SCOTUS strikes down ban on gay marriage

[BlueStarLizzard]

As a side note, the libertarian me is in somber, reluctant agreement with SCOTUS on this one, but I still cringe.  When there are closely held principles in conflict, I defer to the 9th Amendment.  Not all of the rights we have are enumerated in the Constitution.  "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."  It is not seemly to deny people the right to make the wrong choice.  Otherwise, they are not free at all.

Otoh...

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and His justice will not sleep forever".

Off to check quotes.

I applaud your ability to sepperate your personal beliefs on the subject and your political viewpoints.

I really don't understand why other people can't.

[Hutch]

I applaud your ability to sepperate your personal beliefs on the subject and your political viewpoints.

I really don't understand why other people can't.

None of them have my stoic, Spockian wisdom... 

[lupinus]

I disagree on the 14th. That shouldn't open the door. Does it? As applied sure, but so does the commerce clause on many issues and that works out so well.

This has nothing to do with my view of homosexuals, it's not my business whose fiddle people wanna diddle. What I do have issue with is judicial activism forcing every state in the country to do something that is outside of their powers.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[zxcvbob]

From everything I've heard and read, there doesn't seem to be any legal wall to block polygamy at this point. I don't really care from the "minding my own business" standpoint and believing marriage should have nothing to do with government.

The problem with polygamy would be if, like with same sex marriage, the state forces employers to cover spouses on health care etc. In this case, spouses really is plural. That could cost business a lot of money.

The other legal battle that will likely ensue will be forcing churches to perform gay, poly, etc. marriages with the stick for not doing so being revocation of tax exempt status.

Equality =/= freedom.

Not really much of a threat to our little church; we've been losing money for years.  There's nothing to tax. 

[White Horseradish]

The problem with polygamy would be if, like with same sex marriage, the state forces employers to cover spouses on health care etc. In this case, spouses really is plural. That could cost business a lot of money.

I initially thought this reasonable.

Then I remembered how my spouse right now is not at all covered by the insurance my employer gives me. (I am paying the Obamacare penalties). I could get coverage thorough the employer, but I would have to pay for it, more than I can afford.

If they are not forced to cover her right now, why would they be forced to cover any other spouses?

[Perd Hapley]

Seriously, can you guys ever discuss gays without bringing out a whole lot of stupid, irrelevant and judgemental crap?

I agree. This has been a major problem with the pro-marriage, pro-reason side all along. We should have simply said that marriage requires both sexes; no moral judgments required. It is what it is.

I applaud your ability to sepperate your personal beliefs on the subject and your political viewpoints.

I really don't understand why other people can't.

Marriage is a social construct, not a scientifically established fact. It's a social construct that changes to meet the needs and wishes of society. It's changed many times in the past, and it will continue to change in the future, regardless of your opinion....Gay marriage is in and it's here to stay.

Not exactly keeping your personal beliefs out of it, there.

As a side note, the libertarian me is in somber, reluctant agreement with SCOTUS on this one, but I still cringe.  When there are closely held principles in conflict, I defer to the 9th Amendment.  Not all of the rights we have are enumerated in the Constitution.  "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."  It is not seemly to deny people the right to make the wrong choice.  Otherwise, they are not free at all.

Your inner libertarian is confused. Homosexuals were already free to make the wrong choice, but now your inner libertarian is forcing state governments to validate their private behavior. Not so libertarian after all.

[Perd Hapley]

"Hey, you breeders, I reject your traditional morality! Stay out of my bedroom!"

"Oh, and by the way, I demand that your tradition of marriage include me! Get me a license for what I do in my bedroom!"

[SADShooter]

"Hey, you breeders, I reject your traditional morality! Stay out of my bedroom!"

"Oh, and by the way, I demand that your tradition of marriage include me! Get me a license for what I do in my bedroom!"

Cue stop-motion video of LawDog's gun control cake under consumption.

[Ron]

It took one day

It's time to legalize polygamy-Why group marriage is the next horizon of social liberalism

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-marriage-decision-polygamy-119469.html?hp=r4_4#.VY4Gtc9VhHw

[Ben]

I initially thought this reasonable.

Then I remembered how my spouse right now is not at all covered by the insurance my employer gives me. (I am paying the Obamacare penalties). I could get coverage thorough the employer, but I would have to pay for it, more than I can afford.

If they are not forced to cover her right now, why would they be forced to cover any other spouses?

I suppose it would be employer specific (though that could always change as well). I was just supposing that if an employer covered a spouse, they could be forced to cover all spouses.

Again, just from my POV, I could care less if someone has 1 or 100 spouses as long as taxpayers and others are not forced to do anything special because of it. This is one of my main problems with the ruling. It's being called a "right" and it is not. If I exercise my 2nd amendment rights, it doesn't affect anyone else's freedoms. This ruling has great potential to do so because it is based on force of law versus a natural right.

[Perd Hapley]

Cue stop-motion video of LawDog's gun control cake under consumption.

I had to look that one up. "Anime eyes." 

[Ron]

After eviscerating the constitution the High Priests of the Supreme Court have been able to read the long hidden intent of the founders in the still steaming entrails.

[Tallpine]

Marriage is a social construct, not a scientifically established fact.

I can't argue with that.  Since men in the wild naturally want to bang as many women as possible, "marriage" is a construct enforced by religious/legal means to protect women who are biologically tasked with bearing and raising children.

So I am totally mystified as to why same sex couples would even want to entangle themselves in such an institution


The state ought to get out of the "marriage" business altogether.  Write up any sort of contract that you want, have it notarized, and file it away in a drawer.  Take it to court if one party doesn't fulfill his/her/their promise(s).  If you want to get "married" go to the church/coven/etc of your choice and do whatever they do.  Why anyone would want to get "married" in a church whose faith they don't believe in is beyond me 

[Fitz]

I can't argue with that.  Since men in the wild naturally want to bang as many women as possible, "marriage" is a construct enforced by religious/legal means to protect women who are biologically tasked with bearing and raising children.

So I am totally mystified as to why same sex couples would even want to entangle themselves in such an institution


The state ought to get out of the "marriage" business altogether.  Write up any sort of contract that you want, have it notarized, and file it away in a drawer.  Take it to court if one party doesn't fulfill his/her/their promise(s).  If you want to get "married" go to the church/coven/etc of your choice and do whatever they do.  Why anyone would want to get "married" in a church whose faith they don't believe in is beyond me 

Because it has nothing to do with marriage, and everything to do with liberals doing precisely what they accuse the religious of. Forcing others, through legal action or otherwise, to capitulate to their beliefs.

It hasn't been about love or marriage for some time

[roo_ster]

As soon as children enter the picture or one of the "contractors" dies, the nation (and this the gov't) has a stake.  Can not wave that away with gassy libertarian prattle about contracts.

Because it has nothing to do with marriage, and everything to do with liberals doing precisely what they accuse the religious of. Forcing others, through legal action or otherwise, to capitulate to their beliefs.

It hasn't been about love or marriage for some time

Plus, they get to rub regular people's noses in the feces of their culture.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Its amazing to watch how such a small population makes everyone dance


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[roo_ster]

Its amazing to watch how such a small population makes everyone dance

Eventually the dance ends and it is time to pay the piper.  I, for one, am keeping an itemized bill.

[Frank Castle]

YEEhaw! This side-effect of the gay marriage ruling will make liberals EXPLODE

http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/yeehaw-this-side-effect-of-the-gay-marriage-ruling-will-make-liberals-explode/

[JN01]

Quote from: White Horseradish on June 26, 2015, 08:54:39 AM
Easy solution - stop giving out the marriage certificate in the church. If the church isn't giving out government documents, there is no reason whatsoever for the government to tell them what to do. A church that does not wish interference can simply perform ceremonies with no paperwork.This doesn't need to be a law, just a decision on the part of the church. 

Tell that to your local baker.

The baker could post prominent signs quoting scripture passages related to marriage being between a man and a woman.  The immediate boycott would take care of the unwanted customers.  If they still insist on a cake, nobody says they have to stock Adam and Steve toppers, nor does it have to be their best work.

[Ben]

YEEhaw! This side-effect of the gay marriage ruling will make liberals EXPLODE

http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/yeehaw-this-side-effect-of-the-gay-marriage-ruling-will-make-liberals-explode/

It will certainly be an interesting argument to follow. Also, I'd love to see one of the more prominent 2nd amendment activists that have their legal people on retainer test this theory by carrying someplace like CA, NYC, or DC.

[BlueStarLizzard]

I agree. This has been a major problem with the pro-marriage, pro-reason side all along. We should have simply said that marriage requires both sexes; no moral judgments required. It is what it is.


Not exactly keeping your personal beliefs out of it, there.


Your inner libertarian is confused. Homosexuals were already free to make the wrong choice, but now your inner libertarian is forcing state governments to validate their private behavior. Not so libertarian after all.

I'm actually laughing since your example of a "personal belief" is not actually a personal anything. It's about all the fact one can get in regards to what marriage is. Social construct defined by the society using it.

Furthermore, my libertarian nature isn't confused at all. My libertarian nature is screaming "why can't we just have the government stop licensing marriage!?!"
But nobody wants to the intelligent thing, so we are stuck with this really, really, really stupid fight (<-- there is your personal belief, fistful, for future reference)

If .gov is handing out marriage licenses, than they have to hand them out to everyone. All consenting adults. Straight marriage, interracial marriage, gay marriage, plural marriage, incestual marriage (which grosses me the *expletive deleted*ck out, but consenting adults and i don't think they should be allowed to have biological children)
It's not about what you think marriage should be. It's not about what I think marriage should be. It's just the nature of this beast.

Second, the 14th does cover this. Yes, it probably covers a lot more than we'd like these days, and yes, that does screw employers who have to give health insurance to spouses. The US is both a lot bigger and a lot smaller than it was when that clause was written. People move from state to state. Communication from state to state happens in the blink of an eye. Our country is becoming more and more homogeneous. Which means more rights not explicitly covered (9th) are more relevant on a federal level (14th)
If marriage is a "right" than it's a federal issue. If marriage isn't a "right", well, than, go for that argument. Good luck. It didn't work with healthcare, and marriage as a right is even more easy to push than flipping healthcare.
As far as people getting screwed. Ha-ha! Welcome to the problems inherent in having the government define marriage.

[lee n. field]

So I am totally mystified as to why same sex couples would even want to entangle themselves in such an institution

I expect we will see very few gay marriages mirages.

The state ought to get out of the "marriage" business altogether.  Write up any sort of contract that you want, have it notarized, and file it away in a drawer.  Take it to court if one party doesn't fulfill his/her/their promise(s).  If you want to get "married" go to the church/coven/etc of your choice and do whatever they do.  Why anyone would want to get "married" in a church whose faith they don't believe in is beyond me 

Church issued baptismal certificates are documents that can be used for legal purposes.  

[lee n. field]

YEEhaw! This side-effect of the gay marriage ruling will make liberals EXPLODE

http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/yeehaw-this-side-effect-of-the-gay-marriage-ruling-will-make-liberals-explode/

The national reciprocity thing?  They'll find a way to weasel out of it.  Or it will take 30 years of litigation to acomplish.

[lee n. field]

Tell that to your local baker.

The baker could post prominent signs quoting scripture passages related to marriage being between a man and a woman.

"Illegal H8 speech!" 

The immediate boycott would take care of the unwanted customers.  If they still insist on a cake, nobody says they have to stock Adam and Steve toppers, nor does it have to be their best work.

[BlueStarLizzard]

I expect we will see very few gay marriages mirages.

Church issued baptismal certificates are documents that can be used for legal purposes.  

What legal purposes? And why?