Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Mictlantecuhtli]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/28/us/politics/political-success-can-be-a-setback-in-gay-rights.html

... momentum in the political world for gay rights could actually limit momentum in the legal world. While the court may throw out a federal law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, the justices signaled over two days of arguments that they might not feel compelled to intervene further, since the democratic process seems to be playing out on its own, state by state, elected official by elected official.

Yeah, because the SCOTUS should defer and let the states decide how they ostracize a minority because they are gay. Just like they did with segregation, right? Because all those states got rid of discrimination on their own and it totally didn't require new regulation and law redefinition.

You know, I can't help but see some comparisons to be made here [Between now and the Civil Rights movement]. Some folks just vehemently do not want equal rights for everyone, pathetic as that is in our country.

But, there is much hope to depend on their already-set precedent. The following case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Aaaand there we go. If they aren't spineless hacks they'll just point to previous rulings and stay in line with it.

Easily argued that the 14th applies directly to this situation, as well.

[Mephansteras]

But, there is much hope to depend on their already-set precedent. The following case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Aaaand there we go. If they aren't spineless hacks they'll just point to previous rulings and stay in line with it.

Indeed.

Of course, this case has the additional wrinkle of the Definition of Marriage being 'changed' by allowing gay marriage. And you get stupid arguments about it leading to stuff like people marrying their dog or house or whatever. Which is ridiculous, since broadening a definition that was 'two adult humans (male and female)' to 'two adult humans' doesn't really lead to any of that other stuff, it still gets people worked up.

I really hope they have more backbone on this, but I kinda doubt they will.

[GreatJustice]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/28/us/politics/political-success-can-be-a-setback-in-gay-rights.html

... momentum in the political world for gay rights could actually limit momentum in the legal world. While the court may throw out a federal law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, the justices signaled over two days of arguments that they might not feel compelled to intervene further, since the democratic process seems to be playing out on its own, state by state, elected official by elected official.

Yeah, because the SCOTUS should defer and let the states decide how they ostracize a minority because they are gay. Just like they did with segregation, right? Because all those states got rid of discrimination on their own and it totally didn't require new regulation and law redefinition.

You know, I can't help but see some comparisons to be made here [Between now and the Civil Rights movement]. Some folks just vehemently do not want equal rights for everyone, pathetic as that is in our country.

But, there is much hope to depend on their already-set precedent. The following case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Aaaand there we go. If they aren't spineless hacks they'll just point to previous rulings and stay in line with it.

Easily argued that the 14th applies directly to this situation, as well.

The real question is why marriage has anything to do with the government at all. It shouldn't even have legal recognition, it should be, at least in secular terms, be a contract like any other. Thus, the angry fundamentalist priest can refuse to marry the gay couple and the happy and tolerant priest can marry Jim and his washcloth (assuming the washcloth gives consent). Problem solved.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The real question is why marriage has anything to do with the government at all. It shouldn't even have legal recognition, it should be, at least in secular terms, be a contract like any other. Thus, the angry fundamentalist priest can refuse to marry the gay couple and the happy and tolerant priest can marry Jim and his washcloth (assuming the washcloth gives consent). Problem solved.

It is a secular contract like any other. A religious figure can receive certification to marry people, but it has nothing to do with religion explicitly. You can just as easily be married by a justice of the peace.

The fact of the matter is that marriage in the US has legal benefits and is a legal state. This makes it a government issue. If bigoted priests don't want to marry gay couples and they have a certification, well, too fucking bad. You can't refuse to marry mixed-race couples either.

[Sheb]

It's pretty impressive to see how quickly seems to be moving for gay marriage now that we've reached what seems like a tipping point. Who would have predicted that 2 years ago?

Now, I'm really hoping for the same regarding Global Warming *cross his gingers*

[GreatJustice]

The real question is why marriage has anything to do with the government at all. It shouldn't even have legal recognition, it should be, at least in secular terms, be a contract like any other. Thus, the angry fundamentalist priest can refuse to marry the gay couple and the happy and tolerant priest can marry Jim and his washcloth (assuming the washcloth gives consent). Problem solved.

It is a secular contract like any other. A religious figure can receive certification to marry people, but it has nothing to do with religion explicitly. You can just as easily be married by a justice of the peace.

The fact of the matter is that marriage in the US has legal benefits and is a legal state. This makes it a government issue. If bigoted priests don't want to marry gay couples and they have a certification, well, too fucking bad. You can't refuse to marry mixed-race couples either.

Then get rid of the legal benefits. Then priests can refuse whoever they want and it's largely irrelevant.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's pretty impressive to see how quickly seems to be moving for gay marriage now that we've reached what seems like a tipping point. Who would have predicted that 2 years ago?

That would be me. It's honestly not that surprising. We've been on the upcurve for a while and the impending judgment from SCOTUS is just hurrying it along. I still find it hilarious how the unconstitutional anti-gay legislation is now being used to back it because of how unconstitutional it is.

*cross his gingers*

Quit trying to summon daemons.

Then get rid of the legal benefits. Then priests can refuse whoever they want and it's largely irrelevant.

The priests can refuse who they want already, they just have to not be legally certified to marry people.

The legal benefits are important for long-term couples, like joint taxes, hospital visitation rights, and a clarification on child custody. Perhaps most importantly, there is no good reason to privatize marriage when we already have a perfectly good solution to this problem already. It is dissolution for the sake of dissolution.

[penguinofhonor]

MSH, who's going to win the 2016 election? I have some bets to place.

[Nadaka]

The real question is why marriage has anything to do with the government at all. It shouldn't even have legal recognition, it should be, at least in secular terms, be a contract like any other. Thus, the angry fundamentalist priest can refuse to marry the gay couple and the happy and tolerant priest can marry Jim and his washcloth (assuming the washcloth gives consent). Problem solved.

It is a secular contract like any other. A religious figure can receive certification to marry people, but it has nothing to do with religion explicitly. You can just as easily be married by a justice of the peace.

The fact of the matter is that marriage in the US has legal benefits and is a legal state. This makes it a government issue. If bigoted priests don't want to marry gay couples and they have a certification, well, too fucking bad. You can't refuse to marry mixed-race couples either.

Then get rid of the legal benefits. Then priests can refuse whoever they want and it's largely irrelevant.

The legal benefits are important and deeply integrated into society. Marriage determines who has your power of attorney, who can visit you in the hospital, who benefits are transferred to in the event of death, how an estate is divided in case someone dies without a will, who has legal authority over children, etc. In some cases these are things that can not be simply achieved by any other contract.

[Mephansteras]

Then get rid of the legal benefits. Then priests can refuse whoever they want and it's largely irrelevant.

Um...that's going to happen. Trying to take away people's benefits is guaranteed to cause a huge backlash. Especially since the legal benefits of marriage are linked to health care, taxes, and inheritance. I don't know very many people who would willingly give up those benefits.

Separating Marriage (social construct) from a Civil Union (legal contract) would be more workable, although people have a very sentimental attachment to Marriage being legally binding. Probably because Marriage having social, religious, and legal weight makes it feel more important to people. That part's more conjecture, though, since I haven't seen any studies on it or anything.

-- and Ninja'd. Ah, well.

[penguinofhonor]

Wait, it's legal to gamble on elections, right?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

MSH, who's going to win the 2016 election? I have some bets to place.

The Democratic candidate, most likely Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. But not a Republican, unless they're a moderate Texan Hispanic, or in other words, no.

Wait, it's legal to gamble on elections, right?

You are saying that like it matters.

[palsch]

Wait, it's legal to gamble on elections, right?

Sure.

Wait, where do you live?

Maybe.

[Jervill]

It would be more prudent to be concerned about the 2014 House and Senate elections.

And potentially gamble on those, too.

[palsch]

And potentially gamble on those, too.

Always.

Although I have to say, I've not seen any reliable indicators as of yet. I was expecting to at least see which way the wind was blowing with all the fuss around gay marriage this week, but have had a hard time sensing any serious trends.