ot. marriage is totally gay.

User Forum Topic
Submitted by scaredyclassic on June 26, 2015 - 9:03am

Sure it's a victory of sorts. But I find myself nostalgic for the old days when my gay friends,were edgier, weirder, cooler, getting laid like crazy.... This just makes gay so dull like the rest of us. Equality is better I suppose. But I miss my youth.

I miss gay from the 70s and 80s.

Submitted by spdrun on June 26, 2015 - 9:19am.

Maybe you should go into divorce law -- should grow by at least 10% in the next few years...

In all seriousness, court's been on a roll the past week or so. Between the LAPD motel register privacy case, the ACA case, and this.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on June 26, 2015 - 9:50am.

Gay marriage is legal. But the opinion doesn't mention divorce. Conservatives may argue that at Gay people are stuck in their marriage. All the straight people can then flee the institution and set up a new type of marriage. Call it straight marriage. We can give new special benefits to married straights, like free ponies.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on June 26, 2015 - 10:31am.

I was hoping that ACA and gay marriage would continue to be issues in 2016.
As a political sportsman, I would rather have had political matches as the legislative level in every state. Great entertainment. We would have ended up with a progressive America, and a redneck America. People and businesses would have voted with their feet and eventually redneck America would have been totally huminiliated and impoverished into capitulation.

But for the sake of the Union and national unity, I'm gratified that my side has won on so many front. We won because we have better, superior ideas.

Submitted by an on June 26, 2015 - 10:58am.

FlyerInHi wrote:
I was hoping that ACA and gay marriage would continue to be issues in 2016.
As a political sportsman, I would rather have had political matches as the legislative level in every state. Great entertainment. We would have ended up with a progressive America, and a redneck America. People and businesses would have voted with their feet and eventually redneck America would have been totally huminiliated and impoverished into capitulation.

But for the sake of the Union and national unity, I'm gratified that my side has won on so many front. We won because we have better, superior ideas.

Life must be good when you live in black and white.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on June 26, 2015 - 11:13am.

AN wrote:
FlyerInHi wrote:
I was hoping that ACA and gay marriage would continue to be issues in 2016.
As a political sportsman, I would rather have had political matches as the legislative level in every state. Great entertainment. We would have ended up with a progressive America, and a redneck America. People and businesses would have voted with their feet and eventually redneck America would have been totally huminiliated and impoverished into capitulation.

But for the sake of the Union and national unity, I'm gratified that my side has won on so many front. We won because we have better, superior ideas.

Life must be good when you live in black and white.

50 shades of grey...one 4 each state...

Submitted by Rich Toscano on June 26, 2015 - 11:22am.

FlyerInHi wrote:
As a political sportsman....

Barf.

Brian, due to your checkered past, you have very little leeway on the political flame war front. Please dispense with your attempts to rekindle the right vs. left tribalist bullshit -- now, and forever.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on June 26, 2015 - 12:43pm.

AN][quote=FlyerInHi wrote:
I Life must be good when you live in black and white.

A major victory for your team calls for celebrations and gloating. Likely one of most significant civil rights advancement in a lifetime.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on June 26, 2015 - 12:47pm.

Scaredy, young people use the word "gay" to mean boring and unexciting. With this decision, gay marriage has become just like straight marriage. Did you mean it that way?

Submitted by Rich Toscano on June 26, 2015 - 1:05pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:

A major victory for your team calls for celebrations and gloating. Likely one of most significant civil rights advancement in a lifetime.

A victory for civil rights (which I agree with) --> awesome, bring on the celebration

A victory for your "team" --> not interested, please go elsewhere with your "team" nonsense

There are a million places on the web to get into left vs. right flamewars. This isn't one of them, despite your repeated efforts.

If you want to talk about policy, be my guest. But take the tribalism elsewhere. I'm serious.

Submitted by spdrun on June 26, 2015 - 1:12pm.

Jeebus X. Khrist on a unicycle, no sense of humor here?

I'm all for watching a good political fight. ding-ding-ding BRING IT!

Submitted by FlyerInHi on June 26, 2015 - 1:41pm.

Policywise, the Supreme Court spared the country a bruising, divisive culture war that would have eventually resulted in legal gay marriage nationwide anyway.

I admire Justice Roberts for guiding the court so far. But in this case he sided with the wrong side of history. And that will negatively affect his legacy.

Submitted by Rich Toscano on June 26, 2015 - 2:42pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
Policywise, the Supreme Court spared the country a bruising, divisive culture war that would have eventually resulted in legal gay marriage nationwide anyway.

I admire Justice Roberts for guiding the court so far. But in this case he sided with the wrong side of history. And that will negatively affect his legacy.

See, now that's sticking to the issues. Nice work. Is that so hard?

Submitted by Rich Toscano on June 26, 2015 - 2:46pm.

spdrun wrote:
Jeebus X. Khrist on a unicycle, no sense of humor here?

I'm all for watching a good political fight. ding-ding-ding BRING IT!

I don't see where sense of humor comes into it... nothing Brian said was funny (at least not on purpose -- I found the phrase "As a political sportsman" quite hilariously lame, but I don't think that was the intended effect).

Anyway, this site is not for political fights... if that's what you are looking for there are plenty of other places on the net to find it. FlyerinHI is well aware of the site policy towards this kind of thing (which is pretty much the only policy there is... you'd think it would be easy to follow that one rule, but apparently not).

Submitted by an on June 26, 2015 - 3:11pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
Policywise, the Supreme Court spared the country a bruising, divisive culture war that would have eventually resulted in legal gay marriage nationwide anyway.

I admire Justice Roberts for guiding the court so far. But in this case he sided with the wrong side of history. And that will negatively affect his legacy.

Is that the role of the court? Are they there to spare the country from having a debate? If it's so inevitable, then why not let the people speak instead of having 9 people dictating it?

I support gay marriage, but I don't support how it came about. I would much rather have the majority open their minds and accept the idea themselves instead of having 9 high and mighty judges dictating it. Just look at the legalization of marijuana as a prime example of how quick things can turn around.

Submitted by jeff303 on June 26, 2015 - 3:25pm.

AN wrote:
Is that the role of the court? Are they there to spare the country from having a debate? If it's so inevitable, then why not let the people speak instead of having 9 people dictating it?

I support gay marriage, but I don't support how it came about. I would much rather have the majority open their minds and accept the idea themselves instead of having 9 high and mighty judges dictating it. Just look at the legalization of marijuana as a prime example of how quick things can turn around.

Their role is to ensure the Constitution isn't violated. That includes, among other things, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as well as the Equal Protection Clause. Both of these tenets have clearly been violated by every state that has forbade same-sex marriage (since those individuals were ineligible for legal and tax benefits, among many other things). Therefore, the court finally acted to protect those individuals' rights. It seems pretty simple to me.

Submitted by an on June 26, 2015 - 3:34pm.

jeff303 wrote:
Their role is to ensure the Constitution isn't violated. That includes, among other things, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as well as the Equal Protection Clause. Both of these tenets have clearly been violated by every state that has forbade same-sex marriage (since those individuals were ineligible for legal and tax benefits, among many other things). Therefore, the court finally acted to protect those individuals' rights. It seems pretty simple to me.
If that's the case, why now? Why did it take so long? Why not grant civil union all the legal and tax benefits as marriage? Also, why limit it to just 2 people? I don't think there are as many supporter for polygamy as same-sex marriage. Is it OK for them to have their rights limited as well?

Submitted by jeff303 on June 26, 2015 - 3:59pm.

AN wrote:
If that's the case, why now? Why did it take so long?

I don't know. Better late than never. Probably because it takes a loooong time for a suitable case to be brought and make it all the way to the Supreme Court, and for them to be able to rule on it in a broad way.

AN wrote:
Why not grant civil union all the legal and tax benefits as marriage?

Why should we go to the time and massive expense to rewrite millions of laws, rules, instructions, forms, documents, etc.? Sounds like massive government waste to me, for no discernible purpose.

AN wrote:
Also, why limit it to just 2 people? I don't think there are as many supporter for polygamy as same-sex marriage. Is it OK for them to have their rights limited as well?

Why, indeed? You're probably right about the level of support. As far as I'm concerned though, if the logistics could be worked out, I'd be all for it.

Submitted by poorgradstudent on June 26, 2015 - 4:33pm.

This is probably the nail in the coffin of opponents of gay marriage. The demographics just aren't in their favor, even young Republicans favor gay marriage by a small majority. It seems unlikely that the newly minted 18 year old voters are going to oppose gay marriage anywhere near their 75 year old granparents who they replace.

As for the ACA, that issue is far from settled. All the Supreme Court did was agree that the law is what it is. It could easily be repealed and replaced tomorrow if the Republicans can swing a supermajority in the Senate. You'll hear plenty about the ACA in the 2016 presidental election.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on June 26, 2015 - 5:30pm.

Marriage carries a TAX PENALTY for dual earners. I think this ruling was just to increase taxes.

Submitted by an on June 26, 2015 - 6:04pm.

That's the main problem with this way of going about it. If in the future, there are 5-6 right leaning activist judges, they can do the opposite and there won't be much we can do since this set the precedent, even if the majority at that time support gay marriage. Something as controversial as this, I want majority support instead of having the 5-6 judges dictating it.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on June 26, 2015 - 6:06pm.

I w Ish I were gay today. Be so cool.

Submitted by spdrun on June 26, 2015 - 6:06pm.

Once it's entrenched, I don't think anyone is going to want to invalidate hundreds of thousands of marriages.

Submitted by an on June 26, 2015 - 6:13pm.

spdrun wrote:
Once it's entrenched, I don't think anyone is going to want to invalidate hundreds of thousands of marriages.

They're not elected official, so why should they care? It's still a small quantity in grand scheme of things. the

Submitted by FlyerInHi on June 26, 2015 - 7:07pm.

AN, I agree with you. For selfish reasons I would rather have had a state by state war of attrition.
We all knew that gay marriage would come about sooner or later. It would've been fun to see a lone state holding out against pressure from around the world and the business community (kinda like the confederate flag, but bigger).

But for thousands of gays who want to get married, justice delayed is justice denied. They cannot wait another decade or 2. So the Supreme Court did the right thing.

BTW, Obama already recognizes gay marriage at the federal level if couples married wherever gay marriage is legal. Very progressive as compared to the previous administrations.

What about Brown v board of education?
Should the Supreme Court have left it to the states?

Submitted by Coronita on June 26, 2015 - 8:00pm.

scaredyclassic wrote:
Marriage carries a TAX PENALTY for dual earners. I think this ruling was just to increase taxes.

Ding ding ding!

Submitted by no_such_reality on June 26, 2015 - 8:59pm.

spdrun wrote:
Jeebus X. Khrist on a unicycle, no sense of humor here?

I'm all for watching a good political fight. ding-ding-ding BRING IT!

I'm not, we've had between 15-25 of mind-numbing political fighting for my side versus your side.

Where has it gotten us? 15 years of war. another $12 Trillion in debt, neutured corporate oversight, government by dollar.

Sure, gay marriage is a victory, while we've nibbled away on reproductive rights, turned the country into a police state.

So we've gained the right to to have gays get married by giving away how much more over the last 15 years of political fighting? This is the true cost of my side and the wrong side view to politics.

Submitted by spdrun on June 26, 2015 - 9:02pm.

Actually, there were several other decent decisions this week.

Read about the LAPD hotel data case for one. Baby steps.

Interestingly, Scalia (for all his other nutjobbery) is proving to be a strong supporter of the fourth amendment and often sides with more liberal justices.

Submitted by an on June 26, 2015 - 9:31pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
AN, I agree with you. For selfish reasons I would rather have had a state by state war of attrition.
We all knew that gay marriage would come about sooner or later. It would've been fun to see a lone state holding out against pressure from around the world and the business community (kinda like the confederate flag, but bigger).

But for thousands of gays who want to get married, justice delayed is justice denied. They cannot wait another decade or 2. So the Supreme Court did the right thing.

BTW, Obama already recognizes gay marriage at the federal level if couples married wherever gay marriage is legal. Very progressive as compared to the previous administrations.

What about Brown v board of education?
Should the Supreme Court have left it to the states?

I want to done right. I don't want it to be rush which open the door for possible overturn later. As I said, the way they did it today, it gives precedence to future over turning it if we ever get a 5-6 right leaning justices. I also don't want 9 unelected people deciding what's right/wrong for the country. I want to people to have a say in what they want from their country. Rightly or wrongly (to a certain extent), it's up to Americans to decide their own destiny.

Submitted by an on June 26, 2015 - 9:36pm.

jeff303 wrote:
Why, indeed? You're probably right about the level of support. As far as I'm concerned though, if the logistics could be worked out, I'd be all for it.
What logistic? I personally think polygamy should be legal as well, along w/ gay marriage. If this decision is about restoring people's right, then why are we not applying it for an even smaller minority w/in our population? I bet if you poll all the supporter of gay marriage, my bet is most would say no to polygamy. Which annoys me, because that show their hypocrisy.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on June 26, 2015 - 9:43pm.

AN, nothing is stopping legislators from passing laws to affirm the Supreme Court's decision.

btw, in ok with polygamy. Maybe in 20 years polygamists will get their way.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.