Marriage Now Fabulous, SCOTUS Rules for Same Sex Marriage

[Middle Pacific]

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.

Nope. The UK doesn't even have marriage equality yet. Only the jurisdictions of England & Wales and Scotland do. Northern Ireland doesn't.

If you claim the UK has marriage equality on such the basis of some of the UK having marriage equality, then the US has had marriage equality since 2004 (Massachusetts).

Nonetheless, it doesn't matter. It's not a competition. The more countries that respect any given human right, the better.

[Ifreann]

SCROTUM

Your joke is bad and you should feel bad.

[Laerod]

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.

Abolitionism kicked off in Britain and France in the late 18th Century with a number of individual examples of courts rejecting slavery happening even earlier.

[Laerod]

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.

To be sure. There are, however, people out there that delude themselves into thinking it was some great first step for the whole world and boy is that mentality annoying.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

19th Century.

Abolitionism kicked off in Britain and France in the late 18th Century with a number of individual examples of courts rejecting slavery happening even earlier.

It wasn't a national thing until the 19th century though.

[Divitaen]

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

To be sure. There are, however, people out there that delude themselves into thinking it was some great first step for the whole world and boy is that mentality annoying.

Of course it is. Like I said, Obergefell v. Hodges is gonna go down in history as an iconic moment for civil rights. And every history student will forget that the Nordic states did it first.

[Middle Pacific]

19th Century.

Abolitionism kicked off in Britain and France in the late 18th Century with a number of individual examples of courts rejecting slavery happening even earlier.

All of the Northern states abolished slavery in the late 18th Century. Actual law rather than just a movement.

Six states and one future state had abolished slavery by the time of the ratification of the US Constitution (1789).

[Middle Pacific]

To be sure. There are, however, people out there that delude themselves into thinking it was some great first step for the whole world and boy is that mentality annoying.

Of course it is. Like I said, Obergefell v. Hodges is gonna go down in history as an iconic moment for civil rights. And every history student will forget that the Nordic states did it first.

Actually the Low countries (the Netherlands in 2001 and Belgium in 2003), Massachusetts (2004), and Canada (2005) were the earliest adopters.

The Supreme Courts of Hawaii (1993) and Vermont (1999) were the first governmental institutions in the world to moot the idea of marriage equality in law.

[Divitaen]

Of course it is. Like I said, Obergefell v. Hodges is gonna go down in history as an iconic moment for civil rights. And every history student will forget that the Nordic states did it first.

Actually the Low countries (the Netherlands in 2001 and Belgium in 2003), Massachusetts (2004), and Canada (2005) were the earliest adopters.

The Supreme Courts of Hawaii (1993) and Vermont (1999) were the first governmental institutions in the world to moot the idea of marriage equality in law.

Hmm right of course I forgot. Although when I went to Sweden before apparently early same-sex marriage legalisation was mentioned quite a lot in documentaries or promotional videos. Its a badge of pride in the Nordic states.

[Cannot think of a name]

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!!!"

I think I'm quoting this for the second time in this thread (kind of cheat since this was actually another thread that joined the first, but legit), but I defer again to Langston Hughes:
I tire so of hearing people say,
Let things take their course.
Tomorrow is another day.
I do not need my freedom when I'm dead.
I cannot live on tomorrow's bread.

[The Floating Island of the Sleeping God]

Letting the entire population vote on the rights of 5% of the populations is like letting a group of 95 wolves and 5 sheep vote on who they should eat for dinner.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Letting the entire population vote on the rights of 5% of the populations is like letting a group of 95 wolves and 5 sheep vote on who they should eat for dinner.

The question is how many wolves a sheep can feed.

[Middle Pacific]

Letting the entire population vote on the rights of 5% of the populations is like letting a group of 95 wolves and 5 sheep vote on who they should eat for dinner.

It's wrong in principle of course, rights are innate and inherent after all.

Nonetheless, popular votes in Maine, Maryland, Washington (all in 2012) and Ireland (2015) did all successfully establish marriage equality.

[The Black Forrest]

Abolitionism kicked off in Britain and France in the late 18th Century with a number of individual examples of courts rejecting slavery happening even earlier.

All of the Northern states abolished slavery in the late 18th Century. Actual law rather than just a movement.

Six states and one future state had abolished slavery by the time of the ratification of the US Constitution (1789).

It was a good thing. However as a country we still had the practice.......

[The Floating Island of the Sleeping God]

Letting the entire population vote on the rights of 5% of the populations is like letting a group of 95 wolves and 5 sheep vote on who they should eat for dinner.

The question is how many wolves a sheep can feed.

And, uh...as time goes on, some of the baby wolves turn out to also be sheep, so then when they vote again...my analogy falls apart.

[The Alma Mater]

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!!!"

Why ?
When talking about taking away rights from the population I understand. But who is harmed in this case ?

[Thessalonaik]

More walls of text

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.

They are abstract. In truth, outside of progressive circles I have heard no one even understand the concept of objectification, and what is degrading to one person is empowering to another. And again with dignity, and the right to die... More conflicts. What is dignified to one culture will be an insult to another. It is entirely decided by the people, there is no innate standard of dignity held by all peoples. Would I be indignant to be without clothes had I been born to a headhunter of borneo?

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.

Objectively speaking marriage is a social construct created to ensure monogamy, facilitate property and authority inheritence through the line and the foundation of dynasties. Monkeys and apes do not marry. It is very much a human construct, and had any other civilizations other than the European ones been the first to industrialize and conquer the world we'd probably be seeing concubinage of polygamous marriage. Indeed, many nations actually DO have legal polygamy. There is nothing innate with any of this. Basic human rights are basic in the sense that they're simple, not intrinsic. Had you told me in the past that freedom from slavery was an inherent human right and I were a rich Sultan, or an Emperor with knowledge of the world, I'd probably be laughing - because the world was a world where no one from the Barbary Coast to Australasia would have batted an eyelid if you tried to buy their POWs.
On a philosophical level, that is a philosophy you hold. It is also not a philosophy that means anything until the majority believe in it. Because then - the philosophy is put into action.

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.

That's tragic because I'm talking about my country where the intellectual elite are the political elite and are all from two elite Unis in particular, all parts of clubs where they are in cahoots and on principle I don't even care if the intellectual ruling elite agree with me because on a pragmatic level there will come times where they are working against the majority based off of their own philosophies as has happened in my own country. I have seen people claiming they fight bigotry whilst perpetuating their own brand of it, and yes, they are all intellectual elites. What mandate do they have over the majority, to make decisions for the majority, when they come from an incredibly narrow band of society? In my country everything you are describing is already happening. I am a progressive, but I do not subvert my nation for progressivism. Any authoritarian be they conservative or progressive is no friend of mine I say!

I doubt I can convince you on the philosophical merits of democracy, considering our philosophies are so different and I imagine the definitions we attach to words are also different; not least of all what the definition of democracy is. Semantics bore me, but I must tell you and stress the point on pragmatism.
If you have your intellectual elite legislate for their agenda, believing what they are doing is right for the majority - doesn't have to be progressivism, the elite don't even have to be correct or wrong in determining that what they are doing is best for the majority. If it does not align with what the majority want, then either acceptance or discontent grows. For most nations on the planet this sort of internal strife is lethal to the continued existence of their sovereignty. Has been true, always will be true. But not only that - let's say we have a centrist nation, but the progressive intellectual elite come to power. They implement American Progressive ideals into law, and in response a negative response by the disgruntled reactionaries gains traction and they get into power. Now they will have just been given all the tools needed to undo everything the elite did, and then more, with popular support - to push the centrists right.

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.

That is only as humiliating as you let it make you feel. The government means very little to me, it is just a vehicle for administration and policy making. The easy solution is just remove the legal privileges married couples enjoy.

Letting the entire population vote on the rights of 5% of the populations is like letting a group of 95 wolves and 5 sheep vote on who they should eat for dinner.

All the people who voted did so not because they were gay, they did so because they had friends, brothers, sisters who were like sheep amongst sheep. Letting 0.00000000001% of the population vote on everyone else is like making an arsonist the captain of your ship. It's only a matter of when.

*EDIT
A more contemporary example would be people proposing that internet access be made a human right. Did this right exist before a bunch of people began campaigning for it? No, of course not. Still doesn't exist, and won't until it is practiced by nation states.

[Geanna]

Letting the entire population vote on the rights of 5% of the populations is like letting a group of 95 wolves and 5 sheep vote on who they should eat for dinner.

The question is how many wolves a sheep can feed.

Ochlocracy

[Stellonia]

Letting the entire population vote on the rights of 5% of the populations is like letting a group of 95 wolves and 5 sheep vote on who they should eat for dinner.

The only difference is that there is nothing close to anyone eating anyone else. I don't see a connection between gay marriage and carnivorous wolves.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

The question is how many wolves a sheep can feed.

Ochlocracy

Cocracy: rule of dicks.

[Cannot think of a name]

Letting the entire population vote on the rights of 5% of the populations is like letting a group of 95 wolves and 5 sheep vote on who they should eat for dinner.

The only difference is that there is nothing close to anyone eating anyone else. I don't see a connection between gay marriage and carnivorous wolves.

I can't tell if you're being obtuse or just...

[Neutraligon]

Letting the entire population vote on the rights of 5% of the populations is like letting a group of 95 wolves and 5 sheep vote on who they should eat for dinner.

The only difference is that there is nothing close to anyone eating anyone else. I don't see a connection between gay marriage and carnivorous wolves.

What the majority of wolves don't get to decide. States Rights and all that.

[New Jordslag]

Letting the entire population vote on the rights of 5% of the populations is like letting a group of 95 wolves and 5 sheep vote on who they should eat for dinner.

The only difference is that there is nothing close to anyone eating anyone else. I don't see a connection between gay marriage and carnivorous wolves.

Analogies will be analogies.

The Relation to Carnivorous Wolves rides upon that they aren't related to Wolves at all. The whole 'Wolves and Sheep thing' demonstrates how putting Gay Marriage up to Popular Vote is an absolutely shitty idea. The wolves, in this case, are the Homophobes, while the sheep are the Homosexuals.

Do you understand it now?

[Stellonia]

The only difference is that there is nothing close to anyone eating anyone else. I don't see a connection between gay marriage and carnivorous wolves.

What the majority of wolves don't get to decide. States Rights and all that.

Do you oppose all democracy, because you sound like you do?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

The only difference is that there is nothing close to anyone eating anyone else. I don't see a connection between gay marriage and carnivorous wolves.

Analogies will be analogies.

The Relation to Carnivorous Wolves rides upon that they aren't related to Wolves at all. The whole 'Wolves and Sheep thing' demonstrates how putting Gay Marriage up to Popular Vote is an absolutely shitty idea. The wolves, in this case, are the Homophobes, while the sheep are the Homosexuals.

Do you understand it now?

Isn't it a little gay that the homophobes want to "eat" the gays?