- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
The Homosexuality Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Duke
- 9,138 comments
- 447,899 views
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
The Supreme Court just ruled. Same sex marriage is now legal in the US.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0
Part of me is really happy about this because the Kentucky governor was fighting to not allow it in our state and even had is own attorney general refuse to represent the state, but he kept pushing forward. Governor Beshear will leave office in December and this will be his legacy, that he lost the fight to deny rights to certain people in the US.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0
Part of me is really happy about this because the Kentucky governor was fighting to not allow it in our state and even had is own attorney general refuse to represent the state, but he kept pushing forward. Governor Beshear will leave office in December and this will be his legacy, that he lost the fight to deny rights to certain people in the US.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
squadops
(Banned)
- 1,987
- United States
I cannot quote with the gtp limits of past, let me find a link...
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf and page 3 of the pdf or rather cntrl f thomas and the text will be there:tup:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf and page 3 of the pdf or rather cntrl f thomas and the text will be there:tup:
Last edited:
- 1,382
- Minnesota
- SQE_HAZ3L
Awesome! This really is good news! Pride is gonna be crazy, I can already tell
Danoff
Premium
- 34,045
- Mile High City
@squadops
Skimmed Thomas' dissent. It's not particularly good. He always argues from the right starting point, but in this case he doesn't get persuaded far enough away from that starting point to reach the proper conclusion. His starting point is generally "it's not the government's place to decide", and he simply isn't sufficiently persuaded that there is no material distinction between gay and straight marriage to make it an equal protection issue. He argues that there are material differences (and makes an analogy to differences in statutory rape laws that distinguish on the basis of gender), or at least that the lack of material differences isn't properly motivated.
So at least the thought process is roughly correct (as is usual for Thomas) even though the conclusion is botched. He takes a broader view of marriage than simply a legal institution, and that's why he fails to see the lack of difference between gay and straight marriage. I think in this case he'd have been better served to look at it not as a social institution (which is not defined by law anyway), but as a legal institution.
Skimmed Thomas' dissent. It's not particularly good. He always argues from the right starting point, but in this case he doesn't get persuaded far enough away from that starting point to reach the proper conclusion. His starting point is generally "it's not the government's place to decide", and he simply isn't sufficiently persuaded that there is no material distinction between gay and straight marriage to make it an equal protection issue. He argues that there are material differences (and makes an analogy to differences in statutory rape laws that distinguish on the basis of gender), or at least that the lack of material differences isn't properly motivated.
So at least the thought process is roughly correct (as is usual for Thomas) even though the conclusion is botched. He takes a broader view of marriage than simply a legal institution, and that's why he fails to see the lack of difference between gay and straight marriage. I think in this case he'd have been better served to look at it not as a social institution (which is not defined by law anyway), but as a legal institution.
- 2,694
- BurnoutLogicville, USA
- INF_Mike458
As much as I am proud of this finally happening, this should have happened many years ago. Why did we have this full-on argument over a non-issue, I don't know. Just think of how many less problems we could have had with this issue!
However, FINALLY, this happened.
(and now we wait until all the religious extremists go ape-🤬 about this...)
EDIT: I also love this comment here:
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
It isn't just religious people that aren't happy. There are states rights issues that just go trampled on by this.
And then, you have to ask why government does anything with marriage to begin with. It is actually just creating more issues in the future.
It also opens the doors to businesses being sued when they don't believe gay marriage is right. People will be forced to do work they don't want to (serfdom) or shut down their business. And churches will be sued to be forced to perform a marriage ceremony at some point.
All of it could be avoided if government themselves did not make marriage some legally defined right and kept their noses out of everyone's personal business.
And then, you have to ask why government does anything with marriage to begin with. It is actually just creating more issues in the future.
It also opens the doors to businesses being sued when they don't believe gay marriage is right. People will be forced to do work they don't want to (serfdom) or shut down their business. And churches will be sued to be forced to perform a marriage ceremony at some point.
All of it could be avoided if government themselves did not make marriage some legally defined right and kept their noses out of everyone's personal business.
- 2,694
- BurnoutLogicville, USA
- INF_Mike458
This.
- 4,035
- Gothenburg
- Agremont
Took you long enough America.
- 3,288
- Southern Carolina
- PeteWheet
Federal government or state government?
Danoff
Premium
- 34,045
- Mile High City
Actually I don't think it opens the door for any of that. The equal protection clause in the constitution doesn't require businesses to adhere to the same principles.
@Mike458, that comment makes the classic blunder of not understanding underlying philosophical positions and instead just divides a bunch of arbitrary positions along party lines. That person is a total party sheep. The freedom to own guns, for example, is closely linked with the freedom to enter into a marriage contract with another voluntary party. That link is the constitution.
- 12,389
- Betelgeuse
- Beeblebrox_237
I get that this decision was made on shaky legal grounds at best. But sometimes you have to bend the rules to do what is right.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,045
- Mile High City
I think that there was a lot of bad reasoning made, but ultimately the equal protection clause is not shaky legal ground.
- 12,389
- Betelgeuse
- Beeblebrox_237
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
Both.
The lawsuits have already occurred and in some states it is required for businesses to practice equal protection.
And where they can't winlawsuits now you know they will push for laws to be strengthened on that.
Denmark has even passed a law to require churches to perform same sex marriages.
Last edited:
- 29,959
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
But crucially, an individual cleric can refuse to perform such a ceremony. The bishop then drafts in someone who will, instead. Priests themselves aren't being forced to perform ceremonies against their will.
- 31,709
- Buckwheat City
- Dennisch
KSaiyu
(Banned)
- 2,822
This is the 2nd most upvoted comment from that article:
Lawyers who say that the states should decide the matter are ignoring the fact that the equal protection of the laws and our rights under the Constitution are NOT amenable to revocation by the states. If they were, I imagine we'd still have slavery, or at least Jim Crow, in several states in the south. The old call for "states' rights" has long been a cover for attempts to refuse Constitutional protections to citizens, and it's certainly that in this case.
Is this a sound assesment (I haven't even started looking into how decisions like this are made so am very much the legal noob)?
Lawyers who say that the states should decide the matter are ignoring the fact that the equal protection of the laws and our rights under the Constitution are NOT amenable to revocation by the states. If they were, I imagine we'd still have slavery, or at least Jim Crow, in several states in the south. The old call for "states' rights" has long been a cover for attempts to refuse Constitutional protections to citizens, and it's certainly that in this case.
Is this a sound assesment (I haven't even started looking into how decisions like this are made so am very much the legal noob)?
Similar threads
- Poll
- Locked
