Total Posts:194|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Gay Marriage is now the law of the land

ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 10:49:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm a bit surprised no one beat me to this.

The Supreme Court rules 5-4 that states cannot bar same-sex couples from marrying and that there is a constitutionally guaranteed right to marriage.

I have to admit: I'm absolutely stunned at this outcome, but thrilled at this wonderful news. It's really about time that the same Supreme Court that gave us Citizens United does something *right* for a change.

http://www.npr.org...
http://www.nytimes.com...
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 10:53:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Obviously I'm thrilled - and why wouldn't I be? - but I think we should take this thread one step further. What are the political implications of this, particularly on the Republican side? Will the GOP throw in the towel, or will this be a reason to double-down on their opposition to same-sex marriage (i.e., advocate for a constitutional amendment banning it, such that it effectively turns into the new Roe v. Wade)?
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Greyparrot
Posts: 17,217
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 10:54:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2015 10:49:22 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I'm a bit surprised no one beat me to this.

The Supreme Court rules 5-4 that states cannot bar same-sex couples from marrying and that there is a constitutionally guaranteed right to marriage.

I have to admit: I'm absolutely stunned at this outcome, but thrilled at this wonderful news. It's really about time that the same Supreme Court that gave us Citizens United does something *right* for a change.

http://www.npr.org...
http://www.nytimes.com...

I guess that kinda makes up for Obamacare.
I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations.
A singular development of cat communications
That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection,
For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection.
TN05
Posts: 4,661
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 10:57:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2015 10:53:39 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
Obviously I'm thrilled - and why wouldn't I be? - but I think we should take this thread one step further. What are the political implications of this, particularly on the Republican side? Will the GOP throw in the towel, or will this be a reason to double-down on their opposition to same-sex marriage (i.e., advocate for a constitutional amendment banning it, such that it effectively turns into the new Roe v. Wade)?

The next fight is going to be tax-exempt status for churches that don't support gay marriage.
Make Debate.org Great Again!
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 11:01:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2015 10:57:48 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/26/2015 10:53:39 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
Obviously I'm thrilled - and why wouldn't I be? - but I think we should take this thread one step further. What are the political implications of this, particularly on the Republican side? Will the GOP throw in the towel, or will this be a reason to double-down on their opposition to same-sex marriage (i.e., advocate for a constitutional amendment banning it, such that it effectively turns into the new Roe v. Wade)?

The next fight is going to be tax-exempt status for churches that don't support gay marriage.

Why's that? Churches have always opposed same-sex marriage, and there's never been a problem with them advocating that opposition. I don't see that as meddling in the political process, and I certainly wouldn't support, for that reason, removing their tax-exempt status (which isn't to say they ought to have it in the first place, though).
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
dylancatlow
Posts: 13,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 11:04:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Does this mean that gays CAN get married in all 50 states as of right now, or that they're SUPPOSED to be able to?
"In case anyone hasn't noticed it, the West is in extremis. The undertaker is checking his watch at the foot of its bed, and there's a sinister kettle of croaking, money-feathered vultures on the roof."
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,735
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 11:09:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2015 10:49:22 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I'm a bit surprised no one beat me to this.

The Supreme Court rules 5-4 that states cannot bar same-sex couples from marrying and that there is a constitutionally guaranteed right to marriage.

I have to admit: I'm absolutely stunned at this outcome, but thrilled at this wonderful news. It's really about time that the same Supreme Court that gave us Citizens United does something *right* for a change.

http://www.npr.org...
http://www.nytimes.com...

http://www.debate.org...

;)
I think it is well established that the only reason aliens come to earth is to slice up cows and examine inside peoples' bottoms. Unless you are a cow or suffer haemerrhoids I don't think there is anything to worry about from aliens. - keithprosser

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 11:09:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2015 11:04:33 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Does this mean that gays CAN get married in all 50 states as of right now, or that they're SUPPOSED to be able to?

I'm not really sure if I can conceive of the difference, unless a Supreme Court ruling had no binder power, though obviously it does. So, I guess, absent some form of state-wide resistance somewhere in the South, people *can* get married in all 50 states as of this moment.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 11:10:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2015 11:09:02 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/26/2015 10:49:22 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I'm a bit surprised no one beat me to this.

The Supreme Court rules 5-4 that states cannot bar same-sex couples from marrying and that there is a constitutionally guaranteed right to marriage.

I have to admit: I'm absolutely stunned at this outcome, but thrilled at this wonderful news. It's really about time that the same Supreme Court that gave us Citizens United does something *right* for a change.

http://www.npr.org...
http://www.nytimes.com...

http://www.debate.org...

;)

I saw it after, lol. Does anyone go in the news forum?

Nevertheless, this is such a momentous occasion that we really should be plastering it across DDO.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 11:14:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2015 10:57:48 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/26/2015 10:53:39 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
Obviously I'm thrilled - and why wouldn't I be? - but I think we should take this thread one step further. What are the political implications of this, particularly on the Republican side? Will the GOP throw in the towel, or will this be a reason to double-down on their opposition to same-sex marriage (i.e., advocate for a constitutional amendment banning it, such that it effectively turns into the new Roe v. Wade)?

The next fight is going to be tax-exempt status for churches that don't support gay marriage.

It'll be exactly as much of a fight as tax-exempt status for churches that don't support divorce.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 11:14:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2015 11:10:34 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:

this is such a momentous occasion that we really should be plastering it across DDO.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
dylancatlow
Posts: 13,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 11:22:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2015 11:09:47 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 6/26/2015 11:04:33 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Does this mean that gays CAN get married in all 50 states as of right now, or that they're SUPPOSED to be able to?

I'm not really sure if I can conceive of the difference, unless a Supreme Court ruling had no binder power, though obviously it does. So, I guess, absent some form of state-wide resistance somewhere in the South, people *can* get married in all 50 states as of this moment.

There's often a disparity between federal law and (effective) state law.
"In case anyone hasn't noticed it, the West is in extremis. The undertaker is checking his watch at the foot of its bed, and there's a sinister kettle of croaking, money-feathered vultures on the roof."
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 11:23:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2015 11:22:40 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/26/2015 11:09:47 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 6/26/2015 11:04:33 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Does this mean that gays CAN get married in all 50 states as of right now, or that they're SUPPOSED to be able to?

I'm not really sure if I can conceive of the difference, unless a Supreme Court ruling had no binder power, though obviously it does. So, I guess, absent some form of state-wide resistance somewhere in the South, people *can* get married in all 50 states as of this moment.

There's often a disparity between federal law and (effective) state law.

I suppose that's possible, though again I'm admittedly uneducated on the intricacies of that. In what way could that be the case here? Would it have to involve, say, Texas refusing to enforce the decision?
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Gmork
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 11:36:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I haven't read much on the matter, but is this that states must marry same-sex couples, or that they must honor a marriage from a state that does?
TN05
Posts: 4,661
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 11:36:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2015 11:14:08 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/26/2015 10:57:48 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/26/2015 10:53:39 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
Obviously I'm thrilled - and why wouldn't I be? - but I think we should take this thread one step further. What are the political implications of this, particularly on the Republican side? Will the GOP throw in the towel, or will this be a reason to double-down on their opposition to same-sex marriage (i.e., advocate for a constitutional amendment banning it, such that it effectively turns into the new Roe v. Wade)?

The next fight is going to be tax-exempt status for churches that don't support gay marriage.

It'll be exactly as much of a fight as tax-exempt status for churches that don't support divorce.

Maybe the Solicitor General shouldn't have suggested that tax exempt status would be in question, then.
Make Debate.org Great Again!
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 11:37:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2015 10:57:48 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/26/2015 10:53:39 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
Obviously I'm thrilled - and why wouldn't I be? - but I think we should take this thread one step further. What are the political implications of this, particularly on the Republican side? Will the GOP throw in the towel, or will this be a reason to double-down on their opposition to same-sex marriage (i.e., advocate for a constitutional amendment banning it, such that it effectively turns into the new Roe v. Wade)?

The next fight is going to be tax-exempt status for churches that don't support gay marriage.

No, no tax exempt status for ALL churches.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 11:40:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2015 11:36:40 AM, Gmork wrote:
I haven't read much on the matter, but is this that states must marry same-sex couples, or that they must honor a marriage from a state that does?

Both.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 11:42:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2015 11:36:42 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/26/2015 11:14:08 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/26/2015 10:57:48 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/26/2015 10:53:39 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
Obviously I'm thrilled - and why wouldn't I be? - but I think we should take this thread one step further. What are the political implications of this, particularly on the Republican side? Will the GOP throw in the towel, or will this be a reason to double-down on their opposition to same-sex marriage (i.e., advocate for a constitutional amendment banning it, such that it effectively turns into the new Roe v. Wade)?

The next fight is going to be tax-exempt status for churches that don't support gay marriage.

It'll be exactly as much of a fight as tax-exempt status for churches that don't support divorce.

Maybe the Solicitor General shouldn't have suggested that tax exempt status would be in question, then.

Except, as far as I know, that's just a false statement, and it's rather disingenuous to misquote someone--that's usually why it's best to link or quote a claim. As far as I know, what he said/suggested was:

"It"s certainly going to be an issue," Solicitor General Donald Verrilli replied when Justice Samuel Alito asked if schools that support the traditional definition of marriage would have to be treated like schools that once opposed interracial marriage. "I don"t deny that."

(http://www.nationalreview.com...)

Schools are not churches. Non-church institutions are, rather definitionally, not churches.

If you have a quote that actually is about churches, I'd like to see it.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,568
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 11:42:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2015 11:41:50 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Oh and fvck you Antonin Scalia. You're a disgrace to history.

I have to bring that up whenever the Supreme Court does something.
"It's the PUPPY IN THE SKY!" -TBR's kid

DDO Risk King
TN05
Posts: 4,661
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 11:44:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2015 11:37:38 AM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 6/26/2015 10:57:48 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/26/2015 10:53:39 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
Obviously I'm thrilled - and why wouldn't I be? - but I think we should take this thread one step further. What are the political implications of this, particularly on the Republican side? Will the GOP throw in the towel, or will this be a reason to double-down on their opposition to same-sex marriage (i.e., advocate for a constitutional amendment banning it, such that it effectively turns into the new Roe v. Wade)?

The next fight is going to be tax-exempt status for churches that don't support gay marriage.

No, no tax exempt status for ALL churches.

Because non-profits should only pay taxes if they are religions, amirite?
Make Debate.org Great Again!
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,568
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 11:45:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2015 11:42:18 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/26/2015 11:41:50 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Oh and fvck you Antonin Scalia. You're a disgrace to history.

I have to bring that up whenever the Supreme Court does something.

At least Roberts wasn't deliberately a dick in his dissent.
"It's the PUPPY IN THE SKY!" -TBR's kid

DDO Risk King
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,568
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 11:47:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2015 11:44:35 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/26/2015 11:37:38 AM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 6/26/2015 10:57:48 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 6/26/2015 10:53:39 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
Obviously I'm thrilled - and why wouldn't I be? - but I think we should take this thread one step further. What are the political implications of this, particularly on the Republican side? Will the GOP throw in the towel, or will this be a reason to double-down on their opposition to same-sex marriage (i.e., advocate for a constitutional amendment banning it, such that it effectively turns into the new Roe v. Wade)?

The next fight is going to be tax-exempt status for churches that don't support gay marriage.

No, no tax exempt status for ALL churches.

Because non-profits should only pay taxes if they are religions, amirite?

It's not whether they're a religion - stop acting like a victim. It's about determining whether they're eligible for the status (all non-profits get their status reviewed), and sometimes even determining whether they are non-profit in the first place.
"It's the PUPPY IN THE SKY!" -TBR's kid

DDO Risk King
twocupcakes
Posts: 3,412
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 12:11:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2015 11:42:18 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/26/2015 11:41:50 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Oh and fvck you Antonin Scalia. You're a disgrace to history.

I have to bring that up whenever the Supreme Court does something.

Scalia is the best argument as to why Justices should be able to be kicked out of the Supreme Court
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 12:13:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Scalia is fantastic. How can you not love the guy? "The court has no evangelical Christians. Clearly it is narrow, unrepresentative, and not diverse." (Paraphrase). He's a riot.
annanicole
Posts: 21,193
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 12:14:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2015 10:49:22 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I'm a bit surprised no one beat me to this.

The Supreme Court rules 5-4 that states cannot bar same-sex couples from marrying and that there is a constitutionally guaranteed right to marriage.

I have to admit: I'm absolutely stunned at this outcome, but thrilled at this wonderful news.

To me, it is deja vous of Brown vs Topeka School Board. Both decisions were made upon purely sociological grounds with only a smattering of "constitutional authority" invoked here or there. As Justice Roberts said,

"Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits," he wrote. "But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."

Of COURSE it didn't! I think everyone knows that. Heck, people knew that back in 1954 when the Brown decision was handed down.
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 12:33:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2015 10:49:22 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I'm a bit surprised no one beat me to this.

The Supreme Court rules 5-4 that states cannot bar same-sex couples from marrying and that there is a constitutionally guaranteed right to marriage.

I have to admit: I'm absolutely stunned at this outcome, but thrilled at this wonderful news. It's really about time that the same Supreme Court that gave us Citizens United does something *right* for a change.

http://www.npr.org...
http://www.nytimes.com...

I wasn't as stunned by the outcome as you were. Justice Kennedy has a history of supporting gay rights, and we knew from the get-go that he would be the deciding vote.

I'm glad it happened, though. Imo, this issue isn't even debatable. What I really want to see now is how the republican cantidates will react and if/how their campaigns will change regarding this issue.
Pixelated
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 12:34:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww gay people the law doesnt matter, people will still call them... HEY you GAY n00b!!!! wierdo! etc.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 12:48:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2015 11:04:33 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Does this mean that gays CAN get married in all 50 states as of right now, or that they're SUPPOSED to be able to?

The former. However, the ruling will take a while to go into effect - but it's still legally binding.

As of right now, gays WILL be able to get married in all 50 states.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault