Just because someone disagrees with this ruling does not make them automatically an anti-gay bigot. I disagree with the ruling based on my own personal morals.
I know I have rambled on about this, but I have a point I swear. Most of these people really think they can "help" gay people, and that they need to protect other people from falling off the "good" path. Most of their bigotry is really based on ignorance and bad stereotypes that are reinforced by the most visible gay people. The young people are being brought up with the same views. If you want to break through these barriers you need to approach it slowly, patiently, and nicely. The best things for gay people are when people who are "normal" with good lives come out of the closet, that forces people to see something that they believe shouldn't happen. They think being gay ruins peoples lives, seeing that the world doesn't work the way they believe begins to ruin the foundations of their beliefs. The second best thing is just confronting their beliefs head on, without belittling them. It is not a gay persons fault they are born gay, it is not a bigots fault he was born to christian fundie parents who told him all gay people will burn in hellfire. It is just as if their parents told them that the world was really a glass snowball that god shook to make it rain. They did not come to their beliefs on their own, they were taught them. If they are belittled they will turn to their other christian friends for comfort and confirmation that they are right. They won't believe you when you call them a bigot, so anything else you say won't be believed either. They will believe people who respect them and say nice things to them, they will ignore people who insult them. Each time you talk to them, if you respect them you will only make a small dent in their beliefs, but it will work over time.
Now, some people cannot be reasoned with, but most of these people are merely looking for someone to look down on so they can feel superior to them. These people could probably be brought around on the subject of gay rights, but they will just find another group of people to look down on that they will try to oppress. I don't think Classy falls into this group, but I do think mocking him, and insulting him only drives him away from tolerance.
No, it isn't. A marriage is a contract between two private citizens. Rules about who can sign the contract do not materially affect the nature of the contract. A contract of sale is still a contract of sale, no matter if I decide I'm only going to sell to Washingtonians, and then change my mind to sell to Floridians. Persons are persons in the United States, and if they truly are to have equal rights, then their names should be interchangeable on any legal contract.A legal restriction is part of a legal definition.
No you're arguing the semantics. I'm telling you what the facts are about civil rights equality in the United States.So changing restrictions is also changing the definition, but now we are just arguing semantics.
Because nobody is being unequally denied the right to be married to more than one person at a time. Can you marry Jane and Jennifer? No? Neither can I!We also have legal restrictions on how many people someone can marry. Why can't we lift those too?
If you think there is an inequality of rights among the population, then you are cordially invited to demonstrate that inequality. If you can in fact demonstrate that inequality, I will support it's abolition as well.Edit - All I'm trying to point out is we have many forms of discrimination in our laws and they are all deemed acceptable until a large enough population starts making a stink.
Just because someone disagrees with this ruling does not make them automatically an anti-gay bigot. I disagree with the ruling based on my own personal morals.
Not only is this ruling the correct one to make, but it will be upheld with Kagan in the USSC.
And the ruling is a nice fat middle finger aimed right at the Mormon community, which is always good to see.
No, it isn't. A marriage is a contract between two private citizens. Rules about who can sign the contract do not materially affect the nature of the contract. A contract of sale is still a contract of sale, no matter if I decide I'm only going to sell to Washingtonians, and then change my mind to sell to Floridians. Persons are persons in the United States, and if they truly are to have equal rights, then their names should be interchangeable on any legal contract.
Civil rights issues can take a long, long time. Martin Luther King said their progress has a long arc, but leans to justice.
Ours is the issue of gay discrimination. It was practically a forbidden topic as recently as about the 1960's.
Early steps included just any mention of gays in public, that they existed. In earlier times, there wasn't really even the idea, it seems of a 'gay person', but just someone who did perverse things - the same way there was no 'orientation' to be a murderer or thief, just people who did those things.
A milestone was the Supreme Court ruling that criminalizing homosexual behavior was unconstitutional - overturning laws that could jail gay couples for having sex.
Other milestones are the creeping start of including gays in non-discrimination laws (some have, many haven't), or legalizing gay marriage in a few states (most are not close).
But today, we have a milestone in the next two hours coming with the release of the judge's decision on the federal constitutionality of discrimination against gay marriage.
It'll either be a milestone in progress - or a setback if he rules the other way. But we should appreciate it, as we remove one more unjust discrimination in our society.
Women have had a long road - from having the vote for less than half our history, to having legal protection for equality at work only in recent decades. No President yet.
Blacks have had a long history - from centuries of serving our desire for cheap labor to enrich us in slavery, to the 14th amendment, to the ending of a century of legal racism.
Things are still progressing for equality - indeed women have now gained a big advantage in many areas to the point of concern for men.
But let's pay attention to the progress on the civil rights issue today - gay equality.
Hopefully, the judge will rule that the constitution protects against the bigoted discrimination underlying the law against gay marriage.
A ruling that is very plausible today, that would have been unacceptable to society for over 90% of our nation's history.
It'll be one more great progress as an example for the world as well, much of whom - including much or most of Muslim society - still has very strong gay bigotry.
Just because someone disagrees with this ruling does not make them automatically an anti-gay bigot. I disagree with the ruling based on my own personal morals.
Still waiting.
lol @ dorks who think marriage is a right
LOL @ ignoramuses that think anything which isn't limited by the law isn't a right.lol @ dorks who think marriage is a right
lol @ dorks who think marriage is a right
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,"...
Not LOL, but scared shitless of jackasses who think they have the right to strip the legal civil rights and the financial benefits and privileges afforded to married couples should be allowed for some couples but not others.
It's called democracy, that's when 51% of the population gets to push around the other 49%. Though in this case it's 4% doing the pushing.
It's called democracy, that's when 51% of the population gets to push around the other 49%. Though in this case it's 4% doing the pushing.
It's called democracy, that's when 51% of the population gets to push around the other 49%. Though in this case it's 4% doing the pushing.
It's a damn good thing we don't live in a Democracy, then isn't it?
There is a reason why we have a constitution and Bill of Rights. And there is a reason why it requires a 2/3 vote and ratification to amend these.
Democracy is mob rule. The framers recognized this and created a representative constitutional republic. Not a democracy.
republic is a form of government in which at least a part of its people[1] have some element of formal control over its government,[2][3], and in which the head of state is not a monarch[4] The word "republic" is derived from the Latin phrase res publica, which can be translated as "a public affair".
To play devil's advocate, Jesus, according to the bible approved much later, did say marriage is between a man and a woman - that's not old testament, not metaphor.
While not a prohibition on homosexuality - you can infer if you like from the prohibition on premarital sex and the inability of gays to marry - it does address gay marriage.
Now, there are arguments on the other side, but there is this for the anti-gay marriage side.
No, it isn't. A marriage is a contract between two private citizens. Rules about who can sign the contract do not materially affect the nature of the contract. A contract of sale is still a contract of sale, no matter if I decide I'm only going to sell to Washingtonians, and then change my mind to sell to Floridians. Persons are persons in the United States, and if they truly are to have equal rights, then their names should be interchangeable on any legal contract.
Because nobody is being unequally denied the right to be married to more than one person at a time. Can you marry Jane and Jennifer? No? Neither can I!
Do you have a right to marry Jane if she wanted to marry you? Yes! Does Jennifer have the right to marry the same Jane, if she wanted her? No! Civil Rights Inequality.
What verse(s) does this come from?
Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'
Simply false. A marriage contract is a marriage contract. A contract of sale is a contract of sale. Who is allowed according to the law to enter into certain contracts is a separate issue.The difference is a legal restriction on a legal contract is part of that contracts legal definition until the restriction is either lifted or changed. It is a part of the contracts definition because you can't have a legal contract that breaks the legal restriction.
Totally irrelevant.If there is a legal restriction on a contract and you enter into a contract while breaking that legal restriction the the contract is deemed void.
No, it is not the same argument. Everyone is equally restricted from practicing polygamy. There are no distinctions the way that the ordinary marriage laws distinguish between genders.This is the exact same argument you said didn't work for gay marriage, but if someone tries to justify polygamy it is now a valid argument?
Nope. Nobody could enter into that contract. Not just Jennifer. She does not lack a right that anybody else enjoys. That you think this is the same thing that I've argued only demonstrates that you haven't bothered to grasp the argument as it is presented.If I'm married to Jane but later I meet Jennifer and want to marry her as well. If she wants to marry me but can't because I'm already married aren't Jennifer's civil rights to marry whom ever she wants being violated in just the same fashion as your above example?
Completely different.A legal restriction on the marriage contract is keeping Jennifer and I from being married. Just as a legal restriction on the marriage contract is keeping homosexuals from being married.