DOMA and Prop 8 bite the dust

[BabyPeterzz]

Good riddance.

Human decency wins. Again. Like we all said it would. Again.

Congratulations to all my LGBT friends and family, and those on this site.

Love FTW. **** the haters.

 

[Stoked]

Glad it was struck down. However I strongly reject the notion that all oponents to gay marriage do so based on hate and bigotry. That is as foolish as those that say that allowing gay marriage will destroy our society and confuse the genders.

 

[scootsy]

Love FTW. **** the haters.

oh the irony...

 

[BabyPeterzz]

oh the irony...

I know, right? I will be as insufferable as I want to. Cause I can, and I suck.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

Glad it was struck down. However I strongly reject the notion that all oponents to gay marriage do so based on hate and bigotry. That is as foolish as those that say that allowing gay marriage will destroy our society and confuse the genders.

And I strongly reject your opinion. USA.

 

[Gameface]

And I strongly reject your opinion. USA.

Now, I'm with you in celebrating the decision, but I think a lot of people reject gay marriage out of conformity, either to cultural norms or their religious beliefs. I think some of these folks oppose gay marriage out of fear of rejection within their social group more than out of hate for gay people.

 

[The Thriller]

https://www.deseretnews.com/article...act-to-DOMA-Prop-8-Supreme-Court-rulings.html

“By ruling that supporters of Proposition 8 lacked standing to bring this case to court, the Supreme Court has highlighted troubling questions about how our democratic and judicial system operates,” said LDS spokesman Michael Otterson. “Many Californians will wonder if there is something fundamentally wrong when their government will not defend or protect a popular vote that reflects the views of a majority of their citizens.”

I get what is being said here... And yes... Where is the balance? The Judicial Branch sometimes seems to wield so much power! Yet...

I can't help but to feel like this is a poor argument.

"Well well, the majority voted for it so there! That's Democracy! Neener neener neener!"

I can't help but wonder if Mormons were happy with the Democracy being manifested as they were chased around all back east by "the majority?"

Would Mormons be happy if "the majority" voted to expel them from the Bible Belt?

Would this spokesperson be down if missions were kicked out of an area/prevented to proselyte by "the majority?"

Am I missing something? Because... If I am, I'd like to be corrected.

 

[pickledXgrandma]

Good day for America. I wish they could just legalize it federally already.

 

[Stoked]

Good day for America. I wish they could just legalize it federally already.

I think they eventually will but in my eyes it is not the solution. Government (local, state, federal...) should not be in the marriage business in the first place. All governments should only be able to grant civil unions. It should be open to any two individuals of legal age that are not related. It should grant all the rights that a marriage does now. Only a religion/denomination...should be able to perform a marriage. The marriage should be recognized under government as exactly equal to a civil union.

To me it is just one more case where government is sticking their nose where it doesn't belong.

 

[Gameface]

https://www.deseretnews.com/article...act-to-DOMA-Prop-8-Supreme-Court-rulings.html



I get what is being said here... And yes... Where is the balance? The Judicial Branch sometimes seems to wield so much power! Yet...

I can't help but to feel like this is a poor argument.

"Well well, the majority voted for it so there! That's Democracy! Neener neener neener!"

I can't help but wonder if Mormons were happy with the Democracy being manifested as they were chased around all back east by "the majority?"

Would Mormons be happy if "the majority" voted to expel them from the Bible Belt?

Would this spokesperson be down if missions were kicked out of an area/prevented to proselyte by "the majority?"

To me, I could be wrong... But to me, this seems like a completely sore sport loser attitude. In fact, the comment made by that spokesperson actually bugs me a lot more than I thought it would.

It demonstrates ignorance of our system, which is not "democratic." We live in a constitutional republic. The constitution, with its guarantee of individual rights, is a protection provided to individuals against the desires of the majority. Voting can accomplish a lot of things. One thing it's not supposed to be able to do is give people permission to violate the rights of individuals.

Franklin said (paraphrased): True democracy is two wolves and a chicken voting on what to have for lunch.

 

[scootsy]

Congratulations to all my LGBT friends and family, and those on this site.

also congrats to all those polyamorous and polygamous friends/family, or those who frequent this site.

 

[Gameface]

also congrats to all those polyamorous and polygamous friends/family, or those who frequent this site.

Why congrats to them? They're still unfairly persecuted, are they not?

 

[scootsy]

Why congrats to them? They're still unfairly persecuted, are they not?

slightly sarcastic. i rarely see the lgbt crowd argue that marriage rights be extended to polyamorous, polygamous, etc. but it is a crucial step for those guys. their marriage rights will be the next logical step

 

[Deleted member 848]

Good day for America. I wish they could just legalize it federally already.

Not sure why people hold the word 'marriage' so sacredly, that they want only people of their same sexual orientation to hold it.

Where it gets confusing for me, is where you draw the line for it. If marriage is a completely religious term, does that mean only Christians are allowed to have that status? If we allow other religions to participate (which we do), then do we simply allow only religions that view the institution of marriage as monogamous? If so, then how on earth is that fair?

"We will let you participate in this thing called marriage only if your faith/lifestyle is similar to ours".


Also, I think the civil union argument that Stoked makes, makes sense in principle-- but I do not think the majority of Americans associate the definition of marriage with what you think it is, and vice-versa for the definition of civil-union.


To me it all boils down to: why the **** do we care what someone else considers what 'marriage' is. If you're Mormon, then marriage is a (mostly) monogamous union between a heterosexual couple. Cool. Why feel the need to apply this definition to everyone else?

 

[Deleted member 848]

slightly sarcastic. i rarely see the lgbt crowd argue that marriage rights be extended to polyamorous, polygamous, etc. but it is a crucial step for those guys. their marriage rights will be the next logical step

Going off of no statistics, but I think the fact that polygamy is much more small-scale, and its widely-publicized negative connotations, or consequences that are associated with polygamy will make it verrrry difficult for it to be legalized. IMO.

 

[The Thriller]

slightly sarcastic. i rarely see the lgbt crowd argue that marriage rights be extended to polyamorous, polygamous, etc. but it is a crucial step for those guys. their marriage rights will be the next logical step

Next logical or probable step?

After walking on the moon the next logical step would have been to walk on Mars. Yet... We're still amazingly far from that.

I don't understand why or how this is a victory for polygamy.

Maybe we could start with why polygamy was outlawed in the first place?

 

[scootsy]

Next logical or probable step?

After walking on the moon the next logical step would have been to walk on Mars. Yet... We're still amazingly far from that.

I don't understand why or how this is a victory for polygamy.

Maybe we could start with why polygamy was outlawed in the first place?

This is why.

Polygamy is illegal and unprotected by the Constitution because the Supreme Court doesn’t like it. Over one hundred years ago, the Court held in Reynolds v. U.S. that polygamy was “an offence against society.”

Generally the same argument that has historically been held against homosexual marriages. We'll see..

 

[Stoked]

slightly sarcastic. i rarely see the lgbt crowd argue that marriage rights be extended to polyamorous, polygamous, etc. but it is a crucial step for those guys. their marriage rights will be the next logical step

As long as it is entered into by consenting adults and they can provide for themselves and any children they have I am fine with it. None of my business.

 

[scootsy]

As long as it is entered into by consenting adults and they can provide for themselves and any children they have I am fine with it. None of my business.

why should that be necessary? no such provision or prerequisite is required for any other type of marriage

 

[Deleted member 848]

As long as it is entered into by consenting adults and they can provide for themselves and any children they have I am fine with it. None of my business.

Yup. I mean obviously it seems pretty freaky to me, but if that is what they think is best, and they are presenting no significant 'harm' relative to a more traditional marriage, then I think its fair for us to let them do as they wish.