Major Blow to Homophobes: SCOTUS Refuses to Block Gay Marriage in DC

[Sofiyya 1,687]

No one has explained how gay marriage advantages society. No one has justified how going to federal court in an anti-democratic attempt to convince a few judges to overturn the will of the voters of California, and the strongly held beliefs of much of the nation is a act to be celebrated.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Sofiyya 1,687]

No, you really did not. I have no idea what you find so objectionable now, nor how society crumbles merely because you do not want to call a same sex civil union 'marriage'. I really do not give two hoots what name is given to the union of same sex couples, and I am quite sure they do not care either, as long as the legal rights are the same. Why you must be so precious about the word marriage though? Beyond rational.

What is the value in apathy? Is it politically correct not to care what happens or what something is called? I don't get that.

[Peikko 1,575]

No one has explained how gay marriage advantages society. No one has justified how going to federal court in an anti-democratic attempt to convince a few judges to overturn the will of the voters of California, and the strongly held beliefs of much of the nation is a act to be celebrated.

It is obvious how an ability to enjoy the same rights as hetrosexuals advantages same sex partners and it is obvious also, how not allowing them these rights is discriminatory and as such damaging. Your asking such a question so soon after suggesting that your objection is merely as to what these unions that recognize these rights is called smacks of schyzophrenia.

[Peikko 1,575]

What is the value in apathy? Is it politically correct not to care what happens or what something is called? I don't get that.

You can care about whatever you like, I can have an opinion about that, or not. That does not amount to apathy or political correctness.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

It is obvious how an ability to enjoy the same rights as hetrosexuals advantages same sex partners and it is obvious also, how not allowing them these rights is discriminatory and as such damaging. Your asking such a question so soon after suggesting that your objection is merely as to what these unions that recognize these rights is called smacks of schyzophrenia.

How does it benefit the larger society to give a handful of people the ability to redefine marriage for a nation despite the opposition of the majority? Government is designed to govern with the consent of the governed, not to bulldoze over them. Blacks worked for decades to gain legal rights and to have their rights accepted by the larger society. Gay marriage activists are seeking to circumvent this process and impose gay marriage on society in less than a generation.

A federal Constitutional "right" to marriage for same sex couples was manufactured, then defined as an inalienable right. Inalienable rights are understood by judicial scholars to be divine rights, granted by God, not the state. God clearly does not endorse gay marriage, so the entire argument is fictional and supported by the false premise that gay marriage is a divine right. This is reasoning allowed only when a society is no longer willing to insist on religious liberty, free speech, critical thinking and social cohesion, but is more interested in elevating political correctness above collective values. This has been such an incremental process until now, that it is no wonder that the young among us haev no idea how we got here. They just think it's "normal".

You can care about whatever you like, I can have an opinion about that, or not. That does not amount to apathy or political correctness.

All this "I don't care, it doesn't affect me" talk is all about apathy. I'm instructed to be apathetic about gay marriage, too; the conflict here is primarily because I refuse to be.

[Allamericankiwi 14]

I dont believe we should redefine marriage. I would say the majority of americans dont want marriage to be redefined to include gay couples either. so we get labelled as homophobes and bigots......name calling designed to foster guilt, but meaningless really. The family is the core of a healthy society. Some may disagree with that but it would be hard to prove otherwise. And i mean a husband and wife with the vast majority of them having children.

Children grow into more well adjusted people with male and female input in a traditional marriage. sanction gay marriage, sanction gay adoption, you sanction a union that will have a negative effect on society. The more you strip traditional marriage of its high calling the worse the effect on society. Its not that a gay cant be a good parent. Its that a child NEEDS male and female input to balance the psychological and physiological wants and desires built into their genetic make up.

So the government should protect traditional marriage, and protect it fiercely. Wont happen with Obama of course. Hopefully he'll be gone in a couple years......

and what you do in your own home does affect me. you may be my next door neighbour. you may watch porn all day in the privacy of you own bedroom. you may do it for years but one day that may cause you to abuse one of my family, or friends. It may not either, but I dont want that risk. the good you do has an affect on society in general and the bad too. sodomy is not healthy or normal or natural. validate gay marriage, you normalise sodomy as sex is normal in a heterosexual marriage. so if its normal, lets teach our kids its normal....when we teach our kids about sex, dont miss out normal old sodomy too....

sadly traditional marriage is not held in high esteem in general anymore.....society is suffering for it now..and america will carry on down the slippery slope til some new great american president takes office and turns thing around.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

No one has explained how gay marriage advantages society. No one has justified how going to federal court in an anti-democratic attempt to convince a few judges to overturn the will of the voters of California, and the strongly held beliefs of much of the nation is a act to be celebrated.

It doesn;t have to be a benefit. How does golf benefit society? It sia benefit to two people who care about each other and commit to each other. What the #### is wrong with you that what is between their legs is so much more important than what is between their ears?

I don't celebrate what anyone else does in the bedroom. I have a great time with what I do in my bedroom with my wife, but that is not of your business and I don't care what you do. Or what some gay guys do. Thank goodness my life is more fulfilled than to spend time thinking about what other people do in bed. #######????

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

So, if someone believes homosexuality is wrong, they are a "homophobe"? I believe adultery is wrong, am I an adultery-phobe? I believe it's wrong for a man to sleep with his daughter, am I an incest-phobe? I believe gossip is wrong, am I a gossip-phobe? I believe theft is wrong, am I a theft-phobe?

No.

There is a difference between personal belief and having government agents with guns (the poeple that enforce laws DO have guns, you know) tell you what you can and cannot do based on what someone else believes.

I DO NOT CARE if YOU are a "phobe" or predujiced, or bigotted, or whatever YOU want to be. Just keep it off the law books if these things do not hurt other people.

[Craneman 2]

Algore is Gay?

I blame Al Gore for this.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Interracial marriage didn't redefine marriage. Gay marriage does. And, there remains prejudice against both.

It's not about definitions, it's about whether under the Constitution states have the right to arbitrarily deny individuals the right to enter into a state sacntioned relationship which bestows certain recognition and benefits. Constitutional experts say that they don't and the SCOTUS will soon decide. Any argument put forth by me or you or anyone else here on VJ will not have any bearing on that decision. As the court did in 1967 when it made clear that states did not have the right to deny people the right to enter into marriage based on their race, I expect the court to find that states do also not have the right to deny this right to people based on their sexual orientation - for which they are no more responsible than they are for the color of their skin.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

No one has explained how gay marriage advantages society. No one has justified how going to federal court in an anti-democratic attempt to convince a few judges to overturn the will of the voters of California, and the strongly held beliefs of much of the nation is a act to be celebrated.

The voters of California can vote upon and have whatever laws they wish.

However, DOMA is unconstitutonal in nature and violates the full faith and credit clause in the constitution. As a marriage is a contract between two individuals with the state they live in, it very much fits into that catagory.

If marriage were just a 'simple' contract between two individuals that wasn't filed with the state and the state gave no benefits to said couples, then DOMA would be perfectly legal in every aspect for the individual.

You don't get to cherry pick and interpret the constitution as you see fit. It doesn't work that way. You claim to be someone who has studied the constitution, then you should know that. To me though, you are letting your own personal bias get in the way of rational thinking.

As I've said before though, the simple thing would be for government to get out of marriage. You cannot honestly tell me that there's a 'societal' benefit for heterosexual marriage versus gay marriage vs whatever. That's ludicrous in this day and age. Not all couples breed and marriage today is meaningless in many ways with a divorce rate near 50%. - If you have 2 people, loving one another, wanting to be with one another, taking up less space by living together and using the same materials, THAT benefits society no mattter who it is, be them gay, straight, etc...

The word 'marriage' needs to be taken out if you want government to recognize the union of two people and for it to have some sort of benefit. But you can't give benefits to man/woman combinations without giving benefits to woman/woman or man/man combinations either. It simply doesn't work that way in society. It's wrong just as affirmative action is wrong in the way it benefits certain groups and not the other. Our government has to be equal across the board and that is the law of the land when it comes to how it treats people.

[Danno 1,228]

It's not about definitions, it's about whether under the Constitution states have the right to arbitrarily deny individuals the right to enter into a state sacntioned relationship which bestows certain recognition and benefits. Constitutional experts say that they don't and the SCOTUS will soon decide. Any argument put forth by me or you or anyone else here on VJ will not have any bearing on that decision. As the court did in 1967 when it made clear that states did not have the right to deny people the right to enter into marriage based on their race, I expect the court to find that states do also not have the right to deny this right to people based on their sexual orientation - for which they are no more responsible than they are for the color of their skin.

SO you are betting that the S Court is still operating in such a left-leaning tilt? Need some more examples of wacky decisions made in that time?

How do you think they would have ruled on the DC hand gun case?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Very well said! Bravo!

I dont believe we should redefine marriage. I would say the majority of americans dont want marriage to be redefined to include gay couples either. so we get labelled as homophobes and bigots......name calling designed to foster guilt, but meaningless really. The family is the core of a healthy society. Some may disagree with that but it would be hard to prove otherwise. And i mean a husband and wife with the vast majority of them having children.

Children grow into more well adjusted people with male and female input in a traditional marriage. sanction gay marriage, sanction gay adoption, you sanction a union that will have a negative effect on society. The more you strip traditional marriage of its high calling the worse the effect on society. Its not that a gay cant be a good parent. Its that a child NEEDS male and female input to balance the psychological and physiological wants and desires built into their genetic make up.

So the government should protect traditional marriage, and protect it fiercely. Wont happen with Obama of course. Hopefully he'll be gone in a couple years......

and what you do in your own home does affect me. you may be my next door neighbour. you may watch porn all day in the privacy of you own bedroom. you may do it for years but one day that may cause you to abuse one of my family, or friends. It may not either, but I dont want that risk. the good you do has an affect on society in general and the bad too. sodomy is not healthy or normal or natural. validate gay marriage, you normalise sodomy as sex is normal in a heterosexual marriage. so if its normal, lets teach our kids its normal....when we teach our kids about sex, dont miss out normal old sodomy too....

sadly traditional marriage is not held in high esteem in general anymore.....society is suffering for it now..and america will carry on down the slippery slope til some new great american president takes office and turns thing around.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

This is not about what you do in your bedroom, Gary. I suppose you keep bringing it up because you want us to know that Alla still let's you touch her. I assure you, it matters not at all to anyone here.

The golf comparison is simply stupid and not worth further comment.

It doesn;t have to be a benefit. How does golf benefit society? It sia benefit to two people who care about each other and commit to each other. What the #### is wrong with you that what is between their legs is so much more important than what is between their ears?

I don't celebrate what anyone else does in the bedroom. I have a great time with what I do in my bedroom with my wife, but that is not of your business and I don't care what you do. Or what some gay guys do. Thank goodness my life is more fulfilled than to spend time thinking about what other people do in bed. #######????

[Sofiyya 1,687]

If you were familar with the history of Constitutional interpretations and the primary sources used, you wouldn't deny that cherry picking happens in judicial circles, so I know you're unqualified to discuss it in depth.

The voters of California can vote upon and have whatever laws they wish.

However, DOMA is unconstitutonal in nature and violates the full faith and credit clause in the constitution. As a marriage is a contract between two individuals with the state they live in, it very much fits into that catagory.

If marriage were just a 'simple' contract between two individuals that wasn't filed with the state and the state gave no benefits to said couples, then DOMA would be perfectly legal in every aspect for the individual.

You don't get to cherry pick and interpret the constitution as you see fit. It doesn't work that way. You claim to be someone who has studied the constitution, then you should know that. To me though, you are letting your own personal bias get in the way of rational thinking.

As I've said before though, the simple thing would be for government to get out of marriage. You cannot honestly tell me that there's a 'societal' benefit for heterosexual marriage versus gay marriage vs whatever. That's ludicrous in this day and age. Not all couples breed and marriage today is meaningless in many ways with a divorce rate near 50%. - If you have 2 people, loving one another, wanting to be with one another, taking up less space by living together and using the same materials, THAT benefits society no mattter who it is, be them gay, straight, etc...

The word 'marriage' needs to be taken out if you want government to recognize the union of two people and for it to have some sort of benefit. But you can't give benefits to man/woman combinations without giving benefits to woman/woman or man/man combinations either. It simply doesn't work that way in society. It's wrong just as affirmative action is wrong in the way it benefits certain groups and not the other. Our government has to be equal across the board and that is the law of the land when it comes to how it treats people.