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: 1 year 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: 1 year 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: 14,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 10:54:01 AM
Posted: 1 year 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.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 10:57:48 AM
Posted: 1 year 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.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 11:01:12 AM
Posted: 1 year 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
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 11:09:02 AM
Posted: 1 year 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...

;)
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

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: 1 year 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: 1 year 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: 1 year 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: 1 year 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: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 11:22:40 AM
Posted: 1 year 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.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 11:23:59 AM
Posted: 1 year 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: 1 year 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: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 11:36:42 AM
Posted: 1 year 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.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 11:37:38 AM
Posted: 1 year 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.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 11:39:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Right on the second anniversary of DOMA being ruled unconstitutional.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 11:40:18 AM
Posted: 1 year 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.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 11:41:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Oh and fvck you Antonin Scalia. You're a disgrace to history.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 11:42:03 AM
Posted: 1 year 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: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 11:42:18 AM
Posted: 1 year 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 awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 11:44:35 AM
Posted: 1 year 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?
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 11:45:12 AM
Posted: 1 year 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 awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 11:47:44 AM
Posted: 1 year 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 awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 12:11:38 PM
Posted: 1 year 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: 1 year 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: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 12:14:10 PM
Posted: 1 year 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.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 12:33:32 PM
Posted: 1 year 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: 1 year 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: 1 year 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