ADVERTISEMENT

SCOTUS Upholds Gay Marriage

tjc3844

tjc3844

Post 'Til Your Fingers Bleed
Sep 10, 2003
34,922
612
113
A sensible decision based on human rights. I always thought the path to gay rights needed to be accomplished through the courts and not with demonstrating in the streets. Let's put this whole controversy behind us now and move on to more serious societal problems facing the country.
 
The people who I feel bad for are the gay guys who used "they won't let us get married" as an excuse to not have to marry their boyfriend. Now they have to get roped into marriage like the rest of us schmucks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kjbert
NBN - that was funny. do divorce rules still apply? having to give 50% of assets up in the divorce?
 
tjc3844 said:
A sensible decision based on human rights. I always thought the path to gay rights needed to be accomplished through the courts and not with demonstrating in the streets. Let's put this whole controversy behind us now and move on to more serious societal problems facing the country.
Click to expand...

I know it would never happen, but, would like to see a popular vote on a national scale..........we hear from those who are "pro" homosexual marriage, but think the silent majority would not approve it.
 
tjc3844 said:
A sensible decision based on human rights. I always thought the path to gay rights needed to be accomplished through the courts and not with demonstrating in the streets. Let's put this whole controversy behind us now and move on to more serious societal problems facing the country.
Click to expand...
The path to gay rights runs straight through Pleasure House Road.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kjbert
Mainliner II said:
I know it would never happen, but, would like to see a popular vote on a national scale..........we hear from those who are "pro" homosexual marriage, but think the silent majority would not approve it.
Click to expand...
I think you're right, Mainliner II. I'm going to guess that public sentiment against gay marriage is predominant. I'm glad it's decided because there are so many other important things we should be working on to make our country better. I do believe, however, that SCOTUS over-stepped its boundaries of interpreting the Constitution both yesterday & today. Nardi, I think you're right about a whole bunch of new lawsuits arising out of this decision. Community property, etc needs to be applied to gays just like straights.
 
Gay marriage is favored by something like 60 percent of people. The only people opposed to it anymore are conservative Catholics, Muslims, the more conservative orthodox Jews, evangelical Christians, and some (but not all) black denominations.

If put to popular vote, it would pass overwhelmingly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kjbert
TheFoyeEffect said:
Gay marriage is favored by something like 60 percent of people. The only people opposed to it anymore are conservative Catholics, Muslims, the more conservative orthodox Jews, evangelical Christians, and some (but not all) black denominations.

If put to popular vote, it would pass overwhelmingly.
Click to expand...

Please put overwhelmingly in the context of handily.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChuckSullivan97, kjbert and YourBuddyRayhad
My sister is about to begin her sabbatical, during which she will be preparing a study which she hopes will determine what caused the almost unprecedented (in terms of speed) change in opinions on gay marriage in the United States.

The rapidity with which opinions shifted is nearly unprecedented.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kjbert
How did they overstep their bounds on this. Seems pretty easy to me - what right does the gov't have to decide what people can and cannot do with their personal lives?

If the case is about Fed rule over the states deciding, I guess that's diffrent but more or less a cop out. Who was even this case brought against? Who fought to stop gay people ? Have not followed any of this or the ACA stuff.
 
RSTRICK30 said:
My sister is about to begin her sabbatical, during which she will be preparing a study which she hopes will determine what caused the almost unprecedented (in terms of speed) change in opinions on gay marriage in the United States.

The rapidity with which opinions shifted is nearly unprecedented.
Click to expand...
Hollywood. Movies/TV - same thing with marijuana. It's not rocket science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kjbert
RSTRICK30 said:
My sister is about to begin her sabbatical, during which she will be preparing a study which she hopes will determine what caused the almost unprecedented (in terms of speed) change in opinions on gay marriage in the United States.

The rapidity with which opinions shifted is nearly unprecedented.
Click to expand...

I honestly think television shows that feature gay people/gay couples helped the cause. People love Modern Family and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy type of shows. Now it seems like every new TV shows has a few gay characters, certainly wasn't the case when I was growing up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kjbert
NovaNation1188 said:
I honestly think television shows that feature gay people/gay couples helped the cause. People love Modern Family and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy type of shows. Now it seems like every new TV shows has a few gay characters, certainly wasn't the case when I was growing up.
Click to expand...
bb2n
 
Figured something pro-homo happened today when my newsfeed lit up with all the slacktivists posting rainbow crap all day.
 
Embarrassed to be associated with such an organization. The veneer of bullsh*t at the corporate church level is a sham. Pointless posturing that no one truly believes in. Does anti-gay talk ever filter down to the parish level? Has anyone experienced a homily that highlighted the evils of homosexuality? Did you stay for all of it?
 
BS decision. All political.

The only thing that had to be done was to revise/update all laws that grant married couples with special rights and privileges to include same-sex couples unions. But that might be too much work for lawmakers in Washington and not as 'sexy' from the libtards as broadcasting that gay couples could be considered 'married'. A rub toward conservatives and religious groups that libtards despise and want to alienate as archaic/outdated.
 
Hate the sin, love the sinner.

Which means you can hate the butt sex but as long as you don't beat up the guys that do it, it's ok.
 
NickleDimer said:
Embarrassed to be associated with such an organization. The veneer of bullsh*t at the corporate church level is a sham. Pointless posturing that no one truly believes in. Does anti-gay talk ever filter down to the parish level? Has anyone experienced a homily that highlighted the evils of homosexuality? Did you stay for all of it?
Click to expand...

Yes. St Marks Church in Alexandria. I think it might be adp's Parish. It was awful. Got up and left during the homily. Wasn't the only to do so, but unfortunately there weren't many of us.

Conversely, I've had the experience at St Patrick's in DC where the homily around gay marriage was inclusive. I think the difference was in the make up of he crowd. St Patrick's in DC is a very diverse community.
 
A court that can rule butt fu......g is a constitutional right can do anything it wants
 
KJB, never lived in Alexandria. St. Pats in DC and then OLGC in Vienna. St. Pat's is very progressive. Priest game from University of Maryland. He's a young guy who gets the joke and understand the church's views do not align with young people. St. Pat's has made a concerted effort to appeal to young people and this is part of that process.

Weed and gambling are the next two frontiers we will see a quick/dramatic change in federal law. Both will be legal at the federal level within 5-10 years. Sports betting could happen sooner as the leagues have experienced a dramatic change of heart. They are finally reading to monetize gambling for the owners (beyond the obvious ways in which they do so today).
 
tdm66 said:
A court that can rule butt fu......g is a constitutional right can do anything it wants
Click to expand...


I don't get this - are you saying it's ok for a state or Gov't to tell adult people what they can and cannot do consensually?
 
I wish they had declared civil marriage unconstitutional. If anything violates the equal protection clause it's the financial advantages that married people have over unmarried people.
 
Ninetynine5.0 said:
I don't get this - are you saying it's ok for a state or Gov't to tell adult people what they can and cannot do consensually?
Click to expand...

in that case prostitution should be legal too. Maybe I'll file a suit and one day Facebook can collectively cum all over itself like it did yesterday when I win.
 
screen_shot_2015-06-27_at_5.22.43_pm.jpg


It's not "ISIS", those are little dildos and butt plugs on that black flag

Lucy Pawle
 
  • Like
Reactions: nardibynature123 and NickleDimer
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back