What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Gay marriage (1 Viewer)

Are you for or against?

  • For

    Votes: 291 80.2%

  • Against

    Votes: 72 19.8%
  • Total voters
    363
Good for everyone. In all honesty, I'd rather the government recognize all marriages as civil unions from a legal standpoint, though.

 
You know what would make this already amazing day just a little bit sweeter? Millions of Americans cheering on a womens' sports team to a big victory tonight. Bigots would completely lose their minds.

 
Great day.

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people be come something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
great day fellow bromericans glad to be here to witness it damn right i support it take that to the bank

 
In a weird way, I wonder what this does for the GOP in 2016.

Do they bring up Bork's LaFollette proposal about Supreme Court decisions, or do they resolve themselves to this inevitability, which is much different than public attitudes on abortion and also different in terms of judicial precedent?

eta* I just wonder how much lip service they pay to bashing the Court when they're going to need the Court's edification and sacrosanct status when trying to undo tons of executive power grabs. Scalia is on board with undermining certain executive power grabs, which says something. So their position is now unenviable. But you reap what you sow. When cultural issues became the focus in 1972, and they decided to expand their tent to the evangelicals that were interested in politics after the Warren Court, this was inevitable.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
You know what would make this already amazing day just a little bit sweeter? Millions of Americans cheering on a womens' sports team to a big victory tonight. Bigots would completely lose their minds.
Click to expand...
In another weird, not sort of sour grapes way (this was inevitable) do you smell your own hand after touching your crotch and blame it on other people?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction said:
TobiasFunke said:
You know what would make this already amazing day just a little bit sweeter? Millions of Americans cheering on a womens' sports team to a big victory tonight. Bigots would completely lose their minds.
Click to expand...
In another weird, not sort of sour grapes way (this was inevitable) do you smell your own hand after touching your crotch and blame it on other people?
Click to expand...
You are one truly strange dude.
 
rockaction said:
TobiasFunke said:
You know what would make this already amazing day just a little bit sweeter? Millions of Americans cheering on a womens' sports team to a big victory tonight. Bigots would completely lose their minds.
Click to expand...
In another weird, not sort of sour grapes way (this was inevitable) do you smell your own hand after touching your crotch and blame it on other people?
Click to expand...
Why respond with personal insult here, my friend? The only people I insulted (barely) in my post are bigots. Seems odd that you took a generic shot at bigots so personally. I don't think of you as a bigot, but perhaps I misjudged you?

 
I can use this to get concessions from my wife, right?

"Our marriage is threatened, honey! We have to find new ways to protect it."

 
TobiasFunke said:
rockaction said:
TobiasFunke said:
You know what would make this already amazing day just a little bit sweeter? Millions of Americans cheering on a womens' sports team to a big victory tonight. Bigots would completely lose their minds.
Click to expand...
In another weird, not sort of sour grapes way (this was inevitable) do you smell your own hand after touching your crotch and blame it on other people?
Click to expand...
Why respond with personal insult here, my friend? The only people I insulted (barely) in my post are bigots. Seems odd that you took a generic shot at bigots so personally. I don't think of you as a bigot, but perhaps I misjudged you?
Click to expand...
I agree, and sorry for the insult. It seemed like mean gloating on your end, which I should have just shut up about. It was the focus on others and the newfound sting of "bigotry" applied to otherwise traditional positions that got me. I tend not to dismiss gays; women's sports aren't an issue for me other than the marketing of unbridled feminism, though I would certainly not root against country and would pull for another Rapinoe goal in dire straits while watching from an Amtrak station in Philly (great goal, very excited).

I've completely supported the removal of marriage from the government sphere since '95, way back when gay marriage had very little support. I thought it was egregious that marital/co-habitation rights weren't recognized for non-married people/gays.

That said, others have told me from a policy standpoint that this was unworkable because of the tax code and its dependence upon such, and I tend to agree that this had to be worked out within a consensus definition of co-habitation and marriage. Personally, I would have rather seen it go state-by-state, steamrolling opposition and coming to true populist consensus that gays should be allowed to marry or have civil unions, at least. That is why the only thing that has concerned me for years has been the compulsion of dissenters to provide business services to ceremonies, and especially that the Catholic Church need not sanction these marriages nor arrangements.

(I always keep the co-habiters in my thoughts)

 
rockaction said:
TobiasFunke said:
rockaction said:
TobiasFunke said:
You know what would make this already amazing day just a little bit sweeter? Millions of Americans cheering on a womens' sports team to a big victory tonight. Bigots would completely lose their minds.
Click to expand...
In another weird, not sort of sour grapes way (this was inevitable) do you smell your own hand after touching your crotch and blame it on other people?
Click to expand...
Why respond with personal insult here, my friend? The only people I insulted (barely) in my post are bigots. Seems odd that you took a generic shot at bigots so personally. I don't think of you as a bigot, but perhaps I misjudged you?
Click to expand...
I agree, and sorry for the insult. It seemed like mean gloating on your end, which I should have just shut up about. It was the focus on others and the newfound sting of "bigotry" applied to otherwise traditional positions that got me. I tend not to dismiss gays; women's sports aren't an issue for me other than the marketing of unbridled feminism, though I would certainly not root against country and would pull for another Rapinoe goal in dire straits while watching from an Amtrak station in Philly (great goal, very excited).

I've completely supported the removal of marriage from the government sphere since '95, way back when gay marriage had very little support. I thought it was egregious that marital/co-habitation rights weren't recognized for non-married people/gays.

That said, others have told me from a policy standpoint that this was unworkable because of the tax code and its dependence upon such, and I tend to agree that this had to be worked out within a consensus definition of co-habitation and marriage. Personally, I would have rather seen it go state-by-state, steamrolling opposition and coming to true populist consensus that gays should be allowed to marry or have civil unions, at least. That is why the only thing that has concerned me for years has been the compulsion of dissenters to provide business services to ceremonies, and especially that the Catholic Church need not sanction these marriages nor arrangements.

(I always keep the co-habiters in my thoughts)
Click to expand...
I see a number of people (mostly republican presidential candidates) saying this. But that was still going to leave too many states with bans on gay marriage. And its the Supreme Court's job to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority.

Sometimes the majority sucks.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
That was so much easier than this state by state crawl. My dad's head is probably exploding after this and the ACA rulings this week. Ha.

 
whoknew said:
rockaction said:
TobiasFunke said:
rockaction said:
TobiasFunke said:
You know what would make this already amazing day just a little bit sweeter? Millions of Americans cheering on a womens' sports team to a big victory tonight. Bigots would completely lose their minds.
Click to expand...
In another weird, not sort of sour grapes way (this was inevitable) do you smell your own hand after touching your crotch and blame it on other people?
Click to expand...
Why respond with personal insult here, my friend? The only people I insulted (barely) in my post are bigots. Seems odd that you took a generic shot at bigots so personally. I don't think of you as a bigot, but perhaps I misjudged you?
Click to expand...
I agree, and sorry for the insult. It seemed like mean gloating on your end, which I should have just shut up about. It was the focus on others and the newfound sting of "bigotry" applied to otherwise traditional positions that got me. I tend not to dismiss gays; women's sports aren't an issue for me other than the marketing of unbridled feminism, though I would certainly not root against country and would pull for another Rapinoe goal in dire straits while watching from an Amtrak station in Philly (great goal, very excited).

I've completely supported the removal of marriage from the government sphere since '95, way back when gay marriage had very little support. I thought it was egregious that marital/co-habitation rights weren't recognized for non-married people/gays.

That said, others have told me from a policy standpoint that this was unworkable because of the tax code and its dependence upon such, and I tend to agree that this had to be worked out within a consensus definition of co-habitation and marriage. Personally, I would have rather seen it go state-by-state, steamrolling opposition and coming to true populist consensus that gays should be allowed to marry or have civil unions, at least. That is why the only thing that has concerned me for years has been the compulsion of dissenters to provide business services to ceremonies, and especially that the Catholic Church need not sanction these marriages nor arrangements.

(I always keep the co-habiters in my thoughts)
Click to expand...
I see a number of people (mostly republican presidential candidates) saying this. But that was still going to leave too many states with bans on gay marriage. And its the Supreme Court's job to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority.

Sometimes the majority sucks.
Click to expand...
First bolded: Ah, so that's where they are going with this. If this is true, then we'll see less Court carping and more pragmatic minutiae concerns.

Italicized: It's really their job to interpret the Constitution properly. When majorities should prevail, then their job is to interpret it in a way that majorities do so. The ACA decisions seemed to cement the very point I'm making, that of judicial deference to legislative majorities, even in the extreme.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
matttyl said:
Great day.

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people be come something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."
Click to expand...
I'm glad that this issue is over and happy with the result. However, the words above seem to overlook a union that's just a bit more important and "profound."

The happy Union of these States is a wonder; their Constitution a miracle; their example the hope of Liberty throughout the world.-James Madison
Click to expand...
 
rockaction said:
whoknew said:
rockaction said:
TobiasFunke said:
rockaction said:
TobiasFunke said:
You know what would make this already amazing day just a little bit sweeter? Millions of Americans cheering on a womens' sports team to a big victory tonight. Bigots would completely lose their minds.
Click to expand...
In another weird, not sort of sour grapes way (this was inevitable) do you smell your own hand after touching your crotch and blame it on other people?
Click to expand...
Why respond with personal insult here, my friend? The only people I insulted (barely) in my post are bigots. Seems odd that you took a generic shot at bigots so personally. I don't think of you as a bigot, but perhaps I misjudged you?
Click to expand...
I agree, and sorry for the insult. It seemed like mean gloating on your end, which I should have just shut up about. It was the focus on others and the newfound sting of "bigotry" applied to otherwise traditional positions that got me. I tend not to dismiss gays; women's sports aren't an issue for me other than the marketing of unbridled feminism, though I would certainly not root against country and would pull for another Rapinoe goal in dire straits while watching from an Amtrak station in Philly (great goal, very excited).

I've completely supported the removal of marriage from the government sphere since '95, way back when gay marriage had very little support. I thought it was egregious that marital/co-habitation rights weren't recognized for non-married people/gays.

That said, others have told me from a policy standpoint that this was unworkable because of the tax code and its dependence upon such, and I tend to agree that this had to be worked out within a consensus definition of co-habitation and marriage. Personally, I would have rather seen it go state-by-state, steamrolling opposition and coming to true populist consensus that gays should be allowed to marry or have civil unions, at least. That is why the only thing that has concerned me for years has been the compulsion of dissenters to provide business services to ceremonies, and especially that the Catholic Church need not sanction these marriages nor arrangements.

(I always keep the co-habiters in my thoughts)
Click to expand...
I see a number of people (mostly republican presidential candidates) saying this. But that was still going to leave too many states with bans on gay marriage. And its the Supreme Court's job to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority.

Sometimes the majority sucks.
Click to expand...
First bolded: Ah, so that's where they are going with this. If this is true, then we'll see the less Court carping and more pragmatic minutiae concerns.

Italicized: It's really their job to interpret the Constitution properly. When majorities should prevail, then their job is to interpret it in a way that majorities do so. The ACA decisions seemed to cement the very point I'm making, that of judicial deference to legislative majorities, even in the extreme.
Click to expand...
I don't know what your first paragraph means.

Right. And a big part of the Constitution is protecting the rights of individuals - especially against the tyranny of government (which, in our democratic system, is the majority). So while they can defer to the legislature when it enacts laws, those laws are not allowed to infringe on the constitutional rights of the individuals. And since at least 1803, the S.Ct. is the ultimate arbiter of when those laws infringe.

So kudos to the majority of the Supreme Court for protecting the rights of the minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

 
timschochet said:
Kal El said:
In all honesty, I'd rather the government recognize all marriages as civil unions from a legal standpoint, though.
Click to expand...
I am sooo glad that today's ruling will mark the end of the "state shouldn't recognize marriage" excuse now and forever.
Click to expand...
Supreme Court rulings clarify law, they do not end excuses. Those wanting to debate the issue will continue to do so, and likely we will see many attempts to write other legislation, or even to create an amendment to the Constitution to address the issue. Over time, of course, the argument will become increasingly marginalized but for a while yet we will continue to hear it.. Change in the law may occur abruptly, but change in hearts and minds is a process, and one which rarely is 100% completed.

In the end the die is cast, the future is clear, but that will not prevent some from fighting the battle long since lost.

Me, I welcome the ruling, but I have not yet read the reasoning and so cannot, as yet, comment on that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
whoknew said:
rockaction said:
TobiasFunke said:
rockaction said:
TobiasFunke said:
You know what would make this already amazing day just a little bit sweeter? Millions of Americans cheering on a womens' sports team to a big victory tonight. Bigots would completely lose their minds.
Click to expand...
In another weird, not sort of sour grapes way (this was inevitable) do you smell your own hand after touching your crotch and blame it on other people?
Click to expand...
Why respond with personal insult here, my friend? The only people I insulted (barely) in my post are bigots. Seems odd that you took a generic shot at bigots so personally. I don't think of you as a bigot, but perhaps I misjudged you?
Click to expand...
I agree, and sorry for the insult. It seemed like mean gloating on your end, which I should have just shut up about. It was the focus on others and the newfound sting of "bigotry" applied to otherwise traditional positions that got me. I tend not to dismiss gays; women's sports aren't an issue for me other than the marketing of unbridled feminism, though I would certainly not root against country and would pull for another Rapinoe goal in dire straits while watching from an Amtrak station in Philly (great goal, very excited).

I've completely supported the removal of marriage from the government sphere since '95, way back when gay marriage had very little support. I thought it was egregious that marital/co-habitation rights weren't recognized for non-married people/gays.

That said, others have told me from a policy standpoint that this was unworkable because of the tax code and its dependence upon such, and I tend to agree that this had to be worked out within a consensus definition of co-habitation and marriage. Personally, I would have rather seen it go state-by-state, steamrolling opposition and coming to true populist consensus that gays should be allowed to marry or have civil unions, at least. That is why the only thing that has concerned me for years has been the compulsion of dissenters to provide business services to ceremonies, and especially that the Catholic Church need not sanction these marriages nor arrangements.

(I always keep the co-habiters in my thoughts)
Click to expand...
I see a number of people (mostly republican presidential candidates) saying this. But that was still going to leave too many states with bans on gay marriage. And its the Supreme Court's job to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority.

Sometimes the majority sucks.
Click to expand...
Not just the Supreme Court's job- the Bill of Rights' job and the 14th Amendment's job. That's what makes these protests about respecting democracy and the will of the people so bizarre IMO.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
whoknew said:
I don't know what your first paragraph means.

Right. And a big part of the Constitution is protecting the rights of individuals - especially against the tyranny of government (which, in our democratic system, is the majority). So while they can defer to the legislature when it enacts laws, those laws are not allowed to infringe on the constitutional rights of the individuals. And since at least 1803, the S.Ct. is the ultimate arbiter of when those laws infringe.

So kudos to the majority of the Supreme Court for protecting the rights of the minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
Click to expand...
The first paragraph meant we'll see less #####ing about the decision and more focus on the coming decisions about business obligations to provide services for weddings.

The second part of your statement is partially true.

 
I supported this but is it wrong to be happy that we don't have to hear about the debate any longer? And not that it wasn't important but more because it always devolved in to some horrible discussion that really had nothing to do with the original argument.

 
No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Click to expand...
This owns.

 
It's Pride Week in San Francisco. We're going to reach Peak Gay out here.

So many babies are going to be made... err.. wait.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dgreen
Which direction is Christianity going?
2 3
Replies
137
Views
6K
SWC
SWC
Joe Bryant
Warren Buffett Closing Words In Final Annual Letter
Replies
15
Views
524
rockaction
rockaction
Joe Bryant
Office Speak - A marriage proposal
Replies
6
Views
492
Mrs. Rannous
Mrs. Rannous

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top