« prev   random   next »

1
1

Supreme Court says Constitution gives gay people right to marry

By Strategist follow Strategist   2015 Jun 26, 7:09am 15,198 views   42 comments   watch   nsfw   quote   share    


http://www.cnbc.com/id/102777294

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled on Friday that same-sex couples have the right to marry.

The Court ruled 5-to-4, with Justices John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissenting.

« First    « Previous    Comments 3 - 42 of 42    Last »

3   saroya   ignore (0)   2015 Jun 26, 8:31am     ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

Have you ever noticed that those who are against same sex marriage are really against gay sex when you make them honestly distill their argument down to its essence? If they were philosophically consistent against gays having sex then they should force gays to get marry. Just saying...

4   Quigley   ignore (2)   2015 Jun 26, 8:35am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Good point, saroya! This ruling will be a Godsend to everyone who wants less gay sex to happen. Now gays will have to deal with marriage ultimatums and sexless marriages like hetero people! WTG SCOTUS!

5   HydroCabron   ignore (1)   2015 Jun 26, 8:49am     ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

Does this bolster housing demand?

My understanding is that immediately after the honeymoon, one partner in the marriage begins to shriek and cry for a mortgage.

6   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2015 Jun 26, 9:28am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Now they will have to move on to transgenders to distract people while they are being robbed.

7   Strategist   ignore (2)   2015 Jun 26, 9:29am     ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

It's been a bad week for conservatives:
Obama Care.
Gay Marriage.
Palin gets Pregnant.
Pope goes soft on Divorce.

The Liberal trend is clear. It does not matter what you as an individual want, what your favorite God wants, or what you think God wants. In a democracy such as ours, what the people want is all that matters. And what they want, they will get.

8   exfatguy   ignore (0)   2015 Jun 26, 9:33am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Good. Now there should be no debate about it. Now let's start concentrating on the real issues our country faces.

9   Tenpoundbass   ignore (15)   2015 Jun 26, 9:43am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

It always has, there was nothing in the constitution that said the Government can deny gays marriage.
But it IS in the Constitution that Religious people are free from persecution and prosecution for denying them a cracker and glass of wine and a big fuckign cake on their special day.

10   siklidkid   ignore (0)   2015 Jun 26, 10:23am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Sweet. Now we can shift our energy to legalizing polygamy.

11   PockyClipsNow   ignore (0)   2015 Jun 26, 10:28am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Yeah the muslims can have up to 4 wives legally, how the hell do they have more personal freedom that the US?!?!?!

Clearly polygamy would be a win for fat chicks too, thats a large demographic (zing!).

12   zzyzzx   ignore (1)   2015 Jun 26, 11:04am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Obligatory:

13   Tenpoundbass   ignore (15)   2015 Jun 28, 6:13am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The 6 1/2 years they drove Ole Dixie down, and all the menials were singing...
Na na na na na na Na Na na

14   lostand confused   ignore (0)   2015 Jun 28, 6:33am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Great gay marriage is legal , but the biggest free trade deal in American history that reputedly gives the corporations power over states is being negotiated in secret and nobody cares.

Obozo did nothing for gay marriage and takes credit, while acting like a dictator in shoving down this trade deal- the "great"event to divert attention. And I am all for gays to marry-just not sure they know what they are getting into. Alimony, palimony, fake rape cases, fake domestic abuse cases, money for the dogs, kids blah, blah , blah. They are moving from true freedom to state sponsored tyranny with the rest of us.

Meanwhile the clown rushes to get the TPP signed off -with the republicans help.

15   Tenpoundbass   ignore (15)   2015 Jun 28, 6:39am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

lostand confused says

Great gay marriage is legal , but the biggest free trade deal in American history that reputedly gives the corporations power over states is being negotiated in secret and nobody cares.

Oh I care!

16   HEY YOU   ignore (7)   2015 Jun 28, 2:49pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Anyone know how many male/female marriages have been destroyed since the ruling?

17   BlueSardine   ignore (3)   2015 Jun 28, 3:13pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

pretty much all of them...

HEY YOU says

Anyone know how many male/female marriages have been destroyed since the ruling?

18   Strategist   ignore (2)   2015 Jun 28, 4:59pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

PockyClipsNow says

Yeah the muslims can have up to 4 wives legally, how the hell do they have more personal freedom that the US?!?!?!

Clearly polygamy would be a win for fat chicks too, thats a large demographic (zing!).

If gays can marry anyone they like, then everyone should have the right to marry as many spouses as they want.
What if I were to marry a hundred women, just so they can be covered by my health insurance.
What if I marry a thousand women from other countries? That will be one giant welfare check for me.
Folks, it's gonna be a legal nightmare for years to come.

19   curious2   ignore (0)   2015 Jun 28, 5:54pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Strategist says

gays can marry

The Court said two people, who want to get married to each other, and who are otherwise qualified to get married to each other (age 18+, etc.) have the same right to get married whether they are a same-sex couple or an opposite-sex couple. The Court said 2=2, whether it's 2 men or 2 women or 1 of each.

The Court did not say that 100=2, or 5=2, or 3=2, or any other mathematical impossibility. Repeating this really obvious fact becomes a bit annoying. Each person can have one vote and one spouse. In America, nobody gets 100 votes or 100 spouses. If you would like to see the law changed so that some people get 100 spouses, and others get 100 votes, then you may of course propose that, but don't accuse the Court of being unable to count higher than 2. EVEN DOGS CAN COUNT HIGHER THAN TWO, so I don't understand why some PatNetters fail in that regard.

20   APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch   ignore (43)   2015 Jun 28, 6:03pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

All the gay mormon Boy Scout leaders are going to stuff entire troops into wedding dresses and turn them into prepubescent boy harems.

It was the plan all along.

21   mell   ignore (3)   2015 Jun 28, 6:04pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

curious2 says

The Court said two people, who want to get married to each other, and who are otherwise qualified to get married (age 18+, etc.) have the same right to get married whether they are a same-sex couple or an opposite-sex couple. The Court said 2=2, whether it's 2 men or 2 women or 1 of each.

The Court did not say that 100=2, or 5=2, or 3=2, or any other mathematical impossibility. Repeating this really obvious fact becomes a bit annoying. Each person can have one vote and one spouse. In America, nobody gets 100 votes or 100 spouses. If you would like to see the law changed so that some people get 100 spouses, and others get 100 votes, then you may of course propose that, but don't accuse the Court of being unable to count higher than 2. EVEN DOGS CAN COUNT HIGHER THAN TWO, I don't understand why some PatNetters fail in that regard.

True but since they redefined marriage they could have included polygamy or other forms of contracts. Btw it was never a right since you need a government license (and pay for it), similar to bearing arms. A right would be god/nature/a priori given such as free speech. Hence while I am happy for those having been suffering from the government's positive discrimination, I don't like the consequences of this decision, further cementing marriage as a government-sponsored privilege. Also, I don't think the analogy to votes is quite correct, since one man plus 4 wives or vice versa is still 5 votes of consent and nobody gets multiple votes as in your voting example. Maybe it's time for the government to get out of the marriage business once and for all - this would save more trips to the SCOTUS.

22   curious2   ignore (0)   2015 Jun 28, 6:13pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

I respect the libertarian argument that the government should be minimized and ideally not even involved, but I respect more your quotation from de Tocqueville about rights being for either everyone or no one.

mell says

redefined

Ugh. They didn't redefine anything. Same-sex couples have been getting married for millenia, although the so-called "traditional" definition reflects the most common experience. Most people are right-handed and a "traditional" handshake connects the right hands of two people; some people are left-handed and there is no law precluding them from shaking hands with their left. Senator Bob Dole (R-KS) used his left hand, having injured his right arm during WWII. Two people shaking hands would still constitute a handshake, regardless of whether it involves two right hands or two left.

mell says

I don't like the consequences of this decision, further cementing marriage as a government-sponsored privilege.

You seem to misunderstand the consequences of the decision. Marriage was already a fundamental right. SCOTUS invalidated anti-miscegenation laws in 1967 (Clarence Thomas wouldn't be married to his Heritage Foundation consultant bride without that right), and subsequent decisions spanning decades recognized marriage as a fundamental right. A marriage license is not like a driver's license, which SCOTUS has called a privilege.

23   Strategist   ignore (2)   2015 Jun 28, 6:19pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

curious2 says

Strategist says

gays can marry

The Court said two people, who want to get married to each other, and who are otherwise qualified to get married (age 18+, etc.) have the same right to get married whether they are a same-sex couple or an opposite-sex couple. The Court said 2=2, whether it's 2 men or 2 women or 1 of each.

The Court did not say that 100=2, or 5=2, or 3=2, or any other mathematical impossibility. Repeating this really obvious fact becomes a bit annoying. Each person can have one vote and one spouse. In America, nobody gets 100 votes or 100 spouses.

Yes, they court did say that? But does it have to be illegal for willing adults to get married to multiple people? What about our freedoms? Similar arguments that were made for interracial marriage, and gay marriage can be made for unlimited spouses.
What may well end up happening is marriage itself becoming obsolete, well before all the arguments are played out in the Supreme Court. Marriage is just a piece of paper, it's your commitment that really counts and nothing else.

24   curious2   ignore (0)   2015 Jun 28, 6:25pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Strategist says

Yes, they court did say that?

What? Have you been smoking with the Captain?

Strategist says

But does it have to be illegal for willing adults to get married to multiple people?

It isn't illegal, but only the first marriage would be recognized. You can argue that should change, and the Moronic Cult used to argue precisely that. They lost that argument, though they can try again if they want. I express no opinion, other than it's clearly a different argument.

Different arguments can have some congruities and overlap, but also differences. 3>2, so that's a difference. You can say 2=2, but you can't honestly say 3=2. Part of the process of debate involves recognizing both similarities and differences between arguments. I recognize the 1967 SCOTUS decision upholding inter-racial marriage was not exactly the same as the 2015 SCOTUS decision upholding same-sex marriage, but I count the differences as progress in fulfilling the equal protection of the laws, i.e. 1=1 and 2=2. You can find overlap regarding commitment and religion and so on, but you can also find differences, and the overlap does not diminish the differences.

25   Strategist   ignore (2)   2015 Jun 28, 6:34pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

curious2 says

Strategist says

Yes, they court did say that?

What? Have you been smoking with the Captain?

OOPS. Eliminate the "?"
The Captain won't share his smokes with me. He is so selfish.

curious2 says

You can say 2=2, but you can't honestly say 3=2.

I think the Polygamy argument will demand 3=2 or 100=2, as in being treated equally. Who says the number "2" is superior to any other number.

26   curious2   ignore (0)   2015 Jun 28, 6:40pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Strategist says

Who says the number "2" is superior to any other number.

2 is greater than 1, and less than 3. 2 is not generally called superior or inferior, unless you are talking about a vertical stack. The issue in this case was the marriage of 2 gay people had been called legally inferior to the marriage of 2 straight people, which meant the people involved must be inferior also: children of a lesser god dreaming of a lesser dream. Anyway, you can repeat yourself if you want to, or venture further from math if you want to, I'm done.

27   mell   ignore (3)   2015 Jun 28, 7:13pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

curious2 says

Ugh. They didn't redefine anything. Same-sex couples have been getting married for millenia, although the so-called "traditional" definition reflects the most common experience. Most people are right-handed and a "traditional" handshake connects the right hands of two people; some people are left-handed and there is no law precluding them from shaking hands with their left. Senator Bob Dole (R-KS) used his left hand, having injured his right arm during WWII. Two people shaking hands would still constitute a handshake, regardless of whether it involves two right hands or two left.

Ok so you call it clarified or rectified then, and it case of the supreme court you are right since they mostly had and kept this position from the beginning, though other courts ruled differently.

curious2 says

You seem to misunderstand the consequences of the decision. Marriage was already a fundamental right. SCOTUS invalidated anti-miscegenation laws in 1967 (Clarence Thomas wouldn't be married to his Heritage Foundation consultant bride without that right), and subsequent decisions spanning decades recognized marriage as a fundamental right. A marriage license is not like a driver's license, which SCOTUS has called a privilege.

That was what I was referring to, it was called a fundamental right back in that decision and that should have led to demand the government get out of the marriage license business, as well as any tax breaks and special rights or duties for couples. It doesn't matter much if a marriage license is easier to obtain than a driver's license, it still is granted by the government which could change the rules or qualifications any time. Of course such action could be appealed again before a court, but it may take time to undo damage and it could even be that the SCOTUS approves the changes. Voting is considered a right as well but it really currently isn't (though no license is necessary) since felons cannot vote. All I am saying is that (in my view) if you call something a right, one should be able to exercise it without government blessing and the government should not tack on special rights or duties to their blessing/license.

28   anonymous   ignore (null)   2015 Jun 28, 7:55pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

What? Have you been smoking with the Captain?

---------

Calm down, ceffer. The pot boogeyman isn't going to come diddle you

29   Strategist   ignore (2)   2015 Jun 28, 7:57pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

mell says

That was what I was referring to, it was called a fundamental right back in that decision and that should have led to demand the government get out of the marriage license business, as well as any tax breaks and special rights or duties for couples. It doesn't matter much if a marriage license is easier to obtain than a driver's license, it still is granted by the government which could change the rules or qualifications any time. Of course such action could be appealed again before a court, but it may take time to undo damage and it could even be that the SCOTUS approves the changes. Voting is considered a right as well but it really currently isn't (though no license is necessary) since felons cannot vote. All I am saying is that (in my view) if you call something a right, one should be able to exercise it without government blessing and the government should not tack on special rights or duties to their blessing/license.

I don't think neither the Church or the Government has any right to tell others who, when, and how many they can marry. It's not even their business.

30   Ceffer   ignore (3)   2015 Jun 28, 10:56pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

errc says

Calm down, ceffer. The pot boogeyman isn't going to come diddle you

The non-sequitur boogeyman already did.

31   CovfefeButDeadly   ignore (5)   2015 Jun 29, 8:44am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The real problem of course is the potential(certainty) of a now protected class. Which was why of course the gay "lobby"(whatever the heck that is) opposed civil unions 15 years ago when Californians were ready to vote affirmatively.

32   Quigley   ignore (2)   2015 Jun 29, 9:05am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The real issue is and has been all along this one thing: "what will the neighbors think?"
Psychologists generally agree that the most pressing form of approval we seek is from our friends and neighbors, applying loosely to the term "society." With gay marriage being held as different from regular hetero marriage, it carried a stigma, a sense of scandal or improper relationship. Civil unions might have every advantage of marriage possible but they weren't thought of as equal, and certainly nothing natural or organic. So the push wasn't for equality per se, it was for acceptance from society at large. Marriage was just the battleground the gay agenda chose for this fight, being as how it holds deep meaning for the majority of people in our society. Marriage has this enormous supply of cultural baggage attached to it, everything from folklore to literature, endless television and film, songs by the thousand, tenets of religion, and a history as long or longer than civilization.
If the marriage fight could be won, gays believed that this cultural mother lode would open and let them firmly inside the "right" side of commonly held morality.
This is not the case.
Gay is now a protected class, one which folk must now step cautiously around to avoid giving offense or incurring legal penalties. Much like race as been used to browbeat people, homosexuality has now taken that exact same role.
And nobody appreciates feeling browbeaten, even when the cause is perfectly just and righteous. Is anyone else completely tired of the "never again" bullshit we have to endure from the Jews every goddam Holocaust remembrance day? Take that times 100 and you've got future public sentiment towards gays.
They'll still be "those people" a hundred years from now.

33   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   ignore (2)   2015 Jun 29, 9:58am     ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

You really feel oppressed by Jewish people remembering the holocaust?

I see people asking why isn't white pride OK when we can have black pride, gay pride, or whatever. It amazes me that they don't see the difference that historical context provides. Jews endure two months of Christmas every year while the angry white pubah O'Reilly pretends Christmas is being attacked. Yet you get offended by Jews remembering the holocaust when they were actually attacked. Unbelievable. There apparrently is no pleasing you.

34   Quigley   ignore (2)   2015 Jun 29, 10:11am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I dont have a problem with Jews or them remembering or celebrating whatever they wish. What I am annoyed by is when the media, schools, public forums, ads, Facebook and every other form of media has to flagellate us with horrible pictures of starving victims and awful statistics for a week. I'm calling Debbie Downer on that shit. We get it. It happened and it sucked. But we don't have Rwandan genocide Remembrance Day every year, nor all of the other atrocities from history. It's time to move on, and get that shit out of my face!
Anyway that was just an example of a righteous cause whose proponents get annoying real goddam fast. Gays are way more annoying.

35   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   ignore (2)   2015 Jun 29, 10:22am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Gays just want to be accepted. The reason for all of the support on Facebook is that they have been abused for ages and many still hate or are annoyed by them. If and when people stop hating and trying to kill Jews, they may lighten up the efforts to prevent that.

By complaining on the internet about the 'protected' (read abused) classes you are perpetuating the need for protections.

36   HydroCabron   ignore (1)   2015 Jun 29, 10:41am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I think we know who the real victim is here: CaptainShuddup.

I strongly feel that the laws against child molestation make children a protected class, thereby victimizing me.

37   APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch   ignore (43)   2015 Jun 29, 10:45am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

If you read the decision, it's pretty clear:

Assfucking is now mandatory. Any guy can approach you with a wedding dress and demand you marry him and receive a savage assfucking.

Just like biology classes in the public schools. All they teach kids about is how to get a dick into another's guy's rectum and how girls should munch on each other, but without pictures.

You can look this stuff up.

38   Tenpoundbass   ignore (15)   2015 Jun 29, 10:46am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

DieBankOfAmericaPhukkingDie says

Any guy can approach you with a wedding dress and demand you marry him and receive a savage assfucking.

Great we're France now.

39   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2015 Jun 29, 10:55am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Strategist says

The Court ruled 5-to-4, with Justices John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissenting.

No surprise there. It always come down to Kennedy, who is inconsistent. The four liberal judges always vote to uphold Constitutional rights. The four conservative judges always vote to strike down the Constitution. The fact that the four conservative judges all voted against marriage equality demonstrates unambiguously that they do not give a damn about the Constitution, human rights, or general decency.

It was the same damn thing when the four conservative assholes (plus Kennedy) voted to allow the state to strip search and body cavity search people even falsely arrested for traffic violations. If this were a real security issue, then we'd have to apply it to the places where security is most critical: the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court. Yet none of them are subject to strip searches and body cavity searches even though security there is far more important than at any prison.

The arguments against marriage equality are lame to the point of being obvious bigotry. For Scalia to said the ruling is a "threat to American democracy" is a ridiculous statement showing his outright bigotry and that he is in no way qualified to be a Supreme Court justice. The four conservative judges are as immoral and despicable as the Nazis were. They have the same lack of respect for human life and dignity that the Nazis did. If the U.S. was still committing genocide against the Native Americans, those four judges would rule that the genocide is a legitimate military action necessary for national security and the protection of the public. And Kennedy would be the swing vote, and he'd probably side with the conservatives.

It's people like them that make we wish the Christian hell were real, so that they would suffer in return for all the suffering they caused others.

There should be a way for the people, not Congress, to impeach Supreme Court justices.

40   BlueSardine   ignore (3)   2015 Jun 29, 11:32am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Agreed. That way we can get rid of the libbie judges and take Merriam Webster off life support.

Dan8267 says

There should be a way for the people, not Congress, to impeach Supreme Court justices.

41   zzyzzx   ignore (1)   2015 Jun 29, 11:35am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

CaptainShuddup says

Great we're France now.

More like Greece.

42   BlueSardine   ignore (3)   2015 Jun 29, 11:37am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Sally?...Sally field? Is that you??

Dan8267 says

It's people like them that make we wish

« First    « Previous    Comments 3 - 42 of 42    Last »


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions