The Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) rules on June 26, 2015 in a 5-4 decision that same-sex marriage in protected by the constitution.
Huzzah!
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/us...iage.html?_r=0
06-26-2015 01:06 PM
#1
| |
SCOTUS rules in favor of same-sex marriageThe Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) rules on June 26, 2015 in a 5-4 decision that same-sex marriage in protected by the constitution. | |
06-26-2015 01:12 PM
#2
| |
| |
06-26-2015 01:19 PM
#3
| |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...8e5_story.html | |
06-26-2015 01:25 PM
#4
| |
The ruling says that same-sex marriage is protected. I don't know what point you're trying to make as a differentiation between the actual document of the Constitution and the body of people whose job is to interpret said document. | |
06-26-2015 01:27 PM
#5
| |
I really don't understand why any form of marriage needs to involve the state, but hooray I guess. 5/4 is kind of a beat though. | |
06-26-2015 01:48 PM
#6
| |
06-26-2015 01:55 PM
#7
| |
Let me clarify what I meant by my sarcasm (I didn't even read the article, but knew the judgement): It's not covered and should be determined on a state-by-state basis. However, the concept of states rights has been shit on so much that a lot of people sincerely think that the federal government is supposed to have authority over state government outside of things explicitly granted by the constitution. These are the same people who incorrectly think that states do not have a legal processes they can follow to secede (ie: they know just enough to make themselves sound stupid). | |
Last edited by spoonitnow; 06-26-2015 at 02:00 PM. | |
06-26-2015 02:02 PM
#8
| |
It just seems like all forms of partnership should be able to be handled through contracts, the contents of which should be whatever the agreeing parties want them to be. Let the legal system enforce all contracts between people and be done with it. If a married gay couple grants power of attorney to each other in the event of health catastrophe or whatever, it's covered. If a man and a woman want to have a contract that says the woman gets half of the man's shit when they split, write that shit up and move on. | |
06-26-2015 02:35 PM
#9
| |
I agree with this. | |
06-26-2015 02:50 PM
#10
| |
The other thing is that boilerplate contracts would evolve over time. There would still be a "default" definition of marriage, it just wouldn't be subject to state decree and every letter of it could be edited if the marrying couple wants. | |
06-26-2015 02:50 PM
#11
| |
The Federalism debate goes back to 1795 if not earlier. | |
06-26-2015 02:56 PM
#12
| |
I'm such a tool. | |
06-26-2015 03:02 PM
#13
| |
Well the issue has everything to do with the fact that a lot of partnership rights are needlessly exclusive to state-recognized forms of marriage. The state gives perks to married people only. The perks shouldn't be the state's to give. I'm happy about the decision, but it highlights something I'm deeply against: the state treating married people differently than everyone else. Now all of the single people just need to march on D.C. for a generation or two. | |
06-26-2015 03:17 PM
#14
| |
America: getting to the right place in the wrong way since 1776. | |
| |
06-26-2015 03:18 PM
#15
| |
Yeah but if two gay men get a divorce, how do they both get fucked? | |
| |
06-26-2015 03:19 PM
#16
| |
Taxes. | |
| |
06-26-2015 03:33 PM
#17
| |
States have an interest in existing. Some states need to be strong to continue to exist. Part of strength is a strong, functioning society that creates a surplus of work. Inspired by religions - strong, functioning societies required certain rules and incentives to manage them effectively. One of these rules was for monogamous marriage, an institution which exclusively paired off men with women to maximize the productivity of a nation. Instead of one amazingly well groomed gorilla, flanked by a harem of gorillaesses, encircled by lazy male hangers-on, society burdened every gorilla with a demanding partner, home, and family to work for. As technology has grown, the need for this old institution has been eroded and so now we get women CEOs and gays getting married. | |
| |
06-26-2015 03:39 PM
#18
| |
Yeah I don't totally doubt that many of these institution may have been useful for transitioning society from barbaric times into modernity. | |
06-26-2015 03:43 PM
#19
| |
Whatever modernity is, we're still the same people as we were 5000 years back. (Except for like, milk drinking and bug-resistance) | |
| |
06-26-2015 04:02 PM
#20
| |
lol 5,000. Try 40,000 at a bare minimum. I mean BARE minimum. Not many anthropologists would argue that homo sapiens aren't at least that old. Many anthropologists believe "modern" humans (homo sapiens) existed as much as 150,000 years ago. Some believe the species dates back even further. | |
Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 06-26-2015 at 04:06 PM. | |
06-26-2015 04:37 PM
#21
| |
I find it amusing that the dissenters are so miffed about the Court deciding this, as if it were the first time the SC used the 14th amendment to invalidate State law. | |
06-26-2015 05:04 PM
#22
| |
| |
06-26-2015 08:58 PM
#23
| |
Does anyone here see any merit to the "marriage is for procreation" argument? Scotusblog is featuring mostly anti-gaymarriage blogs, and I can't stand it. | |
06-26-2015 09:10 PM
#24
| |
You got it. | |
06-26-2015 09:36 PM
#25
| |
|
If we're going to have a monopoly on violence, I think it is imperative that this monopoly intervenes whenever and wherever only if it does so to create more freedom. |
06-26-2015 10:05 PM
#26
| |
|
It's funny, I typed up a whole post explaining why I disagree with this ruling because it's federal (even though I support it on an individual level), and instead I support states rights to compete and for people to vote with their dollars and their feet. I typed up the economic principle in play about how when you make it illegal for bigots to be bigots, you discard the problems their bigotry creates for them and you discard the power others have to punish the bigots and reward the non-bigots. |
06-26-2015 11:25 PM
#27
| |
"Honestly, the government never should have gotten involved in the marriage business" my father-inlaw. | |
| |
06-27-2015 10:31 AM
#28
| |
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. | |
Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 06-27-2015 at 10:35 AM. | |
06-27-2015 10:38 AM
#29
| |
Jkids, any good book recommendations going through the great cases and opinions of SCOTUS? | |
| |
06-27-2015 11:50 AM
#30
| |
I love how they're all about "the forefathers wanted us to change shit around as needed" but are still stuck in giving the institution of marriage the respect it had 100 years ago instead of treating it like the joke it is today. It's like they only want to be stuck in the past when it's convenient for them to look good PC-wise. | |
| |
06-27-2015 11:53 AM
#31
| |
my men's rights activist friend's reply when I linked him to the ruling: "I wonder if a lesbian couple get a divorce, will they both get alimony from the state?" | |
06-27-2015 12:05 PM
#32
| |
| |
06-27-2015 01:00 PM
#33
| |
I think I pissed off one of my girlfriend's friends over this gay marriage thing. | |
| |
06-27-2015 01:10 PM
#34
| |
|
Consider it the cost of playing tricks. |
06-27-2015 01:13 PM
#35
| |
06-27-2015 01:16 PM
#36
| |
06-27-2015 01:21 PM
#37
| |
I wonder what the next great civil rights angle is. Transracial? lol | |
| |
06-27-2015 01:39 PM
#38
| |
|
It's almost like people love being douchebags. |
06-27-2015 01:44 PM
#39
| |
Rachel Dolezal is the highest profile transracial case of late. | |
| |
06-27-2015 01:48 PM
#40
| |
|
I was once tricked in a play on words bet. 14 years old and lost $40. The guy who tricked me said he was surprised I paid. I wish I was quick enough to say I'm surprised he doesn't know the difference between a douchebag and a non-douchebag. |
06-27-2015 02:38 PM
#41
| |
06-27-2015 03:10 PM
#42
| |
That is a pretty slick play, spoon. | |
| |
06-27-2015 05:22 PM
#43
| |
06-27-2015 05:26 PM
#44
| |
| |
06-27-2015 06:50 PM
#45
| |
This ruling makes me want to give Antonin Scalia a rimjob. | |
| |
06-27-2015 06:58 PM
#46
| |
| |
06-27-2015 06:58 PM
#47
| |
Most of it gets solved if we become a protected and suspect class. That would stop discrimination in housing, employment, adoption, giving blood, and a horde of other areas. | |
06-27-2015 07:01 PM
#48
| |
06-27-2015 07:03 PM
#49
| |
|
What is protected and suspect class? Are there laws that protect certain groups that do not protect gays? Like, is there is a law that says "Yo, son, holmes can't discriminate against black peeps in da job space, sucka! But y'alls can do whatevs to da homosecktials, playa!" |
06-27-2015 08:39 PM
#50
| |
Actually, yes. | |
06-27-2015 08:46 PM
#51
| |
|
holy fuck not only did i know that, but i recall arguing exactly that before on this forum. i went into the specifics for each suspect classes. i even went into my fucking textbook to make sure i got it right. |
06-27-2015 08:47 PM
#52
| |
More on fundamental rights. | |
06-27-2015 09:13 PM
#53
| |
06-27-2015 09:29 PM
#54
| |
| |
06-27-2015 09:37 PM
#55
| |
|
Man, I think this suggests the heart of why the state is a problem. You're right that I don't think the state should limit any groups. But I also don't think the state should benefit any groups. But I think that if the state exists, it has to treat all groups equally. Therefore it has some weird job of benefiting and detracting groups by some arbitrary measure. And that's not a desired circumstance. |
06-28-2015 03:12 AM
#56
| |
I agree that no limits OR benefits should be given. And that is how it is for suspect classes. (You won't see a law giving Asians a pass on traffic laws, for example. The reason being is that the law really says that caucasians, blacks, etc are limited.) | |
06-28-2015 08:20 AM
#57
| |
| |
06-28-2015 08:37 AM
#58
| |
You men's rights wingnuts. | |
06-28-2015 08:52 AM
#59
| |
| |
06-28-2015 08:55 AM
#60
| |
| |
06-28-2015 09:06 AM
#61
| |
| |
06-28-2015 09:08 AM
#62
| |
| |
06-28-2015 10:12 AM
#63
| |
What rights of yours do you feel are not protected? | |
06-28-2015 10:39 AM
#64
| |
So you didn't watch the video at all then? | |
| |
06-28-2015 11:27 AM
#65
| |
Well, it's clear to me that alimony and/or child support are things that should be able to flow in either direction. | |
06-28-2015 11:52 AM
#66
| |
I haven't completely drunk the MRA movement's kool aid, but I think they make a lot of really good points. | |
06-28-2015 12:17 PM
#67
| |
Not to hijack the thread, but state-endorsed genital mutilation, laws that protect women (and not men) from violence and conscription are three quick and easy examples. These affect gay men just as much as straight men. | |
Last edited by spoonitnow; 06-28-2015 at 12:24 PM. | |
06-28-2015 01:00 PM
#68
| |
I saw the Rogan episode when it aired... or a while ago, at least. | |
06-28-2015 02:17 PM
#69
| |
| |
06-28-2015 10:12 PM
#70
| |
Suspect classes are all Judge-Made law. The 14th Amendment says States can't deprive people of equal protection of the law; yet States love doing just that. They do it so often with race, nationality, and illegals, that the Courts have started treating those groups as "suspect classes", and laws talking about them as being " suspect". Some classes are more suspect than others though, like there is almost never going to be a good reason to treat someone different due to race...but there sometimes is for gender and there's lots of reason for age. | |
07-01-2015 11:20 PM
#71
| |
So this exists... | |
| |
07-01-2015 11:49 PM
#72
| |
|
Both sides have done wrong by vilifying the other side. Difference of opinion happens all the time in professional and academic discourse. The more robust opinions win out because merit is used for argument instead of emotion. It might be satisfying to call somebody who believes gay marriage is wrong a bigot, but that doesn't help convince them of a better way. |
07-02-2015 08:17 AM
#73
| |
The merits of anything have been out the window for quite a while. If enough of the right people (primarily upper-middle class white women) bitch that they want something, they'll get it regardless of the pros and cons. | |
| |
07-02-2015 07:15 PM
#74
| |
| |