Gay marriage in all 50 states!!

Well at this point, they can huff and puff, but there are no cards to play. The idea of a constitutional amendment is a non starter. With this court, they would just ignore it or reinterpret it. They need to start preparing for the polygamy wars.

 

As of this morning, I am an officially ordained minister. I invite my LGBT friends over to my garage (recently converted to wedding chapel) to be married in a judgment free environment, for $249. Marriages, performed in about 20 minutes, include an oil and filter change while the ceremony is performed.

 

I think you have really elevated the sacredness that is the marriage union. Will you be wearing an Elvis costume to officiate?

 

I will wear whatever the couple in love wants me to wear, but they must provide the costume, if it is 'unusual'. Otherwise, I will wear a minister's shirt and collar, or anything else that's in my personal wardrobe.

 

yeah mebbe he should have a few of times over that same fire before he puts himself into it

 

But the wingnuts aren't leaving the table anyway.

That's not the reason, though. The reason is, about 60% of the public approves of or does not object to same sex marriage, so a 2/3 majority would be hard to get. But I notice Judge Roy Moore speaks for the apoplexy crowd when he said that he is bound by the constitution, not by the supreme court, and the constitution means what HE wants it to mean, which is (of course) the plain meaning! In several states, they're ready to keep doing battle by refusing to issue licences, pulling a George Wallace. We have some VERY poor losers trying to win positions of leadership.

This is as unlikely as a constitutional amendment. Surely you are aware that tens of thousands of same sex marriages existed for decades in all but legal recognition. You can probably count the number of polygamous marriages without even taking your shoes off. There simply is no demand for legal recognition of polygamy, and never has been. I think such a demand would require actual biological changes to our species. And even if that happened, it wouldn't be a matter of "ok, fine, just do it" like same sex marriage. Whole new bodies of law would be required.

But I understand your need to find some slippery slope, ANY slope. We can't just let our irrational fears go, what would that leave behind?

 

You have GOT to be kidding. It's not even a constitutional amendment, fercryingoutloud; and if you think an amendment can't be taken back, whatever you know about the Constitution and US history isn't worth knowing.

 

Twenty years ago I would have thought that gay marriage was too ridiculous to ever win majority support. So in another twenty years, I'm not going to bet against any slippery slope, no matter how absurd it seems now.

But the constitutional amendment could theoretically have a path to passage since the House and Senate belong to Republicans as do the majority of State Houses. However realistically, as you said, the majority support gay marriage now so why even bother. If you have to actually make a case for traditional marriage, you've already lost,

 

I guess you'll see in 20 years. I'm betting aganst it, but even if it comes to pass, I'm not going to be much bothered by it.

I agree with this. Nobody I've read or heard of has ever suggested any changes to traditional marriage at all. Even the most outrageous gay-rights parader has no argument with traditional marriage. I myself have a traditional marriage, which won't change in any way. I just can't find it within myself to resent those who can now enjoy what I do, while I lose nothing.

As for those who need someone to deny rights to so they can feel superior, I suspect they've hitched their horse to the wrong wagon. In a generation, people will look back in amazement and confusion at the fulminations and posturing that such as Huckabee and Cruz are doing. They'll say, as many do today, "here's something that benefits many, harms nobody, and we had serious politicians vowing to dedicate their lives to keep harming a minority for the sheer sake of doing harm and nothing else!"

(And along these lines, as of today there is no more "gay marriage", there is just marriage.)

 

What about your birthday suit?

 

I'm glad this is a done deal, and we can move on to better issues rather than having politics continue to be bogged down by something as asinine as this.

And as for the people who think this will lead to earthquakes and tsunamis, I think Saudi Arabia will be happy to take you.

 

Sure. Though, if you saw me, you'd probably not ask.

 

We know how important it is to you to believe that. It lets you tell yourself "if I just don't have sex with that man I'm attracted to, I'm really not gay. REALLY, IM NOT!!!"

 

There's no difference.

 

Odd....because I was willing to bet against your prediction that "churches will be forced by the Government to perform gay marriages"....but you won't even bet on your own clairvoyance.

 

As I told you previously, your bet was dumb.

And as I said it the post you quoted, I said I wouldn't bet against any craziness.

 

>Gay marriage in all 50 states!!
Good example how "democracy" works in United States - 9 people made a decision for all. Who can tell me, BTW, where exactly in constitution, which gays refer all the time, is says something in support of gay marriage? I don't need link to zillion of pages, what are the exact words, where it supports it?

There are 55% support it and 40% don't, according to the research.
http://www.pewresearch.org/data-trend/domestic-issues/attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

You can't even say that it's a true support, I mean without coercion. It's clearly under the gun - if you don't like them - you are "hater, homophobe, etc", people who don't like them will be hunted down by mass media, also you are forced to hire them by law. Anti-gay propaganda will not be shown on a TV.
I would believe that statistics, if either pro-gay and anti-gay propaganda would be outlawed, or both present at equal proportion.

And despite the fact of coercion, these 40% is a great number, it's close to 150 million of US people! And where is a respect to opinion of these people? Who was telling me here, that majority can't take away the rights of the minority? It's clear discrimination- you are forced to deal with something you don't like! They forced you this with no escape!

PS. I see the same people here all the time for years and I perfectly know that trolling is a form of suppression of self-expression.

 

Since marriage is a ''fundamental right,'' states must show a ''compelling state interest'' to block anyone from getting married. Does anyone think Obergefell v Hodges will have any application beyond the right to marry -- such as employment or housing discrimination -- since sexual orientation was not ruled a ''suspect class'' or ''quasi-suspect class'' to determine the level of statutory scrutiny for laws that bible-belt states are sure to enact to circumvent this ruling?

 

14th amendment

 

That argument lends itself to one position and one position only: complete global hegemony.

There is value in local populations having control over their internal policy. That they have very little is he main problem with modern government, and the single defining reason why there's such a democratic deficit across almost all nations.

 

It may. Considering that gay marriage is legal now, companies and corporations are going to have to start paying spousal benefits to gay people. Which will inevitably lead to some company or corporation not wanting to do so, which is going to open the door to future legislation, possibly non-discrimination status.

 

You are completely right.

But we do not condone or allow the populace to vote on minority rights. Why? Because there would be no minority rights.

 

I think you are right. If a private employer refuses to pay a benefit to a gay spouse, then the argument will probably be ''sex discrimination'' [cf- Oncale v Sundance Oil] until and unless the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is amended to include sexual orientation.

 

Did I ask to point me EXACTLY the WORDS which supports such thing as "gay marriage"?

I also wonder how constitution has something to do with definition of the marriage and how it's connected with "discrimination"?
Definition of the marriage it's a unity between man and woman, which was there for 100s of years. How this definition carries discrimination? Its the same as I would say that I am discriminated because I can't be called something like "President". "President" is defined by certain characteristics and since I don't fit it - then I can scream about "discrimination" and demand to redefine it. It sounds ridiculous to me on the same way as "gay marriage".

 

Yes. And the answer is the 14th amendment.

Marriage is a right. Rights can only be denied if a compelling state interest is served by the denial.

And now it's not. Deal with it.

It excluded same sex couples which serves no state interest.

Marriage is a right. Being called president isn't.

See above