*NonOfficial* Ongoing states striking down same-sex marriage ban thread

[brycejones]

Simple answer: read the decision. It is clearly spelled out.

He hasn't been able to find the 3rd grade reading level translator from google yet.

 

[fskimospy]

Come on now. If its so irrational you should be able to type up 5 sentences explaining why.

If you can't do that I think it is obvious to everyone the reason why.

The fact that you've been presented with a quite thoroughly argued statement that exactly answers your question but stubbornly refuse to read it in order to continue arguing makes it pretty obvious how fragile your argument is.

 

[SlickSnake]

How is any of that an argument for why gays should be allowed to marry?

Also, looking at the poverty figures for single mom's I don't think as much has changed as you are claiming.

Seriously, do you have brain cancer or a learning disability or something? You are essentially trying to defend traditional marriages. Just like TH and all the other right wing baby Jesus loving flag wavers. But in industrialized modern countries, traditional marriages are no longer required for a woman to survive. Women can get a job and raise a family without a male providing support. Now she might need her families help, but if the father runs off, she can certainly support herself.

TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE WHERE WOMEN HAD TO GET MARRIED AND SIGN A CONTRACT FOR SERVITUDE AS HER JOB JUST TO SUPPORT HERSELF TO SURVIVE IS ANCIENT HISTORY IN MODERN COUNTRIES.

So what you utterly fail to be able to do in a coherent, rational manner is now explain WHY gays SHOULD NOT get married since the traditional Christian view of marriage as servitude to the man in this country has ceased to exist since at least the late 1950s, because after WW2, women really started joining the workforce.

Because GAYS are not responsible for redefining traditional marriage all that much, but FEMINISM and WOMEN'S RIGHTS certainly have redefined it a long time ago. And thank God for that.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

You know, I blocked nehalem because I was tired of his rampantly stupid beyond words bullshit, yet people keep quoting him so I see so much of it anyway. Seriously, everyone here knows he's fucktarded beyond any possible redemption. How about we all just block him, or at least stop replying to him? Maybe he'll just eventually leave to go troll other shores. Because honestly, the only way you're going to make him act like a decent human being at this point would be to smash his head with a crow bar until only the most basic functionality is left. Because as nothing but a living vegetable, drooling mess would be the only way he could not be a piece of shit.

Everyone responding to nehalem needs to read this. There is literally no argument you can make that will change his mind; he is not worth having a discussion with. He has utterly derailed this thread because people are responding to the same worthless bullshit he ALWAYS posts. Ignore him and move on. The only possible reason for responding to him is to feel superior and smart and smug in your righteous smackdown of his frankly incoherent nonsense, but you might as well just be talking to yourself in the mirror because not one single thing you say will get through to him. Meanwhile, you're allowing him to dominate a discussion that should be about something other than the inanity of gay appliances and whatnot. Quit enabling him.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I did answer it. You just didn't like the answer.

Now. When did you stop beating your wife? Did you remember to follow the rule of thumb?

You have consistently refused to answer that question for months. Stop lying.


btw, simple assault?

 

[Texashiker]

Just like TH and all the other right wing baby Jesus loving flag wavers.

I take offense to that post.

Please quote or otherwise link to where I brought religion into the discussion.

I am a christian, but I leave my religion of the debates. I do not even like to bring religion up.

 

[werepossum]

Seriously, do you have brain cancer or a learning disability or something? You are essentially trying to defend traditional marriages. Just like TH and all the other right wing baby Jesus loving flag wavers. But in industrialized modern countries, traditional marriages are no longer required for a woman to survive. Women can get a job and raise a family without a male providing support. Now she might need her families help, but if the father runs off, she can certainly support herself.

TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE WHERE WOMEN HAD TO GET MARRIED AND SIGN A CONTRACT FOR SERVITUDE AS HER JOB JUST TO SUPPORT HERSELF TO SURVIVE IS ANCIENT HISTORY IN MODERN COUNTRIES.

So what you utterly fail to be able to do in a coherent, rational manner is now explain WHY gays SHOULD NOT get married since the traditional Christian view of marriage as servitude to the man in this country has ceased to exist since at least the late 1950s, because after WW2, women really started joining the workforce.

Because GAYS are not responsible for redefining traditional marriage all that much, but FEMINISM and WOMEN'S RIGHTS certainly have redefined it a long time ago. And thank God for that.

Well said. There really hasn't been a valid reason to deny gays the right to marry in the history of this nation. We've always had big cities with openly gay segments engaging in multiple sex partners; banning gay marriage merely penalizes those gays who want a more or less traditional married lifestyle but with a gay spouse.

The reason we have no state religion, unlike all our European progenitors, is because we're a mongrel nation with a population heavily biased toward those fleeing religious persecution. But while we eliminated most religious persecution, we have retained that persecution on which all major religions agree. Same as with slavery, we fell well below our own professed national values. Well past time that changed.

 

[SlickSnake]

And before the colonists took over this continent by force and slaughtered Indians in the name of Christianity, the Navajo and other tribes were already practicing same sex marriage. So what could possibly be a more "traditional marriage" than that in this country? And the native Indian traditions are a whole lot older than even Christianity is.

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/two-spirits/

Two Spirits interweaves the tragic story of a mother’s loss of her son with a revealing look at the largely unknown history of a time when the world wasn’t simply divided into male and female and many Native American cultures held places of honor for people of integrated genders.

Fred Martinez was nádleehí, a male-bodied person with a feminine nature, a special gift according to his ancient Navajo culture. He was one of the youngest hate-crime victims in modern history when he was brutally murdered at 16. Two Spirits explores the life and death of this boy who was also a girl, and the essentially spiritual nature of gender.

Two Spirits tells compelling stories about traditions that were once widespread among the indigenous cultures of North America. The film explores the contemporary lives and history of Native two-spirit people — who combine the traits of both men and women with qualities that are also unique to individuals who express multiple genders.

The Navajo believe that to maintain harmony, there must be a balanced interrelationship between the feminine and the masculine within the individual, in families, in the culture, and in the natural world. Two Spirits reveals how these beliefs are expressed in a natural range of gender diversity. For the first time on film, it examines the Navajo concept of nádleehí, “one who constantly transforms.”

In Navajo culture, there are four genders; some indigenous cultures recognize more. Native activists working to renew their cultural heritage adopted the English term “two-spirit” as a useful shorthand to describe the entire spectrum of gender and sexual expression that is better and more completely described in their own languages. The film demonstrates how they are revitalizing two-spirit traditions and once again claiming their rightful place within their tribal communities.

Two Spirits mourns the young Fred Martinez and the threatened disappearance of the two-spirit tradition, but it also brims with hope and the belief that we all are enriched by multi-gendered people, and that all of us — regardless of ethnicity, gender, sexuality, or cultural heritage — benefit from being free to be our truest selves.

Currently rewatching this ATM. If you check your local PBS schedules, you may be able to DVR this for later if anyone wants to watch it. And you never know, you might actually learn something about REAL traditional same sex marriages in this country prior to the Christian motivated Indian massacres.

 

[TheSiege]

Federal appeals court upholds gay marriage in Utah case

 

[nehalem256]

And before the colonists took over this continent by force and slaughtered Indians in the name of Christianity, the Navajo and other tribes were already practicing same sex marriage. So what could possibly be a more "traditional marriage" than that in this country? And the native Indian traditions are a whole lot older than even Christianity is.

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/two-spirits/

Currently rewatching this ATM. If you check your local PBS schedules, you may be able to DVR this for later if anyone wants to watch it. And you never know, you might actually learn something about REAL traditional same sex marriages in this country prior to the Christian motivated Indian massacres.

You appear to be confusing same-sex marriage with transgendereds.

 

[TheSiege]

Looks like it might be taken up by the SCOTUS

 

[werepossum]

You appear to be confusing same-sex marriage with transgendereds.

I know nothing and care less about whether the Navajo were already practicing same sex marriage, but at that tech level there is absolutely no difference between same sex marriage and transgendered marriage except possibly the clothing worn.

Looks like it might be taken up by the SCOTUS

Good. It's a stupid worthless issue that is in direct opposition to our Constitution and I'm soooo ready for it to be history. And if SCOTUS does not act within the next decade or so, it will be left on the wrong side for eternity as the issue will be settled legislatively or at the state level. Even if the reddest states won't vote it in within the next decade, I'm sure their judiciary will override them.

I'm a pretty conservative guy and I can't imagine wanting to grant that kind of power to the State simply because it's not being used against me. Nor, frankly, the desire to put onerous restrictions on others knowing that they cannot affect me. We're supposed to learn in kindergarten if not earlier to be nice to others; this is not nice.

 

[nehalem256]

I know nothing and care less about whether the Navajo were already practicing same sex marriage, but at that tech level there is absolutely no difference between same sex marriage and transgendered marriage except possibly the clothing worn.

You misunderstand. His quote doesn't mention the word marriage once. What quoted had literally nothing to do with marriage whether it be gay, straight, or otherwise.

His argument therefore appears to be transgendered people existed amongst native americans therefore gay marriage.

It should be obvious why such an argument is retarded.

 

[sportage]

Looks like it might be taken up by the SCOTUS

I would not count on that just so soon.

The smart move for the highest court in the land (SCOTUS) would be to REJECT hearing the case(s) and or issue entirely, and not even get involved.
Thus allowing all the favorable state by state rulings, and the favorable federal circuit court rulings stand as the final word.
Let the nations federal circuit courts have the final say in the matter.
Which I guarantee will also become favorable rulings for marriage equality, every single ruling.

States like Utah would have no other options or path left if the US supreme court, the highest court in the land, refuses to get involved.
And SS marriage would in fact be the law of the land in Utah.
As well as in Colorado, and so on and so on under that federal 10th circuit court.

Then, as we witness every state court rule in favor of equality, as has been the solid trend, followed by their federal circuit courts favorable rulings, well... there you are. Done deal.
Marriage equality nation wide from coast to coast.
If the US supreme court refuses to get involved, the SMART move, then the federal circuit courts favorable rulings would be that final last word.

And not only would states like Utah have no other options left for fighting against SS marriage,
with having the matter thus settled in federal circuit courts, those circuit court rulings would then prove a much more solid outcome.
A federal gang bang as it were
No one court would be, or could be blamed for SS marriage equality across the nation.

The US supreme court could dodge this bullet, and let the favorable rulings in federal circuit courts have the last word.
THAT would be SCOTUS smart thing to do.
And I have a strong feeling THAT is exactly what SCOTUS will do.
Dodge the bullet of the inevitable.

Not only would this be the best outcome for marriage equality, this would be the fast track as well. With so many federal circuit courts now involved and ready to rule, we could easily see marriage equality from coast to coast by next Summer.
Far before the US supreme court would be prepared to get involved.
And when a state such as with Utah loses in a federal circuit court, that would be it.
The final say. Done deal. Stay's lifted, and let the ceremonies begin.

The inventible would be law of the land, while the highest court of the land could keep their hands clean of the matter.
THAT would be their smart move.
And I suspect could be exactly what they will so...
Especially considering we are dealing with federal circuit court rulings involving all of our nations federal circuit courts AND WITH THEIR representing all of our nations states.

For the SCOTUS to get involved would be terribly risky from their viewpoint.
And considering it would be SCOTUS taking all the heat.
Hell... just let the federal circuit courts do the job and allow SCOTUS to save face.
A no brainer decision if you ask me...

 

[werepossum]

You misunderstand. His quote doesn't mention the word marriage once. What quoted had literally nothing to do with marriage whether it be gay, straight, or otherwise.

His argument therefore appears to be transgendered people existed amongst native americans therefore gay marriage.

It should be obvious why such an argument is retarded.

Tolerance of transgendered relationships implies gay marriage in a culture with very loose marriage restrictions. Now, I didn't watch the video because I don't care and I don't believe that I'm being enriched by transgendered people, but I do believe in some simple concepts:
1. Transgendered and/or gay people should be free to live their lives and pursue happiness on the same basis as anyone else.
2. Government should infringe on their freedom only where it can prove a compelling societal need that can only be addressed with that infringement - just like everyone else.
3. Government should treat people differently only where it can prove a compelling societal need that can only be addressed with that discrimination - under even more stringent examination that #2 since it's so easy for the majority to accept things which do not affect us.
4. If and when gay marriage is legal all across our nation, it will be accompanied by a sweeping wave of everything important being exactly the same for straight people.
5. That it's not nice to tell gay people that I can marry the consenting adult of my own preference, but you may only marry a consenting adult if I don't find it icky.

I would not count on that just so soon.

The smart move for the highest court in the land (SCOTUS) would be to REJECT hearing the case(s) and or issue entirely, and not even get involved.
Thus allowing all the favorable state by state rulings, and the favorable federal circuit court rulings stand as the final word.
Let the nations federal circuit courts have the final say in the matter.
Which I guarantee will also become favorable rulings for marriage equality, every single ruling.

States like Utah would have no other options or path left if the US supreme court, the highest court in the land, refuses to get involved.
And SS marriage would in fact be the law of the land in Utah.
As well as in Colorado, and so on and so on under that federal 10th circuit court.

Then, as we witness every state court rule in favor of equality, as has been the solid trend, followed by their federal circuit courts favorable rulings, well... there you are. Done deal.
Marriage equality nation wide from coast to coast.
If the US supreme court refuses to get involved, the SMART move, then the federal circuit courts favorable rulings would be that final last word.

And not only would states like Utah have no other options left for fighting against SS marriage,
with having the matter thus settled in federal circuit courts, those circuit court rulings would then prove a much more solid outcome.
A federal gang bang as it were
No one court would be, or could be blamed for SS marriage equality across the nation.

The US supreme court could dodge this bullet, and let the favorable rulings in federal circuit courts have the last word.
THAT would be SCOTUS smart thing to do.
And I have a strong feeling THAT is exactly what SCOTUS will do.
Dodge the bullet of the inevitable.

Not only would this be the best outcome for marriage equality, this would be the fast track as well. With so many federal circuit courts now involved and ready to rule, we could easily see marriage equality from coast to coast by next Summer.
Far before the US supreme court would be prepared to get involved.
And when a state such as with Utah loses in a federal circuit court, that would be it.
The final say. Done deal. Stay's lifted, and let the ceremonies begin.

The inventible would be law of the land, while the highest court of the land could keep their hands clean of the matter.
THAT would be their smart move.
And I suspect could be exactly what they will so...
Especially considering we are dealing with federal circuit court rulings involving all of our nations federal circuit courts AND WITH THEIR representing all of our nations states.

For the SCOTUS to get involved would be terribly risky from their viewpoint.
And considering it would be SCOTUS taking all the heat.
Hell... just let the federal circuit courts do the job and allow SCOTUS to save face.
A no brainer decision if you ask me...

That wouldn't be the SMART move, that would be the SAFE move. SCOTUS should not be in the position of ignoring what is right and Constitutional because someone else will handle it.

 

[Cozarkian]

Let the nations federal circuit courts have the final say in the matter.
Which I guarantee will also become favorable rulings for marriage equality, every single ruling.

Please identify a person that a straight man can marry and a gay man can't. If you can't do that, it's not an equal rights violation.

State law allows me to own a hamster as a pet, but not a gerbil. I don't want a hamster for a pet. I want a gerbil. I never made a choice to prefer gerbils, I was born that way. However, I am not treated unequally because state law prohibits me from owning a gerbil but permits those who prefer hamsters as pets to purchase a hamster.

Obviously, and with good reason, gay people feel much more strongly about their desire for same-sex marriage than prospective gerbil owners. That's why they lobby to add the right for same-sex marriage. I support same-sex marriage, and believe it should be called marriage (not civil unions or domestic partnerships). However, it is not an equal rights issue that the courts should decide, it is a policy issue for the legislature.

 

[TheSiege]

Looks like Virgina will start issuing licenses next week

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/13/va-gay-marriage-ban/14001961/

 

[werepossum]

Looks like Virgina will start issuing licenses next week

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/13/va-gay-marriage-ban/14001961/

Good for them. Government infringement on personal liberty should not be tolerated without a damn good reason, and doubly so for infringement affecting only a small minority.

 

[zinfamous]

I, for one, can't wait to be gay-married!

Oh wait, no, I don't have to do that. But I'm just glad that more an more can if they want to.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Add florida to the list but there won't be any marriages just yet.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/21/justice/florida-same-sex-marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

His ruling applies both to whether same-sex couples can marry in Florida as well as to whether such marriages elsewhere should be recognized in the Sunshine State.

"The Florida provisions that prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages lawfully entered elsewhere, like the federal provision, are unconstitutional," Hinkle writes. "So is the Florida ban on entering same-sex marriages."

Yet his decision, while firmly in support of allowing same-sex marriage, won't take effect immediately.

Hinkle's reasoning: It doesn't make sense to open up and allow such unions, only to have higher courts later reverse his decision -- thus leaving some couples potentially in legal limbo.

 

[werepossum]

Add florida to the list but there won't be any marriages just yet.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/21/justice/florida-same-sex-marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Aren't those couples pretty much in legal limbo now?

In any case, gay Florida couples can evidently now go to a gay-friendly state to marry and have their marriage recognized, just like everyone else.

 

[TheSiege]

Updated with pretty much good news

 

[zinfamous]

This is very good news for Texashiker: he can finally get that gay marriage he has always wanted; and should be a step in the right direction for nehalem: I sympathize with your pain, brother--soon man-appliance love will be recognized across the Union!

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

SSM bans are quickly eroding.
Same-sex marriage bans lifted in Idaho, Nevada

"(CNN) -- A federal appeals court has struck down same-sex marriage bans in Idaho and Nevada, the latest court rulings in a string of legal victories for gay and lesbian couples seeking the right to legally wed.
The ruling Tuesday from the three judges of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California is the fourth from a circuit court to strike down voter-approved bans.
The legal move follows the Supreme Court on Monday letting stand rulings that struck down bans in five states and affectied similar laws in six other states.
The cases in the 9th Circuit Court's decision are Sevcik v. Sandoval (12-17668) in Nevada and Latta v. Otter (14-35420) in Idaho."

:thumbsup:

 

[OrByte]

You misunderstand. His quote doesn't mention the word marriage once. What quoted had literally nothing to do with marriage whether it be gay, straight, or otherwise.

His argument therefore appears to be transgendered people existed amongst native americans therefore gay marriage.

It should be obvious why such an argument is retarded.

Dude. EVERYONE ELSE is wrong....and you are right!