To my gay friends

[Kristin]

The Left / Right dichotomy is inadequate on so many levels, and this is one of them.

People with libertarian leanings with regard to civil liberties, without respect to where they may fall regarding other matters, don't think it through quite so extensively. The only question we ask is does the thing in question tangibly hurt anyone else. If the answer is "No," then it need not be illegal.

I am not God. I believe that there is a God, however, which makes life much easier for me. Because there is a God, I don't have to worry about deciding what is moral behavior for other people and how those who don't comply should be punished. I just let God worry about all that. He's going to be up all night, anyway.

That's a good thing, too, because just running my own life is a full-time job for me. I haven't the time nor the wisdom to run other people's lives. But thankfully, neither have I the inclination to do so; so it all works out pretty well.

Rich

Wow! Judge not, that ye be not judged! That must be some sort of leftist, commie, hippie propaganda.

 

[Gsxrpilot]

The Left / Right dichotomy is inadequate on so many levels, and this is one of them.

People with libertarian leanings with regard to civil liberties, without respect to where they may fall regarding other matters, don't think it through quite so extensively. The only question we ask is does the thing in question tangibly hurt anyone else. If the answer is "No," then it need not be illegal.

I am not God. I believe that there is a God, however, which makes life much easier for me. Because there is a God, I don't have to worry about deciding what is moral behavior for other people and how those who don't comply should be punished. I just let God worry about all that. He's going to be up all night, anyway.

That's a good thing, too, because just running my own life is a full-time job for me. I haven't the time nor the wisdom to run other people's lives. But thankfully, neither have I the inclination to do so; so it all works out pretty well.

Rich

Well said Rich. And I agree my Right/Left is an over simplification. I sometimes think of it as a circle. If one goes far enough Right toward extreme Libertarianism, you're liable to meet the far Left "Occupy" crowd coming around from the other direction and find you both agree.

I think this thread has born out my theory that all arguments on both sides of this issue make sense in light of the position taken on the original question. Is being Gay a choice or not. That is the root.

I believe it's not a choice, and that gays are born that way therefore all my support, arguments, positions, etc. naturally follow on from there. And I'm very happy that SCOTUS now agrees with me.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Everybody needs a hobby.

yup....ain't aviation grand?

 

[FastEddieB]

What is your problem with gay sex, other than you were not wired to be interested in it?

My take us that every man is "wired" to find other men sexually attractive.

Likewise, every woman is "wired" to find other women sexually attractive.

There are modules in every human brain so wired. But when the "right" hormones flood the developing system at the "right" times, those modules are usually suppressed while the heterosexual modules are stimulated. And that's a good thing for the survival of the race, and so has a strong evolutionary bias.

I put "right" in quotes, since I don't want to imply there's a moral "wrong" when things take a different path - just that it's a statistical minority, not "wrong" per se.

Most men can look at other men and know which ones are attractive. And most women can look at other women and know which ones are attractive. Not sexually attractive to them in the majority of cases, but the filters are clearly in place to define attractiveness.

BTW, I also find the Left/Right dichotomy lacking. A lot of people I know are quite conservative, but are quite accepting of gay marriage. I, myself, don't feel strongly one way or another, but now that it's here I welcome it - for others, not me!

 

[warthog1984]

Yes I remember the act that followed the inclination. I didn't choose the inclination and neither did you.

We are talking about the right of gays to obtain the same benefits accorded to married couples. We are not talking about whether the sex act is legal or not. That has been decided awhile ago.

What is your problem with gay sex, other than you were not wired to be interested in it? Does the thought of two women having sex bother you as much as the thought of two men having sex? Most honest men I know would say that two women having sex is pretty interesting.

Wow, 4 statements in 3 paragraph, all of them wrong.

You're not that observant, are you?

 

[DJTorrente]

We are talking about the right of gays to obtain the same benefits accorded to married couples.

That was settled with civil unions, available in all 50 states. If that was the goal of the militant homosexual movement, they could have declared victory some time ago.

Still, the gaymarrriage wars rolled on.

So, no, it wasn't simply "about the right of gays to obtain the same benefits accorded to married couples."

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

So, no, it wasn't simply "about the right of gays to obtain the same benefits accorded to married couples."

Ok....I give.

Then....what was it about?

 

[pilot_dude]

For those of you in favor of leaving it entirely to the states...

Imagine you were "married" in one state, then ...

Traveled to a state that didn't recognize your "marriage" ...
What would happen in the event one of you were to be incapacitated or hospitalized in that non-recognizing state? Would the well spouse have visiting rights or any say in care?

Established residence in such a state ...
Would you be able to get a divorce if you so chose?

These are (or have been) real issues for same-sex couples.

It's complicated and I don't pretend it isn't. To quote you, IANAL .

 

[jtheune]

There have been a lot of posts questioning whether "gayness" is a choice or are you born that way. There is a third choice in my opinion that has not been addressed and that is your environmental influences. People are not born with a understanding of good or bad, they are born with a blank slate. As we grow we learn these things. Some from our parents and some from the world around us. No two people experience their entire lives the same, even those identical twins living together, we all have different experiences. So when your sexuality part of your development occurs I don't believe you get to choose, as your life experiences have already formed that part of you before you realized it. So is it a choice? no but it's also not a DNA thing either.

 

[DJTorrente]

Ok....I give.

Then....what was it about?

A wise litigator taught me to never try to defend a broader position than necessary. The question isn't "What is it about," but whether or not is was merely "About the right of gays to obtain the same benefits accorded to married couples."

I think the undisputable evidence shows it is not the latter.

I won't claim to know "What [it is] about." Here's what lesbian activist Masha Gessen said it was about in a 2012 interview (listen @6:30).

Transcript below.

Spoiler

“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.

The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.

I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”

 

[Ravioli]

I completely agree. It's the fact that the government has inserted itself into the institution of marriage that is the whole problem. The government is concerned about marital status because of-

• Tax rates
• Custody of children
• Power to make health decisions for family members
• Inheritance

These issues could have been solved without such a fuss if the states and federal government had just required a civil union status (or whatever you would want to call it) for everyone. Leave the marriage part, with all it's religious connotations up to the individuals.

But it is what it is and IMO, I agree with the SCOTUS decision on the matter.

Yup! Get your legal stuff from the courthouse and your marriage from your church, and leave the rest of us alone.

But now, it's over.. good for all of us. Homosexuals are equal and they can all shut up about it.

 

[roncachamp]

I still don't understand why this took a supreme court decision. Marriage should be solely between two (or more?) people (no animals allowed, but that is just my opinion).

More than two. If this rationale works for same sex marriage it also works for polygamy.

The government has no place in the decision making process. For that matter, neither does religion, although I have no problem with marriage being blessed or sanctioned by a religion.

What is marriage outside of religion and government?

 

[azure]

That was settled with civil unions, available in all 50 states.

I have a feeling that Wikipedia entry was recently updated. Pre-Obergefell, Michigan's Prop 2 constitutional amendment was law here and it said that only a union between one man and one woman could be recognized for any purpose.

 

[Sac Arrow]

So say you. Then why do you claim that the only problem is the homosexual act which you state is a choice?

Regardless, gay marriage is not about the act. It is about equal access to the benefits.

I'm not sure what post of mine you're referring to, I think you might have me mixed up with someone else. Regardless, my point is that equal access to benefits can be achieved without marriage. I've already stated my beef with the decision, and it has nothing to do with homosexuality in itself.

 

[Gerhardt]

I'm just trying to figure out how/why someone would be opposed to the ruling. In what way does it harm anyone?

It changes the "definition" of a traditional marriage.....that's all for me.


No biggie....one day we'll all get to answer for our stuff.

I don't see how we are harmed by a change in definition. How is your life different today than it was last Monday because of this?

My wife and I have been married for 28 years. Had gay marriage been legal 28 years ago our marriage would be exactly as it is now. I'd imagine this won't affect your marriage any more than it will mine.

I think it's always been a control-freak thing. People trying to control other people based on their own beliefs.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

I'm just trying to figure out how/why someone would be opposed to the ruling. In what way does it harm anyone?

It changes the "definition" of a traditional marriage.....that's all for me.


No biggie....one day we'll all get to answer for our stuff.

 

[Kristin]

Wow, 4 statements in 3 paragraph, all of them wrong.

You're not that observant, are you?

Maybe you show more than you meant to.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

I'm just trying to figure out how/why someone would be opposed to the ruling. In what way does it harm anyone?

The far right types are worried that this is going to cause them to get butthurt (pun intended)

 

[Kristin]

That was settled with civil unions, available in all 50 states. If that was the goal of the militant homosexual movement, they could have declared victory some time ago.

Still, the gaymarrriage wars rolled on.

So, no, it wasn't simply "about the right of gays to obtain the same benefits accorded to married couples."

Not true! Federal goodies were still not available to "civil unions", only to "marriages".

Had the fed not gotten into the business of handing out benefits to "married" couples, this might have turned out differently.

 

[roncachamp]

Ok....I give.

Then....what was it about?

It was about having your love sanctified.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Not true! Federal goodies were still not available to "civil unions", only to "marriages".

Had the fed not gotten into the business of handing out benefits to "married" couples, this might have turned out differently.

sounds like they had it all arse backwards.....[pun intended]

 

[nddons]

Yes I remember the act that followed the inclination. I didn't choose the inclination and neither did you.

We are talking about the right of gays to obtain the same benefits accorded to married couples. We are not talking about whether the sex act is legal or not. That has been decided awhile ago.

What is your problem with gay sex, other than you were not wired to be interested in it? Does the thought of two women having sex bother you as much as the thought of two men having sex? Most honest men I know would say that two women having sex is pretty interesting.

That's because we're hoping to be invited to the party.

 

[DJTorrente]

I have a feeling that Wikipedia entry was recently updated.

Perhaps... A) I'm not exactly up to the minute on the editing of every Wikipedia entry -- I understand its quite a little microculture among hardcore editors, particularly on hot-button political issues; and B) its worth what you (or I) pay for it.

Pre-Obergefell, Michigan's Prop 2 constitutional amendment was law here and it said that only a union between one man and one woman could be recognized for any purpose.

I'm distinguishing between marriage and civil unions, where it seems to me that the militant homosexualists intentionally have not. Civil unions have been widely available is most if not all states, and afforded any two people each and every legal benefit of marriage, without using the word "marriage" itself.

 

[nddons]

Yup! Get your legal stuff from the courthouse and your marriage from your church, and leave the rest of us alone.

But now, it's over.. good for all of us. Homosexuals are equal and they can all shut up about it.

Yea, that'll happen.

 

[DJTorrente]

It was about having your love sanctified.

So you mean a nice pat on the head? There... there... you're all good little doobies -- You get to have warm milk and a cookie before nap time.

How infantile to seek that out. People just need to go live their damn life.

 

[roncachamp]

I'm just trying to figure out how/why someone would be opposed to the ruling. In what way does it harm anyone?

I oppose all things that are contrary to the US Constitution. There should have been no ruling at all. The Supreme Court should not have taken this case as it involved no power possessed by the federal government. Of course, most of the activities of the federal government today involve powers not given to it by the Constitution.

 

[roncachamp]

So you mean a nice pat on the head? There... there... you're all good little doobies -- You get to have warm milk and a cookie before nap time.

How infantile to seek that out. People just need to go live their damn life.

I think it means official government recognition of your love. Not my idea, by the way, I read it in an editorial in the "Peninsula Pulse" last summer. Middle column, bottom half:

 

[Matthew]

I'm just trying to figure out how/why someone would be opposed to the ruling. In what way does it harm anyone?

2 things - it changes the definition of marriage, so mine is no different from two men or two women. Is that good, bad, or other? That depends on how strongly you feel about what marriage "is".

The other, and the one that really is a harm, is the way the Court ruled that it's a Federal issue rather than state/local. The Court decided that the rule of law (our Constitution) doesn't matter anymore - that States who for over 200 years had the authority, based in the Constitution, to write their own laws concerning marriage, now don't.

A lot of people say that the "government" has no business in marriage, seemingly forgetting that the citizens that create the law actually are the government. OK, but the Court just decided that the "government", meaning the 9 members of the Supreme Court, NOW has complete control over deciding what's best for the people, rather than a legislature and a government "of, for, and by" the people.

I'll admit that I haven't had time to read the opinions yet, I would like to find out the reasoning behind the decision.

 

[Flying Viking]

I'm distinguishing between marriage and civil unions, where it seems to me that the militant homosexualists intentionally have not. Civil unions have been widely available is most if not all states, and afforded any two people each and every legal benefit of marriage, without using the word "marriage" itself.

Or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union#United_States

Also, state civil unions do not get any federal benefits of marriage.

 

[Dart]

... Most honest men I know would say that two women having sex is pretty interesting.

Two women having sex soon gets boring for everyone except the the two women. Now, two women having sex with me changes everything.

 

[bullwinkle]

Two women having sex soon gets boring for everyone except the the two women. Now, two women having sex with me changes everything.

I guess three inches makes all the difference.

 

[cowman]

Guys and lesbian in a nutshell(NSFW):
http://www.hulu.com/watch/41876

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

2 things - it changes the definition of marriage, so mine is no different from two men or two women. Is that good, bad, or other? That depends on how strongly you feel about what marriage "is".

The other, and the one that really is a harm, is the way the Court ruled that it's a Federal issue rather than state/local. The Court decided that the rule of law (our Constitution) doesn't matter anymore - that States who for over 200 years had the authority, based in the Constitution, to write their own laws concerning marriage, now don't.

So, your position is that the 14th Amendment is wrong? Is that the argument you really want to make? Because replace marriage with slavery, and you are arguing that states should be able to write their own laws on slavery

 

[roncachamp]

So, your position is that the 14th Amendment is wrong? Is that the argument you really want to make? Because replace marriage with slavery, and you are arguing that states should be able to write their own laws on slavery

The 13th Amendment abolished slavery in the US. All of it.

 

[RJM62]

2 things - it changes the definition of marriage, so mine is no different from two men or two women. Is that good, bad, or other? That depends on how strongly you feel about what marriage "is".

The other, and the one that really is a harm, is the way the Court ruled that it's a Federal issue rather than state/local. The Court decided that the rule of law (our Constitution) doesn't matter anymore - that States who for over 200 years had the authority, based in the Constitution, to write their own laws concerning marriage, now don't.

A lot of people say that the "government" has no business in marriage, seemingly forgetting that the citizens that create the law actually are the government. OK, but the Court just decided that the "government", meaning the 9 members of the Supreme Court, NOW has complete control over deciding what's best for the people, rather than a legislature and a government "of, for, and by" the people.

I'll admit that I haven't had time to read the opinions yet, I would like to find out the reasoning behind the decision.

The 10th Amendment issue is really the only thing I find troubling about this decision. As you and others (including four justices) have stated, the grounds for SCOTUS having gotten involved in this case in the first place are not at all straightforward.

I could also argue the other side, however. Even if a right is invented by a state, it still must be enacted and applied in a nondiscriminatory manner. A state couldn't build a new recreation center open only to Irish people, build a new highway solely for use by Catholics, or decide to license a trade and ban Blacks from applying for the license.

Other than the 10th Amendment issues, I really couldn't care less what any level of government has to say about marriage. I reject the premise that the government has any business recognizing or regulating marriages to begin with.

Rich

 

[Dart]

I guess three inches makes all the difference.

I see you've been trained in engineering.

 

[FastEddieB]

I guess three inches makes all the difference.

Three inches???

If only!!!

 

[azure]

Perhaps... A) I'm distinguishing between marriage and civil unions, where it seems to me that the militant homosexualists intentionally have not. Civil unions have been widely available is most if not all states, and afforded any two people each and every legal benefit of marriage, without using the word "marriage" itself.

And my point was that, in states that have statutes like MI's Prop 2, even civil unions were not available, and if a gay couple had a civil union performed elsewhere, the state would not recognize it "for any purpose".

That wording (using the word "union" and the "for any purpose" verbiage) was in MI's amendment specifically to disallow civil unions or recognition thereof. Also, I'm pretty sure that MI wasn't the only state that had a statute like that, but I couldn't name the other states that did.

 

[Matthew]

The 10th Amendment issue is really the only thing I find troubling about this decision. As you and others (including four justices) have stated, the grounds for SCOTUS having gotten involved in this case in the first place are not at all straightforward.

I could also argue the other side, however. Even if a right is invented by a state, it still must be enacted and applied in a nondiscriminatory manner. A state couldn't build a new recreation center open only to Irish people, build a new highway solely for use by Catholics, or decide to license a trade and ban Blacks from applying for the license.

Other than the 10th Amendment issues, I really couldn't care less what any level of government has to say about marriage. I reject the premise that the government has any business recognizing or regulating marriages to begin with.

Rich

I think another argument is the idea of "right to get married". Is it there in the Constitution? Do we really have a "right to get married"? The majority of the Court just said "yes". The minority asked, "Where does it say that?" States have issued permits, depending on whether or not you meet some criteria. Does that mean it's a right or a privilege? I don't know, that's part of the argument. If it is a right, it's been always considered a State right - States/counties/municipalities issue the license, Justices of the Peace can perform the act. We don't go the the Federal courthouse, or DC, to get the marriage license, we go to the county courthouse or City Hall. States got to define what marriage is, and they have for a long time decided it was the traditional definition - and for centuries it was just fine. Now, in the last 10-15 years, States (citizens), have been changing their minds and one by one have been allowing same sex marriages. The Court last week decided the other States weren't moving fast enough and took over. As far as the other argument of "full faith and credit" - the Court could have reminded the States that they need to recognize licenses issued from other States. They should still have been allowed to not issue in their own State, but that would be their decision.

 

[vintage cessna]

And my point was that, in states that have statutes like MI's Prop 2, even civil unions were not available, and if a gay couple had a civil union performed elsewhere, the state would not recognize it "for any purpose".

That wording (using the word "union" and the "for any purpose" verbiage) was in MI's amendment specifically to disallow civil unions or recognition thereof. Also, I'm pretty sure that MI wasn't the only state that had a statute like that, but I couldn't name the other states that did.

For anyone who believes the Constitution is the best framework for governance that has been devised, there is no reason for celebration.

You are happy that the Supreme Court has usurped power and ruled in your favor. They could have just as easily defined marriage as only between a man and a woman and made gay marriage illegal in all 50 states.