Marriage Now Fabulous, SCOTUS Rules for Same Sex Marriage

[Martean]

Which would be more like tyranny by majority. Mind you, popular vote managed to bring marriage equality to Ireland, so it's not always a matter of brutal mob rule. Sometimes true common decency takes control.

I honestly don't care. I mean good job for Ireland but come on, should I be rejoicing that a matter of human rights was actually placed to a popular referendum? These rights should be prima facie, minorities shouldn't wait for the majority to gradually sit on the matter and slowly, slowly abandon their bigotry.

This is ridiculous. Its like putting on the ballot sheet "Should the government recognise homosexuals as equal in worth and dignity?". Even if the public eventually votes YES, it doesn't change how offensive it is that such a right was even placed up for a vote in the first place.

+1

Besides, legalizing gay marriage ends up increasing support to it. For instance, when gay marriage was legalized in my country back in 2005 support to it was more or less 50% and opposition 40-45%, yesterday a poll showed support for gay marriage was at 82%, with less than 10% opposing it. And was over 50% even among the conservative voters, whose party opposed the bill. So I think it's great the US has finnally recognized same-sex marriage.

[Laerod]

Title correction: Homophobes* are* not ready for gay marriage

Everyone else is glad it happened or at least neutral about it, the only ones that aren't ready for equality are the homophobes.

Also I find it disappointing that the OP honestly believes that many states in the USA are such hateful bastions of stark savagery that it is only to be expected that they will respond to societal progress with violent terrorism.

Considering that we're seeing a wave of churches with black congregations being torched half a century after desegregation there is a wee bit of an argument to be made regarding that point.

[Kelinfort]

A majority didn't support interracial marriage until the 1990's. Should miscegenation laws and bans on interracial marriage remained in place until 2000?

[Divitaen]

I honestly don't care. I mean good job for Ireland but come on, should I be rejoicing that a matter of human rights was actually placed to a popular referendum? These rights should be prima facie, minorities shouldn't wait for the majority to gradually sit on the matter and slowly, slowly abandon their bigotry.

This is ridiculous. Its like putting on the ballot sheet "Should the government recognise homosexuals as equal in worth and dignity?". Even if the public eventually votes YES, it doesn't change how offensive it is that such a right was even placed up for a vote in the first place.

+1

Besides, legalizing gay marriage ends up increasing support to it. For instance, when gay marriage was legalized in my country back in 2005 support to it was more or less 50% and opposition 40-45%, yesterday a poll showed support for gay marriage was at 82%, with less than 10% opposing it. And was over 50% even among the conservative voters, whose party opposed the bill. So I think it's great the US has finnally recognized same-sex marriage.

Its very, very natural. I mean people general look to the government with a degree of legitimacy and to gain ideas of what's normal and mainstream in society. So if you legalise gay marriage, you're telling people that homosexuals are no different in heterosexuals. If you ban it, people will see it as state confirmation that homosexuals are just promiscuous and "experimental" and don't really want or need serious love and commitment in a marriage. And if like Uganda you pass an anti-homosexuality law, you will see a fourfold spike in citizen-initiated homophobic hate crimes, as we saw after the law was passed. See, citizens views do change based on government laws.

So instead of waiting on a referendum, let's just strike down an unjustifiable law first and citizen views will adjust over time.

[Thessalonaik]

Big wall of text so spoiler

Glad you agree about abortion as an issue. Of course I understand people have different opinions about when life begins, and I get that, but I'm glad you understand a woman's body is her choice and her choice only. All I have to say though is that as a social liberal, I too support democracy, I support the concept of popular sovereignty and national self-determination.
People should have a vote on their leaders, and they should vote on genuinely controversial policies like how much the education budget should be or what the tax rate ought to be. These things have no real right answer, its up to the public to decide. But you are talking about human rights here. The right of a homosexual couple to access an institution as part of their human dignity and equal worth and value in society is a basic and fundamental human right. The right of a woman to bodily sovereignty and to not be reduced to a mindless artificial womb is a fundamental human right. There are certain things, like racial equality, interracial marriage, sodomy laws, racial segregation, contraception access, these are things which shouldn't be controversial at all.
You never, ever, ever put human rights up for a vote. That's all.

The problem therein is that peoples of the world have different values, see some things as human rights and don't even agree on whether rights are given, immutable and innate or know what to do when rights seemingly conflict. The muslim nations are a perfect example of this; forget freedom of expression vs hate speech, religious freedom vs religious freedom of others, religious freedom vs gay marriage - they don't even follow the same human rights act as the West, the same moral belief structures or philosophies. More relevant to Western Nations, just look at the EU - how each nation state interprets human rights varies, from the right to citizenship to freedom of expression. How is it then, that these rights are enshrined by law? At some point, a nation must decide. I am of the opinion that popular support is the way to go. If you leave it to judges, MPs, Senators, PMs and Presidents, what you are left with are human rights as dictated by the intellectual elite who have been empowered to also be the political elite. In truth, all power is sourced from the people, even in dictatorships - a law decided by the intellectual elite that is out of touch with the people will find it without popular support and without power, and subject to destruction by the next intellectual elite should that one have a different opinion. Popular vote can only decide that, because popular vote can only come up with solutions that everyone is at least content on a compromise that suits a majority.
I said before in regards to the USA in that it is quite unique in that it can pass off these laws, piss of the majority with good impunity because it is pretty much untouchable. One only has to look at the USA's historical rival in Russia. They tried to liberalize without popular support and when it failed the reactionary movements reaped that popular support. In the EU, the left-wing Europhile parties tried to divorce themselves from the working class, losing themselves popular support - and the Eurosceptics reaped that popular support. If something goes wrong (which it won't in America, because Murrica) you hand the reactionaries a dinner on a silver plate.

Pardon, but that is just your opinion that the lives of the unborn have no right to live, one that the ROI disagreed with - only making the exception where the risk of death was concerned.

We did not make that exception. Our courts did. The X Case was not put to the popular vote.

A compromise on pragmatism in line with their morals, just as I suspect the 1992 referendums were.

And the popular morals of the day robbed women of their rights. I think that's awful. You seem to think it's ideal.

The popular vote also did the opposite. I cannot make it any clearer that amongst the 1992 referendums, one if passed would have made the X Case ruling forfeit - this is the one that failed, whilst the other two led to the thirteenth and fourteenth amendment allowing women to go abroad unhindered even if they were going there to seek an abortion. The X Case made it legal for abortion to be carried out if the risk of death which cited to justify it was suicide - the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments, as brought in by referendum, made it de facto legal for women in the ROI to seek abortion for any reason provided they did it in the UK or wherever else they liked. Given how many women make that trip to England, I'd say the Irish did it - legalizing abortion without conflicting with their rigid morality. There are even charities which help women seeking abortions in the ROI make that trip to England.

My people.

I am of the opinion that my arguments should stand to their own merit, and I often have trouble distinguishing between forumites for I care little for the identities of strangers on the internet. I mean no disrespect to the Irish or you, but unless your username is Paddypower and your flag bedecked in clovers I probably won't know who you belong to. If it's any consolation you can insult all the nations I like, accidental or no

were moving in a direction you and I would find favourable, if slower than you'd like.

So, what? Women should just quietly accept that their right to life is less important that people's personal feelings about precious little embryos?

No they should take part in the democratic process where their voice can actually be heard. That is the purpose of democracy. Also interesting as well that you bring up the right to life to justify pro-choice, as that is exactly what the counter-argument cites too, as well as what the current legal exception cites.

What new powers has the Supreme Court of the United States been given? How has their accountability changed in any way?

Honestly I don't know, nor do I care. Don't live in the USA, don't want to set foot in the USA, I want them to do the same. I'm more concerned with the general trend in western society where people like the bloke or blokess I was responding to earlier, or indeed others have expressed ITT, where they argue it is fine to pass laws and legislation enshrining civil rights without referendum, of greater concern within the EU nations where just that is happening - such as in the UK, where the PM is at the same time:
[*]Being pressured by backbenchers into making a British human rights declaration over the EU human rights legislation
[*]Using existing British legal documents going all the way back to the magna carta over existing EU legislation
[*]Being pressured by Tory and UKIP constituents into negotiating an EU referendum
[*]And immigration controls
[*]Whilst himself trying to ensure the EU referendum docks UK to the EU
[*]And being pressured by the leaders of Brussels, France, Germany, Poland, Romania and Italy into upholding the EU freedom of movement principle
So you end up with lots of people claiming lots of things trying to decide upon which human rights the nation must follow and what those rights will entail and who they will cover, with another possibility for a legal framework overhaul based upon possible new human rights or the restoration of older ones. The level of actual democratic involvement of the people in this is minimal, and the man who was elected by the Eurosceptics is a Europhile - showing the humours and failures of representational democracy over democracy.

Besides, legalizing gay marriage ends up increasing support to it. For instance, when gay marriage was legalized in my country back in 2005 support to it was more or less 50% and opposition 40-45%, yesterday a poll showed support for gay marriage was at 82%, with less than 10% opposing it. And was over 50% even among the conservative voters, whose party opposed the bill. So I think it's great the US has finnally recognized same-sex marriage.

Did legalizing gay marriage boost support for it, or was it not just legalized at a time where progressive values were already on the up-swing?

Because if you legalized gay marriage in Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Malaysia or Indonesia, I'd bet a horse and a cow that these nations whose majorities are unready would ignore the law at best and get their torches, pitchforks and machetes out at worse (more than they usually do).

[Divitaen]

The problem therein is that peoples of the world have different values, see some things as human rights and don't even agree on whether rights are given, immutable and innate or know what to do when rights seemingly conflict. The muslim nations are a perfect example of this; forget freedom of expression vs hate speech, religious freedom vs religious freedom of others, religious freedom vs gay marriage - they don't even follow the same human rights act as the West, the same moral belief structures or philosophies. More relevant to Western Nations, just look at the EU - how each nation state interprets human rights varies, from the right to citizenship to freedom of expression. How is it then, that these rights are enshrined by law? At some point, a nation must decide. I am of the opinion that popular support is the way to go. If you leave it to judges, MPs, Senators, PMs and Presidents, what you are left with are human rights as dictated by the intellectual elite who have been empowered to also be the political elite. In truth, all power is sourced from the people, even in dictatorships - a law decided by the intellectual elite that is out of touch with the people will find it without popular support and without power, and subject to destruction by the next intellectual elite should that one have a different opinion. Popular vote can only decide that, because popular vote can only come up with solutions that everyone is at least content on a compromise that suits a majority.
I said before in regards to the USA in that it is quite unique in that it can pass off these laws, piss of the majority with good impunity because it is pretty much untouchable. One only has to look at the USA's historical rival in Russia. They tried to liberalize without popular support and when it failed the reactionary movements reaped that popular support. In the EU, the left-wing Europhile parties tried to divorce themselves from the working class, losing themselves popular support - and the Eurosceptics reaped that popular support. If something goes wrong (which it won't in America, because Murrica) you hand the reactionaries a dinner on a silver plate.

First of all, I contend that popular opinion is the source of human rights. No, they are called "natural rights" for a reason. They exist in nature, philosophically, because we are human beings, with personage, individual identity, free agency and the capacity for emotion and reason. We possess human dignity and with that comes certain basic, fundamental rights, such as the right to basic bodily sovereignty, freedom from slavery and objectification, freedom of inhumane treatment and torture, and of course, right to equal treatment, worth and dignity. These are rights everyone has and possesses by virtue of being human. Doesn't matter where they live.

And you know what? I think people should be empowered to freely vote on most issues. I agree some things are controversial, many things involve some form of trade-off between one goal or another, and democratically-elected politicians should deal with that. But justice is different. We need to have a group of unelected judges who can rule based on intellectual legal principles and precedences, and rule purely on what the constitution says and what the law says, and make decisions protecting basic human dignity from there. Its a noble goal to have a so-called "intellectual elite" as a bulwark against bigotry and majority tyranny stripping minorities of dignity, because this "intellectual elite" you speak of is more likely to rule based on constitutional law and principles, rather than bigotry.

And its a noble goal to have rights passed faster. How long are you going to force homosexual couples to wait, and wait, and wait for "organic change" to happen, unable to affirm their love and commitment, systematically denied basic rights to just feel human and not a second-class citizen.

[MERIZoC]

The truth begs to differ.

[Thessalonaik]

First of all, I contend that popular opinion is the source of human rights. No, they are called "natural rights" for a reason. They exist in nature, philosophically, because we are human beings, with personage, individual identity, free agency and the capacity for emotion and reason. We possess human dignity and with that comes certain basic, fundamental rights, such as the right to basic bodily sovereignty, freedom from slavery and objectification, freedom of inhumane treatment and torture, and of course, right to equal treatment, worth and dignity. These are rights everyone has and possesses by virtue of being human. Doesn't matter where they live.

I would like to agree with you that rights are "natural rights," but there is nothing without people to uphold them. We all have duties and obligations to one another, that if unfollowed would leave us with less social cohesion than gorillas, let alone societies as complex as the urban structures homo sapiens has built. But when you start getting into more abstract "rights," ones beyond "don't murder, don't torture," it is entirely dependent on the people. To uphold it, enforce it and to decide it. Freedom from slavery was not even something that could seriously be considered until the undisputed military superpower of the era decided it didn't like slavery and had a massive navy with no one to fight, and that military power didn't even consider that until its people brought it in line too.

And you know what? I think people should be empowered to freely vote on most issues. I agree some things are controversial, many things involve some form of trade-off between one goal or another, and democratically-elected politicians should deal with that. But justice is different. We need to have a group of unelected judges who can rule based on intellectual legal principles and precedences, and rule purely on what the constitution says and what the law says, and make decisions protecting basic human dignity from there. Its a noble goal to have a so-called "intellectual elite" as a bulwark against bigotry and majority tyranny stripping minorities of dignity, because this "intellectual elite" you speak of is more likely to rule based on constitutional law and principles, rather than bigotry.

There is absolutely nothing inherent about the intellectual elite being a bulwark against bigotry that upholds the dignity of the minority or the majority or anyone in accordance to constitutional laws or principles.
All they are, are the intellectual elite, and they are in power. The amount of power they are accorded by themselves, their peers or the people then determines how much they can pursue their agenda, whether it aligns with the majority or not. They will merely rule in accordance with their principles, in accordance with whoever educated them. And all you can do is hope and pray that they act in a manner you like. This is fine when they do, until they don't - then you can't do anything in response.

And its a noble goal to have rights passed faster. How long are you going to force homosexual couples to wait, and wait, and wait for "organic change" to happen, unable to affirm their love and commitment, systematically denied basic rights to just feel human and not a second-class citizen.

Peculiar for one who espouses that rights are natural for them to then say couples need the state to grant them the right to love and commitment to show love and commitment, whilst the other who espouses that rights are won to to say that love and commitment is innate and natural to people.
I for one do not respect marriage as anything more than a business contract written by the state symbolized by consumerism sponsored by extensive marketing by de Boers and Murrica. I am of the opinion that love and commitment - these are things the state can't take from anyone. I see it silly, in a zen sort of way, to justify giving the state the power to give a couple a piece of paper saying what they already knew, that they love each other and will stay by each other's side until they die or their love dies.

[Gogol Transcendancy]

B-But... polygamy! Incest! Bestiality! Pedophilia!

Not pedophilia and beastiality, moron.

-but incest and polygamy are not legal, so marriage is not "equal". Fight the incest-ophobe bigotry! Marriage for all consenting adults over eighteen without exception!

I'd actually agree with this post if it wasn't clearly ironic. Incest and polygamy should be legal.

[The Archregimancy]

Locking this while I merge it into the existing US gay marriage thread...

Please stand by.

[Ifreann]

Locking this while I merge it into the existing US gay marriage thread...

Please stand by.

Disturb ye not the dark merging rituals of the moderomancers!

[The Rich Port]

Not pedophilia and beastiality, moron.

-but incest and polygamy are not legal, so marriage is not "equal". Fight the incest-ophobe bigotry! Marriage for all consenting adults over eighteen without exception!

I'd actually agree with this post if it wasn't clearly ironic. Incest and polygamy should be legal.

While I will never understand people who want to marry people who are 10-30 years older than them, let alone their blood relatives, yeah, sadly, there's no logical reason to withhold those rights, especially when it's people who aren't even related by blood, like half-siblings, who wouldn't even be siblings if their parents hadn't married.

[Dyakovo]

the legislature that legalised gay marriage,you know the one the supreme court passed

SCotUS did not (and in fact can not) pass any legislation.
What they did was strike down laws banning same-sex marriage.

[Dyakovo]

So basically we should live our lives in fear of violent, hateful thugs with more bullets than brain cells and let them run the country, instead of telling them to fuck themselves?

i saying we must first convince the states with anti gay populations why gay marriage is ok,instead of forcing it on them.we should let STATES decide if they want gay marriage in THEIR state,not the federal government saying "Y'ALL GOTTA DO CUZ I SEZ SO!!!"

You are, quite simply, wrong.

[Divitaen]

I would like to agree with you that rights are "natural rights," but there is nothing without people to uphold them. We all have duties and obligations to one another, that if unfollowed would leave us with less social cohesion than gorillas, let alone societies as complex as the urban structures homo sapiens has built. But when you start getting into more abstract "rights," ones beyond "don't murder, don't torture," it is entirely dependent on the people. To uphold it, enforce it and to decide it. Freedom from slavery was not even something that could seriously be considered until the undisputed military superpower of the era decided it didn't like slavery and had a massive navy with no one to fight, and that military power didn't even consider that until its people brought it in line too.

There is absolutely nothing inherent about the intellectual elite being a bulwark against bigotry that upholds the dignity of the minority or the majority or anyone in accordance to constitutional laws or principles.
All they are, are the intellectual elite, and they are in power. The amount of power they are accorded by themselves, their peers or the people then determines how much they can pursue their agenda, whether it aligns with the majority or not. They will merely rule in accordance with their principles, in accordance with whoever educated them. And all you can do is hope and pray that they act in a manner you like. This is fine when they do, until they don't - then you can't do anything in response.

Peculiar for one who espouses that rights are natural for them to then say couples need the state to grant them the right to love and commitment to show love and commitment, whilst the other who espouses that rights are won to to say that love and commitment is innate and natural to people.
I for one do not respect marriage as anything more than a business contract written by the state symbolized by consumerism sponsored by extensive marketing by de Boers and Murrica. I am of the opinion that love and commitment - these are things the state can't take from anyone. I see it silly, in a zen sort of way, to justify giving the state the power to give a couple a piece of paper saying what they already knew, that they love each other and will stay by each other's side until they die or their love dies.

1) Human dignity and equality aren't "abstract". They exist because we are living, thinking human beings with free agency, and none of us deserve to be objectified or degraded. And like I said, that's where rights such as right to equal treatment, freedom from slavery and freedom from torture were all derived. They are basic in the same way laws like "don't steal" are basic, for its also a natural right to property. The fact that the right happens to be less recognised doesn't change the fact that, on a philosophical level, the right is still accorded to us. Objectively speaking, marriage equality is a basic right. There is no way around it. You can't give a heterosexual couple something and then deny the same marriage benefits of inheritance, hospital visitation, taxation and what not on the basis of the gender composition of a homosexual couple. So the question I have for you is why you somehow believe it is legitimate for any majority in any country to strip homosexual couples of equal access and equal treatment.

2) Firstly, I used the term "intellectual elite" only because you used it, but its clear you think they are in cahoots like some self-perpetuating ruling class. They are not. SCOTUS is not in some grand scheme to maintain its own power and gather its influence. Lets not get carried away. I would argue that educated, intellectual legal graduates already come from a disproportionately progressive background and demographic, given that intellectuals are generally forced by inquiry to question and re-question old paradigms, which leaves little room for bigotry. Add that to the fact that court justices must then make rulings based on the legal interpretations of the Constitution and constitutional precedents, which is much more technical in nature. This means that, by its nature, SCOTUS is more likely to make more progressive rulings on civil rights issues than the general populace, because unlike a voter in a referendum who can vote for anything based on any justification, SCOTUS justices must look at the Constitutional law, which contains our basic human rights. And history backs this up. Brown v. Board of Education. Loving v. Virginia. Griswold v. Connecticut. Roe v. Wade. Lawrence v. Texas, and now of course Obergefell v. Hodges.

3) Marriage equality is a natural right. The state puts a legitimate stamp of approval on one couple and not the other, isn't that utterly humiliating? The government is actively issuing a public declaration that your partnership and relationship is worth less on no other basis than just the fact that you are homosexual, just on that basis alone. Moreover, you lose so many other benefits. Couples are always buried together with their spouses in the US military cemetery if one spouse was a veteran. Imagining being denied that right just because you are gay. Obergefell in the case wanted to be added to the death certificate as the remaining spouse. Imagine being denied that declaration just because you are gay. Don't kid yourself, marriage equality was a huge deal. It was an amazing success and triumph.

[The Rich Port]

So basically we should live our lives in fear of violent, hateful thugs with more bullets than brain cells and let them run the country, instead of telling them to fuck themselves?

i saying we must first convince the states with anti gay populations why gay marriage is ok,instead of forcing it on them.we should let STATES decide if they want gay marriage in THEIR state,not the federal government saying "Y'ALL GOTTA DO CUZ I SEZ SO!!!"

So... The Civil War?

Let's not do that.

[Pyravia]

Woo! SCROTUM legalized what the UK legalized ages ago again! It's like what happened with slavery.
Wait don't tell me the US is going to take credit for this like slavery? Goddamit.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Woo! SCROTUM legalized what the UK legalized ages ago again!

Woo! It's not a competition! Nobody gives a fuck!

Wait don't tell me the US is going to take credit for this like slavery? Goddamit.

What?

[Divitaen]

Woo! SCROTUM legalized what the UK legalized ages ago again! It's like what happened with slavery.
Wait don't tell me the US is going to take credit for this like slavery? Goddamit.

Haha you have a point though. The Obergefell v. Hodges case is so internationally-renowned and recognised. I come from far-away Singapore and people here were changing their profile pictures to Celebrate Pride.

Whereas in pretty much every European state that has done this, it got scant international mention.

[Laerod]

Woo! SCROTUM legalized what the UK legalized ages ago again! It's like what happened with slavery.
Wait don't tell me the US is going to take credit for this like slavery? Goddamit.

A bit more than a year ago does not constitute "ages", though you could argue that the UK hasn't legalized it given Northern Ireland's refusal to do so...

[Dyakovo]

Children cannot consent, and I see no inherent problem with polygamy.

There's likely to be some legal issues (next of kin, tax breaks, etc.) that would need to be resolved with polygamy.

Which I already acknowledged.

[Dyakovo]

Woo! SCROTUM legalized what the UK legalized ages ago again! It's like what happened with slavery.
Wait don't tell me the US is going to take credit for this like slavery? Goddamit.

The US is taking credit for legalizing same-sex marriage in the US, just like the US took credit for abolishing slavery in the US.
How is this a problem?

[Laerod]

Woo! SCROTUM legalized what the UK legalized ages ago again! It's like what happened with slavery.
Wait don't tell me the US is going to take credit for this like slavery? Goddamit.

The US is taking credit for legalizing same-sex marriage in the US, just like the US took credit for abolishing slavery in the US.
How is this a problem?

They might mean that some Americans like to pretend the Emancipation Proclamation was some inspiring event that heralded the decline of slavery in the Western world rather than an example of America catching up to the 18th century.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

The US is taking credit for legalizing same-sex marriage in the US, just like the US took credit for abolishing slavery in the US.
How is this a problem?

They might mean that some Americans like to pretend the Emancipation Proclamation was some inspiring event that heralded the decline of slavery in the Western world rather than an example of America catching up to the 18th century.

19th Century.

[Divitaen]

The US is taking credit for legalizing same-sex marriage in the US, just like the US took credit for abolishing slavery in the US.
How is this a problem?

They might mean that some Americans like to pretend the Emancipation Proclamation was some inspiring event that heralded the decline of slavery in the Western world rather than an example of America catching up to the 18th century.

It was an inspiring event for America, just put it that way.