Gay marriage declared legal in all states

[FutureKnightX]

Thank you for pointing that out, Eclipse. It's one of those things gay people don't like to talk about because it would be a weapon against them when it comes to equal rights (because we all know straight couples don't have that problem...>.>). And actually, women are more likely to be abusive than men are (last I checked, girls aren't taught to not hit boys), but no one ever talks about because men are supposed to be strong and women are the victims. Heck, over half of all people sexually harassed in the military are men (probably partially because just under 20% of the military is female, but still).

But yes, no one ever talks about gay couples being abusive, nor any unique problems that entail. Is the victim scared to come out to his/her community? Well, s/he'll have to in order to get help. Not only that, but since the couple is a minority, their actions will cause people to think badly of the group as a whole, so all the more reason to pretend it isn't happening, for the sake of the gay community as a whole. And this is of course assuming said victim won't get discriminated against when s/he actually does seek help. I mean, we all know men should be able to stand their ground and women can't be abusive, right? >.>

And it isn't just this, but also the fact that IN MOST STATES, YOU CAN BE FIRED FOR BEING GAY! Sorry for the caps lock, but most people aren't aware of that fact and in fact think it is already a protection gay people have. No, we don't have that. I have protection in my home state of California, but if I need to move to say, Oklahoma, then my boss can fire me and state his reason is that he doesn't like having a gay employee and any suit I take against him would be thrown out since what he did was legal. Even before this great ruling by the Supreme Court, some states had marriage equality, but still lacked these protections. Some people are afraid to come out under such a thing and thus avoid getting married or talking about their personal life (when their straight coworkers totally can). No one wants to get fired and have to deal with unemployment.

Sorry if this stuff gets you down, people. I really am super and incredibly happy about the SCOTUS ruling. I really am. But equal rights aren't over yet and I am tired of the only thing being talked about is marriage equality, like that is the end goal that solves all our problems. That just gives us equal benefits in places that don't overtly discriminate and allows some gay people to "live the straight life" like most gay people on TV do.

[Eail]

Thank you for pointing that out, Eclipse. It's one of those things gay people don't like to talk about because it would be a weapon against them when it comes to equal rights (because we all know straight couples don't have that problem...>.>). And actually, women are more likely to be abusive than men are (last I checked, girls aren't taught to not hit boys), but no one ever talks about because men are supposed to be strong and women are the victims. Heck, over half of all people sexually harassed in the military are men (probably partially because just under 20% of the military is female, but still).

But yes, no one ever talks about gay couples being abusive, nor any unique problems that entail. Is the victim scared to come out to his/her community? Well, s/he'll have to in order to get help. Not only that, but since the couple is a minority, their actions will cause people to think badly of the group as a whole, so all the more reason to pretend it isn't happening, for the sake of the gay community as a whole. And this is of course assuming said victim won't get discriminated against when s/he actually does seek help. I mean, we all know men should be able to stand their ground and women can't be abusive, right? >.>

And it isn't just this, but also the fact that IN MOST STATES, YOU CAN BE FIRED FOR BEING GAY! Sorry for the caps lock, but most people aren't aware of that fact and in fact think it is already a protection gay people have. No, we don't have that. I have protection in my home state of California, but if I need to move to say, Oklahoma, then my boss can fire me and state his reason is that he doesn't like having a gay employee and any suit I take against him would be thrown out since what he did was legal. Even before this great ruling by the Supreme Court, some states had marriage equality, but still lacked these protections. Some people are afraid to come out under such a thing and thus avoid getting married or talking about their personal life (when their straight coworkers totally can). No one wants to get fired and have to deal with unemployment.

Sorry if this stuff gets you down, people. I really am super and incredibly happy about the SCOTUS ruling. I really am. But equal rights aren't over yet and I am tired of the only thing being talked about is marriage equality, like that is the end goal that solves all our problems. That just gives us equal benefits in places that don't overtly discriminate and allows some gay people to "live the straight life" like most gay people on TV do.

The thing is Knight, and take this with a degree of salt if you will. There is a legit reason that some men might be scared of reporting abuse, beyond the disbelief, ridicule, and mocking that may come from it. If the woman is enough of a crazy bitch to actually start abusing you, mentally and or physically, then she's also got a pretty good chance to outright lie to the police and everyone and say that you were a terrible rapist and she was just defending herself.

That is the point where your life is FUCKED my friend, because of the day and age we live in were nobody questions rape anymore, there is no innocent until proven guilty, and even in the cases where it's proven that there was no rape, and the woman lied, no one gives a damn about the man. His standing his ruined, she gets no jail time, the guy probably can't ever get a job again because when a potential employer googles his name it's going to pop up related to a rape case.

Quite frankly the only way I could see to get out of that situation is to lawyer up before hand, talk everything out with the professional, then take steps forward, but that's just not an option sometimes. Men seriously need to have some kind of system in place to help them, but as far as I can tell, the most VOCAL of the left absolutely hate the idea of helping men, while the far Right just doesn't believe it to be an issue.

[Blaze The Great]

Future Knight brings up a good point. As a Christian, I haven't always been the most supportive person ever of LGBT rights (though I've changed my ways within the last year), but even I know that something is wrong when only 21 states have laws protecting people against discrimination because of sexual orientation. I thought the situation was significantly better than this, although maybe I was just hearing about bills and not full-blown laws. Now that gay marriage is legal, one of the next steps is workplace equality.

EDIT: Also, I totally agree with everything in Eail's post. Radical feminism is overrunning our society in that regard.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Blaze The Great

[-Cynthia-]

I agree that sexual orientation(and gender identity) becoming a protected class in every state is also a pretty big deal. Many people think that 'well why do gays need to have special rights, they can just sue if they're not fired for legitimate reasons'. Unfortunately, this is not actually the case in the United States because save California, states almost universally have at-will employment which means that employers can fire people for all sorts of trivial reasons as long as that reason was not discrimination against a protected class or sexual harrassment.

[eclipse]

The thing is Knight, and take this with a degree of salt if you will. There is a legit reason that some men might be scared of reporting abuse, beyond the disbelief, ridicule, and mocking that may come from it. If the woman is enough of a crazy bitch to actually start abusing you, mentally and or physically, then she's also got a pretty good chance to outright lie to the police and everyone and say that you were a terrible rapist and she was just defending herself.

That is the point where your life is FUCKED my friend, because of the day and age we live in were nobody questions rape anymore, there is no innocent until proven guilty, and even in the cases where it's proven that there was no rape, and the woman lied, no one gives a damn about the man. His standing his ruined, she gets no jail time, the guy probably can't ever get a job again because when a potential employer googles his name it's going to pop up related to a rape case.

Quite frankly the only way I could see to get out of that situation is to lawyer up before hand, talk everything out with the professional, then take steps forward, but that's just not an option sometimes. Men seriously need to have some kind of system in place to help them, but as far as I can tell, the most VOCAL of the left absolutely hate the idea of helping men, while the far Right just doesn't believe it to be an issue.

Many of these things shouldn't be defined by gender. Sexual assault isn't limited to a male perpetrator and a female victim - if a woman forcibly shoves a broom handle where it does not belong, that should be counted, too. Abusive spouses can be of either gender. Parents should be defined by their ability to care for children, not gender. Who someone legally marries should be up to that person, as long as the other party is able to legally consent (religious marriage should be left up to the church, with its only significance being ceremonial).

Ideally, gender wouldn't be an issue in the above-mentioned cases. . .but it is, and I'll speak out against it with my dying breath. A gag order regarding any crime would also be great, because people are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around!

Lastly, WTF at job discrimination, I'd rather have an employee that's gay and honest versus straight and stealing money out of the company coffers! I suppose that's another step that needs to be taken (even if the concept boggles my mind).

[FutureKnightX]

Um...Eail, what you're asking for is gender equality and most people (even most feminists and MRAs) are for that. I certainly am. In fact, part of fighting for equal rights would also lead to gender equality. Some men are indeed victims (as I actually did state earlier when I discussed the fact that most abusers are women and most victims of sexual harassment in the military are men), and the media has a hard time addressing that fact. In fact, there was an article about a man who was raped by a woman (he was the one who wrote it) and the reason he didn't fight back was a combination of being really drunk and the fact that he figured that him fighting a woman wouldn't go over very well with not just his friends, but the law, as well (I do doubt many would take "but your honor! She was trying to rape me!" as a defense, sadly). And yes, his girlfriend did leave him since she thought he cheated on her and all that.

Anyways, basically, yeah, men do have it rough at times, and I wasn't saying that wasn't the case, and I really feel that was at least half of the point I was making up there too.

[I.M. Gei]

The thing is Knight, and take this with a degree of salt if you will. There is a legit reason that some men might be scared of reporting abuse, beyond the disbelief, ridicule, and mocking that may come from it. If the woman is enough of a crazy bitch to actually start abusing you, mentally and or physically, then she's also got a pretty good chance to outright lie to the police and everyone and say that you were a terrible rapist and she was just defending herself.

That is the point where your life is FUCKED my friend, because of the day and age we live in were nobody questions rape anymore, there is no innocent until proven guilty, and even in the cases where it's proven that there was no rape, and the woman lied, no one gives a damn about the man. His standing his ruined, she gets no jail time, the guy probably can't ever get a job again because when a potential employer googles his name it's going to pop up related to a rape case.

Quite frankly the only way I could see to get out of that situation is to lawyer up before hand, talk everything out with the professional, then take steps forward, but that's just not an option sometimes. Men seriously need to have some kind of system in place to help them, but as far as I can tell, the most VOCAL of the left absolutely hate the idea of helping men, while the far Right just doesn't believe it to be an issue.

i know /pol/ and a lot of 4chan qq about how put upon men are, but you know, feminism is meant to deconstruct patriarchy in society, which harms men and women: men being pressured into dangerous jobs, being seen as inferior parents or breadwinners uninterested in raising children, are rooted in the patriarchy

there's plenty of space in feminism to care about these things, and many feminists do!

[Pixelman]

Wow Huckabee is pissed over this

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/06/26/3674453/huckabee-vows-resist-reject-judicial-tyranny-sex-marriage-ruling/

Edited June 26, 2015 by PixelmanFE

[Blaze The Great]

Of course, since we are on the issue of court rights between genders, we also need to maintain awareness between sexualities. Once anti-discrimination is fully established, we need to remain totally vigilant so that every case doesn't become "I'm gay. I got fired. I must have been fired because I was gay. I should sue!" Because that is NOT the direction we want to go, especially seeing what is happening with men vs. women. We need to form equal rights, and then make sure that said equal treatment is maintained in a fair and just way.

[Sweet_Basil]

I did not expect that, that's wonderful news. Also quite coincidental right after Fire Emblem's gay marriage announcement.

[Phoenix Wright]

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.

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!

[-Cynthia-]

Of course, since we are on the issue of court rights between genders, we also need to maintain awareness between sexualities. Once anti-discrimination is fully established, we need to remain totally vigilant so that every case doesn't become "I'm gay. I got fired. I must have been fired because I was gay. I should sue!" Because that is NOT the direction we want to go, especially seeing what is happening with men vs. women. We need to form equal rights, and then make sure that said equal treatment is maintained in a fair and just way.

The employer can show that the termination was a result of poor performance (evidenced by performance appraisals, progress reports, absences etc.) to show that the race/gender/religion/sexual orientation/etc. of said individual was not the cause for termination. Discrimination lawsuits are not automatically successful currently.

(Alternatively there are adverse impact cases where a step used in the employment or promotional processes favors one protected class over another, but I doubt sexual orientation predicts test results on most job related tests)

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

May I inquire as to why?

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.

[Phoenix Wright]

there are already laws in place forbidding termination based on sex, orientation, race, ethnicity, age, disability, and religion. if it wasn't a problem before, it probably won't become one now.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[Irony]

Congratulations America! :D 'twas a pleasant surprise, but it is still amazing! :D

[-Cynthia-]

there are already laws in place forbidding termination based on sex, orientation, race, ethnicity, age, disability, and religion. if it wasn't a problem before, it probably won't become one now.

Orientation is state-by-state, not nationwide though. https://www.aclu.org/map/non-discrimination-laws-state-state-information-map

[FutureKnightX]

Yep, it's 21 states (plus DC and all federal employees, regardless of location), I believe. Most states do not have such protections. All states have laws on the book where it is illegal to fire someone on the basis of race, gender, disability, and age, but only those states (along with a few cities like Austin) also include sexual orientation and gender identity. Heck, some of these protections don't even apply to gender identity, just sexual orientation...>.>

And it should be noted that there was a bill up for a vote in congress a couple of years back that would have enabled these protections, but most people were against it, even gay rights groups. You see, the bill didn't include gender identity, and it had a religious exemption. Basically, your boss could fire you for being gay if his/her religious beliefs said being gay is a sin, regardless of what the job was. Basically, you might as well not have the law in place at all.

As for gay people suing their former employer for believing their termination was due to their orientation? You could say the same for stuff like race, gender, disability, and age too. Should we get rid of those? Also, seems kind of an asinine reaction to such a thing. "Some gay person could sue their former employer for firing them when it could have been because they were a bad employee, so we should make it so no gay person has any protection for this sort of thing!" Seems similar to the argument of "some boys could just say they're girls and go into the girls' bathroom and locker rooms so we should make it so transgendered people still have to use bathrooms and locker rooms based off the gender they were assigned at birth!" (and I realize that that statement was phrased to be less offensive than how many phrased that back when this was in the news lol). You shouldn't punish an already marginalized group just because a few jackasses would abuse the law, especially in ways that are laughably transparent.

[Phoenix Wright]

Orientation is state-by-state, not nationwide though. https://www.aclu.org/map/non-discrimination-laws-state-state-information-map

huh. i thought those protections were on a nation-wide level. that is surprising.

[Rapier]

Allow me to drag this discussion to a more technical level, because I've been reading about this and I think this case gave origin to a legal issue.

From the 14th ammendment, it is said that people must be treated equally. Yet the 10th ammendment also says the State is not to intervene in civil law. However, this intervention was in a civil law. So, this case in particular goes against the 10th ammendment.

Now, you may ask why I am making such a fuss about this, because it is nice to have equal rights for people. I agree. My issue with this is how it may become a slippery slope. Naturally, if I can ignore a Constitucional ammendment, then I can ignore more. Imagine how politically inclined judges and legislators can use this in their favor. Nothing stops them from doing the same in a case people might not agree with. And then we will have a problem.

This legal issue should be sorted out, it is way too serious.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Rapier

[eclipse]

Allow me to drag this discussion to a more technical level, because I've been reading about this and I think this case gave origin to a legal issue.

From the 14th ammendment, it is said that people must be treated equally. Yet the 10th ammendment also says the State is not to intervene in civil law. However, this intervention was in a civil law. So, this case in particular goes against the 10th ammendment.

Now, you may ask why I am making such a fuss about this, because it is nice to have equal rights for people. I agree. My issue with this is how it may become a slippery slope. Naturally, if I can ignore a Constitucional ammendment, then I can ignore more. Imagine how politically inclined judges and legislators can use this in their favor. Nothing stops them from doing the same in a case people might not agree with. And then we will have a problem.

This legal issue should be sorted out, it is way too serious.

This is the tenth amendment, and how the hell did you get that interpretation.

It's also much more complicated than that. Part of marriage involves taxes, and taxes are collected at both the federal and state level. Hence why I don't mind the federal government poking its head into this issue.

[Phoenix Wright]

the tenth amendment reads:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

the fourteenth amendment:

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

we turn our focus to section 1, specifically, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

powers are turned over to the states, or subsequently to the people, if the powers are not explicitly given to the federal government by the constitution. if laws made by the states are themselves seen to be unconstitutional (which, in this case, banning gay marriage is seen as such a law), those laws are then made null and void. judicial review is legal.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[Rapier]

The issue is, the State is not supposed to intervene in civil law, right? And this is an intervention in civil law... To intervene in civil law affairs is not part of the powers delegated to the State. That is where the 10th ammendment comes in.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Rapier

[Phoenix Wright]

i'm not sure where you're getting that particular terminology from, if you're using the 10th amendment as your source. it's merely a reaffirmation of the federalist framework of the constitution. is there some scotus case you're talking about?

[Rapier]

i'm not sure where you're getting that particular terminology from, if you're using the 10th amendment as your source. it's merely a reaffirmation of the federalist framework of the constitution. is there some scotus case you're talking about?

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.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

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.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Rapier

[Blaze The Great]

As for gay people suing their former employer for believing their termination was due to their orientation? You could say the same for stuff like race, gender, disability, and age too. Should we get rid of those? Also, seems kind of an asinine reaction to such a thing. "Some gay person could sue their former employer for firing them when it could have been because they were a bad employee, so we should make it so no gay person has any protection for this sort of thing!" Seems similar to the argument of "some boys could just say they're girls and go into the girls' bathroom and locker rooms so we should make it so transgendered people still have to use bathrooms and locker rooms based off the gender they were assigned at birth!" (and I realize that that statement was phrased to be less offensive than how many phrased that back when this was in the news lol). You shouldn't punish an already marginalized group just because a few jackasses would abuse the law, especially in ways that are laughably transparent.

Lol where in my post did I ever say anything about not allowing this protection for LGBT people? Remember, I was the one who first brought up in this thread (unless I somehow missed something in the earlier post) the problem of LGBT and workplace equality. I explicitly stated in my first post that I supported workplace equality and that we need to take action to enforce it. However, I cautioned that we need to not let people abuse this. It may be "laughably transparent", but just because an argument is incredibly stupid doesn't mean the courts can't get it wrong. We see it all the time in cases of "rape", where oftentimes a man can be considered guilty until proven innocent. Our courts are far from perfect, and biases exist up the wazoo. Though they shouldn't, those will probably spill onto the courtroom floor.

Tl;dr I support workforce equality, and protections should exist, but they can easily be abused.