Supreme Court to Decide on Same-Sex Marriage

[Spainard]

I already live in a U.S State (New York) that has same sex marriage approved. So I'm sure this won't bother us New Yorkers if it's a approved by the court.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

But denying someone a marriage license it different than denying someone the right to vote.

I'm just curious, Texas and Louisiana both have the right to leave the union in their constitutions. There have been grumblings by some far right wing groups (including what's left of the KKK) that both states should. I wonder if they'll get any louder if this passes.

Hardly, they are both rights that are taken away because other people think they shouldn't have such rights. They are the same principal.

[Farnhamia]

But denying someone a marriage license it different than denying someone the right to vote.

I'm just curious, Texas and Louisiana both have the right to leave the union in their constitutions. There have been grumblings by some far right wing groups (including what's left of the KKK) that both states should. I wonder if they'll get any louder if this passes.

I don't see why the two rights - marriage was declared a right in Loving v. Virginia - can't be equated. And would you care to quote the relevant passages in the Louisiana and Texas constitutions that say they have the right to secede? Which, by the way, is really off-topic.

[United Marxist Nations]

But denying someone a marriage license it different than denying someone the right to vote.

I'm just curious, Texas and Louisiana both have the right to leave the union in their constitutions. There have been grumblings by some far right wing groups (including what's left of the KKK) that both states should. I wonder if they'll get any louder if this passes.

I don't see why the two rights - marriage was declared a right in Loving v. Virginia - can't be equated. And would you care to quote the relevant passages in the Louisiana and Texas constitutions that say they have the right to secede? Which, by the way, is really off-topic.

He doesn't care to because the relevant passages are fictional.

[Urran]

If this passes, I'd demand that polygamists be allowed to marry. It's illegal in most states, but if they grant homosexuals the rights to marry, it's only fair that polygamists get it too.

As for the states rights, legislation is hardly one size fits all. What works in Chicago, Baltimore, or New York might not work in New Orleans, Montgomery, or Jackson. We are all American, yes, but culturally, the north and south are quite different. From our speech patterns to our food, there are large differences. I just don't see this going over well with the vast majority of southerners.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

But denying someone a marriage license it different than denying someone the right to vote.

I'm just curious, Texas and Louisiana both have the right to leave the union in their constitutions. There have been grumblings by some far right wing groups (including what's left of the KKK) that both states should. I wonder if they'll get any louder if this passes.

I don't see why the two rights - marriage was declared a right in Loving v. Virginia - can't be equated. And would you care to quote the relevant passages in the Louisiana and Texas constitutions that say they have the right to secede? Which, by the way, is really off-topic.

I just know all states can secede because it happened once before and theres no amendment prohibiting secession.

However Texas and Louisiana don't have a right to secede by their constitution or charter. Texas does however have the ability to be divided into 5 separate states as per the chapter.

[The United Territories of Providence]

I honestly have no opinion on same-sex civil unions/marriages but I won't be offended if it does get passed. I just can't help but imagine the shitstorm that will happen though.

Yeah republicans threw a tantrum when inter racial was legalized.

That's not true. It was southern democrats who threw a fit. Republicans supported civil rights legislation until the late 60's. It was conservatives who were fighting it, and they belonged to the Democratic Party. So....facts....please.

[Talvezout]

Yeah republicans threw a tantrum when inter racial was legalized.

That's not true. It was southern democrats who threw a fit. Republicans supported civil rights legislation until the late 60's. It was conservatives who were fighting it, and they belonged to the Democratic Party. So....facts....please.

My apologies.

[Farnhamia]

I don't see why the two rights - marriage was declared a right in Loving v. Virginia - can't be equated. And would you care to quote the relevant passages in the Louisiana and Texas constitutions that say they have the right to secede? Which, by the way, is really off-topic.

I just know all states can secede because it happened once before and theres no amendment prohibiting secession.

However Texas and Louisiana don't have a right to secede by their constitution or charter. Texas does however have the ability to be divided into 5 separate states as per the chapter.

No state has the right to secede (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White). And Texas does not have that ability. It may have been that at the time of the annexation of Texas, five states was an option. It no longer is. The Constitution does provide for forming new states out of the existing ones but it takes an act of Congress to make that happen, which it ain't.

Again, off-topic. My fault for encouraging this line of discussion, though it's a line easily fallen into.

[New Frenco Empire]

If this passes, I'd demand that polygamists be allowed to marry. It's illegal in most states, but if they grant homosexuals the rights to marry, it's only fair that polygamists get it too.

As for the states rights, legislation is hardly one size fits all. What works in Chicago, Baltimore, or New York might not work in New Orleans, Montgomery, or Jackson. We are all American, yes, but culturally, the north and south are quite different. From our speech patterns to our food, there are large differences. I just don't see this going over well with the vast majority of southerners.

Then the Southerners who oppose this don't have to marry someone of the same-sex.

Wow, that was easy...

[Bezkoshtovnya]

If this passes, I'd demand that polygamists be allowed to marry. It's illegal in most states, but if they grant homosexuals the rights to marry, it's only fair that polygamists get it too.

As for the states rights, legislation is hardly one size fits all. What works in Chicago, Baltimore, or New York might not work in New Orleans, Montgomery, or Jackson. We are all American, yes, but culturally, the north and south are quite different. From our speech patterns to our food, there are large differences. I just don't see this going over well with the vast majority of southerners.

No one is forcing them to undergo SSM, so I fail to see why it matters.

[Neutraligon]

If this passes, I'd demand that polygamists be allowed to marry. It's illegal in most states, but if they grant homosexuals the rights to marry, it's only fair that polygamists get it too.

As for the states rights, legislation is hardly one size fits all. What works in Chicago, Baltimore, or New York might not work in New Orleans, Montgomery, or Jackson. We are all American, yes, but culturally, the north and south are quite different. From our speech patterns to our food, there are large differences. I just don't see this going over well with the vast majority of southerners.

I have no problem with multiple partner marriages, aside from one, who would that be set up? Right now marriage is set up to work between a couple, it is not set up to work between more then two, so before that could be allowed the legal parts would need to be worked out. Ending slavery didn't go well either. Our government is a federal government, which means that certain decisions can and should be made by the central government.

[The United Territories of Providence]

If this passes, I'd demand that polygamists be allowed to marry. It's illegal in most states, but if they grant homosexuals the rights to marry, it's only fair that polygamists get it too.

As for the states rights, legislation is hardly one size fits all. What works in Chicago, Baltimore, or New York might not work in New Orleans, Montgomery, or Jackson. We are all American, yes, but culturally, the north and south are quite different. From our speech patterns to our food, there are large differences. I just don't see this going over well with the vast majority of southerners.

We are different culturally, and some of our laws reflect that. But when it comes to civil rights issues, we can't let our differences prevent us from doing what is right. Let's remember the 60's, if we didn't force the states to comply, who knows how long Jim Crow would've persisted. The south prided itself in it's confederate heritage and all it's conservative tradition, even so....we can't allow discrimination on the grounds of cultural difference. Legislation doesn't have to be a perfect fit for every area, but they still have to abide by it. I don't think the south is the big issue, they're more progressive than we give them credit for. Even in Mississippi, Same-Sex Marriage is favored by 58% of residents under 30 and 64% of all residents support anti-discrimination legislation.

The problem is going to come from the Midwest.

[United Russian Soviet States]

They were anti-religion and leftist.

Tell me where do you get your myth worshipping ideals?

I get it from religion.

[Farnhamia]

Tell me where do you get your myth worshipping ideals?

I get it from religion.

Regardless, can you give us a source for the Soviets supporting and allowing same-sex marriage? I think I would have heard of such a thing.

[United Marxist Nations]

I get it from religion.

Regardless, can you give us a source for the Soviets supporting and allowing same-sex marriage? I think I would have heard of such a thing.

He can't because they didn't. In fact, homosexual activity was outlawed for most of the Soviet Union, since it was never really around for the LGBT rights movement; during that period, most Western medicine considered it a mental disease, while the USSR considered it bourgeois decadence.

[Genivaria]

Yeah republicans threw a tantrum when inter racial was legalized.

That's not true. It was southern democrats who threw a fit. Republicans supported civil rights legislation until the late 60's. It was conservatives who were fighting it, and they belonged to the Democratic Party. So....facts....please.

Apologies, social conservatives threw a fit.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Tell me where do you get your myth worshipping ideals?

I get it from religion.

Hate to tell you, but religion has a ridiculously simplified (and largely incorrect) interpretation of cold war politics.

[Geilinor]

If this passes, I'd demand that polygamists be allowed to marry. It's illegal in most states, but if they grant homosexuals the rights to marry, it's only fair that polygamists get it too.

As for the states rights, legislation is hardly one size fits all. What works in Chicago, Baltimore, or New York might not work in New Orleans, Montgomery, or Jackson. We are all American, yes, but culturally, the north and south are quite different. From our speech patterns to our food, there are large differences. I just don't see this going over well with the vast majority of southerners.

Passes? Do you know what you're talking about?

[Farnhamia]

Regardless, can you give us a source for the Soviets supporting and allowing same-sex marriage? I think I would have heard of such a thing.

He can't because they didn't. In fact, homosexual activity was outlawed for most of the Soviet Union, since it was never really around for the LGBT rights movement; during that period, most Western medicine considered it a mental disease, while the USSR considered it bourgeois decadence.

You remind me of the kid in grade school who always had his hand up, waving frantically at the teacher because he knows the answer.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I just know all states can secede because it happened once before and theres no amendment prohibiting secession.

However Texas and Louisiana don't have a right to secede by their constitution or charter. Texas does however have the ability to be divided into 5 separate states as per the chapter.

No state has the right to secede (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White). And Texas does not have that ability. It may have been that at the time of the annexation of Texas, five states was an option. It no longer is. The Constitution does provide for forming new states out of the existing ones but it takes an act of Congress to make that happen, which it ain't.

Again, off-topic. My fault for encouraging this line of discussion, though it's a line easily fallen into.

I stand corrected on one point. On the other notice I said per their charter meaning it's a provision which Texas was hoping to gain, and did get it in the charter. It was, in fact, null since annexation. Doesn't stop people from wanting us to split in 5 states. Would be interesting, North Texas being able to be a more liberal state instead of having to listen to the entire state and its conservatism. If north Texas had its way and split we'd have gay marriage legislated quickly.

But, as you said, we digress.

[United Russian Soviet States]

I get it from religion.

Regardless, can you give us a source for the Soviets supporting and allowing same-sex marriage? I think I would have heard of such a thing.

They did not allow it. It was too radical back then.

[Urran]

Again I'm for SSM, and it's hurting me to say this, but I also support a states right to say "no".


Maybe I need to get put of state more, but I'm surrounded by old money, old south, good ole boy, democrats with a hatred of African Americans (or any race other than white) and very isolationist attitudes. (Not my parents or grandparents thank God). So I couldn't tell my neighbors I took a black girl to prom or that I'm bisexual. While I see that this is wrong, i guess I'm just hoping that I wint see violence. These are very....strong willed people that have admitted to being part of pro segregation rallies and have said they'd sooner "shoot a hommo than see that bastard get married"

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Regardless, can you give us a source for the Soviets supporting and allowing same-sex marriage? I think I would have heard of such a thing.

They did not allow it. It was too radical back then.

And yet you claimed they did.

[Greed and Death]

I think a constitutional right for same sex couples to marry will be acknowledged. The court's hesitance to take the issue was so the circuit courts to argue about how they arrived at that conclusion as there are ever possible ways.

Treat gay marriage bans as gender discrimination, have gay marriage bans fail rational bases, make sexuality a quasi suspect or suspect classification, or the equal protection fundamental rights analysis.