US Supreme Court to decide whether gay couples can marry

[Scott]

A post containing a slur has been removed.

[wwest5829]

For me, while I am not gay, I can't see a valid reason to deny that (marriage and all the other aspects that come with it) to those who are.

I get it, that this issue runs counter to what American law and perhaps societal values have been for many, many years... But I also recognize that values are not static.. They can, and I argue, should change as the times and situations change.

I also cede that this issue may run counter to those of certain religions.. As such, I don't think they should be compelled by law to participate... It's their right to accept it or deny it as such.

But when we speak of "The State" as a public entity, that to me is fundamentally different - and everyone should be afforded the same rights, responsibilities and privileges.

Now, I might feel different IF I could see or articulate some kind of "harm" that I would be suffering if such as made legal across the states and territories/possessions in the US.

I have friends who are uncomfortable with the notion of gay marriage - but that too, unless you can show me a "harm" that is being caused, I can't support a denial.

For me, I'm a "neither here nor there" kind of person on this issue largely because I can't see the denial of this marriage issue as causing me - or society at large - a harm.

Now, I can see a possible harm for things like marriage of those say under 16, where many states have restrictions or approvals that must be obtained.. And I can see a possible harm that can result from the marriage between people who are genetically too close in terms of family (ie brother & sister, first cousins etc)

I think those who wanted to defend the more traditional" marriage" screwed up in launching a broad attack. My thinking is that the argument should have been approached that marriage was a sacrament of the church and thus should be up to the church to control. Then the case could be made for equal rights under a civil union controlled by government. The "traditionalists" would have their control and yet equal rights for all would be secured. Well, just my approach but, of course, that horse has left the barn.

I don't understand. People can get married in a church or at a government office as it is.

Yes, but the idea of "marriage" being a decision of the church was lost, I think, by attacking broadly. I think the conservatives might have had more credulence had they used a tighter argument of " marriage" being a church rite. I think they might have garnered more support with that arguement. In any case, the horse has left the barn and I believe "marriage" will soon be declared legal for all in the forthcoming SCOTUS decision. Guess I was trying to point out that conservatives, and sometimes liberals, use a shotgun approach at defending their stance without regard for compromise. Seems compromise these days is almost as bad as being called a liberal!

[Jingthing]

You're either legally married or you're not. Americans well understand the deeply rooted American value -- separate but equal is NOT equal. Other countries do not have that concept so deeply ingrained in the public, but the U.S. does largely because of the history of the black civil rights movement. Unlike some other countries, the U.S. is NOT a theocracy in its marriage laws (each state has their own marriage laws as well). The legal aspect of legally recognizing your marriage is through the STATE (and also federal recognition of it), any religious involvement is PURELY OPTIONAL. Many people incorrectly assume American gays are trying to "force" religions to do same sex marriages -- that is totally false and has been a right wing reactionary FEAR TACTIC. The struggle has been about marriages UNDER THE LAW (which can be done at SECULAR CITY HALLS), not under the CHURCH. Of course many religious sects are also CHOOSING to do same sex ceremonies ... that is purely their CHOICE, there will be no legal mandate for them to do that whatsoever.

To bring up "what ifs" about whether there should have been a push for 50 state civil unions instead is pretty silly now ... with the full success of marriage equality so close in sight.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Jingthing

[bikerlou47]

Extinction! Please turn off Fox News!

Where do you think gay people come from?

I am always amazed by some of these posts!

[bikerlou47]

In late June the court will make gay marriage the law of the land, they have very little wiggle room , since there are now 36 states where it is legal!

[Jingthing]

In late June the court will make gay marriage the law of the land, they have very little wiggle room , since there are now 36 states where it is legal!

Well it ain't over till it's over but the tea leaves are certainly indicating that will be the case. The psychology now is an anti-marriage equality ruling would be a SHOCK rather than the opposite. Talk about a sea change!

Edited January 19, 2015 by Jingthing

[bikerlou47]

Yes I agree how the tide has changed so quickly!

[granuaile]

In late June the court will make gay marriage the law of the land, they have very little wiggle room , since there are now 36 states where it is legal!

Well it ain't over till it's over but the tea leaves are certainly indicating that will be the case. The psychology now is an anti-marriage equality ruling would be a SHOCK rather than the opposite. Talk about a sea change!

I agree that it's not over till it's over, and by not stepping in till now is certainly an indication of how the court will likely rule. That said I have learned not to 100% expect the expected. I am hopeful though, and assuming they rule the way many expect it will be good to have the whole thing done with and the US enter the 21st century on this issue. It is so blatantly wrong, so blatantly discriminatory with no basis in any practical reasoning that it has to go.