Gay Marriage Legal

[Andara Bledin]

The Terminator is pro gay marriage
https://twitter.com/Schwarzenegger/s...78583713923072

My fave part of this is that some uptight anti-equality type got all upset and said he was unfollowing him, and his reply was "Hasta la vista."

[s_stabeler]

That's an interesting point, Canarr, but we don't restrict non-family individuals from marrying due to differences in power.

As an example, take a boss and employee. And just to make it more analogous, let's say they've been in those positions for 30 years at the same place.

Should we restrict that? Or similar instances thereof?

Edit: Those are actual questions. Not being snarky in any way. I'm always up for reevaluating my views. Maybe we actually *should* restrict those and incestuous marriages for the same reason...I just don't know.

yes, they should be restricted. again, difference in power, even more blatantly than with siblings.

[Canarr]

So where would you stand regarding the following couples getting together?

- Peter and Cindy (The Brady Bunch), biologically unrelated (i.e. no genetic issue) but raised as brother and sister since early in elementary school (would be superimposing a sexual relationship on a pre-existing sibling relationship).

- Luke and Leia (Star Wars), biologically brother and sister (genetic component is there), but separated as infants and later reunited as adults (no previous interaction as siblings).

Never watched the Brady Bunch; but as stated, on principle, I would be against allowing them to marry. However, I do realize that's a tricky position from a legal POV; maybe KabeRinnaul's suggestion concerning marriage counsling might work - someone to basically have sessions with both partners in such cases, in order to determine whether or not there is an unhealthy dynamic in the relationship. Not easy to accomplish, I know; and not going to help when siblings (even adoptive) decide to start a relationship without getting married.

As to Luke and Leia: against! Again on principle; Leia belongs with Han

That's an interesting point, Canarr, but we don't restrict non-family individuals from marrying due to differences in power.

As an example, take a boss and employee. And just to make it more analogous, let's say they've been in those positions for 30 years at the same place.

Should we restrict that? Or similar instances thereof?

Edit: Those are actual questions. Not being snarky in any way. I'm always up for reevaluating my views. Maybe we actually *should* restrict those and incestuous marriages for the same reason...I just don't know.

I don't have a problem with such a situation; basically, that's what anti-harassment laws are for, to put a damper on a boss trying to coerce an employee into something they shouldn't. Also, I find the power dynamic not as much of a problem without the grooming - basically, the lifelong exposure to someone else's influence.

[mathnerd]

I don't have much to add to the debate, but I just have to say that this particular decision was cause for major celebration in my household. Even though we live in California, where gay marriage is already legal, it's still a big deal. One of my boyfriend's daughters is engaged to be married to a wonderful woman next year, and now they don't have to worry about what will happen if their careers take them to a state that doesn't recognize their relationship after they get married.

[BlaqueKatt]

it's a different topic, but the issue with incest is that it increases the risk of genetic problems.

actually it's usually more a power dynamic thing vs. true consent. If someone has been molested or even groomed until age 18 is that really freely given consent? (no, it's abuse)

[Jester]

One of my boyfriend's daughters is engaged to be married to a wonderful woman next year, and now they don't have to worry about what will happen if their careers take them to a state that doesn't recognize their relationship after they get married.

Sadly, it may not be that simple. A few states seem to be determined to resist or somehow get around the Supreme Court ruling. The battle seems decided, but the war is not yet over.

[TheHuckster]

Sadly, it may not be that simple. A few states seem to be determined to resist or somehow get around the Supreme Court ruling. The battle seems decided, but the war is not yet over.

It will never be over, to be honest. There is one thing that can overturn this decision: Ratifying a new amendment banning gay marriage. The supreme court would then be powerless to consider it unconstitutional. Those against gay marriage knew this ruling was inevitable, and it's why they were talking about a constitutional amendment in the past several years... and that amendment is still possible to pass, even after this ruling.

[Jester]

You are probably right, but if so, only half right, because there can also be a Constitutional Amendment allowing same sex marriage.

But you may be wrong. People predicted the same thing with interracial marriage, and while there is still racism and people who don't approve of interracial marriage, there is nary a push by any of them for laws banning them.

This may become normative over the next couple generations, or it could fester and continue to be debated heatedly, just like abortion. Hard to say for sure, really.

[Hyena Dandy]

It will never be over, to be honest. There is one thing that can overturn this decision: Ratifying a new amendment banning gay marriage. The supreme court would then be powerless to consider it unconstitutional. Those against gay marriage knew this ruling was inevitable, and it's why they were talking about a constitutional amendment in the past several years... and that amendment is still possible to pass, even after this ruling.

'Still Possible,' yes, but extremely unlikely. It would be politically unpopular, near to the point of career suicide, to keep working on that beyond a local level. A majority of Americans are pro-gay-marriage, and there's a larger portion that are anti, but think we have better things to do. Could they? Yeah, but are they going to get the requisite 290 Congressmen, 66 Senators, and 38 states? Probably not, and while there's a good number of Republican-controlled state-legislatures, there's not enough that have both houses that even if EVERY Republican voted to do that they could get a convention going.

Republicans aren't a unified mass of screaming lunacy. There's a good number who support this, and an even-better number who don't, but are well aware that some of their constituents do and are concerned about being primaried. To try to push through would be throwing away a lot they worked to build, and I doubt most care enough.

[Jester]

Extremely unlikely.

The last Amendment (the 27th) to be ratified was in 1992. Bizarrely, that one was proposed in 1789. No, that is not a typo.

The last Amendment to be proposed in modern times and ratified (the 26th) was both proposed and ratified in 1971, 44 years ago.

[Gravekeeper]

Republicans aren't a unified mass of screaming lunacy.

I've been trying to tell myself this for years but Christ its hard given who they keep letting speak for them.

That said, the bitter hold outs are, as always, old angry/scared white people. National support for gay marriage in the US has topped 60% now ( which is a +10% shift in the last 4 years alone ) and 73% among under 50s. Amongst Republicans there's a huge gap along age groups with 60% support under 50, and 36% support over 50.

Democrats poll 76% support and independents poll 60%.

There's no way in hell this is getting undone with a Constitutional amendment. The writing has been on the wall for years. The oldest polls around on the subject show only 27% support in 1996 and 68% opposed. 27% to 60% in just under 20 years is a huge shift. Another 10 years and gay marriage will be a non-issue in the US save among the usual screaming lunatics.

There's a good number who support this, and an even-better number who don't, but are well aware that some of their constituents do and are concerned about being primaried. To try to push through would be throwing away a lot they worked to build, and I doubt most care enough.

Lindsey Graham has already flipped on subject. Republicans are politically expedient creatures. They will ultimately change their stance on anything if they sense they might lose their grip on power. -.-

[HYHYBT]

KabeRinnaul: Here, maybe this will help. One of my Facebook friends shared this. (Not sure how to link to a specific video on Facebook, but currently it's the first one on this page, dated June 26, 10:53 AM)

https://www.facebook.com/joshua.feuerstein.5

Other than that and my uncle's sharing the AFA's reaction, plus a couple "why is my feed flooded with confederate and rainbow flags" posts, everything's been positive.

Those against gay marriage knew this ruling was inevitable, and it's why they were talking about a constitutional amendment in the past several years... and that amendment is still possible to pass, even after this ruling.

Possible only in the technical sense. They couldn't get it through Congress back when most were for it; why would it have a chance now? Then there's ratification. Too many states were glad to be rid of their bans to leave enough left to enact a constitutional amendment. It's not possible now, or in the near future, and would only become possible if a massive shift in public opinion happened in that direction first. Hard to see how that would come about.

[Greenday]

I don't have much to add to the debate, but I just have to say that this particular decision was cause for major celebration in my household. Even though we live in California, where gay marriage is already legal, it's still a big deal. One of my boyfriend's daughters is engaged to be married to a wonderful woman next year, and now they don't have to worry about what will happen if their careers take them to a state that doesn't recognize their relationship after they get married.

Sadly, it may not be that simple. A few states seem to be determined to resist or somehow get around the Supreme Court ruling. The battle seems decided, but the war is not yet over.

Not even just that, there are still states where it's legal to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. So gay couples in, say, Utah could get married then show up to work and get fired for being gay then come home to find out they are being evicted for being gay.

[s_stabeler]

Not even just that, there are still states where it's legal to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. So gay couples in, say, Utah could get married then show up to work and get fired for being gay then come home to find out they are being evicted for being gay.

which s why the war is definitely far fro over. However, that does not change the fact that this is a major victory- ESPECIALLY since it actually establishes a precedent that gay people are entitled to equal rights to heterosexual people, since that is the reason why the Supreme Court voted to allow gay marriage.

I would admit it would have been a bit better if the supreme court had been less divided, or divided along something other than liberal/conservative lines, though.

[Tama]

I'm willing to bet that the guy responsible for tipping the scale will have lots of threats made Against him now.