Supreme Court to Decide on Same-Sex Marriage

[The Orson Empire]

Wait...now we are getting on the topic of abortion. Let's not make this a threadjack.

Only making a point...

Yes, I know. I just don't want us to get warned for threadjacking.

[Farnhamia]

Only making a point...

Yes, I know. I just don't want us to get warned for threadjacking.

*looms ominously, though no one can do that as well as Reppy*

[Sheltopolis]

States may secede if they don't want to recognize gay marriage.

I hope they enjoy getting their ass kicked.

If a state can join the Union they can leave it.

[Farnhamia]

I hope they enjoy getting their ass kicked.

If a state can join the Union they can leave it.

Secession is not the topic.

[Sheltopolis]

If a state can join the Union they can leave it.

Secession is not the topic.

fuck i get sidetracked easily

[The Orson Empire]

I hope they enjoy getting their ass kicked.

If a state can join the Union they can leave it.

Dude, don't go off topic again. Same-sex marriage is the topic.

[Katganistan]

What does that have to do with the price of wheat? Marriage is marriage.

Wait what? No, I am just saying that your comparison to Rove V Wade is a bad one. I agree with you in principle, but it would make for a bad court argument. The right to Abortion does not equal the right to marry civilly.

A civil marriage is paid for by the state?
Abortion was not disapproved by the state?

[Katganistan]

I was under the impression that applied to people, not clumps of cells.

A human is also just a clump of cells if you think long and hard about it.

A sentient clump of cells.
Is a haircut an act of violence?
But, we're off topic.

[Sheltopolis]

A human is also just a clump of cells if you think long and hard about it.

A sentient clump of cells.
Is a haircut an act of violence?
But, we're off topic.

5 day ban for threadjack

[Cannabis Islands]

Wait what? No, I am just saying that your comparison to Rove V Wade is a bad one. I agree with you in principle, but it would make for a bad court argument. The right to Abortion does not equal the right to marry civilly.

A civil marriage is paid for by the state?
Abortion was not disapproved by the state?

No, that is not what I am saying. Typically, an abortion does not require state or government approval and is not paid for by the state. A civil marriage, which does involve the government is a different issue. For example, when a state recognizes a marriage, the couple is granted a certain number of rights and privileges. So, we are talking about whenever or not same-sex couples have the right to access these set of rights and privileges that are granted by the government, and are given to heterosexual couples.

An abortion is a medical procedure.

[Katganistan]

A civil marriage is paid for by the state?
Abortion was not disapproved by the state?

No, that is not what I am saying. Typically, an abortion does not require state or government approval and is not paid for by the state. A civil marriage, which does involve the government is a different issue. For example, when a state recognizes a marriage, the couple is granted a certain number of rights and privileges. So, we are talking about whenever or not same-sex couples have the right to access these set of rights and privileges that are granted by the government, and are given to heterosexual couples.

An abortion is a medical procedure.

One which was previously banned by law, which was later decided to be unconstitutional.

Marriage already exists, is already legal, already has those benefits attached to it.

There is no constitutional reason to ban it for SOME people. There is no 'loss' incurred here by the state. The unconstitutionality is in saying that only SOME legal consenting adults are not allowed to enjoy its benefits, and it's no one's business what legal, consenting adults do.

The idea that there is some right to deny rights to people because of how they live their lives when their lives affect you NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST is as ludicrous as telling women that the decisions made by them and their doctors are up to popular opinion.

[Katganistan]

A sentient clump of cells.
Is a haircut an act of violence?
But, we're off topic.

5 day ban for threadjack

You don't want to be impersonating a moderator.

[Sheltopolis]

5 day ban for threadjack

You don't want to be impersonating a moderator.

k sorry

[Bezkoshtovnya]

I honestly can't see how this would be decided against without having religious basis, which should immediately make the reasoning void in SCOTUS.

[Benuty]

And species productivity.

Who gives a fucK? People who would marry the same gender will have precisely the same number of children they'd have without the benefits of marriage.

Which is, like everyone else, none, one or some.

I hope you aren't talking to me.

Because we all know the Oedipus Complex is nothing, but good fiction.

[Republic of Coldwater]

I don't really care that much about same-sex marriage, and I wouldn't care if the government defines it one way or another, but ideally, there should be no definition, as marriage is only one form of love, and you shouldn't have to undergo one institution to be considered family with another person.

[Neutraligon]

I don't really care that much about same-sex marriage, and I wouldn't care if the government defines it one way or another, but ideally, there should be no definition, as marriage is only one form of love, and you shouldn't have to undergo one institution to be considered family with another person.

If the state is going to recognize two unrelated people as a cohesive unit, there needs to be some legal way of ding so; Marriage is that way.

[The Nuclear Fist]

I don't really care that much about same-sex marriage, and I wouldn't care if the government defines it one way or another, but ideally, there should be no definition, as marriage is only one form of love, and you shouldn't have to undergo one institution to be considered family with another person.

The neo-confederate doesn't care about minorities getting equal rights. I'm shocked. Everyone, come and see how shocked I am!

[Mike the Progressive]

It astounds me people oppose same-sex marriage. Religiously, I understand why. I even get why some businesses would not want to cater to gay couples on the basis of religious liberty (I don't agree with it, but I understand the argument). But two people wanting to get married? Gay or straight? Who cares!

[Cannabis Islands]

No, that is not what I am saying. Typically, an abortion does not require state or government approval and is not paid for by the state. A civil marriage, which does involve the government is a different issue. For example, when a state recognizes a marriage, the couple is granted a certain number of rights and privileges. So, we are talking about whenever or not same-sex couples have the right to access these set of rights and privileges that are granted by the government, and are given to heterosexual couples.

An abortion is a medical procedure.

One which was previously banned by law, which was later decided to be unconstitutional.

Marriage already exists, is already legal, already has those benefits attached to it.

There is no constitutional reason to ban it for SOME people. There is no 'loss' incurred here by the state. The unconstitutionality is in saying that only SOME legal consenting adults are not allowed to enjoy its benefits, and it's no one's business what legal, consenting adults do.

The idea that there is some right to deny rights to people because of how they live their lives when their lives affect you NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST is as ludicrous as telling women that the decisions made by them and their doctors are up to popular opinion.

And you're preaching to the choir, I strongly agree with you. But if the lawyers arguing for the for same-sex couples goes in and starts arguing that allowing abortions is a reason o overturn states ban on same-sex marriages, the justice will not really like it and that type of stuff, while it makes a great argument in a debate, it does not really in a court of law. The lawyers for the same-sex couple is mostly going to argue that the equal protection clause grants the right to marry for same-sex couples.

Plus, I know a lot of that are anti-abortion and strongly pro-LGBT rights....and they will get pissed and might drop their support for LGBT rights if it tied to the abortion rights movement.

[United Russian Soviet States]

States may secede if they don't want to recognize gay marriage.

Are you serious? You honestly think that this will lead to a second seccession? Truly?

I doubt it.

[United Russian Soviet States]

States may secede if they don't want to recognize gay marriage.

Can you please explain why the southern states of the USA seceded in the build-up to the Civil War?

This argument goes somewhere, I swear.

They seceded because they thought the federal government was going to abolish slavery.

[United Russian Soviet States]

It may cause a civil war.

It wouldn't cause a civil war.

Why would it cause a Civil War? Just because some fundamentalist Christians decide that "THE GOD OF THE LAAAAAAAAWWWWWW!!!!!" is somehow more important than the state?

The states would not want to be trampled on by the federal government.

[United Russian Soviet States]

It is in line with American ideals. Why do you think we were against the Soviets in the Cold War?

Because they wanted same sex marriage?

Don't be absurd.

They were anti-religion and leftist.

[Lost heros]

Because they wanted same sex marriage?

Don't be absurd.

They were anti-religion and leftist.

More like they were the only other country as powerful as the US at the time.