US rebuff to gay marriage opponents

[poweratradio]

Yay!

Come to Thailand the land where you can't tell who's who or whats what is the gender catagorys

[Trentham]

It appears to me that the SCOTUS has decided this is a State's Rights issue and has thrown it back on the various states to decide their own fate.

Rather a sensible conclusion in my mind.

@ Trentham:

I've seen your post #12 before and I found it as funny this time as the first time around. I'm a Christian by the way.

I wouldn't recommend Dr. Schlesinger do something similar to the Koran. We don't need any more reasons for them to take the law into their own hands

Chuckd your comment is not very christian-like. It implies that all Muslims will react the same as the really screwed up fundamental radicals do. That is not so. Nearly all Muslims are peace loving as taught by the Koran. History shows that Christians have done much worse over time.

I myself am an Athiest [capital A intended].

Peace and love Chuckd and I am pleased I brought a little laughter into your life.

[Seastallion]

But it was received rapturously by gay marriage campaigners.

Isn't that a bible word?

The Rapture makes reference to a Biblical expectation of uplifting, but the word "rapture" is not in the Bible and certainly "rapturously" is not.

It's pure BBC in this case, but then I suppose words like "the" and "received" are Bible words in the sense that they appear in English versions of the Bible.

And of course the favorite word of those who (mis)use the Bible as an assault weapon is "abomination," such when attacking those vile people who eat shrimp:

And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

Rapture IS a bible word for the only reason that if you mention the word to Christians, they will immediately think of the bible. How often do you hear this word outside of the bible?

Rapturously is the adverb of rapture. Therefore, it is a bible word too.

It is obvious the writer used the word intentionally to insert their own skewed opinion of the subject.

Rubbish. Rapture is a normal English word. I do not think the writer intended any Christian connotation with the word.

[KED]

"Today is a joyous day!

Not everyone...would agree with this statement...

I am sad for those who are saddened by equal rights for all. For those who do not accept equal marriage - let them have their opinions - but don't subject my life and my rights to their beliefs.

[Jingthing]

Being "sad" about marriage equality for gay Americans is as idiotic as those racists who were sad when the supreme court did a similar thing, not that long ago really, making it illegal to disallow INTERRACIAL marriages.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/roberts-court-brief-progressive-moment

Ultimately, at the Supreme Court, what matters is the result, not the motives. So, because of Monday’s non-decision decision, gay people in thirty states, representing well more than half the country, will now enjoy the right to marry. A decade ago, marriage equality existed only in Massachusetts. It is a remarkable legal and social transformation—an astonishing victory for progressive legal thought and action.

...

It is a day to note and to celebrate a civil-rights revolution that is nearing a complete victory.
...

Edited October 8, 2014 by Jingthing

[Chicog]

It's a sad state of affairs that this even needs to be legislated over at all.

It's none of my business who marries who, and it is none of the curtain-twitching god squad's business either.

Can someone explain to me how two men or women marrying each other has any effect on two heterosexual jesus wheezers walking down the aisle, other than offending their precious religious sensibilities?

[Jingthing]

I want to add some background information about this issue in the U.S.

Approximately ten years ago (or even five) it was the general feeling even among gay activists that U.S. marriage equality was probably multiple decades away, perhaps 50 years.

Twenty years ago probably the majority felt maybe NEVER.

Thirty years ago the issue wasn't really even on the RADAR.

So this has actually happened MUCH FASTER than most people could have ever imagined.

No, it isn't 50 state ... yet.

But 30 states and full FEDERAL recognition ... it's now inevitable and even the opponents realize that.

Just imagine ... many married gay couples move from California (marriage equality state) to Georgia (not yet). Their marriage is already recognized by the U.S. federal government. How long can the MINORITY of states like Georgia go on not recognizing this legal reality, really already a done deal? Even more so when the couple has children, which is really not at all uncommon among lesbians.

There is a kind of beauty to how this has come about ... with the supreme court doing so much by doing NOTHING.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Jingthing

[Godfree2]

This is a government handout to the lawyers of the Divorce Industry (billions of pounds each year).

You get what you wish for.

[Jingthing]

This is a government handout to the lawyers of the Divorce Industry (billions of pounds each year).

You get what you wish for.

Yes with marriages come the possibility of divorce.

Nobody, gay or straight, will be REQUIRED to marry.

Think hard before you do.

There will be other unintended consequences, like social pressure to commit that they never felt before.

Also, many gay people don't necessary want to be exactly the same as heterosexuals.

But when it comes to equal legal rights and choices for all citizens ... the overall impact has got to be good.

[Godfree2]

I want to add some background information about this issue in the U.S.

Approximately ten years ago (or even five) it was the general feeling even among gay activists that U.S. marriage equality was probably multiple decades away, perhaps 50 years.

Twenty years ago probably the majority felt maybe NEVER.

Thirty years ago the issue wasn't really even on the RADAR.

So this has actually happened MUCH FASTER than most people could have ever imagined.

No, it isn't 50 state ... yet.

But 30 states and full FEDERAL recognition ... it's now inevitable and even the opponents realize that.

Just imagine ... many married gay couples move from California (marriage equality state) to Georgia (not yet). Their marriage is already recognized by the U.S. federal government. How long can the MINORITY of states like Georgia go on not recognizing this legal reality, really already a done deal? Even more so when the couple has children, which is really not at all uncommon among lesbians.

There is a kind of beauty to how this has come about ... with the supreme court doing so much by doing NOTHING.

Doing Nothing. Right. Doing nothing when the democractic referendums voted upon by the people are being overturned by "activists."

It is beautiful just like Sharia in the UK -- imposed as a form of appeasement by a SJW-friendly judiciary and cut off the nose to spite the face.

[cashlamb99]

30% Of GAYS Have AIDS !!! And JEWS SAY Jesus is not the SON of GOD.!!!

Sent from my LG-P880 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Jingthing]

You're living in the past, mate. More recent popular votes have won for marriage equality. National surveys also show majority support and dramatically so among younger Americans.

[Jingthing]

30% Of GAYS Have AIDS !!! And JEWS SAY Jesus is not the SON of GOD.!!!

Sent from my LG-P880 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

You're right about the Jews. We don't recognize the divinity of Jesus. So what?

Well, there are Jews for Jesus, are they really Jews anymore? I would say ethically yes, religiously no.

On global HIV infection rate of gay men, I really don't have any good statistics on that. I don't think it's as high as 30 percent though.

In any case, tying this to legalized gay marriage, it would be logical to SUPPORT legal gay marriage as that encourages less promiscuity, yes?

Edited October 8, 2014 by Jingthing

[Godfree2]

This is a government handout to the lawyers of the Divorce Industry (billions of pounds each year).

You get what you wish for.

Yes with marriages come the possibility of divorce.

Nobody, gay or straight, will be REQUIRED to marry.

Think hard before you do.

There will be other unintended consequences, like social pressure to commit that they never felt before.

Also, many gay people don't necessary want to be exactly the same as heterosexuals.

But when it comes to equal legal rights and choices for all citizens ... the overall impact has got to be good.

I would ask this: What right does government have involving itself in ANY type of marriage arrangement?

Has government always been involved in what consitutes a marriage?

A long time ago I read somewhere in The Economist that Western governments have only been involved in the Marriage Game for about the last 150 years.

Why the push for homosexual marriage when civil marriage should be forbidden and simply left to religious institutions? There are churches/temples/synagogues that will marry homosexual partners?

Should not government show its impartiality by removing itself from this industry?

[Jingthing]

Interesting from an academic POV. But really off topic.

The marriage equality movement in the U.S. is a civil rights issue seeking the same legal civil rights for gay citizens as non-gay citizens.

Basically, we've won, not 100 percent yet, but on the way for sure.

What religions do is up to them ...

I think maybe some people do not understand the U.S. legal system.

The government isn't forcing religions to perform marriages.

This is a secular decision. The U.S. is NOT a theocracy, Christian or otherwise.

[Godfree2]

You're living in the past, mate. More recent popular votes have won for marriage equality. National surveys also show majority support and dramatically so among younger Americans.

A sudden flip in the US national conscious regarding gay marriage? Sort of like how Obama had a change of heart when he campaigned supporting "The Defense of Marriage Act (no homo marriage)" and now supports gay marriage?

Unlikely and more on par with your decades in the future timeline.

What about southern states like Texas? If 90% of Texans don't support it, do they have to go along with it?

This is the difference between US and UK or France...States have rights, it is not a purely federal system.

Sometimes I wonder about the timebomb that is the UK. What will happen when its demographic changes result in a sizeable immigrant minority that has no regard for gay marriage in the UK?

[Jingthing]

There is no U.S. state with anything close to 90 percent opposition to marriage equality now so stop with the crazy exaggerating please.

Yes mostly in the U.S. south, the majority is still opposed to marriage equality.

But dude, it was the same type of thing with opposing interracial marriages.

Sometimes the federal government needs to step in for the sake of CIVIL RIGHTS.

That is the U.S. system. That is what happened with interracial marriages (done) and that is what is happening with same sex marriages (almost done).

If you don't like it, tough cookies.

You, it just occurred to me, it really is a WASTE OF TIME to argue anymore against opponents of marriage equality in the U.S.

They lost.

We won.

Why bother?

Does that sound like gloating?

So what?

The opponents were largely bigots anyway. They deserve it.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Jingthing

[Godfree2]

Interesting from an academic POV. But really off topic.

The marriage equality movement in the U.S. is a civil rights issue seeking the same legal civil rights for gay citizens as non-gay citizens.

Basically, we've won, not 100 percent yet, but on the way for sure.

What religions do is up to them ...

I think maybe some people do not understand the U.S. legal system.

The government isn't forcing religions to perform marriages.

This is a secular decision. The U.S. is NOT a theocracy, Christian or otherwise.

Who is we? The Mainstream Media mainly controlled by leftist Jews?

Seriously, look who controls the media in the US and ask yourself if it is representative of THE PEOPLE.

How many Black/Asian/White/Hispanic CEOs? Percentage-wise vastly underrepresented compared to those with Jewish/Israeli connection.

[Jingthing]

Interesting from an academic POV. But really off topic.

The marriage equality movement in the U.S. is a civil rights issue seeking the same legal civil rights for gay citizens as non-gay citizens.

Basically, we've won, not 100 percent yet, but on the way for sure.

What religions do is up to them ...

I think maybe some people do not understand the U.S. legal system.

The government isn't forcing religions to perform marriages.

This is a secular decision. The U.S. is NOT a theocracy, Christian or otherwise.

Who is we? The Mainstream Media mainly controlled by leftist Jews?

Seriously, look who controls the media in the US and ask yourself if it is representative of THE PEOPLE.

How many Black/Asian/White/Hispanic CEOs? Percentage-wise vastly underrepresented compared to those with Jewish/Israeli connection.

Oh great, antisemitic too, are you?

Actually, thanks, haters like you coming out of the closet as enemies of civil rights is good PR for the civil rights cause.

Welcome to my ignore list.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Jingthing

[Chicog]

It seems this might be a ploy by the SCOTUS - avoid making a decision that is irrevocable and hang on for another conservative appointee before ruling.

But I can't really see how any decent human being could force couples to divorce.

Hardly constitutional.

[Godfree2]

^^^

lolololzlzlzlololzlzlzlzl

[Jingthing]

It seems this might be a ploy by the SCOTUS - avoid making a decision that is irrevocable and hang on for another conservative appointee before ruling.

But I can't really see how any decent human being could force couples to divorce.

Hardly constitutional.

That's the thing. It's too late for overturn now. There will be so many thousands of existing marriages (some with children) that will have already been legal for years. That won't be taken away. No way.

[kleelof]

But it was received rapturously by gay marriage campaigners.

Isn't that a bible word?

Rapture IS a bible word for the only reason that if you mention the word to Christians, they will immediately think of the bible. How often do you hear this word outside of the bible?

Rapturously is the adverb of rapture. Therefore, it is a bible word too.

It is obvious the writer used the word intentionally to insert their own skewed opinion of the subject.

Rubbish. Rapture is a normal English word. I do not think the writer intended any Christian connotation with the word.

Sure, it is a 'normal' English word. However, we are talking about how people associate the word.

Just as the word 'gay' means happy, it is most often associated with homosexuality.

Yesterday I polled 3 of my English friends. All of them associated the word with the bible or Christianity in general.

Last night, at the bar, I asked 17 more people. All except 1 associated the word with Christianity. The one other one, a German, mentioned Blondie.

So, once you consider that most people polled associate the word with Christianity, how can you deny that it is possible the writer was trying give their opinion by using an obscure word that hints at Christianity rather than a more common word with the same meaning.

If you do any extensive reading of news, you can see this type of 'quiet' show of opinions through selective vocabulary.

[belg]

"Utah, Oklahoma"

those sweet states where people living in the 1870-ties and taking on several wifes and abusing children ?

[ggt]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

"Today is a joyous day!

Not everyone...would agree with this statement...

I am sad for those who are saddened by equal rights for all. For those who do not accept equal marriage - let them have their opinions - but don't subject my life and my rights to their beliefs.

The "subject" was a "joyous day"...there was no subliminal or hidden message or agenda...no one is subjecting you to their personal beliefs or trying to deny you your civil rights...

It will be a joyous day...when the gay community does not find it necessary to force their sexual preference on the general public by parades of scantly clad individuals...which turns out to be more like a freak show...not suitable for children...or anyone else...

[Jingthing]

So don't take your children to any gay pride parades.

Sorted.

Next ...

[sustento]

It will be a joyous day...when the gay community does not find it necessary to force their sexual preference on the general public by parades of scantly clad individuals

When was the last time a parade of scantily clad gay individuals forced themselves on you?

[Chicog]

It will be a joyous day...when the gay community does not find it necessary to force their sexual preference on the general public by parades of scantly clad individuals

When was the last time a parade of scantily clad gay individuals forced themselves on you?

I did watch a Danny La rue special once.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Chicog

[sustento]

[ggt]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

It will be a joyous day...when the gay community does not find it necessary to force their sexual preference on the general public by parades of scantly clad individuals

When was the last time a parade of scantily clad gay individuals forced themselves on you?

OMG...the imagery...I am getting so hot....555