Of course she's judging. She's allowed.
According to her, you aren't allowed.
But she is.
You following along?
If I can marry two pieces of steel, or two boards together, I still don't see why two dudes, or two chicks, can't marry.
There Goes America
- Thread starter Tecumsehsbones
- Start date
According to her, you aren't allowed.
But she is.
You following along?
I'm sure there are many, many things that others define very differently than you do. So who cares if you consider it to meet your definition of marriage or not?
Is that how you look at traditional marriage? Is it all about stuffing the partner (of the opposite sex)?
Gay marriage ruling a giant leap for couples, court
Gay marriage ruling a giant leap for couples, court
USA TODAY: Latest World and US News - USATODAY.com
USA TODAY's US Supreme Court reporter Richard Wolf details the Justices' emotions and opinions during today's historic ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. Collin Brennan, Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
AFP 542053190 A JUS USA DC
A rainbow flag is flown outside the Supreme Court on June 26, 2015.(Photo: Molly Riley, AFP/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — When same-sex marriage spread from coast-to-coast Friday, arriving "like a thunderbolt" in President Obama's words, it was not because of proponents' perseverance over four decades or the votes of elected public officials.
It was because nine Harvard- and Yale-educated men and women -- or, rather, five of them -- decided the Constitution's 14th Amendment provides a fundamental right to marriage, regardless of sex.
Their decision was a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, whose leaders chose to pursue marriage decades ago not only to reach the altar, but to show Americans who they were and what they wanted: commitment, monogamy, love.
It was an equally momentous moment for the court itself. It took into its hands a process that had played out for decades in less august courtrooms, legislative chambers and voting booths from Maine to Hawaii. What resulted from all that democracy, they reasoned, was a patchwork nation in which couples' marital status changed as they crossed state lines.
And so Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan made history in 33 pages, including more than four sheets needed to list the 95 state and federal court decisions that preceded theirs. By midday, Kagan was in street clothes at the court cafeteria's salad bar.
The historic conclusion they reached was couched inside its own history lesson, drawing on the nation's gradual education in what it means to be gay or lesbian. That they released their verdict on June 26 -- the same date that the past two landmark gay rights rulings were handed down in 2003 and 2013 -- was not lost on historians.
Kennedy noted that for much of the past century, homosexuality was "treated as an illness" and sex between two men or two women as a crime in some states. "If rights were defined by who exercised them in the past, then received practices could serve as their own continued justification, and new groups could not invoke rights once denied," he wrote.
Only with the passing of time, the court majority said, have gay rights come to be understood and accepted. The latest -- marriage -- is but a logical extension.
That notion was deftly explained 18 months ago when district judge Robert Shelby of Utah issued the first of what became a lengthy string of decisions striking down gay marriage bans. It wasn't that the Constitution was evolving -- a notion embraced by the court's liberals -- as much as "the knowledge of what it means to be gay or lesbian," he said.
Judicial fiat or democratic process?
That five unelected lawyers from California, Boston and New York City (times three) could take this leap confounded the court's fourth New Yorker, Justice Antonin Scalia.
"To allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation," he wrote in dissent. "No social transformation without representation."
The five justices' willingness to define marriage for the country -- particularly those states that still clung to heterosexual marriage only -- reflected a desire to fix a history of discrimination that their four colleagues would leave to the democratic process.
Ending the debate by judicial fiat rubbed Chief Justice John Roberts the wrong way. "The court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the states and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs," he wrote in dissent. "Just who do we think we are?"
Rather than assert judicial power they do not have, Roberts said, the court need not have forced the issue. "Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today," he wrote. The court stepped in, he said, "just when the winds of change were freshening at their backs."
But Kennedy said the democratic process, whether helping or hurting the cause, wasn't relevant when constitutional rights are in play. Though the court often is accused of following public opinion, he insisted the justices were not influenced by polls or the power of the gay rights movement.
"It is of no moment whether advocates of same-sex marriage now enjoy or lack momentum in the democratic process," he wrote.
More hard questions are likely to follow: Might those who oppose same--sex marriage now "risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers and schools," as Justice Samuel Alito warned? How much latitude can states give to people who object to same-sex marriage on religious grounds? Will religious institutions that oppose it risk losing their tax-exempt status?
"There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court," Roberts wrote.
But the conservatives' biggest worry, they said, was what Kennedy's decision will mean the next time the court confronts a question of individual rights. In the past, the court has mostly moved cautiously to recognize rights not expressly set out in the Constitution. Kennedy's more freewheeling approach, Scalia said, opens the door to even more expansive decisions and "robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves."
Forty years to upend millennia
To arguments about millennia, gay rights proponents brought a history of less than a half century. From the day in 1972 when the Supreme Court refused even to consider a gay Minnesota couple's marriage lawsuit to Friday's landmark ruling, the movement succeeded by combining legal acumen and public persuasion.
It took more than three decades to win that first state: Massachusetts. For more than 30 years, same-sex marriage rights were a dream -- achieved briefly, then lost in Hawaii; sacrificed for civil unions in Vermont.
Margaret Marshall, the former chief justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court who wrote that first decision, on Friday defended the judiciary's right to make the final call. "Our Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, is the great protector of the downtrodden and the marginalized. This is what has made the United States a great country," she said. "Legislatures, where majority rule is the rule, too often fail to give full meaning to the equal treatment of all peoples, especially minorities."
Politicians did get into the act after the Massachusetts decision, but it didn't lead to much. At the same time that George W. Bush was seeking re-election, public officials from New Paltz, N.Y., to San Francisco and Multnomah County, Ore., lost patience with the slow pace toward same-sex marriage and began issuing licenses illegally.
That demonstration of pent-up demand showed Americans who opposed gay marriage or were oblivious to the cause that gays and lesbians wanted what others had -- to live quiet, monogamous lives as couples, just like their straight friends.
Following the example of gay rights lawyer Mary Bonauto, who hand-picked the seven Massachusetts couples and urged them to speak out in public, the movement's organizers developed a legal and public relations strategy. It included choosing what are referred to at the Supreme Court as "good plaintiffs" -- people like Jim Obergefell, first in line to get into court the past two weeks, whose only goal was to keep his name on his husband's death certificate.
"Marriage is about promises and commitments made legal and binding under the law," Obergefell said after witnessing the decision, "and those laws must apply equally to each and every American."
Shane Crone, left, and Diane Wiltshire take a photo
People celebrate the 5-4 Supreme Court decision on
James Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in the gay marriage
The crowd reacts as the ruling on same-sex marriage
Supporters of gay marriage and LGBT rejoice outside
Supporters of same-sex marriage celebrate outside of
Supporters of gay marriage sing God Bless America outside
People run under a giant equality flag as they celebrate
A woman carries a sign in favor of same-sex marriage
Chris Svoboda, president of the Virginia Equality Bar
Ikeita Cantu, left, and her wife Carmen Guzman, of
Lupe Garcia, left, hugs her partner Cindy Stocking,
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is a
Ariel Olah of Detroit, left, and her fiancee Katie
Like this topic? You may also like these photo galleries:
Replay
Autoplay
Show Thumbnails
Show Captions
Last SlideNext Slide
Read or Share this story: Gay marriage ruling a giant leap for couples, court
Gay marriage ruling a giant leap for couples, court
USA TODAY: Latest World and US News - USATODAY.com
USA TODAY's US Supreme Court reporter Richard Wolf details the Justices' emotions and opinions during today's historic ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. Collin Brennan, Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
AFP 542053190 A JUS USA DC
A rainbow flag is flown outside the Supreme Court on June 26, 2015.(Photo: Molly Riley, AFP/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — When same-sex marriage spread from coast-to-coast Friday, arriving "like a thunderbolt" in President Obama's words, it was not because of proponents' perseverance over four decades or the votes of elected public officials.
It was because nine Harvard- and Yale-educated men and women -- or, rather, five of them -- decided the Constitution's 14th Amendment provides a fundamental right to marriage, regardless of sex.
Their decision was a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, whose leaders chose to pursue marriage decades ago not only to reach the altar, but to show Americans who they were and what they wanted: commitment, monogamy, love.
It was an equally momentous moment for the court itself. It took into its hands a process that had played out for decades in less august courtrooms, legislative chambers and voting booths from Maine to Hawaii. What resulted from all that democracy, they reasoned, was a patchwork nation in which couples' marital status changed as they crossed state lines.
And so Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan made history in 33 pages, including more than four sheets needed to list the 95 state and federal court decisions that preceded theirs. By midday, Kagan was in street clothes at the court cafeteria's salad bar.
The historic conclusion they reached was couched inside its own history lesson, drawing on the nation's gradual education in what it means to be gay or lesbian. That they released their verdict on June 26 -- the same date that the past two landmark gay rights rulings were handed down in 2003 and 2013 -- was not lost on historians.
Kennedy noted that for much of the past century, homosexuality was "treated as an illness" and sex between two men or two women as a crime in some states. "If rights were defined by who exercised them in the past, then received practices could serve as their own continued justification, and new groups could not invoke rights once denied," he wrote.
Only with the passing of time, the court majority said, have gay rights come to be understood and accepted. The latest -- marriage -- is but a logical extension.
That notion was deftly explained 18 months ago when district judge Robert Shelby of Utah issued the first of what became a lengthy string of decisions striking down gay marriage bans. It wasn't that the Constitution was evolving -- a notion embraced by the court's liberals -- as much as "the knowledge of what it means to be gay or lesbian," he said.
Judicial fiat or democratic process?
That five unelected lawyers from California, Boston and New York City (times three) could take this leap confounded the court's fourth New Yorker, Justice Antonin Scalia.
"To allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation," he wrote in dissent. "No social transformation without representation."
The five justices' willingness to define marriage for the country -- particularly those states that still clung to heterosexual marriage only -- reflected a desire to fix a history of discrimination that their four colleagues would leave to the democratic process.
Ending the debate by judicial fiat rubbed Chief Justice John Roberts the wrong way. "The court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the states and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs," he wrote in dissent. "Just who do we think we are?"
Rather than assert judicial power they do not have, Roberts said, the court need not have forced the issue. "Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today," he wrote. The court stepped in, he said, "just when the winds of change were freshening at their backs."
But Kennedy said the democratic process, whether helping or hurting the cause, wasn't relevant when constitutional rights are in play. Though the court often is accused of following public opinion, he insisted the justices were not influenced by polls or the power of the gay rights movement.
"It is of no moment whether advocates of same-sex marriage now enjoy or lack momentum in the democratic process," he wrote.
More hard questions are likely to follow: Might those who oppose same--sex marriage now "risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers and schools," as Justice Samuel Alito warned? How much latitude can states give to people who object to same-sex marriage on religious grounds? Will religious institutions that oppose it risk losing their tax-exempt status?
"There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court," Roberts wrote.
But the conservatives' biggest worry, they said, was what Kennedy's decision will mean the next time the court confronts a question of individual rights. In the past, the court has mostly moved cautiously to recognize rights not expressly set out in the Constitution. Kennedy's more freewheeling approach, Scalia said, opens the door to even more expansive decisions and "robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves."
Forty years to upend millennia
To arguments about millennia, gay rights proponents brought a history of less than a half century. From the day in 1972 when the Supreme Court refused even to consider a gay Minnesota couple's marriage lawsuit to Friday's landmark ruling, the movement succeeded by combining legal acumen and public persuasion.
It took more than three decades to win that first state: Massachusetts. For more than 30 years, same-sex marriage rights were a dream -- achieved briefly, then lost in Hawaii; sacrificed for civil unions in Vermont.
Margaret Marshall, the former chief justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court who wrote that first decision, on Friday defended the judiciary's right to make the final call. "Our Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, is the great protector of the downtrodden and the marginalized. This is what has made the United States a great country," she said. "Legislatures, where majority rule is the rule, too often fail to give full meaning to the equal treatment of all peoples, especially minorities."
Politicians did get into the act after the Massachusetts decision, but it didn't lead to much. At the same time that George W. Bush was seeking re-election, public officials from New Paltz, N.Y., to San Francisco and Multnomah County, Ore., lost patience with the slow pace toward same-sex marriage and began issuing licenses illegally.
That demonstration of pent-up demand showed Americans who opposed gay marriage or were oblivious to the cause that gays and lesbians wanted what others had -- to live quiet, monogamous lives as couples, just like their straight friends.
Following the example of gay rights lawyer Mary Bonauto, who hand-picked the seven Massachusetts couples and urged them to speak out in public, the movement's organizers developed a legal and public relations strategy. It included choosing what are referred to at the Supreme Court as "good plaintiffs" -- people like Jim Obergefell, first in line to get into court the past two weeks, whose only goal was to keep his name on his husband's death certificate.
"Marriage is about promises and commitments made legal and binding under the law," Obergefell said after witnessing the decision, "and those laws must apply equally to each and every American."
Shane Crone, left, and Diane Wiltshire take a photo
People celebrate the 5-4 Supreme Court decision on
James Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in the gay marriage
The crowd reacts as the ruling on same-sex marriage
Supporters of gay marriage and LGBT rejoice outside
Supporters of same-sex marriage celebrate outside of
Supporters of gay marriage sing God Bless America outside
People run under a giant equality flag as they celebrate
A woman carries a sign in favor of same-sex marriage
Chris Svoboda, president of the Virginia Equality Bar
Ikeita Cantu, left, and her wife Carmen Guzman, of
Lupe Garcia, left, hugs her partner Cindy Stocking,
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is a
Ariel Olah of Detroit, left, and her fiancee Katie
Like this topic? You may also like these photo galleries:
Replay
Autoplay
Show Thumbnails
Show Captions
Last SlideNext Slide
Read or Share this story: Gay marriage ruling a giant leap for couples, court
Re: Gay marriage ruling a giant leap for couples, court
Yes, it's only been on the live forum feed for the last 24 hours, lol.
I merged.
Yes, it's only been on the live forum feed for the last 24 hours, lol.
I merged.
Re: Gay marriage ruling a giant leap for couples, court
Was it good for you?
He wishes.
You see the White House drenched in Gay Color scheme last night??
That's pretty dang awesome.
So the Pastor looking for equality quietly roasted.
We will see if the loud Pastor will do the same for his beliefs..........
A Texas minister set himself on fire and died to ‘inspire’ justice
In his letters, obtained by The Washington Post, he called his death an act of protest. He said he felt that after a lifetime of fighting for social justice, he needed to do more.
Moore had gone on a two-week hunger strike in the 1990s to move the United Methodist Church to remove discriminatory language against homosexuals.
Moore had “a conviction that if the Bible stood for anything, it stood for radical inclusiveness,” the Rev. Sid Hall, a former colleague, told the Dallas Morning News. “If you ever were on the side of powerlessness, if you were ever on the margins yourself and were looking for someone to help you, Charles was the person.”
But for Moore, it wasn’t enough.
“I have no significant achievements to offer from that period so that my influence on contemporary issues might have a significant impact,” he wrote, “so I am laying down my life here today, in order to call attention to issues of great human concern.”
He seemed particularly disturbed by capital punishment, racial discrimination, prejudice against the LGBT community.
more
A Texas minister set himself on fire and died to ‘inspire’ justice - The Washington Post
You see the White House drenched in Gay Color scheme last night??
coming to theaters this summer:
rainbow house down.
I've noticed it for a while, but it's definitely a sign of victory that homophobia's arguments have become this anemic. It used to be that you could just give your unfiltered bigotry. Now like racism you have to cloak in sad, nonsensical bull**** like this.
It must be hard for you to make such a limp argument and know that no one actually gives a **** or even comes to close to accepting the basic premise of your argument let alone the idea that it actually diminishes "the nuclear family".
Last edited:
That's the difference, Walter. Some people can change. Some can't. They just sit in their mental caves and scream hate at the changing world about them.
I hope it makes you happy. I really do.