(June 27, 2015 at 12:54 pm)robvalue Wrote: Your expression of bigotry against me calling them bigots is clearly bigoted.

Your turn

Are you still going to argue about this after the supreme court has ruled? You know more than them?

You think this will likely be overturned soon, are you kidding?

Read the opinion issued by the court. I am not saying it will be overturned soon. The justices are saying that as the majority ruling is not being supported by law and has lead to a situation the court was in before based on the ruling Lochner V New York.

OK, they said it, apologies.

Still not going to happen!

I know fuck all though, so just ignore me.

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

(June 22, 2015 at 12:56 pm)Ace Wrote: 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.

Never mind the whole civil rights issue.
Never mind the fact that two people in love should be allowed to marry regardless of gender.
Never mind that gay marriage has largely no effect on your day to day activities or even your life in general.

Never mind all those numerous reasons for the allowance of gay marriage.



Gay marriage should have been allowed centuries ago.  Why?  Because of fairness.  Marriage is hell, they should have to suffer through it just like all us straight people!

(June 28, 2015 at 5:37 pm)Cinjin Wrote: Never mind the whole civil rights issue.
Never mind the fact that two people in love should be allowed to marry regardless of gender.
Never mind that gay marriage has largely no effect on your day to day activities or even your life in general.

Never mind all those numerous reasons for the allowance of gay marriage.



Gay marriage should have been allowed centuries ago.  Why?  Because of fairness.  Marriage is hell, they should have to suffer through it just like all us straight people!

I do not think ACE is referring to specifically gay marriage as much as marriage overall.

Furthermore the law does not care about love (or dignity for that matter) as it is not a requirement for marriage.

Also when you say it will have no effect on your day to day activities...Umm. Where do you think their benefits come from? They come from the rest of us so to pay more benefits we are going to have to raise taxes or limit the amount of benefits per family.

As Stated by Justice John Roberts in the Dissent:

Near the end of its opinion, the majority offers perhaps the clearest insight into its decision. Expanding marriage to include same-sex couples, the majority insists, would “pose no risk of harm to themselves or third parties.” Ante, at 27. This argument again echoes Lochner, which relied in its assessment that “we think that a law like the one before us involves neither the safety, the morals nor the welfare of the public, and that the interest of the public is not in the slightest degree affected by such an act.”

Then and now, this assertion of the “harm principle” sounds more in philosophy than law. The elevation of the fullest individual self-realization over the constraints that society has expressed in law may or may not be attractive moral philosophy. But a Justice’s commission does not
confer any special moral, philosophical, or social insight sufficient to justify imposing those perceptions on fellow citizens under the pretense of “due process.” There is indeed a process due the people on issues of this sort—the democratic process

In addition to their due process argument, petitioners contend that the Equal Protection Clause requires their States to license and recognize same-sex marriages... The majority goes on to assert in conclusory fashion that the Equal Protection Clause provides an alternative basis
for its holding. Yet the majority fails to provide even a single sentence explaining how the Equal Protection Clause supplies independent weight for its position, nor does it attempt to justify its gratuitous violation of the canon against unnecessarily resolving constitutional questions. In any event, the marriage laws at issue here do not violate the Equal Protection Clause, because distinguishing between opposite-sex and same-sex couples is rationally related to the States’ “legitimate state interest” in “preserving the traditional institution of marriage.”

For those who do not know the ruling from Lochner V New York served to deny child labor laws, work safety regulations, compensation protections, work hours, and maternity leave and protections under the argument that the due process clause protected a persons "liberty to contract" and thereby assume all the work conditions as is without any recourse to government protections. The main argument in support of lochner was that we are not hurting anyone since the people are choosing to engage in the activity of their own free will.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_v._New_York

Would you like to tell us the actual non-legal reason you are against same sex marriage, assuming you are?

(June 29, 2015 at 3:54 am)robvalue Wrote: Would you like to tell us the actual non-legal reason you are against same sex marriage, assuming you are?

Hmm, what is this? . . .a. . . call . . .to . . . .challenge . . .?


Ok, I will bite, that is if you wish to debate.
However, I have some question before we start.
1. Why can’t my own argument be a legal one, (given that it was the legal argument that was fought for).
2. If non-legal, how do you wish to discuss/debate the topic?
- Historically
- Socially
- Biologically
- Economically
- “ “
- “ “
What is your Poison ?

P.S. English was not my first language and my writing is not so good/correct.

Err...

I don't know fuck all about law so debating me about law is pointless. Also, it's law now, so it's moot

Any non-legal reason why there is any point to prohibiting same sex marriage. What harm does it do to anything? What's the problem? Why would society be better off continuing to prohibit it?

I guess I would prefer a moral/societal argument, but whatever you want to do. I have no idea what it has to do with economics, and I'm no expert on that either.

I don't care about history or biology in regard to this matter, unless you can convince me they are relevant.

I'm all for removing financial benefit to being married, that is dumb.

Cinjin
Never mind the whole civil rights issue.
Never mind the fact that two people in love should be allowed to marry regardless of gender.
Never mind that gay marriage has largely no effect on your day to day activities or even your life in general.

Never mind all those numerous reasons for the allowance of gay marriage.

Gay marriage should have been allowed centuries ago. Why? Because of fairness. Marriage is hell, they should have to suffer through it just like all us straight people!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh my fellow forum/bloggers your replies statements sadden me.


Cinjin- It is that very FAIRNESS that I am speaking about. Again, the final ruling states that marriage, (all of the state, forget and F religious marriage in this argument) is an institution that bestows both DIGNITY AND SECURITY.

I say either do away with marriage altogether or take away all benefits, securities and dignity related to marriage. To keep and proclaim it is a honest institution is a fallacy since it has been argued that the union gives particular rights and privileges that are both economic and social only to a particular type of citizen. Once you grant a particular group in society right/privileges that are not bestowing to all, now it becomes a segregated institution that only gives a particular group in society a distinctly privileges.

“Separate is not equal”!!! regardless of love, happiness, privilege, or any other non-requirements one does not need to marry.

Never mind the whole civil rights issue.

Interesting to call it a civil rights issue since civil mean state laws, (i.e. State’s rights) unlike a personal Fundamental right that is granted by constitutional laws or laws/rights that are protected by the constitution not a state/civil law.