Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Ace]

quote='Tiberius' pid='975016' dateline='1435343201']

Contrary to popular belief before 2010 same sex marriage was illegal throughout the United States, (except Hawaii)

I think you need to check your facts. My state (Massachusetts) legalized gay marriage waaaay back in 2003. Hawaii didn't have gay marriage before 2010 either; they legalized it in 2013. In addition, several states had legalized gay marriage prior to 2010 (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_m..._v._Hodges).
[/quote]

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Sorry, you are correct on Massachusetts. I did not count the states that before 2010 because they were not marriages but civil union/ domestic relationships, which has been found to be illegal under the Winser ruling.

But, it is the issue that some form of government action had to be taken in order to legalized gay marriage.

---

In reading the ruling and the decent of same sex marriage, I find that I have an issue with the outcome of the case.



Due to a disagreement of the final ruling Justices Thomas dissent has become far more understating and in support of.



Justice Thomas dessent:
The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in interment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.


Many people are finding this statement “troubling or discriminatory,” and it would be true if any reader had taken the statement out of its context. However, if I were to truly TAKE THE DAMN TIME and ACTUALY READ ALL OF THE DISSENT, (better yet READ THE ENTIERTY OF BOTH the ruling and dissent to fully understand Thomas's position) the statement would have overpowering validity. Being the crazy person that I am by actually practicing what I just perched, I found that Thomas writing to be very compelling and pulling me into complete agreement with his argument on ruling, in regards to the concept of dignity bestowing.


The bulk of the argument by the petitioners and what the ruling has given/said, is that same sex marriage is needed because any other form of marriage, but, marriage its self, lacks any true dignity for those who are in some form of union that is not marriage. Therefore, by granting same sex marriage, both the court and marriage its self, now has the power to give ALL who enter in such a union dignity!!!!. In placing such a trait to the act of marriage alone has created now has created a division of those who are dignified and those who are not. A second class citizens of individuals that are without dignity!!!! So those who are unmarried, divorced, widow, born out of wedlock, cohabiting and raise a family are considered what now? We who are straight or gay, trans, bi, . . . . try, sti, fly, sky, pie, lion and tigers and bears oh my . . . . (whoever) . . . and are not married or come from a two parent home have no dignity or have somehow lost it..??!!!

Why???


Cause we have not stood in front of some Klu Klux Klan wearing judge, priest or preacher, county clerk, or some licensees individual who can perform marriages and say a bunch of mambo jumbo B.S. of love and caring, which, (given the percentage of the divorce rate in this country), the damn "life long/forever loving B.S. vows of a stupid union is more likely to end in divorce!!!

I say, HELL NO!!!! and FUCK THOSE WITH THEIR B.S. DIGNATY BESTOING MARRAGIES!!!!!!!
ELITIST FUCK'S

The compression in Justice Thomas dissent is saying , that a person no matter who they are or what their plot/situation in life, as a human being, no one CAN EVER become undignified by some action, organization or person/s who "assume" to now possess the power to take away or bestow it upon another!!!!!!

P.S. Before those who will reply and gets off topic and pulls some B.S. out that is not the bulk of what I am trying to say ; NOTE, I am only agreeing with the judges written decent in this case. I don't love, like, care, hate, mad or even vengeful to him as a person, because I don't personally know the damn fool. Huh, many times I forget that he is still a Supreme Court Justices cause never says a goddamn thing. I will say I am not bigoted (but name calling is not truly in the manpower of the words are directed to). Let's see, ummm, we are not lovers, have any kids or pets together, hang out on Friday, and whatever else I have not mentioned.