Medlar on 27/6/2015 at 18:52
When will it become obligatory?
bjack on 27/6/2015 at 18:55
The ruling was based on freedom of association and equal protection under the law. OK, fine, but then plural marriage should be allowed too. Marriage between people and animals would not be protected, since animals are not afforded protection under the constitution. That last statement is troubling. The constitution is supposed to be a blue print for how the the government works and lists some rights that shall never be infringed. It then states in the 10th amendment that anything not specifically stated in the constitution is a right of the States and/or the people. Many progressives fail to understand this and think the only rights we have are those granted verbatim.
I am actually anti-marriage, in the sense that the government should have ANY part in it. Marriage is a spiritual matter, based upon love and for the most part religious belief (for those that practice.) Being of a more libertarian bent, I think civil unions are more correct for everyone. A civil union could be made of 2 or more adults. The marriage exemption (actually a penalty for many) for taxes would be removed. I would go on with the complexities, but this is not the place to go into great detail.
Marriage would become simply a spiritual thing. If you want to get married in a church, so be it, but the government would give no credence to that union. You would have to also form a civil union by contract. Isn't this similar to many European countries? I seem to recall watching a film in 4th grade about this. People in France first get married in a church, then go down to the city hall to actually get married by the state.
Despite my opinion of the current state of marriage for all Americans, I am happy gay people are now allowed to suffer just like the rest of us. My gay friends and acquaintances are super happy about this ruling. I am very happy for them. I am sure some fringe Mormons are happy too that plural marriage will be legal. One cannot argue against it if you agree with the recent ruling. Why limit the association to 2 people? Sounds arbitrary.
DiMarzio on 27/6/2015 at 23:12
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
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.
No different in Finland at least. The law was voted as denied a few times (by a 200 member parliament) until last year they voted it as passed, but only just (105-92) and the law is still yet to come into effect. And now, since the last parliament's term ended and a new parliament was elected, there have been some talk about voting again. That's just cheap!
And it doesn't help that the three biggest ministers are a Laestadian (extreme conservative Lutheran movement), a Catholic (rare in Finland) and a bourgoise, who otherwise happens to be a conservative. Major dicks all of them. I simply can't understand, what kind of people voted for them and how those people got elected. Sometimes I just hate living in this country of city hillbillies. But I'm digressing...
So religion, a big factor. Another one is age. Interesting fact was that of those who voted, all 92 who voted no, were of age 47 or older. And vice versa. Think about that.
Renzatic on 27/6/2015 at 23:47
Quote Posted by Yakoob
Yay! Also, since corporations are people now, can I marry a corporation?
I've already married Johnson & Johnson. They make KY Jelly, you know. I'll never find myself wanting for hot gay butt sex ever again!
You know, the best thing about all this isn't the whole equality thing, which admittedly is pretty nice. It's watching people absolutely freak right slap the fuck out all over the internet. It's been about the most entertaining goddamn thing on the face of the earth.
And here I was thinking all the hoolabaloo over the Confederate flag was funny. THEN THIS HAPPENS! HOLY SHIT!
Gryzemuis on 28/6/2015 at 01:16
Icemann, of course this is all about religion. And conservatism.
Quote Posted by bjack
The constitution is supposed to be a blue print ...... Many progressives fail to understand this and think the only rights we have are those granted verbatim.
That is all legal mumbo-jumbo. I'm not an American, I don't even know all that stuff.
Legal arguments are used to try to explain and exploit "the letter of the law".
I don't care much for the letter of the law.
I'm only interested in the spirit of the law.
And the general idea of all laws is: "don't be a dick".
Don't kill others, don't rape others, don't steal from other people, don't enslave, don't hit others, don't con others, don't embezzle from others. Summary: don't be a dick.
Trying to claim marriage (and its benefits) for you, and people like you, and not allow it for others who are slightly different than you are, is a total dick-move. That's not the spirit of the laws.
Quote:
Marriage is a spiritual matter, based upon love and for the most part religious belief (for those that practice.)
You seem to be claiming the concept of marriage as property of religious people. (Or spiritual, which is the same thing to me). I've seen that before. I've seen people argue that atheist shouldn't be allowed to vote, shouldn't be allowed to teach, shouldn't be allowed to make laws, shouldn't be allowed in public discussion. Because atheists have no morals. Because they have no god. How can you trust a person who has no god ?
It's no coincidence that in the US, none of the 550-600 or so people in congress and in the administration declare themselves as atheists. They are all religious. Be it protestant, catholic, jewish or mormon. As long as you are religious. There are even muslims in congress. But there isn't a single atheist in office. Because religious organizations are claiming institutions, laws and everything else related to morals as being their property. It disgusts me.
So don't try to make marriage property of spiritual or religious people only.
Quote:
Isn't this similar to many European countries? I seem to recall watching a film in 4th grade about this. People in France first get married in a church, then go down to the city hall to actually get married by the state.
Marriage is an official act that happens in City Hall.
Whatever else ritual you wanna do, is your business. It has no legal meaning. At all. So yes, some people get married in City Hall and then in Church. Or the other way around. Or only in City Hall. Never in the Church alone. That's how it works in my country, no idea how this is done in all other EU countries. I would guess that in France, it's the same as in NL. The Frech really understand their separation of Church and State. So I doubt they will give any tribal event (like marrying in a Church) any legal meaning. Poland or Ireland might be different.
Quote:
I am sure some fringe Mormons are happy too that plural marriage will be legal.
This is a whole different issue. Trying to tie this to same-sex marriage is pure FUD.
In Russia, the anti-gay laws are justified because of "think of the children". Obviously the Russians don't know the difference between homosexuality and pedosexuality. Yet another example of pure FUD.
Dimarzio, in NL we have gay marriage. Since 2001 (we were the first, I just read). But there are still people trying to resist the law. E.g. in NL all marriages are done at City Hall, by specially trained/authorized civil servants. Some of those civil servants openly refuse to marry gay people. I strongly belief in religious freedom. But you better do your religious stuff at home, in your private life, or in your own clubhouse (aka church). Don't bring your religion to the workplace. (Or even politics, if it was up to me). If you refuse to do your job and marry people, because you don't like them, then you shouldn't be doing that job. Either you marry gays, or you find another job, or you get fired. Simple. However, our religious political parties have somehow been able to give those people the right (by law) to discriminate against gay people. It's an outrage.
Lucky for us, religion gets a smaller impact on Dutch society every year. (Islam hasn't learned to behave yet, but that's another story). Our Christian parties are not in the government at the moment. And they get fewer and fewer seats in our congress every election. (I now know: not less, but fewer. Thanks Stannis !:-)) I think religions grip on societies has faded a lot since the fifties to nineties. I am really suprised (and disgusted) to see religion trying to claw back into power in the US. The US is supposed to have one of the best constitutions (I like freedom of speech, we don't have that in NL). Yet they have these weird problems with "religious" issues.
demagogue on 28/6/2015 at 03:03
Now all we need is robot marriages legalized so we can see our beloved Zylon-3000 have a robot family of his own.
Aww, I'm getting misty eyed just thinking about it. ='[]
Tony_Tarantula on 28/6/2015 at 03:48
Quote Posted by faetal
Well yes, clearly we should be terrified of the fallout from this. Homosexuality will likely spiral out of control.
If you want to be taken seriously, at least specify what your concern is. I don't honestly get how this is anything but great news.
Keep in mind I'm not so much talking about the ruling itself but the resulting fallout and the legal consequences. The ruling itself is fair. (
http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/33983) Once government starts charging a fee to get "married" it is no longer a "right" and is instead a privilege issued by the government. As such it is only fair to allow it without prejudice.
Best way I can put it is how do you feel about businesses and churches which don't wish to participate in gay marriage being shut down?
It's too easy to react to if I just tell you any more than that. You'd just dismiss it as the ravings of a bigot coming from me but if you start researching the origins of the LGBT movement, it isn't coming from a "bigot" on the internet but instead it's from the horse's mouth.
Start by reading the book "After the Ball", which was written by two Harvard grads who were some of the original creators of the LGBT rights movements.
(
http://www.amazon.com/After-Ball-America-Conquer-Hatred/dp/0452264987)
Full Citation:
Kirk, M., & Madsen, H. (1989). After the ball: How America will conquer its fear and hatred of gays in the '90s. New York, N.Y.: Doubleday.
Tony_Tarantula on 28/6/2015 at 03:57
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
Icemann, of course this is all about religion. And conservatism.
No, it's not about religion. People just think it's about religion and bitch-slapping the big, bad, conservative under the bed. In reality it's an issue of government power and taxation.
From the first link:
Quote:
Once the state requires a marriage license, even to get married in the Eyes of God in a church, it ceases to be a religious right and enters the realm of civil rights that require a license. The religious people who are against Gay Marriage are barking up the wrong tree. Why does the government have the right to charge a tax to get married? This comes from the King’s right to sleep with the bride on the night of her wedding called Prima Noctum. There is no account that he ever exercised that right in England, but the ledgers are full of “fees” being paid to relieve the king of that right and this fee, with time, became the marriage contract.
So if you do not pay the fee today, you have NO RIGHT to be married anywhere including a church or in the Eyes of God unless the government is paid. I
n this context, this is what a right to marry is all about and you should not confuse this with religion to begin with. This is a right for the government to simply charge a licence fee – not religion.Renzatic on 28/6/2015 at 04:27
Tony, it boggles my mind how you and yours are somehow able to come to these conclusions that run counter to everything.
Fafhrd on 28/6/2015 at 05:40
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
Best way I can put it is how do you feel about businesses and churches which don't wish to participate in gay marriage being shut down?
Free market at work, son. Thought you guys were supposed to love that shit?
