Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage nationwide<<MOD WARNING>>

So will Democrats, and running around calling everybody a "racist!" didn't work out so well for them in the last election. Mary Landrieu can tell you all about it.

 

"Democracy" is great until the left-wing doesn't get what it wants, then it's time for decisions to be made from a top-down position, whether the people like it or not. We've seen that twice this week.

 

Ah but there's more to it than that - you know it. Pure procreational ability is not the be and and end all. Would you think of a heterosexual couple where one partner is baron or infertile as being a 'dead-ender'? It's not in real terms - in terms of society's interest (actually REARING children) - because both infertile heterosexual and homosexual couples often end up in caregiver positions. Saying 'dead end' implies nothing constructive whatsoever can possibly become of it, when that simply isn't true. It is neither the gay couple nor the infertile couple's fault that they can't deliver kids 'the natural way', but churning out babies is not the only thing of value - there's already enough people being made. Procreation is the easy part that isn't something anyone should be concerned about given the ever-increasing population - actually rearing children is the crucial part, the bit of value to society. So no, I reject the notion that homosexuality is a 'dead-ender', just as I would if you applied this label to an infertile heterosexual couple.

There are many different types of family, that's the reality. Failing to recognise same-sex families harms them and harms their children.

I believe you, and thank you for being humble. Very much appreciated. I hope we can move on from this now.

 

See you really don't get the point of a right do you?

Rights aren't voted on. They are yours intrinsically.

 

No (*)(*)(*)(*) Sherlock. If the neo-marxist state above all else crowd has their way there will come a day in this country where most of or choices are no longer our own.

 

But it is the reason for marriage. Its insurance in case you do have children not so you can have them. You dont even have to have sex or a partner to have a child

 

`
My comment was sardonic. MOD EDIT - Off Topic.

 

Yep. Just like segregation.

Interracial marriage.

Womens right to vote.

Blacks right to vote.

Blacks right to serve in the military.

Gays right to serve openly in the military.

Because the right doesn't like individual liberties for minority groups it always complains. Small government? Not if your someone the right doesn't like then the government has to control your life!!!

 

It doesn't matter they can marry, it will take a month to issue the official court order and get that out to make it official, but the fight is over barring a Constitutional Amendment. But I agree religious people opposed to marrying same-gender couples are free to refuse but public officials like judges likely cannot without risking being sued. But I'm an ordained Universal Life Church minister I'm happy to marry any couple that asks me in any manner not invoking a deity.

 

Which would make sense if there actually were requirements in the marriage license that said you had to have kids or at least try to. But that's not the way it works. Nothing about the way marriage works here means you have to have any intent to do anything involving children. It doesn't even mean you have to live in the same house and not see other people. It just means you can't legally marry someone else and your property becomes community property of the marriage(except in cases of prenuptial agreements). And that's all before same-sex marriage was allowed. The only thing same-sex marriage changes is the genders allowed to get married. Nothing else changes. There's still no requirement that children be a consideration with anything you do with your marriage. There's still no requirements that you even live with your spouse or have anything to do with them at all even. The government doesn't do marriage checks. In fact, all this hullabaloo about marriage and children is only even discussed specifically when it comes to this issue. That's it. Nobody is talking about how marriage is only supposed to be about raising children when we're talking about health care or divorce or taxes. Only in same-sex marriage discussions does this magical requirement get trotted out.

And that's why thinking people know it's pure bogus.

 

Uh no its not. Marriage is many many many things.

Not of which are defined or limited to procreation.

 

I applaud the Supreme Court for this decision. It is right up there with Brown vs. Board of Education and Roe vs. Wade. It will affect so many lives for the better. Hooray!

 

And public opinion has shifted. It's literally delusional to not see that.

Do you realise that when SCOTUS issued their decision in Loving V Virginia, 70% of Americans rejected the notion of interracial marriage?

That's how irrelevant this whole discussion we're having right now is. The U.S. is NOT a pure democracy and Constitutional rights like equal protection CANNOT be voted down.

 

Since when do you need a license to claim a right?

 

Pretty much everyone expected this outcome.

 

If you trust public opinion polls. This should have been left to the individual states.

 

The license is there only for the state recognition.

 

Boy, doze off for a few minutes and all of a sudden you're posting on page 25+ or something. Anyway, glad the Supremes got it right, even if Justice Scalia had the expected conniption fit. Sort of like Richard Nixon.

 

What justification is there for calling it something different? Other than your desire to promote respect and dignity for gays.

 

Why? Should the issue of interracial marriage been left up to them? What about school segregation? Back then people who supported those things were literally saying the EXACT same thing as you are now.

 

No, it shouldn't have been left to the indivsiual states. If it had there would still be conflict about it 50 years from now. Heck, Black people would still be in slavery if it was left up to states rights.

 

That's nothing, all heterosexual couples are hereby ordered to report to Plato's, we have new companions for you. That is all.

 

Wall to wall pervs. Ain't it lovely. blech

 

I fully support religious leaders ability and peragotive to refuse to marry gays.

Your beliefs are your own. You have every right to them. They are protected by the Constitution and should be.

However a judge is a completely different story. They are elected to serve the people and are required to carry out the letter of the law. They do not have such a choice afforded to them.

 

No, they arent. thats the rewrite you guys are trying to pull off. Any child a Gay person "has" needed some form of enabler form a third party not involved in that gay Relationship. Sorry, simple biology here. Can't be rewritten for the sake of popularity.

The only thing "proven" by the court was that more of them agreed than did not. thats it. A simple 5-4 decision, thats it. One vote.