Breaking: Per SCOTUS, Same-Sex Marriage is now law of the land.

[HoughMade]

OK, I like the way you think.

How's this? I don't need, or even want a machine gun. I just feel like NFA of 1936 represses my ammosexuality.

It needs work, but it seems like a good starting point. Since the only thing that speaks to SCOTUS is sex, maybe they'll listen.

Well, that's one way to keep people from borrowing your guns.

 

[Eight]

No, what the SCOTUS did was uphold the rights of the minority in lieu of the voice of the mob.

Will you be vocal when the rights of those who dissent are threatened? Those rights are actually spelled out in the Constitution. And by mob do you mean the reasoned positions of individuals and those who represent them?

 

[seedubs1]

Nothing like a little bit of mob rule, amirite?

And no, with my position on religion, I wouldn't personally stand up for any of them. I personally think the world would be better off without organized religion. But I support your rights and freedom to stand up for them if you wish.

Will you be vocal when the rights of those who dissent are threatened? Those rights are actually spelled out in the Constitution. And by mob do you mean the reasoned positions of individuals and those who represent them?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

OK, I like the way you think.

How's this? I don't need, or even want a machine gun. I just feel like NFA of 1936 represses my ammosexuality.

It needs work, but it seems like a good starting point. Since the only thing that speaks to SCOTUS is sex, maybe they'll listen.

I like it! Where's the petition??

 

[miguel]

BANG. That was fast.

It?s Time to Legalize Polygamy - Fredrik deBoer - POLITICO Magazine

Excellent!

That is one thing I hope Congress will fast track. The sooner it happens, the sooner the house of cards collapses.

 

[HoughMade]

Clearly the drafters of the 14th Amendment saw the future and had in their minds that an amendment passed in the wake of the Civil War, the abolition of slavery and clearly intended to give full citizenship and rights to African-Americans, should be used to make gay marriage not only legal, but mandated. That's some awesome foresight.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Clearly the drafters of the 14th Amendment saw the future and had in their minds that an amendment passed in the wake of the Civil War, the abolition of slavery and clearly intended to give full citizenship and rights to African-Americans, should be used to make gay marriage not only legal, but mandated. That's some awesome foresight.

Yet Piers Morgan would tell you 2A was restricted to muskets. /shrug

Dunno, I'm not a constitutional scholar.

 

[Sylvain]

 

[BehindBlueI's]

If someone leaves a polygamous marriage, would it count as multiple divorces, statistically speaking?

No. If man has multiple wives he is married multiple times, but the wife is only married to the husband, not the other wives. Each divorce is still a single divorce.

I propose we outlaw divorces, though. Sanctity of marriage, after all.

 

[Eight]

Nothing like a little bit of mob rule, amirite?

And no, with my position on religion, I wouldn't personally stand up for any of them. I personally think the world would be better off without organized religion. But I support your rights and freedom to stand up for them if you wish.

I just want to know if I can count on you for bail money if that time comes.

 

[foszoe]

Lets not talk about that, please. I think the man has committed crimes for which he should answer in a court of law. Since that won't happen, I hope he loses all credibility and lives out his years in peaceful ignominy. But frankly, I consider anything beyond that as unspeakable, and don't even like to read about it. I know you're not advocating such, but that subject is revolting to me.

Definitely not advocating at all. Was thinking about the consquences of the act and not condoning it in the least. I do apologize for the offense. It was certainly not my intent.

 

[HoughMade]

No. If man has multiple wives he is married multiple times, but the wife is only married to the husband, not the other wives...

Pffft. That's so 1850.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I know this is a popular thing to say in cases that don't immediately and directly affect you personally... but the precedents, the things that follow, and the affects on the State's ability to govern itself... Those can/will/do affect you.

Something about a slow boil... I forget the exact saying.

Some citizens did not have equal protection under the law based on their sexual preference. They did not have the same right to not testify against their spouse, for example. Now they do. They have been brought up to the same level of rights (and liberties!) that straight married couples have. Nothing more, nothing less.

What precedent was set that will shrink my liberty, and which liberty?

 

[Lowe0]

Allowing same sex couples to marry promotes the forming of long term stable relationships, encourages them to own joint property such as real estate, and creates two-parent homes that could adopt, reducing the burden on the government to care for those children. What countervailing economic benefits are there to preventing same sex marriage? (And if the answer is "none" then why expend resources trying to prevent it?)

 

[jamil]

I don't think so. The lawsuits will come.

No church should be forced to do anything they don't want to do. I'm willing to put a lot of money on a bet that people will try. We'll see.



I'm not confident that people will care. This will be the next big issue.

I hear shaming people into social compliance works pretty well.

 

[HoughMade]

Allowing same sex couples to marry promotes the forming of long term stable relationships, encourages them to own joint property such as real estate, and creates two-parent homes that could adopt, reducing the burden on the government to care for those children. What countervailing economic benefits are there to preventing same sex marriage? (And if the answer is "none" then why expend resources trying to prevent it?)

I hear shaming people into social compliance works pretty well.

These are political arguments, not legal ones. You know, the kind of debate that happens when people attempt to change the law through legislatures....the representative republic.

I know. Passe'

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Louisiana will be waiting 25 days to allow gay marriage:

https://www.ag.state.la.us/Article.aspx?articleID=1037&catID=2


Gotta think there's a number of gay couples out there having that awkward conversation of... "Well, you said if they legalized it we would... so uh."

Heh, that's dedication to the job:

 

[DoggyDaddy]

No. If man has multiple wives he is married multiple times, but the wife is only married to the husband, not the other wives. Each divorce is still a single divorce.

I propose we outlaw divorces, though. Sanctity of marriage, after all.

But what if it's a bisexual polygamous marriage??

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Allowing same sex couples to marry promotes the forming of long term stable relationships, encourages them to own joint property such as real estate, and creates two-parent homes that could adopt, reducing the burden on the government to care for those children. What countervailing economic benefits are there to preventing same sex marriage? (And if the answer is "none" then why expend resources trying to prevent it?)

Yeah, and traditional marriage has a stellar track record in that regard. Seems legit.

 

[steveh_131]

Which of my liberties shrunk?

Your liberty to cast your vote in a state election for an elected government that has the sovereignty to decide policy without federal bullying.

Every time the feds usurp more power from the states, your liberties shrink.