Marriage Equality

Marriage is honorable to all.

And like someone said before, now everyone can be miserable.

 

Even the wife thought the same.

 

Saw where someone wrote - The massive amount of sex that will happen tonight will have absolutely no effect on the birthrate in 9 months

 

I have gay friends that I'm happy for...but I'm sad about the way it all came to pass. It was no doubt inevitable.

 

Bristol Palin's jealous.

 

I prefer that it came this way. Allowing citizens of states to vote on the rights of other citizens is a terrible precedent.

 

Since she practices abstinence I can only assume this is a miraculous conception.

 

Just saw this. The states don't have the autonomy to define who has rights, according to the Constitution, and who doesn't. And, the amount of power centered in the states isn't the arbiter of whether or not democracy exists or not.

All in all, if the balance of democracy relies upon the ability of the citizenry to vote upon the equality, or lack thereof, of others, then it's a poor system. Fortunately, we don't, to the consternation, apparently of a portion of the conservative base whose desire to eliminate those rights for certain groups has been abriged.

 

It is difficult to imagine what kind of screw-up one needs to be to have a 250k a year job telling teenagers not to do what you did, only for you to do it... again.

 

So, letting 9 people decide it is better, right, all behind closed doors?

Government needs to get out of the marriage business all together.

 

I thought Scalia's dissent was quite interesting, and falls in line with his take on, say, abortion. Liberals tend to look at Scalia as anti-gay, anti-abortion, when all I've seen and read him say indicates he really doesn't give a shit about the ideology of those things, rather, he only cares about the argument of how someone can make a square peg fit into a round hole. Scalia honestly doesn't care about gay marriage, but to get him on board with it, you have to make a convincing argument that the constitution supports it... and if he doesn't think the constitution supports it, then if you want gay marriage, he is happy to let you have it, so long as you go through the normal, democratic process of making it legal, i.e., pass a damn law to make it legal, or amend the constitution such that it is clear.

Kennedy's writing for the majority that gay marriage fits into the 14th amendment was really weak, at best. It was, in my opinion, the equivalent of saying, "the 14th amendment protects it, because it just does." .... that's a pretty lame constitutional analysis.

a lot of folks want to look at the simple veneer of this decision, focusing exclusively on the idea that gays can now marry, but easily lose sight of the bigger picture. Roberts' dissent was particularly on point about that, but everybody wants to ignore the legal arguments of the dissenters and just label them with the "they hate fags" sticker.

My 2 cents.

Frankly, you want to let gays marry, I don't care because I can't figure out how that would negatively affect me directly. But getting it done this way doesn't appear to have been the proper way to do it... or maybe the explanation from the majority doesn't quite seem to be adequate enough.

 

This is what I don't understand. No Christian had a problem when government used marriage as the vehicle to give out tax breaks and tie legal rights to. It wasn't until 50 years ago when a group of people wanted fair treatment under the law that the religious right all of a sudden had a problem with this "government intrusion." Christians have never had an issue with common law marriages. The government treatment of marriage is purely secular, its a legal contract, its why you have to get a marriage license to be considered married under the law. Can you point me out the verse in the bible where god give the ISO standard that all marriage licenses should follow? This idea that Christians own the concept of marriage in the first place is so outside the realm of reality that its no wonder that they can't figure out what has happened.

 

Are you kidding me? Now she can stand in front of a crowd of kids and say she did everything sex education teaches you about avoiding pregnancy (ya know, except using condoms, proper birth control use, etc), and still got pregnant. Therefore, only abstinence is the way.

 

Pure truth.

 

I'm talking about Christian and everyone else too. Government has no business legislating what should be defined or not defined as marriage. My marriage to my wife, in my eyes, is under God, not the federal government.

 

I think getting the government out of the marriage business is a perfectly reasonable observation and position. However, yes, I absolutely prefer that the court designed to preserve the Constitutional rights of individuals makes the ruling on something that is considered to be a right of citizens. Allowing people the ability to vote on the rights of other people in this country, if it is a right, is a terrible precedent. Rights are guaranteed by the Constitution, not majority vote.

 

More truth. We'd still be waiting on integration and female suffrage if mob rule decided those issues.

 

So I assume, then, you'll be foregoing all your civil rights and tax breaks (for example) that marriage brings?

 

Exactly. I'm not sure why people do not understand, or choose to ignore this likelihood (at least in some states).

 

Because no matter what they claim about not caring, it suits them to maintain the status quo.