SCOTUS Gay Marriage Thread

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Wow! That's awesome, Thomkal! Congrats on coming out here, and on the big win yesterday for the GBLT community.

As a fiscal conservative, I find myself more and more identifying with a more progressively social stance, and I see yesterday as a big win for my stance on that as well.

I have to admit, your situation with your twin brother is interesting to me, on the science side of things. Are you and your brother identical twins?

Thanks Chief. Yes we are identical-he's about 3 mins older than me, and I was a surprise to my doctor and parents. "oh my god, there's another one in there!" or something similar was his response when he saw me. Born a month premature (remember this was back in the 60's), and I was baptized in the hospital because they were not sure I would survive. Fooled them all I guess.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

I still have relatives living in your area

Yeah, I remember. If you're around let me know.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Grover

Whoo! Good for you. Very happy you felt like you could share this with us.

My biggest laugh about the entire thing is how the religious feel it is infringing on their personal beliefs. Nobody is forcing these churches to marry LGBTQ couples. They can go to city hall and get a certificate like anybody else could.

This is a fantastic day for equality and love. Hopefully we can continue to push forward as a nation and globally.

Yeah the republican response to the decision was sad but predictable. All it is doing is pushing away a lot of people from voting for them in the future. I can understand it more from a professional religious man (or woman)-they are being told to accept something that is very core to their beliefs and are wondering what's next), but all these people going over the top (Huckabee and Cruz I'm looking at you.) saying that the end days are now here and that "the gays" have destroyed America just make me shake my head.

Edit: I'm very glad that the Justice put in his decision that no one is forcing a church to marry same sex couples if their faith does not call for it. That's the way it should be. Makes it hard on the couple though, as they may be forced from their denomination of choice if they want to be married in a church. The pastor at my mom's church, recently had to tell a couple (not in the church), because of his beliefs, could not come to the ceremony.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Subby

God bless you. I am so happy for you.

Thanks Chris! Means a lot to hear from another of my FOBL brethren on this. I'm kinda happy for myself too

[claphamsa]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Finally, Finally I can proudly call myself a gay American. Yes I was one of the two people (i think) marked that box we had in that poll here a while back. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled in our favor, I feel it was time to come out of the shadows. This issue has caused some strife in my own family, with the person I should be closest to-my twin brother. He is very much a conservative Christian Republican...while I'm not any of those. It's been hard for both of us to put our political/social beliefs behind us at times and remember we are our brothers first. I don't expect this decision to do much to change things between us, but it has and will help many of my gay brethren who have fought for this for so long, and for that I am happy for them.

NOTE: If today's results and my "coming out here" disgusts and angers you, then please block me-I don't want to hear your words anymore than you want to hear mine anymore I'm guessing.

hoowa! rarely come into this thread...but glad i saw this. be yourself and no one else

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Subby

This video captures how proud I am of my country right now. It brought tears to my eyes.

Gay Men's Chorus of Washington Sings National Anthem After Supreme Court Ruling - YouTube

mine too. I've seen one video taken by a You Tuber right there in the crowd, right when the decision was announced-the noise and emotion of that moment is something I will always remember.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Congratulations. Today, you're one giant step closer to sharing everything that's positive about America.

We've all seen too many of the negatives lately. It's nice to have a day that's about inclusion and freedom.

Thanks Jim! It sure was nice to have a day like that. Not sure how many more of them we will have sadly

[tarcone]

Dissenting opinion from Justice Roberts

"Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law," he wrote.

And continues

"Stripped of its shiny rhetorical gloss, the majority's argument is that the Due Process Clause gives same-sex couples a fundamental right to marry because it will be good for them and for society," Roberts wrote. "If I were a legislator, I would certainly consider that view as a matter of social policy. But as a judge, I find the majority's position indefensible as a matter of constitutional law."

Scalia wrote:

"Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best," Scalia wrote. "But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law."

I'm going with the dissenting judges on this one. It should not be decided in the SCOTUS. Change should have come from the legislators. Elected by the people.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Dutch

We talk a lot here at FOFC about how our back and forth bickering never changes minds. But I've changed my mind over the years on what homosexuality is, and a lot of that was from discussions a long time ago here on this message board. And basically, I just don't understand it, but its not something to be hateful about, its not something to be scared of. I dont make gay jokes anymore...I stopped saying, "That's gay" about anything I disapprove of. While I still struggle to equate it to our racial problems...I get that it was second class citizenship we were enforcing and I was part of the problem.

In a nutshell, I'm glad that you, a decent human being by all accounts, are happy and that America has taken a step to be more comfortable with you.

Dutch,

what a classy response, thank you for it. I'm glad you were able to open your mind and understand what homosexuality is and what you were doing was harmful to many others around you. Unfortunately too many have not learned this yet. My mother (in her 70's, very religious) goes to a card crafting party at her friends house every other week or so. At the party this time were two women-who could have gone by the same description as her. When she came home from the party, I went to her car to help her bring stuff into the house...and she was literally shaking and crying and apologizing to me. I held her close and tried to figure out what was wrong.

The two woman, thinking they were amongst people of their same beliefs, had gotten on to the topic of homosexuals for some reason, and started spouting a lot of nasty stuff about us, not knowing she was the mother of one. Stuff that was bred from pure ignorance and from the pulpit. My mother was flabbergasted as she had never experienced such talk and outright hatred before, and she was so sorry that I had to ever experience that. It was not a fun day.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

A day that has been long overdue... sort of. The only thing that I am not a fan of is the supreme court taking away power from the state. I applaud the message, just not the messenger.

Oh well enough of the parade pissing. Great message, one that I fully support. As I have said. While I may not like seeing two men kissing that is my own problem, not theirs. Anyone that is against the idea of same sex marriage there is very good news for you; this doesn't affect you one bit. If you don't like the idea of same sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex.

Hey EF,

Thanks for the support, I don't like to see two woman kissing, and I'm gay So I can understand your point of view here. In fact the thought of having sex with a woman makes me ill .

Have to disagree with you a bit on your other point. This clearly has become a national issue rather than a state one-because now laws would have to be written in each state over the status of a same-sex marriage. Some would deny they had any status at all, which only would create more lawsuits and angst. This way the SC had made the status the same for everyone-crystal clear and hopefully not up for interpretation.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

CNN freaks out over ISIS flag at gay pride parade.

The flag was a parody using dildo images instead of Arabic lettering.

I had seen this in passing, but had not heard what they found out. Oh those wacky gay people. On the other hand, isis would no doubt love to cut up a bunch of gays than even a bunch of Americans, so glad there was no one there to act on this.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

congrats Dan!

a late response Thanks DD!

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by claphamsa

hoowa! rarely come into this thread...but glad i saw this. be yourself and no one else

Thanks clap! That was a tough lesson to learn-was in the closet for a long time.

[claphamsa]

Some States Are Still Trying To Resist Gay Marriage
LOL

[Dutch]

My guess is Thomkal never forgets to send thank you cards either.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Dutch

My guess is Thomkal never forgets to send thank you cards either.

What's your address, I'll send you one I just felt it was important to thank the people who supported my decision, or gave me support. And I had/have a lot of free time tonight

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I'm going with the dissenting judges on this one. It should not be decided in the SCOTUS. Change should have come from the legislators. Elected by the people.

The fed/anti-fed debate is a brilliant pain in the ass.

It gets icky pretty quick. Such as, do you think marriages and their rights should be revoked once across a border?

Also, is this only a state issue? Can a county have a law different from the state?

[tarcone]

How many years is the over/under on when polygamy becomes a right?

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by tarcone

How many years is the over/under on when polygamy becomes a right?

Congratulations, you win the strawman cup. Thanks for playing.

[RainMaker]

Polygamy is a bit different.

I could care less how many wives someone has though.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Congratulations, you win the strawman cup. Thanks for playing.

I'm being serious. The rights of people to marry whomever they choose is the heart of this decision, correct?
There are people out there who believe in this. Why is it a straw man arguement?
I haven't been discussing who should get married. I've been against the method in which it has been adopted.
Using the fact that the Supreme Court has decided to jump into this. Shouldn't polygamists, which is practiced by Mormon fundamentalists, be given their day in court? This could hit both the 14th amendment and the 1st amendment.

You can be closed minded about it. But sticking your head in the sand, doesn't mean it won't happen.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Polygamy is a bit different.

I could care less how many wives someone has though.

And same sex marriage wasn't a bit different a decade ago?

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I'm being serious. The rights of people to marry whomever they choose is the heart of this decision, correct?
There are people out there who believe in this. Why is it a straw man arguement?
I haven't been discussing who should get married. I've been against the method in which it has been adopted.
Using the fact that the Supreme Court has decided to jump into this. Shouldn't polygamists, which is practiced by Mormon fundamentalists, be given their day in court? This could hit both the 14th amendment and the 1st amendment.

You can be closed minded about it. But sticking your head in the sand, doesn't mean it won't happen.

Your question is only serious if you see the choice to want multiple spouses the same as being homosexual. Even if you think homosexuality is a choice, one can be homosexual without ever having a sexual relationahip, however, one cannot be an unmarried polygamist.

You are mixing your philosophies, just pick one:

"To be is to do”—Socrates.
“To do is to be”—Jean-Paul Sartre.
“Do be do be do”—Frank Sinatra.

[tarcone]

Is monogamy a scientific fact? If it isn't, shouldn't one who has the urge to have multiple partners and be allowed to have them covered by their health insurance and be able to give them all the benefits of marriage, be allowed to marry them?

[Shkspr]

First of all, stop it. There is no organized group seeking plural marriage in any serious fashion, so it's a silly question.

Second, nothing changed this week about how the United States as a government treats marriages; the only thing that altered is the requirements for starting one. So the arguments about gay marriage were social in nature.

That's not the case with plural marriages. Tax burdens, power of attorney, inheritance, child custody, asset and liability assignment - none of these are insurmountable problems, but there is enough legal burden on changing the system to allow group or plural marriage that it'll be a while before any group is large enough or determined enough to make a competent case to force the government to make those changes.

Finally, my suspicion is that while it was blatantly discriminatory to claim that two people couldn't enter into a legal covenant together because of their gender, the practice of enforcing exclusivity in partnerships is quite settled as a legal matter.

[tarcone]

It's social policy.

I'm surprised so many are willing to throw away the tenets of our great democratic republic.
There was no reason for the court to step in. Laws would have been changed the way our country was set up. It may have taken a little longer, but it would have happened. And there would have been a lot less turmoil.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Is monogamy a scientific fact? If it isn't, shouldn't one who has the urge to have multiple partners and be allowed to have them covered by their health insurance and be able to give them all the benefits of marriage, be allowed to marry them?

Perhaps. And as long as everyone is eligible for it it would be fine.

The issue with gay marriage was that not all citizens were eligible for this right.

[stevew]

Once Obummer secretly implements sharia law we can get polygamy ok'd

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by tarcone

How many years is the over/under on when polygamy becomes a right?

I do think there will be challenges in the court for polygamy. However, I just don't see it being made legal anytime soon.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by stevew

Once Obummer secretly implements sharia law we can get polygamy ok'd

I had a relative that believed he was a secret Muslim. I wonder what she thinks of his rendition of Amazing Grace.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by tarcone

It's social policy.

I'm surprised so many are willing to throw away the tenets of our great democratic republic.
There was no reason for the court to step in. Laws would have been changed the way our country was set up. It may have taken a little longer, but it would have happened. And there would have been a lot less turmoil.

So I am clear, what tenet are you referring to?

Its interpretation of the law that impacts social policy. It wasn't the justices just making their own "social program".

And no, I actually don't believe it would have happened but just "a little longer". Do you believe blacks and women would have progressed this far since the 50's and 60's without being made to do so?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

What's your address, I'll send you one I just felt it was important to thank the people who supported my decision, or gave me support. And I had/have a lot of free time tonight

See, I knew it!

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Polygamy is a bit different.

I could care less how many wives someone has though.

As long as all those involved consent to the arrangement, I'm not concerned.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I'm surprised so many are willing to throw away the tenets of our great democratic republic.
There was no reason for the court to step in. Laws would have been changed the way our country was set up. It may have taken a little longer, but it would have happened. And there would have been a lot less turmoil.

Once upon a time people felt that way about segregation and miscegenation. Were they wrong in Loving v Virginia? Should it have continued to be state's rights? That couple was married in DC, where it was legal, but lived in Virginia where it was a crime. I think they were right to put an end to that and they were right to put an end to marriages only being allowed between consenting adults of opposite gender.

As far as laws being changed and it simply taking time, how long should people have to wait? Would segregation have been eliminated if not done by the hands of SCOTUS? When? It had already been 100 years since the Civil War. How long should people have to wait for equal access and due process? To make it even worse, SCOTUS had even once said "separate but equal" was just fine, but it no longer flies.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

As long as all those involved consent to the arrangement, I'm not concerned.

But can you imagine the divorce cases?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

But can you imagine the divorce cases?

An administrative nightmare. Good for the lawyers, bad for everybody else.

[murrayyyyy]

Originally Posted by tarcone

It's social policy.

Laws would have been changed the way our country was set up. It may have taken a little longer, but it would have happened. And there would have been a lot less turmoil.

I'll take guess who is a white male for 200 Alex.

[Subby]

OMG HOW LONG UNTIL SCHMIDTY IS ALLOPWED TO MARRIE HIS DOOOOG???

god O'BUMMMER!

#handbasket

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And?

[corbes]

So, here's the thing about "letting the democratic process play out" and "state's rights":

We don't get to vote on whether people can exercise their fundamental constitutional rights. Nor do states get to abridge those rights.

[digamma]

new thread created.

[digamma]

It's funny, I think you could cut excerpts of the Amazing Grace eulogy and apply them into this thread.

-“We don’t earn grace. We're all sinners. We don't deserve it. But God gives it to us anyway.”

-"For too long we've been blind...we see that now."

Amazing grace, indeed. And love wins.

[molson]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

But can you imagine the divorce cases?

And tax and financial implications. A group of married people could set up tax shelters, avoid estate taxes, pick out the best work benefit package among the group and then share that one among everyone.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Perhaps. And as long as everyone is eligible for it it would be fine.

The issue with gay marriage was that not all citizens were eligible for this right.

Exactly. It's nice to see that such an obvious hole was left in whatever talking points memo was circulated to these people.

[ISiddiqui]

I am super happy about the SCOTUS ruling! When I read the news on Friday, I was just insanely giddy and kept singing "Now is the Feast and Celebration" (it's a Church hymn). My pastor went down to the Courthouse and started marrying couples almost immediately - I think she married the first gay couples in Dekalb County, GA. I'm sure it was a party atmosphere at Church on Sunday. I'm sad I missed it as I was out of town, but it was a great message - for those who are Christian and are affirming (even if you aren't, I guess), here is a link to it:

Fifth Sunday after Pentecost | 28 June 2015 on Vimeo

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by corbes

So, here's the thing about "letting the democratic process play out" and "state's rights":

We don't get to vote on whether people can exercise their fundamental constitutional rights. Nor do states get to abridge those rights.

Marriage isn't a fundamental constitional right. its defined by states.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by molson

And tax and financial implications. A group of married people could set up tax shelters, avoid estate taxes, pick out the best work benefit package among the group and then share that one among everyone.

There are some things to consider. It is an interesting thought exercise.

[digamma]

You should re-read the Court's opinion.

edit: directed at tarcone's post.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Marriage isn't a fundamental constitional right. its defined by states.

Loving v. Virginia.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Marriage isn't a fundamental constitional right. its defined by states.

So what happens when one state allows gay marriage, one doesn't, and somebody has to move from one state to another. Do they become unmarried?