38 pm to Gradual_Stroke
Posted on 4/30/15 at 2:38 pm to Gradual_Stroke
Are we talking about elections or an SC decision? Most Republicans at the Federal Level also have made the state argument. Are some hard core Bible folks? Sure, but that really shouldn't matter unless we are talking about the state level or if a Constitutional Amendment were up for debate (which it isn't).
I think most folks that oppose it are just concerned about how far it could go. Civil unions are not a big deal except to a very small minority so then you are just talking about language. How long until a church or pastor is forced to marry to men or women? That's where the line is crossed. There is a big difference between tolerance and acceptance, I will agree with you all day long about tolerance but forcing people to accept the beliefs of others is a completely different matter. There is also the issue of how far does the decision go. Can a man marry 3 women or a woman marry 3 men? How about incestuous marriage? If you are saying that the state and/or the voters don't get to decide but rather 9 folks in a courtroom I'm sorry but I disagree.
I think most folks that oppose it are just concerned about how far it could go. Civil unions are not a big deal except to a very small minority so then you are just talking about language. How long until a church or pastor is forced to marry to men or women? That's where the line is crossed. There is a big difference between tolerance and acceptance, I will agree with you all day long about tolerance but forcing people to accept the beliefs of others is a completely different matter. There is also the issue of how far does the decision go. Can a man marry 3 women or a woman marry 3 men? How about incestuous marriage? If you are saying that the state and/or the voters don't get to decide but rather 9 folks in a courtroom I'm sorry but I disagree.
4
Posted on 4/30/15 at 2:43 pm to aggressor
Personally I don't think the Federal government should have any say in marriage. I believe that it should be up to the citizens of every state.
I personally don't care, but to say that the majority is for gay marriage is completely misguided.
It was only about 2 or 3 years ago that California voted to ban gay marriage and the courts overruled the vote.
I personally don't care, but to say that the majority is for gay marriage is completely misguided.
It was only about 2 or 3 years ago that California voted to ban gay marriage and the courts overruled the vote.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 2:44 pm to aggressor
quote:
There is also the issue of how far does the decision go. Can a man marry 3 women or a woman marry 3 men?
As long as they are adults above the age of consent, who gives a frick.
quote:
How about incestuous marriage?
As long as the incestuous hill folk take care of their own incestuous offspring, IDGAF. You shouldn't either.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 2:46 pm to pvilleguru
quote:
quote:
I DGAF about gay marriage per se but I do think there is a strong argument that it is a state issue
The only part of this that should be a state issue is whether or not married people get a tax break. Gay marriage absolutely should not be a state issue unless the state decides to just get out of the marriage license business.
Ironically taxes are a Federal issue unless you are talking about state taxes. You shouldn't get a Federal tax break because you go to live in a certain state and marry there. A civil union generally solves that though and considering most people can easily marry in a state that does allow gay marriage and it has to be respected in states that don't allow it the entire issue is really just a straw man. It's about trying to force acceptance, not tolerance and equal rights.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 2:47 pm to bbvdd
quote:
It was only about 2 or 3 years ago that California voted to ban gay marriage and the courts overruled the vote.
There are as many backwoods fricking rednecks in California as there are in Alabama and Mississippi. Not everyone in Cali lives in the Bay area. I think, overall, the American population is far more accepting of gay marriage today than they were even a few years ago though.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 2:49 pm to aggressor
quote:No, because of the health risks for the child.
How about incestuous marriage?
quote:Pastors aren't forced to marry straight couples now. Why would anything change?
How long until a church or pastor is forced to marry to men or women?
quote:Sure, as long as they are consenting adults. Why not? Who would they be hurting?
Can a man marry 3 women or a woman marry 3 men?
Bottom line, if your marriage is recognized in one state, it should be recognized in all. You shouldn't lose those rights because you step over an imaginary line while in the same damn country.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 2:50 pm to bbvdd
quote:
Personally I don't think the Federal government should have any say in marriage. I believe that it should be up to the citizens of every state.
The issue is whether or not marriage is a right, which is what the court is deciding. If it is a right then individual states do not have the right to restrict access to marriage.
quote:
but to say that the majority is for gay marriage is completely misguided.
Depending on which poll you believe, anywhere from 50-60% of Americans currently support the right of homosexuals to marry. Another 25=-30% are for granting them civil unions.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 2:52 pm to CatFan81
quote:
There are as many backwoods fricking rednecks in California as there are in Alabama and Mississippi. Not everyone in Cali lives in the Bay area. I think, overall, the American population is far more accepting of gay marriage today than they were even a few years ago though.
You don't do the debate any favors by calling everyone who is against gay marriage a fricking redneck hillbilly. There are affluent people from the northeast with advanced degrees who are against gay marriage.
As soon as you call someone stupid or inbred or whatever, legitimate argument ceases. The issue is religious belief, not intelligence.
This post was edited on 4/30/15 at 2:53 pm
Posted on 4/30/15 at 2:54 pm to Gradual_Stroke
quote:
agree, but Republicans won't make that argument. They just appeal to the Bible which is why they are dying as a party. They pander completely to the religious right, and focus heavily on social issues. That is not the way forward, and that turns off the majority of people in my generation.
Ding ding ding. We have a winna.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 2:55 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
You don't do the debate any favors by calling everyone who is against gay marriage a fricking redneck hillbilly. There are affluent people from the northeast with advanced degrees who are against gay marriage.
As soon as you call someone stupid or inbred or whatever, legitimate argument ceases. The issue is religious belief, not intelligence.
I'm actually against gay marriage simply because of semantics. I have a GED, which is an equivalent but I don't call it a high school diploma because it's not achieved in the same way.
Also, I hate marriage in general, I think it's a stupid concept. I should be able to share benefits/evade taxes with whatever person I want, as long as it's a possibility within my contract.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 2:55 pm to aggressor
quote:
How long until a church or pastor is forced to marry to men or women?
When we decide to repeal the 1st amendment.
The logic for striking down gay marriage bans has already been laid out in Loving v Virginia. The 14th amendment argument isn't the only way to go about it, but the interracial marriage bans of the past are a clear parallel to denying a right to a certain group of people without a clear interest for the state to do so.
I personally think this is an individual rights vs states rights issue. The state(s) are limiting the rights and privileges of a certain group without a compelling reason to do so.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 2:57 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
The issue is religious belief, not intelligence.
Religious people aren't very intelligent.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:00 pm to CatFan81
quote:
quote:
There is also the issue of how far does the decision go. Can a man marry 3 women or a woman marry 3 men?
As long as they are adults above the age of consent, who gives a frick.
quote:
How about incestuous marriage?
As long as the incestuous hill folk take care of their own incestuous offspring, IDGAF. You shouldn't either.
While I appreciate your opinion on what I should care about or not, that is irrelevant. My concern as I stated is not about gay marriage per se as much as it is about the idea of legislating from the bench instead of by the elected representatives of the people. I would rather the SC stay out of making laws as much as possible as you are talking about 9 people who aren't elected and serve lifetime terms and are almost impossible to remove. If gay marriage or bigamy or incest or whatever is an idea that the people agree with then let them vote for it or vote for people that support it.
If you don't understand the dangers in allowing the SC to make up laws because they agree or disagree on an issue then I am truly sad for you. That's how tyranny is created. The Rule of Law protects us all and if it is ignored then it simply becomes a matter of who is in control gets to make all the rules and the rights of those in the minority or that disagree with those in power are gone on a whim. Of course maybe history won't repeat itself like it has over and over and over and over....
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:02 pm to semotruman
quote:
I sort of like the European model. They have both civil marriage and religious marriage. Religious couples get married twice - once in a civil service, and again in a religious service. As I understand it, they really don't intertwine. The civil service covers the marriage for the laws of the country, and benefits associated with same. The religious marriage is just that - in the eyes of the church. This would solve some problems.
When my brother got married in Germany to a German national, he was "married" in the eyes of the state as soon as he went to the courthouse and got his marriage license equivalent. They later were married in the eyes of God in a church.
I fully expect the Court to rule in favor of legalizing homosexual "marriage." But it's an important case for the court to hear because it requires redefining what a word has meant for 200+ years in this country.
To me, the important court case comes when a homosexual couple sues a church for refusing to perform the service on religious grounds. As it is now, the state allows churches to perform the ceremony on the state's behalf. Some on here have said that such a thing will never happen, but I expect it within five years. *That* is the landmark case.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:03 pm to RoyalAir
quote:
But it's an important case for the court to hear because it requires redefining what a word has meant for 200+ years in this country.
Except it hasn't. The term literally means a joining or union. It does not specify the genders of the parties involved.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:06 pm to aggressor
quote:
While I appreciate your opinion on what I should care about or not, that is irrelevant. My concern as I stated is not about gay marriage per se as much as it is about the idea of legislating from the bench instead of by the elected representatives of the people. I would rather the SC stay out of making laws as much as possible as you are talking about 9 people who aren't elected and serve lifetime terms and are almost impossible to remove. If gay marriage or bigamy or incest or whatever is an idea that the people agree with then let them vote for it or vote for people that support it.
If you don't understand the dangers in allowing the SC to make up laws because they agree or disagree on an issue then I am truly sad for you. That's how tyranny is created. The Rule of Law protects us all and if it is ignored then it simply becomes a matter of who is in control gets to make all the rules and the rights of those in the minority or that disagree with those in power are gone on a whim. Of course maybe history won't repeat itself like it has over and over and over and over....
Judges are either elected, or appointed by people who are elected. That argument is invalid.
The SCOTUS doesn't create any laws. They simply interpret the law as presented.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:06 pm to aggressor
quote:
If you don't understand the dangers in allowing the SC to make up laws
That's not what's happening here.
The question at hand here is: is marriage a right?
If they decide it's a right (they will), then existing laws would mean a state cannot restrict that right without a compelling interest to do so (there isn't one). Thus the bans on same sex marriage are illegal under current law.
That's not making a law, that's saying existing law applies in this situation as well.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:06 pm to Gradual_Stroke
quote:
Except it hasn't. The term literally means a joining or union. It does not specify the genders of the parties involved.
Because the genders of the party have always been assumed to be 1-man/1-woman. It's the reason why Utah had to put an anti-polygamy clause into their state's constitution before they could be admitted to the US. The underlying assumption that marriage is between a man and a woman is fundamental to the idea of marriage in the first place. No, it wasn't clearly defined, but it didn't have to be - it was always understood.
A redefinition, or at the very least a distinct clarification, is absolutely necessary in this case.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:07 pm to semotruman
quote:
I can't imagine that this won't be legalized. It's the preference of the majority of citizens. IMO, this isn't something government should even be involved in.
Government opened the door when the started offering tax breaks to married people.
I sort of like the European model. They have both civil marriage and religious marriage. Religious couples get married twice - once in a civil service, and again in a religious service. As I understand it, they really don't intertwine. The civil service covers the marriage for the laws of the country, and benefits associated with same. The religious marriage is just that - in the eyes of the church. This would solve some problems.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:07 pm to RoyalAir
quote:
To me, the important court case comes when a homosexual couple sues a church for refusing to perform the service on religious grounds. As it is now, the state allows churches to perform the ceremony on the state's behalf. Some on here have said that such a thing will never happen, but I expect it within five years. *That* is the landmark case.
Did the 1st amendment evaporate while I was asleep last night?
Page 2 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News