Gay marriage declared legal in all states

[FutureKnightX]

First off, if left to the states, being gay would be illegal in at least 10 of them. Seriously. In Lawrence v. Texas, it was ruled that anti-sodomy laws are illegal. To date, only 2 states that had such a law on the books at the time of the ruling were taken off such books. Ironically, Texas is not one of those states. No one has been tried under these laws (because any prosecutor that would do so would be laughed out of the court), but a number of people still get placed in a holding cell for said "crime" while the police investigate them for any wrongdoings they may have done. Also, I do wonder if Jim Crow would still be the law of the land there if the Supreme Court and federal government didn't intervene. I understand it's a slippery slope, but many people would still have to sign off on it and people in general are morally good.

Also, last I checked, many states refused to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. This is super illegal. Like, spelled out in parts of the Constitution from before the Bill of Rights level of illegal.

Article IV, Section 1:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Full Faith and Credit Clause basically states that any contract or ruling made in another state must be recognized by every other state, even if such a thing would be illegal there. It's why your high school diploma isn't worthless in 49 states, same with driver's licenses and marriage certificates, among other things.

[Rehab]

I guess that's how I know- today was a good day

[Phoenix Wright]

The 10th ammendment is a reaffirmation of the federalist framework, which [the federalist framework] says the State can not intervene in civil law issues, such as marriage, that such matters are to be addressed by each state separatedly.

Hm... To be honest, I can't find any info about how the federalist framework works (lol) in the United States. Isn't that common sense that the State can not intervene in civil law matters?

Ok, I was hasty, I admit.

EDIT:

Ok. Here's the first ammendment. This session in particular says what the State can do.

Nowhere does it say the State is authorized to intervene in civil law affairs. Now, I am not sure about how US jurisprudence works. Do they accept omissions as negations, or do they accept that the State intervene in matters that were omitted in the eight session.

um, that isn't the first amendment, that's from article one of the constitution itself.

let me clarify that the constitution is like any other. it's the law of the land. our amendments to the constitution (including the bill of rights and 17 others) are changes to the constitution. this is why the 3/5 law is null and void (it was included in the constitution).

and that necessary and proper clause could be interpreted to mean literally anything.

also, many interpreters of the constitution (including myself) don't adhere to a literal or strict interpretation of the constitution. given that the document was written in mere months somewhat haphazardly, as evidenced by its ambiguity, i think strict interpreters are silly for many reasons.

I guess that's how I know- today was a good day

you didn't even need your ak!

Edited June 27, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[blah the Prussian]

because i have never seen a single damn marriage in my life that has worked out and has stuck. i come from a big family of many break ups.

i think its fair to me to hold my disagreements with marriage.

Okay. I can see that.

what do you mean? does everything always have to be a comparison? because, comparatively speaking, we weren't very far behind the uk or most other eur. nations.

regardless, it's a victory for humanity and equality! i'm happy that it happened, and i welcome and hope for quick progressive decisions in the future!

what do you mean? does everything always have to be a comparison? because, comparatively speaking, we weren't very far behind the uk or most other eur. nations.

regardless, it's a victory for humanity and equality! i'm happy that it happened, and i welcome and hope for quick progressive decisions in the future!

We were 6 years behind Sweden and Norway and 14 years behind the Dutch. That's a pretty significant margin. I was talking about other matters as well, such as the end of slavery, which most of Europe ended before we did. Also no one seemed to notice my joke to the effect of the SC is ripping off FE Fates. Whatever.

[FrostyFireMage]

About time.

It was silly arguing that gay marriage destroys the 'sanctity' of marriage when it's apparently acceptable for two straight people to get married even if they don't love each other at all.

[Skynstein]

Not touching the US Constitution... I'm not used to common law shenanigans.

Besides, English isn't my first language, so obviously there are going to be vocabulary issues.

The 10th Ammendment is purely a jurisdiction rule. It says who can do what. "People" obviously references contracts. States should be able to regulate what they have jurisdiction for, but their jurisdiction is meaningless if it infringes constitutional norms. I don't see incompatibility here. In the USA the states have much bigger jurisdiction than in Brazil for example, but they're still bound by the Constitution. As a matter of fact, when certain shops in the US deny services to LGBT people, they're grounding their actions on the Constitution, or at least on what they think the Constitution says.

What really matters here is the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. If it can evaluate the constitutional status of state laws, and it should be able to, because otherwise the control would be useless, then it can override state laws that infringe the Constitution.

life, liberty, or property

Oh boy, the US Constitution is soooo 18th century... :P I'll take my bloated Brazilian Constitution any day.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Cerberus87

[Cyonica]

I don't understand why it was even a debate. Were people worried they were going to get forced into a gay marriage if it were legalised? Or do people just really enjoy having things that other people can't have? In any case, it's great news and I hope it leads to the end of discrimination against people just because of the gender of the person they chose to share their lives with.

[Makaze]

Well, the Supreme Court blatantly ripped off IS's ideas

In all seriousness, I wonder how long it'll take to implement this. There is going to be some resistance to be sure. But yeah, Im pretty satisfied with this. Welcome to the club of truly modern nation states, America! Took you long enough, but Id pay money to see the look on the founding fathers faces if they found out that the UK would do this before America. Its truly ironic how far what was founded as the land of the free has fallen in terms of civil rights in regards to other nations.

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." — Thomas Jefferson, Founding Father and Slave Owner who raped and had children with his slaves

[Skynstein]

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." — Thomas Jefferson, Founding Father and Slave Owner who raped and had children with his slaves

Jefferson's situation is a lot more complex than that. You make it sound like he was a Nazi or something, when his relationship with slavery is much more convoluted. And, unlike Hitler, there's a lot to salvage from Jefferson's ideas.

Also, if you're white, chances are your ancestors owned slaves at some point.

[Makaze]

Jefferson's situation is a lot more complex than that. You make it sound like he was a Nazi or something, when his relationship with slavery is much more convoluted. And, unlike Hitler, there's a lot to salvage from Jefferson's ideas.

Also, if you're white, chances are your ancestors owned slaves at some point.

"Anyone can deal with victory. Only the mighty can bear defeat." — Adolf Hitler

[Dr. Tarrasque]

It is fucking stupid that such an inevitability took so long to finally be realized. The bans were unconstitutional to begin with, practically ignored the history of civil rights movements effectively making history repeat itself and an argument that caused a major slowdown for this to be resolved was "The bible says this and that".

Fucking dumb. It's a real shame for those who were driven to commit suicide or were killed by the hate reinforced by these bans and the bigots advocating them. What a joyous time this would've been for them.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Sirius

[Skynstein]

"Anyone can deal with victory. Only the mighty can bear defeat." — Adolf Hitler

Yeah, like one sentence erases the whole of Mein Kampf. How splendid!

You shouldn't believe everything you read in Tumblr. It's not good for the mind. People can actually be shades of grey instead of just black and white, you know. Jefferson was an angel compared to other slave owners.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Cerberus87

[eclipse]

I don't understand why it was even a debate. Were people worried they were going to get forced into a gay marriage if it were legalised? Or do people just really enjoy having things that other people can't have? In any case, it's great news and I hope it leads to the end of discrimination against people just because of the gender of the person they chose to share their lives with.

It is fucking stupid that such an inevitability took so long to finally be realized. The bans were unconstitutional to begin with, practically ignored the history of civil rights movements effectively making history repeat itself and an argument that caused a major slowdown for this to be resolved was "The bible says this and that".

Fucking dumb. It's a real shame for those who were driven to commit suicide or were killed by the hate reinforced by these bans and the bigots advocating them. What a joyous time this would've been for them.

There's a precedent for this in race, and yet racism still exists. The Charleston shooting was motivated by it. Thus, it's a nice step in the right direction, but discrimination and hate will exist at least in the near future.

Makaze, either add to the discussion, or stay out. This isn't the "quotation of the day" topic.

[Original Alear]

Also, if you're white, chances are your ancestors owned slaves at some point.

You sure about that? In the South, I believe there were plenty of whites who never owned slaves, mostly because they were too poor. Not to say they didn't approve of slavery. Also, there were waves of white immigrants who came to the US after the end of slavery.

[blah the Prussian]

There are a lot of things in our history where we wonder how it could have been up for debate. Slavery comes to mind. That the new generation now has that opinion about gay marriage shows why it was allowed in the first place.

[Rei Rei]

There's a precedent for this in race, and yet racism still exists. The Charleston shooting was motivated by it. Thus, it's a nice step in the right direction, but discrimination and hate will exist at least in the near future.

Just like Brazil. We have gay marriage here since 2013, but that didn't help lowering the number of homophobic crimes

[I.M. Gei]

Yeah, like one sentence erases the whole of Mein Kampf. How splendid!

You shouldn't believe everything you read in Tumblr. It's not good for the mind. People can actually be shades of grey instead of just black and white, you know. Jefferson was an angel compared to other slave owners.

you seem to have a real fixation with tumblr, or at least associating anyone who so much as recognizes privilege or says "hey this historical figure was pretty bad actually" or "jesus christ, millenials have it rough" with the spectre of overly sensitive crazies on tumblr

and "angel compared to other slave owners" just might be the faintest praise i've ever seen someone damn someone else with

It is fucking stupid that such an inevitability took so long to finally be realized. The bans were unconstitutional to begin with, practically ignored the history of civil rights movements effectively making history repeat itself and an argument that caused a major slowdown for this to be resolved was "The bible says this and that".

Fucking dumb. It's a real shame for those who were driven to commit suicide or were killed by the hate reinforced by these bans and the bigots advocating them. What a joyous time this would've been for them.

man, do you remember eleven years ago when gay marriage referendums were put on the ballot to drive up republican turnout for dubya, or three years ago with all the brouhaha over chik-fil-a? what a difference a decade makes

Edited June 27, 2015 by I.M. Gei

[Rapier]

I see, the Proper & Common clause expanded the influence of the State in this case. Yeah, seems like it is valid. However, the same logic used to approve same sex marriage is dangerously the same one that may approve poligamy one day. Call me a bigot, but I find poligamy disgusting. Families with four women, one man and ten children? That sounds ridiculous.

Jefferson's situation is a lot more complex than that. You make it sound like he was a Nazi or something, when his relationship with slavery is much more convoluted. And, unlike Hitler, there's a lot to salvage from Jefferson's ideas.

Also, if you're white, chances are your ancestors owned slaves at some point.

There were people like Montesquieu who hated black people and believed them to have no souls. Yet his ideas were important to the development of modern republics and the modern concept of democracy. Hence why ideas should be evaluated regardless of who is speaking (on Hitler's case, he is guilty both in his ideas and as a person).

Oh boy, the US Constitution is soooo 18th century... :P I'll take my bloated Brazilian Constitution any day.

To be honest, my issues with our constitution (the brazilian one) is:

1) We treat affairs that do not refer to the tripartition of the powers (Legislative, Executive, Judiciary) or have no relevance whatsoever to maintaining the gears of the State in motion. That made our Constitution too complex, it's so clustered it isn't any funny (especially to people who study it >: ). Seriously, we have a law that forbids a certain privileged school from being taken from the spot it was built. In a Constitution.

2) It seems so nice to have so many laws protecting and regarding everything! Too bad the eficacy is so absurdly low, it makes no matter.

There are a lot of things in our history where we wonder how it could have been up for debate. Slavery comes to mind. That the new generation now has that opinion about gay marriage shows why it was allowed in the first place.

I think our notions are only developped when we have an urgent need to attend. Slavery was bad for capitalism because slaves are not paid, therefore they can't spend money in the market, so our societies had the need to ban slavery. I doubt it was done merely because of good samaritanism. I guess the same happened with gay marriage and women's rights.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Rapier

[Phoenix Wright]

I see, the Proper & Common clause expanded the influence of the State in this case. Yeah, seems like it is valid. However, the same logic used to approve same sex marriage is dangerously the same one that may approve poligamy one day. Call me a bigot, but I find poligamy disgusting. Families with four women, one man and ten children? That sounds ridiculous.

it doesn't matter if you find it disgusting or not, lol. lots of people find homosexuality disgusting.

[Excellen Browning]

Hell I don't find seeing one man putting his penis up another man's butt pleasant to see, either. But tolerance exists, and I can logically see there's nothing fundamentally wrong with it.

[Espinosa]

I wonder why people are so compelled to imagine others having intercourse in the first place, gay or not.

[blah the Prussian]

So what exactly is so terrible about polygamy? As long as women can have multiple husbands too it doesn't seem bad to me.

[largebus]

Don't know how to say this, but well done America?

I'll be honest, I just hope this shelves the issue and gets it out of the way (for a while). There are far more pressing issues facing society today than

allowing two people to get a piece of paper that ties them together.

Here's to hoping a bill in Australia is passed swiftly through parliament.

[blah the Prussian]

Oh, and this was not an inevitability. Nothing in history is.

[Rapier]

it doesn't matter if you find it disgusting or not, lol. lots of people find homosexuality disgusting.

We don't have that muslim culture, to begin with. And if our culture is not enough to be against polygamy in the west, I'm also willing to see through researches what most people think about this, and whether they would we willing to participate in such relations in order for them to ever become an issue here. Gay people obviously necessitate gay marriage, but people don't necessitate poligamic marriages. Without such a need, there is no reason for a change.

It also seems like a legal clusterfuck. Imagine pensions and all that jazz in a family with one man, four women and ten children.

There's something that tastes awful about it. There must be a good argument that stops this madness from happening, and I'll find it.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Rapier