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

[Cyann]

It's not in the Constitution. Now find the part of the Constitution that says marriage is between a man and a woman.

It's not in there, and weirdly men and women have been marrying each other for centuries. How did that happen?

 

[Sean Renaud]

It's not in there, and weirdly men and women have been marrying each other for centuries. How did that happen?

So have men and men, but your argument that the Constitution doesn't define marriage as anything but a man and a woman is the point here. The Constitution doesn't define marriage at all and thus has no place in the conversation at all.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

As a man there are only two reasons why you can be against gay marriage.

1. You're stupid.
2. You're secretly worried that dicks are delicious.

-Joe Rogan

 

[RjThoughts]

As a man there are only two reasons why you can be against gay marriage.

1. You're stupid.
2. You're secretly worried that dicks are delicious.

-Joe Rogan

This describes Lindsey Graham to a T

 

[Sean Renaud]

As a man there are only two reasons why you can be against gay marriage.

1. You're stupid.
2. You're secretly worried that dicks are delicious.

-Joe Rogan

Great now I'm curious how the taste. Thank you UD for putting that thought in my head and proving conservatives the world over right. Once gay marriage was legalized it would start to spread! It's like a zombie plague, soon there will be no more babies born because every guy will discover the joy of dick and realize not only is it nutricious and delicious but we get to skip out on all that drama.

 

[sr71plt]

Great now I'm curious how the taste. Thank you UD for putting that thought in my head and proving conservatives the world over right. Once gay marriage was legalized it would start to spread! It's like a zombie plague, soon there will be no more babies born because every guy will discover the joy of dick and realize not only is it nutricious and delicious but we get to skip out on all that drama.

Not that it's going to happen, but why do you feel personally threatened (or brought to face yourself) if it did happen? Isn't this just another form of the free market operating naturally?

 

[Sean Renaud]

Not that it's going to happen, but why do you feel personally threatened (or brought to face yourself) if it did happen? Isn't this just another form of the free market operating naturally?

I'm not actually a true supporter of the free market but that's a tale for another day. Why do I feel threatened? Because what if I do like dick?! Then I'll have to endure all that prejudice in the world. I'm a black nerd who plays video games and watches My Little Pony, I don't need anything else added onto the list you know?

Though to be fair if I get two more marks on bigotry bingo I get to call anybody I want whatever I want. Unlike George Takei (however that's spelled) nobody will call me out for talking about an unqualified clown in black face. (Which was out of bounds. Thomas may or may not be unqualified seeing how that is largely a matter of opinion rather than fact especially for the Supreme Court. Sure you should have a law degree and experience in the law but the only think stopping Obama from appointing Jay-Z to the Supreme Court is the Republicans would stonewall that shit. (And it would look really really really stupid.) But legally it's good!

Sorry I ramble at times.

 

[sr71plt]

Why do I feel threatened? Because what if I do like dick?!

Naw, you'd feel liberated.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I'll feel liberated in a few hours. That's the feeling you get after consuming a generous amount of libations correct?

 

[sr71plt]

No, that would be drunk.

 

[1sickbastard]

No, that would be drunk.

Or

Liberty from the tyranny of sobriety.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Liberty from the tyranny of sobriety.

Damn, I like that one. I've currently got on fifteen pounds of leg weights and a weighted belt. Why you ask? Because after I need to make sure I don't fly off the Earth. Last year around one PM I had to hold the grass to keep from flying into space. This year I'm thinking a head.

Oh oh oh, it takes me a while to get liberated from sobriety because years of drinking have given me one hell of a Constitution!

 

[about_average]

Having to hire a lawyer in order to get married would really suck.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Great now I'm curious how the taste. Thank you UD for putting that thought in my head and proving conservatives the world over right. Once gay marriage was legalized it would start to spread! It's like a zombie plague, soon there will be no more babies born because every guy will discover the joy of dick and realize not only is it nutricious and delicious but we get to skip out on all that drama.

Oh yeah, none of the gay guys I've ever known had ANY drama whatsoever.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Yes, so why are we clinging to a legal definition based on a religious ceremony, why do cling to
"person who am I fucking"?

We aren't, in fact this latest is a victory in telling those who are to step the fuck off.....in official terms.

Yes, but that precedent follows a track set by a religious institution

Which religious institution?

Anything that's a one size fits all, will eventually wind up excluding people, which is what we should avoid.

If it's excluding people than it's not one size fits all now is it?

 

[Cyann]

So have men and men, but your argument that the Constitution doesn't define marriage as anything but a man and a woman is the point here. The Constitution doesn't define marriage at all and thus has no place in the conversation at all.

This is exactly right. Couldn't agree more. The Constitution doesn't address it because it was/is outside of the jurisdiction of the U.S. government, therefore the government has no place being in the conversation at all.

 

[mark_j]

This is exactly right. Couldn't agree more. The Constitution doesn't address it because it was/is outside of the jurisdiction of the U.S. government, therefore the government has no place being in the conversation at all.

The government DID inject themselves into it by giving tax/benefit advantages to married couples.

 

[1sickbastard]

This is exactly right. Couldn't agree more. The Constitution doesn't address it because it was/is outside of the jurisdiction of the U.S. government, therefore the government has no place being in the conversation at all.

Other than what Mark J wrote, the fact that marriage contains an economic component means that the gov't has a proper role in adjudicating property rights when marriages dissolve, not to mention family law when divorce happens and children are part of the equation.
Basically, because marriages and nuclear families are some of the basic units of society, the institutions that govern society can and do extent said governance to those social units.

Now, if you're going to argue that gov't has no role in governing society, please do so.

 

[about_average]

This is exactly right. Couldn't agree more. The Constitution doesn't address it because it was/is outside of the jurisdiction of the U.S. government, therefore the government has no place being in the conversation at all.

So it appears your position is that it's fine for adult men to "marry" 10 year old girls, assuming the girl and her guardians are fine with it.

That's a very creepy position to have.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Great now I'm curious how the taste. Thank you UD for putting that thought in my head and proving conservatives the world over right. Once gay marriage was legalized it would start to spread! It's like a zombie plague, soon there will be no more babies born because every guy will discover the joy of dick and realize not only is it nutricious and delicious but we get to skip out on all that drama.

Drama, like everything else, touches every letter in the alphabet.

 

[Sean Renaud]

This is exactly right. Couldn't agree more. The Constitution doesn't address it because it was/is outside of the jurisdiction of the U.S. government, therefore the government has no place being in the conversation at all.

PRetty much nothing that happens in America is outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Government silly.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Love how all the theoCons are all "Oh well the gov has NO place in marriage at all!!" lol

But it had all the business in the world dictating it to everyone when it was pushing their privileged bullshit.

It had every right and all the reason it needed for DOMA!!! LOL you fucking LOVED big government all up in marriage then.

 

[Cyann]

PRetty much nothing that happens in America is outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Government silly.

As you said:

"The Constitution doesn't define marriage at all and thus has no place in the conversation at all."

and I was just agreeing with you.

 

[Sean Renaud]

As you said:

"The Constitution doesn't define marriage at all and thus has no place in the conversation at all."

and I was just agreeing with you.

No, you were pretending I said the government has no place in it. I'm saying the Constitution specifically has no part to play in the conversation. It doesn't mention marriage at all so your earlier comment about looking for where the Constitution defines marriage as anything other than a man and a woman is absurd.

 

[mark_j]

Love how all the theoCons are all "Oh well the gov has NO place in marriage at all!!" lol

But it had all the business in the world dictating it to everyone when it was pushing their privileged bullshit.

It had every right and all the reason it needed for DOMA!!! LOL you fucking LOVED big government all up in marriage then.

I know you like bashing "TheoCons" but you do realize that DOMA had overwhelming support in both houses when it was enacted.

House Vote: 342–67. Dem Vote..118 to 65, with 15 not participating.

Senate Vote: 85–14. Dem Vote.. 32 to 14 (with Pryor of Arkansas absent).

Clinton's position in 1996: In a June 1996 interview in the gay and lesbian magazine The Advocate, Clinton said, "I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or reconsidered." - The Advocate

Privately, Clinton may have been against DOMA, but publicly he went with it. Some have suggested that He (Clinton) publicly endorsed DOMA as a matter of political expediency and to head off a possible Constitutional Amendment being proposed. In other words he didn't stick to his guns and sold out. It wasn't until later on that he came out with a public objection to DOMA.

In my opinion, this is why I can't support most Rep positions. The fight over DOMA and the co-opting of the party by Evangelicals (and others) who try to legislate morality really pisses me off.

The other point here is the argument of how far reaching the Fed Gov is in its regulation of marriage. DOMA not withstanding, here is this little tidbit from Wiki. which shows how deep the rabbit hole goes.