Supreme Court Strikes Down Key DOMA Provisions

[The Catboy]

I am so proud to finally see this happen! It's about time we are a country moved forward!

 

[RevPokemon]

I can say as a person of faith and future minister that I couldn't be happier with the ruling that allows marriage equality but I am worried that it will
1. Have states/counties/cities being a holes denying same sex couples the right to marry.
2. If will cause an increase in hate crimes against lgbt people
3.it will hurt funding towards hrc and other wonderful groups that support lbgt rights

Ultimately I'm proud to tell my future kids that I remember the wonderful day when we got marriage equality although we still got a long way to go

 

[nonamejohn]

I have a question, why can't we all just agree to disagree ? I'm a traditional man who believes in a man-woman relationship, but I don't practice religion and don't try to argue against other peoples beliefs on the internet. Whats the point of wasting our time on this bullshit ?

 

[KingVamp]

About 10 minutes on Facebook just shows nothing but sharing of today's ruling, scrolling all the way down to the minute the decision was known to the public. Hooray, I say, hooray for the US finally hitting the point where we are so close to putting something behind us that should never have been an issue to begin with. Now that gay marriage is totally legal (when it shouldn't have been bound by law to begin with), I wonder what will become the center stage issue as time goes on and gay marriage is just kind of existing like anything else.

Polygamy/polyamory perhaps?

 

[Nathan Drake]

Polygamy/polyamory perhaps?

Doubtful. In general, that just doesn't seem to be a popular idea. People are big on monogamy and acknowledge swinging if they have to, but going beyond that to multiple marriages to one person just seems too outlandish for many to consider. I wasn't limiting the scope to issues of marriage though. More like what will become the big political focus in general in regards to social issues. As it stands, gay marriage has been the main point of activism in the US with general LGBTQ rights and feminism in general not being so far behind. Feminism tries to be a one size fits all social issue, so I could see it trying to further absorb the LGBTQ movement, but for the most part, society seems to divorce the two as separate sets of issues.

 

[Foxi4]

This is a sad day for the gay community, and before someone accuses me of being a homphobe, let me clarify - there is nothing more offensive to me than inviting the government into a union of loving people. Civil marriage, as a whole, is an insane institution that shouldn't exist - it's none of anyone's business who you live with and why.

 

[KingVamp]

Doubtful. In general, that just doesn't seem to be a popular idea. People are big on monogamy and acknowledge swinging if they have to, but going beyond that to multiple marriages to one person just seems too outlandish for many to consider. I wasn't limiting the scope to issues of marriage though. More like what will become the big political focus in general in regards to social issues. As it stands, gay marriage has been the main point of activism in the US with general LGBTQ rights and feminism in general not being so far behind. Feminism tries to be a one size fits all social issue, so I could see it trying to further absorb the LGBTQ movement, but for the most part, society seems to divorce the two as separate sets of issues.

True, but neither was gay/bi monogamy (being in the closet and all) and it doesn't have to be a lot to one person. That said, marriage as it is right now, at least with a even amount of people, is probably good enough. I thought you were just talking about marriages. The problem with feminism, well..., it pretty much lost its original meaning and goal.

This is a sad day for the gay community, and before someone accuses me of being a homphobe, let me clarify - there is nothing more offensive to me than inviting the government into a union of loving people. Civil marriage, as a whole, is an insane institution that shouldn't exist - it's none of anyone's business who you live with and why.

But that's what they wanted. To be recognized and accepted by everyone, including the government.

 

[Foxi4]

But that's what they wanted. To be recognized and accepted by everyone, including the government.

No, most wanted the privileges that come with marriage whereas there should be none. There are plenty of churches of various denominations that accept gay marriage already - if all they wanted was a holy union, they can go to any of those. No, gay couples want the tax benefits, inheritance laws and other privileges associated with marriage without classifying for them, marriage being a union of two people with the express intent on having children. That's why marriage privileges were instituted in the first place - to stimulate the growth of the population. The institution has outlived its purpose though and should no longer exist as a legal body - there's no reason for it to be in place, it's purely symbolical. A gay couple, for obvious reasons, does not contribute to population growth, I don't need to explain why, so I don't think it should classify under the current definition and intent of the institution. Before someone pops up with the bright idea about adoptions, a single person can also adopt and that's not "growth", just a change of guardians. The whole debacle is complex and I feel the world would be better off without legalized unions like this - no special treatment either, gay or straight, single or in a relationship. I don't think I need an outsider to validate my relationship with another person - the only people qualified to do that are the people involved. All of this nonsense is springing from some romanticized idea of what a marriage is whereas in reality it's just getting signed up in a book for no reason. Once again, I can't stress enough that I'm not against gay marriage specifically, I'm against marriage as a legal institution, especially as a tax crutch. Are you in a happy relationship? Good for you - that's all the validation you need.

 

[Blood Fetish]

"marriage being a union of two people with the express intent on having children"

Nope. Unless you are inferring that post-menopausal women, those with fertility issues, those with serious risk of hereditary disease, or those who simply do not want to have children should be barred from marriage. Oh, and ironically the original intention of marriage contracts was to, you guessed it, establish inheritance and property rights.

 

[Foxi4]

"marriage being a union of two people with the express intent on having children"

Nope. Unless you are inferring that post-menopausal women, those with fertility issues, those with serious risk of hereditary disease, or those who simply do not want to have children should be barred from marriage. Oh, and ironically the original intention of marriage contracts was to, you guessed it, establish inheritance and property rights.

You seem to have skim-read the post - state-governed marriage shouldn't exist, at all - not for straight couples, childbearing or otherwise, and not for gay couples. There shouldn't be any special tarrifs or special treatment for anyone regardless of circumstances. As for inheritance, write a f*cking will - problem solved. Regarding the origin and purpose of marriage, I disagree (at least in my case what I'm saying is demonstrably true since that's the legal definition where I live), but it's not terribly important to the overall point.

 

[Blood Fetish]

How do you draft up a contract that forces hospitals to give visitation rights? There are hundreds of rights like that which cannot be enforced through private contract. Not to mention, why put the burden of requiring every couple to hire a contract lawyer? Just create a package of rights that people can apply for. We can call it marriage.

 

[Foxi4]

How do you draft up a contract that forces hospitals to give visitation rights? There are hundreds of rights like that which cannot be enforced through private contract. Not to mention, why put the burden of requiring every couple to hire a contract lawyer? Just create a package of rights that people can apply for. We can call it marriage.

Or you can hire a notary - boosts the economy. What about people who are merely friends and want visitation rights? Are they supposed to marry you too? What if you want a friend to inherit your wealth? You need a will either way. And why exactly do marriages get tax cuts? They're not special in comparison to couples who are not married, so what's the deal there? Ridiculous. Taxes, visitation rights, inheritance and all that other nonsense has nothing to do with marriage - it customarily comes as part of the package, but I don't see why. Besides, the "package" as it stands today is already a legal contract of sorts - calling it something else doesn't change that. There's just no sensible reason for the state to control marriages - it's not the middle ages.