What is wrong with the Supreme Court, another week of justice denied.

[Wreckem]

Well, good for them.

Not accepting same sex marriage is not bigotry. Not accepting a person's personal choice isnt rejecting the person. Race is another issue. I can't personally choose to be white or black or whatever, while I can choose who I marry. False equivalency.

And gay people don't have an on off/switch either. Being gay isn't a choice. It is an inherent characteristic. So no its not a false equivalency.

And yes, opposing gay marriage is the EPITOME of bigotry. Gay marriage does NOTHING to you. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU. It doesn't effect you at all. Why oppose it if it doesn't effect you. Straight up bigotry is all it is. A states recognition of gay marriage does not do anything to religious beliefs. Churches can still not recognize gay marriages, that is their right. A state doesn't have the luxury under the 14th. A state recognized marriage has nothing to do with religion.

Whether it happens in June 2013, I don't know. But within in the next decade gay marriage will be legal in every state.

The religious arguments being used to try and stop/prevent gay marriage are the same ones used to try/stop/prevent interracial marriage. Have fun being on the wrong side of history.

Honestly, since Roberts is more concerned about his personal legacy and doesn't want to be on the wrong side of history, I can see him voting in the majority if the court doesn't kick the can and issues an opinion that protects gay marriage under the 14th.

 

[Retro Rob]

And gay people don't have an on off/switch either. Being gay isn't a choice. It is an inherent characteristic. So no its not a false equivalency.

And yes, opposing gay marriage is the EPITOME of bigotry. Gay marriage does NOTHING to you. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU. It doesn't effect you at all. Why oppose it if it doesn't effect you. Straight up bigotry is all it is.

Whether it happens in June 2013, I don't know. But within in the next decade gay marriage will be legal in every state.

I didn't say being "gay" was a choice, did I? I said choosing to marry is.. and whom to marry is.

Just because someone opposes gay marriage doesn't mean that they actively fight against it. I do get to have an opinion on the matter, do I? I have that right.

...or do you think it's bigotry on your part to reject others who oppose it? Bigotry goes both ways, using your definition of it....

 

[Retro Rob]

Honestly, since Roberts is more concerned about his personal legacy and doesn't want to be on the wrong side of history, I can see him voting in the majority if the court doesn't kick the can and issues an opinion that protects gay marriage under the 14th.

Lol,.. this is funny.

The last thing I want is a judge making a decision based on how people view him. That isn't fair, balanced, justice.

The core of corruption lies right there.

 

[Brainonska511]

Today marks another day the Supreme Court has failed to deny certification for Hollingsworth vs Perry (Prop 8 case). Each week they fail to deny certification is another week gays and lesbians and California are being denied a basic right. I shake my head at why the Supreme Court doesn't understand that justice delayed is justice denied.

I am shocked just shocked, the court has decided to hear the cases. This isn't good at all. Totally wrong decision.

First you want the USSC to rule on the matter, then you want them to not?

 

[Retro Rob]

And yes, opposing gay marriage is the EPITOME of bigotry. Gay marriage does NOTHING to you. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU. It doesn't effect you at all. Why oppose it if it doesn't effect you. Straight up bigotry is all it is.

..and I think you're way out of line here. I oppose a lot of things that don't affect ME... that has nothing to with ME. Why? It may affect others.

Sometimes, gay marriage affects others. You ever read of stories where kids in school were ridiculed for having two Dads? I have, and that isn't right. But its a fact of life, something we may have to always deal with.

Would it not be in the best interest of the child to maybe keep that away from him at school,... instead of the parents having that "well, we love each other, and are happy so deal with it" attitude? Sure, the kids are stupid for teasing him, but we can't control their actions.. only ours.

I think what gets lost in the whole SSM thing is that it becomes about what the couple wants more so than what may be best for society.

Will it be in our best interests long term? I doubt it. But who knows... there will always be people who, outside of religion, won't accept it. People don't accept religion. Part of life, don't you agree?

But if people think this will somehow "unite" society, they are badly mistaken. You can't make people accept certain things... can't change what's in their hearts,.. only they have to. Some will, some won't.

 

[piasabird]

There is no legal definition of marriage in the USA Constitution. The Supreme court has always ruled it is up to the states. This is a states rights issue. Case laws go way back into the 1800's. Fed Govt even refused to decide on polygamy cases.

It is up to each state to define what marriage is.

However, there was an attempt to define what marriage is and it was partially negated by the supreme court (Defense of Marriage Act). Also Many Federal regulations depend on what the Federal government will accept as marriage. If you try to fill out a Fed Tax Form you can not elect married unless a joint tax form has a Male and a Female as spouses.

As usual, everything boils down to money and responsibility. It is insulting to every person who is legally married with a wife and Children to bring up the fallacy of Gay Marriage. It is an insult to every generation of families that raised their children, fed, clothed and sheltered the next generation of Americans. People want the monetary benefits but not the financial and legal responsibility of being married. Many of the marriage laws were designed to protect women and children. You dont even know what marriage is.

 

[DCal430]

First you want the USSC to rule on the matter, then you want them to not?

I meant to say deny certiorari, I didn't want them to hear the case.

 

[werepossum]

..and I think you're way out of line here. I oppose a lot of things that don't affect ME... that has nothing to with ME. Why? It may affect others.

Sometimes, gay marriage affects others. You ever read of stories where kids in school were ridiculed for having two Dads? I have, and that isn't right. But its a fact of life, something we may have to always deal with.

Would it not be in the best interest of the child to maybe keep that away from him at school,... instead of the parents having that "well, we love each other, and are happy so deal with it" attitude? Sure, the kids are stupid for teasing him, but we can't control their actions.. only ours.

I think what gets lost in the whole SSM thing is that it becomes about what the couple wants more so than what may be best for society.

Will it be in our best interests long term? I doubt it. But who knows... there will always be people who, outside of religion, won't accept it. People don't accept religion. Part of life, don't you agree?

But if people think this will somehow "unite" society, they are badly mistaken. You can't make people accept certain things... can't change what's in their hearts,.. only they have to. Some will, some won't.

Well said, but there's a huge, huge difference between individuals not accepting something and the state not accepting something. If I don't accept interracial marriage, it has no effect on interracial couples. (Unless they value my opinion, and in general people don't value the opinions of those who reject their own moral decisions.) If the state doesn't accept interracial marriage, it has a huge effect on interracial couples both materially (denying them equal benefits and protections to which they would be entitled if Uncle Sugar had not vetoed their choice of life mate) and by sanctioning others' derision and discrimination. Same with gay marriage. Accepting that there will always be discrimination, surely it's in our best interests to move that discrimination away from that most powerful entity (government) and toward the least powerful entity, the individual.

Whether or not gay marriage is good for society is debatable, depending solely on how one weights traditional American values and the rights of gays (and children of gays) to enjoy the institution of marriage. But consider this - we're all society, gay or straight. Clearly denying gay marriage doesn't benefit gay people; at best it would be neutral, and likely for the vast majority of gays it's at least a signal that they are second class citizens. Therefore even if we accept that banning gay marriage is best for society, we're really saying it's best for us, the straight majority. We should always be highly suspect of anything that benefits the majority at the expense of a minority. This is true of gay marriage far more than for taxes, for at the end of the day how many dollars I have left to spend is far less important than my right to choose my own mate (assuming my choice is a competent adult who agrees with my choice) and be recognized on the same level as everyone else.

For mercy's sake, a woman is free to marry a convicted mass murderer on death row but not another woman? How is that being equitable or concerned with society's best interests?

There is no legal definition of marriage in the USA Constitution. The Supreme court has always ruled it is up to the states. This is a states rights issue. Case laws go way back into the 1800's. Fed Govt even refused to decide on polygamy cases.

It is up to each state to define what marriage is.

True, but the states are not completely free of federal coercion. States are for example free to set their own voting laws, but they cannot make those laws for the wrong reasons, such as prohibiting blacks from voting. States' laws have to be in accordance with our common human rights, established by G-d and guaranteed by the government we collectively formed. But even assuming we grant this is a states' rights issue - and there is something to be said for the ability to vote with one's feet while remaining an American - clearly DOMA has to go. If states are free to not recognize something so basic and inherently G-d-given as marriage, do we really still have one country? Or are we merely a collection of disparate states huddled together for mutual benefit?

By the same token, one can grant this as a states' rights issue and still strike down Proposition 8. The states' rights are not unlimited, and neither are the people's rights. This is why our nation was set up as a republic of laws and not merely a democracy. The majority should not be empowered to grant itself rights denied to a minority, and the times when we've ignored this very central principle have been probably the most shameful in our history.

 

[shira]

..and I think you're way out of line here. I oppose a lot of things that don't affect ME... that has nothing to with ME. Why? It may affect others.

Sometimes, gay marriage affects others. You ever read of stories where kids in school were ridiculed for having two Dads? I have, and that isn't right. But its a fact of life, something we may have to always deal with.

Would it not be in the best interest of the child to maybe keep that away from him at school,... instead of the parents having that "well, we love each other, and are happy so deal with it" attitude? Sure, the kids are stupid for teasing him, but we can't control their actions.. only ours.

I think what gets lost in the whole SSM thing is that it becomes about what the couple wants more so than what may be best for society.

Will it be in our best interests long term? I doubt it. But who knows... there will always be people who, outside of religion, won't accept it. People don't accept religion. Part of life, don't you agree?

But if people think this will somehow "unite" society, they are badly mistaken. You can't make people accept certain things... can't change what's in their hearts,.. only they have to. Some will, some won't.

This is just an . . . astonishing . . . argument in opposition of same-sex marriage. It amounts to, "Because there are bigots in society, we can't protect the rights of a minority group because we might provoke bad behavior by the bigots."

By identical reasoning, you would have opposed the Supreme Court's striking down anti-miscegenation laws. THink, man. Think.

 

[Retro Rob]

This is just an . . . astonishing . . . argument in opposition of same-sex marriage. It amounts to, "Because there are bigots in society, we can't protect the rights of a minority group because we might provoke bad behavior by the bigots."

f they want to marry, go right ahead... their choice. Just know that everyone isn't going to a accepting and get down right stupid and nasty. As I said, rejecting SSM isn't bigotry. Rejected certain religious views isn't bigotry either.

Using myself, my wife and I avoid displays of affection when we are around certain people. Why? Well, it makes them feel uncomfortable. For the sake of those individuals, we don't do it. That's not quite the same with SSM, however my point is that for society to get along better, we need to move away from "it's my right" type attitude and it doesn't hurt to sometimes respect other people's views.

This goes for religious people as well. Stay out of law making. Stay out of washington. Stop forcing your views. If someone isn't in the mood to talk to you and they let you know, then move along.

Personally, I reject it outright, however, I don't nor have I ever mistreated those whom I found to be homosexual/lesbian. How is that bigotry? That's thier choice. I don't fight against it, nor do I fight for it. I just have an opinion.

 

[techs]

The bottom line on gay marriage is that in 10-20 years it won't be an issue.
The Supreme Court decision may very well hinge on Roberts who as Chief Justice is concerned with the institution of the Supreme Court. Striking down gay marriage now will look like a backward and reactionary decision that will harm the institution of the Supreme Court.

Legally the pro gay marriage side has an extremely strong case. Things like the 14th Amendment never considered gay marriage and the sweeping rights granted there offer no legal way to deny gay marriage. Basically the only legally consistent way to deny gay marriage is a Constitituional amendment.

 

[piasabird]

Let gays do what they want. Who cares? I am all for junking the entire tax code, so no one can gain an advantage. Tax payers have become slaves.

 

[Sonikku]

I think the thing Liberals don't under stand is, we don't have anything against gays. We just don't think they should have the same rights as we do is all.

 

[actuarial]

Well, good for them.

Not accepting same sex marriage is not bigotry. Not accepting a person's personal choice isnt rejecting the person. Race is another issue. I can't personally choose to be white or black or whatever, while I can choose who I marry. False equivalency.

It's amazing how easily you missed your own point.

As you said: you can choose who you marry. So why would race be another issue if you choose to marry outside your own race? It's still a personal choice to enter an interracial marriage, and not accepting a person's choice isn't bigotry, right?

 

[DCal430]

I hope one of the wacko conservative justices meets an unfortunate or should I say fortunate end. That way Obama can appoint a new justice.

This is not a threat.

 

[Retro Rob]

It's amazing how easily you missed your own point.

As you said: you can choose who you marry. So why would race be another issue if you choose to marry outside your own race? It's still a personal choice to enter an interracial marriage, and not accepting a person's choice isn't bigotry, right?

Becasue I don't think people are born gay/lesbian, like a person is born an afro-amercian, white, etc.

...but that's another discussion and something I won't argue. That's only my small, insignificant personal opinion. But if others disagree, then that's fine too.

I was obviously trying to avoid that argument all together, but in the way I framed mine, I figured it would be inevitable.

 

[DCal430]

[Homophobic Bigotry]blah blah blah[/Homophobic Bigotry]

Sad you are so full of hate you can't even see it. :\

 

[Retro Rob]

Sad you are so full of hate you can't even see it. :\

Try pointing out where you see "hate".

Despite my opinions, I don't mistreat gay/lesbians, won't fight against their rights, etc.

If that's hate, then you are a pure idiot.

I am allowed to have an opinion, aren't I? Can it differ from yours? Is that allowed?

 

[nehalem256]

I hope one of the wacko conservative justices meets an unfortunate or should I say fortunate end. That way Obama can appoint a new justice.

What an excellent example of liberal tolerance

 

[nehalem256]

And gay people don't have an on off/switch either. Being gay isn't a choice. It is an inherent characteristic. So no its not a false equivalency.

(1) Saying the gayness is an inherent characteristic is leftwing propaganda not a fact

(2) Earlier in this thread a supporter of gay marriage claimed that gay people could have children by marrying and procreating with a straight person. Which kind of contradicts the whole "inherent characteristic" thing.

And yes, opposing gay marriage is the EPITOME of bigotry. Gay marriage does NOTHING to you. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU. It doesn't effect you at all. Why oppose it if it doesn't effect you. Straight up bigotry is all it is.

-People marrying their sibling has NOTHING to do with with you
-People marrying 12 year old girls has NOTHING to do with you
-People marrying multiple people has NOTHING to do with you
-People marrying their comely goat has NOTHING to do with you

But I bet you would oppose some or all of these marriages. Are you also a "straight up bigot"?

The religious arguments being used to try and stop/prevent gay marriage are the same ones used to try/stop/prevent interracial marriage. Have fun being on the wrong side of history.
/QUOTE]

Which of course explains why China and Japan do not support gay marriage. Because they are run by the Christian taliban?

 

[actuarial]

(1) Saying the gayness is an inherent characteristic is leftwing propaganda not a fact

(2) Earlier in this thread a supporter of gay marriage claimed that gay people could have children by marrying and procreating with a straight person. Which kind of contradicts the whole "inherent characteristic" thing.

So because people live in opposition to their desires it proves those desires don't/didn't exist? That's some fine logic there. I'm sure you've never done anything, ever, that you didn't want to do based on societal pressure.

 

[ElFenix]

Sometimes, gay marriage affects others. You ever read of stories where kids in school were ridiculed for having two Dads? I have, and that isn't right. But its a fact of life, something we may have to always deal with.

Would it not be in the best interest of the child to maybe keep that away from him at school,... instead of the parents having that "well, we love each other, and are happy so deal with it" attitude? Sure, the kids are stupid for teasing him, but we can't control their actions.. only ours.

just... wow.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Sometimes, gay marriage affects others. You ever read of stories where kids in school were ridiculed for having two Dads? I have, and that isn't right. But its a fact of life, something we may have to always deal with.

Would it not be in the best interest of the child to maybe keep that away from him at school,... instead of the parents having that "well, we love each other, and are happy so deal with it" attitude? Sure, the kids are stupid for teasing him, but we can't control their actions.. only ours.

This line of thinking has some pretty serious flaws. We don't craft policy around whether children will tease each other about something, and for good reason; children will tease each other about basically everything. I've seen kids teased for their gender, their race, their height, their weight, their hair color, having freckles, their parents' profession, the shape of their eyebrows, physical disabilities, the clothes they were wearing, and a myriad of other things. Should we stop letting girls go to school because some boys may tease them? Should we stop sending gingers to school because other kids are going to laugh at them? If poor people wanted to get educated, they'd have the sense not to be born to parents who held lower-income jobs and were thus targets of scorn for other children, right?

I've personally been teased for being the son of lesbian parents, and, yes, it can be infuriating. But part of the reason we educate our children in large groups is to expose them to cultures they wouldn't normally interact with. I was able to share my experience with other kids when I was at school and help them realize that gay people weren't inherently worse than straight people, which is something they may not have had first-hand experience with had I been kept home to avoid taunting. Nor would I have been exposed to children from Eritrea or Liberia or Vietnam or Russia who taught me about cultural differences from the perspective of actually seeing them first-hand, rather than reading about them in a book. That's part of celebrating the cultural diversity this country prides itself on; it's not hiding it away because some people don't want to talk about it. That's just cowardice, and it's the antithesis of everything that makes America great.

You may not be comfortable with homosexuality, and that's certainly your right. But the world shouldn't have to bend over backwards to appease you and pretend that things don't exist because you are incapable of accepting them. That's an unreasonable expectation of anyone, and to frame it as something that we should teach our children from a young age is ridiculous. You don't want the children of gays and lesbians kept home from school for their own good; you want them kept home from school so that you don't have to have an awkward conversation with your own children about how his new friend's parents "ain't quite right." Kids will be kids; it's our job as adults to help them learn to get along with people who are different than them, not insulate them and pretend cultural differences don't exist.

 

[werepossum]

This line of thinking has some pretty serious flaws. We don't craft policy around whether children will tease each other about something, and for good reason; children will tease each other about basically everything. I've seen kids teased for their gender, their race, their height, their weight, their hair color, having freckles, their parents' profession, the shape of their eyebrows, physical disabilities, the clothes they were wearing, and a myriad of other things. Should we stop letting girls go to school because some boys may tease them? Should we stop sending gingers to school because other kids are going to laugh at them? If poor people wanted to get educated, they'd have the sense not to be born to parents who held lower-income jobs and were thus targets of scorn for other children, right?

I've personally been teased for being the son of lesbian parents, and, yes, it can be infuriating. But part of the reason we educate our children in large groups is to expose them to cultures they wouldn't normally interact with. I was able to share my experience with other kids when I was at school and help them realize that gay people weren't inherently worse than straight people, which is something they may not have had first-hand experience with had I been kept home to avoid taunting. Nor would I have been exposed to children from Eritrea or Liberia or Vietnam or Russia who taught me about cultural differences from the perspective of actually seeing them first-hand, rather than reading about them in a book. That's part of celebrating the cultural diversity this country prides itself on; it's not hiding it away because some people don't want to talk about it. That's just cowardice, and it's the antithesis of everything that makes America great.

You may not be comfortable with homosexuality, and that's certainly your right. But the world shouldn't have to bend over backwards to appease you and pretend that things don't exist because you are incapable of accepting them. That's an unreasonable expectation of anyone, and to frame it as something that we should teach our children from a young age is ridiculous. You don't want the children of gays and lesbians kept home from school for their own good; you want them kept home from school so that you don't have to have an awkward conversation with your own children about how his new friend's parents "ain't quite right." Kids will be kids; it's our job as adults to help them learn to get along with people who are different than them, not insulate them and pretend cultural differences don't exist.

Well said. It's also worth adding that kids being raised by homosexuals are going to be teased whether or not their parents are legally married. If anything, being legally married should lessen the stigma and result in less teasing, not more - although the relative amount of schoolyard teasing seems an abysmally poor reason to pass or not pass any law, much less to deny rights.

 

[Retro Rob]

This line of thinking has some pretty serious flaws. We don't craft policy around whether children will tease each other about something, and for good reason; children will tease each other about basically everything. I've seen kids teased for their gender, their race, their height, their weight, their hair color, having freckles, their parents' profession, the shape of their eyebrows, physical disabilities, the clothes they were wearing, and a myriad of other things. Should we stop letting girls go to school because some boys may tease them? Should we stop sending gingers to school because other kids are going to laugh at them? If poor people wanted to get educated, they'd have the sense not to be born to parents who held lower-income jobs and were thus targets of scorn for other children, right?

I've personally been teased for being the son of lesbian parents, and, yes, it can be infuriating. But part of the reason we educate our children in large groups is to expose them to cultures they wouldn't normally interact with. I was able to share my experience with other kids when I was at school and help them realize that gay people weren't inherently worse than straight people, which is something they may not have had first-hand experience with had I been kept home to avoid taunting. Nor would I have been exposed to children from Eritrea or Liberia or Vietnam or Russia who taught me about cultural differences from the perspective of actually seeing them first-hand, rather than reading about them in a book. That's part of celebrating the cultural diversity this country prides itself on; it's not hiding it away because some people don't want to talk about it. That's just cowardice, and it's the antithesis of everything that makes America great.

You may not be comfortable with homosexuality, and that's certainly your right. But the world shouldn't have to bend over backwards to appease you and pretend that things don't exist because you are incapable of accepting them. That's an unreasonable expectation of anyone, and to frame it as something that we should teach our children from a young age is ridiculous. You don't want the children of gays and lesbians kept home from school for their own good; you want them kept home from school so that you don't have to have an awkward conversation with your own children about how his new friend's parents "ain't quite right." Kids will be kids; it's our job as adults to help them learn to get along with people who are different than them, not insulate them and pretend cultural differences don't exist.

You said all that, and I agree with you.

Actually, my point centered around things we can control. I don't recall saying that we should keep our kids out of school, or change policy for idiot kids.

If I were homosexual, married, with a son for instance, no.. I would not take him from school. However, I know kids these days -- and I know they would tease him becasue of my parnter and I. We would not come up there together.. to spare his emotional well-being. I would most definintely take the matter to the principle as well.

We can't control our physical abilites, gender, race etc. But that's not what I was referring to.

I used my own situation. Yeah, its my right to hug and kiss my wife around my freinds, but if it comes to my attention that they (and I have single freinds) are uncomfortable with seeing that, we stop and wait till we leave their presence. We do that now.

That's all I was saying. But the days of mutual respect are long gone on both sides. I was alwys unfortable with homosexuality, but I never teased or even bothered gays kids in school (and there were some in my day). I let them be. I have respect for whatever they want to do, but I simply have my personal view of it. They are indeed regular people like myself.

However, people who simply don't subscribe to it are deemed "defective", "religious", "hate-filled bigots"! Huh? We haven't gained any ground socially in this world with this issue, and probably never will.