Al_B on 26/6/2015 at 22:28

---

I married a badger and NOW this is allowed? Damn you, America.

demagogue on 27/6/2015 at 06:36

---

Well my 2 comments on this are

1. The final project for my Comparative Constitutional Law course was basically this case under the German Constitution, and I argued in favor of gay marriage as a fundamental right, the equivalent of 14th Amendment Substantive Due Process, on the Loving-Laurence line. The professor was a former Constitutional Court justice who argued against it in some German case, so I went to extra work on it, and managed to flip his own argument style on itself -- re 'marriage' is whatever fulfills the social function it plays, it's a functional concept, not a dogmatic one, and one which the target group decides in its own practice... the practice of gay marriage is the key data point. He liked my arguments, and I got an A anyway. Nice to see I was ahead of the curve & on history's side with that. Kennedy's analysis were close to mine.

2. And speaking of Kennedy, I always felt closest to him, and when I took one of those quizes, my judicial philosophy was closest to his, although we disagree on some things too, but we share a critical independence. I'm speaking of judicial philosophy, btw, not political, like how he actually votes on issues. Although on that, IMO he's one of the few prominent representatives of the elusive liberal Republican, along with my old mentor Dick Stewart. It's not a position that really exists anymore, or may just be conflated into mainstream Democrats today (Republicans have basically derailed as a rational political party). If I still felt some connection to American politics, I might be curious if the idea had any life still in it.

Ok, so my comments are on the technical end, maybe, but I felt like posting them somewhere. The outcome was inevitable once Substantive Due Process & Equal Protection became connected to right to marry. It's a wonder it took 30 some odd years to happen, but the writing has been on the wall for a long time.

Dia on 27/6/2015 at 12:48

---

This:



And this:




:thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

Gryzemuis on 27/6/2015 at 14:20

---

It is an outrage that this law was passed, with 5 votes versus 4.

It should have been 9 versus 0. :)
It is a scary thought that in one of the largest countries in the world, these fundamental issues are decided by men (and women) of whom almost half turn out to be dicks. I bet it's not better in most other countries.


This is a popular marketing strategy in many fields of economics and politics. It's called FUD. Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. If you can't convince someone to stay with you (or with your beliefs or with your business), try to scare them of change. Imho it's a strategy generally used by dicks.

icemann on 27/6/2015 at 17:48

---

Imo much of this comes down to the religion side of things, since pretty much all religions (besides possibly Scientology and Tibetan) absolutely define marriage as between a man and a woman. And since this flies in the face of that, then those of more stronger religious persuasions are firmly against it on that basis, where as those in the opposite tend to be more on the other end. That said there is exceptions to the rule on both ends of course. For example my mother is quite religious but is completely for gay marriage, where as I have an aunty whose about the same religiously but is totally against it.

Personally I'm all for it.

I see this as very alike to equal rights for African Americans, in that it is the great issue of our generation to come to terms with. And that is mainly the youth (teens - late 30 year olds) who are more on the for end of the scale, and those on the more older end that are against. Again with exceptions obviously.