What is new on the Gay Marriage front?

[chrisrobin]

I plan to be at the Supreme Court at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow; hope the ruling comes at 10 or I'll have to head over to Eastern Market and stuff myself with seafood salad!

Please give a cheer for all of us, but try not to o.d. on seafood salad!

 

[T-Rexx]

Assuming you actually mean early christianity and not just the Old Testament, here you go.

TURN THE OTHER CHEEK

http://www.cpt.org/files/BN - Jesus' Third Way.pdf

Sorry, but "turning the other cheek" is a good argumenet in favor of slavery. "Slaves, obey your masters."

Jesus never condened slavery, because He could not possibly have understood it to be immoral. Slavery is only immoral if slaves have rights. The concept that individual humans have rights would not develop for another thousand years. Without individual human rights, there is no such thing as oppression by forced servitude. Period.

You simply cannot apply our modern morality to the world of 33 A.D. Concepts that today seem glaringly obvious would have been laughable to the people of the Roman empire.

Gay marriage to us seems obvious. In 1900, such a concept would have been absurd. And that was just a century ago.

 

[bankside]

Congratulations!!!
US Supreme Court victory for equality and civilisation.​

 

[chrisrobin]

 

[Teddybear71]

Congratulations, America! I had a feeling it would be today, and it's a nice bonus for my husband and I, celebrating our 11th anniversary today!

So where do we go from here? I see that there are wingnuts in Louisiana and Kansas that refuse to accept defeat... Can they actually do that now? Shouldn't this ruling silence all legal challenges? And future SCOTUS panels - would they have the ability to overturn? Not to mention those "religious exemption" crackpots that are already flooding the Internet... *sigh*

Still, the case seems settled for now, yes? And the US is finally on the right side of history! A small tear of joy for that!

 

[Kulindahr]

Congratulations, America! I had a feeling it would be today, and it's a nice bonus for my husband and I, celebrating our 11th anniversary today!

So where do we go from here? I see that there are wingnuts in Louisiana and Kansas that refuse to accept defeat... Can they actually do that now? Shouldn't this ruling silence all legal challenges? And future SCOTUS panels - would they have the ability to overturn? Not to mention those "religious exemption" crackpots that are already flooding the Internet... *sigh*

Still, the case seems settled for now, yes? And the US is finally on the right side of history! A small tear of joy for that!

I recommend that churches in those states which support gays organize "Rainbow Rifles" groups, just as the blacks in MLK's day had their armed deacon teams, to let the bigots know not to come messing around. Why? Because I would not put it past some of the people in those states to try burning churches that dare to do gay weddings, and the ONLY thing that has ever taught such people to behave is good guys with guns ready to face them. And with the toys available today, even the best police response time is going to only be fast enough to find a church in flames with a bunch of corpses inside.

This is why the Fourteenth was held to be so important in the debates to ratify it: to enable those others would like to oppress to be ready to stand against oppression. The Court has upheld it; now those in states with violent bigots need to take advantage of it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Sorry, but "turning the other cheek" is a good argumenet in favor of slavery. "Slaves, obey your masters."

Jesus never condened slavery, because He could not possibly have understood it to be immoral. Slavery is only immoral if slaves have rights. The concept that individual humans have rights would not develop for another thousand years. Without individual human rights, there is no such thing as oppression by forced servitude. Period.

You simply cannot apply our modern morality to the world of 33 A.D. Concepts that today seem glaringly obvious would have been laughable to the people of the Roman empire.

Gay marriage to us seems obvious. In 1900, such a concept would have been absurd. And that was just a century ago.

You're applying concepts from today to the ancient world when you equate "turning the other cheek" to "slaves, obey your masters". If you'd read the article that was referenced, turning the other cheek was a method of DEFIANCE.

Early church Fathers didn't oppose slavery on the basis of rights (again, you're projecting backwards), but on the basis of the image of God and Christ's redemption and what authority was given to people. As one argued, Adam and Eve were given authority over animals, but that doesn't include man, so slavery is wrong (though I have to wonder if they pursued that to realize the same argument would mean that monarchy is wrong... but I don't think they got that far, except for the strain of mendicants and ascetics which refused to acknowledge any human authority over them because God was their authority).

 

[Kulindahr]

Congratulations!!!
US Supreme Court victory for equality and civilisation.​

The victory for civilization will only come when no bigot anywhere conceives of so much as spitting at two men coming out of a church or courthouse or wherever, married. I hope I'm wrong, but I seriously expect some churches to be burned before this settles down.

 

[bankside]

Early church Fathers didn't oppose slavery on the basis of rights (again, you're projecting backwards), but on the basis of the image of God and Christ's redemption and what authority was given to people.

It's nice that we now have something more substantive.

I recommend that churches in those states which support gays organize "Rainbow Rifles" groups, just as the blacks in MLK's day had their armed deacon teams, to let the bigots know not to come messing around. Why? Because I would not put it past some of the people in those states to try burning churches that dare to do gay weddings, and the ONLY thing that has ever taught such people to behave is good guys with guns ready to face them. And with the toys available today, even the best police response time is going to only be fast enough to find a church in flames with a bunch of corpses inside.

This is why the Fourteenth was held to be so important in the debates to ratify it: to enable those others would like to oppress to be ready to stand against oppression. The Court has upheld it; now those in states with violent bigots need to take advantage of it.

You always recommend the most ineffective means of self-protection.

Through this decision, the US government has shown it understands equality. Now is the time to let the government do its job. Here's an example from US history of a government doing its job on an issue of equality:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas_National_Guard_and_the_integration_of_Central_High_School:

That is far more effective than random groups of gay amateurs with weapons. No thank you.

 

[bankside]

The victory for civilization will only come when no bigot anywhere conceives of so much as spitting at two men coming out of a church or courthouse or wherever, married. I hope I'm wrong, but I seriously expect some churches to be burned before this settles down.

I take your point, but when the people support equality, and the government acts to safeguard it through executive action, judicial action, public leadership, then the people have set their government a civilising purpose, and that is itself a victory.

 

[T-Rexx]

So where do we go from here? I see that there are wingnuts in Louisiana and Kansas that refuse to accept defeat... Can they actually do that now? Shouldn't this ruling silence all legal challenges? And future SCOTUS panels - would they have the ability to overturn? Not to mention those "religious exemption" crackpots that are already flooding the Internet... *sigh*

The problem is that the ruling was 5-4.

To the wingnuts, that means all they have to do is elect a wingnut president, who will appoint a wingnut judge to replace Ginsburg when she dies or retires (which will be soon). Then, they will have the power they need to overturn Obergefell and stop gay marriage in America.

These people do not understand that their cause is lost. The next president will be a Democrat, but that hardly matters. Support for gay marriage and gay rights will inevitably increase over time, especially as the positive consequences of marriage equality become obvious. And the Supreme Court is not soon going to revisit an issue it has just decided. The arc of history bending toward justice will prevent bigotry from prevailing. This discussion is over.

But, that fact is not apparent to the wingnuts, and certainly is not acceptable to them. Expect gay marriage to continue to be a MAJOR point of discussion in EVERY election for the next 50 years. Expect Republicans to continue to oppose gay rights, and to continue to explore means of denying to Americans the rights that this republic has granted to its citizens, through its mechanisms of law.

I am elated that the Supreme Court has finally given us marriage equality in America. But I am underwhelmed at the manner in which it has done so, and I am disatisfied with the timing and lack of unanimity. Marriage equality will now become the new abortion debate. Fifty years from now, conservatives will still be fighting this battle. They will still be claiming Obergefell can be overturned by the court and they will still be seeking means by which they may prevent Americans from enjoying the liberties their legal system has granted them.

Still, the case seems settled for now, yes? And the US is finally on the right side of history! A small tear of joy for that!

Yes, the case IS settled for now. The Supreme Court will not revisit this issue for a generation. By then, gay marriage will be so routine and so acceptable and the consequences so obviously beneficial that no sane juror would feel comfortable trying reverse Obergefell, however strong his religious convictions.

 

[opinterph]

This discussion is over.

But, that fact is not apparent to the wingnuts, and certainly is not acceptable to them.

I attended a wedding last weekend, which was officiated by a Baptist minister. He went to great lengths to explain that marriage is a sacred ingredient to all that is wholesome and good and he stipulated at least twice during the ceremony that the recipe must include one man and one woman. I suspect he was keenly aware of the pending SC ruling.

 

[hotatlboi]

T-Rex, I agreed with your post up until you said it will be mentioned in every election for the next 50 years.

The fact is that the GOP will not even be mentioning it in 2016 much less future elections.

It might get a bit of play for the next few weeks while this is in the news, and it might get mentioned a bit after that by Huckabee or Frothy or other social crusaders who have no chance, but once the voting process starts next year none of the top tier candidates will be touching this issue.

You don't win the presidency by alienating large sections of the populace, with marriage equality support at 60+%, the top GOP strategists are smart enough to know they have to drop this issue.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's nice that we now have something more substantive.




You always recommend the most ineffective means of self-protection.

Through this decision, the US government has shown it understands equality. Now is the time to let the government do its job. Here's an example from US history of a government doing its job on an issue of equality:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas_National_Guard_and_the_integration_of_Central_High_School:

That is far more effective than random groups of gay amateurs with weapons. No thank you.

It wasn't ineffective with the black deacons at churches supporting MLK. And it's far more effective than waiting for the cops to come sort out the corpses the bigots left behind.

Unless by "effective" you mean "I don't care if people get killed because they couldn't protect themselves as long as society does things my way".

 

[T-Rexx]

T-Rex, I agreed with your post up until you said it will be mentioned in every election for the next 50 years.

The fact is that the GOP will not even be mentioning it in 2016 much less future elections.

It might get a bit of play for the next few weeks while this is in the news, and it might get mentioned a bit after that by Huckabee or Frothy or other social crusaders who have no chance, but once the voting process starts next year none of the top tier candidates will be touching this issue.

I hope you are correct, but I predict that Republican candidates will continue to keep this discussion front and center, just as they continue to keep the abortion debate alive. The Supreme Court is not going to overturn Roe v. Wade any more than it is going to overturn Obergefell. But that won't stop Republicans from screaming about it. The debate will shift to the "religious freedom" of individuals to deny to gay Americans the right that the Supreme Court has just granted us.

You don't win the presidency by alienating large sections of the populace, with marriage equality support at 60+%, the top GOP strategists are smart enough to know they have to drop this issue.

The awkward thing for Republican candidates for president is that their party nomination process requires one candidate, whereas the general election requires quite another.

 

[Kulindahr]

I hope you are correct, but I predict that Republican candidates will continue to keep this discussion front and center, just as they continue to keep the abortion debate alive. The Supreme Court is not going to overturn Roe v. Wade any more than it is going to overturn Obergefell. But that won't stop Republicans from screaming about it. The debate will shift to the "religious freedom" of individuals to deny to gay Americans the right that the Supreme Court has just granted us.





The awkward thing for Republican candidates for president is that their party nomination process requires one candidate, whereas the general election requires quite another.

And as long as they continue to harp on this in primaries -- which they will -- they will continue to be thus schizophrenic.


Can't we PLEASE end the two-party system? I want to take bets on how many pieces the GOP breaks into!

 

[CoolBlue71]

The problem is that the ruling was 5-4.

To the wingnuts, that means all they have to do is elect a wingnut president, who will appoint a wingnut judge to replace Ginsburg when she dies or retires (which will be soon). Then, they will have the power they need to overturn Obergefell and stop gay marriage in America.

These people do not understand that their cause is lost. The next president will be a Democrat, but that hardly matters. Support for gay marriage and gay rights will inevitably increase over time, especially as the positive consequences of marriage equality become obvious. And the Supreme Court is not soon going to revisit an issue it has just decided. The arc of history bending toward justice will prevent bigotry from prevailing. This discussion is over.

But, that fact is not apparent to the wingnuts, and certainly is not acceptable to them. Expect gay marriage to continue to be a MAJOR point of discussion in EVERY election for the next 50 years. Expect Republicans to continue to oppose gay rights, and to continue to explore means of denying to Americans the rights that this republic has granted to its citizens, through its mechanisms of law.

I am elated that the Supreme Court has finally given us marriage equality in America. But I am underwhelmed at the manner in which it has done so, and I am disatisfied with the timing and lack of unanimity. Marriage equality will now become the new abortion debate. Fifty years from now, conservatives will still be fighting this battle. They will still be claiming Obergefell can be overturned by the court and they will still be seeking means by which they may prevent Americans from enjoying the liberties their legal system has granted them.




Yes, the case IS settled for now. The Supreme Court will not revisit this issue for a generation. By then, gay marriage will be so routine and so acceptable and the consequences so obviously beneficial that no sane juror would feel comfortable trying reverse Obergefell, however strong his religious convictions.

If the next president is a Democrat, it will squash the hopes of Republicans denying that we're in a realigning presidential election that is against them. (That it started with Barack Obama's first election in 2008.)

Reason why I think so is that the country is going through some realignments that aren't exclusive to presidential politics. This week of having the South getting in gear to take down the Confederate flag, the U.S. Supreme Court solidifying the Affordable Care Act, and the U.S. Supreme Court coming down on the side of same-sex couples with legal recognition of marriage (just as heterosexual couples do) speaks to example of a transformative and realigning period in the nation's history.

Part of what goes in a realigning period is that the party that is now at a disadvantage, for the presidency, is just generally out of touch with where the electorate is heading. Here is a poll that shows the trajectory for how the people moved for becoming supportive of marriage equality. (Unless I missed something … the shifts were applicable to every demographic covered.)

@ http://www.pewforum.org/2015/06/08/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

Some will want to cite one particular group (understandable); but it very much satisfies me that the shifts hit every group, including White Evangelical Christians. The nation really moved.

By the way: I haven't read enough news sources; but, I do want to ask: Has 43rd president George W. Bush, and/or his campaign strategist Karl Rove, after both had used the LGBT community as a wedge issue to barely eke out a re-election in 2004 (and Bush was a war-time president!), weighted in the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges?

 

[CoolBlue71]

I hope you are correct, but I predict that Republican candidates will continue to keep this discussion front and center, just as they continue to keep the abortion debate alive. The Supreme Court is not going to overturn Roe v. Wade any more than it is going to overturn Obergefell. But that won't stop Republicans from screaming about it. The debate will shift to the "religious freedom" of individuals to deny to gay Americans the right that the Supreme Court has just granted us.

Perhaps for one more cycle—2016.

The awkward thing for Republican candidates for president is that their party nomination process requires one candidate, whereas the general election requires quite another.

Winning your party's nomination, during primary season, is done by solidifying the base. But, I find that the two parties' bases end up coming back to whoever they perceive can win. It's why Mitt Romney was the 2012 nominee. If Jeb Bush becomes the 2016 nominee…same reason.

The general election is a different matter. The realigning presidential period of 1968 to 2004 saw the Republicans win 7 of 10 election cycles. Their four victories between the five cycles of the 1970s and 1980s saw them carry no less than the 40 states won by George Bush in 1988. Now, I'm on board with stating that 2008 was a realigning presidential election for the Democrats. But, the map became realigned (Republican) and counter-realigned (Democratic) in the short period of the late-1980s/early-1990s. Since after the 1980s, the average number of states carried between Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama was 29. So, we can estimate nowadays that about 20 states won't vote for a winning Republican and 20 states won't vote for a winning Democrat—and this leaves about 10 states making the difference.

The primaries are about getting your party base to vote you the nomination. You're not going to succeed without really speaking their language. The general is about adjusting yourself for the entire country, seeming appealing enough, and hoping the trajectory of the race points in your, and your party's, direction for victory.

 

[hotatlboi]

I hope you are correct, but I predict that Republican candidates will continue to keep this discussion front and center, just as they continue to keep the abortion debate alive. The Supreme Court is not going to overturn Roe v. Wade any more than it is going to overturn Obergefell. But that won't stop Republicans from screaming about it. The debate will shift to the "religious freedom" of individuals to deny to gay Americans the right that the Supreme Court has just granted us.

This issue is very different from abortion. There is broad agreement among Republicans on abortion, there is not anymore on marriage equality. A majority of younger Republicans are already in favor of it and increasingly more of all Republicans are. There is a schism in the party among libertarian leading types who favor it and social conservatives who do not. The issue is settled through and as support continues to rise the issue will be dropped.

Some of the top GOP candidates are already starting the process of saying it's time to move on. http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-b...-disagree-with-scott-walkers-call-for/2235209

 

[thewiz]

The fight is not over; it will likely continue for some time. Expect that the next approach to be used by the far right will include firing those who marry -- ENDA would fix that issue. Louisiana is already fighting the issuance of licenses (even though New Orleans came out with an ad campaign inviting LGBT to "come to New Orleans). Texas will fight to block the issuance of licenses and the Attorney General and Governor have agreed to assist. Thankfully Michigan did not join the ranks of Mississippi once again and the Governor ordered a process to begin while the crazy attorney General Schuette (who was one of those filing briefs in the case against) has admitted he lost and lost badly.

We have a victory; but we should not be complacent. All of the Republican candidates have lined up against the ruling because they must; the crazies in their right wing would not support them should they take another stand. And the primaries are so far right, one has to look off the page to see where they are heading.

For my husband and I, last night was a chance to enjoy.