Why the Supreme Court is going to rule in favor of marriage equality

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,202
4,401
136
As people increasiongly realise (as they've beguin to) that homosexuals want to shut down their churches, criminalize opposition (already happening in schools via "bullying" and civil rights charade) and indoctrinate their 5 yr olds then the gates will close faster than they opened "Dred Scott and Same-Sex Marriage" http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/389782/dred-scott-and-same-sex-marriage-matthew-j-franck

I don't know if you understand what you are supporting. You understand that the 'Dred Scott' ruling was that black's are not people and therefore can't have rights? Is what the ruling you are holding up as a shining example of how our courts should work?

That link you posted is a post directly comparing the same sex marriage case to that of the Dred Scott case, and it tries to put the same-sex marriage supporters on the side of Sandford. To do so takes a level of mental gymnastics so great that it defies physics much less logic.

It is truly galling to see white upperclass cisgendered men attempt to claim that they are being repressed in their right to discriminate.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
I have no doubt they will rule in favor of marriage equality and all laws against gay marriage will be considered unconstitutional.


I also have no doubt there will be some that will be very upset by the decision and protest quite loudly. I expect more than a few angry posts in this forum.
 

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,020
9
81
I don't know, the justices really seemed to attack the pro equality side today. It makes me nervous.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
68,852
26,641
136
I don't know if you understand what you are supporting. You understand that the 'Dred Scott' ruling was that black's are not people and therefore can't have rights? Is what the ruling you are holding up as a shining example of how our courts should work?

That link you posted is a post directly comparing the same sex marriage case to that of the Dred Scott case, and it tries to put the same-sex marriage supporters on the side of Sandford. To do so takes a level of mental gymnastics so great that it defies physics much less logic.

It is truly galling to see white upperclass cisgendered men attempt to claim that they are being repressed in their right to discriminate.
Cisgendered? Really?
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,202
4,401
136
The people who wrote the Constitution equated buggery (their term) with beastiality. It was punsihable by death in many places. Thomas Jefferson was less extreme and settled on castration.

This is a flat out lie. Thomas Jefferson's did not outlaw same sex marriage, nor 'buggery'. He wrote a bill that attempted to outlaw capital punishment for all but a few crimes like treason or cheating at a dual. He lists a large number of alternative punishments for crimes including 'sodomy' and listed castration as one punishment for men, but also listed a one inch hole through the nose for women committing the crime. This is because 'sodomy' does not mean homosexual sex, but any sex that does not lead to procreation. This includes oral, hand-jobs, masterbation, pulling out, beastiality, and any other sexual perversion the puritans did not like.

The sodomy laws were not so much outlawing homosexuals, but any 'sexual pervert' which would include nearly everyone in this thread by their standards.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
What's the weather like in your universe?
Well . . . It's certainly not gay, that's for sure.

This is the court that will be known for Citizens United. They have shown breathtaking contempt for constitutional law and the interests of American citizens.
I actually agree with Citizens United. How can we possibly argue that nude dancing is protected free speech but political adverts are not?

I'm hoping that this court's great blunder is seen as Kelo v. New London.

I would say 7-2 is a ceiling. I think a ruling in favor is nearly certain, with Kennedy joining the 4 more liberal justices. I think Roberts voting in favor is highly likely as well, and MAYBE Alito.

Thomas and Scalia though? I'll eat my shoe. You can feel the rage against gay people that comes out of Scalia's opinions about gay issues.
Only Thomas and Scalia voting against it is my likeliest scenario. The law seems pretty clear, but as you said, Scalia really hates mainstreaming gays and I'm guessing it's a better than even chance Thomas follows his lead. I'd prefer 9-0 or at least 8-1 though; this is an issue that should have been put to bed a couple decades ago. Just goes to show that if the people lead, the leaders will follow. Instead, both sides have been in favor only when it helps them or at least doesn't hurt them. That's now the case almost everywhere, at least in the general election, and the Republicans still aren't admitting it.

What I'd loved to have seen would be a prominent Republican leading on this issue as a matter of fairness, equality, and limited government. Instead, we get only those politicians like Dick Cheney, who support gay marriage but because the issue touches them personally. And after SCOTUS legalizes gay marriage it will be too late to show leadership on it.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,202
4,401
136
Cisgendered? Really?

Yes, I probably should have said straight instead of cisgendered as that is what this thread is about. I interact with a lot of transgendered people, so I use the terms trans/cis-gender a lot and it just kind of flowed out.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,202
4,401
136
I actually agree with Citizens United. How can we possibly argue that nude dancing is protected free speech but political adverts are not?

It does set up the weird situation where anonymous nude dancing is not allowed speech, but anonymous political adverts are, due to laws requiring you carry identity cards and produce them on request of an official.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Cisgendered? Really?
Cisgendered, a word to let others know you're a special little snowflake without much in the way of brains. When you see it used non-ironically, you can mentally deduct 50 IQ points from your appraisal of the user and still feel generous.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
It does set up the weird situation where anonymous nude dancing is not allowed speech, but anonymous political adverts are, due to laws requiring you carry identity cards and produce them on request of an official.
Wait, what? Are you speaking of proof of age identity, or are there nude dancing licenses of which I'm unaware?

And if you're using the word "cisgendered" you're spending WAAAY too much time among the transgendered.
 

cbrunny

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 2007
6,791
406
126
Cisgendered, a word to let others know you're a special little snowflake without much in the way of brains. When you see it used non-ironically, you can mentally deduct 50 IQ points from your appraisal of the user and still feel generous.

What is it like to be a bigot? I imagine you have very high self-esteem, but many people don't like you and you don't know why. Am I close?
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,599
19
81
It always fascinates me that so many people care so much about this in the first place.

I can't help but think about showing a bright strobe light or loud siren or blowtorch to a bunch of chimps, and hearing them freak out and start shrieking wildly.

Our reaction to anything that's even remotely related to genitals is often just as intelligible.



I suppose it's along the lines of the "zero-tolerance" policies: Convert everything to binary choices. Remove all greyscale everywhere.
To a degree, I can understand why: Our brains are limited. Everything is a choice. If you can just limit the options to "yes" or "no," it makes it easier to decide. "Maybe" encompasses an awful lot of other possible options, and thinking is hard. :(

Same applies here:
Men marry women.
That's it.
There is nothing else, I can't think about that sort of thing, you can't make me, my brain hurts, therefore I want to deny certain people rights and treat them like they're somehow "unclean," and then defend this decision as perfectly acceptable.
 
Last edited:

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,202
4,401
136
Wait, what? Are you speaking of proof of age identity, or are there nude dancing licenses of which I'm unaware?

Most states, if not all, have a requirement that you identify yourself to an officer if requested. You have no legal right to be anonymous, unless you are making a political contribution apparently.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
How much time is the correct amount of time to spend with transgendered people?
Any amount before one begins using special terms to denote normal.

What is it like to be a bigot? I imagine you have very high self-esteem, but many people don't like you and you don't know why. Am I close?
You aren't even in the same county. Everybody likes me 'cause I'm such a nice guy, even though they wonder how I could support something so outlandish as gay marriage or not firing transgendered employees. However, they still like me because even though I disagree, I don't call them bigots or make up special words for them to make myself feel more mainstream; I simply respect their opinions and tell them why I believe otherwise.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Most states, if not all, have a requirement that you identify yourself to an officer if requested. You have no legal right to be anonymous, unless you are making a political contribution apparently.
Ah, okay.

I used to be against anonymous political contributions too. Then I watched the IRS operating in conjunction with progressive groups to punish donors to conservative groups. Now I understand.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Any amount before one begins using special terms to denote normal.

That's what they used to say about gay vs. straight as well. Identifying one type as "normal" carries the connotation of branding all others as "abnormal," a word with pretty negative connotations in our culture. Are transgender people not "normal?" They're not "usual," sure, but normal? So while I agree with you that cisgender is a pretty silly term, I also respect that "just say normal" probably isn't a great argument to make to a group that has been historically discriminated against for an unchangeable aspect of their being.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,202
4,401
136
I simply respect their opinions and tell them why I believe otherwise.
I would like to humbly suggest that when you start to say things like 'You spend too much time around those sorts of people' you are not respecting others opinions.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
That's what they used to say about gay vs. straight as well. Identifying one type as "normal" carries the connotation of branding all others as "abnormal," a word with pretty negative connotations in our culture. Are transgender people not "normal?" They're not "usual," sure, but normal? So while I agree with you that cisgender is a pretty silly term, I also respect that "just say normal" probably isn't a great argument to make to a group that has been historically discriminated against for an unchangeable aspect of their being.

Unchangeable.

I've asked before if homosexuals have ever become heterosexuals. The answer is obvious.

Sexuality is not as straightforward as race.
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,685
126
Any amount before one begins using special terms to denote normal.

If we carry this to sexual orientation rather than identity, and I refer to a non-gay person as "straight" or "heterosexual" instead of just 'normal' does that mean I'm spending too much time around gay people?

Not trying to put words in your mouth, I just want to understand your position.

Edit: ehh, what AP said.
 

Subyman

Moderator <br> VC&G Forum
Mar 18, 2005
7,876
32
86
I'm interesting in reading the dissenting opinion, if there is one.

Even republicans call this a religious issue and some veil it as a family issue as if gays are somehow worse than the average american and we must protect children from them. It has nothing to do with the constitution. The only opinion they can give is to allow it.