Supreme Court Declares Same-Sex Marriage Legal In All 50 States

[1sickbastard]

Day 6 and no black helicopters and jack booted Feds have come to make me get Gay Married!

'Cuz dey wuz told ta pursycute da gawd-fearin' folkz ferst!
Deys cummin' ta git er gunz, n er bi-balls, n er jerbs, dens make uz gay murried!

Den deys guna make uz murried ta er sisturs n er dawgz n er sheepz.
N while I ken be gud on dat, I still ain't giv'n urp mah bi-ball n mah gunz!

 

[Cyann]

"Today’s decision by the Supreme Court is a huge victory for the equality and dignity of all Americans. The right to marry the person you love is finally the law of the land, and it’s about time. In Massachusetts, we fought for and won this freedom more than 10 years ago. We have seen how marriage equality makes a real difference in the lives of couples and their children, and now the rest of the country will get to see the same. This ruling also ensures that families will not have to worry about losing essential legal protections when they travel or move out-of-state. I am so proud of all of the work that so many put into this effort to make today’s ruling a reality."


Attorney General Maura Healey

http://www.wbur.org/2015/06/26/gay-marriage-massachusetts-reaction

We as thinking people are aware that this is not true . . . right? There is absolutely no law in existence that says you can marry the person you love. All this ruling did was give special rights to gays, but no one has the "right" to marry the person they love. What if you're already married but find you love this other person over here as well, do you get to marry them? Nope. What if you find you love your brother/sister, do you get to marry them? Nope. And no one even cares about that. We just care that dudes can now marry dudes, and chicks can now marry chicks. True marriage equality does not exist.

I find it funny that the ones who are so bent out of shape at the suggestion that any government entity would rule based on "morality" is perfectly fine with ruling based on some intangible concept such as "love." And for the record, love and marriage are two separate concepts. Plenty of people marry others they don't love, and plenty of people in love decline to get married. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

The only rights that have been lost by the religious community (or any others that oppose this ruling) is the right to express an opinion that is contrary to what some want to hear, without being screamed at and called names and OMG you have an opinion that doesn't match mine, you're not allowed to say that. You are hateful, you're a bigot blah blah blah because you're just not allowed to think differently than me blah blah blah. Ask that pizza shop in Indiana what happened when they expressed an opinion that wasn't popular. They didn't even have to DO anything, they just had to give an opinion that didn't match what some people wanted to hear and their livelihood was pretty much over. Fortunately that is never the end of the story because, like the Chick-Fil-A situation, there are still people out there who are tolerant of other opinions and recognize that we can co-exist with others who think differently. Chick-Fil-A is doing wonderful business. That pizza shop in Indiana is doing pretty well too, last I heard--despite the ignorant and intolerant ones.

I am 100% against gay marriage (and by the way, do you HAVE to be gay to participate in same-sex marriage? Do you have to prove it? How would you do that?) and always will be. I don't care if they get "married", but no, I personally won't support it. And as far as I know, I don't have to. Government will recognize same-sex marriages, but they have no control over the individual and their opinions. If people are accepting of it, cool. If they're not, that's cool too. Name-calling and religion-bashing of those who think differently than you will not help the situation and will never, ever change anyone's mind.

 

[Ramone45]

The Episcopal Church is marrying same sex couples. I wonder what theological justification they are using. I'm not Episcopalian, so I don't care what they do. But I would find their explanation interesting. I understand the sacrament of matrimony to be a symbolic reminder of God's covenant with mankind that leads to the creation of new life. It is a celebration of the differences of the sexes and the potential of the relationship between a man and a woman. I don't think God intended same sex couples to be united in the same way. Natural Law provides some insight into God's intent (as far as we can comprehend it).

 

[sr71plt]

Because my moth...my egg donor doesn't deserve the right to chew gum, let alone the right to get married. Every other gay person in America? Go. Get married. I don't honestly give a hot fuck. But her? She can go get eaten by an alligator.

Well, this issue was about the broader context, you know, not specifically about your mother. You might try focusing a bit better about what you are pissed about.

 

[sr71plt]

The Episcopal Church is marrying same sex couples. I wonder what theological justification they are using. I'm not Episcopalian, so I don't care what they do. But I would find their explanation interesting. I understand the sacrament of matrimony to be a symbolic reminder of God's covenant with mankind that leads to the creation of new life. It is a celebration of the differences of the sexes and the potential of the relationship between a man and a woman. I don't think God intended same sex couples to be united in the same way. Natural Law provides some insight into God's intent (as far as we can comprehend it).

If you go back to the antecedents of the Episcopal Church (the Anglicans), you'll find it's traced back to Henry VIII establishing it because the Catholic Church wouldn't fall into his marriage plans. Then you'd figure out that Episcopalians learned to bend with the wind from the get go.

 

[RjThoughts]

If you go back to the antecedents of the Episcopal Church (the Anglicans), you'll find it's traced back to Henry VIII establishing it because the Catholic Church wouldn't fall into his marriage plans. Then you'd figure out that Episcopalians learned to bend with the wind from the get go.

My dad was Episcopalian, or as our priests told us kids, "Catholic Light." LOL

They don't believe in the virginity of Mary
They don't believe in the infallibility of the Pope - as do most of us American Catholics
They allow priests to marry
They believe divorced parishioners to remarry, in the church, and on the altar

There are so many other ways they're even different from other Protestant denominations, like being one of the first to allow international couples to marry IN the church, well in upstate NY at least.

 

[Sean Renaud]

We as thinking people are aware that this is not true . . . right? There is absolutely no law in existence that says you can marry the person you love. All this ruling did was give special rights to gays, but no one has the "right" to marry the person they love. What if you're already married but find you love this other person over here as well, do you get to marry them? Nope. What if you find you love your brother/sister, do you get to marry them? Nope. And no one even cares about that. We just care that dudes can now marry dudes, and chicks can now marry chicks. True marriage equality does not exist.

No law is needed. America is built on the concept that Rights are something that you have by virtue of existence. Whether or not they are given to you via God or via human existence or the actual truth. Which is that there is no such thing as a right, simply things humans in a given society collectively agree you can and can't do is irrelevant to the greater part of this conversation. Legally the 14th Amendment prohbitting discrimination and Article IV stating you must honor contracts from any state means we the people have spoken on this and did so over a century ago. So no, this rulling did not give special rights to gays, it took away special rights from bigots.

What if you're already married and you find someone new? You get a divoce.

What if you love your brother or sister? We have laws specifically denying you that "right" and we the people don't agree with it. In most states there were no laws specifically prohibitting it but if you feel so strongly about it go see if you can bring the masses around. Frankly more disgusting things have happened in the past.

True marriage equality won't exist for a long while and isn't even something worth thinking about.

I find it funny that the ones who are so bent out of shape at the suggestion that any government entity would rule based on "morality" is perfectly fine with ruling based on some intangible concept such as "love." And for the record, love and marriage are two separate concepts. Plenty of people marry others they don't love, and plenty of people in love decline to get married. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

Love is just the excuse. Legal rights is the actual reason. While you're full of shit that love and marriage don't have anything to do with each other that's again hardly the point here. There are a list of legal rights that go along with the contract of marriage. You can eliminate those for everybody if you prefer.

The only rights that have been lost by the religious community (or any others that oppose this ruling) is the right to express an opinion that is contrary to what some want to hear, without being screamed at and called names and OMG you have an opinion that doesn't match mine, you're not allowed to say that. You are hateful, you're a bigot blah blah blah because you're just not allowed to think differently than me blah blah blah. Ask that pizza shop in Indiana what happened when they expressed an opinion that wasn't popular. They didn't even have to DO anything, they just had to give an opinion that didn't match what some people wanted to hear and their livelihood was pretty much over. Fortunately that is never the end of the story because, like the Chick-Fil-A situation, there are still people out there who are tolerant of other opinions and recognize that we can co-exist with others who think differently. Chick-Fil-A is doing wonderful business. That pizza shop in Indiana is doing pretty well too, last I heard--despite the ignorant and intolerant ones.

The right to express an opinion contrary to what people want to hear has not been lost. What has been lost is the right to discriminate with the backing of the law. Now apparently you think they have a right not to be called bigot but they didn't have that five years ago. We know who they were, and that pizza company and Chick-Fil-A deserved what they got and more. We as people have no only a right but an obligation to call out people we disagree with and not support their business ventures. If you found out for the sake of argument that Pizza Hut was funding the Communist Party of America would you A) continue to eat hotdog stuffed crust, or make sure you bloged, tweeted, vlogged and flooded every message board in the world that the Red Box of Pizza Hut was Red for Comrades of Communism?

I am 100% against gay marriage (and by the way, do you HAVE to be gay to participate in same-sex marriage? Do you have to prove it? How would you do that?) and always will be. I don't care if they get "married", but no, I personally won't support it. And as far as I know, I don't have to. Government will recognize same-sex marriages, but they have no control over the individual and their opinions. If people are accepting of it, cool. If they're not, that's cool too. Name-calling and religion-bashing of those who think differently than you will not help the situation and will never, ever change anyone's mind.

Yeay, we know you're a bigot. No you don't have to be gay to get a same sex marriage. Not any more than you have to be straight to get a straight marriage. No need to prove it. If you and your room mate want to get some legal rights by all means have at it.

Name calling and religion bashing has never changed anybody's mind? Someone has little knowledge of history. Plenty of groups in history have been stomped out due to mass shaming. Why do you think there is so much propaganda about communism and socialism? To the point that Americans have to twist themselves into all sorts of knots to explain why the military, public schools, roads, police, fire fighters, libraries and dozens of other things aren't socialism but health care would be. You don't see a whole lot of (non blacks) running around saying nigga this, nigga that, some people obviously still hold those beliefs but they generally know better than to express it in public. All in all bashing is a fine method of mind control.

 

[homewa]

Day 6 and no black helicopters and jack booted Feds have come to make me get Gay Married!

Wouldn't they be rainbow colored helicopters, and I think that the jack boots would be something more stylish....

On the actual topic, my opinion is that the US government has no place at all in marriage or in romantic relationships in general, they shouldn't be regulating them at all.

 

[RjThoughts]

Wouldn't they be rainbow colored helicopters, and I think that the jack boots would be something more stylish....

On the actual topic, my opinion is that the US government has no place at all in marriage or in romantic relationships in general, they shouldn't be regulating them at all.

So you don't agree with Loving Versus Virginia, too?

 

[homewa]

So you don't agree with Loving Versus Virginia, too?

My opinion is that the government has no business in marriage. That means that they don't get to forbid or ban any kind of marriage either. Marriage is (or was) a religious institution... And banning one kind of marriage inherently favors one religion over another, violating the establishment clause by define. If Gay Marriage is banned, then Churches that believe those marriages to be valid are not allowed to practice their faith. Hell, I'd even say the same goes for polygamy. If nobody is suffering harm in the marriage, then the government shouldn't be involved. The fact that the government has become involved in marriage is a huge issue to me.

In the case of Loving V. Virginia, which I haven't read in detail, my opinion is the same, the government has no place prohibiting any kind of marriage. I just don't think they should be sanctioning marriages or having a government institution of marriage.

 

[Sean Renaud]

My opinion is that the government has no business in marriage. That means that they don't get to forbid or ban any kind of marriage either. Marriage is (or was) a religious institution... And banning one kind of marriage inherently favors one religion over another, violating the establishment clause by define. If Gay Marriage is banned, then Churches that believe those marriages to be valid are not allowed to practice their faith. Hell, I'd even say the same goes for polygamy. If nobody is suffering harm in the marriage, then the government shouldn't be involved. The fact that the government has become involved in marriage is a huge issue to me.

In the case of Loving V. Virginia, which I haven't read in detail, my opinion is the same, the government has no place prohibiting any kind of marriage. I just don't think they should be sanctioning marriages or having a government institution of marriage.

The idea that marriage was a religious institution isn't really true. Remember prior to 1775 in the US the Church/Vatican was a quasi-legit government unto itself. And the original purpose of marriage whether or not we like it or not was to pass property from father to (son) children. By that standard banning gay and lesbian marriage made some sense. If you see two men with a kid well it might belong to one of them but prior to DNA testing good luck with that, same on the other end of things (Besides women couldn't own property making that sort of moot.

However while I think your idea of getting government out of it is unrealistic I don't disagree. I'm just not someone who is interested in trying to move mountains when there are literally fields of anthills that I find distasteful and have no use for.

 

[RjThoughts]

My opinion is that the government has no business in marriage. That means that they don't get to forbid or ban any kind of marriage either. Marriage is (or was) a religious institution... And banning one kind of marriage inherently favors one religion over another, violating the establishment clause by define. If Gay Marriage is banned, then Churches that believe those marriages to be valid are not allowed to practice their faith. Hell, I'd even say the same goes for polygamy. If nobody is suffering harm in the marriage, then the government shouldn't be involved. The fact that the government has become involved in marriage is a huge issue to me.

In the case of Loving V. Virginia, which I haven't read in detail, my opinion is the same, the government has no place prohibiting any kind of marriage. I just don't think they should be sanctioning marriages or having a government institution of marriage.

Loving forced states to allow interracial couples to marry! That's government interference. Tell me how you can be in favor of the ruling, yet tell me that it's different from last week's decision?

As for marriage being a religious institution, you're very misguided. Read up on the "other ways" the Bible tells you how you can be married, including being able to marry your own sister.

Here's what you really need to be married, very simplified:
1. A license stating the couple are of majority - or parental approved.
2. A state-approved officiate.
3. Two witnesses of majority
4. Affirmation that you do, indeed, wish the other to be your spouse.
5. The signing of the license by the officiate and witnesses

The rest is smoke and mirrors

 

[homewa]

Loving forced states to allow interracial couples to marry! That's government interference. Tell me how you can be in favor of the ruling, yet tell me that it's different from last week's decision?

I don't believe it is... In fact I haven't made any objections to the ruling itself. I only said that I think that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. Period. I don't think there should be any civil marriage institution. I think that anybody you want to be able to make end-of-life decisions should be able to do that, that we should get to choose those things that default to our spouse in the current legal system. I also feel that we should be able to declare dependency in a financial situation regardless of whether we are fucking somebody and have married them.

But no, I'm in favor of the ruling...

As for marriage being a religious institution, you're very misguided. Read up on the "other ways" the Bible tells you how you can be married, including being able to marry your own sister.

Incest is a toughie because of the strong possibility for harm if any children are born. I would not be opposed to the government regulating that. But other things, polygamy, homosexual marriage, anything where all parties are able to consent should be fair game. Again incest being a tough issue.

Here's what you really need to be married, very simplified:
1. A license stating the couple are of majority - or parental approved.
2. A state-approved officiate.
3. Two witnesses of majority
4. Affirmation that you do, indeed, wish the other to be your spouse.
5. The signing of the license by the officiate and witnesses

The rest is smoke and mirrors

See, what I'm arguing is that this process shouldn't really exist as it does. There is no reason that we should have the government rubber stamping anyone's marriage.

 

[RjThoughts]

I don't believe it is... In fact I haven't made any objections to the ruling itself. I only said that I think that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. Period. I don't think there should be any civil marriage institution. I think that anybody you want to be able to make end-of-life decisions should be able to do that, that we should get to choose those things that default to our spouse in the current legal system. I also feel that we should be able to declare dependency in a financial situation regardless of whether we are fucking somebody and have married them.

But no, I'm in favor of the ruling...



Incest is a toughie because of the strong possibility for harm if any children are born. I would not be opposed to the government regulating that. But other things, polygamy, homosexual marriage, anything where all parties are able to consent should be fair game. Again incest being a tough issue.



See, what I'm arguing is that this process shouldn't really exist as it does. There is no reason that we should have the government rubber stamping anyone's marriage.

The "rubber stamp" as you call it is more to do with rights couples now have when it comes to making decisions on healthcare, receiving tax breaks, being able to adopt children...it's more than just rubber stamping.

 

[homewa]

The "rubber stamp" as you call it is more to do with rights couples now have when it comes to making decisions on healthcare, receiving tax breaks, being able to adopt children...it's more than just rubber stamping.

Yes it IS that way. I'm saying that I don't believe it should be. I think I should be able to designate who gets to make decisions on my healthcare, regardless of marital status. I think that households should receive equal tax breaks if they have equal number of people in them. I think that those who are qualified to raise children should be allowed to adopt again regardless of marital status. I think that the government should not be using a religious institution to determine these things.

 

[RjThoughts]

Yes it IS that way. I'm saying that I don't believe it should be. I think I should be able to designate who gets to make decisions on my healthcare, regardless of marital status. I think that households should receive equal tax breaks if they have equal number of people in them. I think that those who are qualified to raise children should be allowed to adopt again regardless of marital status. I think that the government should not be using a religious institution to determine these things.

You can do that, but if there's no documentation, it would cause a quagmire of problems. Now, if you're married and there's no documentation, those decisions revert to the spouse.

 

[homewa]

You can do that, but if there's no documentation, it would cause a quagmire of problems. Now, if you're married and there's no documentation, those decisions revert to the spouse.

Yes... and in some states it reverts to the spouse regardless of your documentation. I'm not arguing what is... I'm saying it should be different if that makes any sense. We should be able to choose who makes those decisions, regardless of relationship, and it should be a decision that has nothing to do with marriage. (Well a decision that does not depend or default based on marriage)

But I'm definitely in favor of the Supreme Court decision. I was mostly discussing my opinion about the "way things ought to be"

 

[RjThoughts]

Yes... and in some states it reverts to the spouse regardless of your documentation. I'm not arguing what is... I'm saying it should be different if that makes any sense. We should be able to choose who makes those decisions, regardless of relationship, and it should be a decision that has nothing to do with marriage. (Well a decision that does not depend or default based on marriage)

But I'm definitely in favor of the Supreme Court decision. I was mostly discussing my opinion about the "way things ought to be"

"Power of Attorney" trumps all when it comes to healthcare issues!

And for "The ways things ought to be," there are many more important things to worry about than something you'll NEVER do, ie Same Gender marriage.

 

[Ramone45]

If you go back to the antecedents of the Episcopal Church (the Anglicans), you'll find it's traced back to Henry VIII establishing it because the Catholic Church wouldn't fall into his marriage plans. Then you'd figure out that Episcopalians learned to bend with the wind from the get go.

That's interesting. They joke that Episcopalians are 98% Catholic. But I know an Episcopal priest who is outspokenly pro-abortion.

 

[homewa]

"Power of Attorney" trumps all when it comes to healthcare issues!

You are mistaken, courts toss out POAs all the time, well not all the time, but often. Most hospitals won't even take a general Power of Attorney and demand a Special Power of Attorney with specific information on it. And in some states even if the court doesn't toss out a power of attorney it defaults to the spouse regardless of your wishes.

Now this isn't how it should be. But it is how it is.

And for "The ways things ought to be," there are many more important things to worry about than something you'll NEVER do, ie Same Gender marriage.

I'm confused, you seem to be acting as though I am against the ruling. Or that I am arguing that homosexuals shouldn't have the right to get married. I'm arguing that if the government respects the establishment clause of the constitution then getting married shouldn't be a legal status for ANYBODY, straight, or gay, or a person who marries people for 33 minute intervals based on tea leaf readings, whatever.

So just to spell it out. I think that the Supreme Court made the right decision. I just don't think it should have been a decision they had to make.

 

[RjThoughts]

You are mistaken, courts toss out POAs all the time, well not all the time, but often. Most hospitals won't even take a general Power of Attorney and demand a Special Power of Attorney with specific information on it. And in some states even if the court doesn't toss out a power of attorney it defaults to the spouse regardless of your wishes.

Now this isn't how it should be. But it is how it is.



I'm confused, you seem to be acting as though I am against the ruling. Or that I am arguing that homosexuals shouldn't have the right to get married. I'm arguing that if the government respects the establishment clause of the constitution then getting married shouldn't be a legal status for ANYBODY, straight, or gay, or a person who marries people for 33 minute intervals based on tea leaf readings, whatever.

So just to spell it out. I think that the Supreme Court made the right decision. I just don't think it should have been a decision they had to make.

They had to, because state officials were bringing their religion into government decisions.

 

[homewa]

They had to, because state officials were bringing their religion into government decisions.

And as long as marriage is what the government uses to determine who makes healthcare decisions, or who gets tax breaks, or who gets to adopt... That will be unavoidable. I'm not saying that the Supreme Court shouldn't have done it.

What I am saying is that I don't think one should get any benefits for being married, and that nothing should default to a spouse, without your deciding it should.

 

[RjThoughts]

And as long as marriage is what the government uses to determine who makes healthcare decisions, or who gets tax breaks, or who gets to adopt... That will be unavoidable. I'm not saying that the Supreme Court shouldn't have done it.

What I am saying is that I don't think one should get any benefits for being married, and that nothing should default to a spouse, without your deciding it should.

Are you married? If you were, you'd know there's no benefit for being married LOL

The breaks aren't that much, perhaps equating to another week's pay.

 

[homewa]

Are you married? If you were, you'd know there's no benefit for being married LOL

The breaks aren't that much, perhaps equating to another week's pay.

I have been married. There is a benefit to being married. Say I'm living with my friend, and he and I share expenses, but we aren't married, we aren't sexually involved at all. I will make less than my married friends, despite having the same exact living situation. That's a benefit, plain and simple.

If I have a dear friend who I want to make medical decisions, instead of my wife, but I am still married to her. Then if I become non-responsive there is a VERY good chance that the courts will ignore my friend and let my spouse make decisions for me.

Those are benefits... If there's no benefit to being married why did homosexual folks have to fight for it? There are clearly benefits. I'm arguing that being married shouldn't be a legal thing at all. Tax breaks should have to do with the number of people depending on your income living in your house, who makes decisions for your care and can visit you, should depend on your choices.

 

[RjThoughts]

I have been married. There is a benefit to being married. Say I'm living with my friend, and he and I share expenses, but we aren't married, we aren't sexually involved at all. I will make less than my married friends, despite having the same exact living situation. That's a benefit, plain and simple.

If I have a dear friend who I want to make medical decisions, instead of my wife, but I am still married to her. Then if I become non-responsive there is a VERY good chance that the courts will ignore my friend and let my spouse make decisions for me.

Those are benefits... If there's no benefit to being married why did homosexual folks have to fight for it? There are clearly benefits. I'm arguing that being married shouldn't be a legal thing at all. Tax breaks should have to do with the number of people depending on your income living in your house, who makes decisions for your care and can visit you, should depend on your choices.

You took it literally.

There is a benefit for being married: Someone's there to make your wishes known when you can't.