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

[mawilson 2,133]

Your assumption is that legalizing gay marriage will bring about peace and love and make us all better people. Prove that.

No such assumption was ever made.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

You know for someone who seems to make so many 'historic' knowledge claims, you fail to mention/realize that homosexuality has pretty much been around since the dawn of recorded time...

Let's just ignore that fact though.

Plz pay attn. We're talking about gay marriage, not gayness.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

No such assumption was ever made.

Incorrect assumptions abound, but this is the only one you notice. Typical.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Plz pay attn. We're talking about gay marriage, not gayness.

I think if you're making the argument that is destroys society, then yes it is relevant.

And you cannot prove in any way that 'gay marriage' is bad for society.

[Peikko 1,575]

You say lots of incoorect things. You don't need to be married to have these benefits. The same thing can be achieved thru civil unions. Gays aren't straights. They don't need to treated like straights to make their unions legal.

Btw, lots of employers offer NO bennies.

Would you vote for gay couples to have civil unions legally recognized? What would you do if they called themselves 'married'? In what material way are civil unions 'different' from marriage if they bestow the same benefits and responsibilities? If they do not, why would they not inevitably lead to chaos and the disintegration of societal structures which would inevitably happen if one simply removed the obstacles from gays to marry as you have claimed, never mind you have failed to demonstrate in any way how or why this would happen?

[mawilson 2,133]

Incorrect assumptions abound, but this is the only one you notice. Typical.

Why do you care if gays call their unions "marriage"? How does it affect you?

[Peikko 1,575]

No such assumption was ever made.

No, it wasn't, nor was the other non sequitur; that the 'advocates' of gay marriage believe it will adjust perceptions of morality vis a vis homosexual sex.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Darnell 8,479]

this is so cool !!!

I'm happy !!!

Now the exodus 'from the south' will all be to DC.

No More 'Gay Marriage Diaspora' - they can re-unite in DC, live forever in peace and harmony.

I'm so happy for this.

(Should be a butt-load of new hires, new staffing, in the fed offices, ya? Coupled with extra business for the moving companies, to move INTO DC. )

Maybe, in 10 years, DC-residents will be 'exclusively homosexual ' couples - sorta like their own little island.

MAN - that's gonna be SO COOL !!!

I really hope it turns out that way.

[Allamericankiwi 14]

There are no examples anywhere that gay marriage on its own will lead to breakdown in society. But a society is made up of individuals who have their own moral standards that they apply to their lives. And there is a collective morality which is a combination of each citizens individual morality also at any point in time. Maybe Im wrong here but I think the majority of americans see gay sex as an abnormal if not immoral act and legitimising gay marriage makes gay sex as normal and wholesome as heterosexual sex. This does not sit well with the collective morality at this time. Of course the gay movement wants to change the collective morality but they have a fight on their hands.

Legitimising gay marriage is one small symptom of a worsening moral sickness happening in america. gay marriage IS part of the slippery slope downhill. Its not just gay marriage that is the cause, its that combined with a host of other issues.

From my time in america i saw that the american people in general are quite traditional, compared to my cultural environment anyway, and I think its good. Overturning the tradition of heterosexual marriage as being between a man and a women only is just another breakdown of an instiutution that is seen as a good and healthy thing for society. gay marriage is not seen as providing society with those same benefits hence why should it have the same status.

As for rights. If the majority see gay marriage as part of a general decline in the society in which they live then gays have no right to marriage. rights must be weighed aginst the public good in general. If I believe i have a right not to wear clothes in public because god had me born that way....too bad for me.....society says no and its backed by law. If that changes and it becomes legal, well Im sure some people would exercise that right, but who would agree its for the public good....

What is needed in america now is a strengthening and protection of traditional marriage and traditional values not the opposite. The government should make it a financially and socially advantageous and beneficial union as much as it can..... for a man and a women only.

America is on the way down. The decline is happening fast. Its the result of a declining collective public morality. Sad to see...... I hope Im wrong about that by the way........I have a huge appreciation of america and her people even tho I wasnt born there.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Oh but didn't you hear, we are supposed to ignore thousands of years for an American History of two centuries.

Two centuries full of homsexuals. And full of a civil marriage not defined exclusively as 'between a man and a woman' until the first such definition was adopted by Maryland in 1973. In other words, the "traditional" definition of marriage in this country is not limiting civil marriage to partners of the opposite sex. That limitation has a history of 37 years or less across the nation.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Incorrect assumptions abound...

You'd know since you authored most of them.

[Darnell 8,479]

Good Lord - so many write-ups here?

I can't be the only one who is happy about this?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Why do you care if gays call their unions "marriage"? How does it affect you?

Why is this discussion always framed by how it directly affects the individuals discussing it? Is all that matters to you is how it affects you or not? I'm not that self centered to imagine that the only thing that matters is how a public policy issue affects me, but then, I'm thinking macro and most of your perspectives are micro-oriented. Perhaps none of you are religious either, so it's secular humanists vs religion.

It's utterly fascinating how the basic argument is "I don't care as long as it doesn't affect me", and you seriously don't understand why anyone else wouldn't be as passive about massive social chg unless they're a 'phobic' of some sort. Such thinking is pretty narrowminded and narcissistic, but it's also what passes for "progressive".

How sad for you.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Why is this discussion always framed by how it directly affects the individuals discussing it? Is all that matters to you is how it affects you or not? I'm not that self centered to imagine that the only thing that matters is how a public policy issue affects me, but then, I'm thinking macro and most of your perspectives are micro-oriented. Perhaps none of you are religious either, so it's secular humanists vs religion.

It's utterly fascinating how the basic argument is "I don't care as long as it doesn't affect me", and you seriously don't understand why anyone else wouldn't be as passive about massive social chg unless they're a 'phobic' of some sort. Such thinking is pretty narrowminded and narcissistic, but it's also what passes for "progressive".

How sad for you.

How does it affect Society?

Edited March 3, 2010 by Sousuke

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Overturning the tradition of heterosexual marriage as being between a man and a women only is just another breakdown of an instiutution that is seen as a good and healthy thing for society.

What tradition? A provision first adopted in a single state less than 40 years ago and that subsequently spread across the nation finally reaching it's high in DOMA in the mid 90's - less than a decade and a half ago - is hardly a "tradition".