patrick.net

I think gay marriage should be called "The Divorce Bar Revitalization Act."

@Reality, what is the point of that post? Mockery or serious paranoia? You think a couple are equal to only one person, so the couple should get only one vote between them? You think a goat is legally equal to a person now, so that if you kill a goat and eat it you should get executed? Goats don't even live to 18, so for that reason (among other really obvious reasons) they can't vote and they can't get married. You're grasping ever further for straws, and becoming absurd. I don't know what it is about this issue that causes certain people to become unhinged, but as a divorced guy yourself you're hardly in a position to lecture other people about the sanctity or "operands" of marriage.

Strategist says

Captain, gay marriage is coming to your town sooner then you think.

You might want to Google recent Florida news on the topic.

CaptainShuddup says

Strategist says

Captain, gay marriage is coming to your town sooner then you think.

You might want to Google recent Florida news on the topic.

Oh, we got trouble, trouble
Right here in River City.
Trouble with a capital "T"
And that rhymes with "G"
And that stands for gay!

CaptainShuddup says

Google recent Florida news on the topic.

From January 5, 2015: "Same-sex marriages began in Miami-Dade County half a day earlier than in the rest of the state."

From 2014: "Florida voters support 56 - 39 percent allowing same-sex couples to marry, with 57 - 39 percent support among women and 55 - 40 percent backing among men. Support is 65 - 31 percent among Democrats and 64 - 30 percent among independent voters, with Republicans opposed 64 - 32 percent. Every age group supports same-sex marriage except voters over 65 years old, who are divided with 45 percent in favor and 49 percent opposed."

I think the Captain meant it arrived already in January, with majority support already before then, rather than "sooner than you think."

curious2 says

True, but the larger issue is primitive superstition vs enlightenment liberalism. The Russian revolution imposed Soviet communism on a vast, mostly primitive area. Stalin cancelled the effort to replace superstition, and his disciple Putin has made a pact with the Russian Orthodox Church, making himself a sort of defender of the faith against enlightenment liberalism. That pact keeps the Russian Orthodox preachers in power, and their followers loyal to Putin.

The post 1991 Conservative Revolution in Poland resulted in the backwater abandoning progress and superstitiously banning abortion in a return to the Faith against Enlightenment Liberalism.

Unlike Russia, Poland has constitutionally banned Gay Marriage.

Putin is not Stalin's disciple.

Reading the US Press on Russia is like watching Fox News on just about everything. It will actually help you know less about Russia.

thunderlips11 says

Conservative Revolution in Poland

This might be a definitional issue, but I think conservative revolution might be an oxymoron. It was a mostly Catholic revolution, during the reign of the Polish Pope. Poland had a mostly tragic 20th century: after a brilliant peak in the 1930s, it lost everything during the Nazi occupation, then endured more than 40 years of Soviet occupation. By 1991, hardly anything remained except Catholicism and submarines with screen doors.

thunderlips11 says

Putin is not Stalin's disciple.

Putin didn't appear to be before, but that has changed. Putin's paternal grandfather worked as a cook for Stalin.

curious2 says

Putin didn't appear to be before, but that has changed.

One reason why reconciliation is complicated in Russia is that the Kremlin has not yet developed a consistent narrative of the Soviet past. Vladimir Putin has condemned the repressions, but has also held up Stalin as a strong ruler who led the Soviet Union to victory in the second World War and built his country into a superpower to rival the USA.

See also Presidents Jackson, Lincoln, and FDR, who did both amazing things for the people, and committed acts of oppression like initiating the Trail of Tears or putting Japanese-American citizens in camps. Putin acknowledges Stalin's terror, but also acknowledges he was in charge when Russia faced the most dangerous and deadly attack in history that would have resulted in the entire population murdered or enslaved.

Does the Jefferson-Jackson dinner celebrate the Trail of Tears, or the Roosevelt Institute celebrate the imprisonment of Japanese Americans? Are they obligated to remind people of these things every time they talk about Jackson or Roosevelt's accomplishments?

curious2 says

Putin's paternal grandfather worked as a cook for Stalin.

Well, that's it then. Byrd was once a member of the KKK decades ago, so Democrats Rascist... Obama is a follower of Saul Alinsky, so a communist... Walker Bush sold things to the Nazis, ergo, George and Dubya are Nazis...

Since Putin's granddad was a cook, and his father fought in WW2 as a footsoldier in an army controlled by Stalin...

Let me know when Putin rules by terror and sends a few million to the Gulag, and not when he asks for a light sentence to a bunch of pink-haired anarcho-feminists who shoplift Chickens to shove up their Vajayjay(NSFW), break into buildings and vandalize them; destroying ceilings and doors in the process, have an orgy in a public museum (Totally NSFW) , wielding shut the doors of Private Property Restaurants, burn Police Cars , and the final straw, disrupting a Church service.

That Putin! Punishing innocent, law-abiding artists!

The funny thing is that most of the deeds above except the last one, including the orgy in the museum, were largely unpunished by the authorities. I guarantee you that "artists" booking space in the Smithsonian and engaging in an orgy would not only be arrested, but Jon Stewart would laugh as they were tazed and dragged from the building and given lifetime sex offender status. To say nothing of breaking into an LAPD garage and burning a van.

JAMAICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

https://www.youtube.com/embed/F1XxeqOIBao

http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/london/lgbt_rights/caribbean.pdf

When do the Sanctions begin? When does the boycott of Carnival Cruiselines begin?

Georgia, the Country:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/pgVnmFjEZyY

I say nothing of Saudi Arabia, where Marco Rubio is happy to visit and would oppose any sanctions or even a statement with his very heart and soul (as would every just about every US Politician, Dem or Rep)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/saudi-arabia-beheads-gays_b_6354636.html

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

Don't hold your breath for sanctions, or full press hand-wringing press secretary condemnations.

Psaki or Herf or Obama would never say "The killing of gays is unacceptable, and all economic options are on the table to prevent these human rights abuses."

Great, now it's time to impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/gay-saudi-arabian-man-sentenced-to-three-years-and-450-lashes-for-meeting-men-via-twitter-9628204.html

After all, the US acts to defend FREEDOM(tm) and Human Rights.

It's about time gays had to start paying higher taxes and alimony.

Eat shit Crazy says

Welcome to our world....

Indeed, one may fairly describe equality as a mixed blessing, but the equal protection of the laws is a requisite of being a whole person within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. Arlo Guthrie joked in "Alice's Restaurant" about how two guys together could avoid the draft without fleeing to Canada, but that wouldn't work anymore. It reminds me of Winston Churchill on democracy being "the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

I have wondered why religious "conservatives" fight against equality so strenuously, and I think it comes down to the question of whose world is it: they believe in a hierarchy where their personal imaginary friend (really an extension of their own ego) makes the rules, and the government follows them, and they can look down on anybody they say their imaginary friend doesn't like. As Lyndon Johnson said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

anonymous says

warm welcome - finally

BAO, EsC is the new screen name of the commenter formerly known as sbh. The actual person is probably happy about today's decision. As is Grumpy Cat, "because everyone deserves the right to be married and miserable."

Laughing my ass off at Scalia. Since when does Scalia give two shits about "Democracy"?

I'm straight and I got married at the JP, there wont be any happy joyfull song and dance with a crap cake center piece and any family gay weddings funded by me.

You're talking about another moron.

If I got married at the JP without needing the popes blessing, then damn it you and Bruce can do the same.

CaptainShuddup says

I got married at the JP without needing the popes blessing

That's been the point all along. Religious "conservatives" claim that the only real marriages are the ones the Pope or their imaginary friend would bless, regardless of what our Constitution says, because they hate America and are in love with their imaginary friend (aka their own ego). Frankly, even though you came from South Carolina Baptists, you should know better, having got legally married to a Catholic. You know from your own experience that in America people have a right to get married without the Pope's blessing. You should be celebrating, or at least you should try to find something nice to say.

thunderlips11 says

After all, the US acts to defend FREEDOM(tm) and Human Rights.

Oh wait, hold on a minute there. Impose sanctions on our King?

Hmm 3 wives and me...no more I've got a headache ...and my costs go down to 25% of gross...what's not to like? I'll give the libbies their due on this one...

Reality says

Polygamy will probably soon be repackaged as a "progressive" idea

It's all part of Obama's homo-islamic agenda.

“I support gay marriage. I believe they have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us.”
― Kinky Friedman

Didn't Ted cruz say the last 24 hrs were the most darkest in American history-thou dost protest too much-what is he hiding?

HEY YOU says

“I support gay marriage. I believe they have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us.”

― Kinky Friedman

This is evidence God hates heterosexuals, not Gays.

This SCOTUS legislation is really scary. Next, they are going to authorize hunting licenses to Immense Hirsute Lesbians to bag anything with testicles for one week of the month.

SoftShell says

Hmm 3 wives and me...no more I've got a headache ...and my costs go down to 25% of gross...what's not to like? I'll give the libbies their due on this one...

Reality says

Polygamy will probably soon be repackaged as a "progressive" idea

Depending on a person's income level. My personal cost of living is much less than 25% of my gross income. The reason why I'm not taking on 3 girlfriends at the same time is because I don't have the time to deal with 3 women simultaneously in addition to supporting my ex-wife and kids from marriage. OTOH, dealing with one girlfriend at a time then rotate her out after about 3-5 years and support my child with her for the next 20 years while entertaining a new girlfriend will be quite manageable. In fact, more kids will give me the incentive to work harder and be more productive. I can see some other high income individuals might be able to manage time more efficiently than I do or just prefer spending more time on girls than on work.

I'll bet you large money polygamy will not be on even the most ardent Fundie Mormon's legal mind for a while. It took this long for a sliver of the conservatives to realize they had gay friends, family and that it might be something they might have to kinda stop using as their personal vote-rousing whipping boy. They're still maggots in the remarkable process of becoming flies. Let's let them savor their defeat.

I was not aware of the AmericanThinker article, but thanks for bringing that cogent article/argument.

curious2 says

Religious "conservatives" claim that the only real marriages are the ones the Pope or their imaginary friend would bless, regardless of what our Constitution says, because they hate America and are in love with their imaginary friend (aka their own ego). Frankly, even though you came from South Carolina Baptists, you should know better, having got legally married to a Catholic.

I can give two craps what the Pope thinks, he doesn't affect my tax code.

I don't watch FoxNews or CNN. I don't even turn on the TV unless when people visiting me.

My prediction on polygamy was actually from a logistical perspective:

1. Men are biologically programmed to want to have sex. That's what testosterone does, in men as well as in women. Men just happen to have much higher testosterone levels. That latent male sexual energy can be directed towards woman just as easily towards another man. Historical cultural ban against homosexuality in religious texts were evidence of that propensity; the high ratio of homosexuals and bisexuals in historical societies without the ban, like the Ancient Greeks, were further proof.

2. Maintaining long term relationship with a man is lot easier than maintaining a long term relationship with a woman. That applies to both men and women (anyone having married or having had long term GF would know she dumps her female friends frequently). Women are evolved to be takers of resources (in order to nurture her in-uteral fetus as well as post-partum infant/toddler, both were the evolutionary reason why women and men exist); men are evolved to take risks and share the gains. That lopsided risk taking and sharing is why sexual reproduction exist. One of the side effect is that women are more "selfish" and men are more "generous."

3. When there is no cultural prohibition/disadvantage to homosexuality pair bonding, the average and less well off males would quickly find out that it is much less expensive and more rewarding to pair-bond with another man than with another woman! That will leave a vast surplus of women who will need the resources and commitment from fewer and fewer well-off men who do not mind making the sacrifices of helping raising children and placating the whims of women.

4. The result is that a society would have formal polygamy via marriage centered around the few men with a lot of resources, while informal polyandrony via prostitution. A large segment of men would be sexually contented via pair bonding with other men, occasional visits to prostitutes and asexuality. That's what happened to late ancient Greek and Roman world. . . as well as almost the entire pre-industrial world outside of Europe. Europe only became monogamous after religious conversion to "St. Paul's Cult" (aka "Christianity") mandating monogamy .

Polygamy+Bisexuality+Prostitution was the mainstream traditional societal norm!

"A large segment of men would be sexually contented via pair bonding with other men, occasional visits to prostitutes and asexuality. "

Hmm, never thought of it that way. Gay Marriage means that eventually, I will have to toss handfulls of sperm out the window to rampaging, roving bands of heterosexual females who otherwise might mob and turn over my car.

Ceffer,

That may well be the reason why on the day of SCOTUS decision, NPR was talking about someone advocating government collect and freeze sperms from all men (on the ridiculously made-up excuse that sperms are better quality when the man is younger; in reality, sperm quality doesn't decline until the man is in his 70's+, unlike a woman's eggs in her 30's). Perhaps so that women voters can later demand the sperms from the government storage and forcibly making some men involuntary fathers.

While I do not watch FoxNews or CNN, I do listen to NPR when driving, mostly to pick out what the latest conspiracy is. LOL.

SCOTUS has been doing some admirable legislation of late. Maybe we should name them the "Skeleton in Robes" Cobweb Congress.

Stare Decisis is just too annoying, so we'll just do whatever the fuck we please. Nobody ever agrees, anyway, except that the law should be ever more expensive, slow, predatory and inefficient.

"If you can't be just, be arbitrary."

Reality says

When there is no cultural prohibition/disadvantage to homosexuality pair bonding, the average and less well off males would quickly find out that it is much less expensive and more rewarding to pair-bond with another man than with another woman!

A wise friend explained to me once, people can only really tell you about themselves, and by listening to them you can learn all about their own insecurities and hopes and dreams.

"Cinderella’s Castle at Disneyworld, the White House in Washington and the Empire State Building in New York were among those lit up to celebrate the historic ruling."

More here

curious2 says

When there is no cultural prohibition/disadvantage to homosexuality pair bonding, the average and less well off males would quickly find out that it is much less expensive and more rewarding to pair-bond with another man than with another woman!

A wise friend explained to me once, people can only really tell you about themselves, and by listening to them you can learn all about their own insecurities and hopes and dreams.

1. I actually experimented with homosexuality/bisexuality in my early teens, before my first physical heterosexual experience.

2. If I were to pick a life-time partner again, I'd probably pick a guy! Not for sex though, but for companionship and mutual support/help. However, I'm currently not looking for any life-time partner, only reproductive partners a few years at a time then co-parents for a couple decades while reproductive partnering with the next women.

3. The observation that "it's easier to keep a male friend than a female friend" has been repeatedly told to me by almost all the girls I have dated since after divorce. May have something to do with them all being 8 or 9 out of 10 in looks, but even my 6 or 7 ex-wife used to cycle through her female friends at such a high turn-over rate that it made my head spin. LOL.

I'm ok with marriage equality although I ultimately prefer the government getting out of the marriage business entirely and just have civil unions with personal contracts for everybody. I'd have preferred a state-by-state solution where some states can decide not to marry gay couples as long as they have to recognize marriages from another state (to avoid the continued centralization of big government), but this is fine with me. As de Tocqueville said: 'Rights must be given to every citizen, or none at all to anyone'. On that note, let's get rid of affirmative action and progressive taxation in favor of a flat tax. It's the only logical conclusion.

Indeed, marriage should be a state-by-state issue, besides the mutual recognition of out-of-state marriages. Flat taxation and substantial deduction for dependents would go a long way towards lowering the need for welfare: say, 20% deduction in income tax owed for the 1st minor or elderly dependent, (20% of the remaining 80% = )16% deduction for the second, (20% of the remaining 64% = )12.8% deduction for the third, etc. will go a long way towards having children born into and elderly taken care of in the right family settings. The current system of fixed deductions is as if designed to encourage the wrong households to have dependents.

mell says

It's the logical conclusion not to discriminate against people according to their race, gender or abilities. Your logic simply isn't.

Abilities? What the hell does hat even mean? Ability to do what?

So the NBA shouldn't be able to discriminate against people based on their ability to play basketball?

tatupu70 says

Abilities? What the hell does hat even mean? Ability to do what?

So the NBA shouldn't be able to discriminate against people based on their ability to play basketball?

The ability to make money. Why should a skilled and highly-trained professional pay more in taxes percentage-wise than somebody who isn't? Now surely it seems we have some capital-misallocation due to Fed/government intervention and crony capitalism, so that that the people who make the most don't necessarily all seem the best skilled. But that's no excuse for the government to come down with the hammer on those who actually are skilled and work hard. I can see a temporary levy on the richest / uber-wealthy in crisis times (after those causing the crisis are held accountable) to balance a budget, but as a continuous measure progressive taxation is simply unfair. It's simple logic De Tocqueville would tell you if he'd still be alive today.

Public policy should be constructed on what works best for all, not idiotic philosophical discussions of "fairness".