Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
So it seems this turned out to be the sleeper issue of the election, bizarrely enough. The people voted Bush, because they hate fags. (Personally, I'm not so convinced since there were states that went Kerry and yet still voted for a ban on gay marriage.)

Rather than legislating for gay marriage, what I'd prefer to see would be the disappearance of heterosexual marriage as a legal concept. Let people get married in churches or in humanist ceremonies or whatever, but take the law out of what is essentially a cultural, judeo-christian practice. And just stick to the idea of a civil contract of union between two or more people of whatever sex.

James R., Thursday, 4 November 2004 15:51 (10 years ago) Permalink

This is the way marriage originally was in Massachusetts, which is why the judges here ruled the way they did and why the entire rhetorical spiel about "activist judges changing the law" is a gigantic crock of shit in this state.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 15:58 (10 years ago) Permalink

It's a red herring that played upon the fears and insecurities of people who aren't smart enough to use the Bible as anything other than what it should be used for -- kindling or a doorstop.

If two guys want to get married --- fuck, if two individuals who happen to love each other --- want to get married, how can that possibly hurt anyone?

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 4 November 2004 15:58 (10 years ago) Permalink

Thanks for the offer but I'm spoken for

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:00 (10 years ago) Permalink

I feel like I keep repeating the same thing, but it really can't hurt. This isn't an issue about "marriage." It's pure and simple a CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE.

Je4nne ƒury (Jeanne Fury), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:02 (10 years ago) Permalink

Because the Bible specifically states it is a sin and, as a result, being married in a Church is a slap in the face to many people of faith.

I am for gay marriage, but I also don't want to start pushing people about for their religion. It is their right to hold Christian views if they want and their right to want to keep the Church central to Biblical prose. I think Gay people should be married out of Church sermons. A registrar for example. Why would this bother anyone? (Unless we accept marriage is an intrisically religious thing anyway).

Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:03 (10 years ago) Permalink

Because the Bible specifically states.....

Said novel also states that the world was created in seven days. In other words, IT'S A CROCK OF SHIT!

Let's all evolve, people.

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:04 (10 years ago) Permalink

SASKATOON— There’s a lot at stake for a gay couple hoping to have their marriage recognized when a Saskatoon judge rules on the case Friday.
James and Willie Hein-Blackmore sat together in court Wednesday as they and four other gay couples asked Justice D. L. Wilson to allow them to obtain marriage licences.
The provincial and federal lawyers are not opposing the application, clearing the way for Wilson to rule in the couple’s favour Friday.
That would make Saskatchewan the sixth jurisdiction in Canada to grant wedding licences to gay couples.
The Hein-Blackmores are both HIV-positive. James isn’t sure how long he has to live.
His immune system is so weak a common cold could cause serious complications, he said.
“It’s very important that we get this done (in court),” James said.
“If something happens to me, I want (Willie) making the decisions for me.”
They met four years ago and have been a couple for the past three. Both are divorced from women, and Willie is a father of three girls.
Both say they’ve always known they were gay, but societal and religious pressure led them to marry women.
In Willie’s case, he served as a Pentecostal pastor in other cities across Canada where he lived. He also sat on various church boards. Part of the reason he got married was he “didn’t want to go to hell.”
Once they accepted their homosexuality, they lived much happier lives, they said.
This summer, they were turned down when they went to get a marriage licence in Saskatoon. So they went to Vancouver and got married in a small ceremony at the home of a marriage commissioner.
“When you live together, there’s a certain level of commitment. Once you’re married, it changes the relationship. It’s like glue that holds you together,” said Willie.
“This is the person I want to spend the rest of my life with.”
While the Hein-Blackmores are hoping to get their Vancouver marriage recognized in Saskatchewan, most of the other couples involved in the court action are not yet married.
“We’re very optimistic about the outcome (Friday),” said Nicole White.
“We’re very excited to get going on the wedding plans.”
White and partner Julie Richards were the original couple involved in the court application. They plan to marry next summer.
Represented by lawyers Greg Walen and Sarah Buhler, the couples put their faith in Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees equality under the law.
Denial of marriage licences “denigrates same-sex relationships,” Walen said in court.
“It is offensive to human dignity.”

Federal government lawyer Chris Bernier did not oppose the application, but said the federal government could not technically consent to it either, as the Supreme Court is currently considering the issue.
Provincial government lawyer Thomson Irvine took the same neutral position, but said it was because marriage laws are federal.
Outside court, Walen said he’s happy to hear the governments aren’t opposing the application. He said some gay couples have told him they’ll be getting married as early as this Saturday if the ruling is in their favour.
Gay and lesbian couples can marry in Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, Manitoba, the Yukon and now Nova Scotia.
CanWest News Network

Huk-L, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:05 (10 years ago) Permalink

Genesis is most likely a gigantic metaphor.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:05 (10 years ago) Permalink

Agreed, but I take it a step further.. Forget the civil contract as a substitute for marriage. Any two adults should be able to enter into a "right of survivorship" contract (name it whatever you want) that gives legal rights - it has nothing to do with sex or couples. It could be a married couple, it could be business associates, parent/child, neighbors, friends. You could only have a contract with one person at a time, but it could be changed every week if people wanted to. (That's not practical, but ideally, there would be no restrictions on this.)

"Marriage" is a faith-based union that is between an individual and a church. And if it makes people happy, the "right of survivorship" contract could be inherent in a marriage (or, registering that legal relationship could be part of the church/marriage registration process - just as marriages are registered with the county currently.) And if "no man can put asunder" the married couple contract - ie you MUST establish that contract with your spouse if you are married & cannot establish that contract with anyone else - then, that'll have to be part of the compromise.

So, anyway - it needs to be approached as contract law and a business deal, rather than a pseudo-marriage.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:06 (10 years ago) Permalink

And that sort of attitude is going to help bridge a glaring gap between two sets of beliefs how? "Oh your belief sucks", well yeah that'll help won't it? And would you say the same thing about Muslims and their beliefs? Or is it only politically correct to declare open season on Christians?

Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:06 (10 years ago) Permalink

See above a prime case of the need for rapid evolution among certain members of the human race.

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:07 (10 years ago) Permalink

The Bible nowhere "explicitly states" that gay marriage is wrong.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:08 (10 years ago) Permalink

Yes Kevin, but you can't expect people who've never actually read it to know that can you?

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:08 (10 years ago) Permalink

Kevin OTM; in the Bible, premarital sex is a much larger sin than homosexuality.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:09 (10 years ago) Permalink

Or is it only politically correct to declare open season on Christians?

You've heard of "The War On Terror", no?

Huk-L, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:09 (10 years ago) Permalink

"Because the Bible specifically states it is a sin"

Where? Chapter and verse please.

Man lying with another man? I'll find my paper to tell you why that indicates nothing clear about God's rules about homosexuality.

Bumfluff, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:10 (10 years ago) Permalink

What is it about dumb people and their inability to argue in any way that isn't "oh well x is just as bad" rather than actually ARGUING THEIR FUCKING CASE?

Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:10 (10 years ago) Permalink

"Marriage" is a faith-based union that is between an individual and a church.

This also isn't true, and probably hasn't ever been really true.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:10 (10 years ago) Permalink

Check out Paul the Apostle. I don't have a Bible handy just now, but it is indeed declared as a sin. Have YOU read the NT?

Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:10 (10 years ago) Permalink

Um Huk, I don't think anybody is suggesting Bush is in the slightest bit PC.

x-post

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:11 (10 years ago) Permalink

Paul is not Jesus. Paul is a frakish zealot who is almost the antithesis of everything Jesus (and Matthew, Mark and Luke) stands for.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:11 (10 years ago) Permalink

Oh, good point, Steve.n.

Huk-L, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:12 (10 years ago) Permalink

frakish zealot

(haha nabisco to thread)

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:12 (10 years ago) Permalink

I have never read the bible but I often masturbate myself into a righteous frenzy with it.

Does that help the debate at all?

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:13 (10 years ago) Permalink

That's one up on most people.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:14 (10 years ago) Permalink

There would be no Christianity without Paul.............. discuss

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:14 (10 years ago) Permalink

It's a civil rights issue, but it's more than that, and that's precisely because there's a confusion between marriage as a legal union and marriage as a religious union. I agree that these two should be decoupled, ie a secular state should not be legally privileging what is at heart a Christian religious custom. If marriages were things celebrated in church, and were separate from civil unions between people signed in a solicitor's office, it would surely take the wind out of conservative christians's sails. This, incidently was Derrida's position too. From his last interview:

"If I were a legislator, I would quite simply propose the disappearance of the word and the concept of marriage in the civil and secular code. "Marriage", a religious, sacred, heterosexual value - with the vow of procreation, eternal fidelity, etc.-, is a concession on the part of the secular state to the Christian church - in particular in a monogamy that is neither Jewish (it was only imposed on Jews by Europeans in the last century and was not an obligation of Maghrebi Jewry a few generations ago) nor, as we know very well, Muslim. When we take away the word and the concept of "marriage", this religious and holy ambiguity or hypocrisy, which has no place in a secular constitution, we would replace them with a contractual "civil union", a sort of generalized, improved, refined, and supple pact to be fitted between partners whose gender and number are not imposed.

As for those who want to ally themselves in a "marriage" in the strict sense of the term - for which, by the way, my respect remains intact -, they could do so before the religious authority of their choice - which, moreover, is how it happens in those countries which agree to accept the religious consecration of marriage between homosexuals. Some could unite themselves according to one mode or the other, others both ways, others neither by secular nor religious law. End of the conjugal parentheses. (It's a Utopia, but mark my words.)"

Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:14 (10 years ago) Permalink

And Paul doesn't say anything about gay marriage - homosexuality maybe, but that is the only mention in the new testamnet - he also says that people who engage in such acts are murderers, thieves, liars etc., things which are demonstratably false.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:15 (10 years ago) Permalink

"Marriage" is a faith-based union that is between an individual and a church.

This also isn't true, and probably hasn't ever been really true.

That's why it's in quotes. I mean to redefine it to make it a non-issue.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:15 (10 years ago) Permalink

Paul is not Jesus and indeed not God. He is, regrettably, in the Bible, but I tend to forget about him because he's crap.

However, both you and I will have to wait for my rebuttal because i can't get to the paper I have on this for a bit

Bumfluff, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:16 (10 years ago) Permalink

Paul is a frakish zealot who is almost the antithesis of everything Jesus (and Matthew, Mark and Luke) stands for.

So this Paul, he voted Bush in '04 too?

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:16 (10 years ago) Permalink

Wait, I don't know much about the debate in the USA, but is the debate as to the right for gay people to get married in a Church? Or as a legal agreement? I see people talking about both.

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:17 (10 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, sorry Dave. I think it's not a non-issue though. People have always become married independent of religion, for long periods without any ceremony at all. I don't think we should let the religious right redifine marriage to fit their definition - is everyone who didn't get married in a church single now?

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:18 (10 years ago) Permalink

Wait, I don't know much about the debate in the USA, but is the debate as to the right for gay people to get married in a Church? Or as a legal agreement? I see people talking about both.

It's both, but much more on the legal agreement side.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:18 (10 years ago) Permalink

Other than appeasing the bible-belt, why is anyone arguing what the christian bible has to say about it? It's not the only religious book out there.

I don't think we should let the religious right redifine marriage to fit their definition - is everyone who didn't get married in a church single now?
I mean "faith" not "church" -- in other words, it's up to the individuals' own sprituality (or intellect) to decide what a valid "marriage" is. It has nothing to do with law, is my main point.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:20 (10 years ago) Permalink

This is essentially a civil rights issue. Discrimination against same sex couples flies in the face of the concept of equality under the law. If, as science and experience show, basic sexual orientation is not a choice, criminalizing or marginalizing sexual behaviors amongst consenting adults amounts to an act of the most basic cruelty.

The hypocrisy with which fundamentalists criticize gay marriage but do not outlaw divorce and remarriage, or require an unwed brother to marry his brother's widow, belies the religious basis of their argument. They cherry pick the OT and the NT to find stones to cast at those who are different, which I find particularly repulsive.

The state does have an interest in encouraging stable, long-term partnerships but why the state should recognize 'marriage' if it is essentially a religious ceremony, is beyond me.

Michael White (Hereward), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:20 (10 years ago) Permalink

If, as science and experience show, basic sexual orientation is not a choice

I thought this had been rejected/disproven by gay groups?

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:22 (10 years ago) Permalink

I don't understand why the getting-married-in-church thing is an issue. If gay marriage were legalised would it not be down to the individual churches to decide whether or not to allow gay couples to get married in that particular church?

RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:23 (10 years ago) Permalink

(Church meaning denomination or congregation there, btw, I don't think it really affects my point either way.)

RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:24 (10 years ago) Permalink

As I said, are we just declaring open season on Christianity right now or are we going to start criticising the instant death penalty handed out within Muslim countries for homosexuality? WELL?

Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:25 (10 years ago) Permalink

Yes, it would.

x-post

Leon in Exile (Ex Leon), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:25 (10 years ago) Permalink

I just read a news item - Sec. State Blackwell (Ohio) speaking against gay marriage .. not a quote, but asserts that marriage is for the purpose of procreation, which you can't do with a gay couple. This offends me to no end .. and to debate him on his own terms, leaving out the gay arguments - my wife and I have decided not to have children. Are we no longer allowed to be married? What about people who can't physically have children?

God, I hate that idiot.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:26 (10 years ago) Permalink

xp - Indeed it would. And that would closely resemble a constitutionally-guaranteed right called Freedom of Religion.

briania (briania), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:26 (10 years ago) Permalink

you first 'Chantel'

Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:27 (10 years ago) Permalink

I don't understand why the getting-married-in-church thing is an issue.

I don't think that really is an issue - anyone/any church can call two people married, the issue is that the rest of society doesn't have to recognize it.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:27 (10 years ago) Permalink

The word "marriage" is charged with religious meaning, which is why I think it'd be best to jettison it from a legal opint of view and just talk about civil unions. This is what they've essentially done in France, where gay couples (or straight couples or brothers and sisters or whatever) can sign a PACS (pacte civile de solidarité) which affords most of the rights of marriage.

Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:28 (10 years ago) Permalink

unfortuneately, "civil union" is also stigmatized as "a way for queers to approximate marriage".. So a new term is needed.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:29 (10 years ago) Permalink

Chantel, I don't think you will find anyone supporting the death penalt in muslim nations here. And probably not the death penalty anywhere.

However, I won't allow the Bible to be misinterpreted, twisted and wielded to hateful ends. The arguments will have to come both in the religious world and the secular, because like it or not we live in a christian civilisation.

But Jonathan, why can't a christian gay souple get married in a church which recognises their partnership?

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:30 (10 years ago) Permalink

As I said, are we just declaring open season on Christianity right now or are we going to start criticising the instant death penalty handed out within Muslim countries for homosexuality? WELL?

This kind of argument really pisses me off. YES THERE ARE THINGS WRONG IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES AS WELL, I know. But rather than talking about something I know nothing about and have no contact with, I would rather talk about something I know about, think is wrong and have a chance of changing.

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:30 (10 years ago) Permalink

DJP, I need an answer soon.

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 28 January 2015 23:03 (3 months ago) Permalink

Agree that polygamous unions would require a bunch of new legal framework, but it's just a matter of time. (In my own lifetime? Maybe. Maybe not.)

Johnny Fever, Wednesday, 28 January 2015 23:04 (3 months ago) Permalink

A sound legal framework that protects the interests of all the individuals involved (including offspring) is urgent & key for any form of marriage.

Aimless, Wednesday, 28 January 2015 23:30 (3 months ago) Permalink

I kinda think it'll be a more uphill battle given that challenge tbh

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 28 January 2015 23:31 (3 months ago) Permalink

also not a battle I particularly give a shit about

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 28 January 2015 23:32 (3 months ago) Permalink

but they're an aggrieved, besieged minority

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 28 January 2015 23:36 (3 months ago) Permalink

are they?

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 28 January 2015 23:38 (3 months ago) Permalink

are we talking about mormons here

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 28 January 2015 23:39 (3 months ago) Permalink

a subset of Mormons, plus a smattering of bigamists

Aimless, Wednesday, 28 January 2015 23:41 (3 months ago) Permalink

I think mainstream Mormons are pretty much past this part of their history. Most polygamous relationships now are the sorts of people who think Twilight is less brilliant literature and more a life direction.

Johnny Fever, Wednesday, 28 January 2015 23:41 (3 months ago) Permalink

see I don't think that particular subset of Mormons and bigamists would be into the legal framework that would likely develop - ie, no child marriages, rights for divorcees, etc.

xp

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 28 January 2015 23:43 (3 months ago) Permalink

touch of a love-starved cobra (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 28 January 2015 23:43 (3 months ago) Permalink

Well that was a lot of last minute weirdness but anyway, Alabama!

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/look_couples_line_up_to_marry_in_alabama

Ned Raggett, Monday, 9 February 2015 15:40 (3 months ago) Permalink

sup

https://twitter.com/bwdaly/status/564824998331027456

goole, Monday, 9 February 2015 16:49 (3 months ago) Permalink

Gay Divorce from Alfred: Your Thoughts

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 9 February 2015 16:53 (3 months ago) Permalink

Easier said than done.

Eric H., Monday, 9 February 2015 17:11 (3 months ago) Permalink

those guys are still mad racist tho right

goole, Monday, 9 February 2015 17:26 (3 months ago) Permalink

The Court today denied Alabama’s request to stay a federal judge’s ruling striking down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. The state had asked the Court to delay the implementation of that ruling until after the Court rules on the pending challenges to similar bans in Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, and Michigan. Because the Alabama ruling is scheduled to go into effect today, the Court’s order effectively cleared the way for same-sex marriages to go forward in Alabama.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the denial of the stay, in a three-page opinion that was joined by Justice Antonin Scalia. Thomas argued that, “[w]hen courts declare state laws unconstitutional and enjoin state officials from enforcing them,” the Court’s “ordinary practice is to suspend those injunctions from taking effect pending appellate review.” Noting that the Court had “granted a stay in similar circumstances a little over a year ago,” Thomas suggested that Alabama’s request “should have been treated no differently.” Moreover, Thomas observed, the Court’s failure to grant a stay “may well be seen as a signal of the Court’s intended resolution” of the same-sex marriage question. “This,” he complained, “is not the proper way to discharge our Article III responsibilities. And, it is indecorous for this Court to pretend that it is.”

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 9 February 2015 17:30 (3 months ago) Permalink

Huckabee, the once allegedly 'reasonable' evangelical dipshit

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/mike-huckabee-gay-marriage-lies-reminiscent-nazi-germany

touch of a love-starved cobra (Dr Morbius), Monday, 9 February 2015 23:07 (3 months ago) Permalink

Over the weekend, Mike Huckabee hosted an event in Little Rock called “America from Ordinary to Extraordinary”

o shit is huck denying american exceptionalism

mookieproof, Tuesday, 10 February 2015 00:28 (3 months ago) Permalink

Barack Obama was "bullshitting" his opposition to gay marriage and support for civil unions during his 2008 presidential campaign, according to a new book authored by former senior White House adviser David Axelrod.

Time magazine reported Tuesday that the longtime Obama confidant said in his new book, "Believer: My Forty Years in Politics," that he counseled then-senator Obama to soften his position on gay marriage for political reasons.

"Opposition to gay marriage was particularly strong in the black church, and as he ran for higher office, he grudgingly accepted the counsel of more pragmatic folks like me, and modified his position to support civil unions rather than marriage, which he would term a ‘sacred union,’” Axelrod wrote, as quoted by Time.

Obama had stated his support for legalizing gay marriage on a 1996 questionnaire while running for the Illinois state Senate. But he said repeatedly on the campaign trail in 2008 that he believed marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Publicly stating opposition to gay marriage took its toll on Obama, who Axelrod wrote "routinely stumbled over the question when it came up in debates or interviews."

"I’m just not very good at bullshitting," Obama told Axelrod after one of those events, as quoted by Time.

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 10 February 2015 14:16 (3 months ago) Permalink

Bullshit.

Eric H., Tuesday, 10 February 2015 14:37 (3 months ago) Permalink

"I’m just not very good at bullshitting," Obama told Axelrod

I am fairly certain that when Obama said that he truly believed it. This highlights the most U&K skill of the really good bullshitter.

Aimless, Tuesday, 10 February 2015 18:20 (3 months ago) Permalink

2 months pass...

Today's the day at SCOTUS. Live blog here:

http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_Obergefell_v_Hodges

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 28 April 2015 14:19 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

I'll start choosing proposals based on responses.

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 28 April 2015 14:20 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

I would give you the moon and the stars but that would be a lie.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 28 April 2015 14:20 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

I would prefer a glass of wine and Manchego cheese.

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 28 April 2015 14:22 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

I'll give you my leftover Luna bars and a swift annulment.

Eric H., Tuesday, 28 April 2015 14:23 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

My cousin just used the opportunity of today's arguments to come out as bisexual. Proud of her, especially in this family. She's going to get some friction. Not from her parents, who will both be supportive, but from others in my family, for whom the phrase "bigoted rednecks" would be far too generous.

I might like you better if we Yelped together (Phil D.), Tuesday, 28 April 2015 14:32 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

When the petitioners (and Justice Sotomayor) pointed out that gays and lesbians had been treated quite poorly in some of those societies, Justice Alito pointed out that Plato had written approvingly of homosexual relations, even thought the Greeks limited marriage to heterosexual couples.

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 28 April 2015 14:40 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

One seemingly striking moment came when Justice Ginsburg spoke of how it was recent changes to the institution of marriage that made it appropriate for gay and lesbian couples -- in particular, it becoming an egalitarian institution rather than one dominated by the male partners who determined where and how the couple would live

by Eric Citron 10:39 AM

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 28 April 2015 14:40 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

After Eric left the lounge, there was one interesting exchange between Justice Scalia and two of his more liberal colleagues. Scalia asked whether, if petitioners win, a minister who objects to same sex marriages could refuse to perform a civil same-sex wedding. Bonauto answered yes. Scalia pressed the point though, arguing that he could not understand how, a state could permit somebody to hold a license to marry people if that person would not exercise the power consistently with the Constitution. After a little more back-and-forth, Justice Kagan reminded the Court that many rabbis refuse to perform weddings between Jews and gentiles, even though there has long been a prohibition against religious discrimination. Justice Breyer then chimed in and quoted the First Amendment. Ultimately, Justice Scalia seemed satisfied that a minister could refuse to perform those weddings.

I might like you better if we Yelped together (Phil D.), Tuesday, 28 April 2015 14:45 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

was about to post that

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 28 April 2015 14:46 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

"Justice Thomas said nothing."

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 28 April 2015 14:47 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

Like, surely Scalia is keenly aware that there are all kinds of people Catholic churches will refuse to marry, right?

I might like you better if we Yelped together (Phil D.), Tuesday, 28 April 2015 14:47 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

to be fair, often justices ask questions to clarify the ground on which they want to erect their opinions (and to signal to their political bases too).

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 28 April 2015 14:48 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

yeah I mean, I'm pretty certain that the technology questions reflect honest bafflement/misunderstanding but this clearly seems like grist for either:

a) building a platform for a dissenting opinions; or
b) building a defense for a surprise concurring opinion

DJP, Tuesday, 28 April 2015 14:50 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

especially so given the near fait accompli nature of the exercise

Premise ridiculous. Who have two potato? (forksclovetofu), Tuesday, 28 April 2015 14:52 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

SCOTUS shocks nation by issuing unanimous opinion written by Clarence Thomas

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 28 April 2015 14:54 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

I would lol so hard

DJP, Tuesday, 28 April 2015 15:12 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

Verrilli began his #SCOTUS argument with a protester's shouts that #SSM supporters can "burn in hell" still echoing in the marble hallway.

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 28 April 2015 15:54 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

Would've been better if he'd sang Twisted Sister's "Burn In Hell."

I might like you better if we Yelped together (Phil D.), Tuesday, 28 April 2015 16:26 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

Would've been even better if it was actually Dee Snider.

I might like you better if we Yelped together (Phil D.), Tuesday, 28 April 2015 16:26 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

There is some reason to wonder whether the Chief might be angling for a compromise in which the states win the first question (i.e., they do not have to permit same-sex marriages to be performed in their states) but lose the second (i.e., they would have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states). It's very hard to read the Chief, but he did ask questions in the second argument expressing some skepticism over the fact that states don't, in fact, deny recognition to any marriage that does not conform with state law, except same-sex marriages. And, as I mentioned, Justice Scalia asked questions suggesting he might think there was a reason based in the text of Article 4 that would justify ruling for the couples on recognition but not the right to marry. So one could imagine a potential compromise that would effectively allow same sex couples to get married in states that allow it, have their marriages recognized elsewhere, but not have the Court issue a decision that has broad implications for other kinds of sexual orientation discrimination.

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 28 April 2015 16:48 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

Chief Justice Roberts: "Let's keep same sex marriage safe, legal and rare!"

Giant Purple Wakerobin (Aimless), Tuesday, 28 April 2015 17:00 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

i'm unclear, does that mean i get to marry lindsay lohan

Doctor Casino, Tuesday, 28 April 2015 17:03 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

super reassuring to hear the justices asking all the same idiotic questions you get in freshman philosophy courses

then again i have heard the same ones from idiotic philosophers

j., Tuesday, 28 April 2015 19:51 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

3 weeks pass...

its looking like a big yes in Ireland, so uh come to Ireland to get gay married if u like I guess

thoughts you made second posts about (darraghmac), Saturday, 23 May 2015 10:25 (2 days ago) Permalink

(Actual welcome will be less equivocal)

Andrew Farrell, Saturday, 23 May 2015 10:40 (2 days ago) Permalink

yeah we've only started on the tourism literature an hour ago it needs work granted

thoughts you made second posts about (darraghmac), Saturday, 23 May 2015 10:58 (2 days ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.