Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I kind of wanna have a party now. But at the same time, I just am happy this thing is finally fething resolved now all we have to do is have society change with this court decision.

 whembly wrote:
There's calls right now to legalize polygamy.

Which should be done. I doubt it will happen any time soon, but the reasons for opposing it are just as terrible as the reasons for opposing gay marriage.

Personally, I'm still trying to wrap my head around how hilariously salty Scalia's dissent was.

It is going to be rather amusing watching republican presidential candidates tow the line. The scary thing here is that 4 judges voted against it.

While Scalia basically had a tantrum at how 'hippies are promiscuous feths' and other utter insanity, Thomas writes that he doesnt' believe the government can take away or reduce a human being's dignity, even if Americans are put into internment camps. Nor that Slavery reduced the dignity of people kidnapped, brutalized and forced into labor.

The Crazy's really coming out of the walls here.

FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:
It is going to be rather amusing watching republican presidential candidates tow the line. The scary thing here is that 4 judges voted against it.

Yeah, I mentioned earlier that things would have been a lot different if there had been one more conservative judge in the court instead. Which, ideally, shouldn't matter, as judges are supposed to be impartial and not beholden to liberal or conservative views (that's why I absolutely loath the idea of judges running for election as a member of any party).

At least two of the candidates have used the phrase "judicial tyranny" in their responses. One candidate has already promised to pack the court with conservatives if he gets elected. Only a few have been surprisingly rational in their responses, while most are basically being as inflammatory as they can. Political points to be scored with the party base, I guess. Too bad those same responses will be seen by the moderates they so desperately need to actually win in 2016. I foresee a lot of their comments from this week's rulings coming back to bite them in the ass come election time. It's like they have no sense of foresight, or they didn't learn from Romney's "47% mistake." Don't give the Ds easy ammunition to make you look like a hateful bigot.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:
It is going to be rather amusing watching republican presidential candidates tow the line. The scary thing here is that 4 judges voted against it.

Yeah, I mentioned earlier that things would have been a lot different if there had been one more conservative judge in the court instead. Which, ideally, shouldn't matter, as judges are supposed to be impartial and not beholden to liberal or conservative views (that's why I absolutely loath the idea of judges running for election as a member of any party).

At least two of the candidates have used the phrase "judicial tyranny" in their responses. One candidate has already promised to pack the court with conservatives if he gets elected. Only a few have been surprisingly rational in their responses, while most are basically being as inflammatory as they can. Political points to be scored with the party base, I guess. Too bad those same responses will be seen by the moderates they so desperately need to actually win in 2016. I foresee a lot of their comments from this week's rulings coming back to bite them in the ass come election time. It's like they have no sense of foresight, or they didn't learn from Romney's "47% mistake." Don't give the Ds easy ammunition to make you look like a hateful bigot.

Looks like Hilary has taken your advice to heart. She must chuckle when she sees what her opponents are saying about this. Easy points for Mrs Clinton.

It's almost as though the Republicans want her to win

 dogma wrote:
Personally, I'm still trying to wrap my head around how hilariously salty Scalia's dissent was.

Well then, do I have a video for you to watch!

Coheed and Cambria sing Justice Scalia's Dissenting Opinions!

I am very happy at this decision, and I sincerely, truly hope that the religious right will forever drop this issue. The mainstream of the religious right has actually come quite a long ways with race relations, and I'm guessing and hoping that their views on gay marriage will evolve in the same way as their views on interracial marriage have evolved.

Who knows, maybe even one day 20-25 years from now, a conservative Baptist pastor will actually want to officiate at a gay wedding, or conservative bakers may actually want to bake that gay wedding cake, the same way I assume most would be happy to help out with an interracial wedding today.

It's a great step forward, but it's just that. It's still legal to fire people in many states based on their sexuality and gender identity.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
There's calls right now to legalize polygamy.

Which should be done. I doubt it will happen any time soon, but the reasons for opposing it are just as terrible as the reasons for opposing gay marriage.

If they can figure out the logistics such as taxes and family insurance plans, go for it



On the issue of marriage between 2 people, I feel they made the morally correct decision. This isn't a theocracy, the bible should have zero say in our laws. People are entitled to their opinions, but conservatives who oppose equal rights really should rework their priorities list. Help the less fortunate, stop wearing polyester and eating shellfish, love thy neighbor, then if you have time afterwards tell gays to repent.

And a big round of applause for Coheed and Cambria.

MB

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:
If they can figure out the logistics such as taxes and family insurance plans, go for it

That's what lawyers are for. We can figure out the logistics of complicated business arrangements between lots of people, so a mere multi-person marriage shouldn't be too difficult.

Heh... is Harry Reid pay'n attention?

Supreme Court Sides With David Koch

The Supreme Court on Friday struck down state bans on same-sex marriage, bringing the United States one step closer to the freedom-loving utopia envisioned by right-leaning philanthropy baron David Koch.

Koch, who has publicly supported gay marriage since before Hillary Clinton flip-flopped on the issue, signed on to a Supreme Court brief in March urging the court to overturn same-sex marriage bans. Clinton, meanwhile, did not believe in a Constitutional right to gay marriage until April 15, 2015.

The court’s ruling is just the latest example of how the Koch brothers will be remembered as tireless champions of freedom who have consistently been on the right side of history. David Koch has donated generously to the arts and is an outspoken enemy of cancer, which has riled his critics on the Let's not paint entire sides of the political spectrum with such an offensive, inaccurate brush, motyak. His recent donation to a New York City hospital, for example, inspired an angry protest from liberal groups. Koch-backed efforts to reform our broken immigration and criminal justice systems are currently under attack from Democratic operatives loyal to Hillary Clinton.

Fortunately for America, these attacks are almost certain to fail. The arc of history is long, but it bends toward Koch.

Dick Cheney was also an early backer of gay marriage.

A+ trolling by freebacon.

In future, when posting articles from biased sites, please check them for offensive declarations and the like, motyak

Funny how NONE of the Koch's chosen "Champions" support gay Marriage.

I would say that says VASTLY MORE than his own personal claims.

If I were to claim that I supported Free bacon for everyone.

But I then hired a group of people to run immediately to every supermarket and buy all of the bacon and then destroy it (or hoard it for only a few people).

Then I really could not claim to be a supporter of "Free bacon for everyone," could I?

Same thing with David Koch.

He claims a LOT of things, yet if you look at where his money goes, NONE of what he claims to support is true on that basis.

MB

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of... family,"

So this is the ideals of family? Not judging on anyone on the basis of who they opt to feth but that's not the "ideal" that a lot of people share, for a significant portion of the population the notion of "ideal family" typically revolves around creation of their own offspring and future generations. While the legal prose is supposed to mean everyone is equal I think highest ideals is a very loaded/confrontational phrase when it comes to how the majority defines family.

 stanman wrote:
for a significant portion of the population the notion of "ideal family" typically revolves around creation of their own offspring and future generations.

1) Adoption.

2) Infertile couples (man + woman) are still allowed to get married, and nobody would question that their family is legitimate.

While the legal prose is supposed to mean everyone is equal I think highest ideals is a very loaded/confrontational phrase when it comes to how the majority defines family.

People who oppose gay marriage are a minority. The majority believe (correctly) that "family" is defined in a way that gay couples are included.

 stanman wrote:

So this is the ideals of family? Not judging on anyone on the basis of who they opt to feth but that's not the "ideal" that a lot of people share, for a significant portion of the population the notion of "ideal family" typically revolves around creation of their own offspring and future generations. While the legal prose is supposed to mean everyone is equal I think highest ideals is a very loaded/confrontational phrase when it comes to how the majority defines family.

The Justice wasn't discussing what makes for an ideal family, nor should he have as that is a matter for the individual to decide, rather noting that family is an ideal which the union of marriage embodies.

 Peregrine wrote:

 stanman wrote:
for a significant portion of the population the notion of "ideal family" typically revolves around creation of their own offspring and future generations.

1) Adoption.

2) Infertile couples (man + woman) are still allowed to get married, and nobody would question that their family is legitimate.

Adoption is a secondary option, I think that if you asked most couples about their ideal marriage/situation it would be having their own biological offspring whenever possible. Adoption is admirable and makes for a form of family but it's also not the same. I have several friends who were adopted at birth and while they love their adopted parents they still feel there's a difference in that family connection that sets them apart from non-adoptive family members. The older the kids are when they are adopted the larger that void seems to be. In an adoptive relationship you may raise the child and guide them with love but they still aren't your genetic child, in effect it's much like being a teacher or caretaker where you can have a huge positive impact on the child's life but no matter what efforts you undertake that child is never your actual offspring.

I don't think ability to have children should be a qualification to make marriage legit, but when you ask most people how they define an "ideal family" children are pretty much always at the top of that list as they view family to extend beyond themselves and in a perfect ideal scenario that means kids of their own blood.

While the legal prose is supposed to mean everyone is equal I think highest ideals is a very loaded/confrontational phrase when it comes to how the majority defines family.

People who oppose gay marriage are a minority. The majority believe (correctly) that "family" is defined in a way that gay couples are included.

Hard to say, a loud vocal minority contrasted with a silent majority can appear to have approval of the majority simply because the majority isn't being vocal about their beliefs. They may not openly protest against it but their silence shouldn't be assumed to be agreement.

 stanman wrote:
Adoption is a secondary option, I think that if you asked most couples about their ideal marriage/situation it would be having their own biological offspring whenever possible.

Sure, in some absolute perfect ideal world. But when someone talks about "embodying ideals" they don't necessarily mean absolute perfection. A gay couple that adopts children might only be 99.9999% of that perfect ideal, but complaining about that last 0.00001% is just nitpicking. It's like disputing a claim that a war hero "embodies the ideal of courage" by bring up the fact that once, when they were a kid, they ran away from a spider.

Hard to say, a loud vocal minority contrasted with a silent majority can appear to have approval of the majority simply because the majority isn't being vocal about their beliefs. They may not openly protest against it but their silence shouldn't be assumed to be agreement.

So when polls show that the majority (by a solid margin) supports gay marriage we're supposed to conclude that people are lying in their answers and the truth is that there's a silent majority that is opposed to it? Or are the polling companies just lying (putting their entire reputation and profitability at stake) about their data? Do you have any evidence for this belief that the polls are wrong, or does it just conveniently line up with your other beliefs?

The simple fact here is that the opposition to gay marriage is very quickly becoming an irrelevant minority, just like opposition to interracial marriage did. And I suspect that history will judge them just as poorly.

How'd you come up with that 99%?

If there was no benefit under the law to being married, I think things would be a bit different. Just because people don't care who someone else chooses to feth (you know, because it's none of their business) doesn't mean that's going to change what a natural (see: biological) nuclear family is.

 cincydooley wrote:
How'd you come up with that 99%?

By careful scientific study of exactly what percentage of an average couple's happiness comes from having children with their own DNA.

If there was no benefit under the law to being married, I think things would be a bit different. Just because people don't care who someone else chooses to feth (you know, because it's none of their business) doesn't mean that's going to change what a natural (see: biological) nuclear family is.

Why does this concept of a "natural family" matter? We let infertile couples marry, we let couples that don't want to have children marry, we let couples with children from previous marriages marry, we let married couples permanently remove their ability to have children, etc. In fact, the only time anyone seems to care about the "natural family" is when they need an argument (other than blatant bigotry) to justify their opposition to gay marriage.

So you just made it up. Got it.

I couldn't care less about gay marriage, aside from the fact that I don't believe the government should have anything to do with marriage whatsoever.

You're the one that made a claim about "family". Not me.

Marriage has nothing to do with what a "natural" family unit is. At all.

A thought just occurred to me after seeing some of the recent conservative responses to the ruling, especially given some of the choice words they used ("judicial tyranny" and so on). How do their words compare to, say, the responses to Brown vs. Board of Education? I did some quick Googling, but didn't find any "soundbites" to compare with.

 cincydooley wrote:
So you just made it up. Got it.

I couldn't care less about gay marriage, aside from the fact that I don't believe the government should anything to do with marriage whatsoever.

You're the one that made a claim about "family". Not me.

Marriage has nothing to do with what a "natural" family unit is. At all.

So your just here to make waves. I seen other post from you, so I know you aren't so dumb as miss the point of his post or why he picked 99% out of the air.

Noir wrote:
[

So your just here to make waves. I seen other post from you, so I know you aren't so dumb as miss the point of his post or why he picked 99% out of the air.

Picking it out of thin air is precisely the problem. It's entirely disingenuous.

It's also an outright falsehood to claim the majority of people were for gay marriage, as multiple states passed legislature THROUGH A VOTE against it.

 Peregrine wrote:

Sure, in some absolute perfect ideal world. But when someone talks about "embodying ideals" they don't necessarily mean absolute perfection.

Moreover, when I say "Marriage embodies the ideal of family." all I am saying is that "family" is an ideal and that marriage embodies it, I am not making a comment on what an ideal family is, that is an entirely separate matter.

 cincydooley wrote:

It's also an outright falsehood to claim the majority of people were for gay marriage, as multiple states passed legislature THROUGH A VOTE against it.

What individual States pass as legislation has little to do with the majority opinion within the United States as a whole.

 cincydooley wrote:

I couldn't care less about gay marriage, aside from the fact that I don't believe the government should anything to do with marriage whatsoever.

That doesn't make sense. Marriage is exactly the sort of thing that governments are supposed to be involved in. Legal rights, taxes, inheritance and many other things are all highly affected by your legal marriage status and are all systems managed by the government. That's why any religious person (or anyone at all for that matter) can "marry" you, but only someone authorised by the government can say you are married.

Now if we were talking about relationships, partners and such in non legally recognised domestic situations then I agree - it's absolutely no business of the government at all with regards to who is shagging whom. Get yourself "married" by a priest and don't fill out the legal documents and you can happily say you are married, but the government won't recognise it and you'll miss out on any of those benefits. Also settling disputes in non legally recognised marriages can be painfully difficult.

Hell, that's half the reason people were pushing for legally recognising marriage between gay couples. Inheritance was a pain in the arse. Even something as seemingly trivial as visitation rights at a hospital all depend on that government sanctioned bit of paper that says you're married.

For legally binding marriages the government must be involved.

It's about damned time that all the law-abiding adults in this country get treated the same.

Everyone should get the benefit of being protected by the same laws.

 cincydooley wrote:
Picking it out of thin air is precisely the problem. It's entirely disingenuous.

Do you honestly not know what "99.999999%" means? If not, you must be the only person who thinks it means that's an actual statistic and not just a way of saying "overwhelming majority".

It's also an outright falsehood to claim the majority of people were for gay marriage, as multiple states passed legislature THROUGH A VOTE against it.

Polls disagree with you. And most of those laws were passed years ago, nationwide opinion has changed significantly since then. Now state-level opposition is limited to a few of the most conservative areas, and even then it's mostly politicians holding up a giant "I HATE THE SAME PEOPLE YOU HATE" sign to secure votes rather than a sincere belief that their opposition will actually do anything.