To my gay friends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gsxrpilot said:
Coming from someone for whom this has been very personal for the last 20 years... equality and decency won. And after so many years of pain, I'm done caring about how the other side feels about it. So yes, WE won. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

Yeah but you cheated to win. :D While the outcome may be desirable to some and if you are an ends justifies the means person then I suppose you can call it a win if you want. The way this "win" took place is where we all lost. The SCOTUS's decision to circumvent their Constitutional authority is the real issue here. This will likely haunt us for years to come on decisions far more critical to the Republic than this.
 
Matthew said:
Which is why many people believe that should have been a decision left to the States. There is no Constitutional definition of what marriage "is", so States have had the authority to define it. Even the Federal government forms that have a checkbox for "married" have to defer to the State's definition and a State marriage license record. Some States will have different definitions, and that's just fine - the people get to have their say. That does mean that in some States gay marriage may never be legal, so the real solution would have been to remind States that they do need to recognize valid marriage licenses issued in other States. Maybe, over time, all States would legalize it, maybe not. What happened though, is that the Court took away the State power and created a definition of marriage, one that only includes 2 people. Why did they stop at 2? Because traditionally marriage always involved 2 people? Well, traditionally, marriage always involved 2 opposite sex people, but the Court changed that definition. If they can change the definition of marriage now, there isn't anything stopping them from changing it again later.
Click to expand...
Oh, believe me, I'd have much rather seen this resolved with a 34th Amendment than a SCOTUS decision. Except for the full faith and credit aspect (which you concede), I'm sympathetic to the states' rights argument. But I think Kennedy's reasoning with regard to the equal protection aspect was spot on. The real reason for opposition to gay marriage is to discourage and stigmatize a perfectly normal (i.e. non-pathological) variation in human neural wiring and behavior. In fact I would turn your (and Roberts's) argument upside down - I think the same reasoning COULD and even SHOULD be applied to legalizing polyamory, as to not allow polyamorous marriages discriminates against people in that kind of union (which, at least in the LGBT community, is quite common and often very satisfying to all persons involved) and violates "the dignity of the person" every bit as much. The reason they didn't is that there is so far no precedent for defining marriage as anything other than a two-person union.

I agree that expanding the definition of marriage opens up a Pandora's box of issues. I think that's just part and parcel of the ongoing social revolution taking place today in the Western world, and something we will have to deal with.
 
azure said:
I agree that expanding the definition of marriage opens up a Pandora's box of issues. I think that's just part and parcel of the ongoing social revolution taking place today in the Western world, and something we will have to deal with.
Click to expand...

But that is something that can, and should, be done by "the people" over debate, voting, and the whole democratic process. Not left to a panel of 9 unelected judges.

The Libertarian in me goes "meh" when it comes to gay marriage, but the Constitutionalist in me thinks the way this was decided was very wrong.

I just read through Scalia's dissent and he was pretty blunt. Here's something he said about how the Court redefined what marriage is and also touches on the social revolution aspect you mentioned (emphasis his):

"Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation."
 
Kristin said:
Ah yes! The society destroying special privilege of not being lynched. Not to mention those other special privileges that are special only if not conferred upon white males.

You must be hating the 20th and 21st centuries.
Click to expand...
I do, but not for the reason's being discussed here.
Now if all else were the same but we only had about 2 billion people on the planet, I would be much happier.
 
Katamarino said:
He sure does!

Exodus 21:10

“If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife.”
Click to expand...
Good reason not to be too generous to your first wife. :D
 
roncachamp said:
The SCOTUS decision upsets everyone who thinks the US Constitution should be adhered to, without regard to their position on same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...

The country stopped following the constitution sometime back in the 1800's. Why should have it been any different in this case?
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
The country stopped following the constitution sometime back in the 1800's. Why should have it been any different in this case?
Click to expand...
Your point is explained by your Avatar.

But I will keep beating that dead horse until we somehow resolve that question. I would be willing to have another Constitutional Convention to redefine the enumeration of powers. Even if the result was to give the Feds more power, at least we could renew a set of limits that might actually outlast my diminishing lifespan.
 
I'm not hiding anything here. My full name is in my signature. And I'm straight.

If I come at this issue believing that a State/Government recognized marriage is just a policy issue such as Speed Limits, Property Taxes, School Curriculum, etc... then I would agree completely that the SCOTUS overstepped their bounds and this should have been rightly left to the voters, Congress, or some other democratic process.

But I believe, as did evidently, a majority of the SCOTUS, that a State/Government recognized marriage is a Right, much like the freedom from other forms of discrimination based on race, gender, physical handicap, etc. And from that perspective, the SCOTUS of course acted correctly to defend that right across all States.
 
azure said:
Of the "college lesbians" you're talking about, my impression is that many are in fact bisexual. (We used to call them LUGs - Lesbian Until Graduation.)
Click to expand...

I can guarantee you with 100% certainty that there were no such LUGs attending my undergraduate school.
 
Speaking of insufferable leftist sore winners, this today from Ed Driscoll filling in at Instapundit:

As Charles Krauthammer famously said in 2002, “To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil.”

If you’re a leftist who has convinced yourself that you’re in the holy, planet-saving socialist justice warrior business of destroying evil one wrong-thinking person at a time, why take the time and effort to show mercy?
Click to expand...

Or in other words, "Having won the war on gay marriage (by judicial fiat), now some liberal zealots insist on going house-to-house and shooting the survivors. They seem to seek out Christian businesses to provide floral arrangements and cakes for gay weddings so they can call the cops if the Christians try to pass." - Ann Coulter

Like Ms. Stutzman, perhaps?
 
roncachamp said:
That's because we live in a semi-free country. There would be more women in aviation if more women chose to go into aviation. Should it be different? Would you force more women to go into aviation to rectify this under-representation? Would you limit the number of men?
Click to expand...

It should be different. There are not equal opportunities for women in aviation, but there is no governmental solution to this one.
 
roncachamp said:
What opportunities in aviation are denied to women?
Click to expand...

For one, women's access to corporate pilot jobs is limited because in small flight departments, the primary/chief pilot is not going to hire a women copilot because he of the damage it may do to his marriage.
 
Kristin said:
I have read that studies have been done that show a high correlation between homophobia in men and those being aroused by homoerotic images. Makes sense actually.
Click to expand...

So since you presume that everyone who disagrees with your desired outcome is a-skeered of gay folk, you come to the conclusion that everyone who disagrees are just closeted self-repressed homosexuals. "Scalia is GAY!"

Are you 12?
 
Kristin said:
For one, women's access to corporate pilot jobs is limited because in small flight departments, the primary/chief pilot is not going to hire a women copilot because he of the damage it may do to his marriage.
Click to expand...

So women are denied opportunities in aviation due to the attitudes of wives.
 
roncachamp said:
The SCOTUS decision upsets everyone who thinks the US Constitution should be adhered to, without regard to their position on same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...

Whether the decision of five of the justices follow the Constitution depends your view of gay marriage. The 14th Amendment is also part of the Constitution. One's view of the Constitutionality of any decision of the SCOTUS depends on whose ox is being gored.

Constitutional interpretation is politics in another form. It is perhaps imperfect, but it has gotten this country to where it is now, and compared to the rest of the world, we are doing OK.
 
DJTorrente said:
So since you presume that everyone who disagrees with your desired outcome is a-skeered of gay folk, you come to the conclusion that everyone who disagrees are just closeted self-repressed homosexuals. "Scalia is GAY!"

Are you 12?
Click to expand...

I make no conclusions about the percentages involved, I merely reported what I read and stated my opinion that a correlation may make sense.

As for Scalia, I have no personal knowledge about his sexual proclivities so I can't comment. Since you proclaim Scalia to be gay, perhaps you have more intimate knowledge than I do.
 
Kristin said:
Whether the decision of five of the justices follow the Constitution depends your view of gay marriage. The 14th Amendment is also part of the Constitution. One's view of the Constitutionality of any decision of the SCOTUS depends on whose ox is being gored.

Constitutional interpretation is politics in another form. It is perhaps imperfect, but it has gotten this country to where it is now, and compared to the rest of the world, we are doing OK.
Click to expand...

The 10th Amendment is also part of the Constitution. As the 14th Amendment was interpreted to reach this decision the 10th Amendment does not exist. Yet there it is.
 
roncachamp said:
So women are denied opportunities in aviation due to the attitudes of wives.
Click to expand...

I have not opined on the attitudes of wives, I just report my observations. It is however possible that your guess as to the reason is correct.
 
roncachamp said:
The 10th Amendment is also part of the Constitution. As the 14th Amendment was interpreted to reach this decision the 10th Amendment does not exist. Yet there it is.
Click to expand...

The 14th Amendment came after the 10th Amendment. The 14th Amendment established the principle that the States were not free to ignore the fundamental rights of the individual as set forth in the Bill of Rights. To that degree, it overruled the 10th Amendment.

Would you prefer that the States were not bound by the Bill of Rights at all?
 
Kristin said:
The 14th Amendment came after the 10th Amendment. The 14th Amendment established the principle that the States were not free to ignore the fundamental rights of the individual as set forth in the Bill of Rights. To that degree, it overruled the 10th Amendment.

Would you prefer that the States were not bound by the Bill of Rights at all?
Click to expand...

Great then my state can not make any laws abridging my right to keep and bear arms. This is the best day evah!!!!!!!!:yes:

Wait a minute.....system must be broke somewhere.
 
DFH65 said:
Great then my state can not make any laws abridging my right to keep and bear arms. This is the best day evah!!!!!!!!:yes:

Wait a minute.....system must be broke somewhere.
Click to expand...

The law is working its way in that direction with the McDonald and Heller decisions. It will take awhile for the courts to settle on what a "reasonable" restriction on 2nd Amendment rights are. I applaud those decisions as well as Obergefell.
 
Kristin said:
The 14th Amendment came after the 10th Amendment. The 14th Amendment established the principle that the States were not free to ignore the fundamental rights of the individual as set forth in the Bill of Rights. To that degree, it overruled the 10th Amendment.

Would you prefer that the States were not bound by the Bill of Rights at all?
Click to expand...

I would prefer that the federal government was bound by the Bill of Rights.
 
Kristin said:
I make no conclusions about the percentages involved, I merely reported what I read and stated my opinion that a correlation may make sense.

As for Scalia, I have no personal knowledge about his sexual proclivities so I can't comment. Since you proclaim Scalia to be gay, perhaps you have more intimate knowledge than I do.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're 12.
 
Kristin said:
The law is working its way in that direction with the McDonald and Heller decisions. It will take awhile for the courts to settle on what a "reasonable" restriction on 2nd Amendment rights are. I applaud those decisions as well as Obergefell.
Click to expand...


So it's OK with you for a law to "working its way in that direction" for something specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights but not OK for something to be "working its way in that direction" that is NOT in the Bill of Rights.

Confused on that approach to how our system is supposed to work.

ETA: Out of curiosity why are there reasonable restriction on that right but putting restrictions on marriage (not in the Bill of rights) is not reasonable?
 
Last edited:
Kristin said:
The 14th Amendment came after the 10th Amendment. The 14th Amendment established the principle that the States were not free to ignore the fundamental rights of the individual as set forth in the Bill of Rights. To that degree, it overruled the 10th Amendment.

Would you prefer that the States were not bound by the Bill of Rights at all?
Click to expand...
That's where the conflict comes in. No State denied marriage as a right. They defined marriage as man/woman, and for centuries (and for centuries before the US), that was an accepted definition, even when the 14th amendment was written there was no question about that. Gay marriage wasn't part of the deal because it wasn't part of the definition. Interracial marriage restrictions were declared illegal because they denied the right of marriage based on race (14th Amendment), but it didn't change the definition of marriage as man/woman. Gay marriage changes the definition of marriage, and that definition had been left to the States (10th Amendment). At least this is how the dissenting Justices saw it.

Yeah, a lot depends on your particular social or ideological views in how you look at it.
 
pilot_dude said:
I concede actions may or may not determine orientation, per se. However, when the six I referenced earlier come out of the closet and proclaim they are homosexual I have to take them at their word. Well, until they decide they are no longer homosexual then I become confused.
Bisexuality is an interesting topic but may be outside the scope of this thread.
Yes, LUG is the term I have heard but didn't commit it to memory hence me putting "college lesbian" in quotes. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Also, keep in mind, until last week, Society did not allow them to marry, have 2.3 kids, buy a house, a golden retriever, a 30 year mortgage and Cable TV with their same sex partner. So, to achieve the "American Dream" of a white picket fence and debt up to their eyeballs, they had to switch teams after graduation.

As people aren't forced to live in closets, things/society will change.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top