DOMA and Prop 8 bite the dust

[HipHopAnonymous]

Just out of curiosity...

What am I supposed to feel right now? I'm seeing so many facebook posts of people outraged. You'd swear that Romney was losing all over again!

Why are people, who are already married, so upset over this? I don't want a gay marriage therefore I'm not going to get one. Should I feel outraged right now?

I don't get it.

I seriously don't get how this is a big deal to anyone (other than those who it directly effects). For gays, yipee! They can get married! I understand why they'd feel excited today. But for heteros? Why are we so pissed? I don't get it. Gay people getting married to each other doesn't infringe upon my rights. It doesn't take away from my wealth or employment. it's not like we're invading Iraq again.

So why should I care?

Short answer? Their religious leader told them what to think.

 

[The Thriller]

Huh, interesting. You live in the greater SLC area correct?

I live in Happy Valley. In all honesty, only 2 out of the 4 people celebrating this do I even know very well personally. Kinda crazy. Here are a few examples of what I'm mostly seeing:

Man's law doesn't equal God's law.

Who's side are you on?

there are checks and balances between the three branches of government, but who checks the people? and who can the people check?

I am curious to see the long term implications of this ruling.

a lower federal court can rule a state constitution (voted on by the people) unconstitutional. if a court can do that, what can't they do?

 

[Gameface]

Difference between Utah County and Salt Lake County = HUGE

Working in Utah county was a real eye opener. When they'd recruit engineers from out of state and then steer them towards housing in Utah Valley I just had to shake my head. When they start complaining I tell them they should have bought a place on the other side of the PotM and they wouldn't be having those problems.

 

[Bronco70]

I'm actually surprised by how little negative reaction I've seen on FB. I have a lot of strongly (read: annoyingly) conservative friends, who usually would be going nuts over something like this.

It's been pleasant, truth be told.

 

[The Thriller]

Difference between Utah County and Salt Lake County = HUGE

Working in Utah county was a real eye opener. When they'd recruit engineers from out of state and then steer them towards housing in Utah Valley I just had to shake my head. When they start complaining I tell them they should have bought a place on the other side of the PotM and they wouldn't be having those problems.

Just curious, what sort of issues/problems were they experiencing?

 

[colton]

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?"

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

The thing I think you are missing is that as I see it the Prop 8 decision actually gives an enormous amount of power to the executive branch. It seems like the governor can now just decide to not enforce any law that he doesn't like, and the people are powerless to do anything about it because they "lack standing" to challenge the governor's decision. Or maybe I'm the one that's missing something.

 

[Gameface]

The thing I think you are missing is that as I see it the Prop 8 decision actually gives an enormous amount of power to the executive branch. It seems like the governor can now just decide to not enforce any law that he doesn't like, and the people are powerless to do anything about it because they "lack standing" to challenge the governor's decision. Or maybe I'm the one that's missing something.

But you have to have standing to bring suit. That's not new at all.

To claim to have standing you have to show a direct interest in the outcome, right?

The legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action.There are three requirements for Article III standing: (1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) (Lujan). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing each of these elements. Id.

People outside the state of CA and just regular folks who oppose gay marriage don't have standing. It's simple. And it's true. Gay marriage doesn't injure anyone. Case closed.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

And I strongly reject your opinion. USA.

Reject everything, feel less.

 

[Gameface]

Just curious, what sort of issues/problems were they experiencing?

Lack of bars/liquor stores. Places closing at 8pm (they'd say. a little exaggeration I'm guessing). Alienation in their neighborhood. Their kids being treated poorly by the LDS kids (could just be a perception thing and their kid was just having a hard time making new friends). Lack of cultural activities outside LDS ones. And just general feelings of being a stranger in a strange land.

 

[Stoked]

But you have to have standing to bring suit. That's not new at all.

To claim to have standing you have to show a direct interest in the outcome, right?



People outside the state of CA and just regular folks who oppose gay marriage don't have standing. It's simple. And it's true. Gay marriage doesn't injure anyone. Case closed.

Where none of the claimants from CA?

 

[Gameface]

Where none of the claimants from CA?

Even if they were they needed to provide evidence of "injury in fact" which I imagine is hard to do when gay marriage doesn't injure anyone.

 

[scootsy]

Even if they were they needed to provide evidence of "injury in fact" which I imagine is hard to do when gay marriage doesn't injure anyone.

not really debating you, but it remains to be seen whether or not children of homosexual relationships will thrive or suffer.

 

[The Thriller]

not really debating you, but it remains to be seen whether or not children of homosexual relationships will thrive or suffer.

Correct me if in wrong... But aren't we a lil behind a few European countries when it comes to this issue? Have they experienced any negative consequences?

I'm just trying to figure out why some Americans feel like reinventing the wheel here when it comes to health care, immigration, the economy, and gay marriage. Im not accusing you of being like this but so many (in general) think we live in a vacuum. Believe it or not, other countries have the same issues as we do. And some, might even be ahead of us on them.

 

[scootsy]

Correct me if in wrong... But aren't we a lil behind a few European countries when it comes to this issue? Have they experienced any negative consequences?

i've read studies supporting both sides.

 

[scootsy]

essentially both sides are dismissive of the arguments against, both sides use statistics that may mischaracterize or mislead....

it's an agenda issue, hard to find unbiased studies.

 

[Gameface]

not really debating you, but it remains to be seen whether or not children of homosexual relationships will thrive or suffer.

If those children or their guardians want they might have standing. Other's concerned for the welfare of the children do not have standing.

 

[Deleted member 848]

i've read studies supporting both sides.

This can also be said about coffee enemas curing cancer.


From what I've read, from what I've encountered, AND from just using plain logic: I have to the conclusion that some people are just bad parents in general, and it doesn't have anything to do with the sexual orientation of your parents.


My parents are still together and heterosexual, but my father didn't really have much of an influence on me growing up-- nor did he have any sort of advice or guidance as I was growing through something like puberty.


Fortunately, family doesn't stop just at parents and siblings. I received guidance, and emulated multiple different male role models in my life.


If anything, I think a responsible gay couple would place extra emphasis on having a female friend/relative establish a good friendship with their potential daughter.



It REALLY doesn't strike me as a huge deal, tbh.

 

[colton]

But you have to have standing to bring suit. That's not new at all.

To claim to have standing you have to show a direct interest in the outcome, right?

Who exactly would have had standing in this case, in your opinion?

People outside the state of CA and just regular folks who oppose gay marriage don't have standing. It's simple. And it's true. Gay marriage doesn't injure anyone. Case closed.

I agree that people outside CA shouldn't have standing here, but afaik all parties here were CA residents. And as to whether gay marriage injures anyone, that's your entirely subjective opinion. Aside from the societal impact which granted is also very subjective, I could see that taxes may increase if this changes the state employee marital benefits.

 

[scootsy]

This can also be said about coffee enemas curing cancer.


From what I've read, from what I've encountered, AND from just using plain logic: I have to the conclusion that some people are just bad parents in general, and it doesn't have anything to do with the sexual orientation of your parents.


My parents are still together and heterosexual, but my father didn't really have much of an influence on me growing up-- nor did he have any sort of advice or guidance as I was growing through something like puberty.


Fortunately, family doesn't stop just at parents and siblings. I received guidance, and emulated multiple different male role models in my life.


If anything, I think a responsible gay couple would place extra emphasis on having a female friend/relative establish a good friendship with their potential daughter.



It REALLY doesn't strike me as a huge deal, tbh.

agreed.. the only reason i say anything is because i ran across these quotes.

Children fare best on virtually every indicator of wellbeing when reared by their wedded biological parents. Studies that control for other relevant factors, including poverty and even genetics, suggest that children reared in intact homes fare best on the following indices:
- Educational achievement: literacy and graduation rates;
- Emotional health: rates of anxiety, depression, substance abuse, and suicide;
- Familial and sexual development: strong sense of identity, timing of onset of puberty, rates of teen and out‐of‐wedlock pregnancy, and rates of sexual abuse; and
- Child and adult behavior: rates of aggression, attention deficit disorder, delinquency, and incarceration.

Consider the conclusions of the research institution Child Trends:
[R]esearch clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low‐conflict marriage. Children in single‐parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in step‐families or cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes. . . . There is thus value for children in promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents. . . .“t is not simply the presence of two parents, . . . but the presence of two biological parents that seems to support children’s development.

According to another study, “[t]he advantage of marriage appears to exist primarily when the child is the biological offspring
of both parents.”

 

[BabyPeterzz]

agreed.. the only reason i say anything is because i ran across these quotes.

Where do you think most gay couples get their kids. I'd be willing to bet the vast majority come from adoption. You should be asking yourself, "Do adopted children fair better than those who live it out in foster care or the streets."

Using studies like this are off base and straight up dense. What's it going to take to realize you're on the wrong side of this argument?