So my friend is telling me that tomorrow the USSC is supposed to have a decision...

[KawaiiKitty]

Just thought I would get the ball rolling with a thread to contain all the chatter about it

Personally I really think they are going about this all the wrong way. They are trying to force the acceptance of gay marriage through the courts. You cant in any way force people to accept you and it be a true acceptance. How would you feel if someone legally forced you to accept something that you didnt approve of? That is essentially what they are doing.

Im afraid its gonna wind up like the whole alcohol thing. The feds told the states that they HAVE to sell alcohol to 21 years or older or they will cut fed money to that state. All the feds have to do is tell the states they have to legalize gay marriage or they will cut spending. Although Alabama did hold out til 1999 on the 21+ drinking thing.

Your thoughts?

[Pix]

You cant in any way force people to accept you and it be a true acceptance. How would you feel if someone legally forced you to accept something that you didnt approve of? That is essentially what they are doing

You mean like when the courts forced the states to accept interracial marriage?

And so what? People don't have the right to to tell me who I can marry or not. At least not based on the Bible anyway (separation of church and state).

Im afraid its gonna wind up like the whole alcohol thing. The feds told the states that they HAVE to sell alcohol to 21 years or older or they will cut fed money to that state. All the feds have to do is tell the states they have to legalize gay marriage or they will cut spending. Although Alabama did hold out til 1999 on the 21+ drinking thing.

Your thoughts?

I think Alabama should be fine without the taxes, they don't want a big federal government in their lives anyway, and if it means less federal support just to practice bigotry then they should own it, just as they do allowing first cousins full marriage equality. Aren't they all about states rights and less people getting taxes?

x


Oh, and btw, they're (USSC) normally referred to as the SCOTUS (Supreme Court Of The United States).

[KawaiiKitty]

You mean like when the courts forced the states to accept interracial marriage?

And so what? People don't have the right to to tell me who I can marry or not. At least not based on the Bible anyway (separation of church and state).




I think Alabama should be fine without the taxes, they don't want a big federal government in their lives anyway, and if it means less federal support just to practice bigotry then they should own it, just as they do allowing first cousins full marriage equality. Aren't they all about states rights and less people getting taxes?

x


Oh, and btw, they're (USSC) normally referred to as the SCOTUS (Supreme Court Of The United States).

oh yeah thats the part I forgot to mention...I know the courts have forced stuff that we now look back on as a good thing like segregation and interracial marriage. I was gonna make that a counterpoint but I totally forgot lol

I just dont know which is better. I guess only history will tell.

and I think USSC is still used as well as SCOTUS

My whole problem with this situation is there are states that have constitutional amendments that were voted for and passed by the people of that state. You really cant get much more American than that. Direct voting of a law into being a law by the people of a state. Thats what this nation was founded on. To go against their wishes seems to be going against everything that America has stood for in its 200+ years of existence. Do we really want to allow the court to come along and sideline the will of the people whenever they feel like it? Like I said I think the legal and social ramifications of this is something alot both people on either side of the sexual orientation agenda hasnt thought out thoroughly.

[Genersis]

Well, I think it the least painful way. Though unlikely.
Better than every state one by one legalising it over, say, 20 years, with lots AND LOTS of constant crying, bitching, calls of the end of days coming, ETC.

By no means would it breed acceptance.
That's not the point of legalising marriage for same-sex couples; it's to give them equality under law.

The tolerance, and hopefully acceptance, will, with any luck, come after once the bigoted realise the world isn't about to collapse around them because two men or women can get married.

It's not really forcing the acceptance of anything.

[naitsirc]

Minorities should be protected by law. A true democracy is not just one person one vote but includes a Bill of Rights which guarantees certain freedoms which should be open to all. The law should protect these rights. For example the right to life means that the state cannot and should not deprive a person of his life no matter how heinous that persons crime, that is what prison is for, to remove the person from society and attempt to rehabilitate. Even if a majority were in favour of the death penalty that does not mean the majority should decide. The same is true of gay marriage, it is not something the majority will engage in but why should that argument be used to not allow it. Modern society is not homogenous but consists of many different religions, cultures, races, etc. To deny minorities certain rights simply because they are in the minority sets a dangerous precedent. There will be no consensus on certain views, but the foundation of all societies should be mutual respect. In any case the attitude to gay marriage has changed so considerably over the past ten years that in a generation or two it will probably and hopefully be accepted by the majority. New challenges will no doubt take centre stage.

[OrphanPip]

My whole problem with this situation is there are states that have constitutional amendments that were voted for and passed by the people of that state. You really cant get much more American than that. Direct voting of a law into being a law by the people of a state. Thats what this nation was founded on. To go against their wishes seems to be going against everything that America has stood for in its 200+ years of existence. Do we really want to allow the court to come along and sideline the will of the people whenever they feel like it? Like I said I think the legal and social ramifications of this is something alot both people on either side of the sexual orientation agenda hasnt thought out thoroughly.

States currently can't provide full marriage rights to gays even if they wanted to so long as SCOTUS does not strike down DOMA which bars gay couples from federal status even in states where gay marriage is legal.

[BorneoJake]

I could really care if someone disagrees with gay marriage. Its really actually very simple if you don't believe in same sex marriage then don't marry someone of the same sex. The only people I want to be accepted by are the people who are important to me in my life. No matter how many laws you pass, theres always going to be someone who disapproves.

[Pix]

My whole problem with this situation is there are states that have constitutional amendments that were voted for and passed by the people of that state. You really cant get much more American than that. Direct voting of a law into being a law by the people of a state. Thats what this nation was founded on. To go against their wishes seems to be going against everything that America has stood for in its 200+ years of existence. Do we really want to allow the court to come along and sideline the will of the people whenever they feel like it? Like I said I think the legal and social ramifications of this is something alot both people on either side of the sexual orientation agenda hasnt thought out thoroughly.

The courts exist to make sure such laws are constitutional. As many conservatives will tell you themselves (when it's convenient) we live in a republic, not a democracy, and the majority cannot vote away the rights of a minority. And btw, there were constitutional bans against interracial marriage as well so if you support the antigay amendments based on this reasoning then how can you not support the bans against interracial marriage (also thrown out by the courts)? :confused:

I personally do not believe Americans should be able to vote to make anyone a second class citizen, be they black or gay, and the courts agree (well more often than not...). That's very American.

[ardus]

oh yeah thats the part I forgot to mention...I know the courts have forced stuff that we now look back on as a good thing like segregation and interracial marriage. I was gonna make that a counterpoint but I totally forgot lol

I just dont know which is better. I guess only history will tell.

and I think USSC is still used as well as SCOTUS

My whole problem with this situation is there are states that have constitutional amendments that were voted for and passed by the people of that state. You really cant get much more American than that. Direct voting of a law into being a law by the people of a state. Thats what this nation was founded on. To go against their wishes seems to be going against everything that America has stood for in its 200+ years of existence. Do we really want to allow the court to come along and sideline the will of the people whenever they feel like it? Like I said I think the legal and social ramifications of this is something alot both people on either side of the sexual orientation agenda hasnt thought out thoroughly.

The Judicial Branch of our government has several purposes, but the one which I think is most important, and the one which many people forget, is to protect the people of the United States from tyranny and oppression, which right now, is coming from the legislative branch, in the form of unconstitutional laws that restrict the freedoms of one class of American Citizens.
It's going to take time, but eventually people will look back on this time in American history the way we now look back on the 50s and 60s civil rights movements.
Richard

[pellaz]

... they are going about this all the wrong way. They are trying to force the acceptance of gay marriage through the courts ...

yep they will release their decision in an hour or so; 10am EST). I guess thats about 3pm in the UK.

US is made up of loosely bound states, they expect fed intervention:
gay rights (employment discrimination, marriage, federal benefits, adoption ... ) is taking the path suffrage and or inter racial marriage took. In the past the more social conservative states, mostly located in the south east US, held out to the very end. Imagine a law saying you could not vote because your were a woman? Or could not marry because your race, color skin? Or that job or bank loan was not yours because of the color of your skin? Same along the lines of being gay and having to come out to your parents after living with them for 15-20 years.

the designation of marriage is important because:
-there are federal and state benefits tied to being married.
-granted you could piece meal legal documents together but marriage brings with it a tidy legal package that is tested in the courts. If you and partner ever think of adopting, owning common property and having a career, starting a business.
-it changes the playing field of the gay population where before gays were expected to do the bath houses till they were too old to do the bath house stairs.

time frame for the decision:
Its the last day of the current session so good or bad i bet the ruling will be controversial. The court is hoping the hoopla will die down while the court is out of session.