# SCOTUS finds gay marriage bans unconstitutional



## very bored (Jun 26, 2015)

> The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday made marriage for same-sex couples legal nationwide, declaring that refusing to grant marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples violates the Constitution.
> 
> The landmark ruling will produce the most significant change in laws governing matrimony since the court struck down state bans on inter-racial marriage almost 50 years ago.
> 
> ...





A pdf of the opinion is 

[YOUTUBE]AJcFbEnYbsY[/YOUTUBE]

5-4, but a win's a win.


----------



## dr_shadow (Jun 26, 2015)

Fabulous! ^^


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Jun 26, 2015)

Welcome to civilization, USA.


----------



## Shinryu (Jun 26, 2015)

No no no no this completely ruins the family structure, family is father and mother and that is all.


----------



## Han Solo (Jun 26, 2015)

Waiting for mad rage


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Jun 26, 2015)

Now we can all be equally jaded


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Jun 26, 2015)

Eventually only the likes of Iran, North Korea and Italy will be left.


----------



## ExoSkel (Jun 26, 2015)

RIP 'murica


----------



## Shinryu (Jun 26, 2015)

I hope Islam conquers Europe to remove the ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Jun 26, 2015)

#saveusISIS


----------



## EnterTheTao (Jun 26, 2015)

I'm really happy about this.


----------



## Zaru (Jun 26, 2015)

Shinryu said:


> No no no no this completely ruins the family structure, family is father and mother and that is all.



So a family can't have children? Well shit


----------



## Overwatch (Jun 26, 2015)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> Welcome to civilization, USA.



You might wanna stop quartering football referees before preaching that shit.


----------



## Han Solo (Jun 26, 2015)

uncles, aunts, cousins, bothers, sisters = not family


----------



## Shinryu (Jun 26, 2015)

Zaru said:


> So a family can't have children? Well shit



Family is biological therefore only man and woman can start a family.


----------



## EJ (Jun 26, 2015)

Go head on. 

Live your life.


----------



## blueblip (Jun 26, 2015)

In honour of this, title should change SCOTUS to SCROTUM.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 26, 2015)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> Eventually only the likes of Iran, North Korea and *Italy* will be left.



[YOUTUBE]8DYje57V_BY[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Mider T (Jun 26, 2015)

Holy shit, 2 giant rulings in one day?


----------



## LesExit (Jun 26, 2015)

...I feel so happy right now. I didn't think I'd be this happy, but I feel so fucking happy


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 26, 2015)

LesExit said:


> ...I feel so happy right now. I didn't think I'd be this happy, but I feel so fucking happy



You can go marry your boyfriend now Les.


----------



## Lace (Jun 26, 2015)

Freaking finally.


----------



## Zyrax (Jun 26, 2015)

Does this mean I can marry my 2D waifu now, or no?


----------



## Sherlōck (Jun 26, 2015)

Found it in the net,


----------



## Hitt (Jun 26, 2015)

This is the final calling to conservatives in this country to drop this issue.  It's no longer a thing and the debate is over.  Now we can move on to talking about more productive debates on where this country is headed rather than worrying about if two men/women can get together in marriage.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 26, 2015)

Good decision on part of the Supreme Court...this time around...



Zaru said:


> So a family can't have children? Well shit



He's just an attention whore.


----------



## Sea Scorpion (Jun 26, 2015)

Glad it's over...but 5-4? Jesus. Still not exemplary.


----------



## Mider T (Jun 26, 2015)

Sherlōck said:


> Found it in the net,



Iowa was the 2nd state of legalize it?


----------



## dream (Jun 26, 2015)

Wonderful news to wake up to.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 26, 2015)

Couples here are getting married already.


----------



## LesExit (Jun 26, 2015)

NaS said:


> You can go marry your boyfriend now Les.


Do you think I'm a guy :0?


----------



## Zyrax (Jun 26, 2015)

LesExit said:


> Do you think I'm a guy :0?


----------



## LesExit (Jun 26, 2015)

I mean...I think I'll flee ఠ_ఠ


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 26, 2015)

Mider T said:


> Iowa was the 2nd state of legalize it?



Connecticut was the second.


----------



## Zyrax (Jun 26, 2015)

LesExit said:


> I mean...I think I'll flee ఠ_ఠ


No need to be shy 
PM me a picture of yourself


----------



## dr_shadow (Jun 26, 2015)

So does this mean all states are obliged to *perform* same-sex weddings if requested, or does it just mean that they have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states?


----------



## LesExit (Jun 26, 2015)

Zyrax Pasha said:


> No need to be shy
> PM me a picture of yourself


Right away :33


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 26, 2015)

mr_shadow said:


> So does this mean all states are obliged to *perform* same-sex weddings if requested, or does it just mean that they have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states?



No. States can still choose to ignore federal laws such as the legalization of weed. Government jobs however does have to recognize it.


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Jun 26, 2015)

mr_shadow said:


> So does this mean all states are obliged to *perform* same-sex weddings if requested, or does it just mean that they have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states?



States refusing to issue same-sex marriage certificates or showing discriminatory practices in how they execute those certificates now expose themselves to federal lawsuits.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jun 26, 2015)




----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jun 26, 2015)

I can't wait to see the conservative freakout on this one.


----------



## Narcissus (Jun 26, 2015)

The Supreme Court made the right decision. They erased a form of bigotry that had no logical argument to support it.


Shinryu said:


> Family is biological therefore only man and woman can start a family.


----------



## Parallax (Jun 26, 2015)

let's not feed the trolls

today we should be better than that.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Jun 26, 2015)

I read the Dissenting opinion, 

The opinions of Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Alito suggest that American Constitutional jurisprudence, and laws reflecting our culture should perpetually reflect the values of the past. That the Court should not add any legal reasoning that coincides with ever new and changing ways, customs, perceptions and views. 

These guys would prefer we stay stuck in Jim Crow fucking America. Shitheads.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jun 26, 2015)

LouDAgreat said:


> I read the Dissenting opinion,
> 
> The opinions of Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Alito suggest that American Constitutional jurisprudence, and laws reflecting our culture should perpetually reflect the values of the past. That the Court should not add any legal reasoning that coincides with ever new and changing ways, customs, perceptions and views.
> 
> These guys would prefer we stay stuck in Jim Crow fucking America. Shitheads.



Scalia has always argued that way.  It will be a great day for everyone when he leaves the court.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Jun 26, 2015)

Well I guess onto the next big problem???

Or will the house republicans try to vote 21 times to over rule the court's decision


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 26, 2015)

makeoutparadise said:


> Well I guess onto the next big problem???
> 
> Or will the house republicans try to vote 21 times to over rule the court's decision



It's up to the states at this point.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Jun 26, 2015)

BRB gonna go to tumblr and screen cap the reaction for historical posterity


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jun 26, 2015)

NaS said:


> It's up to the states at this point.



Up to them to do what?


----------



## Zyrax (Jun 26, 2015)

> Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a statement yesterday, telling county clerks and justices of the peace across the Lone Star State to wait to get "direction and clarity" from him once the U.S. Supreme Court decides the same sex marriage case.
> 
> 
> “To be clear - the law in the state of Texas is that marriage is one man and one woman, and the position of this office is that the United States Constitution clearly does not speak to any right to marriage other than one man and one woman and that the First Amendment clearly protects religious liberty and the right to believe in traditional marriage without facing discrimination," Paxton wrote.
> ...


----------



## lacey (Jun 26, 2015)

"It is so ordered."

And I am so happy and relieved. About time.


----------



## LesExit (Jun 26, 2015)

_"And nothing will change our collective resolve that all Americans should be able to exercise their faith in their daily lives without infringement and harassment."_

_"It is not acceptable that people of faith be exposed to such *abuse*"_



These poor sad souls...


----------



## Hitt (Jun 26, 2015)

> "Today?s ruling by five Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court marks a radical departure from countless generations of societal law and tradition."



So was the 14th amendment in the 1860s. 

Time to...  :letgo


----------



## Sea Scorpion (Jun 26, 2015)




----------



## Zyrax (Jun 26, 2015)

Seeing how Northern States banned Cousin Marriage they have no right to judge Texas


----------



## santanico (Jun 26, 2015)

fuck you and your religion and if you don't like gay marriage


----------



## Malicious Friday (Jun 26, 2015)

I wonder if that pastor set himself on fire yet. I have marshmallows ready to go


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jun 26, 2015)

starr said:


> fuck you and your religion and if you don't like cousin marriage


Only the divine marriage of the Targaryens is acceptable.


----------



## santanico (Jun 26, 2015)

editing my post zyrax you bitch


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 26, 2015)

starr said:


> editing my post zyrax you bitch



Yea what you said was fucking retarded.


----------



## santanico (Jun 26, 2015)

NaS said:


> Yea what you said was fucking retarded.



stop and take a good look at yourself before referring to someone else as retarded, thanks


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Jun 26, 2015)

makeoutparadise said:


> Well I guess onto the next big problem???
> 
> Or will the house republicans try to vote 21 times to over rule the court's decision



I expect that we'll have a whole slew of whacky new laws introduced on Monday to help "clarify" this issue.  None of them will pass Constitutional muster of course but that won't stop them from wasting a whole lot of time and money defending them in court to delay things a little longer.

Should take bets on what direction they'll go.  Introduce a new marriage form that's 93 pages long for same-sex marriages but allow anyone that is able to to use the old half-page form?  Require all couples to take a course in the history and tradition of marriage?

I'm guessing Monday will be an interesting day.


----------



## Zyrax (Jun 26, 2015)

starr said:


> editing my post zyrax you bitch


                      .


----------



## Hitt (Jun 26, 2015)

WorkingMoogle said:


> I expect that we'll have a whole slew of whacky new laws introduced on Monday to help "clarify" this issue.  None of them will pass Constitutional muster of course but that won't stop them from wasting a whole lot of time and money defending them in court to delay things a little longer.



I doubt this highly.  The Republicans have undoubtedly already noticed the political winds changing and now fighting this will just mean political suicide for most representatives unless they are going for super right wing support.

Personally I think most Republicans (and of course most Democrats) don't want to deal with this issue anymore.  What political gain it once gave them (check out how it affected things in the 2004 reelection of GW Bush) now no longer applies and it isn't worth pursuing.  There's plenty of other things they can be working on.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Jun 26, 2015)

Go read the comments section if you are looking for free entertainment.


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Jun 26, 2015)

Hitt said:


> I doubt this highly.  The Republicans have undoubtedly already noticed the political winds changing and now fighting this will just mean political suicide for most representatives unless they are going for super right wing support.
> 
> Personally I think most Republicans (and of course most Democrats) don't want to deal with this issue anymore.  What political gain it once gave them (check out how it affected things in the 2004 reelection of GW Bush) now no longer applies and it isn't worth pursuing.  There's plenty of other things they can be working on.



I'll bet 10000 rep that by end of day Monday (11:59PM Pacific time) we'll have at least 3 Republican presidential candidates blasting this decision and vowing to work to overturn it.

Laws may take more time but I'll be amazed if we don't have a few introduced (Michigan actually already had prior to the ruling coming out).  Whether they'll get _passed_ might be open to debate.

/edit:  Never mind.



> "I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch," Huckabee said. "We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat."





> "The Supreme Court decision today conveniently and not surprisingly follows public opinion polls, and tramples on states' rights that were once protected by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that," Jindal said.





> Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who said he will make a 2016 announcement next month, said, "As a result of this decision, the only alternative left for the American people is to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage."


----------



## LesExit (Jun 26, 2015)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> Go read the comments section if you are looking for free entertainment.


I dont know whether to laugh...or cry :'D


----------



## Sea Scorpion (Jun 26, 2015)

WorkingMoogle said:


> I'll bet 10000 rep that by end of day Monday (11:59PM Pacific time) we'll have at least 3 Republican presidential candidates blasting this decision and vowing to work to overturn it.
> 
> Laws may take more time but I'll be amazed if we don't have a few introduced (Michigan actually already had prior to the ruling coming out).  Whether they'll get _passed_ might be open to debate.
> 
> /edit:  Never mind.



Those quotes make me angry.

I don't think it will make a difference now, though.


----------



## Hitt (Jun 26, 2015)

That "amendment" won't even come up for vote.  Again, I realize there are a few crazies who will try to drum up their far right base, but the moderates won't go anywhere near it because it just isn't worth it.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Jun 26, 2015)

[YOUTUBE]BRDBvKGc1fE[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Jun 26, 2015)

Sea Scorpion said:


> Those quotes make me angry.
> 
> I don't think it will make a difference now, though.



Long term it won't, none of their attempts will pass muster but that doesn't mean they're anywhere near done fighting about it.

But it's a major step forward.



Hitt said:


> That "amendment" won't even come up for vote.  Again, I realize there are a few crazies who will try to drum up their far right base, but the moderates won't go anywhere near it because it just isn't worth it.



Sorry, but these are candidates for the President of the United States, candidates that are attracting significant fundraising and media recognition.  You can't just write them off as "a few crazies."

The point stands that a significant portion of the Republican party, including leaders in the Republican party think this is still a major issue.

These are not random kooks with blogs.  Walker's currently in 2nd place in the polls.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jun 26, 2015)

WorkingMoogle said:


> Sorry, but these are candidates for the President of the United States, candidates that are attracting significant fundraising and media recognition.  You can't just write them off as "a few crazies."
> 
> The point stands that a significant portion of the Republican party, including leaders in the Republican party think this is still a major issue.
> 
> These are not random kooks with blogs.  Walker's currently in 2nd place in the polls.



They're getting major media attention because they're contenders for the nomination of one of the two major parties, not because of their stance on gay marriage.

None of them are going to make banning gay marriage a major pillar of their campaign, it would be political suicide.


----------



## Narcissus (Jun 26, 2015)

I love the appeal to traditions, and the "established by God" nonsense. The fact that something has been a certain way, is no argument that it should stay that way. And marriage is not about religion. 

But I'll sit back and enjoy the pain of those who lost.


----------



## Nemesis (Jun 26, 2015)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> Go read the comments section if you are looking for free entertainment.



You see I would but the place is being flooded.  I think I am going to need a scuba gear to survive the conservative tears.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 26, 2015)

starr said:


> stop and take a good look at yourself before referring to someone else as retarded, thanks



Love when I strike a nerve.


----------



## Kusa (Jun 26, 2015)

This is really great news :33


----------



## Zyrax (Jun 26, 2015)

Am I the only one who thinks this is to distract everyone from the TPP?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jun 26, 2015)

Zyrax Pasha said:


> Am I the only one who thinks this is to distract everyone from the TPP?



That's unlikely.  The supreme court always saves a lot of their more controversial rulings for the end of the term.

TPP will be going on for several months more at least, including the 60 days where its text will finally be made public.


----------



## blueblip (Jun 26, 2015)

Zyrax Pasha said:


> Am I the only one who thinks this is to distract everyone from the TPP?


Not to be rude, but yes.

Gay marriage is a major social issue in the US, and gay people have been subject to discrimination because people adhere to a 2000 year old book that has absolutely no bearing on modern times.

TPP is also extremely important as an economic issue. But basic human rights trumps economics on the importance totem pole.


----------



## EnterTheTao (Jun 26, 2015)

i got asked to officiate a wedding today


----------



## EnterTheTao (Jun 26, 2015)

Zyrax Pasha said:


> Am I the only one who thinks this is to distract everyone from the TPP?



i'm sure all of /pol/ agrees with you. because it's delusional nonsense


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Jun 26, 2015)

Tsukiyomi said:


> They're getting major media attention because they're contenders for the nomination of one of the two major parties, not because of their stance on gay marriage.
> 
> None of them are going to make banning gay marriage a major pillar of their campaign, it would be political suicide.



The only pillar of their campaign, no.

Use it of evidence of the "increasing corruption from liberals in society?"  Yes.  Call for impeachment of the judges that voted for it?  Yes.  Call for Constitutional amendments to "restore decency to society?"  Yes.

Will most of these things be pretenses to increase political donations from scared, old, white people?  Also yes.

Doesn't mean that a vocal subsection of the party will continue to do it.

(Now if we want to speculate as to what the eventual _winner_ of the Republican nomination is reacting, that is another story.  But my general point of "this isn't over" remains.)


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jun 26, 2015)

WorkingMoogle said:


> The only pillar of their campaign, no.
> 
> Use it of evidence of the "increasing corruption from liberals in society?"  Yes.  Call for impeachment of the judges that voted for it?  Yes.  Call for Constitutional amendments to "restore decency to society?"  Yes.
> 
> ...



I doubt they'll do any of that either.  A majority of American's support marriage equality now and the majority is getting bigger every day.


----------



## Kanga (Jun 26, 2015)

Aw man, this is great.


----------



## Deer Lord (Jun 26, 2015)

Why would anyone want marrige to begin with


----------



## Mider T (Jun 26, 2015)

The "established by God" thing is shaky.
1. If you're of the opinion of a strict constructionist then you'really infringing upon the first amendment if a guy couple doesn't believe in God.
2. You're implying the explicitly secular America is mildly theocratic. Which is troubling considering who we're at war with.


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Jun 26, 2015)

Tsukiyomi said:


> I doubt they'll do any of that either.  A majority of American's support marriage equality now and the majority is getting bigger every day.




http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...ct-supreme-courts-gay-marriage-ruling-n382441

About 2/3rds of them were aggressively unhappy with the ruling, suggesting various actions that need to be taken. 

About 1/3rd of them essentially said "I disagree but the fight's over"

Oddly none of them said "about time, good for them."


----------



## Mider T (Jun 26, 2015)

^Were you modfucked?  How the hell did you join in Feb 04?



Deer Lord said:


> Why would anyone want marrige to begin with



For the legal benefits and the big rock.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jun 26, 2015)

WorkingMoogle said:


> http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...ct-supreme-courts-gay-marriage-ruling-n382441
> 
> About 2/3rds of them were aggressively unhappy with the ruling, suggesting various actions that need to be taken.
> 
> ...



Wait a couple months, it will fade away.  They pretty much had to express dissatisfaction right now since it just happened.  By the time the election rolls around it will have faded away.


----------



## Saishin (Jun 26, 2015)

Yay more money to the attorneys for the divorces  congrats America,sometime you do things right 


Dragon D. Luffy said:


> Eventually only the likes of Iran, North Korea and *Italy*will be left.





NaS said:


> [YOUTUBE]8DYje57V_BY[/YOUTUBE]





It's true we'll be the only left  why we have to host the Vatican?


----------



## lacey (Jun 26, 2015)

The very definition of "salty as fuck."


----------



## scerpers (Jun 26, 2015)

waiting for a group of ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) murders to emerge


----------



## WorkingMoogle (Jun 26, 2015)

Mider T said:


> ^Were you modfucked?  How the hell did you join in Feb 04?


I joined in '02 however Tazmo told me I had to come back after the forum was created to make the account.



Tsukiyomi said:


> Wait a couple months, it will fade away.  They pretty much had to express dissatisfaction right now since it just happened.  By the time the election rolls around it will have faded away.



Maybe, I remain skeptical.

I'm from Iowa, Republicans remained bitter for years here in order to get the chance to vote 3 of our judges off the bench and still submit legislature annually to try and amend the Constitution in Iowa.

While I think this is a huge step forward and will eventually lead to it becoming (largely) a non-issue, I don't think that's going to happen in the next few years.

But if Republicans want to prove me wrong I'm not complaining.


----------



## Eki (Jun 26, 2015)

Bleh. The amount of upset people about this and spewing shit about God in this time of age is ridiculous.


----------



## Pilaf (Jun 26, 2015)

Behold the shifting bigotries of America. Once, gays were hated, and now they're rightly not...but little yuppie spawn have shifted their hate to Southern people instead, not seeing the irony one bit.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jun 26, 2015)

Pilaf said:


> Behold the shifting bigotries of America. Once, gays were hated, and now they're rightly not...but little yuppie spawn have shifted their hate to Southern people instead, not seeing the irony one bit.


Its mostly hatred for many people in the South not wanting to catch up to the 21st century, holding racist, homophobic, and sexist feelings.


----------



## Bender (Jun 26, 2015)

Hells yeah to gay marriage victory.


----------



## EnterTheTao (Jun 26, 2015)

Pilaf said:


> Behold the shifting bigotries of America. Once, gays were hated, and now they're rightly not...but little yuppie spawn have shifted their hate to Southern people instead, not seeing the irony one bit.



are you seriously arguing that southern people are oppressed on the basis of being southern? holy christ

also, am southern, can confirm that's moronic


----------



## Mider T (Jun 26, 2015)

WorkingMoogle said:


> I joined in '02 however Tazmo told me I had to come back after the forum was created to make the account.



Alright so did others but this version of the forum wasn't created until September 26, 2004.  So how?



EnterTheTao said:


> are you seriously arguing that southern people are oppressed on the basis of being southern? holy christ
> 
> also, am southern, can confirm that's moronic



We usually just let him babble until he gets tired,  then the adults can get back to talking.


----------



## shit (Jun 26, 2015)

EnterTheTao said:


> are you seriously arguing that southern people are oppressed on the basis of being southern? holy christ
> 
> also, am southern, can confirm that's moronic



not oppressed, hated


----------



## EnterTheTao (Jun 26, 2015)

shit said:


> not oppressed, hated



semantics, considering he was saying homophobia (which is oppressive) has been supplanted by "hatred" of the South

anyway it doesn't make it any less stupid


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jun 26, 2015)

Its funny on how so many 'religious leaders' forget Jesus taught:

"Don't judge lest ye be judged."


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Jun 26, 2015)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Its funny on how so many 'religious leaders' forget Jesus taught:
> 
> "Don't judge lest ye be judged."



Jesus and the Bible teach many things that contradict each other.

Your point?


----------



## Detective (Jun 26, 2015)

America taking small steps toward leaving behind their label of being the world's largest third world country.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 26, 2015)

some good news, for once


----------



## Magic (Jun 26, 2015)

Saishin said:


> Yay more money to the attorneys for the divorces  congrats America,sometime you do things right
> 
> 
> 
> ...



DIVORCE IS BIG MONEY


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jun 26, 2015)

Detective said:


> America taking small steps toward leaving behind their label of being the world's largest third world country.


The US has never been a 'third world nation'.


----------



## Bioness (Jun 26, 2015)

[YOUTUBE]Kdy0ur3pOwY[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]BhfF9g2OxY0[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]pdiCdbpjcJw[/YOUTUBE]
​


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 26, 2015)

Perfect timing.


----------



## Totally not a cat (Jun 26, 2015)

About time for some good news! I'm excited to hear the whines of all conservatives out there. I wonder how's that couple that pledged to divorce doing, or all those fasting nutjobs.


----------



## Soca (Jun 26, 2015)

Bio outta nowhere.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Jun 26, 2015)

Detective said:


> America taking small steps toward leaving behind their label of being the world's largest third world country.



I was under the impression that was China?


----------



## ~Greed~ (Jun 26, 2015)

Hmm. 'Bout time. Good for them.


----------



## Aphelion (Jun 26, 2015)

good.  about time.


----------



## shit (Jun 26, 2015)

EnterTheTao said:


> semantics, considering he was saying homophobia (which is oppressive) has been supplanted by "hatred" of the South
> 
> anyway it doesn't make it any less stupid



it makes it much more accurate tho


----------



## shit (Jun 26, 2015)

in fact justice olito's point in his particular dissent was that people won't be able to publicly voice that gay marriage is wrong because people will persecute by way of disdain that kinda mindset and bloo bloo bloo

sorry I couldn't even repeat it with a straight face


----------



## Demetrius (Jun 26, 2015)

Fantastic, really.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 26, 2015)

shit i can never tell when you're trolling any more


----------



## shit (Jun 26, 2015)

I get that a lot


----------



## afrosheen6565 (Jun 26, 2015)

Was going to write a long thing. You get the gist though. Blah Blah Blah. Gay "marriage" is not real marriage and so on. More concerned about the way in which this happened than the fact that it actually happened. Also had a rather brilliant exposure of the logical fallacies of modern progressivism and its reliance on institutional power as a means to force, yes FORCE, change and how these individuals excuse their own intolerance --- and it can be called nothing else --- and cloak their own vitriol and mouth-foaming intransigence in the guise of justice, caring and "the right side of history" (as though history is already written). 

Main point was that I don't really care all that much about governmental "marriage" - divorce rate is sky high, cheating is rampant -- marriage is as cold and dead as Michael Jackson (and as morally bankrupt) -- and this so-called debate has only served to highlight this debasement of the same. 

My main point was that I DO care about the blissfully superficial, moronically sanctimonious, willfully overbearing, intellectually insubstantial, persecutory nature of the proceedings over the past couple of years. People care more about gloating and flaming than they do about the issue itself. People care more about being given a socially acceptable basis to be absolute and total pricks to people of religious faith, particularly Christians, than they do about this issue. And yes, there are real and substantial arguments to be made about America's brand of christiandom and its many offenses, but I'll leave that to you.

There. I've disagreed with a popular opinion online.
Flame as you see fit.


----------



## shit (Jun 26, 2015)

you did write a long thing


----------



## afrosheen6565 (Jun 26, 2015)

shit said:


> you did write a long thing




Once I get going mate.....


----------



## Bioness (Jun 26, 2015)

afrosheen6565 said:


> Was going to write a long thing. You get the gist though. Blah Blah Blah. Gay "marriage" is not real marriage and so on. More concerned about the way in which this happened than the fact that it actually happened. Also had a rather brilliant exposure of the logical fallacies of modern progressivism and its reliance on institutional power as a means to force, yes FORCE, change and how these individuals excuse their own intolerance --- and it can be called nothing else --- and cloak their own vitriol and mouth-foaming intransigence in the guise of justice, caring and "the right side of history" (as though history is already written).
> 
> Main point was that I don't really care all that much about governmental "marriage" - divorce rate is sky high, cheating is rampant -- marriage is as cold and dead as Michael Jackson (and as morally bankrupt) -- and this so-called debate has only served to highlight this debasement of the same.
> 
> ...



Let me put it this way, if it were by popular vote it would have passed either way; in fact it would have had an even bigger majority than simply 5-4, it would have been a 193,000,000-115,000,000 decision.

I will applaud you however for your loquaciously verbose rant, I had to look up one of those words and pause for a second on a few others.


----------



## afrosheen6565 (Jun 26, 2015)

Bioness said:


> Let me put it this way, if it were by popular vote it would have passed either way; in fact it would have had an even bigger majority than simply 5-4, it would have been a 193,000,000-115,000,000 decision.
> 
> I will applaud you however for your loquaciously verbose rant, I had to look up one of those words and pause for a second on a few others.



Why thank you old chap for the civil nature of your response   and I will admit to your descriptor - "rant" - in this instance, only because my thoughts were disorganized from the outset. However, that word - rant - is oft misused as a way to miscast people who disagree with one's positions. A way to downplay an opponent's constitution - an indicator that that individual has no agency to make an argument of substance because of some implicit unstableness in the person themselves. It is a tact that attacks the frame and ignores the picture.

And I'm not so sure about your popular vote theory. Are you talking state by state or nationwide?


----------



## Bioness (Jun 26, 2015)

193,000,000+115,000,000= 308,000,000 aka the population of the whole of the United States. 60-65% of the United States supports same-sex marriage.

Edit: I just realized the population of the United States is in actuality 321 million, adjust the numbers a bit if you want the real amount.


----------



## Juda (Jun 26, 2015)

I just wish they gave churches the right to deny in respect to there religion. This is a slap to all churhes imo. But Ive said my peace


----------



## Bioness (Jun 26, 2015)

Juda said:


> I just wish they gave churches the right to deny in respect to there religion. This is a slap to all churhes imo. But Ive said my peace



I'm pretty sure they aren't forcing churches to have same sex marriages.


----------



## Mider T (Jun 26, 2015)

How did I know Bioness was going to come back?


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Jun 26, 2015)

Yeah I think only civil marriages are affected.

So don't worry Juda, your little bubble where gays don't exist is safe.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 26, 2015)

Now can we do something productive, like adress teen homelessness and pray the gay away camps?


----------



## Gaawa-chan (Jun 26, 2015)

Juda said:


> I just wish they gave churches the right to deny in respect to there religion. This is a slap to all churhes imo. But Ive said my peace



How many times must it be said?  This is about secular marriage contracts, NOT religious marriage ceremonies.

You'd think no one on the anti-gay marriage side had ever gotten married before because they don't seem to know what the fuck it even is.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 26, 2015)

Banhammer said:


> Now can we do something productive, like adress teen homelessness and pray the gay away camps?



Acting is if society doesn't usually juggle multiple issues at any given time.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 26, 2015)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Acting is if society doesn't usually juggle multiple issues at any given time.



As someone that's been in more gay rights marches than you've had birthdays, I'm curious to understand what you're harping on about :33


----------



## makeoutparadise (Jun 26, 2015)

Gaawa-chan said:


> How many times must it be said?  This is about secular marriage contracts, NOT religious marriage ceremonies.
> 
> You'd think no one on the anti-gay marriage side had ever gotten married before because they don't seem to know what the fuck it even is.



It's in soceity like every movie and story ever written puts marriage in a church it's not as dramatic when you walk into a court house and do it.

And it's not like gay people couldn't simply just form their own church and preform marriages there if they so wished


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 26, 2015)

They can, but frankly the religious gay community should fight for its place on the local chapters


----------



## 海外ニキ (Jun 26, 2015)

Gaawa-chan said:


> How many times must it be said?  This is about secular marriage contracts, NOT religious marriage ceremonies.
> 
> You'd think no one on the anti-gay marriage side had ever gotten married before because they don't seem to know what the fuck it even is.



No, they've gotten married.......at a church.

Despite a courthouse always being an option for straight couples.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 26, 2015)

Banhammer said:


> As someone that's been in more gay rights marches than you've had birthdays, I'm curious to understand what you're harping on about :33



"Now we can focus on something productive" as if multiple issues can't be addressed at any given time. Pretty unambiguous.


----------



## santanico (Jun 26, 2015)

Banhammer said:


> As someone that's been in more gay rights marches than you've had birthdays, I'm curious to understand what you're harping on about :33



well fuck, just how old are you?


----------



## EJ (Jun 26, 2015)

Sad to say like 30 percent of the people on my FB are against same sex-marriage. Part of them being my own family members. They are quiet today, when usually they are active on the site, especially on Friday.


----------



## Bioness (Jun 26, 2015)

starr said:


> well fuck, just how old are you?



Banhammer was there for the Stonewall Riots, yo.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jun 26, 2015)

My reaction whilst social media/facebook/IRL won't stfu about this today.


----------



## Narcissus (Jun 26, 2015)

Banhammer said:


> Now can we do something productive, like adress teen homelessness and pray the gay away camps?



For what it's worth Ban, work is being done on ex-gay therapy (Obama recently called for conversion therapy to be banned, and everyone knows that it is pseudoscience).

This itself was productive too.


----------



## EJ (Jun 26, 2015)

Megaharrison said:


> My reaction whilst social media/facebook/IRL won't stfu about this today.



Hey, thanks for letting everyone know this.


----------



## Totally not a cat (Jun 26, 2015)

Flow said:


> Sad to say like 30 percent of the people on my FB are against same sex-marriage. Part of them being my own family members. They are quiet today, when usually they are active on the site, especially on Friday.



Some thoughts are better off not being expressed, in a way, silence may be for the best here. At least that's how I would feel in your position.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 26, 2015)

Seto Kaiba said:


> "Now we can focus on something productive" as if multiple issues can't be addressed at any given time. Pretty unambiguous.



Well, maybe if you're lacking in basic internal LGBT community contention points, but I'm not, so there you have it.

For years the community has had reservations that the representation of marriage as the one driving issue for this movement was not the ideal one, as it is a distribution of privileges over the combat of direct harms.

It's a point of contention widespread among many of members of the movement and the community, on what is or isn't appropriate for the focus and expenditure of political capital, and which victories are appropriate for this demographic on the distribution for which political cycles, or how much momentum the movement will loose now that the one thing that affects only the most privileged among us is done and solved with. 


But you want to just say something generically snarky at me, rather than engage in the internal debate on the direction of self determining will of the identity of the gay movement, so knock yourself out. It's really no sweat off my cock.



Narcissus said:


> For what it's worth Ban, work is being done on ex-gay therapy (Obama recently called for conversion therapy to be banned, and everyone knows that it is pseudoscience).
> 
> This itself was productive too.




I know, I know, it's just the places I've been to in the past couple of weeks really seem to be so out of touch with it that it has become absurd.

Fine, marry yourselves the fuck out, but let's do this now please, before you spend half a million dollars in designer pastel dove plates the wedding planner is going to milk you out of? pleaspleasplease


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 26, 2015)

You know that long-winded response didn't really have much relevance to the point I made. It wasn't snarky, it was a matter of fact. You can address multiple issues at one time. I don't see how, and it is not the case that, a push for marriage equality excludes focus on other issues that affect gay and transgendered individuals.


----------



## Edward Newgate (Jun 27, 2015)

Well done, US. Well done.

Wish I could see the reaction on the faces of those who just found themselves on the wrong side of history.


----------



## Matariki (Jun 27, 2015)

this is just wrong, it's like supporting i*c*st


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 27, 2015)

Bannai said:


> this is just wrong, it's like supporting i*c*st



homophobe blahblahblah, fallacious reasoning, etc. You've got some attention.

There. Your dad's beatings sting less now?


----------



## Matariki (Jun 27, 2015)

Seto Kaiba said:


> homophobe blahblahblah, fallacious reasoning, etc. You've got some attention.
> 
> There. Your dad's beatings sting less now?



not my fault you have no moral compass


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jun 27, 2015)

^ They're in denial mode. Still thinking they are in the right at denying rights to people.


----------



## Narcissus (Jun 27, 2015)

Edward Newgate said:


> Well done, US. Well done.
> 
> Wish I could see the reaction on the faces of those who just found themselves on the wrong side of history.



You could see the reactions ever since the announcement. Basically it's a lot of salt.

Amusingly enough, the conservatives and bigots on NF are avoiding this thread (barring trolls). Probably don't won't to acknowledge that they've lost. 

More seriously though, you can expect those people to try to fight this to the end, no matter how futile it will be.


----------



## Edward Newgate (Jun 27, 2015)

Narcissus said:


> You could see the reactions ever since the announcement. Basically it's a lot of salt.
> 
> Amusingly enough, the conservatives and bigots on NF are avoiding this thread (barring trolls). Probably don't won't to acknowledge that they've lost.
> 
> More seriously though, you can expect those people to try to fight this to the end, no matter how futile it will be.


Yeah, but I want to see their reaction when they're alone, at their most private moments.  (probably while they're masturbating to gay porn)


----------



## Demetrius (Jun 27, 2015)

Bannai said:


> this is just wrong, it's like supporting i*c*st


Bannai pls

:letgoryu

You've lost


----------



## Fayrra (Jun 27, 2015)

Bannai said:


> this is just wrong



Man, you really are worst girl.


Also, obligatory fuck yeah, rationality and fairness prevails!


----------



## EnterTheTao (Jun 27, 2015)

Banhammer said:


> Now can we do something productive, like adress teen homelessness and pray the gay away camps?



Marriage isn't the end of the fight, but it's certainly maybe the biggest step yet. while the community is really anxious about this, there's no reason not to celebrate it. Marriage is important for a ton of people.

like, yeah, workplace discrimination, housing discrimination, credit discrimination, conversion therapy, LGBTQ homelessness, poverty, and suicide,... those are all more apparent and harmful things, but it really doesn't erase what a great thing this is for the movement.


----------



## blueblip (Jun 27, 2015)

Banhammer said:


> Well, maybe if you're lacking in basic internal LGBT community contention points, but I'm not, so there you have it.
> 
> For years the community has had reservations that the representation of marriage as the one driving issue for this movement was not the ideal one, as it is a distribution of privileges over the combat of direct harms.
> 
> ...


I can see where you're coming from, but look at it from another perspective.

The issues you are talking about (you touched upon them in another thread) exist primarily because there is an existing perception among some people at being gay isn't normal. Of course, the denial of marriage was also one of them, but unlike with other problems, the gay marriage issue has one thing going for it that other gay issues don't - the average, straight person can actually put themselves in the shoes of a gay person for once and empathise.

A straight person, no matter how well meaning they might be, cannot ever really understand what it's like to be discriminated against because they've never had to go through it, not even once. So, even if they mean well, more complex/difficult issues fail to get the required political/social impetus needed to deal with them. Relatively speaking, gay marriage is...was an easier issue to gain the required momentum to push through currently.

And by succeeding by making marriage a universal right, it will help fence sitters to now maybe think about supporting other LGBT(Q) issues, and in the long run, help build momentum for them to be resolved as well.


----------



## Donquixote Doflamingo (Jun 27, 2015)

Megaharrison said:


> My reaction whilst social media/facebook/IRL won't stfu about this today.



Pretty much

Only way I could care less is if someone paid me.


----------



## Soca (Jun 27, 2015)

This is all kinds of relevant now 

[YOUTUBE]Jitocz4kB3k[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 27, 2015)

Remember how hard the Republicans tried to make it for Obama to leave any kind of lasting legacy? 

Looks like they have _definitely_ failed on that.


----------



## Laix (Jun 27, 2015)

better late than never America, I've been allowed to blow my husband for a while now


----------



## Megaharrison (Jun 27, 2015)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Remember how hard the Republicans tried to make it for Obama to leave any kind of lasting legacy?
> 
> Looks like they have _definitely_ failed on that.



Not unless you don't give a damn about this.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 27, 2015)

mega i think you're now past the threshold in terms of the number of times you can say you don't care about something, before it begins to seem like you actually do care about it, which is why you're trying so hard to make out that you don't


----------



## Megaharrison (Jun 27, 2015)

Twice is the threshold?

This was more about mocking Barry tho so I'll subtract some points.

Lets say 1.65


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 27, 2015)

i saw you say it in that blender thread as well, you're currently at 3, or 2.65 if you want


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Jun 27, 2015)

realistically the limit for telling people you don't care about a thing is probably one at the highest


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 27, 2015)

nightbringer said:


> realistically the limit for telling people you don't care about a thing is probably one at the highest



i think i should be kind and offer two times

because sometimes you genuinely don't care about it, but the amount you see other people care about it can be annoying even if you legit don't care about it yourself, so you might wanna say it again

but at 3 times you're reaching "maybe he actually cares about it..."


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Jun 27, 2015)

and I guess mega said it in two different places so that maybe deserves consideration


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 27, 2015)

i don't think i wanna be kind enough to consider that as well


----------



## Wolfarus (Jun 27, 2015)

Great.

Now gay and lesbian people can look forward to loosing 50% of their property in a divorce, just the same as everybody else.

Now that the same-sex marriage issue has been finally (legally) laid to rest, how about we start working on that pesky income inequality issue next?


----------



## Megaharrison (Jun 27, 2015)

Blender posts never count in anything. I talk about how I want to get fucked from behind by transexuals bodybuilders in the blender (literally).


not that I wouldn't want to


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Jun 27, 2015)

But how will courts be biased in divorce when both couples are the same 

whole systems ruined now tbh


----------



## Megaharrison (Jun 27, 2015)

I look forward to my 10 waifu/husbando harem as soon as these degenerates legalize polygamy.


----------



## blueblip (Jun 27, 2015)

I was just reading the dissenting opinions, and holy shit are they weirdhilarious!

Setting Scalia aside because he's always a grumpy stick-in-the-mud, there was one particular portion of John Roberts' dissent that is just bizarre:



> As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millenia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthiginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?


what is this I don't even


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 27, 2015)

man i bet a piece of shit like that was all like "slavery has formed the backbone of human endeavour for millenia, who are we to fuck with that?" back in 1864 or whenever


----------



## hammer (Jun 27, 2015)

wtf is that blip


----------



## blueblip (Jun 27, 2015)

1864? Try 2015.



hammer said:


> wtf is that blip


I don't know 

He's your chief justice, you tell me...


----------



## Unicornsilovethem (Jun 27, 2015)

So about that. Does this ruling apply specifically only to gay marriage? Or are states e.g. forced to recognize marriages between more than two people if they were performed elsewhere?


----------



## Mider T (Jun 27, 2015)

Someone already asked that exact same question and it was answered.


----------



## Unicornsilovethem (Jun 27, 2015)

I read the whole thread before asking, and now again after your reply. I'm going to have to say that you are mistaken. Are you talking about this?



mr_shadow said:


> So does this mean all states are obliged to *perform* same-sex weddings if requested, or does it just mean that they have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states?



Because that is a different question. He also got two conflicting answers.


----------



## Shinobu (Jun 27, 2015)

Best news I heard this week.

There's no reason why this shouldn't have been done. Not even the people in this thread opposing it can come up with reasonable arguments.

Nice statement to the rest of the world.


----------



## Evil (Jun 27, 2015)

blueblip said:


> I was just reading the dissenting opinions, and holy shit are they weirdhilarious!
> 
> Setting Scalia aside because he's always a grumpy stick-in-the-mud, there was one particular portion of John Roberts' dissent that is just bizarre:
> 
> what is this I don't even



Yes, I really don't understand his reasoning. There is no good reason for denying same-sex couples the same privileges of heterosexual couples, we're talking about the Governments recognition and definition of marriage, not religious, or cultural definitions. 

That the Government recognizes same-sex marriage does not mean that various religious, ethnic, or cultural groups have to. This essentially only grants same-sex couples the same governmental rights and privileges that traditional couples were enjoying.


----------



## blueblip (Jun 27, 2015)

Evil said:


> Yes, I really don't understand his reasoning. There is no good reason for denying same-sex couples the same privileges of heterosexual couples, we're talking about the Governments recognition and definition of marriage, not religious, or cultural definitions.
> 
> That the Government recognizes same-sex marriage does not mean that various religious, ethnic, or cultural groups have to. This essentially only grants same-sex couples the same governmental rights and privileges that traditional couples were enjoying.


I agree with what your saying, but I have a more fundamental problem with Roberts' reasoning.

What the chief justice of SCOTUS is saying that laws do not need to be and/or should be amended. Ever. According to his dissent, once a law/concept is made, it should stay that way forever because that's the way it was made.

So according to his logic, all the amendments made to the US constitution are horseshit.

THAT, I think, is the real issue with what he said.


----------



## Laix (Jun 27, 2015)

Some people are doing the absolute most to find something wrong with this


----------



## Pocalypse (Jun 27, 2015)

Obama's definitely left a long lasting legacy with this one.

Good job.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 27, 2015)

Pocalypse said:


> Obama's definitely left a long lasting legacy with this one.
> 
> Good job.



Obama didn't do this, the supreme court did, which only goes to show why I normally consider justice nominations the number one two and three issue in presidential nominations


----------



## Pocalypse (Jun 27, 2015)

Banhammer said:


> Obama didn't do this, the supreme court did, which only goes to show why I normally consider justice nominations the number one two and three issue in presidential nominations



It still happened under his rule, when people look back they will see who the leader was then think to themselves that this was brought out under him. No matter what really...


----------



## Sherlōck (Jun 27, 2015)

Banhammer said:


> Obama didn't do this, the supreme court did, which only goes to show why I normally consider justice nominations the number one two and three issue in presidential nominations



Not well versed in US Justice system but don't POTUS nominate judges for SCOTUS? Wouldn't that mean he indirectly affected the ruling as well?


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 27, 2015)

Pocalypse said:


> It still happened under his rule, when people look back they will see who the leader was then think to themselves that this was brought out under him. No matter what really...



I disagree. It's like how with Roe vs Wade I think. 



Sherlōck said:


> Not wyell versed in US Justice system but don't POTUS nominate judges for SCOTUS? Wouldn't that mean he indirectly affected the ruling as well?




Chief Justice is a life long position, and the president may only nominate a new judge when an old one decides to retire. 

Since comparred to a life long carreer, a presidential term is like an internship to them, it is common for these judges to wait out presidents whose politics arent ameniable to theirs so when they tag, they can trust the sitting president will nominate someone who is more or less the same. 

Obama did nominate Sottomayor, so did his mandate have an influence? Yes, but this isn't his work directly.


----------



## afrosheen6565 (Jun 27, 2015)

Evil said:


> Yes, I really don't understand his reasoning. There is no good reason for denying same-sex couples the same privileges of heterosexual couples, we're talking about the Governments recognition and definition of marriage, not religious, or cultural definitions.
> 
> That the Government recognizes same-sex marriage does not mean that various religious, ethnic, or cultural groups have to. This essentially only grants same-sex couples the same governmental rights and privileges that traditional couples were enjoying.



You see, if this were true, this issue would be less complicated. But it's not so it's not.

A thoroughly 21st century solution to a 21st century "problem". That is, a vapid conclusion to a problem born of convenience and materialism.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Jun 27, 2015)

Homossexuality has existed since ever. It's just that humanity has spent all of its history killing homossexuals for their "sin". It's not just convenience and materialism, it's something that has always existed.

The 21th century thing is that we stopped acting like it's a disease and now treat it like a normal thing, so gay marriage is just a natural consequence of that.


----------



## hammer (Jun 27, 2015)

blueblip said:


> I don't know
> 
> He's your chief justice, you tell me...



psssssyyy



duck


----------



## Saishin (Jun 27, 2015)

The White House was rainbow


----------



## blueblip (Jun 27, 2015)

Saishin said:


> The White House was rainbow


That looks more rastafarian than gay pride.


----------



## Saishin (Jun 27, 2015)

> That looks more rastafarian than gay pride.






> *Which countries will follow America in legalizing gay marriage?*
> 
> Look for Australia, Italy and Germany to follow America's move on Friday to legalize gay marriage. And maybe Colombia, too.
> 
> ...


----------



## Zaru (Jun 27, 2015)

Banhammer said:


> I disagree. It's like how with Roe vs Wade I think.



Roe vs Wade was under Nixon, who barely even commented on it. It's obvious why such a landmark ruling wasn't attributed to him.

If his religious followers want it to be attributed to him, they will make it so.


----------



## afrosheen6565 (Jun 27, 2015)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> Homossexuality has existed since ever. It's just that humanity has spent all of its history killing homossexuals for their "sin". It's not just convenience and materialism, it's something that has always existed.
> 
> The 21th century thing is that we stopped acting like it's a disease and now treat it like a normal thing, so gay marriage is just a natural consequence of that.



You misunderstand. My point was not that gay people just started existing . My point wasn't that the issue itself is trivial or insubstantial. My point was that the conditions for this set of events to happen the way that they did were laid down by generational changes - convenience, materialism, but also, at least superficially, fairness and "equality" (b/c does such a thing REALLY exist?) - in progression for more than 100 years since the start of WWI.

In order to legalize gay marriage, the institution  (hate that word) of marriage itself had to be torn down - reconstructed to the point where we can distill it to the something as simple as a set of governmental "privileges of heterosexual couples" as Evil eloquently put it. Is that really what marriage is? Governmental recognition? And do you REALLY think that this sort of recognition is what traditional marriage supporters are fighting against? The court told us (overstepping its bounds) what we are not allowed to exclude from "marriage" but did not set parameters for what to include either. The "definition of marriage" requires a deep thought and can't simply be distilled to a catchphrase - LoveWins - that is woefully inadequate to capture the state of marriage today (a more suitable catchphrase would be "LoveWins....you know, until I get bored of you and you get bored of me and we start cheating on each other and we get a divorce, oh and by the way I want alimony"). 

This movement didn't destroy marriage. Marriage was already an insubstantial entity in the eyes of the government, gutted to be nothing more than a word, a word with supposed implications ("we'll be together forever!") but with less paperwork assigned to it than one would use to buy a house and with less binding power than the contract the New York Knicks have with Carmelo Anthony (dude's gonna get paid no matter what ey?)

You say the wrong side of history? As though history is written? As though our actions have no repercussions unforseen today? The debasement of an institution (again!) in order to gain access to it - leaves all of us less well off. What I am saying, in no uncertain terms, is that _this was a victory won, so dear, as to be almost indistinguishable from defeat._

And the discerning eyes will note above that I make no references to whether SSM is right, wrong or indifferent. Such a tact will only produce flaming and foaming mouths. Rather, I lament method. I lament our generation which believes it values something - but destroys that thing in the process. This ruling doesn't affect everybody? Don't be so naive. It is the negative reinforcement of all of the myopic narcissism and metaphysical solipsisms that pervade our culture today. THAT is convenient. THAT is materialistic.

I'm done now. Good vent. Thanks!


----------



## Parallax (Jun 27, 2015)

Scalia is an idiot

>aztec marriages 

those were all arranged and for politics, with the nobles even having multiple wives.  That kind of shit wouldn't fly today in America.

also lol at afro.  Your statement of having to breakdown the institution of marriage implies it's been static, which it clearly hasn't.  And no please don't write a tl;dr I'm not gonna actually respond to someone who isn't as well versed in their history as they seem to act.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 27, 2015)

Yeah to be honest you're not really saying anything substantial afro. The original concept of marriage, at least in its legal form, it was only nobles that could be married and in which case it was usually a political arrangement. On top of that, on a social and emotional level, marriage traditionally was a man and his many wives. Yet still throughout the ages, marriage was a political tool, in order to unite wealthy or noble families and sire an heir that would inherit the wealth of both families. 

The concept of marriage, the "traditional" marriage that people against gay marriage advocate is a relatively recent concept, as well as all that is associated with it. The rate at which people divorce, or the rate at which people stay true to their vows is irrelevant. The people that protested against rulings such as this do so simply on the basis that it is a matter of same-sex unions. The value of marriage to them hinged on denying the rights of same-sex couples to marry, not the other matters you threw in there. The institution of marriage is not nor has it ever been the sacrosanct and revered institution people like to pretend it is.


----------



## shinjojin (Jun 27, 2015)

About damn time my country finally fully legalized gay marriage. Honestly, this should have been legalized years ago. Well, as they say, better late than never.

Man, I so can wait to go to church tomorrow to see how everyone is gonna act over this. XD


----------



## Mider T (Jun 27, 2015)

You're in Texas and going to a church 2 days after the decision?   I can take a wild guess of how people are going to act.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 27, 2015)

Oh man, I should go over to corner stone church this week and see what that bastard Hagee is saying.


----------



## Hitt (Jun 27, 2015)

As for the matter of Obama's legacy...yes and no.  While he didn't have a direct hand in this--this matter was handled in the courts--he certainly had an indirect one.  The big move started when his administration refused to defend the Defense of Marriage act like the previous administrations did in front of the SCOTUS. 

It must've been comical:  both the plaintiff AND the defendant saying the act should be struck down!  Once that happened, it opened the door, so to speak.  Judges around the nation were using the DOMA case to strike down their own state laws on the matter.  The SCOTUS then stepped in to settle the matter once and for all.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 27, 2015)

Zaru said:


> Roe vs Wade was under Nixon, who barely even commented on it. It's obvious why such a landmark ruling wasn't attributed to him.
> 
> If his religious followers want it to be attributed to him, they will make it so.



Someone needs to make the white house have a rainbow on it in the background.


----------



## Saishin (Jun 27, 2015)

shinjojin said:


> About damn time my country finally fully legalized gay marriage. Honestly, this should have been legalized years ago. Well, as they say, better late than never.
> 
> Man, I so can wait to go to church tomorrow to see how everyone is gonna act over this. XD


Well it's not a matter of being first or the last ones imo,it's a matter of being ready or not,some countries may took more time before to approve gay marriage since in many nations this issue is very delicate with a strong opposition by the conservatives so it's not always easy,the USA compare to other nations it took a little bit more but it made it in the end so nothing to be shame,you can't force these things,I think each countries have to reach this goal by their own,it's always good when things are reached by our own strength.


----------



## Sherlōck (Jun 27, 2015)

Banhammer said:


> Chief Justice is a life long position, and the president may only nominate a new judge when an old one decides to retire.
> 
> Since comparred to a life long carreer, a presidential term is like an internship to them, it is common for these judges to wait out presidents whose politics arent ameniable to theirs so when they tag, they can trust the sitting president will nominate someone who is more or less the same.



Ok,thanks.



> Obama did nominate Sottomayor, so did his mandate have an influence? Yes, but this isn't his work directly.



That's whay I said indirectly. 

And Obama nominated Elena Kagan too. Both Kagan & Sottomayor voted yes.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 27, 2015)

Yes, but there's a few degrees of separation is what I'm saying

This isn't so much his baby as much as it is like, his step nephew

For example, if I'm not mistaken, the fact that the previous judges were aligned with the same ideas as the ones Obama chose, and that congress had to approve the justices he nominated, so in a way, which makes it in a way, a bit of the congress's legacy as much as it is Obama


It's undeniable however, how presidential support of this shift would have been unthinkable ten years ago, when George Bush built massive momentum on his campaign behind the idea of the gay peril


----------



## Narcissus (Jun 27, 2015)

Mississippi, what a shock...


Lucaniel said:


> i think i should be kind and offer two times
> 
> because sometimes you genuinely don't care about it, but the amount you see other people care about it can be annoying even if you legit don't care about it yourself, so you might wanna say it again
> 
> but at 3 times you're reaching "maybe he actually cares about it..."


In many cases, I wouldn't be kind enough to even give them one time. Because there were a lot of people who very plenty vocal on this issue who are being silent now. So they care, but don't want to admit that that lost.

It should go without saying that Mega is one of those people.


----------



## tari101190 (Jun 27, 2015)

I dunno who this Scotus is, but good for him.

Also:


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jun 27, 2015)

'Defend our religious liberties' by denying the rights of others. These fundies are idiots.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 27, 2015)

tari101190 said:


> I dunno who this Scotus is, but good for him.



It means Supreme Court Of The United States


----------



## Orochibuto (Jun 27, 2015)

Good for Mr (or miss ?) Scotus, must be a veey nice guy/girl.


----------



## Evil (Jun 27, 2015)

Orochibuto said:


> Good for Mr (or miss ?) Scotus, must be a veey nice guy/girl.



I think scotus is a pretty cool guy. Eh makes gay marriage legal and doesn't afraid of anything.


----------



## iJutsu (Jun 28, 2015)

As long as I can keep using "that's gay" as an insult, then I don't care.


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Jun 28, 2015)

Saishin said:


>



>australia
>gay marriage

not until abbot gets assassinated


----------



## Nemesis (Jun 28, 2015)

tari101190 said:


> I dunno who this Scotus is, but good for him.
> 
> Also:



Haha actually that is rather funny.

But seriously this guy needs to read the Constitution and treaty of tripoli to realise that even if in the near impossible event the god of abraham does exist that the US is in no way a christian nation and does not take its laws from any Deity.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 28, 2015)

Fucking Greg Abbot.


----------



## Pliskin (Jun 28, 2015)

With that the U.S. left most if Europe in the dust on the issue. Wonder how long till faggy yuro jokes keep up with the times and declare the U.S. the go to homo stereotype.

Though it always is sad to see that the courts have to strongarm parliaments into upholding the law on the issue of gay marriage. Same song in Germany.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Jun 28, 2015)

Pliskin said:


> With that the U.S. left most if Europe in the dust on the issue.



But "most of Europe" you mean "just Italy and maybe one or two Eastern Countries"?

More like Europe left US in the dust and US started catching up now.


----------



## Overwatch (Jun 28, 2015)

Dragon D. Luffy said:


> But "most of Europe" you mean "just Italy and maybe one or two Eastern Countries"?
> 
> More like Europe left US in the dust and US started catching up now.



Only 13 countries in Europe currently recognize same-sex marriage.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 28, 2015)

Overwatch said:


> Only 13 countries in Europe currently recognize same-sex marriage.



Only 13 countries when you got a core 18-15, no federal europe and they're all physical neighbors of the vatican and it still happened in a timeline surrounding of a decade ago AND some of those even by vote, while some of the countries that don't recognize gay marriage, recognize equal rights for civil unions is no small thing


But it should be better. Good lucking getting all the eastern europe and balkans to get with the times though


----------



## Laix (Jun 28, 2015)

nightbringer said:


> >australia
> >gay marriage
> 
> not until abbot gets assassinated


----------



## Punk Zebra (Jun 28, 2015)

Bannai said:


> this is just wrong, it's like supporting i*c*st



At least someone has the balls to go against the grain.


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Jun 28, 2015)

iirc abbots literally blocked gay marriage twice


----------



## Nemesis (Jun 28, 2015)

Pliskin said:


> With that the U.S. left most if Europe in the dust on the issue. Wonder how long till faggy yuro jokes keep up with the times and declare the U.S. the go to homo stereotype.
> 
> Though it always is sad to see that the courts have to strongarm parliaments into upholding the law on the issue of gay marriage. Same song in Germany.



Honestly when it comes to major countries Germany, Italy and Ireland are all just waiting on a signature to make it law.  Finland has made it legal but Finnish law means it will take a couple years before law comes into effect.

After that it is just Eastern Europe, some of which because of the decades of communist rule are 20 years behind everyone.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 28, 2015)

I remember when gay marriage became legal in Portugal over five years ago

Listen up, you're gonna love this

Basically there was this oily douchebag, that was involved in every shady deal you can think of, and when shit got in the hot seat, he tried to do what all politicians do. Propose a controversial law, whip up the media outrage, and have every one distracted from him shit. He was banking so hard on a conservative president to veto him that he'd easily rally up an over eager liberal demographics and people would be wailing on about gay marriage all the way until his parliamentary hearings, instead of all the financial and corruption scandal


Well, the nearly octogenarian ultraconservative, ultra religious  president who I think even served under a fascist dictatorship thirty years ago had none of it. He signed that into law within a heart beat and the faux outrager was left with his pants hanging going "wait, what?  No, that's not wha, YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO CALL MY BLUFF!"

"Yeah, gay marriage, shit's crazy, but some of us have to work for a living, so, how about that thing, with the hearing"

Every one had their picket signs ready, their pink dyed problem hair, and their bullring nose pierced, rainbow queers were going to war, and then just, looked at each other going "Oh. Okay, good. Thanks?" and business went on as normal.

The church went "hey, that's not very christian-like" and Portuguese mothers just went "I KNOW, BUT THEY DRESS SO NICE" "Jesus doesn't care" "LOOK, I PRAYED ALRIGHT? I DID MY DUES, BUT NOW IT HAPPENED AND NOW MY LINENS SMELL LIKE PUPPIES, SO JUST LET ME HAVE THIS OKAY? JUST BE COOL!"

*Meanwhile, oily bastard is now in jail awaiting trial on corruption charges*


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 29, 2015)

nightbringer said:


> iirc abbots literally blocked gay marriage twice



Someone needs to dump his ass out of his wheel chair. Tell him pull himself up by his goddamn bootstraps.


----------



## tari101190 (Jun 29, 2015)

I think she's this Scotus I keep hearing about.


----------



## Mider T (Jun 29, 2015)

I'm surprised thread isn't longer. 

Especially since Louisiana and Texas are holding out.


----------



## ch1p (Jun 29, 2015)

Banhammer said:


> Only 13 countries when you got a core 18-15, no federal europe and they're all physical neighbors of the vatican and it still happened in a timeline surrounding of a decade ago AND some of those even by vote, while some of the countries that don't recognize gay marriage, recognize equal rights for civil unions is no small thing
> 
> 
> But it should be better. Good lucking getting all the eastern europe and balkans to get with the times though



Vatican and Russian neighbours will take awhile, its interesting to think who will fold first. The rest has it for a long time now.



Banhammer said:


> *Meanwhile, oily bastard is now in jail awaiting trial on corruption charges*



Fun fact. That guy was said to be gay by the tabloids but wasnt. 

Regarding him in jail, if you think hes gonna be convicted of anything, thats not going to happen. Hell get out scot free and then sue the state (when whoever is on power isnt his party).


----------



## stream (Jun 29, 2015)

Mider T said:


> I'm surprised thread isn't longer.
> 
> Especially since Louisiana and Texas are holding out.


It's not controversial enough in the caf?. The few who were against it are either licking their wounds, or are getting massively ridiculed


----------



## Sasuke_Bateman (Jun 29, 2015)

Glad the colony is progressing.


----------



## ImperatorMortis (Jun 29, 2015)

Fantastic news. 

I guess this is another reason for me to be proud of my country.


----------

