Page 3 of 38 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
5
13
... LastLast
  1. #41
    The Insane smrund's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In the state of Denial.
    Posts
    15,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    One can draw easy analogies to "state's rights" arguments used in an attempt to justify segregation and discrimination in the past.
    Contrary to a lot of neo-cons and libertarians, "states rights" is not an excuse for local oppression.
    Quote Originally Posted by Masark View Post
    People in cars cause accidents. Accidents in cars cause people.
    Sometimes life gives you lemons, other times life gives you boobies. Life is always better with more boobies.
    Blizzard removed my subscription from WoD's features, it'll be added sometime later.
    And thus I give you: MALE contraception!

  2. #42
    Do I hear toys being thrown out of prams?

    What I always wondered, (and I'll try my best to not cross into forbidden topics) if the 'purity' of the word is such a big deal, and the (incorrect) opinion that it's a 'religious union', the bible was written in Hebrew so shouldn't the religious union 'version' be called "Kiddushin"? Straight from the divine horses mouth right?

  3. #43
    Is there a limit on how many times something can be shot down? Seems like this is an annual event

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Slybak View Post
    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.
    Call me crazy, but I don't think this is a typical SCOTUS case. In fact, it's pretty much one of the biggest decisions they'll make since striking down interracial marriage bans and/or Brown v. Board. I'm pretty sure each and every Justice realizes that. They all must realize that this case is how they'll be remembered - rightly or wrongly. That's some powerful stuff for any human being to confront.

    So while normally your analysis would be spot on, I think it all goes out the window given the context of the case and the environment it's decided in. I think we're going to see a very strong decision for Marriage Equality here, for those reasons.

  5. #45
    I'm a little confused why would gay people's union not be called "marriage" but straight people's union be called "marriage".
    I don't think it's right to go by Christian bible's definition, because frankly there's something called 'separation of state and church'.
    If we go by other religions definition of marriage, than polygamy should be legal, and that's not happening in US.

    So how about we leave 'marriage' the word for union of two people, which has benefits (or opposite) for federal taxes, laws applying to distributing common wealth in case of divorces, etc.

    If certain religions want to have their own word for marriage, let them invent one or maybe there's already one. But "marriage" is something people of all religions and atheists have, and lets just keep it for all legal unions of two people, including gays.

  6. #46
    I am curious what mmoc'ers would consider as an alternative word then for "marriage" for same-sex individuals?

    My first thought was "bondage," but I think there's enough stigma attached to the topic already before throwing that word into the mix as well.

  7. #47
    Scarab Lord Lenonis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    4,212
    Quote Originally Posted by TradewindNQ View Post
    I am curious what mmoc'ers would consider as an alternative word then for "marriage" for same-sex individuals?
    Civil Union is the answer you will get.

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Lenonis View Post
    Civil Union is the answer you will get.
    Oh that's boring.

  9. #49
    Elemental Lord Masark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,951
    Quote Originally Posted by TradewindNQ View Post
    I am curious what mmoc'ers would consider as an alternative word then for "marriage" for same-sex individuals?
    "Marriage for civil purposes".

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Masark View Post
    "Marriage for civil purposes".
    kind of like my friend's "Marriage of Convenience?"

  11. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by TradewindNQ View Post
    I am curious what mmoc'ers would consider as an alternative word then for "marriage" for same-sex individuals?

    My first thought was "bondage," but I think there's enough stigma attached to the topic already before throwing that word into the mix as well.

    " that thing the rest of you throw away" is what I would go with.
    "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.

  12. #52
    Scarab Lord Lenonis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    4,212
    Quote Originally Posted by TradewindNQ View Post
    Oh that's boring.
    How about "The Downfall of Society"

    or

    "Think of the Children"

  13. #53
    Two hetero people joining together in union shall be... a legalized union. Two gay people joining together in a union shall be... a legalized union.

    Then, churches can call their unions marriage if they want.
    MY X/Y POKEMON FRIEND CODE: 1418-7279-9541 In Game Name: Michael__

  14. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by someotherguy View Post
    I'm a little confused why would gay people's union not be called "marriage" but straight people's union be called "marriage".
    I don't think it's right to go by Christian bible's definition, because frankly there's something called 'separation of state and church'.
    If we go by other religions definition of marriage, than polygamy should be legal, and that's not happening in US.
    Not just other religions - polygamy fits the definition of "biblical marriage".

    Quote Originally Posted by Symphonic View Post
    Two hetero people joining together in union shall be... a legalized union. Two gay people joining together in a union shall be... a legalized union.

    Then, churches can call their unions marriage if they want.
    Or we could just call all of them "marriage" and let each of the churches come up with their own individual copyrighted terms. Example: "The most high and holy sacred non-homo religious union as sanctified by the gracious and puissant plenipotentiary Westboro Baptist Church."
    And don't forget that there are plenty of churches that are willing to perform gay marriages.


    I have a couple of questions for those who know more than me about these things.

    1 - How good are the chances that this ruling will actually go for anti-bigotry? From what I understood the SCOTUS is almost evenly divided.
    2 - What would striking down DOMA actually mean? Would it give people married in an equality state marriage benefits in a bigoted state? Or would it simply recognise same-sex marriages on the federal level? Would marriage equality laws still need to be passed in the 40-odd remaining states individually?
    Last edited by JonTargaryen; 2012-12-07 at 11:05 PM.
    Higgledy-piggledy Lord Wyman Manderly
    Sups with his foes, leaving Nary a crumb.

    Wolvering wolverenes Incontrovertibly
    Tell all who hearken that Winter is come.

  15. #55
    Homosexual couples should incorporate rather then get married, then the republicans would be fighting to expand their rights rather then suppress them.
    It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning.

    -Kujako-

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Kujako View Post
    Homosexual couples should incorporate rather then get married, then the republicans would be fighting to expand their rights rather then suppress them.
    We have a winner!

  17. #57
    Elemental Lord Masark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,951
    Quote Originally Posted by TradewindNQ View Post
    kind of like my friend's "Marriage of Convenience?"
    as in "Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others."

  18. #58
    Herald of the Titans
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Aarhus, Denmark, Europe
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by SageKalzi View Post
    I never said religion owns the word. I also said that they can use a different word and still get the tax benefits, I don't see why it's so necessary to use the word "marriage."
    Imagine having a gay friend, brother, coworker whatever

    Imagine him getting into such a "civil union"

    Imagine having to every time say he is in a registered partnership, civil union, domestic union or whatever the heck else might be thrown at it

    Do you really think that is a good thing?

    Because it bugs me, not being right [when] calling a marriage a marriage.
    Last edited by Xarkan; 2012-12-07 at 10:55 PM.

  19. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by TradewindNQ View Post
    I am curious what mmoc'ers would consider as an alternative word then for "marriage" for same-sex individuals?

    Segregation.

    Also reminds me of this passage (which I think is a paraphrasing, I've read the whole thing before and it's quite moving):

    Their conversation turns to voting rights, and East tells a joke about a man who goes to register to vote. In order to test his reading, he is shown a newspaper in Chinese. “I can read the headline,” the man says, “It says this is one Negro in Mississippi who’s not going to vote this year.”

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Lenonis View Post
    How about "The Downfall of Society"

    or

    "Think of the Children"
    Religious Zealotry in the America of the Twenty-First Century sounds a lot better to me.
    I AM the world's first Shadow Mage.

Posting Permissions

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