In a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that states can not prevent same-sex couples from marrying and must recognize their marriages from other states. In the majority opinion by Justice Kennedy it is stated:
The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States. It follows that the Court also must hold—and it now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.
...and:
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. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed. It is so ordered.
Original Submission
Related Stories
Australians have voted 61.6% to approve of same-sex marriage, and the Turnbull-led government has said it would aim to pass legislation by Christmas:
Australians decisively support same-sex marriage
Australians have overwhelmingly voted in favour of legalising same-sex marriage in a historic poll. The non-binding postal vote showed 61.6% of people favour allowing same-sex couples to wed, the Australian Bureau of Statistics said. Jubilant supporters have been celebrating in public spaces, waving rainbow flags and singing and dancing.
A bill to change the law was introduced into the Senate late on Wednesday. It will now be debated for amendments. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said his government would aim to pass legislation in parliament by Christmas. "[Australians] have spoken in their millions and they have voted overwhelmingly yes for marriage equality," Mr Turnbull said after the result was announced. "They voted yes for fairness, yes for commitment, yes for love."
The issue only went to a voluntary postal vote after a long and bitter debate about amending Australia's Marriage Act. The result on Wednesday brings an end to what was at times a heated campaign. The vote itself had been criticised by same-sex marriage supporters, many of whom said it was unnecessary when parliament could debate the issue directly.
Related: (U.S.) Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Same-Sex Marriage
One in Three People Globally Think Gay Marriage Should Be Legal
Taiwanese Court Invalidates Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Same-sex marriage officially signed into law in Australia
Same-sex marriage has been officially signed into law in Australia, a day after MPs overwhelmingly approved a historic bill. Australia's Governor-General Peter Cosgrove signed off on the law on Friday - a formality required to enact the legislation. The vote on Thursday set off rarely matched celebrations in parliament, including cheers, hugs and a song. Supporters celebrated across Australia, many donning rainbow colours.
"So it is all done. It is part of the law of the land," Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said after a brief ceremony on Friday.
He said the law would take effect immediately after midnight.The first marriage ceremonies will happen from 9 January, given couples must give a month's notice of their intention to wed.
MP Tim Wilson proposed to his gay partner from the floor of Parliament during the debate.
Meanwhile: Austria to allow same-sex marriage with couples able to legally marry from 2019 at latest
Austria's top court has ruled that same-sex couples can marry from 2019 at the latest, bringing the often conservative Alpine country into line with more than a dozen other European nations. Gay marriage is now recognised in more than 20 countries, of which 16 are in Europe. "The Constitutional Court nullified with a decision on December 4, 2017 the legal regulation that until now prevented such couples from marrying," a statement released on Tuesday said. It said however that the current rules would remain in place until December 31, 2018 unless Austria's parliament changes the law before then.
Previously: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Same-Sex Marriage
Taiwanese Court Invalidates Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Australians Approve of Same-Sex Marriage in Non-Binding Vote
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 26 2015, @05:32PM
Nuff said.
(Score: 5, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Friday June 26 2015, @05:33PM
To queer for me
Then don't get gay married.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @05:38PM
I think you are confused. This ruling makes gay marriage mandatory.
This is tyranny!!! [mikehuckabee.com] We must fight it like we fought the british and kick all gays out of the country just like we kicked out the red coats! FREEEEEDOM!!!!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday June 26 2015, @05:59PM
This is TRANNY?
Go Wild! GO WILD! Frisco or BUST!!!
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Friday June 26 2015, @06:21PM
Tranny? I still like the 1960s vintage manual 3 speed Muncie that was in Chevys.
Runner up: The two speed (slip and slide) Powerglide which could be set up with servo valves to control the shifting for drag racing.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Friday June 26 2015, @10:58PM
Muncie 4 speed 465 in a GMC truck was a fav of mine.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Friday June 26 2015, @06:15PM
Didn't we get rid of all the gays by kicking out all the men wearing red coats? Have they taken to hiding by wearing other colors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @07:37PM
"The Supreme Court has spoken with a very divided voice on something only the Supreme Being can do-redefine marriage."
Right... because adding new definitions to words is completely unheard of; it requires an all-powerful creator! That's why language doesn't change over time, right?
"I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch. We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat."
Not oppressing people is tyranny!
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Friday June 26 2015, @08:29PM
You need the SCOTUS to oppress the views of the bigoted conservative churches who do not wish to have their values changed. From their perspective, this isn't a matter of unequal rights but a matter of the government condoning perverse activities that their community forbids. They believe that practicing homosexuality is self-destructive and community-destructive behavior that the individual chooses to practice. Much like theft, murder, adultery, rape, and not keeping the sabbath (golf, home maintenance, yard work, and cooking is naturally excluded from the list of prohibited activities on the sabbath). You need the SCOTUS to either rule that married gays remain married no matter what state they are in or that homosexual marriages are null and void when entering into a state that has prohibited gay marriage (preserving the rights of the state).
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @08:34PM
preserving the rights of the state
No, the ruling is preserving the rights of US citizens. The states are not allowed to violate the Fourteenth Amendment even if there is a majority vote.
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Friday June 26 2015, @09:02PM
I agree with you. If homosexuality is to be a right protected by the Federal government, then the States cannot bar its practice.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 2) by tathra on Saturday June 27 2015, @08:13PM
they can believe whatever they want, but once their actions start impacting others, like by trying to use the force of law to force their beliefs and/or values on everyone else, we have a problem. "freedom of religion" means freedom from religion too, you do not have the right to force your religion or its values on anyone - such tyranny is expressly forbidden by the constitution.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by edIII on Friday June 26 2015, @08:37PM
It's worth noting that the AC is quoting Mike Huckabee, who is running for President.
Wow. So this guy thinks he is Presidential material? He needs a civics class to understand that the heart of the 1st Amendment wasn't religious freedom, as much as it was the right to freely speak, especially in dissent. Without religious freedom, more often than not, you found censorship. What a shocker that the powerful and influential of the day would use God as a backdrop for their tyranny. It's not a coincidence that they're in the same amendment, but it also clearly wasn't because they were favoring one religion over another. Just as it has always been, Freedom of Speech is about the right to *speak*, not to be *heard*.
How this mental midget can think that granting the exact same rights to two citizens, that the government already granted to two other citizens, is a form of a censorship against one pair is utterly beyond me. They were never, at any point, Constitutionally entitled to freely express their religion by exacting control over other citizen's behavior in accordance with their religion. Mike can go suck a dick if he thinks the Constitution put in a legal loop hole that allows a preferred religion to exercise power through it.
I don't personally care much about what people are doing with their hoohahs. My common sense, intelligence, and education leads me to believe:
1) Not my business what those two, three, four or more people are doing to each other. My genitalia isn't involved, they aren't trying to make it involved, and if I was just minding my own business I would never notice. Only when somebody grabs my genitalia and forces my involvement do I need to get concerned. Or excited. Or both.
2) Government is supposed to be without religion by design, as by being without religion it extends religious freedom to all. Simple stuff.
3) Censorship is about removing the ability to speak, not guaranteeing a reaction to the speech either way.
Mike Huckabee is a cock juggling thunder cunt and a bigot, as well as being way to mentally deficient to be put in a place of power. Unless we want a clearly religious President who can conflate the Constitution, Nature's will, and God's law with such fluidity.
There is an old adage that can serve us well here: An angry man's words are a quiet man's thoughts.
You elect Mike Huckabee for President, and you will find yourself being bent to his version of God's will whether you like or not, and then reminded of how it is actually freedom. It may not feel like it, but it's Freedom under God, and that's apparently mandatory in Mike's version of the Constitution.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday June 26 2015, @10:23PM
He needs a civics class to understand that the heart of the 1st Amendment wasn't religious freedom, as much as it was the right to freely speak, especially in dissent.
As usual, one side in this argument is not so much wrong as just plain ignorant. Lets see who, shall we?
The 1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Care to revise and extend your remarks?
(Score: 2) by edIII on Saturday June 27 2015, @12:08AM
Sure. No Problem. No revision necessary, or required. I will further explain as requested, and then we can see where ignorance is. Although, it's possible that neither of us is that ignorant at all ;) Be nice.
The central tenet of the 1st amendment is not religious expression, but freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and basically your freedom to express yourself. Religion is part of it, because religious freedom is often found alongside with strong freedoms of expression. As I already stated, these are my feelings and opinions on why the 1st Amendment was created in the first place. As religious views and positions were historically used as arguments-that-cannot-be-argued-with, they were intellectually disingenuous appeals to a non-existent authority. Hence, why it made absolute sense to speak about one when speaking of the other. That was just the reality of the day in a world not too far removed from on-going witch trials, and where the church was well known for getting involved politically with governments and the power structures of society. It was the church that was the greatest oppressor historically, and religion was often hijacked for political purposes. Our founding fathers correctly recognized it as the greatest contemporary threat to the very first amendment they were discussing. In your opinion, why are they grouped together, and not separate amendments? If religious expression was so important, and a non-secular government that critical, why wasn't it with it's own language and number?
In truth, freedom of religious expression is simply redundant. The freedom of speech and peaceful assembly already guarantees we can get together and talk about the Bible, or any other religious concept we want as a group. Churches are allowed implicitly, along with entire categories of other behaviors some might find objectionable (nudist camps). Furthermore, the freedom to express religion is protected through other amendments (14th), and various laws already on the books preventing the 1st Amendment rights from being abridged. If somebody tried to enter the church and start hitting people with a shovel (or shooting them) because they didn't like the church, they would've been dragged away and charged with crimes. We even take it further today, and would charge him with a hate crime. Just about any instance of religious oppression you can come up with, I can show an amendment, or law, that would prohibit the acts oppression, and that in many cases these offenses are not tried as violations of the 1st Amendment, but felony laws. In short, the freedom of expression *is* the freedom of religious expression as well.
Why do we need to specifically say that religious freedom is granted at all? IMHO, it's strongly implied and already protected by other language. When government says it will not establish laws respecting an establishment of religion, what is saying is that it *cannot* support *any* religion to *any* extent. Our founding fathers literally cemented the example of the need for the 1st, directly inside the 1st. That's how much bullshit is caused by secular governments, and that's literally it's only meaning. The Constitution is mandating a non-secular government because it directly aids in the execution, implementation, and enforcement of the 1st Amendment. Governments dedication to it's non-secular status is never grounds for the claim that the religious are being oppressed as a result. Why? Government didn't come to their aid and start beating the crap out of the person who is undesirable purely based on religious views?. This is correct, government should never be enforcing any aspects of what are purely religious debates. As an example, murder and theft are *not* religious debates. For Mike to complain that government is violating the 1st, by not violating the 1st is incredible.
Also, pay attention to the grammar where I said, "as much as it was". What I'm saying is that the religious freedom aspect of the 1st Amendment was the minutia at best, or an inline example of why freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, freedom to petition government for redresses, etc. were so important. Granted, it's an opinion, but not one I would label as ignorant.
In any case, the freedom of speech granted in the 1st Amendment, and the religious freedoms it guarantees were never meant to make sure that undesirable activities from a religious perspective would not be allowed to continue. Our founding fathers expressly wished that activities that pissed the church off could continue, as most of what pisses off the church has nothing to do with equality for all, reasoned positions, science, ethics, or morality. The church may have figuratively represented the King Of England to them, and they recognized that ALL kings needed to be kicked out of the country. That includes Mike, and his king, the great Jesus. Regardless of how both of them feel, allowing the homosexuals the same rights as us, is not an unconscionable abridgment of Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @12:22AM
TL;DR - freedom of religion is a subset of freedom of expression.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Saturday June 27 2015, @12:53AM
Ok, I now know where your malfunction is, vocabulary. The phrase "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" seems to be your problem, go look up the meaning of exercise that applies to this usage. It doesn't mean you have the right to believe, it doesn't mean you have the right to speak your beliefs; It means you have the right to EXERCISE the commandments laid down by your religious teachings.
It means a man may not even be ordered to bear arms in defense of the country if his religion forbids it; this is settled law. If the State can't order a man to war it damned sure can't order him to write words he finds to be an abomination upon a cake. Except of course the Supreme Court just made a law that says exactly that.
the religious freedoms it guarantees were never meant to make sure that undesirable activities from a religious perspective would not be allowed to continue
Um, actually it means exactly that, that within as broad a limit as possible, all men were free to live their life according to the teachings of their religion. It was the way a nation that already had a metric pantload of different religions was expected to co-exist.
In your opinion, why are they grouped together, and not separate amendments?
Being knowledgeable and wise men, The Founders realized that all the clauses were aspects of one idea, that men were to be free to believe, to act upon those beliefs, discuss them openly in the public square and in print and to petition the State based on those beliefs. That only in this way, through both vigorous, unrestricted debate AND the example of deeds as people lived their lives according to those beliefs would we slowly grow towards whatever ultimate Truth the Universe holds. All political beliefs btw derive from religious ones; yes, all of them. Not all religions are theistic, example Buddhism, Marxism or Secular Humanism. "Separation of Church and State" is just some "Shit Jefferson Said" and not part of the Constitution.
Jefferson was a great man but his Word is not Holy Writ and he was certainly not infallible. For example he totally failed to realize how fundamentally different the French Revolution was and almost lost his head over it. Another of the Founders also said the Constitution they gave us was "intended for a Religious and moral people and would serve no other." Of course that too is just something some guy said and likewise not Holy Writ or even part of the Constitution.
When government says it will not establish laws respecting an establishment of religion, what is saying is that it *cannot* support *any* religion to *any* extent.
No, it means exactly what it says. The State may not establish a Church. See The Church of England. And when that was ratified several of the States in point of fact established Churches, the 1st Amendment only says that the Federal government may not... although questionable interpretations of later amendments muddle that.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @01:09AM
>> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
>
> It means exactly what it says. The State may not establish a Church.
It is weird that someone calling for the "exact" reading would leave out a key word. It does not say "not establish" a church it says "no law respecting" a church. Exactly what Ed said.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @08:20PM
The 1st and 14th Amendments clearly establish that The State cannot give preferential treatment to any one religion. Supporting the transition of the US into a Christian theocracy, like you are, is supporting the overthrow of our constitutional form of government.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @10:53PM
Mike Huckabee is a cock juggling thunder cunt
Oooh, do they have a matinee showing or do I need to leave the house at night for this?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 26 2015, @05:47PM
That bit is easy enough. Now, let's wait 50 to 100 years, and see what the societal results of this crazy shit will be.
Oh - wait - you're not one of those who are going to pretend that there won't be any results? There are plenty of those bat-shit crazy people who believe that fucking with societal institutions won't change society. Plenty more bat-shit crazies expect all the changes to be for the good.
We've already had at least one "married" pair of homos adopt a little male child, just so they could kiddie-diddle him.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by takyon on Friday June 26 2015, @05:53PM
Straight parents have never molested children. Ever.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by maxwell demon on Friday June 26 2015, @05:57PM
You've been spying on them? If not, from where did do you get that?
Ah right, from pulling it right out of your ass.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 26 2015, @06:03PM
Yeah, right - like you never heard of it? This catches you completely by surprise? WTF, Gomer? Don't you read ANYTHING outside of MSM?
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=palemoon&q=adopted+boy+molested+by+gay+parents [duckduckgo.com]
http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2013/07/homosexual-couple-adopted-boy-and-molested-him-from-infancy/ [thinkinghousewife.com]
https://victimsofgaybullying.wordpress.com/2013/03/31/boy-molested-by-homosexual-adoptive-parents-social-services-turn-a-blind-eye/ [wordpress.com]
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/gay-conn-couple-accused-rape-face-trial-article-1.1310010 [nydailynews.com]
http://rt.com/news/pedophile-syndicate-russian-boy-481/ [rt.com]
http://news.sky.com/story/1111016/adopted-boy-sexually-abused-by-gay-fathers [sky.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @06:27PM
only one of your case is in a paywalled news archive services, and it is the one talked about by rt, sky and nydaily.
Search for heterosexual child molester, you will get plenty of result too.... http://poundpuplegacy.org/node/20817 [poundpuplegacy.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @06:01PM
> We've already had at least one "married" pair of homos adopt a little male child, just so they could kiddie-diddle him.
Ugh, the same old shit conflating homosexuality with pedophilia.
After a post like that who could possibly ever give runaway the benefit of the doubt in anything he says? The dude lives down to the absolute worst stereotypes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @06:31PM
Sexual deviancy leads to worse sexual deviancy, therefore homo leads to pedo. NAMBLA exists to get this kind of stuff legalized. Their unending drive for greater deviancy will do great untold damage.
What is tolerated now will be accepted then legal then normal. Seems fine except mankind just never moves forward on its own. Therefore what ever is becoming normal is almost always worst than what was previously normal. The times we do move forward is a miracle with most men kicking and screaming along the way.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday June 26 2015, @07:17PM
Sexual deviancy leads to worse sexual deviancy,
Great theory you have there! Yup, give 'em an inch, and it's santorum all the way! Next thing you know, . . . But, it's wrong. Psychology says that perversion (literally, turning aside) is the result of frustration or some other trauma. So it is not the deviancy that is a cause, it is a symptom.
And secondly, since you bring up Runaway's Pacu-bait, you have begged the question by assuming that same-sex attraction is deviant. Now what usually demarks sexual behavior as immoral in the religious traditions is that it is hedonistic, and egoistic, and in extreme cases results in the exploitation of others to that end. So it seems that the opposition to gay marriage wants to keep homosexuality like that, that it not be a shared relationship between equals. No wonder they will immediately go to sexual abuse of children, because at root that is what their conception of sex is, no matter what its object is. In other words, opponents of of gay marriage are in favor of deviancy.
I have often wondered if the fear of gay marriage is not that we will all have to get gay married, but if we allow gay marrying, the number of sexual targets for sexual predators, and the ease which which they can be coerced, controlled, and silenced (Hi! Congressman Hastert!), can be increased, for the abuse by closeted egoistic hedonists. Ultimately, the issue is about power over others, or what in more general terms is called "evil".
(Resistance: psychological principle: the more opposed a person is to something, the more they are admitting their attraction to it. If someone is worried about deviancy that much, they already are one.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @08:42PM
Holy crap! There still are people out there who actually know what begging the question actually means and how to use it properly in a sentence!!!
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday June 26 2015, @09:04PM
Too queer, eh? But I am a philosopher, and am 2400 years old, so I should know such things.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday June 26 2015, @09:01PM
You nailed it. It's the "Bad" sex that is usually accompanied by plenty of other bad behavior. The choice of "target" is irrelevant when it's the egoistic activities that cause all of the harm. I'm not sure about hedonistic as an explicit negative, but it can be as well.
To say that gay people are completely incapable of normal loving relationships with healthy sex lives has always been nonsensical to me, and purely an emotional conflation of the negative religious messages with assumed negative character traits. As you can see with Runaway, and his run away bigotry, the conflation has worked itself up to very upsetting and emotional acts of pedophilia. Isn't that what the devil did when he was bored? Rape his children?
Just like you said, as long as the gay men and women are ostracized, terrified, marginalized, effectively invisible, how can we see them as possessing the same healthy relationships straight people do? The longer they keep showing Neil Patrick Harris in the news with his husband, and children, looking well adjusted and happy, the more ridiculous their arguments become.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by RedBear on Friday June 26 2015, @06:34PM
Uh, huh. Wow. At least one. And how many hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of opposite-sex couples have "kiddie-diddled" their own biological offspring and/or adopted or foster children? The statistics say quite a few, sadly. Looks like we should be banning traditional marriage. Won't somebody think of the childrens!!!ONE!!!
There should be a light bulb going off in your hate-filled hypocritical little bigoted brain right now, but of course that's not how hate-filled hypocritical little bigoted brains work.
The societal results will be the following: In 50 years approximately 6% of all marriages will probably be same-sex marriages, reflecting the approximately 6% of the population who have always been and always will be same-sex oriented. That seems to be a pretty stable statistical inference that can be made from recorded human history. About 66% of same-sex marriages will be fairly stable marriages that will last decades, just like with traditional marriage. Some percentage will end in divorce and acrimony, just like with traditional marriage. Like an increasing number of opposite-sex couples, the ones who can't have children naturally will adopt or use artificial insemination or surrogacy. And life will generally go on. Unless you teach them to be hate-filled hypocritical bigots, your grandchildren won't waste a single moment of their lives worrying about same-sex marriage destroying the world, because there will be no observable evidence of it destroying the world. Your grandchildren will probably be much more preoccupied with trying to fix the global climate we destroyed for them.
In 100 years: The same. In 200 years: The same.
Oh no, it's the end of civilization as we know it. Run for your lives. *yawn*
No, seriously, run. Go live in a cave in the hills or something. You'll feel a lot safer.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 26 2015, @06:40PM
Or, you could take the time to get a glimpse of things to come. The studies have been done, and are continuing, in Europe.
None of the studies really support my views - but they don't support the idea that things won't change, either.
But, the denizens who feed on the muck spewed by MSM aren't going to look for facts. Just go ahead and parrot what you've been told by MSM talking heads.
But, you can believe that things are going to change. You may not like the changes, either. You've heard of the "unintended consequences" thing before, I hope.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @06:48PM
> None of the studies really support my views
Lol, do you hear yourself?
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 27 2015, @01:24AM
Yes, I do hear myself. I disagree with the majority opinion. I don't set myself up as a god, I haven't even cited God in my arguments. I look rationally at all the evidence. I understand that the scholars don't agree with me - but I also see that the scholars are concerned enough to study the issue. The scholars are proving themselves to be much smarter than the jingoistic masses who have permitted themselves to be brainwashed by a vocal minority.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @01:32AM
> I understand that the scholars don't agree with me - but I also see that the scholars are concerned enough to study the issue.
Apparently you don't hear yourself. You are trying to co-opt the authority of the people who disagree with you by saying you are vindicated by the fact that they are even studying the issue. Its heads you win, tails you win sophistry.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @07:46PM
but they don't support the idea that things won't change, either.
So what? You never want anything to change, or what?
You've heard of the "unintended consequences" thing before, I hope.
I'm not quite sure what unintended consequences will follow from allowing people of the same sex to marry one another. Do you have evidence that anything bad will happen, or are you just opposed to changing anything because it might somehow lead to something bad?
Can't get rid of mass surveillance. Something bad might happen. Can't get rid of big government. Something bad might happen. Can't get rid of slavery. Something bad might happen. This logic is ridiculous.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @03:12AM
I wouldn't spend too much time or effort deconstructing Runaway's arguments. He hates faggots. It's that simple.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @08:28PM
That's the definition of conservatism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @08:25PM
That should be the first hint that you're delusional and have lost touch with reality.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Tork on Friday June 26 2015, @07:07PM
We've already had at least one "married" pair of homos adopt a little male child, just so they could kiddie-diddle him.
You're an asshole.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Friday June 26 2015, @07:36PM
That bit is easy enough. Now, let's wait 50 to 100 years, and see what the societal results of this crazy shit will be.
It'll be a society that has moved on and found something new to get weirded out by. There will be changes just as there have been with allowing women and African Americans to vote - mostly good. Really, it shouldn't be any of government's business who or how many people decide to shack up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @09:13PM
Are you kidding? Society is heading for a disaster of Biblical proportions! Old Testament, real wrath of God type of stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday June 26 2015, @07:41PM
That bit is easy enough. Now, let's wait 50 to 100 years, and see what the societal results of this crazy shit will be.
There will be gay marriages; that will be the result. Wow, that's terrible.
There are plenty of those bat-shit crazy people who believe that fucking with societal institutions won't change society.
Of course it will change society. People will have more rights.
We've already had at least one "married" pair of homos adopt a little male child, just so they could kiddie-diddle him.
What does this have to do with homosexuality? Heterosexuals molest people too.
What do this even prove? That some people who happen to be homosexuals are bad, so therefore they all are? That could be applied to any group in existence.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Friday June 26 2015, @08:46PM
Wow. I didn't know you were such a bigot. All of those insightful comments you've made, and you decide to bring us your fear, racism, and bigotry today?
You really have that much of a problem? Just what is it? The thought of a dick sliding up an ass? It's not your dick, and it's not your ass. So calm down buddy and try not living with such hatred in your heart. It doesn't appeal much to me either, but I don't go around bashing people's character just because they like Brussels sprouts, or beets. Your problem is really on the same level of silliness; being obsessed on what is happening with all the fruits.
Let it go. It's not good for you :)
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @09:04PM
Wow. I didn't know you were such a bigot. All of those insightful comments you've made, and you decide to bring us your fear, racism, and bigotry today?
I seriously can not tell if you are joking or not. You be poeing. [wikipedia.org]
Let it go. It's not good for you :)
You know that's not possible. Hate for others is the central tenet of the guy's life. Without it his entire world will fall apart. He's too old to start over and get a new personality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @10:02PM
I seriously can not tell if you are joking or not. You be poeing.
He has agreeable views about the NSA's mass surveillance, the TSA, and a number of other issues relating to the security state and government overreach.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @10:50PM
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
The right to privacy protects a bigot from being public opprobrium as much as it protects the protester from government oppression.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 27 2015, @01:26AM
And Samuel Alito wrote: "The decision will also have other important consequences. It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women.
"Today's decision shows that decades of attempts to restrain this Court's abuse of its authority have failed."
Separately, http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/16/granderson.obama.gays/index.html?_s=PM:POLITICS [cnn.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @01:34AM
Dude, you vilify yourself.
The whole "criticism of my speech is censorship" theory of you and your extremist cohorts is just butthurt.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Saturday June 27 2015, @11:36PM
Are you saying that your claims that gay men only adopt children for sodomy is legitimate dissent based on logic and reason, and that we should quietly respect your reasoned beliefs? If it's not all gay men by default, and only a percentage thereof, are you still saying they must be removed from child rearing duties while straight couples are ignored?
Hardly.
You mean that in about 20 years we will regard you just as we currently regard KKK members? They're still unwilling to submit to aspects of the new orthodoxy after more than a hundred years too. Additionally, at the time there was "empirical" evidence that the Negro brain was inferior providing the so-called scientific support for their positions. Your claims of pervasive motives to sodomize children suffer from even less alleged evidence than they had, and is regarded with even less respect in the scientific and medical community. You were already well lambasted by Soylentils that possess medical and psychiatric knowledge and expertise. As you cannot got toe-to-toe on a scientific basis for more than a few weak sentences, your positions supporting your homophobia are weak indeed.
That's really all you have. Your weak and pathetic attempt to defend your bigotry as our intellectual failures to argue with you properly. I believe you know this is true, but will attempt to raise reason and logic as your shield nonetheless passionately proclaiming your victim-hood.
You have no scientific claims to make that same-sex relationships, much less marriages, are harmful. That extends to same-sex relationships where children are involved. I can't help but notice that most of the stresses incurred by these families come from the direction of *you* and *your* supporters in their life. Nothing inherently is stressful about a same-sex marriage more so than a traditional marriage, but having to listen and contend with bigotry everywhere *is*.
So if we remove your assholishness from the equation, I can't find *any* logical or reasoned positions that show inherent social failures in same-sex relationships. As your assholishness is abating, and the gay community is more included, all we see is yet more evidence of how you are full of shit in regards to your positions.
Just like how we stopped listening to the KKK members complaining about their interrupted lynchings to preserve white america, we are going to stop listening to you and your fear mongering about how two men loving each other will bring about the downfall of straight america, and then the world.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 28 2015, @01:11AM
"You have no scientific claims to make that same-sex relationships, much less marriages, are harmful."
And, you have no scientific basis upon which to make claims that it is NOT harmful. I've pointed out that even the ancient Greeks rejected the idea. There were legitimate reasons for doing so.
Oh, the pedophilia thing - you really should research NAMBLA better - except, a lot of the LGBT and NAMBLA relationship has been "sanitized" to the best of the gay community's ability. You can still find photos of NAMBLA officials hugging and kissing LBGT officials on the same stage, but they get harder to find every day.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 28 2015, @02:18AM
Your fallacies are argument from ignorance [logicallyfallacious.com] and burden of proof [yourlogicalfallacyis.com].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @08:46PM
There are not many "societal norms" that stay constant over 50 to 100 years. It's been 50 years of hell since we let all those inter-racial couples marry, hasn't it?
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Friday June 26 2015, @10:59PM
Troll Level: Meh
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @08:31PM
See khallow's [soylentnews.org] post? Even your fellow conservatives are telling you to get a grip, you're embarrassing yourself.
(Score: 2) by cykros on Sunday June 28 2015, @04:44AM
There are plenty of those bat-shit crazy people who believe that fucking with societal institutions won't change society. Plenty more bat-shit crazies expect all the changes to be for the good./quote
Err...ending slavery was "fucking with societal institutions." Did it have some unforeseen consequences? Of course. Hell, the founding of any country ever involves with fucking with societal institutions, as seats of power being recognized in a particular way is a societal institution. Do we see everything that will happen in the future? No. But it simply doesn't follow that we should therefore just strive to meet the status quo, and frankly, as a species, we never have, so even doing so would be the exact same thing: more fucking with societal institutions. Change happens. It is the nature of all observable existence. Fighting it on the grounds that change is scary and something *MIGHT* go wrong if we change things is illogical and frankly, cowardly.
I suggest you look into making a bit more flexibility into your life, and will happily leave it to you to determine how. Stagnancy and rigidity have a way of taking their toll on one's health. All that worrying about what people who aren't you decide to call their relationship, and who simply are asking for the same legal arrangement as hetero folks have really is a lot of wasted energy on your part. Perhaps it'd be better spent helping with other means of helping prevent the harm done to children by practical means, rather than merely spewing forth the insane notion that you should determine how other people live their lives.
I doubt you'll heed my advice, but it seemed selfish not to at least do you the favor of letting you decide that for yourself in light of it. There are plenty of valid ways to help society...if that is truly your goal, I'd suggest finding a path that is a little more efficient.
93 93/93
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 28 2015, @08:23AM
First, we didnt't "end slavery" here in the states. We ended a particularly virulent strain of slavery. Most of the civilized world had already ended slavery. They did it without a war, or even much fuss. Slavery was widespread throughout the Americas, and no one fought a war over slavery. Only the US fought a war over reasons that were related to slavery - we did NOT fight over slavery, exactly.
However, there are uncivilized parts of the world where slavery still exists. So, we didn't "end slavery", now did we?
BTW - gay is not the new black. I'll bet you had no idea that gays are prejudiced bigots, huh?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/16/granderson.obama.gays/index.html?_s=PM:POLITICS [cnn.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @06:07PM
Get Garried.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday June 26 2015, @06:01PM
This only way this can be good is if it gets the government out of the marriage business.
Otherwise it looks to me like a serious roflstomp on states' rights.
What will be interesting is watching the fireworks from states like Michigan who stipulate in their state constitution that marriage is one men and one woman only. Who knows? Perhaps this could be a roundabout victory for Wolf-PAC. I took a look here [wikipedia.org] and was surprised by the number of states calling for a constitutional convention.
I'll get the popcorn.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 26 2015, @06:13PM
Support for a convention is growing - but I'm afraid of what the convention might do. I foresee any constitutional convention being hijacked by a federation of special interest groups. And, of course, the ruling parties behind that confederation would be corporate actors.
I really am afraid to see what might happen if the convention is called.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday June 26 2015, @09:15PM
but I'm afraid of what the convention might do.
Then you should look into Article 5 Conventions [conventionofstates.com].
They can not be hijacked. Because the reasons and issues are approved ahead of time by the states, and any off-the-wall proposals that were not pre-approved by the state legislatures can not be voted on by that state's delegates, nor could they legally continue their attendance.
Read the Faq on the page above.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday June 26 2015, @11:17PM
They can not be hijacked.
And the Articles of Confederation were perpetual... right up until they weren't. In point of fact a Convention can do whatever it likes. The protection is that all they can do is produce proposed Amendments which still require the same supermajority of the States to ratify. And really, it takes a really large majority; if any proposal passes that muster it probably should become law even if it is replacing the whole thing with a dictator for life or outright Communism. If you can get that many State legislatures to sign off (and not get strung up by outraged Citizens) then just do it and be damned by the consequences. Stupidity needs to hurt and if We the People are really hellbent on being stupid we should get it, good and hard.
So I'm all in favor of a Convention. We are already on the Highway to Hell and Washington just keeps stomping the accelerator harder so it is time to try things even if they are risky.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @08:35PM
At the very least you'll have to repeal the 1st and 14th Amendments before you can make a constitutional amendment allowing for your bigotry and oppression to be codified into law based on one specific religion's beliefs.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @06:19PM
This only way this can be good is if it gets the government out of the marriage business.
That would be great.
it looks to me like a serious roflstomp on states' rights.
The ruling is that the states can't stomp on a US citizen's constitutional rights to equal protection under the law, which is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment (Collect the whole set!).
(Score: 2) by SubiculumHammer on Friday June 26 2015, @06:30PM
If a state passes a law that business partnerships can be formed only between individuals of opposite sex, I think people from both sides of the aisle would stand up and say that law is unconstitutional.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @08:39PM
"States rights" is just a euphemism [wikipedia.org]. Its short for "States rights to trample on their citizen's basic rights".
Slavery was the 1860s' Gamergate.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by M. Baranczak on Friday June 26 2015, @07:14PM
What will be interesting is watching the fireworks from states like Michigan who stipulate in their state constitution that marriage is one men and one woman only.
The fireworks will be disappointing. The money men of the Republican Party don't give a fuck, because it doesn't affect their money flow. The rabid anti-gay Christians will make a lot of noise, but they have little power on their own. And most regular people just don't care one way or the other.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @10:25PM
That doesn't even matter. The parts of those states' constitutions that stipulate marriage can only be between a man and a woman were just ruled unconstitutional and are now void. "Enforcing" them is illegal because they no longer have the States' authority behind them. Anyone trying to point to them to shield themselves is illegally discriminating.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @06:18PM
To queer for me
You are becoming queer just because of this ruling?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @06:47PM
His Freudian slip is showing.
(Score: 3, Funny) by M. Baranczak on Friday June 26 2015, @06:47PM
(Score: 2) by tynin on Friday June 26 2015, @06:50PM
We didn't listen!!! (ob. South Park)
(Score: 2) by Kell on Saturday June 27 2015, @01:45AM
To queer - and beyond!
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Saturday June 27 2015, @06:07AM
To queer or not to queer, that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of marriage, or to take arms against a sea of bigotry?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 27 2015, @02:15PM
+1 originality -1 groaner
(Score: 2) by jbWolf on Saturday June 27 2015, @06:30AM
Hey Runaway1956,
I friended you on Soylent News and I won't change that, but (after reading some of your other comments on here) I disagree with you on this subject. If I recall correctly, I believe you were (are?) a soldier and have defended our freedoms. You continue to be outspoken when it comes to stupid things the government says. For being a soldier and speaking against stupid government things, I thank you.
I think you should be against this ruling because it limits the freedoms that our military have fought for. There needs to be even more freedom. Hear me out.
I am in favor of the government getting out of the marriage business entirely. By doing so, it allows us, the people, to choose what we want to define as marriage on a personal level. By getting out of the marriage business, it gives all of us more freedoms. (In my opinion, all three branches have screwed up.)
Sometimes, freedom is a scary thing. Your concerns over sexual abuse are already covered by other laws that basically say "my rights end where yours begin" and "purposely hurting another person is illegal". And even in this thread, you acknowledge that science doesn't necessarily support your views. Sexual abuse happens no matter the orientation. (On a personal note and without getting into any details, I'll simply say I know it happens on a heterosexual level.)
I'm not a big fan of seeing guy-on-guy action. Watching two guys kiss is not enjoyable to me, but I do know people who are gay and I fully support them to happily live together. As a matter of fact, the couple I'm thinking of are very sweet and (if they ever come and visit the country I live in) I would happily welcome them into my house and allow them to smooch and cuddle. I would extend to them the same freedoms that I allow any other heterosexual couple.
I believe in the freedom of personal choice so much, that it doesn't stop there. If I had friends of who were in transsexual relationship or even polygamous relationships, they would be welcome to cuddle and smooch too. Love is a personal thing. It should not be discouraged and it should not be outlawed.
www.jb-wolf.com [jb-wolf.com]
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 27 2015, @02:12PM
"I think you should be against this ruling because it limits the freedoms that our military have fought for."
Yes, but not for precisely the reasons you put forth. The military is being changed today, because the politicos don't like the military. Good officers have been kicked out, because they could not and would not give their unquestioning support to homosexuality and political agendas. Likewise, good officers have been booted for religious reasons - some of those reasons related to homosexuality. Gubbermint always has ruled the military with an iron totalitarian fist - and they are outdoing themselves today. Yes, this ruling does limit the freedoms that our military has fought for - and they are limiting the freedoms that the military itself has always enjoyed. Soldiers and sailors have always had the right to bitch and moan, and to disagree with leadership. Today, they no longer have such freedoms.
Your views on marriage? I disagree, but I've read enough to know that what you say makes sense. Go back to any culture in history, and the people defined marriage. Almost invariably, it was one man, one woman, sometimes one man, multiple women. Even the Greeks refused to marry two men, or two women. They had different terms, and different legal obligations for same-sex relationships. Because we are so much less sophisticated than the ancients, we aren't smart enough to understand that different relationships require different terms, different expectations, and different obligations. In short, we're fucking STUPID!
People and/or religious institutions should indeed define "marriage" - and people with or without the cooperation of religious institutions should have defined other relationships in some sensible manner. Gubbermint has no authority with which to ram this crap down our throats. Power, yes, authority, no. So, you see, I agree in essence, although I disagree in detail.
Aside from people just being queer - these laws are so queer they couldn't pass muster with the best known homosexual culture in history. The Greeks would just shake their heads, and write us off as idiots. They understood that marriage is about procreation, and everything else is for fun. "Stick your thing anywhere you want to stick it, just don't expect us to treat you the same as a procreating couple" would sum up their discussions on the subject.
LOL - I went searching for a citation or two, found this guy who gets it quite wrong - the Greeks DID discuss gay marriage, and rejected it -
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/what_would_the_greeks_have_thought_of_gay_marriage [mercatornet.com] Some of his other observations seem to be off, as well . . .
http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/scalia-why-no-ancient-greek-gay-marriages/ [wnd.com]
This one is more to the point, although I'm not finding the discussions I once read between some fairly famous Greeks - http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/2009/09/ancient_greek_lessons_about_gay_marriage.html [slate.com]
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday June 27 2015, @04:39PM
Go back to any culture in history, and the people defined marriage. Almost invariably, it was one man, one woman, sometimes one man, multiple women.
And slavery and other heinous garbage was quite popular in the past as well. Primitive cultures were filled with bigots and people who hated freedom, and we've made a lot of progress since then. Are you attempting some sort of bandwagon fallacy? Why appeal to primitive cultures?
Because we are so much less sophisticated than the ancients
What?
People and/or religious institutions should indeed define "marriage"
Words can have multiple definitions. The government is just using a different definition than a lot of people who believe in magical sky daddies.
and people with or without the cooperation of religious institutions should have defined other relationships in some sensible manner.
But "marriage" is just a label to describe something, and now new definitions have been added, as has been the case for so many other words. I don't see the big deal with the word itself.
Gubbermint has no authority with which to ram this crap down our throats.
If you don't want to get married to someone of the same sex, then don't. I don't see how not denying someone a right is the same as ramming something down people's throats.
They understood that marriage is about procreation, and everything else is for fun.
Plenty of people who don't want kids/can't have kids disagree with you. On the legal side, marriage provides some legal benefits that people can take advantage of. It is certainly not just about procreation, and a lot of people don't see it that way. I don't see how you can decide what marriage is "about" for other people when we already know plenty of people don't marry for that reason. Some people might, but it's their choice what to make of their own marriage.
And procreation is easily done without marriage. No need for some silly social convention with lots of magical thinking attached to it.
I would, however, like to see some of these legal benefits not require marriage at all; that's just garbage.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @08:45PM
So you're saying fertility tests need to be required before a marriage license can be issued? That post-menopausal women can't be married, that getting a vasectomy or a tubal ligation should immediately nullify marriages? That barren women or sterile men should be banned from marriage? Please, go tell my grandparents that you think their marriage is void and has no right to exist since they can no longer procreate. Tell my mom that she can't marry again since she's past child-bearing age. I mean, marriage is purely for procreation, right?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 28 2015, @01:13AM
I said no such thing - but the ancients would have said so. Infertility was a legitimate reason for divorce.
The PURPOSE of marriage is procreation. If children didn't happen, mankind would never have bothered to invent marriage.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 28 2015, @02:05AM
Marriage was invented as a property contract, its only recently that women have had the audacity to demand they be declared people instead of property. Procreation was one of the things you could do with your property, but it was never the sole purpose. Besides, what the ancients said or thought has no bearing on today's definitions, traditions, or practices, unless you want to go the Taliban route and force everyone to live in the times your "holy book" was written instead of modern times.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @02:49PM
You should take runaway's response to you as instructive. It is a demonstration of how bigotry works - the only logic to it is rationalization. The fact that he agrees with you on some things doesn't mean he came to those conclusions in the same way you did. His motivations for criticizing the government are not the same as yours and while you can make common cause with him on some policy questions, the fact that his underlying motivations are not the same as yours means his goals are not the same and may even contradict your goals.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jbWolf on Saturday June 27 2015, @08:45PM
One thing I've learned over the years is that everyone contradicts my logic and my goals. No one agrees with me 100%. There are over 7 billion people on this planet and I'm willing to place money that no two people agree 100% across the board on everything. I know that because I don't even agree with myself from day to day. My opinions on small and big things change over time. Different cultures and different ways people grow up even in the same community help underscore that no one will agree on everything.
With that said, Runaway1956 and I agree on a lot of things and disagree on a lot of things, but over the years (even on Slashdot) I've seen him make some good arguments on a number of key issues. On this issue, he and I will continue to disagree, but I felt that everyone was slamming him. Not that slamming him is a problem as he has a thick skin. (And, as a friendly rib to him, a thick head.) I still like him, though, and I thought a softer touch from a friend who won't slam him and will proudly stand by him even when we disagree might help him come around in the long run on this issue.
You see, I used to be like him. I used to think homosexuality was wrong. I used to be more bigoted towards certain groups like homosexuals. I used to think that closing off people's freedoms was good. (Not that I thought of it that way at the time.) My mind has been changed. In time, he might change his mind too. Not today. Not tomorrow, but in time. And if he doesn't? Well, no one is perfect. But at least I tried in my own way.
www.jb-wolf.com [jb-wolf.com]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 28 2015, @01:18AM
You know - you've pretty much defined 'respect' in this post. We can disagree one day, we can agree the next, and disagree again the next - but we can respect each other all through it.
Some of the other folk here lack that ability. Ehhh - some of them will mature, given time.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jbWolf on Sunday June 28 2015, @04:44AM
I have to admit, it took me a while to figure you out, but one day it finally clicked. One of the reasons you argue as passionately as you do is because you want people to think about their beliefs instead of repeating what others say or blindly following. People don't have to agree with you, but they have to think for themselves. That I highly respect.
It took time, though. I saw you posting something "trollish" one day and highly insightful the next. Back and forth, back and forth. I had the ah-ha moment a while back and then watched your post a while to verify that you don't normally troll. Yeah, on occasion, you do post trollish comments. (Like the one that started this thread.) But normally, you're pretty insightful and pretty well reasoned. Your abrasive personality is what gets people really riled up. You say what you think and you have a thick skin -- neither of which is a bad quality. Sometimes, softies like me need people like you to speak up on my behalf. (I'm working on getting a thicker skin myself and I am getting better by watching people like you. I'm learning when to be abrasive and when not to. Learning to turn on my compassion in one instance, but in another flip the bird then walk away.)
We'll still strongly disagree on this issue, but I'm glad we can respect each other.
And for those who read this and think "WTF?" I'd be willing to bet that Runaway1956, despite his distaste for homosexuality, would much rather sit down and have a beer with someone gay than a person who won't think for themselves. Despite my distaste for some of his opinions, it is Runaway's capacity to challenge and enjoy being challenged that I find a great quality in him. I'd much rather have a beer with him than someone who won't think for themselves. And that is why I like him.
www.jb-wolf.com [jb-wolf.com]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday June 28 2015, @10:04AM
But seriously. Upthread I foed him, as his bigotry came over as pure ignorance (and reinforced such views I'd accumulated over many months of noticing his name on posts). However, reading this little coda to the thread, I just put him back to neutral again, for the reasons you state. He's still on the cusp though, obviously.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by jbWolf on Sunday June 28 2015, @11:21AM
I had a good laugh over that one. Good twist. Very funny!
Yeah, not everyone will like Runaway1956. The gay couple I'm thinking of would definitely not like him for obvious reasons and I wouldn't hold it against anyone who does "foe" him on SN. Everyone's got their opinions and that's what keeps the world an interesting place.
www.jb-wolf.com [jb-wolf.com]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday June 28 2015, @12:06PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by DeathMonkey on Friday June 26 2015, @05:35PM
So, victory for Social Justice, or , not a True Scotsman?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @05:43PM
Victory for basic human rights.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Friday June 26 2015, @05:59PM
No True Scotsman it is, then. Excellent demonstration of why the term "SJW" is so completely inane and meaningless.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday June 26 2015, @06:02PM
Marriage is a basic human right like sticking one's penis in a wasp nest is a basic human right. If they really want to do something as dumb as marriage, all the power to 'em.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday June 26 2015, @06:13PM
Marriage is a basic human right like sticking one's penis in a wasp nest is a basic human right.
What about equal protection under the law? Is that a basic human right?
US Constitution Amendment 14: " ...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Because the Constitution seems to think it is....
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday June 26 2015, @06:26PM
I'm one of those folks who believes that marriage should be something private and strictly out of the hands of government at any level, especially when you start talkin' tax breaks and other benefits -- in short, I think marriage is obsolete. That also means that I believe men should be legally allowed to marry other men, or trannies, or whatever, or even adult retards (and adult retards are capable of consent despite what the authorities tell you).
This is a much different world than it was in 1800. Your survival doesn't depend on having 5 kids to milk the cows and till the fields.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @07:01PM
> I believe men should be legally allowed to marry ... adult retards
There's hope for you yet. Some nice man might still make an honest retard out of you!
(Score: 3, Touché) by RedBear on Friday June 26 2015, @10:35PM
God damn you, sir or madam. Why did you have to post this AC? Now I can't Friend you!
Gotta be the greatest comeback in the (short) history of SoylentNews.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 2) by Tork on Friday June 26 2015, @10:52PM
I believe men should be legally allowed to marry ... adult retards
There's hope for you yet. Some nice man might still make an honest retard out of you!
This is the first time I've ever wished for a discussion forum to have an instant-replay feature.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @01:09PM
I thought that was women's work.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @07:07PM
There's a problem with that: immigration. Such a policy is more or less equivalent to asking most international couples to move to the other partner's country.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @01:12PM
Does this mean Donald Trump can marry his ego?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @05:45PM
I eagerly await the day that Scalia sputters the phrase social justice warrior. That will be the day he concedes all claim to impartiality and logic and tacitly admits its all about rationalizing his biases.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @05:47PM
http://www.reddit.com/r/tumblrinaction [reddit.com]
http://www.reddit.com/r/SocialJusticeInAction [reddit.com]
Daily reminder that SJWs are real
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @05:53PM
Daily reminder that SJWs are real
Well of course we are, silly, and our numbers are increasing, and we are winning. Deal with it.
Oh, and thank you for fulfilling Voltaire's prayer.
(Score: 4, Funny) by linuxrocks123 on Friday June 26 2015, @08:33PM
But doesn't the othering created by the terms "winning" and "losing" implicitly support the heteronormative patriarchy, no matter the surface concept? I really think true genderfuck can only be achieved when we create a safe space for people offended by this hostility. You need to check your non-loser privilege.
Also, you failed to include a trigger warning for your post, and made me feel unsafe. And you should stop raping women.
(Score: 5, Funny) by jmorris on Friday June 26 2015, @11:29PM
Ok, you made a good effort at trollin' em. Lemme give it a go. :)
I came out a week or so ago so I should post about it here so everyone is aware and can avoid commiting bigotry and badfeel.
I am now identifying as transvictim. I may be a privileged cisgendered white male on paper but I now identify as a victim. You may not, of course, question this because it is off limits to question another person's identity and how one identifies is not required to match mere reality. As a victim it is now entirely off limits to criticize me in any shape, form or fashion. Questioning my sincerity and/or authenticity are right out; such an obvious aggression and offense against civilized behavior would probably get you banned.
The line forms below to praise me for my courage.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @11:32PM
> I came out a week or so ago
I wouldn't be surprised. It is always the worst gay-haters that are in denial about their own homosexuality. Something about trying to convince themselves.
(Score: 3, Funny) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday June 26 2015, @11:58PM
I think this gets to the core of the hurt that the winner/loser dichotomy has caused us. Has no one considered the diversity that the winner hegemony has denied to losers throughout herstory? These shitlords make no distinction between 2nd place, 3rd place, or even 5th place. There are many damaged feelings here, but I see the potential to begin a healing process.
We need a sea change about our attitudes about winners and losers. Trans winners and trans losers alike need to be empowered as authentic and equal outcome identities. Your strength to come out as a trans victim deserves vindication and questions cisoutcome privilege!
It's important to recognize the intersectionality that trans victims face and the oppression they face from chauvinist ciswinners and cislosers alike.
Here's a checklist for ciswinner privilege:
We need to usher in a new era of emancipation for trans victims!
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday June 27 2015, @08:29PM
I am /cislimbed/, as I still have the same number of limbs that I am born with.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday June 27 2015, @09:45PM
Nope, that isn't a joke, transabled is already an actual thing. It is actually getting very hard to make jokes in this area as 'reality' is already indistinguishable from The Onion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @05:15PM
Define "SJW". Both your links have the definition as "Anyone who does or says anything I disagree with".
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday June 26 2015, @06:17PM
However, now we know why he was using the term "jiggery-pokery" in reference to the Obamacare case yesterday.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @08:57PM
He sounds [vox.com] like he's ready to rage-quit the supreme court.
(Score: 1) by boxfetish on Saturday June 27 2015, @03:33AM
Can we please have Thomas or Alito rage-quit instead? Seriously.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by linuxrocks123 on Friday June 26 2015, @09:07PM
Regardless of your politics, Scalia is a great and highly principled justice, and you would know this if you followed the Supreme Court as closely as I do. Here's some food for thought: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson [wikipedia.org]
In case the names are too old for you to be familiar with, everyone on the majority side of that decision other than Scalia is widely considered a "liberal" justice. So we have Scalia to thank for preserving free speech in a case where the despicableness of that speech blinded the rest of the court's conservative wing -- along with normal swing vote O'Connor -- to the obviously right conclusion.
So despicable is flag burning to our culture that Congress has tried repeatedly to overturn this decision with a Constitutional amendment. Last time they tried was in the Senate, where they fell one vote short of the 2/3 supermajority necessary to begin the process. You can be sure that Scalia finds flag-burning as despicable as those in Congress attempting to amend the Constitution. But, unlike many in Congress, Scalia takes his job seriously and is not some partisan hack.
It's also worth mentioning that Scalia has filed more concurrences and dissents than almost any other justice on the Supreme Court. That is, he works harder at his job, from which he is constitutionally protected from being fired, than almost any other Supreme Court justice. I think that should count for something, too.
And finally: Scalia and Ginsburg -- who vote together least often (still 70% of the time, though) -- have become close personal friends after serving on the court together. Were he the bigot you imply he is, that probably wouldn't be the case.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @09:29PM
You have fallen victim to the fallacy that hypocrites are hypocrites 100% of time. Of course he didn't get to where he is by being a hypocrite all of the time. However, of all the justices he is the most insistent on his own righteousness. He is very explicit about his own principled reasoning but that righteousness is what makes him so blind to his failings.
And the fact that he and ginsburg are buds only proves that the common experience they have - an experience practically no one else on the planet has and very few are able to understand - creates a strong bond. Maybe they both have little else in their lives to occupy them. Ex-presidents from different parties are often buds too - being members of en elite and powerful club tends to do that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @10:06PM
There's not a single good person in the Supreme Court, from what I see.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @10:53PM
It's also worth mentioning that Scalia has filed more concurrences and dissents than almost any other justice on the Supreme Court. That is, he works harder at his job, from which he is constitutionally protected from being fired, than almost any other Supreme Court justice. I think that should count for something, too.
I think everyone here recognizes that SLOC does not correlate with quality.
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Friday June 26 2015, @05:38PM
Glenn Greenwald's article [firstlook.org]
Campaign trail reactions [npr.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Justin Case on Friday June 26 2015, @05:54PM
I know this is a topic where people have strong opinions, but I'm hoping for a calm reasonable discussion, because I really would like to understand why a marriage between two people you've never met bothers you at all.
Sure I get it that your religion forbids you from having sex with certain categories of consenting adults. But you don't think the rules of your religion should apply to everyone else... do you? Really?
Or that the government should be the "morality police"... I mean c'mon, politicians have about the worst morals of any slime on Earth.
So why does this bother you enough to go out there and protest or whatever?
Maybe none of us should be asking the government for permission to love who we love. Then this wouldn't be an issue.
(Score: 5, Funny) by bob_super on Friday June 26 2015, @06:03PM
It's a major issue because all 20 countries who had previously fully legalized gay marriage have now been swallowed by giant sinkholes straight into the pits of hell.
Their straight people are being terrorized by roaming bands of gays in wedding dresses and the children taught in schools that homosexual sex is The One True Path To Happiness.
It is our solemn duty to ensure that this doesn't happen in the Greatest Free Country On Earth, because my God loves us More (almost as much as Israelis), and we shouldn't disappoint my God
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @06:26PM
Now I know that global warming is not the issue here but I doubt the rising temperature has been because of any change in those states' distance from hell. Like Global Warming, many doubt that hell even exists so you might have a tough sell on that one.
Add that to the roaming bands of straight women in wedding dresses terrorizing everyone involved in the whole event of the marriage because she wants it her way. Rude wedding parties happen all the time. The gender of the two makes little to no difference in how they will celebrate. Oh you where personally revolted? We find your bigotry and ignorance to be revolting too. We deal with it.
Um, isn't the one true path to happiness YOUR thing?
Yeah, I was right. I'm sure your god is quite capable of punishing those he sees fit and does not need your aide on whom to smite.
(Score: 2) by The Archon V2.0 on Friday June 26 2015, @07:06PM
> and the children taught in schools that homosexual sex is The One True Path To Happiness.
Well, maybe if Bristol Palin had been taught that she wouldn't be calling her unborn child "a huge disappointment to [her] family and close friends" right now.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday June 26 2015, @07:19PM
I was hoping the quote applied to her pregnant state, not her fetus.
But coming from the daughter of Palin (aptly named B.P.), you never know.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @10:47PM
No worries for her. According to Todd Akin, If she pretends, really, really hard, that she was legitimately raped, her body should reject the pregnancy.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Friday June 26 2015, @11:41PM
the children taught in schools that homosexual sex is The One True Path To Happiness.
That, actually, is true. Here is one link [standupforthetruth.com] out of many more [wnd.com] on the search engine of your choice.
(Score: 1) by Nollij on Saturday June 27 2015, @08:18AM
While I applaud you for actually citing something, the article is a piece of horribly written faux-journalism.
It is written as a pure outrage piece, with only vague references to anything that (may have) actually happened at the event. From there, it degenerates into attacks, presumably because the author disagrees. "Abstinence was not mentioned in the class." (emphasis original) is, above all else, irrelevant. Combined with all of the weasel words, it is impossible to take the claims seriously.
But perhaps the most telling detail that this isn't journalism? The article does not say, at any point, that they reached out to the group responsible for a comment.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by tynin on Friday June 26 2015, @06:10PM
I'm honestly happy for this victory, but I'm sad of the way it came about. 5 lawyers who weren't voted for by anyone, took away an entire countries right to decide for itself. Right when the GLBT movement was by large winning its own rights, State by State. By deciding this question under the Constitution, the Court removes it from the realm of democratic decision.
I thought the question before them was if States where it is currently illegal for gays to marry would have to recognize these marriages from States where it was legal. I suspected they would vote that all States would have to recognize these marriages, which would almost defacto make it legal everywhere given more time. But instead, the Court jumped the shark and ruled on something under the banner of it being a Constitutional issue when it is not.
Roberts dissent does a good job articulating this.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tynin on Friday June 26 2015, @06:12PM
More words from Roberts dissent:
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Friday June 26 2015, @06:22PM
> the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause. And they lose this just when the winds of change were freshening at their backs.
Yeah, can't argue with that. They were making a lot of headway. Now we'll never know.
(Score: 1) by Nollij on Saturday June 27 2015, @08:22AM
Interracial marriage didn't gain popular acceptance until the 90s.
Doesn't mean it was wrong to legalize in 1967.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @05:23PM
Texas has said repeatedly that they don't give a fuck what SCOTUS decides, they're going to keep it illegal, so there's still plenty of persuading and fighting to be done.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Friday June 26 2015, @06:16PM
> By deciding this question under the Constitution, the Court removes it from the realm of democratic decision.
I join you in wishing this had been accomplished democratically.
However, it should not be up to the voters to dictate that you must or must not have green beans for lunch. Some things just don't need to be governed, and the Constitution does not give Congress (and by extension, the states) the authority to make a lot of the laws they make anyway.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday June 26 2015, @06:32PM
More specifically, the reason we have courts, and the reason why the judiciary in some states and at the federal level is well-insulated from democratic pressures, is because majorities can and do make decisions that violate the fundamental rights of a minority. For example, there are lots of places in the US where if the majority had its way it would be illegal to not be Christian (and possibly Jewish).
Also, gay marriage had been legalized democratically in a lot of the country already - this mostly affected the holdouts against the tide of national public opinion.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday June 26 2015, @07:20PM
You seem to have contradicted yourself in the space of two consecutive paragraphs.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @07:59PM
Care to point out the contradiction?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @09:43PM
Yes, I await his explanation.
I expect there will be none because articulating it will require too much self-examination of his own biases and the cognitive dissonance will cause him to just run away from it rather than admit to himself that his deeply held beliefs are contradictory.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @10:50PM
He's probably getting married under a confederate flag right now. Cut him some slack.
(Score: 1) by albert on Friday June 26 2015, @11:51PM
We have the same old usual division in the court. No surprise there. The modern court isn't apolitical.
The legally proper ruling wouldn't have pleased either side. Our law is the Common Law except where overridden by statute law. Clearly in the Common Law (from pre-revolutionary times) marriage would be male+female only. States are free to override this as they please, as many have done. States are also forced to recognize legal agreements made in other states. This would mean people might need to visit a different state to get married, but that marriage would be valid everywhere.
4 justices probably wanted to do one wrong thing, and 5 justices did do a different wrong thing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @05:29PM
You're right, except for that whole 14th Amendment thing. The 14th Amendment states clearly that laws can't exclude a specific group simply because they're different - equal protection of the laws means equal protection of the laws.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @04:13PM
FTFY. Wouldn't it be great if we'd waited for the states to override that bold part as they pleased? Basic civil rights deserve stronger protection than the ballot box.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday June 26 2015, @07:18PM
and the Constitution does not give Congress (and by extension, the states) the authority to make a lot of the laws they make anyway.
The facts disagree with you:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
That being said, any pretense of being a republic has been lost, all law now flows from the Federal Bureaucrats, not even from congress any more. When every group wants something the rush to the federal government, and it dutifully shreds another section of the Constitution.
We should probably just repeal the Constitution entirely and end the pretense.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @08:01PM
You might have missed amendment 14, which comes even later in the constitution. It does things such as guarantee equal protection under the law and applies the bill of rights to the states, among other things.
The states do not have absolute power. They never did.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @08:47PM
I'm sure the same things where said when the slaves where declared free, when segregation was struck down, when women where given votes, and when state sodomy bans were struck down. The losing side of a debate always feels jilted by how it turned out.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by dcollins on Friday June 26 2015, @06:24PM
"Right when the GLBT movement was by large winning its own rights, State by State. By deciding this question under the Constitution, the Court removes it from the realm of democratic decision... Roberts dissent does a good job articulating this."
We can call this the "continue the controversy" argument, and it fails to be coherent. What societal issue was ever decided universally by all 50 states? None. Texas & other states were still dug in and enforcing anti-sodomy laws in 2003 when SCOTUS struck that down. States didn't universally agree to mixed-race marriage when those bans were struck down. States didn't universally agree that slavery was unacceptable when that was taken away.
The people don't deserve unending conflict and uncertainty (no matter how entertaining that might be for constitutional lawyers and politicians). The people deserve consistency, certainty, and stability, and the way these matters always get resolved at the end is by a decision from the federal government. Granted that yesterday 75% of the U.S. population already lived with legal same-sex marriage, there's no point in beating this dead horse any further. It's not too early, it's long overdue.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tynin on Friday June 26 2015, @06:45PM
I appreciate the response, especially the "continue the controversy" explanation. I suppose I was being narrow in view that it wasn't a 100% democratic victory, and considering how successful the movement has been, yes this was just squashing holdout States. In my perfect world, I'm a big fan of States rights... but I do understand the need to end the controversy.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @05:31PM
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @06:37PM
I'm honestly happy for this victory, but I'm sad of the way it came about. 5 lawyers who weren't voted for by anyone, took away an entire countries right to decide for itself. Right when the GLBT movement was by large winning its own rights, State by State.
Just like a similar group of unelected lawyers took away an entire country's right to decide for itself about interracial marriages. [wikipedia.org] Right when the civil rights movement was by large winning its own rights, State by State. The damage done by the ruling was epic.
(Score: 3, Informative) by bob_super on Friday June 26 2015, @07:12PM
> 5 lawyers who weren't voted for by anyone,
ARGH!!!!!!!!!!! This one pisses me off every time. STUPID ARGUMENT!
Whether you like most of the idiots sitting in the Senate or not, stop denying that they HAVE TO CONFIRM people nominated by the President to SCOTUS.
Said confirmation vote can be infinitely delayed by filibusters, therefore you can say that SCOTUS members have to get voted in by 60% of the Senate.
(Score: 2) by tynin on Friday June 26 2015, @07:18PM
Sorry about lighting your pet peev. I meant they weren't voted for by We The People. I shall endeavor to be more clear going forward, as you are very correct.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday June 26 2015, @07:25PM
It's not just you, that's why it's annoying. People with advisors abuse that argument.
We the people don't vote for the president either. Still waiting for that Popular Vote states' agreement to come into effect.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @07:34PM
Protecting the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority is democracy in action.
(Score: 2, Informative) by tftp on Friday June 26 2015, @11:57PM
Protecting the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority is democracy in action.
But shouldn't also the rights of the majority be protected from the tyranny of the enabled minority?
Say, I'm a baker. It would be wrong for me to interfere in private activities of two gays. Any modern court would agree. However I should be allowed to not participate in any of those guys' activities. But refusing to service gay weddings is now an illegal discrimination! People asked why people object to gay marriage, and this is one example why. 98% of the population may not want gay ads, gay movies, gay songs, gay teachers - but all of that is now perfectly legal.
(Score: 1) by KBentley57 on Saturday June 27 2015, @02:55AM
I believe the answer to your dilemma may be in part answered by "The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of “public accommodation” include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores." Source: https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-service-can-a-business-refuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance [legalzoom.com] . A bakery would probably be covered under the restaurant part, but perhaps not if not serving customers directly in house. I should also not that even though sexual orientation is explicitly listed, as is race, ect.. I'm pretty sure it would be included in most states.
It's also very different to refuse service to an individual or a couple, than to refuse service to an entire class of people.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Saturday June 27 2015, @03:28AM
I would have never thought that the expression "the land of the free" translates as "the land where people are forced to do what they do not want to do." Slavery is alive and well in the USA; it only changed its colors.
Note that public disapproval was always, in all societies, a major stabilizing factor. In this society public disapproval is outlawed. What a shame.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @03:53AM
> Slavery is alive and well in the USA; it only changed its colors.
I'm so glad you say blatantly crazy shit like that because it confirms my suspicions about other comments you've made on issues that I didn't have enough background knowledge to be confident in my judgment. Where there is smoke there's fire...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @03:52AM
But shouldn't also the rights of the majority be protected from the tyranny of the enabled minority?
Everyone's rights should be protected, whether you're in the majority or the minority. But there is debate about what rights you have.
98% of the population may not want gay ads, gay movies, gay songs, gay teachers - but all of that is now perfectly legal.
When were gay ads, gay movies, gay songs, or gay teachers ever illegal?
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday June 26 2015, @06:10PM
I could be wrong, but I believe it has something to do with Sodom and Gomorrah. The concern is that god may hurl an asteroid at a major city or pestilence and famine, maybe the rivers will turn to blood, 40 days of darkness, the dead rising from the grave, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Friday June 26 2015, @06:27PM
But surely, god(s) would spare his/her faithful from the plague, no? In which case wouldn't this be precisely the desired outcome?
(Score: 2) by Refugee from beyond on Friday June 26 2015, @06:55PM
Dogs and cats are capable of living together, though. Zombie apocalypse still not here yet, but I advice cremation just in case.
Instantly better soylentnews: replace background on article and comment titles with #973131.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Hartree on Friday June 26 2015, @06:16PM
"but I'm hoping for a calm reasonable discussion"
On the internet?
Oh, I suppose there is room in my world for cockeyed optimists. ;)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Alfred on Friday June 26 2015, @06:17PM
The point of having a discussion is to find more truth. Both sides already claim that so what is the point. New truths are not discovered by internet discussions anyway.
All you can do is take those you love and are responsible for and raise them right even with all the crazies over there that are grossly wrong.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by SubiculumHammer on Friday June 26 2015, @06:20PM
The reasoned approach is to reframe the argument around contracts, and have the government remove itself from marriage licenses
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @07:39PM
Yes, because government has completely removed itself from contract law.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @08:06PM
Lots of places still prohibit incestuous marriages and more than two people marrying one another. These issues could be solved with better and more customizable contracts.
Furthermore, I'd say that marriage is just some silly social convention with a lot of magical thinking attached to it. It has no need to be specifically recognized.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @01:03AM
Well, it does, because most of that magical thinking around a marriage has morphed into the realms of contract law, witness everything that happens in a divorce. A divorce proceeding really is the state's dissolution of an implied (because no prenuptial agreement) business partnership - division of assets and debts, adjudicating "fair" access and ongoing responsibilities and obligations to undivideable assets (aka, children, custody, child support), with all the legal instruments required for all the entities involved (e.g., bank accounts, credit card accounts, etc) needing this aspect of the divorce for things to be worked out correctly.
The court (rightly) doesn't give a rat's ass about the emotional state about either party, their theological issues, etc.
Until you've experienced it, the above just seems like nice, theoretical talk...
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Friday June 26 2015, @08:22PM
The gov has to get involved if there is property to split up after the divorce. If people were good and divorce wasn't necessary then you got a plan.
Also, if it is about contracts then you can get a legally binding contract for about whatever union/collaboration/group you want. You could even legally mandate that health insurance be given to the other party in the contract if it is the right kind. You could have that but carefully word it to have the most favorable tax status. Looking ahead at where I am going with this I see a downward spiral of gov screwing stuff up. So...too much gov in too much stuff causing too much pain.
Maybe we should frame it as a church thing. Nevermind, to many jacked up churches too. Though I'd take them over gov since the collection plate is an optional thing.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Justin Case on Friday June 26 2015, @09:01PM
> The gov has to get involved if there is property to split up after the divorce.
Why do you think that couldn't be spelled out in the contract? And anyway, govs usually get involved when contracts go sour. That's why the contract is in writing, so courts can see what you agreed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @06:35PM
Not everyone feels strongly about the topic of marriage.
It is possible to have a discussion of the legal aspects of the fourteenth amendment and states' rights.
(Score: 1) by deadstick on Friday June 26 2015, @06:30PM
But you don't think the rules of your religion should apply to everyone else... do you? Really?
Welcome to the Abrahamic religions.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @06:32PM
Anyone who makes a biblical justification for forbidding gay sex needs to get their house in order first and:
Stop eating shrimp and lobster -
Leviticus 11:10 "But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you."
Deuteronomy 14:9-10 "These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat: And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you."
Get all your tattoos removed -
Leviticus 19:28 "You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord."
Grow your beard out -
Leviticus 19:27 "You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard."
Stop eating GMOs and empty your wardrobe of cotton and wool or polyester blends -
Leviticus 19:19 "You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together."
Stop eating bacon -
Leviticus 11:7-8 "and the pig, for though it divides the hoof, thus making a split hoof, it does not chew cud, it is unclean to you. You shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you."
Never get divorced -
Mark 10:11 "And He said to them, 'Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her;"
(Score: 2, Touché) by DutchUncle on Friday June 26 2015, @08:38PM
All of the food rules were very simple health advice (at the time). Shellfish spoil faster than fish; even today people get sick at raw clam bars. Pork at the supermarket has little stickers about cooking fully to prevent trichinosis, a parasitic infestation which is less frequent with ruminants (because they chew harder and their stomachs are chemically harsher). The cuts and tattoos thing, and hair, was probably more about looking different than their neighbors (and incidentally avoiding opportunities for infection).
As for no divorce, that's nonsense added later, because the old testament has clear and sensible statements about divorce and compensatory payment (which became alimony) and child support. The old book actually makes some sense for its time.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @08:53PM
So you're saying all the biblical laws where nothing more than the society of the time choosing to say "God said not to" because it was easier to lie to get them not to do those things than to convince them it's not in their best interests? Then why do we still follow it? It got geography and astronomy wrong, it's wrong on biology and psychology as well.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Saturday June 27 2015, @12:07AM
So you're saying all the biblical laws where nothing more than the society of the time choosing to say "God said not to" because it was easier to lie to get them not to do those things than to convince them it's not in their best interests?
It's still easier today :-) I don't have a clue how you would explain to an illiterate goat herder the statistics about pork... Priests were better educated, or just naturally smarter; they got it figured out and put into the books as a recommended practice.
Then why do we still follow it?
Don't know who "we" is, but I certainly follow only whatever happens to make sense today. I do not like to interact with gays IRL because I am not sure how to. Roughly, I have one template to talk to men and another to talk to women. It's not that I consider gays "wrong", and I am not involved with any religion. Communication on the Internet is agnostic to personal preferences of participants.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @05:40PM
You interact with them the same way you do every other human being, you fucking bigot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @12:23AM
So you're saying all the biblical laws where nothing more than the society of the time choosing to say "God said not to" because it was easier to lie to get them not to do those things than to convince them it's not in their best interests?
It was a bit more authoritarian than that. Basically, the political leaders of the time decided to push their agenda into the holy texts. Did you think that the Romans invented that particular practice?
Then why do we still follow it?
Because most people are conservative in nature. It's a built-in survival mechanism and it's very helpful when you are a dumb animal. When you are subject to the mercy of nature, change tends to be bad.
(Score: 1) by DutchUncle on Thursday July 02 2015, @08:53PM
>>Why do we still follow it?
>> ... people are conservative in nature ...
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that (something) long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. "
- wiser men than I
(Score: 1) by DutchUncle on Thursday July 02 2015, @08:47PM
Back then, people said, "You eat this, you get sick, so I guess God doesn't like it when you eat this." I think it's an oversimplification born of ignorance of the detailed real reasons (rather than an explicit telling of an untruth == "lie"), and a little stronger than "Because Mom says so." Nowadays we know enough to say (with apologies to XKCD) "Because SCIENCE, bitches!" You're going to argue that the creation myths are not scientific? No argument here! And at least it improved over time - for example, in the first book one guy marries two sisters, by the fourth book there's an explicit rule prohibiting this. "We tried this, it didn't work out, I guess God doesn't like it, so don't do it." Give 'em credit for learning.
(Score: 1) by DutchUncle on Friday June 26 2015, @08:30PM
>>> But you don't think the rules of your religion should apply to everyone else... do you?
Well, yes, they do. That's part of how religion works - if this truth is the One Truth, then it *must* apply to everyone. At least some people's logic is internally consistent - like Catholics saying that abortion is murder because they count life from conception - but unfortunately it contradicts the way other people count, like Orthodox Jews who read the old testament and count life from birth + 8 days (geez, infant mortality much in the old days???) So which truth is ... true?
(Score: 2) by compro01 on Friday June 26 2015, @08:42PM
Yes. Look up "Dominion theology".
(Score: 2) by gman003 on Friday June 26 2015, @09:19PM
Personally, I never really cared about gay marriage. I'm not gay, nor do I know anyone who's gay, so it didn't personally affect me. I supported it in the abstract because I didn't see any good reason why it should be banned, and heard some very reasonable arguments in favor of it, but I never truly cared about the issue. It was like starving kids in Africa or jailed dissidents in China - sure, I'm against it, but I can't be assed to do anything more than say "I don't like that, somebody ought to do something".
Right now, I'm happy primarily because we can now move on to other things. The Republican reactionaries will try to push back on it, but they lack the political power to turn it around, and they've long lost the majority opinion that could get them that political power. So in relatively short order, we'll have some new national debate. I nominate either "high and rising wealth inequality" or "government surveillance and policing overreach" as the next big talking point.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by jmorris on Sunday June 28 2015, @12:57AM
I'm happy primarily because we can now move on to other things
Wow, what optimism. Too bad it is more than likely to be unsupported by facts.
Riddle me this: If the decision had went 5-4 the other direction would the SJWs have calmly said "The SCOTUS has ruled and the issue is now settled. Oh well." Why do you think the other side is going to? Did Roe v. Wade settle the issue? Everybody believes and acts on the basis the SCOTUS is merely a political actor and therefore no fight is ever resolved. In this case the ghey was only the pretext, the opening salvo in a Final Solution against Christians, the war is only begun. Peace and quiet? Nope, the war is only starting. The Christians will probably lose and be driven underground but they can no more surrender here than they are in the Middle East where they are being crucified by ISIS; up against that Obama and some other fairies aren't even in the same league of scary.
(Score: 2) by gman003 on Sunday June 28 2015, @02:59AM
The history of American politics is a slow march towards individual liberties. On every issue that can be framed as "personal freedoms" versus something else, the progressive side eventually wins. Slavery. Women's suffrage. Civil rights. Worker's rights. And so on.
Gay marriage is, eventually, going to be a settled issue, simply because it's "individual liberty" versus something else (in this case, one part "religious tradition" and one part "eww gross").
Now, things don't end once the Supreme Court rules on it, as you said. Brown v Board was ten, twenty years before serious desegregation occurred.
But in this case, the Court is lagging behind public opinion, instead of leading it. When the Court ruled that anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional, public polls had only 40% of the country agreeing. Right now, public support for gay rights is in the 50-70% range. That makes it undesirable as a political talking point - for a conservative, adopting an anti-gay stance will gain no new followers (the only ones still opposed are the reactionary ultracons, who wouldn't be voting Democrat anyway), and will alienate the critical middle segment.
It also does not need to be completely resolved in order for a new issue to become "the" Big Issue. Hell, we're still working through race problems after a hundred years. Perhaps I'm optimistic, but I think another issue will soon take primacy.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday June 28 2015, @08:36AM
Well, we're exact opposites then! I never really cared about straight marriage.
There's a majority who obsess over something intangiable that's an artefact of neolithic religion, and which excludes non-members of that group.
There's a minority who obsess over that intangible thing, not wanting to be excluded from it.
Had the majority not obsessed and excluded, would the minority have bothered obsessing and wanted? I would hope not. Most of the abstract concept is still based on out-of-date religious concepts which *most of the prior and wannabee subscribers to it **don't even follow**!* It's sheer hypocrisy, everywhere. Rip it up, throw it away, redesign it from scratch, so that it is as simple and unencumbered with irrelevant cruft.
It's not the gays who want to destroy traditional marriage - it's the FatPhils!
Of course, what would I know about stable relationships, I've only been with my partner 17 years (minus a few weeks).
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by penguinoid on Friday June 26 2015, @10:10PM
But you don't think the rules of your religion should apply to everyone else... do you? Really?
Let me guess... you think nobody should be forcing their moral rules on other people, except that all the moral rules you agree with really should be forced on other people.
RIP Slashdot. Killed by greedy bastards.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @10:15PM
Let me guess... you think nobody should be forcing their moral rules on other people, except that all the moral rules you agree with really should be forced on other people.
There is a difference between moral rules that are justified because of a magical sky faerie and moral rules that are based on principles like equality, proportionality and dignity. Now if you want to argue that those sorts of principles are invalid, be my guest.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Saturday June 27 2015, @12:05AM
> Let me guess...
You guess wrong. But feel free to try again. And thanks for playing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @07:18PM
I'm on the pro- side. I'm happy about this decision. I care because the right to marry is valuable (mind, the symbolic aspect is important, too, but that's hard to make a policy argument for). For instance, it means multiple personal friends will have the opportunity to continue living in the United States if they so choose by marrying their partners.
There's certainly lots of different views on the con- side, but my understanding of why the religious people care about other people's gay marriages is that it has to do with the City upon a Hill [wikipedia.org] view: America is an example to the world and to God and so its God-fearing citizens have to duty to ensure its populous does not sin.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @10:11PM
In other words, their whole argument hinges on violating separation of church & state and the 1st & 14th amendments, and turning the US into a Christian theocracy.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by SubiculumHammer on Friday June 26 2015, @06:05PM
I take a libertarian view. Government should not have a special category of contract called marriage.
Marriage is two things. 1) Social, 2) Contractual.
In the first, marriage is or can be a social commitment between two individuals.
Second, marriage is a contract between two individuals to share resources and risks.
To the first I'd say that the government can't tell someone whom to love or cherish.
To the second I'd say that the rights of individuals to enter into contract is sacrosanct, fundamental aspects of our democracy and economic system. The government's role should be to witness partnership contracts and to judge contractual disputes in court, not to decide that some contracts cannot be entered into due to matching sex.
Therefore, marriage in its current form of legal construct should be struck. If two men form a contract to share resources, that should be no different than any other business contract. If two men say they are "married" others are free to recognize or not recognize that social construct as being valid, apart from the contractual business agreement.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday June 26 2015, @06:42PM
In my State you are required to have a ceremony. You cannot just sign the paperwork. The social and contractual parts are very mixed up at the moment.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Friday June 26 2015, @07:26PM
You have reams of paper worth of statute and case law that frames family law in terms of marriage. A lot of the way it's framed is kind of ugly and hard to revise because it's left over from a system that originally had the theory of all rights being delegated through a male head of household to the wife and children and incrementally a theory of divorce and independent women's rights was bolted on. We're talking about child custody, division of shared property, medical consent, and support for benefits packages that make it easier for one douse to stay at home or only work part time. All of these things currently depend on legal frameworks, even before getting to the issue of subsidized behavior.
Basically it's a standardized interface that's full of hacky incremental changes.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 2) by SubiculumHammer on Friday June 26 2015, @07:45PM
Yes. There is certainly a history, and such a move as I advocate would be throwing it all out. Messy as hell, but fresh and new.
(Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Friday June 26 2015, @10:01PM
You either void a large number of existing agreements or you have to specify a transition plan that translates existing agreements to a new framework.
People get pissed when the government makes small changes in either of those ways. The machinery of society is much larger than anything else we try to shape. Its complexity defies our attempts at large revisions to fit our preferences.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @10:52PM
Ulysses Everett McGill: I'll tell you what I am - I'm the damn paterfamilias!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Gault.Drakkor on Friday June 26 2015, @08:59PM
The view that you hold is not/should not be limited to libertarian.
The view that you describe in general should be the view of all governments.
Only exception I have is with "marriage in its current form of legal construct should be struck". It does need to be replaced with some legal construct, not just removed.
I like common law that Canada has. http://www.commonlawrelationships.ca/ [commonlawrelationships.ca]
That is if people are living in common law, then issues involving children, separation, estates, or benefits should be affect by laws that reference common law as condition. The contract of marriage/marriage like is common enough we need a name for it. Living in common law exists as a legal name in some regions. I would suggest that it is reasonable to use.
(Score: 2) by gman003 on Friday June 26 2015, @09:55PM
I think there's an argument to be made that having government-authored standardized contracts for extremely common cases would be a useful public service. There's some weirdness, with the marriage "contract" being mainly case law rather than an explicit agreement, but if we codified it properly it would be generally helpful. There would be nothing stopping you from writing and signing your own contract, but having a regular form would be a good way to make things more efficient.
Also, the government does have an interest in defining marriage because of the numerous tax breaks given to jointly-filed couples and parents. If all it takes to get those tax breaks is to sign a contract stating you're married, there would likely be a lot of abuse. By entwining it with other things (custody, shared debt, etc.), they make it much less attractive as a simple tax dodge.
If we didn't have that, though, I think I'd agree with your point.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @10:21PM
Also, the government does have an interest in defining marriage because of the numerous tax breaks given to jointly-filed couples and parents.
Which is totally unfair to people who aren't and don't want to get married. Why should I have to get married to get such simple benefits? It's discrimination.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Saturday June 27 2015, @12:15AM
> the government does have an interest in defining marriage because of the numerous tax breaks
No, the government stuck its fat nose into people's private business by stating we'll take more of your money if you don't get married. One offense does not justify more.
(Score: 2) by gman003 on Saturday June 27 2015, @04:25AM
The government is allowed to incentivize certain behaviors. I find that preferable to the more absolute forms of government control. Sure, it contradicts strict libertarian ideology, but ideological purity is for theoretical studies, not the real world.
Marriage is incentivized because childrearing is both desirable and expensive, so offsetting some of that cost results in a happier, better-raised populace. I can even see an argument for *greater* tax breaks for gay parents, since adoption also fixes other social ills, but overall that's negligible.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Saturday June 27 2015, @12:33PM
> The government is allowed to incentivize certain behaviors.
In which of the (USA) Constitution's enumerated powers do you find that one?
> Marriage is incentivized because childrearing is both desirable
Have you checked population statistics lately? We DO NOT have a shortage of humans.
(Score: 2) by gman003 on Saturday June 27 2015, @03:44PM
The Constitution gives them the means to incentivize, not the reasons.
Article 1, Section 8.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday June 27 2015, @04:54PM
The government is allowed to incentivize certain behaviors.
Why should people in a marriage get all these legal benefits that non-married couples or just people cannot? This has nothing to do with libertarianism.
Marriage is incentivized because childrearing is both desirable and expensive
Guess what? Marriage is not required for procreation. Lots of non-married people have children; imagine that. Furthermore, as the other guy said, we have no shortage of humans; we could actually do with a population decrease, because otherwise we're in trouble. Maybe we should be incentivizing people to not have children?
Not *limiting* the legal benefits of marriage to other couples or people would make everything less discriminatory and better. Marriage is just a silly social convention which lots of people think is magical (as you've demonstrated yourself). Individualized contracts (with default ones if you want something like marriage is now) in place of marriage would create a situation where people have more freedom to choose what they want. People in polamorous or incestuous relationships could get married, as well.
so offsetting some of that cost results in a happier, better-raised populace.
So would a world without 7 billion people and counting. Not that your precious marriage actually causes people to desire to procreate. If it did, then it would be outright bad, because we don't need more of that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @07:21PM
Except there is at least one important part of marriage that is clearly a contract with the government, not just between the two partners: immigration. One of the rights granted by marriage is the right to live in the same country as your spouse; that cannot be granted by a simple contract.
(Score: 2) by SubiculumHammer on Monday June 29 2015, @05:20AM
Interesting...but then again..isn't that a sponsor agreement?
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday June 28 2015, @08:55AM
I posted similar before I'd scrolled down and read yours, but my perspective I think is different enough for my post to not be considered redundant.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday June 26 2015, @06:09PM
Divorce lawyers have now booked every party room for this week-end, and bought every bottle of Champagne in the country. Mexican Cartels have tweeted that they are confident the resiliency of their supply chain.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @06:10PM
This is a good point. More divorces, more business. That would make a good investment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @08:49PM
Possibly, but just because more people can get married, that doesn't mean more people in aggregate will get married.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @07:39PM
All the Jesus Jumpers are going to get divorces so they can finally participate fully in the gay lifestyle?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @05:51PM
Now that gay marriage is legal, the gay police will be going door-to-door forcing everyone by shotgun into a gay marriage.
(Score: 2) by EQ on Friday June 26 2015, @06:13PM
What happens to those who legitimately believe otherwise, to whom marriage is a sacrament? They have no real protection other than some pusillanimous langue in Kennedy's weakly reasoned opinion. All this has done is set the 14th amendment versus the 1st, in the next court cases over this issue.
Do activists now sue opponents into compliance? Hey AME Church in South Carolina, open your church and lease it for a gay wedding ceremony teh same as you do for a straight one, or we will make the government close your church - with force if necessary because that is always the final answer for government power. Think that's extreme? Bake a cake or the state will destroy you for your religious faith is not all that far fetched anymore: an administrative hearing officer (not a court) imposed the fine, and now if that couple does not pay the fine, they take their home, and it they try to stay in their home, eventually here comes the SWAT team.
Thats why the decision was the right one, but wrongly arrived at - and withno actual protections for individual liberty, 1st amendment rights, and legitimate differences in conscience. That's what you get when you mix religion and state - get the government out of licensing marriage (a fundamental mistake in US law), which the government had as much business licensing as it would baptism or bar mitvahs, and instead treat it for what matters to the state - contract and civil law, equally applied but respecting constitutional rights. The Supreme court should have come up with a better way of deciding this in the affirmative.
(Score: 2) by SubiculumHammer on Friday June 26 2015, @06:18PM
Government should not be involved in marriage. They should be involved in witnessing contracts, and judging contract disputes, as I say in another post.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @10:14PM
So marriage isn't a contract, and divorce doesn't involve contract disputes?
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Friday June 26 2015, @06:26PM
The government licenses "marriages" which should be called "civil unions" but it's merely a name change. Any religious fantasy applied to the "marriage" is the business of the individuals and churches involved.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday June 26 2015, @06:27PM
What happens to those who legitimately believe otherwise, to whom marriage is a sacrament?
They can happily go on with their lives continuing to believe otherwise.
Oh wait, you think their beliefs should have some effect on others?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @06:34PM
Obviously you BELIEVE they should not
(Score: 5, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday June 26 2015, @07:00PM
Do activists now sue opponents into compliance? Hey AME Church in South Carolina, open your church and lease it for a gay wedding ceremony teh same as you do for a straight one, or we will make the government close your church - with force if necessary because that is always the final answer for government power. Think that's extreme? Bake a cake or the state will destroy you for your religious faith is not all that far fetched anymore: an administrative hearing officer (not a court) imposed the fine, and now if that couple does not pay the fine, they take their home, and it they try to stay in their home, eventually here comes the SWAT team.
This is the real concern. Another industry that comes to mind is Bed and Breakfasts. Plenty of those will refuse to lodge two men. Remember to call ahead to avoid an embarrassing moment!
Now, I'm not sure I rightly apprehend why a gay couple would want a homophobe involved in their wedding at all. If I ever meet Mr. Right, I'll be the one asking homophobes to leave. Yet here we are.
I've been asked to leave a few places over the years after presenting a male ID. Scared the bejeezus out of one poor guy who flew off the handle and called the cops. (Maybe he thought the ID was fake? Who knows, I just left. Never did find out.)
What's the alternative? Well, I found that out recently at Penn Steak & Lube. Absolutely horrid service and mediocre wings. I ended up tipping, but I'd have to say that was the first time I've actually seriously considered not tipping. I suspect homophobia, but maybe that restaurant just sucks. If it was homophobia, they would have saved me a three hours on the road, and I could have just made a batch of my Trinity wings for half the price if they would just make it clear they don't want “gays” there.
To summarize: we can allow businesses to refuse to serve “gays” or we can coerce them into serving “gays.” But the service won't be good!
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by frojack on Friday June 26 2015, @09:00PM
I'm not sure I rightly apprehend why a gay couple would want a homophobe involved in their wedding at all.
That's because you labor under the delusion this was all about equal rights. It was never that. Never.
It was always about pushing the agenda of gay superiority and knocking down any other opinion, or any rights to exercise any other opinion, and using the force of the state to impose your way of thinking on everyone else.
Getting the right to marry. Great.
Getting the right to Force others to participate against their will. Double Win.
Can you NOT see where equality ends and superiority begins?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @09:16PM
Oh froman. Such a simpleton.
And what about the people living in a two-bit town where there is only one business providing the necessary services and they refuse? And where do you draw the line? Caters? Florists? Photographers? Limo driver? Clean up crew? DJ? How 'involved' is too involved?
It isn't about superiority, it is about baseline standards of business. Just like it is illegal to refuse service for things like race and age. In a perfect world with an unlimited supply to chose from it wouldn't matter. But no one lives in a perfect world.
Or it is a gay agenda to ultimately hold you down force you to suck dick and it won't be rape because the gay mafia intimidated the supreme court to make that legal too!
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday June 26 2015, @11:06PM
I found frojack's comment somewhat confusing, but I think I agree with his overall sentiment after thinking it over. He may have been a bit over-the-top, but, logically, why else would a gay couple demand a homophobic business service their wedding?
Gender and sexuality in my view are fundamentally different than race issues. With race issues we see many seemingly intractable problems stemming from generational socioeconomic inequality. Think about “urban culture” (or whatever is up next on the euphemism treadmill). Jim Crow laws were part of a system designed methodically disenfranchise blacks.
If you're black, you can't get away from it. Homosexuality is on the inside. I'm not saying homosexuals should stay in the closet. I believe strongly that homosexuals should be able to talk about their love lives as openly as straights (not sure how to get around bisexual erasure, but openness should help). What I'm getting at, perhaps clumsily, is that homosexuals are born to rich, poor, and middle-class alike. For the most part, they come from stable families. Their parents send them to college. Their social network includes middle-class and upper-class people.
While I see the need for sexual orientation to be a protected class when it comes to employment, mostly to enable the openness I described, however I question the necessity to force businesses to service homosexuals. Medical services? Yes, we should force doctors and nurses to provide services to homosexuals. Don't become a doctor or nurse if you aren't prepared to face the medical reality that sexual orientation isn't a choice. Bakers, bed and breakfasts, churches? Not so much.
This is an area where I think we can legitimately have faith in the free market. Whatever the reason for the poor service my friends and I experienced at that wings place, they've guaranteed we'll never return.
Speaking of wings, I have greenhouse test #2 cooling in front of me. Will it go critical? The suspense!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @05:58PM
I don't know, maybe because there's no other choice within hundreds of miles? That whole "separate but equal" thing you want to support is still discrimination.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Monday June 29 2015, @12:27AM
If you have a solution for all of the petty bigotries of humanity, I'd like to hear it.
While I've never gone to a “club” per se, I'd like to ask about the fate of an unattractive girl. We see this depicted on television all the time. A hot chick with measurements I only can wish I had gets waved past the entire line and immediately granted entrance. Meanwhile, more average women are relegated to a slow-moving line to get admittance.
There are three candidate solutions as I see it. Firstly, we can create the office of the Hanicapper General, who shall see to it that anyone who is more intelligent be drugged or otherwise hampered; anyone who is prettier be forced to hide their animal beauty; and anyone who is stronger be forced to carry around weights to compensate. This is unacceptable. Secondly, we can use our technology to ensure that everyone born may (and must!) become a living god or goddess with flawless intelligence and statuesque animal beauty. This is intriguing, but I believe the Twilight Zone provided a compelling argument about how this destroys individual uniqueness (see also Nine, Loquitus, et al).
Thirdly, we can ignore our innate differences and pretend they just don't exist. I see two different interpretations of this proposal. The first is the SJW/gender/race lunatic's beliefs: that we should look the other way if somebody cannot perform their job functions. This is a less radical way to implement the Hanicapper General and thus unacceptable. The other alternative is to force businesses to provide services that they'd rather not.
I once read a story about a scrivner named Bartleby. Bartleby the Scrivner one day preferred not to scribe, so he lost his job. Then he preferred not to pay the landlord. So, they sent him to jail. Then he preferred not to eat. Then he preferred not to live, and he died.
So it must be with the free market as concerns homosexuals. Homosexuals are able to attain comparative economic power (even if that amounts to little these days) to their straight brothers and sisters, so that makes them fundamentally different from blacks. A business may prefer not to service them, but then they will go to a business that does. We're not talking life-or-death services, such as hospitals and emergency first responders. We're talking wedding cakes, which may be transported from a distance. We're talking hot wings. It therefore behooves all businesses to service homosexuals, lest another business gain a slight advantage and eat their lunch.
These are my views. If a business doesn't want my money, well, too bad! I've got plenty of it, and I'm glad to give it to businesses that want it.
Businesses that refuse to service me because I appear female but have male ID are really no different from the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival. On the one hand, it is insulting that such a superficial thing would be a reason to deny me service or admittance. On the other hand, who am I to tell folks with superstitious views of the world that they're wrong? Even here in flyover country, there is always somewhere else to go. I believe, as an ostensibly transgendered person (and I suppose technically homosexual), that the way forward is to show bigots that they're wrong, not by putting the gun of government regulation in their face, but by showing them that they're starving themselves.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday June 26 2015, @10:23PM
It was always about pushing the agenda of gay superiority and knocking down any other opinion, or any rights to exercise any other opinion, and using the force of the state to impose your way of thinking on everyone else.
C'mon, frojack! You know, as well as anyone, that gay guys are better dressed, wittier, wealthier, and in general more cool than straight guys! It is not about pushing an agenda, they just are superior! And guess what, you could be one too! You did watch the "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy", didn't you! All you need is a make-over. Of course, you will also have to give up your paranoid conservative ideology, but that's part of being superior.
Why is it that equality is seen as superiority? If all people of all races are equal, does that mean that some of them are being treated as superior? (Careful, it's a trick question!) If people of all genders and orientations are equal, are we asserting the superiority of some of these? Which ones? If all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others, . . . Loss of privilege does not always translate into an acquisition of privilege but others.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday June 26 2015, @06:27PM
What happens to those who legitimately believe otherwise, to whom marriage is a sacrament?
Obviously, they will burn in hell for eternity for being such idiots! Just joking! (See how "not funny" that is?) The same thing will happen to them as happened to those who believed in the sacrament of child sacrifice to Baal, as those who believed in the sacrament of murder in the Thugi cult. They will die off, after they go underground, and remain as a part of human history.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @06:28PM
"The Court also held that the First Amendment protects the rights of religious organizations to adhere to their principles, but it does not allow states to deny same-sex couples the right to marry on the same terms as those for opposite-sex couples."
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2014/2014_14_556 [oyez.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by dcollins on Friday June 26 2015, @06:33PM
"get the government out of licensing marriage (a fundamental mistake in US law)"
Start organizing a movement for that; I'll support it. In the meantime, it's undeniably better to have gay people not discriminated against under the existing marriage institution. In fact, this ruling probably advances the cause, by getting people to perceive government marriage as inherently non-religious.
(Score: 2) by gman003 on Friday June 26 2015, @06:38PM
This decision does not affect religion in the slightest.
Churches are not required to recognize all government-recognized marriages as valid within their religion. For example, the Catholic Church does not recognize marriages not performed with Catholic rites as valid, and so the stricter Catholic divorce/annulment procedures aren't necessary to "break" it.
After all, it would be rather odd to believe that God was forced to recognize a marriage just because the government did.
The decision also does not force religious ministers to officiate gay marriages. It may end up requiring court officials to perform gay marriages, if "officiating marriage ceremonies" is already part of their job, but that's clearly not a religious-liberty issue since, if you have ethical objections to your job, you can simply quit.
Really, the only thing this prevents religious people from doing is forcing their beliefs on others by using the government, and separation of church and state is a long-held principle of American philosophy.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Friday June 26 2015, @06:50PM
> What happens to those to whom marriage is a sacrament?
Have your marriage in a church, not in the Sacramento capitol building. Has something happened to prevent you from doing that now?
(Score: 2) by tathra on Saturday June 27 2015, @05:53PM
since when does the first amendment allow you to force your religion on other people by power of law? the first amendment says the opposite of that.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday June 28 2015, @09:13AM
Protection *from what*?!?!?!
Oh, and they do have protection - they've got the big man up in the sky to protect them. In their own minds, surely that's the greatest protection from everything ever that can possibly exist, as the big man in the sky is *omnipotent*!
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Troll) by Gravis on Friday June 26 2015, @06:51PM
i can't wait to marry a shoe!
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday June 26 2015, @07:06PM
At least you'd be getting to home plate all day long.
My plans to marry my computer mouse only get me to third base.
(Score: 2, Informative) by rizole on Friday June 26 2015, @09:06PM
You might want to leave your basement and go and meet some humans.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @10:49PM
"and meet some humans."
Why? He's a shoephile.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Saturday June 27 2015, @02:10AM
that whooshing sound is the joke flying overhead. http://www.governing.com/government-quotes/If-you-want-to-marry-a-shoe-Ill-marry-you.html [governing.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @03:50AM
Wooshing someone for not being aware of an obscure comment made by an obscure local political candidate half a decade ago is just narcissism.
(Score: 2) by Appalbarry on Friday June 26 2015, @07:11PM
Let this be a lesson to all revolutionaries - after deposing the government, never ever write down a list of "rights" because it will eventually come back to haunt you.
(Parenthetically, I don't think this reflects a society where the majority of people "support" gay marriage. I think it reflects a society where the vast majority of people really couldn't care one way or the other if two guys get married.)
(Score: 0, Troll) by jmorris on Friday June 26 2015, @07:53PM
As usual, everyone is missing the point and hooting and hollering over some new 'right' the Supremes discovered. But that is merely a side effect of their intended purpose.
Christianity and Judaism are now officially outlawed religions. The follow on laws (i.e. rulings, lets just call them what they actually are now, laws) will quickly make this clear as indicated in the oral arguments in this case. Do not believe me on this, come back tomorrow and read the rabid bigotry that will spew forth in the replies to this post and you will understand what I am saying better than any words I might use.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @08:04PM
Christianity and Judaism are now officially outlawed religions.
Good. Add the last of the Abrahamic religions, Islam, to the mix and the world will truly be a much better place.
Unfortunately you are WRONG. Christianity and Judaism are NOT outlawed. They are free to keep living exactly as they have. They are not required to perform religious marriage ceremonies that go against their religious beliefs.
All they are required to do is to stop shoving their bigotry down our throats. And it's about goddamn time.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday June 27 2015, @12:20AM
Add the last of the Abrahamic religions, Islam, to the mix...
As if. If I could behold the spectacle of a Mosque being sued into oblivion because they won't pretend gays can marry and conduct a ceremony for them it would almost be worth it for the lulz. But of course we all know that, somehow, won't happen so lets not pretend otherwise. Some religions are more equal than others.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @12:25AM
If I could behold the spectacle of a Mosque being sued into oblivion because they won't pretend gays can marry and conduct a ceremony for them it would almost be worth it for the lulz. But of course we all know that
Well, I didn't know it explicitly, but I sure could have guessed that you would think that.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday June 27 2015, @04:35PM
Whoosh!
I was pointing out the double standard. Christian churches are bracing for the reality coming at them, of being outlawed underground cults within a decade... but we all know the Progs won't attack an ally so no mosque will be impacted by this. It isn't about the homosexuals, it is about the Progressives. They have pushed their agenda about as far as they can without eliminating the churches... so they are eliminating the churches.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @08:07PM
Christianity and Judaism are now officially outlawed religions
Really? I'm reading through the opinion so I must not have reached that part yet. Can you quote the relevant section?
as indicated in the oral arguments in this case
Oral arguments are not what is used as precedent.
you will understand what I am saying better than any words I might use
You are being a little too dramatic. I will try to remember to check tomorrow and I hope you will too.
You should read through the opinion. Robert's dissent mentions some interesting examples that are a lot less sensational than outlawing Christianity.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday June 26 2015, @08:14PM
Christianity and Judaism are now officially outlawed religions.
So if we have separation of church and state, your religion is banned? If you can't use the government to oppress people in the name of your religion, your religion is banned?
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @09:25PM
Well, this
If you can't use the government to oppress people in the name of your religion, your religion is banned?
was my favorite part of religion. Without religious wars, inquisitions, pogroms, and St Bartholomew's Days, religion is just a boring set of scheduled meetings and lectures and feeling guilty. Might as well go to college, if that is what you're after.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Friday June 26 2015, @08:23PM
> Christianity and Judaism are now officially outlawed religions.
Wow. You're a lot more optimistic than I am. But now, can we move on to the rest of them?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @08:38PM
Nope. Don't you know? Gay marriage is Sharia! We are now a country of muslims.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @09:00PM
1 Peter 2:13
Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man.
The Bible requires that you follow the laws of the land you reside in. Checkmate, Christian.
http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=46736 [landoverbaptist.net]
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @08:35PM
this seems to not be a very difficult ruling.
however a future needed ruling based on the current one might be:
do married gays have a right to children?
we assume that biotechnolgy continues to make progress then it might become possible in the future to either:
take a X chromosome from two married males each and make a girl or a X from one man and Y from the other to make a boy.
-or-
take one of two X chromosomes from each of the two married woman to makea girl or ... errr ...
well, i leave it up to you : )
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday June 26 2015, @11:06PM
You may be onto something:
http://www.resolve.org/family-building-options/insurance_coverage/state-coverage.html [resolve.org]
Gays and lesbians could sue for insurance coverage of advanced future IVF techniques (artificial eggs for 2 males, mitochondria, artificial wombs).
In the meantime, there are legal [nytimes.com] issues [eggdonor.com] with surrogacy, and some go overseas to less restrictive countries [npr.org] to avoid them.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Saturday June 27 2015, @12:21AM
> Gays and lesbians could sue for insurance coverage of advanced future IVF techniques
Or, maybe we shouldn't take money from productive people and use it to buy insurance for those who prefer not to spend their own money on it.
You see, marriage or insurance, once you get government involved the problems get worse. Then people propose more government to fix the problems created by government.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @06:28PM
This selfish, self-centered "everyone fend for themselves, fuck anyone who isn't you" sociopathic ideology betrays the whole point of having societies or even villages.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @12:39AM
is between a man and a woman. Whether that be their cousin, mother, or sister. As long as it is a woman.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @07:50PM
The republican definition of marriage is a property contract. "Marriage" is simply the purchase (the groom pays a dowry to the bride's father) of a piece of property (a woman) to be used however the buyer wishes. Their problem with marriage equality is that the idea of a woman owning a woman or a man owning a man is absurd, and they're confused as to who owns whom in the contract.