Page 2 of 38 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
12
... LastLast
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by jason1975 View Post
    Do you hear that ticking sound? It's the clock counting down the end of institutionalize bigotry . . . .

    Let Freedom Ring . . . .
    I wish this was a sure thing, but the SCotUS isn't guaranteed to strike it down. It's likely if they follow precedent and look at it objectively, but we know they all have an agenda.

    3DS Friend Code: 0146-9205-4817. Could show as either Chris or Chrysia.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    Not only can these cases get rid of DOMA, but those thirty-some state amendments banning same-sex marriage as well.

    One can draw easy analogies to "state's rights" arguments used in an attempt to justify segregation and discrimination in the past.

    It's really exciting like to have lived in a country that just 10 years ago was very very very different then it is now when it comes to this. Can you imagine waking up in a day or two and the American supreme court says banning gay marriage is no bueno? It's like someone left the door to the twilight zone open..

    Just to note if this goes well.. Proudmoore is the server to be on to see how amazingly it will change peoples lives.
    "If you want to control people, if you want to feed them a pack of lies and dominate them, keep them ignorant. For me, literacy means freedom." - LaVar Burton.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrysia View Post
    I wish this was a sure thing, but the SCotUS isn't guaranteed to strike it down. It's likely if they follow precedent and look at it objectively, but we know they all have an agenda.
    Whatever differences I have with the Justices, I find it hard to believe they want to make a decision on par with Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson.

    The only question is the margin of the victory. I'd love to see 9-0 (and believe it or not, I don't think that's out of the question), but I'm guessing 7-2 is more likely.

  4. #24
    Bloodsail Admiral Talokami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    1,080
    As a Californian, I'm actually really upset they are deciding to hear it.

    Had the Supreme Court decided not to hear the Prop 8 case, the 9th Circuit's ruling against it from earlier this year would have been the ultimate ruling. What that means is gay marriage would be legal again in California pretty much immediately, but since the SCOTUS has now decided to hear the case this bullshit is being dragged out for yet another year. I just want it to be over.

    That being said, with the results of the recent election I'm hopeful that the SCOTUS will ultimately rule against Prop 8 and this will finally be over.
    That fabric softener teddy bear...oooh I'm 'a hunt that little bitch down.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Talokami View Post
    As a Californian, I'm actually really upset they are deciding to hear it.

    Had the Supreme Court decided not to hear the Prop 8 case, the 9th Circuit's ruling against it from earlier this year would have been the ultimate ruling. What that means is gay marriage would be legal again in California pretty much immediately, but since the SCOTUS has now decided to hear the case this bullshit is being dragged out for yet another year. I just want it to be over.

    That being said, with the results of the recent election I'm hopeful that the SCOTUS will ultimately rule against Prop 8 and this will finally be over.
    I think the main reason they are hearing it is because it parallels the DOMA case, so they'll strike DOMA and the state-level bans in one swoop, assuming they do strike them down.

    3DS Friend Code: 0146-9205-4817. Could show as either Chris or Chrysia.

  6. #26

  7. #27
    Bloodsail Admiral Talokami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    1,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrysia View Post
    I think the main reason they are hearing it is because it parallels the DOMA case, so they'll strike DOMA and the state-level bans in one swoop, assuming they do strike them down.
    I hope so, I really do. I'm just upset it's gone this long, ya know? Hell my home state, Maryland, just legalized it last month! >_<
    That fabric softener teddy bear...oooh I'm 'a hunt that little bitch down.

  8. #28
    I am Murloc! SirRobin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Counciltucky
    Posts
    5,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    In my opinion there really is no logical argument against same-sex marriage.
    Yeah, but its not like that actually matters to way too many people.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by SageKalzi View Post
    I'm fine with gay couples being couples, I just dislike the attempt to misuse a word's definition. If for the entirety of the word "marriage" it was defined as "A union between two people" and not "A union between a man and woman" then I would be fine with them "getting married."

    Sure, there's always the argument of "Just change the definition" etc, but I don't feel you should be forced to change the definition of a word just because a small group of people demand it. I'm fine with them having the same tax breaks and all that, but don't change the definition of a word.
    You do know that you're typing in a language that evolved from a mix of many other languages where the definitions of words have changed over time?

    Also, homosexuals aren't a small group.

    Bergtau's Law: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability that somebody will mention Godwin's Law approaches 1.
    Hitler wasn't all bad, I mean, he DID kill Hitler.
    An accident is something that you did not mean to do at all. A mistake is something that you regret doing.

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrysia View Post
    I think the main reason they are hearing it is because it parallels the DOMA case, so they'll strike DOMA and the state-level bans in one swoop, assuming they do strike them down.
    Yup . . . if they just wanted a narrow ruling, they would have let the Prop 8 case stand and just taken DOMA. Prop 8 + DOMA means they'll decide this once and for all in favor of full civil rights for all.

    Of course, this is going to be the nastiest fight you've ever seen. People are going to get very whipped up about this on both sides. I'm sure what the opposition to Marriage Equality is looking to do right now is to show the justices that "the US isn't ready for this yet". They'll work to paint a big picture of horrible consequences and upheaval.

    Frankly, in the end, I just don't see it making a damn bit of difference. The Justices are so ego driven, which one of them is honestly going to say "hey, I want to go down as part of one of the worst decisions of all time and get reversed 20 years from now." Scalia, maybe. Thomas, perhaps. But you won't find 3 others to join them on that list.

  11. #31
    The Lightbringer Lenonis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    3,204
    This Supreme Court hasn't exactly shown itself to good decision making. I'm not nearly as optimistic as most people in this thread that it will go the right way. I wouldn't be surprised if they had some ridiculous 5-4 ruling upholding both. Frankly I wouldn't even be surprised if they just banned gay marriage federally.

    I'm eager to be surprised by a more progressive court ruling.

  12. #32
    Bloodsail Admiral
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,186
    Quote Originally Posted by SageKalzi View Post
    I'm fine with gay couples being couples, I just dislike the attempt to misuse a word's definition. If for the entirety of the word "marriage" it was defined as "A union between two people" and not "A union between a man and woman" then I would be fine with them "getting married."

    Sure, there's always the argument of "Just change the definition" etc, but I don't feel you should be forced to change the definition of a word just because a small group of people demand it. I'm fine with them having the same tax breaks and all that, but don't change the definition of a word.

    So much bullshit. Marriage is not that, that is a defintion put on it in modern times, if you look back over history many cultures have allowed same sex mariage. its not for you to define it to fit some misguided puritanical standards.
    No game will ever kill wow. Though Blizard themselves are making a pretty damm good attempt lately.

    THE FIRST RULE OF BRAWLERS GUILD IS YOU DO NOT GET INVITED TO BRAWLERS GUILD.

  13. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Reeve View Post
    Because it's both unlawful and inequitable to let one group have the privilege of a specific word while denying the other group the same.

    "If you've had sex, you can use the drinking fountain, but if you're a virgin, you have to use the virgin fountain." That would never go over. You can't allow certain groups separate but theoretically equal privileges.
    Yeah, because instead of saying one word someone says another is the same as segregation, you nailed it on the head. That's just absolutely ridiculous.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chrysia View Post
    Because, again, the word "marriage" has no intrinsic meaning. It is currently defined, by DOMA, to be "a union between a man and a woman." That wasn't it's original definition, and it's not going to be it's definition if DOMA gets struck down. The only basis for the DOMA definition of marriage is contained in religious teachings.
    Well, considering that I've never heard anyone define it as anything else up until recently (And I've done my research as well) I'd say that that's not enough reason to say that the word needs to be changed for (Less than) 10% of the population.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bergtau View Post
    You do know that you're typing in a language that evolved from a mix of many other languages where the definitions of words have changed over time?

    Also, homosexuals aren't a small group.
    Yes, but the definition of this one word hasn't changed as far as I've researched. Again, less than 10% of the population and especially including the fact that less than that will get married.

    Quote Originally Posted by tlacoatl View Post
    So much bullshit. Marriage is not that, that is a defintion put on it in modern times, if you look back over history many cultures have allowed same sex mariage. its not for you to define it to fit some misguided puritanical standards.
    No, it's been around for thousands of years. Other cultures may have had same sex unions but that's not the same as now, people also used to get stoned for being gay.
    Last edited by SageKalzi; 2012-12-07 at 09:52 PM.

  14. #34
    (Warning Southern Bapist Posting)

    From my understanding of the bible marriage if the union of a man and a woman. And by union what the bible mean is sex plain and simple.

    Marriage in the bible has nothing to do with the type of marriage that gay people want....well besides the word marriage. What gay people is the same type of legally binding contract that hetro people have and what is the problem with that? If people and understand that they are not one and the same maybe people can move on.

    But then again I don't see the whole problem with people being gay. It is what it is and if it was so bad I am sure when Moses went up on Mount Sinai he would have came down with eleven commandments instead of just ten.

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by SageKalzi View Post
    I'm fine with gay couples being couples, I just dislike the attempt to misuse a word's definition. If for the entirety of the word "marriage" it was defined as "A union between two people" and not "A union between a man and woman" then I would be fine with them "getting married."

    Sure, there's always the argument of "Just change the definition" etc, but I don't feel you should be forced to change the definition of a word just because a small group of people demand it. I'm fine with them having the same tax breaks and all that, but don't change the definition of a word.
    Your own logic works against you. Practically every curse word and slur that has existed started out meaning something else. But today, because of how the words changed over time, it is socially unacceptable to use them, even if their original meaning had nothing to do with what it means now.

  16. #36
    The Lightbringer Lenonis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    3,204
    Quote Originally Posted by SageKalzi View Post
    Well, considering that I've never heard anyone define it as anything else up until recently (And I've done my research as well) I'd say that that's not enough reason to say that the word needs to be changed for (Less than) 10% of the population.
    Regardless of your precious little word definition, marriage today has both civil and religious meanings. There is no debating this.

    Because there are civil meaning to marriage, you cannot apply the word to one group and not the other. That is discrimination and unconstitutional.

    If you want to protect the meaning of the word, you have to carve out the civil meanings for everyone. Otherwise it is "separate but equal" which once again is unconstitutional.

    And the number of people does matter. The rights of the minority have never been subject to the tyranny of the majority.

  17. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by SageKalzi View Post
    Well, considering that I've never heard anyone define it as anything else up until recently (And I've done my research as well) I'd say that that's not enough reason to say that the word needs to be changed for (Less than) 10% of the population.
    So you think it's cool to deny approximately 30 million people in the US alone the right to have the same benefits that the rest of us get just to keep the 'purity' of a word that you are imagining hasn't changed ever?
    Quote Originally Posted by SageKalzi View Post
    Yeah, because instead of saying one word someone says another is the same as segregation, you nailed it on the head. That's just absolutely ridiculous.
    By definition it is a form of segregation. Segregation is only fine when there are good reasons for it. Male and Female bathrooms, for example.

    Bergtau's Law: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability that somebody will mention Godwin's Law approaches 1.
    Hitler wasn't all bad, I mean, he DID kill Hitler.
    An accident is something that you did not mean to do at all. A mistake is something that you regret doing.

  18. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by jason1975 View Post
    The only question is the margin of the victory. I'd love to see 9-0 (and believe it or not, I don't think that's out of the question), but I'm guessing 7-2 is more likely.
    9-0 would only happen if the rationale was congressional overreach and not equal protection. That won't be the case here, as all the lower court rulings have been along equal protection grounds.

    Supporters of same-sex marriage think they can count on Kennedy because of his opinion in Lawrence, which invalidated so-called sodomy laws. But this case is a bit different. Though it does focus on something the court has long held to be a fundamental right (marriage), Lawrence was about criminalizing homosexuals, not expanding an existing right. There is a chance that Kennedy could weasel out of an equal protection claim, and he is the linchpin for overturning Prop 8 and similar laws. Those laws have a chance, albeit a small one, to survive.

    DOMA, however, is dead in the water. It clearly violates the Full Faith and Credit clause and even the most reactionary justice would have to take several leaps of logic to not overturn the law on those grounds. Thomas and Scalia might still vote to uphold it; Thomas because he's always been the most reactionary clown on the court, and Scalia because, if the last term is any indication, he has absolutely no interest in any kind of legacy as a rational and consistent justice.

  19. #39
    I never said "THIS IS TRUE, STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE." I simply said that this is my opinion on the issue. I forgot that most people on these forums insist on their opinion being fact and that most of the time I'll be considered wrong simply because I don't agree with the politically correct BS.

    Go ahead and all of you agree with eachother, I'm not going to stick around just to have my opinions shitted on by your PC crap.

  20. #40
    The Lightbringer Lenonis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    3,204
    Quote Originally Posted by SageKalzi View Post
    I never said "THIS IS TRUE, STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE." I simply said that this is my opinion on the issue. I forgot that most people on these forums insist on their opinion being fact and that most of the time I'll be considered wrong simply because I don't agree with the politically correct BS.

    Go ahead and all of you agree with eachother, I'm not going to stick around just to have my opinions shitted on by your PC crap.
    Oh good. This took a lot shorter than I thought to uphold my hypothesis that all arguments against same sex marriage end up boiling down to "I just don't like gay people."

    And yes, we all know you have gay friends, therefore you couldn't possibly dislike gay people. That's always what is said next.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •