Alabama Chief Justice Orders Enforcement of Same Sex Marriage Ban

[MovingTarget]

GOOD.

However, we here in Alabama can't have nice things. Many are speculating down here that he will be using this as another launching pad for a gubernatorial campaign. Robert "the luv guv" Bentley could very well be impeached soon, and to top it all off, it is currently up to Bentley to name a replacement, if any, to the the state supreme court. At least there is a glimmer of hope since Mike Hubbard is gone, but I won't hold my breath.

This is what Republican leadership gets you, folks.

 

[MovingTarget]

It is a human rights issue. States are not allowed to impinge on individual civil liberties. At this point, it is an immoral monstrosity for any state be allowed to single out and persecute gays. State rights do not trump individual rights which are protected by the federal government. If any state wants to legalize slavery, they are going to lose. If you as an individual do not support gay marriage, you are either ignorant of science OR immoral.

Bwuh? How does not supporting gay marriage either yield or is caused by ignorance of science? I agree with everything you wrote here, but that one part has me at a a bit of a loss. Marriage is a social/legal/theological construct - not a scientific one.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Seems like the old, "We cannot feel privileged if everyone enjoys the same rights as we do.
" The feast must turn to famine if there is enough for all to eat!
"We're getting treated alike, boo-hoo"!

Can equal rights be such an arrow in the heart to conservatives?

 

[Jaskalas]

If you as an individual do not support gay marriage, you are either ignorant of science OR immoral.

That's a lofty idea for what boils down to a government contract for certain benefits.

I stand for equal protection, but government has no business with "marriage" in the first place. Yes, it's a war of words over a term... but it has been done in a way that rubs salt. Hence folks with hard feelings on the matter. They could have been handled with a bit more... finesse. To separate the likes of Moore from good folks caught in-between.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

That's a lofty idea for what boils down to a government contract for certain benefits.

Certain benefits? Why is there always this misconception?

There is zero benefits to marriage, there is a reason it's called the "Marriage tax penalty". Knowing that most gay couples are PROBABLY (mostly) both employed - I say have at it. I hope you enjoy paying more taxes then you would if you were single. It's not all that it's cracked up to be.

 

[fskimospy]

Certain benefits? Why is there always this misconception?

There is zero benefits to marriage, there is a reason it's called the "Marriage tax penalty". Knowing that most gay couples are PROBABLY (mostly) both employed - I say have at it. I hope you enjoy paying more taxes then you would if you were single. It's not all that it's cracked up to be.

The 'marriage penalty' only applies in certain circumstances and there are numerous, large, and obvious benefits granted to people who are married. Health insurance, visitation rights, etc.

 

[bshole]

Bwuh? How does not supporting gay marriage either yield or is caused by ignorance of science? I agree with everything you wrote here, but that one part has me at a a bit of a loss. Marriage is a social/legal/theological construct - not a scientific one.

What I was getting at was that homosexuality is not a sin, it is not immoral, that it is in fact a normal part of nature. This has been proven by science.

 

[norseamd]

I don't give a rat's ass either, but the Justice's logic is impeccable. This is really a bigger issue than Gay Marriage, it's State power vs Federal powers. Sounds like a lot of states are going to make the SCOTUS work for it if they want to usurp their authority. ie. this basically amounts to saying 'If you want to change my states laws, you need to rule on a case from my state'. And it seems a number of Federal district courts agree.

You are pulling out quite the bullshit here.

The Supreme Court already ruled, and if you or they have a problem with it, you or they can find out the answers when the federal authorities show up if you or they are obstructing this ruling or the civil rights of any individuals.

 

[MovingTarget]

What I was getting at was that homosexuality is not a sin, it is not immoral, that it is in fact a normal part of nature. This has been proven by science.

Oh, okay then. That makes sense as people do claim that homosexuality is sinful due to it being "unnatural" - when in fact it is an undeniable occurrence in nature As far as being sinful or immoral, that is out of science's realm, which is why I was confused. It is actually kind of sad from a theological perspective too, as the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality, but the lack of care and hospitality for others.

 

[zinfamous]

I see the 'ol "state's rights!" dog whistle is still firmly entrenched with the regressive, racist, bigoted conservatives.

It was so obviously not what you guys really believed back in the 1850s and 1860s, back in the 1950s and 1960s, and it still isn't. When they fuck are you yahoos just going to shut the fuck up about "States rights!", stop being pussies, and just loudly and proudly proclaim that you really just hate blacks, jews, and gays and wish the world could just go back to being what you believe the Bible tells you it should be?

 

[thraashman]

Certain benefits? Why is there always this misconception?

There is zero benefits to marriage, there is a reason it's called the "Marriage tax penalty". Knowing that most gay couples are PROBABLY (mostly) both employed - I say have at it. I hope you enjoy paying more taxes then you would if you were single. It's not all that it's cracked up to be.

There's a crap ton of benefits married couples receive that non married couples do not.

According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138 statutory provisions[1] in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges

Another source with some more info

 

[zinfamous]

There's a crap ton of benefits married couples receive that non married couples do not.

According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138 statutory provisions[1] in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges

Another source with some more info

for a so-called "tax consultant", s0me0nesmind1 is spectacularly ignorant.