Obama to sign order barring federal discrimination against gays

[squarethecircle]

"All state bans on same sex marriage will be declared unconstitutional by the supreme court within 5 years max. Maybe even one year. This will in effect mandate legalization in all states."

Even if the first does happen not sure how it will effectively mandate legalization of same-sex marriages, as (AFAIK) the power to pronounce marriages belongs to the States, not sure how the federal government could order state officials to marry people against their will. A left-wing gay rights bully is just as despicable as a right-wing religious bully and for me a far bigger civil rights issue at this point is the matter of non-violent drug users being treated as criminals, far more costly to society than a homosexual couple being considered a "union" rather than a "marriage".

Edited July 22, 2014 by squarethecircle

[sustento]

"All state bans on same sex marriage will be declared unconstitutional by the supreme court within 5 years max. Maybe even one year. This will in effect mandate legalization in all states."

Even if the first does happen not sure how it will effectively mandate legalization of same-sex marriages, as (AFAIK) the power to pronounce marriages belongs to the States, not sure how the federal government could order state officials to marry people against their will. A left-wing gay rights bully is just as despicable as a right-wing religious bully and for me a far bigger civil rights issue at this point is the matter of non-violent drug users being treated as criminals, far more costly to society than a homosexual couple being considered a "union" rather than a "marriage".

Didn't they say the same about inter-racial marriages back in the 60s?

Edited July 22, 2014 by sustento

[squarethecircle]

"Didn't they say the same about inter-racial marriages back in the 60s?"

Yes there's that parallel.

I heard Thailand mentioned. They seem to be veering under China's sway to some degree so I hope they'll take the Chinese approach, which seems to be they marry women and have family in order preserve the society and the tradition, but then have girlfriends (or in this case boyfriends) on the side.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRdfX7ut8gw

Edited July 22, 2014 by squarethecircle

[Jingthing]

"All state bans on same sex marriage will be declared unconstitutional by the supreme court within 5 years max. Maybe even one year. This will in effect mandate legalization in all states."

Even if the first does happen not sure how it will effectively mandate legalization of same-sex marriages, as (AFAIK) the power to pronounce marriages belongs to the States, not sure how the federal government could order state officials to marry people against their will. A left-wing gay rights bully is just as despicable as a right-wing religious bully and for me a far bigger civil rights issue at this point is the matter of non-violent drug users being treated as criminals, far more costly to society than a homosexual couple being considered a "union" rather than a "marriage".

Sorry you don't understand the constitution.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[sustento]

"Didn't they say the same about inter-racial marriages back in the 60s?"

Yes there's that parallel.

I heard Thailand mentioned. They seem to be veering under China's sway to some degree so I hope they'll take the Chinese approach, which seems to be they marry women and have family in order preserve the society and the tradition, but then have girlfriends (or in this case boyfriends) on the side.

If you're going to rely on tradition how far back do you want to go? Before the Civil Rights Act? Salem in 1692? The Inquistion? Helotry in Sparta?

Why should a particular form of religious juju be forced upon people that don't believe in it? Why should the rights of the religious be any more respected than the rights of the non-religious?

Why should same sex relationships be delegated to the second rate and hidden away in corners?

'Tradition' is no defence to perpetuating injustice.

[Jingthing]

If a person is voting republican, almost by definition they are voting against equal civil rights for gay people. A few exceptions, but not yet many.

[squarethecircle]

"'Tradition' is no defence to perpetuating injustice."

True but you can do both - preserve tradition and halt injustice - sometimes just a matter of semantics. And I don't know of any mass injustice against gays in US (as I said friends in Alabama are a same sex couple and are accepted, whereas I have personally witnessed anti gay harassment in both LA and NY). To my mind it is a non issue while the continuing criminal approach to drug use is like a witch hunt, far worse than gays with civil unions not being called "married".

[danmarnj]

Every move Obama makes has a political motive. He and most African-Americans are against gay marriage. In fact, Obama is on record as being against it. Now that he stuck his finger into the wind to determine which direction its blowing, he is now an advocate

[sustento]

"'Tradition' is no defence to perpetuating injustice."

True but you can do both - preserve tradition and halt injustice - sometimes just a matter of semantics. And I don't know of any mass injustice against gays in US (as I said friends in Alabama are a same sex couple and are accepted, whereas I have personally witnessed anti gay harassment in both LA and NY). To my mind it is a non issue while the continuing criminal approach to drug use is like a witch hunt, far worse than gays with civil unions not being called "married".

I agree with you about the 'war on drugs' which is simply absurd but that doesn't mean that other things can't happen at the same time. One of the arguments that the antis used in the UK was that there were more important things to do and that gay marriage was taking up too much parliamentary time. The only reason it was taking up so much time was that they were kicking up such a fuss about it. Everybody knew it was going to go through anyway.

[sustento]

Every move Obama makes has a political motive. He and most African-Americans are against gay marriage. In fact, Obama is on record as being against it. Now that he stuck his finger into the wind to determine which direction its blowing, he is now an advocate

"Politician acts like a politician"! No shit Sherlock

[Jingthing]

"'Tradition' is no defence to perpetuating injustice."

True but you can do both - preserve tradition and halt injustice - sometimes just a matter of semantics. And I don't know of any mass injustice against gays in US (as I said friends in Alabama are a same sex couple and are accepted, whereas I have personally witnessed anti gay harassment in both LA and NY). To my mind it is a non issue while the continuing criminal approach to drug use is like a witch hunt, far worse than gays with civil unions not being called "married".

Sorry but you just aren't current on this issue in the U.S. It's like hearing from someone about this some years ago. Things have moved forward from where you think things are apparently, and very quickly. You might as well be talking about the traffic problems of horses and buggies. It's that irrelevant now. There is no debate about civil unions anymore in the U.S as an alternative to marriage equality.

Do you understand why that is?

Let me spell it out for you, dude.

Almost half the population of the USA live in states where they can get same sex married, and these marriages enjoy the same civil rights as all marriages at the federal level.

There is no turning back now from the inevitable ... 50 state marriage equality.

It is only about WHEN (not if) that the U.S.A. will have 50 state marriage equality. If that displeases you, well, I don't really care. Just as I would not care about someone who was displeased when the supreme court forbade any state to ban INTERRACIAL marriages. I would just assume that in future years such a person would usually feel shame for having held an opinion favoring unfair discrimination against fellow citizens. Things have moved beyond where you appear to be STUCK AT.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Every move Obama makes has a political motive. He and most African-Americans are against gay marriage. In fact, Obama is on record as being against it. Now that he stuck his finger into the wind to determine which direction its blowing, he is now an advocate

What political motive does he have now, mate? He isn't running for any election again ever in his life. In my view, you are talking about VERY OLD news. Yes Obama was politically careful about this in his FIRST TERM, but trust me, the gays knew all along that he had our back. It took the second term to make good on it. That kind of thing, being patient, is standard in politics.

[Jingthing]

"Didn't they say the same about inter-racial marriages back in the 60s?"

Yes there's that parallel.

I heard Thailand mentioned. They seem to be veering under China's sway to some degree so I hope they'll take the Chinese approach, which seems to be they marry women and have family in order preserve the society and the tradition, but then have girlfriends (or in this case boyfriends) on the side.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRdfX7ut8gw

Nope.

Thailand's government (before the coup) was openly talking about legalizing same sex civil unions.

It is quite possible this will happen within 5 or 10 years here.

Thailand won't go directly into marriage equality ... they will take a stepped approach. As did the U.K.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Jingthing

[squarethecircle]

"It is only about WHEN (not if) that the U.S.A. will have 50 state marriage equality. If that displeases you, well, I don't really care."

Ah, well I don't know how you plan to do this, as mentioned before 45% of the US population has religious objection to this and I suspect compromise will have to be made at some point. Especially once an actual leader like the great American war hero John McCain comes into power. Here's the current map of public opinion re: gay marriage/civil union/etc.:

Well I can't seem to find the right image but you can probably imagine there is significant resistance to full implementation as you say, and I don't see how it can be fully implemented as US Constitution does not grant the federal government permission to do as such.

I fully agree this is a non-issue but meanwhile the war on drugs rages full on, really it is totally hypocritical and acting out in self-interest to ignore what in my mind is a far greater menace in US.

[sustento]

I fully agree this is a non-issue but meanwhile the war on drugs rages full on, really it is totally hypocritical and acting out in self-interest to ignore what in my mind is a far greater menace in US.

There's too much money and too many jobs involved in the war on drugs to close it down any time soon. The only money in gay weddings will be corsages and wedding cakes

[Jingthing]

The moment the Supreme Court rules banning same sex marriages is unconstitutional EVERY single U.S. state will be COMPELLED under federal law to allow same sex marriages. That will be EXACTLY how the issue of banning INTERRACIAL marriage got resolved. At the SUPREME COURT. This isn't mysterious. That's how it works. It is fully legal. There is nothing any state can do about it. Period. If a person can't "imagine" this they simply don't understand the massive power of the supreme court when they rule things either constitutional or NOT.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Jingthing

[squarethecircle]

"If a person can't "imagine" this they simply don't understand the massive power of the supreme court when they rule things either constitutional or NOT. "

Under US Constitution federal government has specific powers enumerated. Power to regulate marriage is not one of these and personally I would rather some "closed-minded" people in one state to have their sway than to have all states under the sway of a central authority. You have already stated you are not interested in debate on the matter and the case is closed, so for once I can say I hope China and Russia exert their power as this is a blatant rejection of tradition and imposition of a new kind of morality or lack thereof.

Edited July 22, 2014 by squarethecircle

[Jingthing]

Just look at the well established precedent, the supreme court decision on interracial marriage. Yes, in that sense, there is nothing to discuss. Assuming the supreme court will eventually make this ruling, it will be done. If they don't, then it will drag on as a patchwork. Russia and China have no relevance to U.S. law.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Jingthing

[Scott]

I could have sworn this was about banning discrimination of gays.

At any rate, keep the discussion civil.