|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 9:20 am Post subject: US Supreme Court rules gay marriage is legal nationwide |
 |
|
Oh dear. How will American men be able to make love to their wives?
| Quote: |
The US Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex marriage is a legal right across the United States.
It means the 14 states with bans on same-sex marriage will no longer be able to enforce them.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the plaintiffs asked "for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."
The ruling brings to an end more than a decade of bitter legal battles.
Same-sex couples in several affected states including Georgia, Michigan, Ohio and Texas rushed to wed on Friday.
However officials in some states including Mississippi and Louisiana said marriages had to wait until procedural issues were addressed.
President Barack Obama said the ruling was a "victory for America".
"When all Americans are treated as equal, we are all more free " he said.
|
Full Article |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
yodanole
Joined: 02 Mar 2003
Location: La Florida
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 11:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Next up ... Happy Marriage ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaparrastique
Joined: 01 Jan 2014
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A Warning from Canada: Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights
The Discourse, April 24th, 2015
Americans need to understand that the endgame of the LGBT rights movement involves centralized state power—and the end of First Amendment freedoms.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14899/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
A Warning from Canada: Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights
The Discourse, April 24th, 2015
Americans need to understand that the endgame of the LGBT rights movement involves centralized state power—and the end of First Amendment freedoms.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14899/ |
The premise of the article is flawed. It reasons that since Canada already allows Same-Sex Marriage, and the United States just allowed it, then the United States will become in all similar respects like Canada.
The United States has an extremely robust First Amendment regime. Indeed, even though gays can marry in any state now, any company can fire a gay employee for identifying or acting on same sex attractions (i.e. "being gay"), or marrying a partner of the same sex. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2015 2:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
A Warning from Canada: Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights
The Discourse, April 24th, 2015
Americans need to understand that the endgame of the LGBT rights movement involves centralized state power—and the end of First Amendment freedoms.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14899/ |
Thank you for posting that. Whether intentional or not, PM/Kuros is a subversive, and his opinions/contributions are usually the antithesis of what defines importance. However, this is not one of those issues. It is a distraction and you are being fooled into buying even more into the liberal/cultural Marxist experiment that the west has now become in full force. There is no utopia coming and these (as the link explains) are centralization methods that are being used to weaken you and the western institutions your ancestors helped establish, while your countries are flooded with third world immigrants that will eventually destroy our civilization. We let the NYT and the Guardian tell us over and over that backwards Muslims who occasionally cut our heads off and stick flags in our eye sockets are the people enriching our societies. Diversity is our strength, you are "racist" if you disagree, and your employment prospects will plummet if you ever speak out against us, and we buy into it because that's the narrative we're fed day after day. It's a scam. I know Dave's has been purged so many times and occupies such a sad corner of the forumsphere that facilitating any kind of change is hopeless, but the information is out there, so find it.
“The debate’s over on gay marriage” … what about the breakup of normal families? The ones that actually matter. What about the gay lifestyle’s increased rate of disease and mental illness? Why aren’t normal young people getting married anymore? Why is the birthrate in the west so low? Why is 3rd world displacement seen as the answer? Instead of asking questions about how we got here and what could encourage normal people (that 98% of the population) to procreate? Maybe other options that would help preserve our cultures and societies? Why aren't those talked about? Why is our imperial uniculture promoting social decline? Perhaps policies that don’t push the middle class into poverty and give ghetto class mothers govcheese for popping out illegitimate kids might be something we should look into after 50 years of ignoring it. Look at the post-1950s divorce and illegitimacy rates; why isn't the drastic increase in family breakdown being addressed? This is a joke, all you're doing is signaling to each other and making the debate stupider by giving credence to liberal policies that have failed; this is nothing more than a distraction, and the sooner the Marxist social experiment collapses, be it from 3rd world invasion or as a result of this massive social instability, the better we will be in the long run. Wake up. Have babies, we'll need them to fight for our European homeland in the upcoming crusades. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2015 6:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Swartz wrote: |
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
A Warning from Canada: Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights
The Discourse, April 24th, 2015
Americans need to understand that the endgame of the LGBT rights movement involves centralized state power—and the end of First Amendment freedoms.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14899/ |
Thank you for posting that. Whether intentional or not, PM/Kuros is a subversive, and his opinions/contributions are usually the antithesis of what defines importance. However, this is not one of those issues. It is a distraction and you are being fooled into buying even more into the liberal/cultural Marxist experiment that the west has now become in full force. There is no utopia coming and these (as the link explains) are centralization methods that are being used to weaken you and the western institutions your ancestors helped establish, while your countries are flooded with third world immigrants that will eventually destroy our civilization. We let the NYT and the Guardian tell us over and over that backwards Muslims who occasionally cut our heads off and stick flags in our eye sockets are the people enriching our societies. Diversity is our strength, you are "racist" if you disagree, and your employment prospects will plummet if you ever speak out against us, and we buy into it because that's the narrative we're fed day after day. It's a scam. I know Dave's has been purged so many times and occupies such a sad corner of the forumsphere that facilitating any kind of change is hopeless, but the information is out there, so find it.
“The debate’s over on gay marriage” … what about the breakup of normal families? The ones that actually matter. What about the gay lifestyle’s increased rate of disease and mental illness? Why aren’t normal young people getting married anymore? Why is the birthrate in the west so low? Why is 3rd world displacement seen as the answer? Instead of asking questions about how we got here and what could encourage normal people (that 98% of the population) to procreate? Maybe other options that would help preserve our cultures and societies? Why aren't those talked about? Why is our imperial uniculture promoting social decline? Perhaps policies that don’t push the middle class into poverty and give ghetto class mothers govcheese for popping out illegitimate kids might be something we should look into after 50 years of ignoring it. Look at the post-1950s divorce and illegitimacy rates; why isn't the drastic increase in family breakdown being addressed? This is a joke, all you're doing is signaling to each other and making the debate stupider by giving credence to liberal policies that have failed; this is nothing more than a distraction, and the sooner the Marxist social experiment collapses, be it from 3rd world invasion or as a result of this massive social instability, the better we will be in the long run. Wake up. Have babies, we'll need them to fight for our European homeland in the upcoming crusades. |
Titus,
I don't understand why you even care about civic same-sex marriage one way or the other. You can't connect the increased visibility and now legalized marriage of same-sex couples to the drop in procreation among the upper classes or the break-up of lower class families into divorce or often simply separation. So why bother with all this nonsense? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2015 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
A Warning from Canada: Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights
The Discourse, April 24th, 2015
Americans need to understand that the endgame of the LGBT rights movement involves centralized state power—and the end of First Amendment freedoms.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14899/ |
The premise of the article is flawed. It reasons that since Canada already allows Same-Sex Marriage, and the United States just allowed it, then the United States will become in all similar respects like Canada.
The United States has an extremely robust First Amendment regime. Indeed, even though gays can marry in any state now, any company can fire a gay employee for identifying or acting on same sex attractions (i.e. "being gay"), or marrying a partner of the same sex. |
Yes, Canada's hate-speech laws were passed long before anyone had ever seriously thought of legalizing same-sex marriage. I believe they date from the late 1960s.
And, even as things stand, the hate-speech laws are applied sporadically, and from what I've seen are rapidly falling out of public favour. There was a period when some hate-speech was actionable as a "human rights" violation, and hence subject to a lower bar of proof than in criminal cases. But even that has been reversed...
| Quote: |
A contentious section of Canadian human rights law, long criticized by free-speech advocates as overly restrictive and tantamount to censorship, is gone for good.
A private member’s bill repealing Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the so-called “hate speech provision,” passed in the Senate this week. Its passage means the part of Canadian human rights law that permitted rights complaints to the federal Human Rights Commission for “the communication of hate messages by telephone or on the Internet” will soon be history.
|
It was a pretty dubious law, especially when applied to religion, as it allowed religious people to claim that speech and writing attacking their belief-system was a form of discrimination, even if no one was forcing them to look at it.
National Post |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2015 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The hypocracy of the far right hasn't more evident than their repeated platform to keep the government out of their private lives, especially the bedroom but of course make exception for two people of the same sex marrying and women over the control of their own bodies or for that matter a person wanting to end his own life if he is pain from a disease.
Ming-boggling. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jazzmaster
Joined: 30 Sep 2013
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2015 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm a supporter of gay marriage, but I think the way the US went about this is wrong. Ireland held a referendum and the people voted to legalize gay marriage. The US should have done the same. For many US citizens to use this as an example of how enlightened and liberal their general public are is nonsense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2015 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Now that people of the same sex can marry in the name of equality, surely our next target should be ending the virulent incestophobia suffered by those who want to marry their own offspring and/or siblings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2015 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| Now that people of the same sex can marry in the name of equality, surely our next target should be ending the virulent incestophobia suffered by those who want to marry their own offspring and/or siblings. |
Does anyone really think this is a valid comparison? There's actual science that shows that children are more likely to have birth defects the closer their parents are related. Gay marriages aren't hurting anyone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
matthews_world
Joined: 15 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2015 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Perhaps the Irish constitution is different.
Under Article Two, Section Three of the U.S. constitution states that the President has the power to oversee and execute any law which will be beneficial to the greater good.
Obama is pretty big on exercising the fine intricacies on what the constitution allows him to do. Take Obamacare, for example.
Also if you read on Wiki, there's a blurb on Mississippi vs. Johnson (1867) which states that "the judiciary may not restrain the President in the execution of laws."
Any historian will tell you that the U.S. Constitution is full of holes anyway which would require another thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2015 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| bigverne wrote: |
| Now that people of the same sex can marry in the name of equality, surely our next target should be ending the virulent incestophobia suffered by those who want to marry their own offspring and/or siblings. |
Does anyone really think this is a valid comparison? There's actual science that shows that children are more likely to have birth defects the closer their parents are related. Gay marriages aren't hurting anyone. |
Based upon the logic of the Supreme Court, it's absolutely a valid legal comparison. The notion that marriage is about "reproduction" has already been rejected, so even if an incestuous couple's child might be at a higher risk of defect, that's irrelevant, since getting married does not imply reproduction. Likewise, certain people are genetically more predisposed towards passing along birth defects than others. Should those people be banned from marriage? No? Because that would be "eugenics" and therefore "wrong?" Then you can't apply the same logic to the incestuous either; their marriages aren't "hurting anyone" either.
I'm not a particular fan of Justice Scalia, but he's was absolutely correct when he pointed out that the logic the court is employing to abolish state laws here has far-reaching implications. Polygamous marriage and incestuous marriage should both be legal "rights" under the rationale the court has employed. I for one don't care: marriage in the United States is already a trivial, purposeless institution, so allowing polygamous marriage, incestuous marriage, and so forth is really no different. To the extent that someone might argue there is a difference, that someone is probably suffering from a lack of internal consistency in their thought processes (most likely, but not necessarily, because those thought processes are dictated by popular culture rather than reasoned consideration). There is no coherent rationale which legitimizes homosexual marriage but forbids incestuous or polygamous marriage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2015 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| bigverne wrote: |
| Now that people of the same sex can marry in the name of equality, surely our next target should be ending the virulent incestophobia suffered by those who want to marry their own offspring and/or siblings. |
Does anyone really think this is a valid comparison? There's actual science that shows that children are more likely to have birth defects the closer their parents are related. Gay marriages aren't hurting anyone. |
Based upon the logic of the Supreme Court, it's absolutely a valid legal comparison. The notion that marriage is about "reproduction" has already been rejected, so even if an incestuous couple's child might be at a higher risk of defect, that's irrelevant, since getting married does not imply reproduction. Likewise, certain people are genetically more predisposed towards passing along birth defects than others. Should those people be banned from marriage? No? Because that would be "eugenics" and therefore "wrong?" Then you can't apply the same logic to the incestuous either; their marriages aren't "hurting anyone" either.
I'm not a particular fan of Justice Scalia, but he's was absolutely correct when he pointed out that the logic the court is employing to abolish state laws here has far-reaching implications. Polygamous marriage and incestuous marriage should both be legal "rights" under the rationale the court has employed. I for one don't care: marriage in the United States is already a trivial, purposeless institution, so allowing polygamous marriage, incestuous marriage, and so forth is really no different. To the extent that someone might argue there is a difference, that someone is probably suffering from a lack of internal consistency in their thought processes (most likely, but not necessarily, because those thought processes are dictated by popular culture rather than reasoned consideration). There is no coherent rationale which legitimizes homosexual marriage but forbids incestuous or polygamous marriage. |
Polygamous marriage rarely constitutes a consensual relationship of all the participants involved and worldwide has been observed as being detrimental to women. Same with incest. No comparison to same sex marriage which is no more harmful than heterosexual marriage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2015 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| bigverne wrote: |
| Now that people of the same sex can marry in the name of equality, surely our next target should be ending the virulent incestophobia suffered by those who want to marry their own offspring and/or siblings. |
Does anyone really think this is a valid comparison? There's actual science that shows that children are more likely to have birth defects the closer their parents are related. Gay marriages aren't hurting anyone. |
A valid comparison to same-sex marriage is interracial marriage.
Loving v Virginia
| Quote: |
The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Lovings' convictions in a unanimous decision (dated June 12, 1967), dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia's argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race—and providing identical penalties to white and black violators—could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that:
| Quote: |
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
|
The court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:
| Quote: |
| There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. |
Associate Justice Potter Stewart filed a brief concurring opinion. He reiterated his opinion from McLaughlin v. Florida that "it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor."
. . .
Before Loving v. Virginia, there had been several cases on the subject of interracial relations. In Pace v. Alabama (1883), the Supreme Court ruled that the conviction of an Alabama couple for interracial sex, affirmed on appeal by the Alabama Supreme Court, did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Interracial marital sex was deemed a felony, whereas extramarital sex ("adultery or fornication") was only a misdemeanor. On appeal, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the criminalization of interracial sex was not a violation of the equal protection clause because whites and non-whites were punished in equal measure for the offense of engaging in interracial sex. |
I added Pace v Alabama because there was prior Federal intervention into state law, just as there was with same-sex marriage: Bowers v Hardwick and Romer v Evans.
| Fox wrote: |
I'm not a particular fan of Justice Scalia, but he's was absolutely correct when he pointed out that the logic the court is employing to abolish state laws here has far-reaching implications. Polygamous marriage and incestuous marriage should both be legal "rights" under the rationale the court has employed.
. . .
There is no coherent rationale which legitimizes homosexual marriage but forbids incestuous or polygamous marriage. |
Polygamy is next. The United States already meddled in Utah's laws and the Supreme Court legitimized its ban on polygamy. The argument against polygamy is primarily cultural and traditional, although it will be easier for the state to argue it has an interest in restricting marriage to two partners.
As for incest, I am unsure, but I believe there are other jurisdictions which have upheld the right of incestuous relationships, at least. There's a strong medical basis and state interest to prevent incestuous marriage, but the problem is that the state may have problems centering its objection to incestuous relationships on procreation now that this has been rejected in the case of same-sex marriage.
Still, in either case, judging from the length of time from Loving v Virginia to Obergefell v Hodges, it should be at least another forty to fifty years before the Court seriously takes up these issues. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
