•
•

Supreme Court approves same sex marriage. (hosted.ap.org)

the_galactic_squid が 投稿

全 67 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]fratsyuk 36ポイント37ポイント  (9子コメント)

Hopefully this issue can for the most part be put to rest so we can focus on other matters. Not to belittle gay rights, but I feel that there are more pressing issues.

[–]deathwheel 17ポイント18ポイント  (1子コメント)

Was the abortion issue put to rest in 1973?

[–]fratsyuk 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

No, I'm guilty of wishful thinking.

[–]Based_life 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

Couldn't agree more. I wouldn't vote for or against someone based solely upon their stance on this issue.

[–]yaschobob 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yeah, that's because you're not a victim of such discrimination. There is no more pressing issue than denial of rights.

[–]fratsyuk 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, I figured it would come off that way and I truly do not know that kind of discrimination. The better way of saying it would be that this is something we should have settled by now and it shouldn't have to be as monumental as it is. No minority should have restricted rights. But looking forward, we have issues that could cripple the nation at large and not just a single minority.

[–]djweinerscience -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

At the same time of this ruling, 38 people in three different incidences were murdered by Islamist extremists across the pond. The one in France is a suspected extremist, but I digress...many more pressing things to address. Time to move on.

[–]AKSasquatchLibertarian Atheist -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'd like to think this will be the end of it but it won't. The gay community has power now, and they're not going to give that up because they have equal rights. Pfft why do that. Kinda like how the black community has equal rights and... there still seems to be a problem.

[–]The_Pale_Blue_Dot 39ポイント40ポイント  (6子コメント)

I'm sure some will think this is a defeat for Conservatism, but on the contrary, it's a victory. We shouldn't pursue "traditional values" when it comes at the expense of liberty. Traditional values are about embodying family, not denying people the rights to equality. Now gay people can create unified families the same way we can, without being divided.

[–]Natetendo83 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

As long as it doesn't impose the system on religious institutions that believe that marriage is one man and one woman it's fine. I think there is some concern, whether warranted or not I'm not sure, that churches may get "forced" into doing same sex weddings.

I think at this point it's best to just let whoever get married to whoever, but don't force people who disagree to perform the ceremony as there will be plenty of places who will perform the marriage itself.

I just can't believe there's this much uproar over something that grants a title to such a small portion of the population. Can we now move on to more pressing matters?

[–]longrifleLibertarian Conservative 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Very very well put. Government denying folks liberties that were afforded to others is what we stand against.

[–]quakerortsHighly evolved palette 19ポイント20ポイント  (9子コメント)

Equal protection.

[–]TearsForPeersConstitutionalist -3ポイント-2ポイント  (4子コメント)

Lets see if that 'equal protection' extends to those churches who refuse to perform same sex wedding ceremonies based on 1st amendment rights.

Because everyone knows that instead of finding a church open to same sex unions, there will be a case attempting to force a church that opposes same sex unions to perform one.

[–]c45c73 15ポイント16ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is about getting a license from your local clerk, not about where to hold the ceremony.

[–]lightermann 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

The majority opinion notes the 1st amendment protections for churches in the opinion itself.

[–]qwertpoi 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'd have to call bullshit on that if they tried.

If straight people don't have any right to force a church to marry them, there's no serious grounds on which a homosexual couple could force the issue.

Although, IF the Court makes homosexuality a 'protected class' then almost anything could happen.

[–]BringerOfDestruction -3ポイント-2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Kind of. Also Substantive Due Process.

Court found a "right to marry" implied in the penumbras of the Constitution.

I don't disapprove of gay marriage. I disapprove of law-making by 5 justices.

[–]shapu 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

The same thing happened with Loving v. Virginia. Did you disapprove of it then?

If so, more power to you for your intellectual consistency, but you are wrong in both cases. The Supreme Court must step in when laws run counter to Constitutionally-protected rights. They are the last gatekeeper to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

[–]AKSasquatchLibertarian Atheist 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Now.....get me my weed.

[–]Kidkash3000 0ポイント1ポイント  (13子コメント)

Down vote me if you must but after reading the ruling there is no logic in it that can't also be used to support polygamy. I think that will be the next marriage battle.

[–]dongsuvious 11ポイント12ポイント  (2子コメント)

What's wrong with polygamy?

[–]ajswdf 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

The problem with polygamy is the legal details. Same sex marriage was easy because nothing about the legal institution has anything to do with gender (part of the reason why it was made legal), however polygamy would require a real change in law. If I marry Woman A, and then I marry Woman B, then what would the legal relationship between those two women be? Would Woman A have to sign off on the marriage? If I then got divorced from Woman A, would Woman B's assets be included?

[–]BringerOfDestruction 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

We the People define marriage.

Not the constitution.

[–]ManBoyChildBear 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Curious, what's the issue with polygamy? Three consenting adults that all love each other isn't much different from two in my experience. I get that it's a difficult legal matter in division of property and a more complicated Union, but I don't get the negative moral stigma to it, outside of the forced underage polygamist marriages that used to happen, but those weren't consenting adults

[–]Sirisian 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

The issue is people asked for special rights in regards to marriage. Things like taxes and immigration. Defining special rights for groups of people will invariably cause issues. Removing marriage from the government would remove a lot of the complication.

[–]kierkkadon 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

My understanding of gov't administration of marriage is this: marriage is a social event, a set of vows and/or a ceremony that a couple performs. Marriage is between the couple and the people they share it with, not between them and the state. The state cannot stop you from having a ceremony, saying your vows, calling each other husband/wife/whatever.

However, since almost always a married couple behaves, for the purposes of taxes and property administration, as a single unit rather than as individuals, certain privileges and altered status were set aside to reflect this and result in more ease of administration for both the state and the couple.

This action by the court merely states that the administrative privileges (represented by a marriage license) typically granted to heterosexual married couples must also be granted to homosexual married couples. Specifically that to deny that license in the grounds of "nigga, you gay" is unconstitutional.

[–]shapu 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Perhaps it will be. I actually look forward to that argument, and to the "traditional definition of marriage" arguments which would of course willfully ignore that marriage, in its most traditional western sense (i.e. pulled from both the bible and greek/roman systems of democracy and law) was often polygamous.

[–]irieCO 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

What's wrong with polygamy? If three, four or five adults want to enter into a voluntary contract why is that a crime? If myself and three of my friends want to enter into a contract to start a business, why shouldn't we be allowed to enter into a contract for marriage?

Marriage isn't some magical, fantastical state of being. At the end of the day it's just a legal contract between consenting adults.

[–]fratsyuk 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Generally, it is seen as archaic.

Legally speaking, it could probably work but when things begin to fall apart it would get messy. Family law with divorce and such is complicated enough between two people, so adding a third or however many more would create nightmares. I know this wouldn't affect everyone considering few would probably enter into such marriages, but this would severely complicate issues such as division of property, custody rights, child support, and probably a bunch of other things we haven't even thought of yet. A business relationship isn't quite the same because a number of rights and obligations specific to marriage exist that do not in business.

[–]IIIISuperDudeIIII -5ポイント-4ポイント  (0子コメント)

You sound like a liberal.

[–]okeydoki -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Regardless of the truth or falsity of your first point, your second point is mind numbingly stupid. What on Earth leads you to believe that? Do you have any empirical evidence that would support that whatsoever? Whether it be a national poll, state poll, municipal poll, peer reviewed study, reputable publication's prediction, etc?

[–]Poised_Platypus -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The justices went out of their way to say that the "two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals". The label "two-person union" will hopefully keep us out of that battle, but the left keeps pushing for more and more so who knows.

[–]Yesofcoursenaturally -5ポイント-4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Am I the only one who rolled their eyes at Roberts' dissent? After yesterday, I can't take him seriously anymore. If it would have gone 5-4 against gay marriage without his vote, I suspect he'd have simply switched sides.