SCOTUS signals upcoming historic approval for gay marriage

[Zoom-boing]

Dodgeball, you're doing it right.

I'm coming right at you, asking you to tell us what your point is. That's about as direct as it gets.

And you can't tell me what your point is. When you can, I'll be around.

Reading comprehension not your strong suit, is it?

If marriage is not one man/one woman (just two consenting adults), then what is the harm in two brothers marrying each other? Or two sisters? Or even a mother and daughter, father and son? Shouldn't they be allowed to take advantage of the financial benefits of marriage? Isn't that the whole point of ssm anyway? Because ss couples can not take advantage of the financial benefits of marriage if they can't marry?

As I said before- you seem to think we are under some obligation to make your arguments for you.

If you want to pursue incestuious marriage- then the courts and the legislature are both legitimate options for you to pursue.

But it is not the argument before the courts- the argument before the court is whether a same gender couple should be legally treated the same as my wife and I are.

Are you for equal treatment of same gender couples- or against it?

You seem to think that my questions aren't valid and you, as well as others, like to ignore them. All I'd like is for someone to answer the questions I asked. .

Your questions are valid- but irrelevant to the topic.

Well, no they're not irrelevant. The topic is marriage isn't one man/one woman but rather two consenting adults - hence, the upcoming approval for gay marriage. So my questions are quite in line with the topic.

 

[Syriusly]

I'm coming right at you, asking you to tell us what your point is. That's about as direct as it gets.

And you can't tell me what your point is. When you can, I'll be around.

Reading comprehension not your strong suit, is it?

If marriage is not one man/one woman (just two consenting adults), then what is the harm in two brothers marrying each other? Or two sisters? Or even a mother and daughter, father and son? Shouldn't they be allowed to take advantage of the financial benefits of marriage? Isn't that the whole point of ssm anyway? Because ss couples can not take advantage of the financial benefits of marriage if they can't marry?

As I said before- you seem to think we are under some obligation to make your arguments for you.

If you want to pursue incestuious marriage- then the courts and the legislature are both legitimate options for you to pursue.

But it is not the argument before the courts- the argument before the court is whether a same gender couple should be legally treated the same as my wife and I are.

Are you for equal treatment of same gender couples- or against it?

You seem to think that my questions aren't valid and you, as well as others, like to ignore them. All I'd like is for someone to answer the questions I asked. .

Your questions are valid- but irrelevant to the topic.

Well, no they're not irrelevant. The topic is marriage isn't one man/one woman but rather two consenting adults - hence, the upcoming approval for gay marriage. So my questions are quite in line with the topic.

Your question is irrelevant to the topic.

The Supreme Court is not being asked, and will not be addressing any question other than whether same gender couples have the same right to legal marriage as an opposite gender couple.

The question of other relationships are a separate topic which you are welcome to pursue, but I am not going to in this thread.

 

[Seawytch]

Not anymore it isn't...just like the definition isn't black people marrying black people and white people marrying white people. Just like the definition of voting is no longer white male land owners. The basic definition of marriage has not changed, only who is allowed to do it.

How many times do I have to wish you luck? Go ahead and try. Challenge the court to marry your brother. As long as siblings are preventing from procreating if they marry, I don't give a shit.

So homosexuals weren't allowed to marry prior to ssm being around?

So brothers or sisters can marry each other ... but that doesn't change what marriage is either. Weird.

No, not right now they can't, but you seem to think that there is no rational basis to discriminate against siblings marrying each other. That has nothing to do with gays and lesbians marrying.

You have as much right to challenge the prohibitions on incest marriage as gays did to challenge anti gay marriage laws. Good luck.

You misread my post. I'm saying ... you are fine with brothers and sisters marrying each other and believe that doesn't change what marriage is.

How does it by your man/woman definition? It's a "man/woman" marriage, right? So your definition of what marriage is does not change if a brother and sister are allowed to marry now does it?

I really don't care. As long as you and Sis can demonstrate an inability to procreate like is required for 1st cousin marriages...GOOD LUCK.

You need to go back to my earlier question .... I didn't say brother and sister marrying each other, I said brothers (marrying brothers) and sisters (marrying sisters) marrying each other. But you don't care either way, so ok.

Still don't care and still wish you luck. It is a separate issue from gays being civilly married.

 

[Silhouette]

The Supreme Court is not being asked, and will not be addressing any question other than whether same gender couples have the same right to legal marriage as an opposite gender couple.

The question of other relationships are a separate topic which you are welcome to pursue, but I am not going to in this thread.

On the contrary, Justices on the US Supreme Court are intimately aware of "same or simliar" cases that might pend before them on the identical petition for "rights" using "equality" as the argument than any other court in the country:

http://faculty.ucmerced.edu/thansford/Articles/Explaining the Overruling of U.S. Supreme Court Precedent.pdf
Justice Kennedy's opinion suggests, the doctrine of stare decisis, by which
courts follow the legal precedents articulated in previously decided cases, does
not preclude the Supreme Court from overruling a prior case. Yet, as Justice
Kennedy also states in his opinion,
stare decisis is "'of fundamental importance
to the rule of law"' (491 U.S. 164, at 172). Adherence to precedent re-
portedly serves such goals as clarity, stability, and predictability in the law (Douglas
[I9491 1979; Powell 1990; Rasmusen 1994; Stevens 1983), efficiency (Landes
and Posner 1976; Stevens 1983), legitimacy (Knight and Epstein 1996; Powell
1990, 286-87; Stevens 1983, 2), and fairness and impartiality (Freed 1996;
Padden 1994). Justices and scholars alike argue that for these reasons the Court
is loathe to overrule past cases

Since the church of LGBT is arguing that the majority objecting to their behaviors as fit to marry (or more importantly, to parent in marriage the voiceless/voteless children of our country) is "unfair", then any future majority objecting to any other behaviors being fit to marry or parent will be seen as equally arbitrary and inapplicable to "rights" via "equality".

You'd better bet your stinky britches those Justices will be not just thinking about, but also talking about polygamy (the number two is no more or less magical or taboo than man/woman if the family is to be shattered this way) and any other conceivable combination of people who they know FOR A FACT will be knocking at their door within a year's time or less of any federal mandate they might (or might not) force the states to assimilate against their majority rule.

My premise rests on behaviors not being equal to race....and that human behaviors, so far, have never gotten special consitutional recognition. How could they? Because that would nullify local penal and civil codes which are nothing but the majority regulating human behaviors according to self-rule.

This behavioral-movement is going to harm democracy if the Supremes are negligent in considering these wider ramifications of setting a new precedent where "behaviors = race"..

Think: Anne Heche.

 

[Zoom-boing]

If marriage is no longer one man/one woman, then the door for opposite-sex related persons marrying is now open. Unless someone can provide a reason as to why they shouldn't be able to marry. So far, mums the word on that.

 

[Zoom-boing]

The Supreme Court is not being asked, and will not be addressing any question other than whether same gender couples have the same right to legal marriage as an opposite gender couple.

The question of other relationships are a separate topic which you are welcome to pursue, but I am not going to in this thread.

On the contrary, Justices on the US Supreme Court are intimately aware of "same or simliar" cases that might pend before them on the identical petition for "rights" using "equality" as the argument than any other court in the country:

http://faculty.ucmerced.edu/thansford/Articles/Explaining the Overruling of U.S. Supreme Court Precedent.pdf
Justice Kennedy's opinion suggests, the doctrine of stare decisis, by which
courts follow the legal precedents articulated in previously decided cases, does
not preclude the Supreme Court from overruling a prior case. Yet, as Justice
Kennedy also states in his opinion,
stare decisis is "'of fundamental importance
to the rule of law"' (491 U.S. 164, at 172). Adherence to precedent re-
portedly serves such goals as clarity, stability, and predictability in the law (Douglas
[I9491 1979; Powell 1990; Rasmusen 1994; Stevens 1983), efficiency (Landes
and Posner 1976; Stevens 1983), legitimacy (Knight and Epstein 1996; Powell
1990, 286-87; Stevens 1983, 2), and fairness and impartiality (Freed 1996;
Padden 1994). Justices and scholars alike argue that for these reasons the Court
is loathe to overrule past cases

Since the church of LGBT is arguing that the majority objecting to their behaviors as fit to marry (or more importantly, to parent in marriage the voiceless/voteless children of our country) is "unfair", then any future majority objecting to any other behaviors being fit to marry or parent will be seen as equally arbitrary and inapplicable to "rights" via "equality".

You'd better bet your stinky britches those Justices will be not just thinking about, but also talking about polygamy (the number two is no more or less magical or taboo than man/woman if the family is to be shattered this way) and any other conceivable combination of people who they know FOR A FACT will be knocking at their door within a year's time or less of any federal mandate they might (or might not) force the states to assimilate against their majority rule.

My premise rests on behaviors not being equal to race....and that human behaviors, so far, have never gotten special consitutional recognition. How could they? Because that would nullify local penal and civil codes which are nothing but the majority regulating human behaviors according to self-rule.

This behavioral-movement is going to harm democracy if the Supremes are negligent in considering these wider ramifications of setting a new precedent where "behaviors = race"..

Think: Anne Heche.

Anne Heche was gay .... until she decided she wasn't.

 

[Syriusly]

The Supreme Court is not being asked, and will not be addressing any question other than whether same gender couples have the same right to legal marriage as an opposite gender couple.

The question of other relationships are a separate topic which you are welcome to pursue, but I am not going to in this thread.

On the contrary, Justices on the US Supreme Court are intimately aware of "same or simliar" cases that might pend before them on the identical petition for "rights" using "equality" as the argument than any other court in the country:
.

There are no same or similar cases that might pend before them.

No more than they considered 'same or similar' cases when they ruled on Loving v. Virginia.

 

[Zoom-boing]

There are no same or similar cases that might pend before them.

No more than they considered 'same or similar' cases when they ruled on Loving v. Virginia.

I've no doubt there will be at some point. The door is open.

 

[Seawytch]

If marriage is no longer one man/one woman, then the door for opposite-sex related persons marrying is now open. Unless someone can provide a reason as to why they shouldn't be able to marry. So far, mums the word on that.

Slippery Slope fallacy.

A number of countries have had marriage equality for over a decade. Which countries marry gays and also marry siblings? What that? None you say? Yeah...real slippery.

Lots of countries allow polygamy. Any of them also allow gays to marry?

Gays want to marry the non familial consenting adult of their choice...just like straights do.

Bigots used to discriminate based on race...now they want to do it based on gender.

 

[Syriusly]

There are no same or similar cases that might pend before them.

No more than they considered 'same or similar' cases when they ruled on Loving v. Virginia.

I've no doubt there will be at some point. The door is open.

You can go file a court case any time you want to, arguing it is your right to marry your brother.

Just like everyone else out there- you can attempt to prevail in court.

 

[Skylar]

If marriage is no longer one man/one woman, then the door for opposite-sex related persons marrying is now open. Unless someone can provide a reason as to why they shouldn't be able to marry. So far, mums the word on that.

Slippery slope fallacy. And of course, irrelevant to any ruling made by the USSC this year.

 

[Skylar]

If marriage is no longer one man/one woman, then the door for opposite-sex related persons marrying is now open. Unless someone can provide a reason as to why they shouldn't be able to marry. So far, mums the word on that.

Slippery Slope fallacy.

A number of countries have had marriage equality for over a decade. Which countries marry gays and also marry siblings? What that? None you say? Yeah...real slippery.

Lots of countries allow polygamy. Any of them also allow gays to marry?

Gays want to marry the non familial consenting adult of their choice...just like straights do.

Bigots used to discriminate based on race...now they want to do it based on gender.

Exactly. Opponents of same sex marriage can say that race based cases have nothing to do with sexual orientation based cases. But the courts contradict them. Between Romer and Windsor, the two seminal gay rights cases in the last 20 years, the courts cited 4 different race based cases when describing why the constitutional guarantees of gays may not be violated.

Ending any debate if the citation of race based cases is relevant to gay rights cases in the eyes of the court. Of course they are. As unconstitutional discrimination is unconstitutional discrimination. The basis is irrelevant.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

I wonder how many more years America will have to put up with Mr. Thomas.

We are going to replace him with Sarah Palin when the honorable Justice retires.

 

[TheOldSchool]

I wonder how many more years America will have to put up with Mr. Thomas.

We are going to replace him with Sarah Palin when the honorable Justice retires.

Well it wouldn't be the dumbest thing the GOP's ever done.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If marriage is no longer one man/one woman, then the door for opposite-sex related persons marrying is now open. Unless someone can provide a reason as to why they shouldn't be able to marry. So far, mums the word on that.

Incorrect.

You and others hostile to gay Americans have been given the reason several times as to why this fails as a slippery slope fallacy, and why persons who are related to each other may not marry – that you fail to understand why or refuse to understand why is your responsibility.

The mistake you make is to incorrectly perceive marriage as being 'changed,' when in fact it is not; no 'doors' are being opened, no marriage laws are being rewritten or amended to accommodate same-sex couples, as they are already eligible to enter into marriage contracts.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Supreme Court is not being asked, and will not be addressing any question other than whether same gender couples have the same right to legal marriage as an opposite gender couple.

The question of other relationships are a separate topic which you are welcome to pursue, but I am not going to in this thread.

On the contrary, Justices on the US Supreme Court are intimately aware of "same or simliar" cases that might pend before them on the identical petition for "rights" using "equality" as the argument than any other court in the country:

http://faculty.ucmerced.edu/thansford/Articles/Explaining the Overruling of U.S. Supreme Court Precedent.pdf
Justice Kennedy's opinion suggests, the doctrine of stare decisis, by which
courts follow the legal precedents articulated in previously decided cases, does
not preclude the Supreme Court from overruling a prior case. Yet, as Justice
Kennedy also states in his opinion,
stare decisis is "'of fundamental importance
to the rule of law"' (491 U.S. 164, at 172). Adherence to precedent re-
portedly serves such goals as clarity, stability, and predictability in the law (Douglas
[I9491 1979; Powell 1990; Rasmusen 1994; Stevens 1983), efficiency (Landes
and Posner 1976; Stevens 1983), legitimacy (Knight and Epstein 1996; Powell
1990, 286-87; Stevens 1983, 2), and fairness and impartiality (Freed 1996;
Padden 1994). Justices and scholars alike argue that for these reasons the Court
is loathe to overrule past cases

Since the church of LGBT is arguing that the majority objecting to their behaviors as fit to marry (or more importantly, to parent in marriage the voiceless/voteless children of our country) is "unfair", then any future majority objecting to any other behaviors being fit to marry or parent will be seen as equally arbitrary and inapplicable to "rights" via "equality".

You'd better bet your stinky britches those Justices will be not just thinking about, but also talking about polygamy (the number two is no more or less magical or taboo than man/woman if the family is to be shattered this way) and any other conceivable combination of people who they know FOR A FACT will be knocking at their door within a year's time or less of any federal mandate they might (or might not) force the states to assimilate against their majority rule.

My premise rests on behaviors not being equal to race....and that human behaviors, so far, have never gotten special consitutional recognition. How could they? Because that would nullify local penal and civil codes which are nothing but the majority regulating human behaviors according to self-rule.

This behavioral-movement is going to harm democracy if the Supremes are negligent in considering these wider ramifications of setting a new precedent where "behaviors = race"..

Think: Anne Heche.

Anne Heche was gay .... until she decided she wasn't.

A choice she is at liberty to make in accordance with the right to decide for oneself matters both personal and private, absent interference by the state.

Whether homosexuality manifest as a consequence of birth or choice is legally irrelevant; it is the right to make that choice which is entitled to Constitutional protections, as well as the human condition of being gay.

 

[Silhouette]

Whether homosexuality manifest as a consequence of birth or choice is legally irrelevant; it is the right to make that choice which is entitled to Constitutional protections, as well as the human condition of being gay.

You can choose to parade naked down main street too, and apparently your cult does this liberally in front of kids as a matter of sober "pride". Your freedom of choice and fully protected litigious army of LGBT lifestylists may enjoy many rights; but subjecting childrens' formative environment (marriage) to those choices is not one of your rights.

Your rights end where they allude to infringing upon the rights of children. And that is, legally, because children are the least potent class in the marriage conversation: they cannot vote.

And whereas you would say "their impotence means they are not part of the conversation!" (as I've heard many LGBT cultees summate); I would say "BECAUSE they are impotent, the are the primary consideration of the marriage conversation."

I've heard all manner of rationalization from your ilk on suppressing the voices of the voteless in this conversation. Here are some of them:

1. Kids don't have legal rights.

2. Kids just have to adapt to whatever situation adults want to immerse them in.

3. Kids if they are unhappy can be emancipated if they don't like it when they are of age.

And none of those arguments are kid friendly. Which in itself is a problem coming from your camp.

But the worst and most insidious rationale with respect to the title of this thread is "the children of gay households are in immediate legal harm" It at once fools the Justices into thinking that your camp is eager to consider the welfare of kids; while at the same time it lulls the Court into thinking "we've covered the bases on the question of children's interest in this conversation....so as a result we are denying stays/Deciding the case early in advance of the Hearing on the merits, in favor of the cult of LGBT".

It ignores the 100s of millions of kids to be born into the future under the ramifications of the Prince's Trust survey on kids lacking their gender as an adult role model. It also ignores federal court procedures and legality itself..even the fundamentals of democracy the the limitations of the powers of the US Supreme Court.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Whether homosexuality manifest as a consequence of birth or choice is legally irrelevant; it is the right to make that choice which is entitled to Constitutional protections, as well as the human condition of being gay.

You can choose to parade naked down main street too, and apparently your cult does this liberally in front of kids as a matter of sober "pride". Your freedom of choice and fully protected litigious army of LGBT lifestylists may enjoy many rights; but subjecting childrens' formative environment (marriage) to those choices is not one of your rights.

Translation:

“I have an unwarranted fear and hatred of gays, I seek to use the law to do them harm in violation of the Constitution.”

 

[Dana7360]

They were already eligible to marry.

It changes the definition of what marriage has been in America.

So?

Why shouldn't two brothers be allowed to marry and take advantage of the benefits? Two consenting adults, hurting no one.

Sounds like you have some parades to organize. Best of luck.

Changing the definition opens the door. For example:

Please explain why two brothers, two consenting adults, shouldn't be allowed to marry. To take advantage of the benefits. How will that harm you?

It will harm our law and justice system.

It's against the law to marry a direct relative. It has been illegal since before I was born. You'll have to wait until either the laws are rewritten or a court strikes it down for being unconstitutional.

You better start saving your pennies now. The legal fees will be extremely high. You better not be toward the end of your life because it's going to take decades to change it, if it's possible.

 

[Dana7360]

Not anymore it isn't...just like the definition isn't black people marrying black people and white people marrying white people. Just like the definition of voting is no longer white male land owners. The basic definition of marriage has not changed, only who is allowed to do it.

How many times do I have to wish you luck? Go ahead and try. Challenge the court to marry your brother. As long as siblings are preventing from procreating if they marry, I don't give a shit.

So homosexuals weren't allowed to marry prior to ssm being around?

So brothers or sisters can marry each other ... but that doesn't change what marriage is either. Weird.

No, not right now they can't, but you seem to think that there is no rational basis to discriminate against siblings marrying each other. That has nothing to do with gays and lesbians marrying.

You have as much right to challenge the prohibitions on incest marriage as gays did to challenge anti gay marriage laws. Good luck.

You misread my post. I'm saying ... you are fine with brothers and sisters marrying each other and believe that doesn't change what marriage is.

Marriage is whatever we say it is. We invented it.

Prior to the gay marriage push, when asked, the public overwhelmingly said it is between one man/one woman. Judges said f-you.

Not in my state. In fact when the republicans had power in my state's congress, they passed a bill that outlawed gay marriage. It was challenged all the way to the state supreme court which ruled that it's constitutional to discriminate against gay people. So gays couldn't get married.

Then in 2012 a petition was written. Enough of the voters signed it to get it on the ballot in 2012. The people voted in a good majoirty margin that gays can get married. So gays have been able to get married here since 2012.

When will you stop lying?

I know you will never honestly answer this but I'm going to ask anyway. How does gay people getting married harm you or our nation?