useless
Social Justice Rogue
Homosexuality is not a choice.
Decision on Prop 8 pending
- Thread starter useless
- Start date
- Status
Mango Elephant
Deity
Why should we stop when you can screw around with whoever you want? Just because we don't have sex doesn't mean we stop being gay. And why should we stop having sex in the first place? Because of your religion, because of your beliefs? Why should we adhere to your heterosexualist opinions?
He achieved infamy status back in 1992.
Edit: And if it's inevitable, then he doesn't need to rule on in its favor
He didn't get to write the opinion of Planned Parenthood though, as well his vote was non-essential for its ruling, and the case was really just re-affirming Roe v. Wade. A minor blip in the history books, unlike what this case might be.
And he doesn't need to do anything, but maybe he wants to be the most important person responsible for same-sex marriage rights.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Or maybe he's just doing his job.
He might have written the opinion, but he was the deciding vote, after a bit of arm-wrenching, and this after reports were that he initially had decided to vote against PP. And considering the issue, it's hard to call it a blip (Hell, most conservatives still haven't forgotten). At any rate, I don't think there's a single judge on the bench, save for except maybe Ginsburg, who would go so far as to invalidate hundreds of state laws (and force multiple states to rewrite their Constitutions), which is what would have to happen for SCOTUS to rule in favor of the gay marriage proponents. Can't see that happening, really. The backlash would be nothing short of amazing.
Fighting to redefine marriage IS fighting to make the rights equal; the fight for equal rights ends when marriage is redefined. There's no massive social conservative movement to give homosexual marriages equal rights (though a different name) to heterosexual marriage, all efforts for equal rights have been against social conservatives.
IF they'd been smart, they could have really deflated the push to redefine marriage by pushing for equalisation of rights, instead. But they didn't. In fact, social conservatives fought against the equalisation of rights.
Fighting for gay marriages is possible through multiple avenues. Fighting for equal rights is possible through multiple avenues. The efforts complement themselves.
Merkinball
Deity
This argument has been copyrighted by me on this board long ago. You will soon be hearing from my lawyers.
You don't think Sotomayor and Breyer are sure votes for gay marriage as well? We don't know much about Kagan, but she seems somewhat likely to be on their side.
I do not think the backlash would be comparable to say that of Brown, a case that actually affected the lives of southerners. The religious evangelicals will surely make a big fuss about their religious freedoms being infringed and the homofascist indoctrination of their children for a bit, but I think the opposition will fade rather quickly as they see that it hasn't any impact on them, save for a minuscule rise in spending for gay couples' benefits.
I was wrong about Kennedy's vote being non-essential though. I didn't know Ginsberg's predecessor was pro-life.
Merkinball
Deity
Yes we do
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
Ah right she's David Mitchell in drag, I remember her
Yes we do
What are you saying? That this is surely the face of a lesbian, or something?
Regardless, if Kennedy is in any position to vote in favor of gay marriage, then the 4 liberals will almost certainly fall in line, assuming Ginsburg holds on for how ever long the appeals process takes, or Obama's choice for her replacement has like-minded views.
Merkinball
Deity
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
For some it assuredly is. We havent found that gay gene yet, and according to what I have read in regards to it, behavioral/background issues play just as much a part (if not more so) as chemical/biological issues do.
You're absolutely right that forcing the issue on people who are not ready does piss them off. Let me quote LBJ on passing the civil rights act: "We have lost the South for a generation"
You know what, sucks to be the racist who lost that fight. Just because they weren't ready to get over their insane beliefs doesn't mean the rest of the country should have coddled them.
I know you dislike it when we keep referencing the civil rights movement, but it is largely the same.
Again with the racial issues.
And I point out that far more people were in favor of ending slavery, and racial segregation than are in favor of gay marriage, and it still took a civil war and decades upon decades to make a difference on those fronts. And that was for issues that were assuredly grim, serious, and needed to be changed in our country. In comparison, people look at the gay marriage issue and go /meh.
Bottom line, gays have never had it as bad as blacks did (or do) in this country. Hell, do you even realize that prop 8 might not have even passed without the black vote?
So what? Your argument is this: "you can't call it a civil rights issue because gays don't have it as bad as blacks did." So what? That doesn't make the treatment of gays in the US right in any sense.
Why isn't this considered trolling?
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
No it wont. It will just be that way until the next argument is made to redefine it even further....i.e polygamy and onwards.
Actually, in California, where all this is coming from, they absolutely did. Remember, they approved civil unions with equal rights years ago.
civver_764
Deity
Which is why it's simpler to stop recognizing marriages. Otherwise polygamy should very well be allowed.
Why do you even care if gay people can get married? It doesn't affect you in the slightest. Quit imposing your morality on other people.
useless
Social Justice Rogue
So you chose to be straight? If that is so, i ask you to try to change your sexual orientation to that of a homosexual. Come back when you do this and prove your views correct otherwise stop spouting a blatant mistruth.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
The big difference there was that those in favor of racial civil rights at that time were a decided majority....those opposed a minority.
Thats simply not the case right here and now. In fact, its the opposite.
No, I dont think its a civil rights issue because there is no 'right' to marriage that I know of in the consitution. I think the closest thing that comes to that is 'pursuit of happiness' with emphasis on 'pursuit'.
Those civil unions were not equal, and the marriages that will soon be allowed still won't be equal to different-sex marriages. Only Massachusetts (I think?) allows for the same rights because the state sued over DOMA, and even now, no gay couple has the freedom to move to 45 states and maintain their rights, as well as conflicts with foreign partners being able to come here.
- Status
Similar threads
