U.S. Supreme court overturns anti gay marriage laws.

[beebskadoo]

YAY, Great news today in America! The Supreme court in a 5 to 4 vote to repeal legislation inhibiting same sex couples from receiving tax, health and pension benefits. This will Further pave the way for equality for all US citizens. There's still a ways to go but it's a happy day for me. 

[TechTheWorld]

^_^

[Kayn]

This is great news

[Hyydrah]

That's awesome, but it's still depressing that they BARELY passed it.

[beebskadoo]

That's awesome, but it's still depressing that they BARELY passed it.

Yeah we have a long way to go in the U.S. 5/4 is too close for my liking but thankfully it passed. 

[Kerplex]

Nice step in the right direction. Now if only the rest of your country would get on the same page and just legalize same sex marriage already!

[Vitalius]

I just want to point out that this is only talking about DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) and that other laws and acts are unaffected by this ruling unless other rulings come along. 

The reason this was overturned (and so barely so) is because it was essentially directly aimed at "hurting" homosexual couples. In other words, that's the reason and the "problem". Not because it made rights unequal, but because it was directly aimed at hurting a specific demographic. 

Those are two very different things and there are very important legal distinctions between them.

Other laws won't be so easy to overcome.

[Art Vandelay]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/supreme-court-on-gay-marriage-sure-who-cares,31812/

 

I wish this article were real life.

[bluepoodleguy]

Myself I prefer the good old days.

[beebskadoo]

Even though it's only about DOMA, it's still a step. 

[beebskadoo]

Myself I prefer the good old days.

When was that?....never......

[Lays]

Idk why it didn't get passed sooner, if people wanna be happy let em be happy, I dun see a reason to discriminate etc 

[Vitalius]

Even though it's only about DOMA, it's still a step.

You don't seem to understand.

The fact that they used that reasoning to justify overturning the act means they aren't prepared, able, or willing to use "unequal rights" as a reason for it.

It's just reinforcing a precedent that's existed for a while. It's a step alright, but not towards legalizing same sex marriage nation-wide.

I figure it will come down to the state laws again, like it usually does in these situations.

Or something similar to the Board of Education V Brown case. And if the dissent is similar to that one, ... well that's just going to be a clusterf***.

[beebskadoo]

You don't seem to understand.

The fact that they used that reasoning to justify overturning the act means they aren't prepared, able, or willing to use "unequal rights" as a reason for it.

It's just reinforcing a precedent that's existed for a while. It's a step alright, but not towards legalizing same sex marriage nation-wide.

I figure it will come down to the state laws again, like it usually does in these situations.

Or something similar to the Board of Education V Brown case. And if the dissent is similar to that one, ... well that's just going to be a clusterf***.

Well, as I said we still have a way to go. 

[Vitalius]

Well, as I said we still have a way to go. 

Indeed.

And if it is like Board V Brown, well, I doubt it will ever come to fruition.

There are still schools in this country that are segregated. Let that sink in for a minute.

[eshbop]

The reason this was overturned (and so barely so) is because it was essentially directly aimed at "hurting" homosexual couples. In other words, that's the reason and the "problem". Not because it made rights unequal, but because it was directly aimed at hurting a specific demographic.

Not letting gay couples the right to marry IS hurting gay couples. I fail to see your point.

Myself I prefer the good old days.

And yourself can go on preferring that and let other people enjoy a more progressive world, that being one that exists in the 21st century.

I doubt it will ever come to fruition.

No, it will. Being as a conservative as the USA is it'll take them longer than others to take it up, which is already happening, but It's inevitable.

[Vitalius]

Not letting gay couples the right to marry IS hurting gay couples. I fail to see your point.

And yourself can go on preferring that and let other people enjoy a more progressive world, that being one that exists in the 21st century.

No, it will. Being as a conservative as the USA is it'll take them longer than others to take it up, which is already happening, but It's inevitable.

My point is that they didn't do it because of unequal rights, but because it was stereotyping. This implies by way of inference that it isn't actually, legally, unequal rights, (EDIT) as that would be a stronger argument to make, if it indeed is.

You mean like desegregation? ... Oh ... wait. 

[eshbop]

My point is that they didn't do it because of unequal rights, but because it was stereotyping. This implies by way of inference that it isn't actually, legally, unequal rights, (EDIT) as that would be a stronger argument to make, if it indeed is.

You mean like desegregation? ... Oh ... wait. 

Of course it indeed is, whether they want to make that argument or not.

 

This isn't segregation in the same sense that apartheid was. This is due to where specific racial groups are living, which when being a minority often centres among others of the same group, therefore building communties that have a high percentage of that racial group and therefore schools in the area that reflect this. There's no ulterior motive here. People aren't being segregated.

 

 

Schools in my area have high percentages of asian students, a few suburbs across that isn't the case. It's not segregation that causes this.

[Vitalius]

I disagree. If it were legally unequal rights, it would make a much stronger case (and likely have put them in a more unanimous stance beyond 5-4) if they argued that instead.

Ever heard of "re-districting"? It affects schools very similarly to how it affects votes.

I'm not saying what you said doesn't factor in, I'm just saying it's easy to make it this way.

It's more of an indirect segregation by way of that, but still. 

[beebskadoo]

I disagree. If it were legally unequal rights, it would make a much stronger case (and likely have put them in a more unanimous stance beyond 5-4) if they argued that instead.

Ever heard of "re-districting"? It affects schools very similarly to how it affects votes.

I'm not saying what you said doesn't factor in, I'm just saying it's easy to make it this way.

It's more of an indirect segregation by way of that, but still. 

So what is your stance on gay marriage? YOUR stance.

[Vitalius]

So what is your stance on gay marriage? YOUR stance.

Mine? I'm completely against it.

I'm completel skeptical towards the idea that it will be nation-wide, but I fully expect it to go the way of states' rights and each state has to respect other states' laws.

A sort of round about way of doing it, but eh. I don't agree with it, but it will likely happen.

[beebskadoo]

Mine? I'm completely against it.

I'm completel skeptical towards the idea that it will be nation-wide, but I fully expect it to go the way of states' rights and each state has to respect other states' laws.

A sort of round about way of doing it, but eh. I don't agree with it, but it will likely happen.

Would you rather not see marriage equality in this nation? Why are you completely against it? 

[Vitalius]

Would you rather not see marriage equality in this nation? Why are you completely against it? 

But there is marriage equality in this nation.

I'm a heterosexual male. I can marry the same people homosexual males can. The same applies with women.

I look at it on an individual basis.

And if your concern is by couple, well, legally, love has no definition as far as I know. It isn't a part of the equation. The only time I think I've ever heard emotions or anything subjective mentioned legally is in respect to probably cause with a police officer.

[eshbop]

I disagree. If it were legally unequal rights, it would make a much stronger case (and likely have put them in a more unanimous stance beyond 5-4) if they argued that instead.

 

It is unequal rights, just no one is willing to admit that yet because it isn't nearly in the midst of becoming legal yet in the US. When it becomes legal then it will be looked back on as being unequal, in the same boat as the countless number of examples of rights issues that legally don't exist today.

 

You'd think the this day and age people would be more accepting of these kinds of "issues".

[beebskadoo]

I disagree. If it were legally unequal rights, it would make a much stronger case (and likely have put them in a more unanimous stance beyond 5-4) if they argued that instead.

Ever heard of "re-districting"? It affects schools very similarly to how it affects votes.

I'm not saying what you said doesn't factor in, I'm just saying it's easy to make it this way.

It's more of an indirect segregation by way of that, but still. 

You sir are from Texas, the state with the most backward education system, the highest abortion rate and the highest rate of teen pregnancy and reoccurring teen pregnancy. Some schools if not all in your state teach abstinence only education which is proven to fail.