US Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage nationwide
517 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Sand Castle;48057761]the social landscape has changed a lot since 2004[/QUOTE]
She only changed her stance in 2013. Her husband signed the goddam DoMA.
Holy shit
so
I guess that's...it, then
we still have the inevitable backlash that's about to happen but uh, I guess we won
so I guess I get to marry my girlfriend now
that's pretty cool
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;48057781]rather whatever gives them the vote[/QUOTE]
you know, you're one of my favorite posters
[editline]26th June 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;48057785]The 2010s are going to be remembered as the gay rights decade[/QUOTE]
trans rights 2020s? eh? eeehhhh?
[QUOTE=Sand Castle;48057795]you know, you're one of my favorite posters[/QUOTE]
thank you, now that marriage is legal, you know *wink wink*
[QUOTE=Lambeth;48056480]Okay call me back when can I marry my dog[/QUOTE]
Nah. Don't think it will want to marry you
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;48057791]Holy shit
so
I guess that's...it, then
we still have the inevitable backlash that's about to happen but uh, I guess we won
so I guess I get to marry my girlfriend now
that's pretty cool[/QUOTE]
nice
i think now our focus should be preventing discrimination and violence against lgbt people because it's undoubtedly gonna happen, especially now that this has passed. i'm kinda worried we'll have a surge of it suddenly. and a lot of closeted kids still can't come out because their parents are bigoted.
it's a good step but we still have a good way to go tbh
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;48057752]I really dislike the fact Obama is being portrayed as some gay rights hero. He rode the fence as long as he could on the issue and even when he did come.out in support it was in a very tepid way. Its a great day regardless[/QUOTE]
The president can't just wave his hand and make it happen lol
I can't wait for the delicious salt the south will be inevitably exuding immediately after this for a good fuckin' bit
I'll call the group of whining states 'The Sore Loser's Confederacy'
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;48057805]thank you, now that marriage is legal, you know *wink wink*[/QUOTE]
i'm still a minor you creep
shame states like mississippi still haven't acknowledged it, by saying they won't be allowing gay marriage, even though the supreme court ruled it to be legal in the states. christ, people will not give up and it's such a huge shame...
[QUOTE=Potus;48057751]Tracking the Republican Candidates on this ruling has been great
[url]https://rickperry.org/statement-on-supreme-court-gay-marriage-ruling[/url]
[url]https://www.tedcruz.org/news/cruz-any-candidate-not-willing-to-make-2016-a-referendum-on-repealing-obamacare-should-step-aside/[/url][/QUOTE]
Ted Cruz one is about obummerCare not gay marriage
Finally, I don't understand how this was an issue.
[QUOTE=Rocko's;48057905]shame states like mississippi still haven't acknowledged it, by saying they won't be allowing gay marriage, even though the supreme court ruled it to be legal in the states. christ, people will not give up and it's such a huge shame...[/QUOTE]
Once the feds start leaning on them it should work out. However if a Republican like (especially) Jindal gets in the White House then this is going to get bad fast because the constitution and rules of government don't mean shit unless it aligns with them.
Maybe I'm being paranoid but I got a bad feeling about this.
[QUOTE=IrishBandit;48057952]Finally, I don't understand how this was an issue.[/QUOTE]
"Ew, icky"
[QUOTE=IrishBandit;48057952]Finally, I don't understand how this was an issue.[/QUOTE]
What is tradition and people being afraid of change for 500.
[QUOTE=N-12_Aden;48057955]Once the feds start leaning on them it should work out. However if a Republican like (especially) Jindal gets in the White House then this is going to get bad fast because the constitution and rules of government don't mean shit unless it aligns with them.
Maybe I'm being paranoid but I got a bad feeling about this.[/QUOTE]
there would literally be nothing they can do to stop it
First, the ban on the Confederate flag, now this.
WTF is going on in the US, all of the sudden they jumped -at least- 10 years ahead into the future.
Welcome to the civilized world, US of A!
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;48057980]First, the ban on the Confederate flag, now this.
WTF is going on in the US, all of the sudden they jumped -at least- 10 years ahead into the future.
Welcome to the civilized world, US of A![/QUOTE]
Except many aspects of banning the confederate flag are controversial from a historic point of view (like games and movies set in historical times), whereas gay marriage is a no-brainer
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;48057980]First, the ban on the Confederate flag, now this.
WTF is going on in the US, all of the sudden they jumped -at least- 10 years ahead into the future.
Welcome to the civilized world, US of A![/QUOTE]
I'm not with you on the confederate flag part, there is a difference between acknowledging and glorifying a dark part of our history. It's retarded that they're banning it everywhere. But that's my two cents, I'm too happy with gay marriage being legal that I don't give a fuck about anything atm. :dance:
[QUOTE=N-12_Aden;48057955]Once the feds start leaning on them it should work out. However if a Republican like (especially) Jindal gets in the White House then this is going to get bad fast because the constitution and rules of government don't mean shit unless it aligns with them.
Maybe I'm being paranoid but I got a bad feeling about this.[/QUOTE]
Jindal, from his statement, seems to disagree with the ruling, but he won't disobey it. After the usual babble about the definition of marriage, his focus is more on the other impacts this will have on religious liberty, I.E. people using this ruling to force churches to marry people.
[QUOTE]“The Supreme Court decision today conveniently and not surprisingly follows public opinion polls, and tramples on states’ rights that were once protected by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that.
This decision will pave the way for an all out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians who disagree with this decision. This ruling must not be used as pretext by Washington to erode our right to religious liberty.
The government should not force those who have sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage to participate in these ceremonies. That would be a clear violation of America’s long held commitment to religious liberty as protected in the First Amendment.
I will never stop fighting for religious liberty and I hope our leaders in D.C. join me.”[/QUOTE]
I think the situation will be fine, as long as people don't start trying to push for churches or priests to be forced to participate in ceremonies that go against their beliefs. If that happens, I think it will get REALLY ugly REALLY fast.
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;48057785]The 2010s are going to be remembered as the gay rights decade[/QUOTE]
that's actually pretty interesting to think about
I wonder what OUR 20's will be like
hopefully the 30's don't suck
wow kasich is the only one in the republican bullpen thats calling for the republicans to drop the issue
i cant wait to see the fallout though, the republicans have but one option, amend the constitution, but that will never happen
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;48057980]First, the ban on the Confederate flag, now this.
WTF is going on in the US, all of the sudden they jumped -at least- 10 years ahead into the future.
Welcome to the civilized world, US of A![/QUOTE]
Nobody in government has banned the confederate flag.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;48058041]J
I think the situation will be fine, as long as people don't start trying to push for churches or priests to be forced to participate in ceremonies that go against their beliefs. If that happens, I think it will get REALLY ugly REALLY fast.[/QUOTE]
idk how many times i've had to explain this, nobody, NOBODY is every intending to push churches to preform gay marriages, they're religious institutions, the state has no compelling reason to force them to, nor would the 1st amendment ever allow them, or the 14th force them to, marriage as a RELIGIOUS institution is up to whatever faith you belong to, marriage as a state institution is legally defined by the laws of the land. the argument that its god's insitituion in the matters of the law is frankly disturbing, considering theres hundreds of recognized religions out there, each one with slightly different, and in some cases very radically different definitions of marraige. if we were to base our legal definition on religion, then the question becomes who's religion, the mormons? the scientologists? the hindus? to do so would violate the 1st amendment.
this doesn't force churches to marry people, it never would, it forces county officials who are being paid by the tax payers of their state, and have to uphold state AND federal law, to preform marraiges, and if this violates their religious convictions, then they should resign and get annointed as a minister, otherwise they cannot refuse service as long as they are being employed by the government
[QUOTE=Sableye;48058151]idk how many times i've had to explain this, nobody, NOBODY is every intending to push churches to preform gay marriages, they're religious institutions, the state has no compelling reason to force them to, nor would the 1st amendment ever allow them, or the 14th force them to, marriage as a RELIGIOUS institution is up to whatever faith you belong to, marriage as a state institution is legally defined by the laws of the land. the argument that its god's insitituion in the matters of the law is frankly disturbing, considering theres hundreds of recognized religions out there, each one with slightly different, and in some cases very radically different definitions of marraige. if we were to base our legal definition on religion, then the question becomes who's religion, the mormons? the scientologists? the hindus? to do so would violate the 1st amendment.
this doesn't force churches to marry people, it never would, it forces county officials who are being paid by the tax payers of their state, and have to uphold state AND federal law, to preform marraiges, and if this violates their religious convictions, then they should resign and get annointed as a minister, otherwise they cannot refuse service as long as they are being employed by the government[/QUOTE]
I know this. But a LOT of the extreme religious nutjobs down here DON'T know that. Jindal is also on his crusade for the bakery where he made an executive order when the state legislature wouldn't pass his "religious freedom" bill. The only people supporting that dumb action were the same people who think the LGBT community is going to push to force churches to participate in the marriages.
In other words, this has sent religious nutjobs into high alert, and their triggers are so sensitive that it doesn't even have to be true to set them off.
[QUOTE=smurfy;48057348]Holy shit watch out America, any second now the floods are coming
[url]http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/06/26/exclusive-franklin-graham-warns-gay-marriage-ruling-will-lead-christian-persecution[/url][/QUOTE]
Just watch those live comments come rolling in, I think I need to get some snacks and just watch the unintentional comedy gold come flowing in. I also feel a bit sad for some of them though, like I know they're being serious (Well some of them) and I can't comprehend their thought processes.
Better late than never
[QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;48057508]Hillary Clinton is just jumping on the bandwagon, she was anti gay in the 2000s[/QUOTE]
Spoiler alert: all of these companies are jumping on the bandwagon for the free good publicity
[QUOTE=J!NX;48058101]that's actually pretty interesting to think about
I wonder what OUR 20's will be like
hopefully the 30's don't suck[/QUOTE]
2040: the rise of Badolf Schmitler, forever ruining the handlebar moustache.
White house right now:
[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIcC88KWwAE-vhe.jpg:large[/img]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.