SCOTUS Gay Marriage Thread

[nol]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Man, this is truly a hate filled thread. Those of you that are championing equal rights sure are fast to attack anyone who you feel has an opposing view. Yeah, you guys are truly progressive and enlightened individuals. Keep up the good fight.

This is what always makes me laugh about people who like to crack on "the PC police." A few people just called you dumb and bigoted, that's all. That has no bearing on your health, your ability to make a living, get married, raise children, etc. If you want to keep saying dumb stuff, by all means go ahead!

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by tarcone

There are bound to be more unforeseen things that pop up. Some of which no one will see coming.

Are there unforeseen things people will see coming?

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Man, this is truly a hate filled thread. Those of you that are championing equal rights sure are fast to attack anyone who you feel has an opposing view. Yeah, you guys are truly progressive and enlightened individuals. Keep up the good fight.

Out of interest if you are against it (which seems to be the case) - then why do you feel the way you do regarding Gay marriage? - if you could explain your stance then I think it might help people understand your perspective better ... and obviously doing so would give people respect for your position or at least a way to debate things with you constructively.

[jeff061]

Cuz religion.

How dare I. I don't know him!

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Out of interest if you are against it (which seems to be the case) - then why do you feel the way you do regarding Gay marriage? - if you could explain your stance then I think it might help people understand your perspective better ... and obviously doing so would give people respect for your position or at least a way to debate things with you constructively.

Hehe, ain't nobody gonna say, "You fair, tarcone...let me scrape the tar and feathers off ya."

[Radii]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Man, this is truly a hate filled thread. Those of you that are championing equal rights sure are fast to attack anyone who you feel has an opposing view. Yeah, you guys are truly progressive and enlightened individuals. Keep up the good fight.

To be fair to some of those people, there are a solid 150 posts of arguing earlier in this thread where you did lay out pretty darn well how you feel about this. So when you post the adoption/marriage story with the commentary "So many things not thought about." on top of all of your previous positions on this (and there were many), its pretty easy to see exactly what your intent is and to respond as such.

[digamma]

I'm trying to understand what the issue or future fear is here. We had a sort of sham adoption take place to allow people to pass on benefits, hospital visitations, and other rights because they couldn't do so through marriage.

Now that they can get married, they are undoing the adoption.

Is the fear that real adoptions are going to get undone? Or is it that people are going to spend more money to first have adoptions and then undo them and then spend money on weddings? What are we afraid of? Fear itself?

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by digamma

What are we afraid of? Fear itself?

I hear that's the only thing to fear.

[molson]

Originally Posted by digamma

I'm trying to understand what the issue or future fear is here. We had a sort of sham adoption take place to allow people to pass on benefits, hospital visitations, and other rights because they couldn't do so through marriage.

Now that they can get married, they are undoing the adoption.

Is the fear that real adoptions are going to get undone? Or is it that people are going to spend more money to first have adoptions and then undo them and then spend money on weddings? What are we afraid of? Fear itself?

I was in Louisville for a wedding when the gay marriage ruling came down. While I was there I traveled around and went to a very rural Kentucky flea market, and I think I got a little insight in to this. I posted this earlier in this thread about the flea market:

Originally Posted by molson

There was a couple of people wearing confederate T-shirts and talking politics with some of the vendors. One expressed a concern that before long, they'd only be allowed to go to church in their own garages. I believe he was being sincere because he was talking only to other like-minded individuals, they were sympathizing with each other. These are very poor people (one of the poorest parts of America in fact), very uneducated.

I kind of felt bad for them - if you sincerely belive that's a real concern, I can see how that would be scary and how it could fuel your hate. And you can see these huge dividing lines between these people at the flea market and the liberal downtown Louisville crowd

It's a weird dichotomy. In other contexts we have compassion for the poor and uneducated - see the concern about Kentucky healthcare with the new governor. But we're very fast to call those same people hateful bigots if we're talking about a different issue. Is there any surprise we have these lines between people? Or backlash in the form of more Republican voters coming out when they perceive they're being attacked from all sides? Or how the ignorance can persist in these communities - if the rest of the community calls them stupid bigots, is it any wonder they're closed off and reinforce their views with peers?

You can't hate people into accepting something or changing their views. The way we've made progress in this area isn't by hating and shaming people, it's been done at a community level by people becoming more open with their lifestyles and good people around them eventually getting past their ignorance and adapting. I think those two groups of people are the key to all social progress past and present - the liberals that are able to push forward their ideals in a non-hateful way (either because they're really smart or they just obliviously live their lives in such a way), and the conservatives that are willing to gradually change their views when given that respect.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Out of interest if you are against it (which seems to be the case) - then why do you feel the way you do regarding Gay marriage? - if you could explain your stance then I think it might help people understand your perspective better ... and obviously doing so would give people respect for your position or at least a way to debate things with you constructively.

I'm not against it. I could care less who marries who. I'm not one to judge anyone's decisions.

Maybe my typing skills are not conveying what im asking. Maybe the people in here are just quick to judge others.

The whole thread, all I was trying to state is my wish for small government and the right for states to make their own decisions.

The lastest entry was truly just some things that I found interesting. I had no idea people were adopting their partners to ensure legal protection of their estates. And this being new to me, I was wondering what others things would pop up.

Never have I said I'm against gay marriage. Never have I made a bigoted comment. Never have I stated I am afraid of gay people getting married.

Again, I'm not the one to judge anyone. And the tone of some of the people in here is pretty sad.

I thought this would be the thread to find out more about what goes on with this decision and the possible outcomes. I guess it's the tread to come to if you want a bunch of judge mental people who think their view, being validated, allows them to be hyperactive with name calling.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by tarcone

The whole thread, all I was trying to state is my wish for small government and the right for states to make their own decisions.

I just don't think states should have any say when it comes to marriage. I'd imagine you'd be pretty pissed if you were married in Missouri, went to Iowa for some reason and your significant other got hurt in a major way and they told you that you had no rights as far as seeing her or making care decisions in their state.

Or you were driving in Tennessee, got pulled over and went to jail because Tennessee doesn't recognize a Missouri drivers license as valid.

There are certain things that are simply bigger than states rights. In my opinion.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I'm not against it. I could care less who marries who. I'm not one to judge anyone's decisions.

Thanks for explaining - I think its just an emotive topic and sometimes people can react badly in such circumstances when they might consider first checking their presumptions ...

[Thomkal]

the more things stay the same...

New Mormon Church Policy Making Same-Sex Married Couples Apostates « CBS DC

[miked]

Well, since we've said we don't want marriage being defined by the churches, why do we care if some churches choose to ban gay people who are married?

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by miked

Well, since we've said we don't want marriage being defined by the churches, why do we care if some churches choose to ban gay people who are married?

I actually don't care- churches are free to accept us (gay people) or not. Just thought it was interesting that they won't accept any of their children either,

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

I actually don't care- churches are free to accept us (gay people) or not. Just thought it was interesting that they won't accept any of their children either,

Because if the gay couples kids are normal, they can't go screaming about it corrupting people.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by tarcone

The whole thread, all I was trying to state is my wish for small government and the right for states to make their own decisions.

That's fine but States have never been able to make decisions that infringe on the constitutional rights of others. If your stance is consistent, you should support states rights to ban guns.

[nol]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I don't want to say anything that offends anyone. But is marriage in the constitution? I don't remember seeing it there. But maybe it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by nol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

This. And it's pretty unfair to go back to the 18th century wondering why homosexuality isn't specifically mentioned.

[Thomkal]

Lesbian Foster Parents: Order to Take Baby Under Review

I hope this was done because the parents, two lesbians, were shown not to be fit parents in some way, not because the judge followed his own religious beliefs (aka research that he says shows children do better with a man and a woman for parents)

[jeff061]

Well, if this couple is throwing the religion card out there to deflect from them endangering their child I wish you could throw them in jail for an extended period of time.

Likely a woman lying and falsely crying rape. It takes away from people who are legitimately having these issues. Lock them up.

[EagleFan]

Will wait to hear if more comes out before judging this one. Just one side so far. Sounds bad so far but I hope it is a case where the word lesbian in the headline is meaningless. Would rather it be a case of bad parenting than it being abuse of power.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

the more things stay the same...

New Mormon Church Policy Making Same-Sex Married Couples Apostates « CBS DC

Apparently a lot of Mormons are not happy about this-many are trying to leave the church over it. The Mormon leadership issued a letter trying to soften the restrictions towards children-they can still participate in church activities, etc.

Log In - The New York Times

[Thomkal]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-al...ource=Facebook

[SirFozzie]

Or short version.

Roy Moore decides he hasn't been in the news enough lately, and tries to command the sea not to roll in.

[jeff061]

"Roy Moore has advised the probate judges to do something that would be in contempt of court," said Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center. "It's going to be ignored."

One probate judge, Steven Reed in Montgomery, Alabama, said he would not heed the administrative order.
"Judge Moore's latest charade is just sad & pathetic," Reed posted on Twitter.

Done and done.

[Thomkal]

Kim Davis is going to attend Obama's last State of the Union:

War over gay marriage to play out at SOTU | Washington Examiner

I hope Obama looks right at her and tells her how wrong she was/is.

[flere-imsaho]

He might. He does appear to be The President Without Fucks To Give.

[Thomkal]

Love Wins?

https://news.vice.com/article/kentuc...rce=vicenewsfb

[QuikSand]

separate but equal, great

[Thomkal]

Love wins?

Glad the judges accepted that the Supreme Court ruling is the law of the land even if I didn't like their responses to the ruling:

Alabama Supreme Court Refuses Challenge to Gay Marriage - NBC News

[claphamsa]

sad that a lower court following the law qualifies as a mention.....

[Thomkal]

Come to Mississipi! (or not)

Scroll down to see the ad that mocks the state's recent "religious freedom" law:

Funny or Die Releases Mock Mississippi Tourism Ad in Response to State's Anti-LGBT Law | MissOpen

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Come to Mississipi! (or not)

Scroll down to see the ad that mocks the state's recent "religious freedom" law:

Funny or Die Releases Mock Mississippi Tourism Ad in Response to State's Anti-LGBT Law | MissOpen

[EagleFan]

Here I thought it was going to be parody but it turned out to be pretty accurate.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Here I thought it was going to be parody but it turned out to be pretty accurate.

yeah that's the most ironic/funny part about it

[Thomkal]

#LoveWins Justice Moore

Log In - The New York Times

[flere-imsaho]

It is the second complaint lodged by the state’s Judicial Inquiry Commission against the judge. In 2003, he was ousted by the same body from his position as chief justice after disobeying a federal court order to remove a two-ton monument of the Ten Commandments that he had installed in the rotunda of the state judicial building.

He was elected to that office again nine years later.

So...................

[bronconick]

He'll be back on the Alabama Supreme Court by 2018?

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

I guess this is our everything gay thread right? I wonder if Repubs/Conservatives will try to block it?

Obama nominates openly gay man to lead Army - CNNPolitics.com

An update to complete this story.

Eric Fanning, First Openly Gay Army Secretary, Confirmed by U.S. Senate - NBC News

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

An update to complete this story.

Eric Fanning, First Openly Gay Army Secretary, Confirmed by U.S. Senate - NBC News

Yeah I saw that. Happy for him. Looks like one of the Repubs did block it for awhile over a battle with Pres. Obama over Guantamino(sp?) inmates not being moved to Leavenworth. Mike Huckabee was not pleased he was even nominated because he's gay. Good thing he had no power to do anything about it.

[Thomkal]

the more things change...the more they stay the same...

Amid shouts of 'shame,' House GOP defeats gay rights measure | PBS NewsHour

[Thomkal]

man I sure hope he's out of office when the meteor hits Thanks for wasting the House's time Rep. Gohmert.

Texas Congressman Says US Should Not Make Gay Space Colonies | Motherboard

[cuervo72]

Were we...making gay space colonies?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

man I sure hope he's out of office when the meteor hits Thanks for wasting the House's time Rep. Gohmert.

Texas Congressman Says US Should Not Make Gay Space Colonies | Motherboard

Like, on the one hand, the rational response is that this isn't worth responding to.

On the other hand, there are some legitimate reasons to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in a colonization effort. If it's emergency colonization (the Kal-El Scenario, we'll call that), the survival of the species is paramount. If doom is imminent, there probably isn't time to worry about egalitarian niceties.

If it's "normal" colonization, you're still talking about slow boats and orders of magnitude more time for a second wave of colonists to reach the colony/-ies than was the case when Europe started carving up the New World. The trip itself is likely to take long enough that the colonial effort would have to rely on its colonists to be self-sufficient on a new planet without expecting fresh arrivals to inject new blood into the local gene pool. If there's no form of suspended animation (or travel at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light) to ensure that the colonists who sign up are the ones who eventually arrive, the effort is reliant on those colonists to engage in self-replacement during the voyage.

Yeah, we have the technology right now to enable same-sex couples to have biologically-theirs children, but that's unlikely to be a priority in terms either of scientific expertise or equipment in the mass budget for a colony.

Space colonization isn't the same thing as moving house. Once you have colonies established, there's no rational reason to restrict gay people from moving to those colonies, but at least initially, if you want the colonial effort to be successful, some decisions are going to be necessary that may come across as dickish.

All of that said, we aren't really remotely close either to being able to build a Space Ark, or to being able to detect a planet-killer of an asteroid in time to either BUILD a Space Ark or deflect/destroy the asteroid, and we haven't got the political will right now to spend the money necessary to do either or both of those things. Whatever the merits (accidental or otherwise) of Gohmert's rant, it's utterly pointless at this moment in time.

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Were we...making gay space colonies?

Unfortunately not (since that would imply that all of those OTHER issues above had already been sorted and humanity had started putting its eggs in more than just the one basket). But, y'know, maybe Civ:BE has a mod for that.

[jeff061]

So are you positing that gays are sterile or something? Or that gays are so gay they wouldn't have sex with a woman(or man) even if it meant saving the species?

I'd say other experiences and skill sets are significantly more valuable than sexual orientation.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Yeah, we have the technology right now to enable same-sex couples to have biologically-theirs children, but that's unlikely to be a priority in terms either of scientific expertise or equipment in the mass budget for a colony.

???

Option 1: Gay man and woman who aren't too squeamish about the opposite sex do the horizontal shuffle for the good of humanity. Maybe with their partners participating because space orgies are fun.

Option 2: Gay man deposits sperm into sterile cup. Gay woman takes sperm out of cup with the equivalent of a turkey baster (i.e. needleless syringe) and deposits it where it needs to be. At the following Thanksgiving the turkey basters are inadvertently switched, leading to much hilarity when the story is retold years later.

[Thomkal]

I think technology would be so advanced at this point that the equivalent of Option 2 would be possible and not cost-prohibited. If it meant the survival of the human race, I suppose I would be willing to do the "horizontal shuffle" with a woman. I must ask though how you know space orgies are fun?

My reason for posting it was more to point out the absurdity and homophobia around his comment-God forbid our "perverseness" spread out amongst the Stars. That he used his time to even talk about the issue at all just sickened me no end.

[Thomkal]

I suppose I should point out here a good example of "gayness" in Congress right now. The Democratic Representative from my home district in New York is the first gay member to be elected from that state. He has not been shy about fighting against discrimination and for gay rights. Which lead to this incident in the House the other day:

House breaks into fight over LGBT rights | MSNBC

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by jeff061

So are you positing that gays are sterile or something? Or that gays are so gay they wouldn't have sex with a woman(or man) even if it meant saving the species?

No, but I do think that if a Kal-El Scenario arises, you can call me an asshole, but I would absolutely be focused on maximizing the colony's chance of survival. You don't get do-overs on that scale.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

???

Option 2: Gay man deposits sperm into sterile cup. Gay woman takes sperm out of cup with the equivalent of a turkey baster (i.e. needleless syringe) and deposits it where it needs to be. At the following Thanksgiving the turkey basters are inadvertently switched, leading to much hilarity when the story is retold years later.

Honestly, during the voyage this is probably what would have to happen regardless of the colonists' orientation. Something about null-G being rough on the dude's vascular system.

But once on the ground the potential for social issues arises. And maybe I'm being overly cynical about humanity's ability to handle stress with maturity.

Don't get me wrong - if we WERE building a Space Ark and gay colonists were being accepted, I'm okay with that. If the mission planners say "here's the group that gives us the best chance for survival," at that point you have to trust that they know what they're talking about.

I'm just saying that in a Kal-El Scenario where a very few live and the majority perish, if I'm putting that mission together I'm probably more ruthless about it. And maybe that means I wouldn't be the best person to put that mission together. :-)

But given the distance and time scales involved even if it's elective colonization, I do think that first effort would have to be more stringent.