LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
User avatar
em2nought
Posts: 5307
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 5:48 am

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by em2nought »

GreenGoo wrote:Which is fine, I'm just confused how it is related to the right to be married.
They've got "their" rights now, but who is it that's the most vocal against prostitution? (well besides the stupid end of the republican party) Married people. So if slur removed can finally have a license to marry, single people should get a "john" or "ho" license. :mrgreen:
Last edited by ImLawBoy on Mon Jul 06, 2015 2:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Technically, he shouldn't be here.
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by LawBeefaroni »

em2nought wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:Which is fine, I'm just confused how it is related to the right to be married.
They've got "their" rights now, but who is it that's the most vocal against prostitution? (well besides the stupid end of the republican party) Married people. So if slur removed can finally have a license to marry, single people should get a "john" or "ho" license. :mrgreen:
What the hell?

Not only is this ignorantly worded, it doesn't make any sense.
Last edited by ImLawBoy on Mon Jul 06, 2015 2:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
RunningMn9
Posts: 24461
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
Location: The Sword Coast
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by RunningMn9 »

Well, that was easy. Begone troll.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Smoove_B »

LawBeefaroni wrote:Not only is this ignorantly worded, it doesn't make any sense.
I'm not sure we're looking at someone that's meth-addled or if English is a second language here.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
ImLawBoy
Forum Admin
Posts: 14950
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by ImLawBoy »

em2nought, this is your first and final warning. Any more slurs like that and you will be banned. I'd honestly prefer you take your hate elsewhere of your own volition, but I'll give you the opportunity to reform.
That's my purse! I don't know you!
User avatar
em2nought
Posts: 5307
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 5:48 am

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by em2nought »

ImLawBoy wrote:em2nought, this is your first and final warning. Any more slurs like that and you will be banned. I'd honestly prefer you take your hate elsewhere of your own volition, but I'll give you the opportunity to reform.
Just so I'm clear on the ground rules: So the section where I slurred one end of the Republican party was perfectly acceptable? :mrgreen: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-y2TYC0stZJ8/U ... enshot.jpg

Sure would help to have a PC thesaurus where I could enter Archie Bunker and have it translated to meathead. :mrgreen:
Technically, he shouldn't be here.
User avatar
ImLawBoy
Forum Admin
Posts: 14950
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by ImLawBoy »

This is not the hill you want to die on. If you can't figure out the difference between calling some folks within a political party stupid and using a hateful slur to denigrate an entire class of people, I can't help you, and I won't play your comparative games. Of course, I have a feeling that you know full well the distinction between the two, but you've decided of late that you'd rather stir shit up than engage in meaningful conversations.
That's my purse! I don't know you!
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28907
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Holman »

So... this is the part where you quote Orwell on truth to justify racial and homophobic slurs?
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 23583
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Pyperkub »

DBAD
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!

Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
geezer
Posts: 7551
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:52 pm
Location: Yeeha!

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by geezer »

Holman wrote:
So... this is the part where you quote Orwell on truth to justify racial and homophobic slurs?
Dude's been trending down for awhile now.
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by LawBeefaroni »

em2nought wrote: Just so I'm clear on the ground rules: So the section where I slurred one end of the Republican party was perfectly acceptable? :mrgreen: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-y2TYC0stZJ8/U ... enshot.jpg

Sure would help to have a PC thesaurus where I could enter Archie Bunker and have it translated to meathead. :mrgreen:
"Stupid" is not a slur.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
Alefroth
Posts: 8487
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Bellingham WA

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Alefroth »

LawBeefaroni wrote:
em2nought wrote: Just so I'm clear on the ground rules: So the section where I slurred one end of the Republican party was perfectly acceptable? :mrgreen: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-y2TYC0stZJ8/U ... enshot.jpg

Sure would help to have a PC thesaurus where I could enter Archie Bunker and have it translated to meathead. :mrgreen:
"Stupid" is not a slur.
Right, it's shtoopid.
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 70101
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by LordMortis »

Back on Topic, the Texas Governor's insistence that no government employee in Texas has to their government part to marry two people they don't believe should be married to seems to have come to a head and the governor doesn't look like he's going to like the way it's headed.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/07/0 ... e-lawsuit/
User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 51302
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by hepcat »

geezer wrote:
Holman wrote:
So... this is the part where you quote Orwell on truth to justify racial and homophobic slurs?
Dude's been trending down for awhile now.
I had hoped it was just an act that he'd grow tired of performing. He tends to pipe up whenever minorities or gay rights are brought up...and not in a good way.
Covfefe!
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by LawBeefaroni »

LordMortis wrote:Back on Topic, the Texas Governor's insistence that no government employee in Texas has to their government part to marry two people they don't believe should be married to seems to have come to a head and the governor doesn't look like he's going to like the way it's headed.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/07/0 ... e-lawsuit/
In Texas, Hood County Clerk Katie Lang had refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples for well over a week after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges.
Oh, I bet she pisses her off to no end. :lol:
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 70101
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by LordMortis »

LawBeefaroni wrote:
LordMortis wrote:Back on Topic, the Texas Governor's insistence that no government employee in Texas has to their government part to marry two people they don't believe should be married to seems to have come to a head and the governor doesn't look like he's going to like the way it's headed.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/07/0 ... e-lawsuit/
In Texas, Hood County Clerk Katie Lang had refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples for well over a week after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges.
Oh, I bet she pisses her off to no end. :lol:
I never even made that connection once while reading. :clap: Though the second I saw your highlight, I didn't even need to read what you had to say.
User avatar
Skinypupy
Posts: 20334
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:12 am
Location: Utah

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Skinypupy »

Remember that Oregon bakery that recently got fined $135,000 by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries because they refused to bake a cake for a SSM? Those poor persecuted Christians who are being fined by the state for "politely telling somebody, I’m sorry, I can’t basically participate in your event."?

Yeah, that's not exactly what happened, and certainly isn't the only reason they're being fined:
However, the ruling shows the bakery owners had made Laurel and Rachel Bowman-Cryer the victims of persecution and makes clear the payment was compensation for damages and not a fine or civil penalty, reported the blog Love, Joy and Feminism...the bakery owners shared the couple’s personal contact information – which led to death threats that nearly caused them to lose custody of their foster children.

Rachel Bowman-Cryer said she and her wife received a steady stream of threats that continued as the Kleins promoted their side of the case in national media appearances. She testified that state adoption officials told them they were responsible for keeping their two foster daughters safe from those threats, and they feared they could lose custody of the girls — who they have since adopted.
Not that the facts will stop any my relatives from screaming about "SEE, TEH GHEYS ARE COMING FOR US!!!"
When darkness veils the world, four Warriors of Light shall come.
User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 23583
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Pyperkub »

Hmm... 135k for doxxing. That's an interesting precedent too.
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!

Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82089
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Isgrimnur »

Kentucky clerk defies court order:
A Kentucky clerk's office turned away a gay couple seeking a marriage license on Thursday, defying a federal judge's order that dismissed her argument involving religious freedom.

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis' office turned away David Moore and David Ermold just hours after a U.S. district judge ordered her to do the opposite.

Deputy clerk Nathan Davis says the office was advised by its attorneys with the Christian law firm Liberty Counsel to continue refusing same-sex couples as it appeals the ruling to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
...
Five couples sued her, and U.S. District Judge David L. Bunning on Wednesday ordered her to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling.

He wrote that her refusal "likely violated the constitutional rights of her constituents."
...
In Kentucky, county clerks issue marriage licenses, but someone else must "solemnize" the marriage before the license can be filed with the county clerk. Davis argued that issuing a same-sex marriage license that contains her signature is the same as her approving the marriage, which she said violates her Christian beliefs. But Bunning rejected that argument, saying Davis has likely violated the U.S. Constitution's ban on the government establishing a religion by "openly adopting a policy that promotes her own religious convictions at the expenses of others."

"Davis remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs. She may continue to attend church twice a week, participate in Bible Study and minister to female inmates at the Rowan County Jail. She is even free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do," Bunning wrote. "However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk."

Laura Landenwich, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said the 28-page ruling reveals that the judge painstakingly combed through each of Davis' legal arguments and rejected each one. Bunning said that although couples could get marriage licenses elsewhere, "why should they be required to?" He noted the surrounding counties require 30 minutes or one hour of travel and there are many "in this rural region of the state who simply do not have the physical, financial or practical means to travel."

Bunning said state law does not allow the county judge-executive to issue marriage licenses unless Davis is absent from her job, and Bunning refused to deem Davis absent because she has a religious objection. And Bunning said issuing a marriage license does not constitute speech, saying the marriage license form "does not require the county clerk to condone or endorse same-sex marriage on religious or moral grounds."
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41247
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by El Guapo »

Hopefully she enjoys jail.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 51302
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by hepcat »

Religious freedom = religious domination for some.
Covfefe!
User avatar
Moliere
Posts: 12297
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:57 am
Location: Walking through a desert land

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Moliere »

hepcat wrote:Religious freedom = religious domination for some.
Image
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow
User avatar
Daveman
Posts: 1757
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:06 pm
Location: New Jersey

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Daveman »

El Guapo wrote:Hopefully she enjoys jail.
"She may continue to attend church twice a week, participate in Bible Study and minister to female inmates at the Rowan County Jail."
Win/win!
User avatar
stessier
Posts: 29816
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:30 pm
Location: SC

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by stessier »

El Guapo wrote:Hopefully she enjoys jail.
I don't think she deserves jail - not the first government employee to fail to do their job. She does deserve to lose her job however.
I require a reminder as to why raining arcane destruction is not an appropriate response to all of life's indignities. - Vaarsuvius
Global Steam Wishmaslist Tracking
Running____2014: 1300.55 miles____2015: 2036.13 miles____2016: 1012.75 miles____2017: 1105.82 miles____2018: 1318.91 miles__2019: 2000.00 miles
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41247
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by El Guapo »

stessier wrote:
El Guapo wrote:Hopefully she enjoys jail.
I don't think she deserves jail - not the first government employee to fail to do their job. She does deserve to lose her job however.
That's kind of what happens when you intentionally defy a federal court order.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Smoove_B »

El Guapo wrote:That's kind of what happens when you intentionally defy a federal court order.
Seriously. She should probably be glad that she's likely protected there -- from the people that would want to burn her as a heretic.
She may continue to...minister to female inmates
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
ImLawBoy
Forum Admin
Posts: 14950
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by ImLawBoy »

El Guapo wrote:
stessier wrote:
El Guapo wrote:Hopefully she enjoys jail.
I don't think she deserves jail - not the first government employee to fail to do their job. She does deserve to lose her job however.
That's kind of what happens when you intentionally defy a federal court order.
Yes. If she goes to jail it's for contempt of court, not for failing to do her job.
That's my purse! I don't know you!
User avatar
AWS260
Posts: 12664
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 12:51 pm
Location: Brooklyn

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by AWS260 »

User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 70101
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by LordMortis »


I was just coming to ask about this.

http://www.kentucky.com/2015/08/27/4007 ... .html?rh=1

I was wondering how s/he (I'm reading Casey on some sites and Kim on others) still has a job and at what point do you go to jail for defying the law.

Also how do you wait a week for an appeal to a Supreme Court decision? That befuddles me.
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by LawBeefaroni »

LordMortis wrote:
I was wondering how s/he (I'm reading Casey on some sites and Kim on others) still has a job and at what point do you go to jail for defying the law.
They're two different people:
Meanwhile, Casey County Clerk Casey Davis, another clerk who is denying licenses, announced that he has started a bike ride across Kentucky — from Pikeville to Paducah — to show support for Kim Davis.

Aside: It's funny, I have family in both Pikeville and Paducah. I used to go to Pikeville a lot as a kid and there was this minor celebrity couple there, two gay guys who were both (I think?) lawyers. They had several exotic sports cars and so my cousin and I always walked over to their house to try to catch a glimpse of their cars.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26891
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Rip »

The family of Kody Brown on Wednesday answered Utah's appeal to reinstate a ban on polygamy, and the family's brief is notable for what's there now that wasn't before.

The Browns' attorney Jonathan Turley wages many of the same arguments that were successful in the lower court. But now Turley also cites recent rulings affirming same-sex marriage.

That includes the U.S. Supreme Court case of Obergefell v. Hodges, in which the court upheld the fundamental right of same-sex couples to marry, and Kitchen v. Herbert, the case that brought same-sex marriage to Utah. Turley also cites a Supreme Court case that decriminalized all gay sex as sodomy, Lawrence V. Texas.
"From the rejection of morality legislation in Lawrence to the expansion of the protections of liberty interests in Obergefell, it is clear that states can no longer use criminal codes to coerce or punish those who choose to live in consensual but unpopular unions," Turley wrote in his answer to Utah's appeal.
http://www.sltrib.com/home/2880612-155/ ... o-same-sex
User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 23583
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Pyperkub »

LordMortis wrote:

I was just coming to ask about this.

http://www.kentucky.com/2015/08/27/4007 ... .html?rh=1

I was wondering how s/he (I'm reading Casey on some sites and Kim on others) still has a job and at what point do you go to jail for defying the law.

Also how do you wait a week for an appeal to a Supreme Court decision? That befuddles me.
The County Clerk is an elected position, I'm not sure about removal - probably the Governor would have to do that (or a recall election).

As to not being in jail - I suspect that the case to try her on Federal Civil rights charges is probably being built. Not sure about State, though I'm sure the case for a lawsuit to force her job is being compiled.
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!

Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by GreenGoo »

They can try all they want. It's a free country. There are significant problems with poly marriages that simply don't exist for a 2 person marriage. Even if we ignore societal mores, the practical problems alone are daunting enough that without more demand for and popularity of polygamy, it's just not worth trying. It would require a significant re-write of tax laws, which some people might find a good idea.

There is no slippery slope here. Having same sex marriages doesn't fundamentally change our societal concept of marriage, or significantly impact the current laws affecting marriage already on the books. Marriage between 3 or more people does.

Good luck, people in Utah. You'll need it.
User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26891
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Rip »

GreenGoo wrote:They can try all they want. It's a free country. There are significant problems with poly marriages that simply don't exist for a 2 person marriage. Even if we ignore societal mores, the practical problems alone are daunting enough that without more demand for and popularity of polygamy, it's just not worth trying. It would require a significant re-write of tax laws, which some people might find a good idea.

There is no slippery slope here. Having same sex marriages doesn't fundamentally change our societal concept of marriage, or significantly impact the current laws affecting marriage already on the books. Marriage between 3 or more people does.

Good luck, people in Utah. You'll need it.
Being difficult isn't a defense to denying people their rights.

These people didn't choose to be that way they were born that way. The Utah law translated to homosexuality would be going back to throwing people in prison for sodomy.

Why do you hate these people?

edit: Also I would like to note denying people the right to get marriage != making their lifestyle illegal.

It isn't a free country for people who get thrown in jail for practicing what comes natural to them.
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by GreenGoo »

Rip wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:They can try all they want. It's a free country. There are significant problems with poly marriages that simply don't exist for a 2 person marriage. Even if we ignore societal mores, the practical problems alone are daunting enough that without more demand for and popularity of polygamy, it's just not worth trying. It would require a significant re-write of tax laws, which some people might find a good idea.

There is no slippery slope here. Having same sex marriages doesn't fundamentally change our societal concept of marriage, or significantly impact the current laws affecting marriage already on the books. Marriage between 3 or more people does.

Good luck, people in Utah. You'll need it.
Being difficult isn't a defense to denying people their rights.

These people didn't choose to be that way they were born that way. The Utah law translated to homosexuality would be going back to throwing people in prison for sodomy.

Why do you hate these people?

edit: Also I would like to note denying people the right to get marriage != making their lifestyle illegal.

It isn't a free country for people who get thrown in jail for practicing what comes natural to them.
First off, I hate them because they're from Utah.

Second, what right do you feel we're denying them? Are we also denying them the right to marry chairs and the family cow? These are the arguments that those against gay marriage used. Do they have the right to marry their children?

People are born gay. People aren't born polygamous. Allowing gay people to be who they are at birth and enjoy all the rights and protections that the rest of us who decide to get married enjoy is equal rights. Disallowing cultural choices that differ and conflict with our own is not denying people their rights.

That's about all you'll get from me Rip. I understand how you feel about homosexuals and I know you don't actually believe the things you've written here, so this is not even an interesting intellectual exercise.

There's no slippery slope, we disallow marriage for a myriad of reasons, and while a case could be made for polygamy, it's not by comparing it to gay marriage and saying "they got what they wanted, why can't we?"
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 24627
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by noxiousdog »

GreenGoo wrote: People are born gay. People aren't born polygamous. Allowing gay people to be who they are at birth and enjoy all the rights and protections that the rest of us who decide to get married enjoy is equal rights. Disallowing cultural choices that differ and conflict with our own is not denying people their rights.

That's about all you'll get from me Rip. I understand how you feel about homosexuals and I know you don't actually believe the things you've written here, so this is not even an interesting intellectual exercise.

There's no slippery slope, we disallow marriage for a myriad of reasons, and while a case could be made for polygamy, it's not by comparing it to gay marriage and saying "they got what they wanted, why can't we?"
We do not "disallow marriage for a myriad of reasons." We disallow it for non-consent, blood relationships, and pre-existing contract. We used to disallow it for race and we used to disallow it for gender. Those are the only reasons I know of.

And while you say "people aren't born polygamous" they are born polyamorous.
Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
User avatar
gbasden
Posts: 7664
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:57 am
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by gbasden »

noxiousdog wrote:
And while you say "people aren't born polygamous" they are born polyamorous.
Truth.
User avatar
AWS260
Posts: 12664
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 12:51 pm
Location: Brooklyn

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by AWS260 »

She's still at it.
A county clerk in Kentucky who objects to same-sex marriage on religious grounds denied licenses to gay couples on Tuesday, just hours after the Supreme Court refused to support her position.
User avatar
Zarathud
Posts: 16434
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:29 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Zarathud »

She wants Obama to send in the National Guard, doesn't she?
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein
"I don't stand by anything." - Trump
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867
“It is the impractical things in this tumultuous hell-scape of a world that matter most. A book, a name, chicken soup. They help us remember that, even in our darkest hour, life is still to be savored.” - Poe, Altered Carbon
User avatar
Skinypupy
Posts: 20334
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:12 am
Location: Utah

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Skinypupy »

AWS260 wrote:She's still at it.
A county clerk in Kentucky who objects to same-sex marriage on religious grounds denied licenses to gay couples on Tuesday, just hours after the Supreme Court refused to support her position.
How this woman still has a job is completely baffling to me.
When darkness veils the world, four Warriors of Light shall come.
Post Reply