Finally, A Win For Anti-Gay Marriage Republicans

[TheProgressivePatriot]

And yet we still do not exclude those that do not have children and it would be so easy to do if having children was the only point

You are dealing with a zombie troll bot who dos not know he is dead. It has been posting that same AI generated tripe for months now

 

[HeyNorm]

You are dealing with a zombie troll bot who dos not know he is dead. It has been posting that same AI generated tripe for months now

^^^^ Translation = That Norm guy kicked my ass, so don’t trifle with him. Oh, and he is 100% hot man. Too bad he’s also 200% straight cuz, damn, I’d like to show that guy a good time.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

^^^^ Translation = That Norm guy kicked my ass, so don’t trifle with him. Oh, and he is 100% hot man. Too bad he’s also 200% straight cuz, damn, I’d like to show that guy a good time.

If you wish for other male posters to think you are hot and show you a good time - fantasizing about it in your comments is a start I guess....

 

[Concerned American]

Roe V Wade was settled law until a state violated that so-called "settled law" and took it to the SC to get it overturned.....


This is just a way to get a case in front of the SC to get the Obergfell decision overturned....

Conservatives have been defeated on the gay marriage issue to a point, but not so defeated that they no longer seek to overturn it -- they are just more weasely about it now......

Loving V Virginia will never be overturned or even challenged because Conservatives have been so thoroughly defeated on that -- so defeated that they try to pretend they never was against it in the first place....that is how bad they lost that fight...

So all they have left is just racist remarks about Mitch's Chinese wife and other dumb shit....

There have been posts on this thread alluding to marriage being a religious institution, which it most certainly is--and I believe a church has a right to refuse to perform a ceremony that is counter to its tenants. That being said, civil ceremonies, performed by civil authorities has always been an option and in those cases, I don't believe the state can discriminate on the basis that the OP cites.

 

[HeyNorm]

If you wish for other male posters to think you are hot and show you a good time - fantasizing about it in your comments is a start I guess....

Oh dude, believe me, I feel your pain! One look at me and women go crazy. Competing for me against them lovely women? Must drive you nuts knowing I’m just not into guys!

 

[HeyNorm]

If you wish for other male posters to think you are hot and show you a good time - fantasizing about it in your comments is a start I guess....

Wait, What, is being accused of being gay an insult now? I thought it was completely natural?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Several people here, not myself, have argued rather strongly that, because people receive certain benefits from government for being married, it is only right and proper that government should have a say in who, and who cannot, marry.

If you accept that marriages be state controlled, you can't very well argue against states that enact controls on it.

However, if your position is that marriage between two (or six) consenting adults is purely a personal matter, then you can't very well accept any state control over the institution.

I do agree that –like it or not-marriage is state controlled. I also agree that laws governing marriage are largely the purview of the states. But the state's right to regulate marriage is not absolute, nor does that right hinge on the fact that the government provides benefits. Rather, those regulations should be based on any compelling societal or government interest in doing so. As we all know, in the case of same sex marriage, those defending the ban failed miserably in trying to establish such an interest, or even a rational basis for doing so.

Marriage is a personal matter to the extent that the nature of such marriage does not cross certain lines where it may arguably run counter to societal interests such as when one party cannot give informed consent, and a parent marrying their child. Speaking of child marriages, it is interesting to note that some of the same people who oppose same sex marriage are OK with older men marrying under age girls

 

[fncceo]

I do agree that –like it or not-marriage is state controlled

What is, and is not, state-controlled is totally up to we, the people.

But, when they dangle a shiny set of car keys in front of us called "same-sex" marriage, we enjoy that we are being given a choice. But, we fail to realize, the choice is just a distraction from the bigger question, which is, "Why is this a legislative issue in the first place".

The question that should be on our collective minds is, "Yes or no to state-controlled marriage?".

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What is, and is not, state-controlled is totally up to we, the people.

But, when they dangle a shiny set of car keys in front of us called "same-sex" marriage, we enjoy that we are being given a choice. But, we fail to realize, the choice is just a distraction from the bigger question, which is, "Why is this a legislative issue in the first place".

The question that should be on our collective minds is, "Yes or no to state-controlled marriage?".

To answer “yes or no to state controlled marriage” one must first answer certain other questions such as “ what exactly is marriage”?

The most basis answer to that question is that is some sort of formal bonding or otherwise defined arraignment between two or more people. If that is to be accepted as a fact, then the next question is, can that arrangement exist in a vacuum, or must it be recognized, defined and sanctioned by an entity outside of the marriage? And if one accepts the idea that it must be sanctioned and recognized by a third party, the question then becomes “who or what should that be”?

At various points in time, and across cultures that answer has varied widely from immediate or extended family, the community at large, religious institutions and, most recently the state ( or some combination of the church and the state) which itself can take many forms.

Regardless of form, it is an indisputable fact, that in all cases, marriage has historically been controlled and defined by adult males and tended to exploit and control women and children and in some cases sexual minorities. I will add that in all cases, there has been the potential for and reality of abuse and exploitation of the less powerful- and that includes our own system of regulating marriage- in which at one time women could not own property independent of her husband, and where child marriage is still rampant. The difference between a government controlled system of marriage as opposed to other forms of control is that, while in a system such as ours, there is the potential for such abuses , when the government is not involved, abuse and exploitation is a foregone conclusion. In a government based system ( if not authoritarian ) there is a legal framework, and a commitment to the rules of law, allowing-at minimum- a chance to redress grievances

That brings me to the issue of same sex marriage and the question of why it is a legislative issue- which is actually an excellent question. The fact is that it did not need to be a legislative issue, or a judicial issue, and it had not been, until reactionary conservatives starting passing laws to prohibit same sex marriage after gays starting trying to get married.

Before then, while it was generally understood that marriage was a man and a woman, laws did not specifically prohibit it. But given the confluences of the forces of religious superstition, anachronistic cultural values and sexual norms, as well has the sheer lust for power of straight men and their desire to control the narrative and fight change, we were subjected to decades of legal wrangling over what should have been a non issue. It was not the progressives and the civil rights advocates that caused all of that. It was the histrionics of those on the right and it’s still going on. The words” gay marriage” and same sex marriage” need never have been uttered leave alone made into a political and legal football had we, as a society, been more rational and humanistic about it. It could have just been marriage. It was marriage then and its’s marriage now. Yes, it is that simple That is not a distraction. It is the issue and legislation ( and litigation) is the remedy- a remedy that would not be available without government involvement.

In conclusion, unless one believes that 1) that equal protection under the law and equality is not important, or 2) that equal protection and equality can be achieved without a formal framework of laws that provide – at minimum- a modicum of justice for the disadvantaged. A third possibility is that those who question the involvement of government are just opposed to gay marriage but do not care to admit it, The prefer to avoid the issue by asserting that government should be out of the marriage business all together- sort of a “throw the baby out with the bath water” mentality.
Any more questions?

 

[whitehall]

Sissie based hysteria aside, it's win for religious freedom.

 

[HeyNorm]

To answer “yes or no to state controlled marriage” one must first answer certain other questions such as “ what exactly is marriage”?

The most basis answer to that question is that is some sort of formal bonding or otherwise defined arraignment between two or more people. If that is to be accepted as a fact, then the next question is, can that arrangement exist in a vacuum, or must it be recognized, defined and sanctioned by an entity outside of the marriage? And if one accepts the idea that it must be sanctioned and recognized by a third party, the question then becomes “who or what should that be”?

At various points in time, and across cultures that answer has varied widely from immediate or extended family, the community at large, religious institutions and, most recently the state ( or some combination of the church and the state) which itself can take many forms.

Regardless of form, it is an indisputable fact, that in all cases, marriage has historically been controlled and defined by adult males and tended to exploit and control women and children and in some cases sexual minorities. I will add that in all cases, there has been the potential for and reality of abuse and exploitation of the less powerful- and that includes our own system of regulating marriage- in which at one time women could not own property independent of her husband, and where child marriage is still rampant. The difference between a government controlled system of marriage as opposed to other forms of control is that, while in a system such as ours, there is the potential for such abuses , when the government is not involved, abuse and exploitation is a foregone conclusion. In a government based system ( if not authoritarian ) there is a legal framework, and a commitment to the rules of law, allowing-at minimum- a chance to redress grievances

That brings me to the issue of same sex marriage and the question of why it is a legislative issue- which is actually an excellent question. The fact is that it did not need to be a legislative issue, or a judicial issue, and it had not been, until reactionary conservatives starting passing laws to prohibit same sex marriage after gays starting trying to get married.

Before then, while it was generally understood that marriage was a man and a woman, laws did not specifically prohibit it. But given the confluences of the forces of religious superstition, anachronistic cultural values and sexual norms, as well has the sheer lust for power of straight men and their desire to control the narrative and fight change, we were subjected to decades of legal wrangling over what should have been a non issue. It was not the progressives and the civil rights advocates that caused all of that. It was the histrionics of those on the right and it’s still going on. The words” gay marriage” and same sex marriage” need never have been uttered leave alone made into a political and legal football had we, as a society, been more rational and humanistic about it. It could have just been marriage. It was marriage then and its’s marriage now. Yes, it is that simple That is not a distraction. It is the issue and legislation ( and litigation) is the remedy- a remedy that would not be available without government involvement.

In conclusion, unless one believes that 1) that equal protection under the law and equality is not important, or 2) that equal protection and equality can be achieved without a formal framework of laws that provide – at minimum- a modicum of justice for the disadvantaged. A third possibility is that those who question the involvement of government are just opposed to gay marriage but do not care to admit it, The prefer to avoid the issue by asserting that government should be out of the marriage business all together- sort of a “throw the baby out with the bath water” mentality.
Any more questions?

Oh, you believe equal protection under the law is important? Then you must agree that “similarly situated” adults must be treated in the same manner under the law.

Is this correct?

 

[whitehall]

You can depend on the dishonest left to leave out a crucial part in order to make a political point just like you can depend on lefties to accept even the most ignorant claim if it tends to reinforce their hatred. Freakazoids can still get married in Tennessee but they have to find an agnostic preacher or agnostic civil servant to perform the ceremony. Evangelistic Christians cannot be forced against their 1st Amendment right to perform a marriage that conflicts with their religious beliefs.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Sissie based hysteria aside, it's win for religious freedom.

Only if you hold the perverted view that religious freedome means your ability to deprive others of their freedon in the name ofyour religion

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You can depend on the dishonest left to leave out a crucial part in order to make a political point just like you can depend on lefties to accept even the most ignorant claim if it tends to reinforce their hatred.

What in the name of holy frankenfuck are you blathering about?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Freakazoids can still get married in Tennessee but they have to find an agnostic preacher or agnostic civil servant to perform the ceremony. Evangelistic Christians cannot be forced against their 1st Amendment right to perform a marriage that conflicts with their religious beliefs.

Holy shit! What???!! Are you so fucking ignorant that you think that only Agnostic approve of gay marrige?

And we akready know that clergy can't be forced to performthe ceremony. The fact that you have to even say that is an indication that you think others are as uninformed as you are