131–140 of 1001 posts
As a non american, does the US Government have an official definition of marriage that is going to change today? I understand the social consequences. But what legal rights have been granted now that did not exist previously ?
I don't know all (or many) of the specifics but I know a big one is that in certain states/situations partners were not guaranteed visitation rights in the hospital on the grounds that they weren't legally married.
If love is about ignoring race,class,gender,age shouldn't it be about ignoring numbers, too? Polygamy is the next hurdle for society. The judges should declare all consenting marriage legal !
Why the downvotes? Is that not a valid point? Or is it bad because it's a point used by the opposing side? Or is the problem the way it was stated?
I think it's a point that can be convincingly argued, but the legalization of SSM does not imply a requirement for polygamous marriage's legalization. They're entirely different issues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, you should start leading again by cross-species marriage too. It may sound bizarre now but that's how same sex marriage was a 100 years back. Marrying your pets should be legal too.
>Yeah, you should start leading again by cross-species marriage too. They keyword is consent. Animals can't consent. Children can't consent. Having said that, in a few years (decades?), I could see poly-marriages also getting equal standing under the law.
Yeah, I'm still slightly pissed they basically waited until the majority was clear before they'd rule on the matter. Its another clear sign our Judiciary is really just as political as the politicians are, even if no one says so openly. > As late as October, the justices ducked the issue, refusing to hear appeals from rulings allowing same-sex marriage in five states. That decision delivered a tacit victory for gay r…
The title of the post is incorrect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't get the tl;dr summary of Scalia's dissent; actually read it. Scalia is obnoxious and mean-spirited (and in fine form this time), but he's a really good writer, the fun- to- read kind. IIRC, he wrote a book on writing with Brian Garner, of usage dictionary fame.
I respect Scalia as a scholar and philosopher. But I couldn't find anything in his dissent that couldn't equally apply to desegregation.
I mean really - placing the interests of the state ahead of basic human rights? What could be a more fundamental violation of your rights than to be put to death for a crime you didn't commit?
In a theoretical world where no death penalty existed and was replaced with a life sentence it would at least be possible for someone that was wrongly convicted to be released from prison if exculpatory evidence comes to light.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whichever way he meant it, his comment shows a very dismissive attitude toward the massive work that was involved in accomplishing this. It's true it shouldn't have been a fight, but it was. And the idea that there are so many "more important" issues, is also incredibly dismissive to how important the right to marriage equality is.
Just because you see it as dismissive doesn't make it so. You don't get to decide the intent of the statement. You can state your opinion about it and ask for clarification, but you don't get to define it for your own purposes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True. We don't say "gay passport" or "black diploma" or "woman's fishing license".
And yet the news reports I've heard on the shooting in Charleston kept mentioning "9 African Americans". No one calls the "white" folks (that would probably be me) "European Americans" or "Caucasian Americans" in the reports. It's just silly.
Nevermind that black people also come from: Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, Thailand, etc.
The ruling that had vastly more wide-reaching effects this week is that they upheld the the terrible "Affordable" Care Act. This act is a capitalist abomination of much more well thought-out socialist single-payer plans. Now that health insurance companies have a state granted monopoly, there's no reason to bring prices down or change anything.