Supreme Court to decide the Gay Marriage debate... (1 Viewer)

[Mario Kart]

The Supreme Court agreed Friday to definitively answer whether the Constitution allows states to ban same-sex marriage, plunging the court directly into one of the nation's biggest legal and cultural issues.

By agreeing now to take up the question, the court allowed time for the case to be decided by the end of the current term in late June. The case will be argued in late April.

"It's impossible to overstate the historic significance of a decision on such a fundamental piece of our social fabric," said Tom Goldstein, a Washington lawyer who argues frequently before the Supreme Court.

The court granted cases from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. It said it would decide whether states can refuse to issue same sex-marriage licenses and whether they can refuse to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed elsewhere.

The issue comes to the justices after a tidal wave of lower court rulings struck down marriage bans in one state after another — nearly 60 separate decisions in more than half the states over the past 18 months.

Thirty-six states now permit gay people to get married, covering roughly 70 percent of the U.S. population. Court decisions on hold have struck down bans in five other states.

The surge of lower court rulings quickly followed the Supreme Court's 2013 decision that struck down a law barring the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages in states where they're legal.


But courts have upheld bans on marriage for gay couples in four other states — Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee — a split the Supreme Court will now resolve.

Public opinion has shifted in recent years. The first Gallup poll on the subject showed only 27 percent approval for same-sex marriage in 1996. Gallup's most recent poll, taken last year, showed 55 percent approval.

I think the Supreme Court will legalize same sex marriages. I don't see how they cannot.

I'm not sure if the decision will be 9-0 either way but I don't think it will fall in the 5-4 camp either. I could see the decision being 8-1 or 7-2 or 6-3 with some justices sticking to the, "this is not our decision to make" or "this belongs to the voters and not us" type of opinion but I don't see the court agreeing with the states' ban.

 

[FUBAR]

I'm not sure if the decision will be 9-0 either way but I don't think it will fall in the 5-4 camp either. I could see the decision being 8-1 or 7-2 or 6-3 with some justices sticking to the, "this is not our decision to make" or "this belongs to the voters and not us" type of opinion but I don't see the court agreeing with the states' ban.

I'm inclined to agree here. On one hand, this is a state issue or one that should be handled through legislation.

OTOH, they've already agreed to take the case and overruling the ban is the right thing.

 

[jon_mx]

I never understood why some here are so obsessed with this issue as if this is the biggest crisis facing mankind. The gay community will go through some kind of utopia after this ruling, but after a while will realize nothing really changed.

 

[beavers]

I never understood why some here are so obsessed with this issue as if this is the biggest crisis facing mankind. The gay community will go through some kind of utopia after this ruling, but after a while will realize nothing really changed.

Seriously? In Ohio, two people cannot legally adopt a child unless they are married. That is one of several items that can change as a result of gay marriage.

 

[FUBAR]

I never understood why some here are so obsessed with this issue as if this is the biggest crisis facing mankind. The gay community will go through some kind of utopia after this ruling, but after a while will realize nothing really changed.

Right. Just like nothing changed after woman's suffrage or Brown v. Board of Education.

This isn't at that level, but you're naive if you think this isn't significant.

 

[joffer]

I never understood why some here are so obsessed with this issue as if this is the biggest crisis facing mankind. The gay community will go through some kind of utopia after this ruling, but after a while will realize nothing really changed.

thats obvious

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I am not sure what happened in this case or if it was ultimately overturned. We don't have forced heirship or illegitimate children in LA anymore, but I think this finding from the USSC upholding those institutions in 1968 pretty much sums it up, this is what they have to decide:

Many will think that it is unfortunate that the rules are so rigid. Others will think differently. But the choices reflected by the intestate succession statute are choices which it is within the power of the State to make. The Federal Constitution does not give this Court the power to overturn the State's choice under the guise of constitutional interpretation because the Justices of this Court believe that they can provide better rules. Of course, it may be said that the rules adopted by the Louisiana Legislature "discriminate" against illegitimates. But the rules also discriminate against collateral relations, as opposed to ascendants, and against ascendants, as opposed to descendants. Other rules determining property rights based on family status also "discriminate" in favor of wives and against "concubines." The dissent attempts to distinguish these other "discriminations" on the ground that they have a biological or social basis. There is no biological difference between a wife and a concubine, nor does the Constitution require that there be such a difference before the State may assert its power to protect the wife and her children against the claims of a concubine and her children. The social difference between a wife and a concubine is analogous to the difference between a legitimate and an illegitimate child. One set of relationships is socially sanctioned, legally recognized, and gives rise to various rights and duties. The other set of relationships is illicit, and beyond the recognition of the law. Similarly, the State does not need biological or social reasons for distinguishing between ascendants and descendants. Some of these discriminatory choices are perhaps more closely connected to our conceptions of social justice or the ways in which most dying men wish to dispose of their property than the Louisiana rules governing illegitimate children. It may be possible that some of these choices are more "rational" than the choices inherent in Louisiana's categories of illegitimates. But the power to make rules to establish, protect, and strengthen family life, as well as to regulate the disposition of property left in Louisiana by a man dying there, is committed by the Constitution of the United States and the people of Louisiana to the legislature of that State. Absent a specific constitutional guarantee, it is for that legislature, not the life-tenured judges of this Court, to select from among possible laws. We cannot say that Louisiana's policy provides a perfect or even a desirable solution or the one we would have provided for the problem of the property rights of illegitimate children. Neither can we say that Louisiana does not have the power to make laws for distribution of property left within the State.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/532/case.html

The dissent is really good too, this was a 5-4 vote. I'm not voting in this poll and I'm not arguing one way or the other pro or anti gay marriage, I'm just talking about the legal issue.

I will add that maybe the biggest issue here is not the moral one or the question of who gets to decide this (courts, legislature or the people) but Full Faith & Credit. I don't know if the country can really go about having different marriage laws in different states.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

The Supreme Court agreed Friday to definitively answer whether the Constitution allows states to ban same-sex marriage, plunging the court directly into one of the nation's biggest legal and cultural issues.

This seems ambitious. Whether the court will "definitively" answer anything remains to be seen.

"It's impossible to overstate the historic significance of a decision on such a fundamental piece of our social fabric," said Tom Goldstein, a Washington lawyer who argues frequently before the Supreme Court.

The strikes me as false. I think it is certainly possible to overstate the historic significance of this decision.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So, the usuals:

• Overturn GM: Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan
• Uphold: Scalia, Thomas, Alito
• Tossups: Roberts, Kennedy

 

[Mario Kart]

The Supreme Court agreed Friday to definitively answer whether the Constitution allows states to ban same-sex marriage, plunging the court directly into one of the nation's biggest legal and cultural issues.

This seems ambitious. Whether the court will "definitively" answer anything remains to be seen.

This is where I think the court will come down which will be full of scrutiny. I'm not sure if the court is able to come back with a decision that forces the states involved to allow gay marriage but then turns it back to the Congress to "force" their hand into writing new federal legislation outlining gay marriage to be legalized.

The courts job is not to make policy so I could see the court "upholding" this decision with the clear directive that the Congress take this issue up quickly rather than sit on their hands. The articles I have seen bring up the Civil Rights Act which was also legislation passed through Congress. I think the court will want this to be passed in much the same way.

If the court does fall on that side of things, people will read/hear the snippet and think the court is evil without understanding how our system works. On the other hand, if the court decides to ban gay marriage, people will cry about the court "making new laws." The court is in a no win situation all around here. The one/few saving graces the court will have is to write an opinion that falls on precedent after precedent of big cases that have defined "social change" in the past that the court has had to decide.

This decision, socially, is a no brainer however that is what laws are for... not the court to decide. It will then be our issue, We The People, to get Congress to act sooner rather than later. I don't think that will happen at the Congressional level though.

 

[jon_mx]

So, the usuals:

• Overturn GM: Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan
• Uphold: Scalia, Thomas, Alito
• Tossups: Roberts, Kennedy

I think the only definite ones are the 4 for the overturn. There will have to be some compromise to get Kennedy onboard, whether that is enough to get Roberts and how others is the only question.

 

[jon_mx]

I never understood why some here are so obsessed with this issue as if this is the biggest crisis facing mankind. The gay community will go through some kind of utopia after this ruling, but after a while will realize nothing really changed.

Seriously? In Ohio, two people cannot legally adopt a child unless they are married. That is one of several items that can change as a result of gay marriage.

Most states do allow for adaption and the rules and moving that direction more and more every day. So this ruling may speed that up. But what people want more than anything is acceptance, and nothing a court can rule will change that.

 

[njherdfan]

Kennedy has consistently voted for gay rights. He wrote the decisions overturning DOMA and Romer. I don't really see him as a toss-up on this, although I could be wrong.

 

[njherdfan]

I never understood why some here are so obsessed with this issue as if this is the biggest crisis facing mankind. The gay community will go through some kind of utopia after this ruling, but after a while will realize nothing really changed.

Seriously? In Ohio, two people cannot legally adopt a child unless they are married. That is one of several items that can change as a result of gay marriage.

Most states do allow for adaption and the rules and moving that direction more and more every day. So this ruling may speed that up. But what people want more than anything is acceptance, and nothing a court can rule will change that.

Nice of you to act as the voice of the gay community. I happen to think that what they want more than anything is legal equality and to be treated like everyone else before the law.

 

[jon_mx]

I never understood why some here are so obsessed with this issue as if this is the biggest crisis facing mankind. The gay community will go through some kind of utopia after this ruling, but after a while will realize nothing really changed.

Right. Just like nothing changed after woman's suffrage or Brown v. Board of Education.

This isn't at that level, but you're naive if you think this isn't significant.

This does not change people's hearts. It will change some rules which impact a small minority of a small minority. My problem with this issue on this forum is there is a lynch mob against anyone who has the nerve to make a comment against it. It is a litmus test to many to determine if the other person is even human. Too many here take this issue way too seriously and are overly obssessed with the issue to the point it is impossible to even discuss without name-calling and hatred.

 

[jon_mx]

I never understood why some here are so obsessed with this issue as if this is the biggest crisis facing mankind. The gay community will go through some kind of utopia after this ruling, but after a while will realize nothing really changed.

Seriously? In Ohio, two people cannot legally adopt a child unless they are married. That is one of several items that can change as a result of gay marriage.

Most states do allow for adaption and the rules and moving that direction more and more every day. So this ruling may speed that up. But what people want more than anything is acceptance, and nothing a court can rule will change that.

Nice of you to act as the voice of the gay community. I happen to think that what they want more than anything is legal equality and to be treated like everyone else before the law.

It was not really for the gay community. That is a common thing to human beings. That is why I purposely did not say gays. All people want acceptance of who they are. It is a primary desire.

 

[jon_mx]

Kennedy has consistently voted for gay rights. He wrote the decisions overturning DOMA and Romer. I don't really see him as a toss-up on this, although I could be wrong.

But he is not rabidly for gay rights like the other four. He will force the rulig to be tempered some.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Kennedy has consistently voted for gay rights. He wrote the decisions overturning DOMA and Romer. I don't really see him as a toss-up on this, although I could be wrong.

I did not know that, sounds like a done deal then if that's an automatic 5?

 

[jon_mx]

Kennedy has consistently voted for gay rights. He wrote the decisions overturning DOMA and Romer. I don't really see him as a toss-up on this, although I could be wrong.

I did not know that, sounds like a done deal then if that's an automatic 5?

Kennedy has mostly sided with the gay rights side, but he was also the deciding vote which allowed the boy scouts to ban homosexual scout leaders. So, in general Kenedy is for gay rights, but he weighs it against other rights.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Kennedy has consistently voted for gay rights. He wrote the decisions overturning DOMA and Romer. I don't really see him as a toss-up on this, although I could be wrong.

I did not know that, sounds like a done deal then if that's an automatic 5?

Kennedy has mostly sided with the gay rights side, but he was also the deciding vote which allowed the boy scouts to ban homosexual scout leaders. So, in general Kenedy is for gay rights, but he weighs it against other rights.

Arguably the USSC has historically taken opportunities to make distinctions, so it is possible that he could rule one way in one case, but rule differently in another case distinguishing the facts and situation.

 

[FUBAR]

I never understood why some here are so obsessed with this issue as if this is the biggest crisis facing mankind. The gay community will go through some kind of utopia after this ruling, but after a while will realize nothing really changed.

Right. Just like nothing changed after woman's suffrage or Brown v. Board of Education.

This isn't at that level, but you're naive if you think this isn't significant.

This does not change people's hearts. It will change some rules which impact a small minority of a small minority. My problem with this issue on this forum is there is a lynch mob against anyone who has the nerve to make a comment against it. It is a litmus test to many to determine if the other person is even human. Too many here take this issue way too seriously and are overly obssessed with the issue to the point it is impossible to even discuss without name-calling and hatred.

I haven't followed every thread on the subject so if that's happened, I missed it.

Everything else you've written is similar to race issues. Brown didn't change racism, it just changed rules for a minority (children) within a minority (race).

 

[Dickies]

I'm surprised how fast the country has accepted gay marriage. It was probably 5-7 years ago that it was about a 50/50 or maybe even more against gay marriage. I was thinking it was going to be a decades long battle and we would have to wait for the older population to die off before anything gets done. We were told ad nauseam on this forum that ramming gay marriage down their throats giggle was not going to accomplish anything except anger the anti-gays. Here we stand today and the majority of the states have legalized gay marriage and I see public opinion on gay marriage taking a swing as well. I'd be shocked if the SC upholds the bans.

 

[FUBAR]

I'm surprised how fast the country has accepted gay marriage. It was probably 5-7 years ago that it was about a 50/50 or maybe even more against gay marriage. I was thinking it was going to be a decades long battle and we would have to wait for the older population to die off before anything gets done. We were told ad nauseam on this forum that ramming gay marriage down their throats giggle was not going to accomplish anything except anger the anti-gays. Here we stand today and the majority of the states have legalized gay marriage and I see public opinion on gay marriage taking a swing as well. I'd be shocked if the SC upholds the bans.

Hollywood has done a good job of encouraging acceptance.

 

[beavers]

I never understood why some here are so obsessed with this issue as if this is the biggest crisis facing mankind. The gay community will go through some kind of utopia after this ruling, but after a while will realize nothing really changed.

Seriously? In Ohio, two people cannot legally adopt a child unless they are married. That is one of several items that can change as a result of gay marriage.

Most states do allow for adaption and the rules and moving that direction more and more every day. So this ruling may speed that up. But what people want more than anything is acceptance, and nothing a court can rule will change that.

Most states did not allow prior to the court ruling on same sex marriage. Currently, Ohio does not allow.

I am accepted more than enough. Your acceptance or approval means absolutely nothing to me. Get off your high horse because I don't care about you or who you accept. I do care however, about getting equal rights for my partner and daughter.

 

[Aerial Assault]

This should be 6-3 or 7-2 to strike down the Sixth Circuit-covered state bans. Scalia and Thomas are givens to issue some convoluted homophobic decision (written by Scalia with Silent Clarence concurring) upholding the bans and Alito will be a possible. I think the other six are close to locks to strike down the bans.

 

[Underachievers]

Actually, children did not enter into my thoughts. But I was referring to criminals.

 

[jon_mx]

I never understood why some here are so obsessed with this issue as if this is the biggest crisis facing mankind. The gay community will go through some kind of utopia after this ruling, but after a while will realize nothing really changed.

Seriously? In Ohio, two people cannot legally adopt a child unless they are married. That is one of several items that can change as a result of gay marriage.

Most states do allow for adaption and the rules and moving that direction more and more every day. So this ruling may speed that up. But what people want more than anything is acceptance, and nothing a court can rule will change that.

Most states did not allow prior to the court ruling on same sex marriage. Currently, Ohio does not allow. I am accepted more than enough. Your acceptance or approval means absolutely nothing to me. Get off your high horse because I don't care about you or who you accept. I do care however, about getting equal rights for my partner and daughter.

The only person on the high horse is you.

 

[beavers]

I never understood why some here are so obsessed with this issue as if this is the biggest crisis facing mankind. The gay community will go through some kind of utopia after this ruling, but after a while will realize nothing really changed.

Seriously? In Ohio, two people cannot legally adopt a child unless they are married. That is one of several items that can change as a result of gay marriage.

Most states do allow for adaption and the rules and moving that direction more and more every day. So this ruling may speed that up. But what people want more than anything is acceptance, and nothing a court can rule will change that.

Most states did not allow prior to the court ruling on same sex marriage. Currently, Ohio does not allow. I am accepted more than enough. Your acceptance or approval means absolutely nothing to me. Get off your high horse because I don't care about you or who you accept. I do care however, about getting equal rights for my partner and daughter.

The only person on the high horse is you.

Nice, well thought response. Are you 7?

 

[popsecret]

I never understood why some here are so obsessed with this issue as if this is the biggest crisis facing mankind. The gay community will go through some kind of utopia after this ruling, but after a while will realize nothing really changed.

Seriously? In Ohio, two people cannot legally adopt a child unless they are married. That is one of several items that can change as a result of gay marriage.

Most states do allow for adaption and the rules and moving that direction more and more every day. So this ruling may speed that up. But what people want more than anything is acceptance, and nothing a court can rule will change that.

Most states did not allow prior to the court ruling on same sex marriage. Currently, Ohio does not allow.I am accepted more than enough. Your acceptance or approval means absolutely nothing to me. Get off your high horse because I don't care about you or who you accept. I do care however, about getting equal rights for my partner and daughter.

The only person on the high horse is you.

Nice, well thought response. Are you 7?

Can you please stop trolling this important thread?

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I'm surprised how fast the country has accepted gay marriage. It was probably 5-7 years ago that it was about a 50/50 or maybe even more against gay marriage. I was thinking it was going to be a decades long battle and we would have to wait for the older population to die off before anything gets done. We were told ad nauseam on this forum that ramming gay marriage down their throats giggle was not going to accomplish anything except anger the anti-gays. Here we stand today and the majority of the states have legalized gay marriage and I see public opinion on gay marriage taking a swing as well. I'd be shocked if the SC upholds the bans.

This is why I don't consider this case very important. There may be some short term value to a small number of people living in a few states, but the final chapter of this story is already written no matter the outcome in this case.

 

[jon_mx]

I never understood why some here are so obsessed with this issue as if this is the biggest crisis facing mankind. The gay community will go through some kind of utopia after this ruling, but after a while will realize nothing really changed.

Seriously? In Ohio, two people cannot legally adopt a child unless they are married. That is one of several items that can change as a result of gay marriage.

Most states do allow for adaption and the rules and moving that direction more and more every day. So this ruling may speed that up. But what people want more than anything is acceptance, and nothing a court can rule will change that.

Most states did not allow prior to the court ruling on same sex marriage. Currently, Ohio does not allow. I am accepted more than enough. Your acceptance or approval means absolutely nothing to me. Get off your high horse because I don't care about you or who you accept. I do care however, about getting equal rights for my partner and daughter.

The only person on the high horse is you.

Nice, well thought response. Are you 7?

Last thread you blatantly lied and made up stuff I never said. Never bother to apologies or even admit you were wrong. This thread you go directly into personal attacks. You have a serious chip on your shoulder.

 

[Jack White]

I never understood why some here are so obsessed with this issue as if this is the biggest crisis facing mankind. The gay community will go through some kind of utopia after this ruling, but after a while will realize nothing really changed.

Seriously? In Ohio, two people cannot legally adopt a child unless they are married. That is one of several items that can change as a result of gay marriage.

Most states do allow for adaption and the rules and moving that direction more and more every day. So this ruling may speed that up. But what people want more than anything is acceptance, and nothing a court can rule will change that.

Government is almost always behind the curve when it comes to this sort of stuff.

They look for something that is already a trend, then come in with their legislation or court rulings so they can take credit for what was already happening.

 

[popsecret]

I never understood why some here are so obsessed with this issue as if this is the biggest crisis facing mankind. The gay community will go through some kind of utopia after this ruling, but after a while will realize nothing really changed.

Seriously? In Ohio, two people cannot legally adopt a child unless they are married. That is one of several items that can change as a result of gay marriage.

Most states do allow for adaption and the rules and moving that direction more and more every day. So this ruling may speed that up. But what people want more than anything is acceptance, and nothing a court can rule will change that.

Most states did not allow prior to the court ruling on same sex marriage. Currently, Ohio does not allow.I am accepted more than enough. Your acceptance or approval means absolutely nothing to me. Get off your high horse because I don't care about you or who you accept. I do care however, about getting equal rights for my partner and daughter.

The only person on the high horse is you.

Nice, well thought response. Are you 7?

Last thread you blatantly lied and made up stuff I never said. Never bother to apologies or even admit you were wrong. This thread you go directly into personal attacks. You have a serious chip on your shoulder.

privilege is a hell of a thing

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I never understood why some here are so obsessed with this issue as if this is the biggest crisis facing mankind. The gay community will go through some kind of utopia after this ruling, but after a while will realize nothing really changed.

A lot is changing. The Supreme Court case will be only a small part of it, but acceptance of gays in general has come a very long way in the past few decades. It's a pretty important issue, IMO. I'd currently rank it second, behind factory farming, on my list of major ethical issues facing the civilized western world. (It was number one on my list ten years ago, but as we keep making progress, it becomes less paramount.)

 

[FUBAR]

Government is almost always behind the curve when it comes to this sort of stuff.

They look for something that is already a trend, then come in with their legislation or court rulings so they can take credit for what was already happening.

interesting point. Of course, the government is a reflection of the people and (at least in some people's opinions) legislation should follow what the people want. "the people" (meaning a majority) don't necessarily want something until it's a trend.

Court rulings should not necessarily follow popular opinions, yet judges are people too and don't usually get appointed and approved unless they're willing to follow popular concepts.

 

[beavers]

I never understood why some here are so obsessed with this issue as if this is the biggest crisis facing mankind. The gay community will go through some kind of utopia after this ruling, but after a while will realize nothing really changed.

Seriously? In Ohio, two people cannot legally adopt a child unless they are married. That is one of several items that can change as a result of gay marriage.

Most states do allow for adaption and the rules and moving that direction more and more every day. So this ruling may speed that up. But what people want more than anything is acceptance, and nothing a court can rule will change that.

Most states did not allow prior to the court ruling on same sex marriage. Currently, Ohio does not allow. I am accepted more than enough. Your acceptance or approval means absolutely nothing to me. Get off your high horse because I don't care about you or who you accept. I do care however, about getting equal rights for my partner and daughter.

The only person on the high horse is you.

Nice, well thought response. Are you 7?

Last thread you blatantly lied and made up stuff I never said. Never bother to apologies or even admit you were wrong. This thread you go directly into personal attacks. You have a serious chip on your shoulder.

I addressed your claim that I only care about acceptance

 

[jonessed]

It's unfortunate this got sidetracked into personal insults so quickly. It's an important issue.

 

[popsecret]

I never understood why some here are so obsessed with this issue as if this is the biggest crisis facing mankind. The gay community will go through some kind of utopia after this ruling, but after a while will realize nothing really changed.

Seriously? In Ohio, two people cannot legally adopt a child unless they are married. That is one of several items that can change as a result of gay marriage.

Most states do allow for adaption and the rules and moving that direction more and more every day. So this ruling may speed that up. But what people want more than anything is acceptance, and nothing a court can rule will change that.

Most states did not allow prior to the court ruling on same sex marriage. Currently, Ohio does not allow.I am accepted more than enough. Your acceptance or approval means absolutely nothing to me. Get off your high horse because I don't care about you or who you accept. I do care however, about getting equal rights for my partner and daughter.

The only person on the high horse is you.

Nice, well thought response. Are you 7?

Last thread you blatantly lied and made up stuff I never said. Never bother to apologies or even admit you were wrong. This thread you go directly into personal attacks. You have a serious chip on your shoulder.

I addressed your claim that I only care about acceptance

You did address his claim, but with vinegar. You can't actually think you are in the right here? Can someone be that delusional?

 

[lakerstan]

The court should rule that since marriage is an institution derived from religious practices, the government should not advocate for or against the practice, thus doing away with all marriage related references in law. So no more checking married or single on your taxes, spouse based benefits, etc.

 

[jon_mx]

I never understood why some here are so obsessed with this issue as if this is the biggest crisis facing mankind. The gay community will go through some kind of utopia after this ruling, but after a while will realize nothing really changed.

Seriously? In Ohio, two people cannot legally adopt a child unless they are married. That is one of several items that can change as a result of gay marriage.

Most states do allow for adaption and the rules and moving that direction more and more every day. So this ruling may speed that up. But what people want more than anything is acceptance, and nothing a court can rule will change that.

Most states did not allow prior to the court ruling on same sex marriage. Currently, Ohio does not allow. I am accepted more than enough. Your acceptance or approval means absolutely nothing to me. Get off your high horse because I don't care about you or who you accept. I do care however, about getting equal rights for my partner and daughter.

The only person on the high horse is you.

Nice, well thought response. Are you 7?

Last thread you blatantly lied and made up stuff I never said. Never bother to apologies or even admit you were wrong. This thread you go directly into personal attacks. You have a serious chip on your shoulder.

I addressed your claim that I only care about acceptance

You did not even do that. You just addressed not caring if I accepted you, which was not the point. But all people have the need to be accepted by those close to them.

 

[rct]

I never understood why some here are so obsessed with this issue as if this is the biggest crisis facing mankind. The gay community will go through some kind of utopia after this ruling, but after a while will realize nothing really changed.

Seriously? In Ohio, two people cannot legally adopt a child unless they are married. That is one of several items that can change as a result of gay marriage.

Most states do allow for adaption and the rules and moving that direction more and more every day. So this ruling may speed that up. But what people want more than anything is acceptance, and nothing a court can rule will change that.

Most states did not allow prior to the court ruling on same sex marriage. Currently, Ohio does not allow.I am accepted more than enough. Your acceptance or approval means absolutely nothing to me. Get off your high horse because I don't care about you or who you accept. I do care however, about getting equal rights for my partner and daughter.

The only person on the high horse is you.

Nice, well thought response. Are you 7?

Last thread you blatantly lied and made up stuff I never said. Never bother to apologies or even admit you were wrong. This thread you go directly into personal attacks. You have a serious chip on your shoulder.

I addressed your claim that I only care about acceptance

You did address his claim, but with vinegar. You can't actually think you are in the right here? Can someone be that delusional?

She is on the right side of history, Em, which can't be said of you.

 

[roadkill1292]

I'm surprised how fast the country has accepted gay marriage. It was probably 5-7 years ago that it was about a 50/50 or maybe even more against gay marriage. I was thinking it was going to be a decades long battle and we would have to wait for the older population to die off before anything gets done. We were told ad nauseam on this forum that ramming gay marriage down their throats giggle was not going to accomplish anything except anger the anti-gays. Here we stand today and the majority of the states have legalized gay marriage and I see public opinion on gay marriage taking a swing as well. I'd be shocked if the SC upholds the bans.

Hollywood has done a good job of encouraging acceptance.

In the interest of fairness, Hollywood owes us a sitcom about a men's bible study group, with lots of quips and queer jokes. I could see Kevin Nealon playing the part of the group leader.

 

[Jayrod]

The court should rule that since marriage is an institution derived from religious practices, the government should not advocate for or against the practice, thus doing away with all marriage related references in law. So no more checking married or single on your taxes, spouse based benefits, etc.

I wish this was the case.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The court should rule that since marriage is an institution derived from religious practices, the government should not advocate for or against the practice, thus doing away with all marriage related references in law. So no more checking married or single on your taxes, spouse based benefits, etc.

This simply isn't true. I'm a Christian and I see marriage as a religious sacrament, but it is an unambiguous fact of life that many people don't. For lots of folks, marriage is an affirmation of their commitment to one another regardless of any religious overtones. And from a purely secular standpoint, marriage is simply an assortment of contract rights packaged together for the convenience of the people who consented to be governed.

Why the hell should we not allow people to enter into these contracts if they desire to do so? Why does it matter if their motives are religious, sexual, platonic, or whatever? The government should be neutral on this sort of thing and simultaneously friendly toward mutually-beneficial social arrangements.

 

[jon_mx]

I never understood why some here are so obsessed with this issue as if this is the biggest crisis facing mankind. The gay community will go through some kind of utopia after this ruling, but after a while will realize nothing really changed.

Right. Just like nothing changed after woman's suffrage or Brown v. Board of Education.

This isn't at that level, but you're naive if you think this isn't significant.

Kind of an interesting example. Now that blacks have every law imaginable that protects their rights, how are race relations? Something more important is missing and a large part of it is blacks not feeling accepted by whites. Not saying laws have not helped, but it is not the end game.

 

[Apple Jack]

It's unfortunate this got sidetracked into personal insults so quickly. It's an important issue.

Might want to clue jon in. He seems to think it's about people seeking validation from others.

 

[Apple Jack]

I never understood why some here are so obsessed with this issue as if this is the biggest crisis facing mankind. The gay community will go through some kind of utopia after this ruling, but after a while will realize nothing really changed.

Right. Just like nothing changed after woman's suffrage or Brown v. Board of Education.

This isn't at that level, but you're naive if you think this isn't significant.

Kind of an interesting example. Now that blacks have every law imaginable that protects their rights, how are race relations? Something more important is missing and a large part of it is blacks not feeling accepted by whites. Not saying laws have not helped, but it is not the end game.

You're not doing your team any favors.

 

[jon_mx]

I never understood why some here are so obsessed with this issue as if this is the biggest crisis facing mankind. The gay community will go through some kind of utopia after this ruling, but after a while will realize nothing really changed.

Right. Just like nothing changed after woman's suffrage or Brown v. Board of Education.

This isn't at that level, but you're naive if you think this isn't significant.

Kind of an interesting example. Now that blacks have every law imaginable that protects their rights, how are race relations? Something more important is missing and a large part of it is blacks not feeling accepted by whites. Not saying laws have not helped, but it is not the end game.

You're not doing your team any favors.

I thought this was a discussion. Did not realize we are divided up by teams. You can't discuss issues here without people getting all bent out of shape and

 

[jon_mx]

It's unfortunate this got sidetracked into personal insults so quickly. It's an important issue.

Might want to clue jon in. He seems to think it's about people seeking validation from others.

Wasn't my point.

 

[FUBAR]

I never understood why some here are so obsessed with this issue as if this is the biggest crisis facing mankind. The gay community will go through some kind of utopia after this ruling, but after a while will realize nothing really changed.

Right. Just like nothing changed after woman's suffrage or Brown v. Board of Education.

This isn't at that level, but you're naive if you think this isn't significant.

Kind of an interesting example. Now that blacks have every law imaginable that protects their rights, how are race relations? Something more important is missing and a large part of it is blacks not feeling accepted by whites. Not saying laws have not helped, but it is not the end game.

Wonder if there's a reason for that.

Nah, its their fault for being overly sensitive.