| *goodco* 26.06.2015 16:08 |
Finally catching up with the rest of the civilized world. This makes it legal in 14 of the 50 states that did not allow/recognize this. 25th of the last 26 rulings made by the 6th Circuit Court that SCOTUS has overturned. |
| The Real Wizard 26.06.2015 18:31 |
Millions of people in the bible belt are freaking out like the apocalypse has arrived. Meanwhile, the rest of the civilized world doesn't even notice or care since everyone else finds it common sense not to discriminate against someone's sexual orientation. Good job, USA. One step closer to being a civilized country. Now you just have to deal with the NRA, health insurance companies, Israel, Wall Street, Comcast, and the military industrial complex. |
| Saint Jiub 26.06.2015 19:40 |
Does this mean the US is more "civilized" than any European country south of Denmark and east of France? I never realized that most of Europe is "uncivilized". http://www.pewforum.org/2015/06/26/gay-marriage-around-the-world-2013/ |
| The Real Wizard 27.06.2015 05:02 |
Panchgani wrote: Does this mean the US is more "civilized" than any European country south of Denmark and east of France? I never realized that most of Europe is "uncivilized". linkSwitzerland, Germany and Austria have civil unions (Australia too), so yes, the US are the last on board with the rest of the civilized world. But of course you knew that, because you researched this before you posted.. Sure, civil partnerships usually don't have the same status as marriage, but the difference between these places and the US is that when the day comes that gay couples finally receive the same rights as straight couples, a quarter of the population isn't going to act like the apocalypse is upon us. It will merely be a formality. Have you been on the internet in the last couple days? It's like we're in the 16th century, but instead of an angry mob with torches you have hoards of people declaring that the country is doomed and that all gay people are going to a mythical and unmapped location called hell because their invisible man in the sky says marriage is between a man and a woman (even though marriage pre-dates their religion, but since when have religion and logic mixed?). I digress. I don't think anyone from Lithuania would be offended if you told them that their country isn't as developed as Norway. My point stands. On this issue, yes, the US is more civilized than most of the world now. Congratulations. But that's just on a political level. You will officially join the rest of the civilized world in practice when you have a population that refers to "gay marriage" as "marriage." That is still decades away, at least. Also note that it is currently legal in 28 states for an employer to fire an employee for being gay. You still have a long way to go. |
| The King Of Rhye 27.06.2015 10:08 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Millions of people in the bible belt are freaking out like the apocalypse has arrived. Meanwhile, the rest of the civilized world doesn't even notice or care since everyone else finds it common sense not to discriminate against someone's sexual orientation. Good job, USA. One step closer to being a civilized country. Now you just have to deal with the NRA, health insurance companies, Israel, Wall Street, Comcast, and the military industrial complex.I have seen some of the reactions and arguments (if you can call them that)......they're just pretty ridiculous really...... There's the one that says it's unconstitutional.....(never mind the 1st and 14th Amendments, I guess) And then somehow, I guess this will lead to churches being forced to perform gay marriages and anyone who says something bad about it will be prosecuted......and even put to death (yes, I actually saw one guy claiming that in a discussion thread) Oh, and there's always the 'because the bible said so' argument....as if that matters..... |
| magicalfreddiemercury 27.06.2015 11:03 |
Meanwhile in Alabama, some probate judges are refusing to issue ANY marriage licenses rather than be forced to issue them to same-sex couples. That move has excited a particular republican representative from Iowa who is now planning to take that idea to the federal level. He said he's going to introduce legislation eliminating civil marriage nation-wide so the country can "go back to holy matrimony". His plan is simple - without government involved, and with only the church involved, the "problem" of same-sex marriage will be solved since churches cannot be compelled by law to marry homosexual couples. Therefore, in his view, no one including probate judges will have to compromise their religious beliefs in order to comply with the law. These people, hiding behind their religion in such disgusting ways, is nothing new, but is as sickening as ever. There's little doubt it'll be a major issue during the next presidential campaign. In a way I'm saddened by that because of the pain it will cause so many, but in a way I'm looking forward to it because this country is slowly wising up on this issue. By 2016, I doubt there will much tolerance for intolerance regarding it. ( link ) |
| magicalfreddiemercury 27.06.2015 11:10 |
The King Of Rhye wrote: Oh, and there's always the 'because the bible said so' argument....as if that matters..... Oh, but it does matter. ;-) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw&feature=youtu.be |
| Saint Jiub 27.06.2015 13:45 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Panchgani wrote: Does this mean the US is more "civilized" than any European country south of Denmark and east of France? I never realized that most of Europe is "uncivilized". http://www.pewforum.org/2015/06/26/gay-marriage-around-the-world-2013Switzerland, Germany and Austria have civil unions (Australia too), so yes, the US are the last on board with the rest of the civilized world. But of course you knew that, because you researched this before you posted.. Sure, civil partnerships usually don't have the same status as marriage, but the difference between these places and the US is that when the day comes that gay couples finally receive the same rights as straight couples, a quarter of the population isn't going to act like the apocalypse is upon us. It will merely be a formality. Have you been on the internet in the last couple days? It's like we're in the 16th century, but instead of an angry mob with torches you have hoards of people declaring that the country is doomed and that all gay people are going to a mythical and unmapped location called hell because their invisible man in the sky says marriage is between a man and a woman (even though marriage pre-dates their religion, but since when have religion and logic mixed?). I digress. I don't think anyone from Lithuania would be offended if you told them that their country isn't as developed as Norway. My point stands. On this issue, yes, the US is more civilized than most of the world now. Congratulations. But that's just on a political level. You will officially join the rest of the civilized world in practice when you have a population that refers to "gay marriage" as "marriage." That is still decades away, at least. Also note that it is currently legal in 28 states for an employer to fire an employee for being gay. You still have a long way to go. .......... Civil unions only convey 2nd class status, and convey few of the rights that really matter ... https://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/publications/cu-vs-marriage.pdf I do not see torches nor the apocolypse. What kind of internet sites are you looking at? I am not sure how you can thoroughly vilify America when 60% of Americans support same-sex marriage. But you KNOW best ... http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/poll-gay-marriage-support-at-record-high/2015/04/22/f6548332-e92a-11e4-aae1-d642717d8afa_story.html |
| Saint Jiub 27.06.2015 13:50 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: Meanwhile in Alabama, some probate judges are refusing to issue ANY marriage licenses rather than be forced to issue them to same-sex couples. That move has excited a particular republican representative from Iowa who is now planning to take that idea to the federal level. He said he's going to introduce legislation eliminating civil marriage nation-wide so the country can "go back to holy matrimony". His plan is simple - without government involved, and with only the church involved, the "problem" of same-sex marriage will be solved since churches cannot be compelled by law to marry homosexual couples. Therefore, in his view, no one including probate judges will have to compromise their religious beliefs in order to comply with the law. These people, hiding behind their religion in such disgusting ways, is nothing new, but is as sickening as ever. There's little doubt it'll be a major issue during the next presidential campaign. In a way I'm saddened by that because of the pain it will cause so many, but in a way I'm looking forward to it because this country is slowly wising up on this issue. By 2016, I doubt there will much tolerance for intolerance regarding it. ( http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-courts-ruling-same-sex-marriage-met-resistance-n382751 ) I would like for civil marriage to be abolished. It might end social & financial discrimination against single people. |
| The King Of Rhye 27.06.2015 17:49 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:That was hilarious :DThe King Of Rhye wrote: Oh, and there's always the 'because the bible said so' argument....as if that matters.....Oh, but it does matter. ;-) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw&feature=youtu.be |
| thomasquinn 32989 28.06.2015 05:05 |
This is a great decision, but also an inevitable one. The supreme court had no legal grounds to rule against marriage equality, so even opponents (at least those who actually use their brains and not just their gut feelings) knew that this was going to be their ruling. If you look at this from a legal-historical point of view, the seeds for this ruling were laid even before the Civil War with the political compromises between 1820 and 1850 on the legal status of slaves brought from slave states into free states. I don't think the slave-owners who pushed for those decisions would have liked this result, though. Equal rights resulting from some of the most inhumane and anti-humanitarian legal decisions made in modern history, who would have thought! The last few weeks have seen a number of great decisions in the USA. The supreme court ruling on the Affordable Care Act, its ruling that states have the authority to ban symbols like the Confederate battle flag from vanity plates, the LONG overdue decision to remove the Confederate battle flag from government buildings in several states, and now, the ruling on same-sex marriage. The USA has always been a mixed bag - but when progressive decisions ARE made, they don't usually take half measures, even if it does take them ages to finally make the decision. Still, many European countries that are, in theory, more progressive than the USA have a lot to learn - for instance regarding the legalized sale of marijuana in Colorado - while they are making real progress, raising state revenue and slashing the financial arteries of organized crime, the Netherlands, who used to lead the way in that field, are now backtracking in such a way that organized crime is getting ever MORE control as a DIRECT result of government decisions. |
| The Real Wizard 02.07.2015 18:41 |
Panchgani wrote: Civil unions only convey 2nd class status, and convey few of the rights that really matter ... https://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/publications/cu-vs-marriage.pdf I do not see torches nor the apocolypse. What kind of internet sites are you looking at? I am not sure how you can thoroughly vilify America when 60% of Americans support same-sex marriage. But you KNOW best ... http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/poll-gay-marriage-support-at-record-high/2015/04/22/f6548332-e92a-11e4-aae1-d642717d8afa_story.htmlVirtually any news article on the subject has people declaring that the US has gone to hell with this decision, and that all homosexuals will be going there ... wherever this mythical place is. 60% - that's indeed a good number. link And the above same link shows an 18% increase in support for gay marriage in the past three years. This is significant. |
| pittrek 04.07.2015 06:05 |
I can't understand all the hatred. As a heterosexual man my only reaction was "Oh. OK, good for them.". If I was homosexual, I would probably be happy. But still I read everywhere crap about human extinction, about burning in hell, end of civilisation etc. |
| brENsKi 05.07.2015 09:31 |
Panchgani wrote: I would like for civil marriage to be abolished. It might end social & financial discrimination against single people.so very much wrong with this ^^^, don't know where to begin. oh wait, it's another throwaway exclusive from Panchgani.... sometimes ALL we need to know about a statement is it's author |
| Saint Jiub 05.07.2015 21:48 |
brENsKi wrote:Panchgani wrote: I would like for civil marriage to be abolished. It might end social & financial discrimination against single people.so very much wrong with this ^^^, don't know where to begin. oh wait, it's another throwaway exclusive from Panchgani.... sometimes ALL we need to know about a statement is it's author ... Charming as usual ... I love you too honey. You probably do not want to begin here: http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/01/the-high-price-of-being-single-in-america/267043/ http://singularcity.com/how-single-people-get-screwed/ http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/06/singled-out-are-america-s-unmarried-discriminated-against.html |
| brENsKi 06.07.2015 10:05 |
Panchgani wrote: Charming as usual ... I love you too honey.was a little too much to expect YOU have some kind of reasoned thought out argument wasn't it? what next Panchgani? equal rights for blue eyed people, fat people, tall people? the 9 protected characteristics of Equality are there because they have been enshrined in law - due to lobbyists. the ONLY reason these came about was because there was a need to protest/lobby in the first place, because: BME people were discriminated against in comparison to white people gay, bisexual and trans people were discriminated against in comparison to straight people people with religions were discriminated against because of their beliefs older and younger people were discriminated against on the basis of their age and married people were discriminated against on the basis of them being married these were addressed by law change - so creating legislation for single people will surely disadvantage married people...just stop and think for a change, instead on jumping on your conspiracy bangwagon |
| Saint Jiub 06.07.2015 23:10 |
By the way, I'm married ... "Single people pay more for health and car insurance than married people. They don’t get the same kind of tax breaks. Co-op boards, mortgage brokers, and landlords often pass them over. So do the employers with the power to promote them." "U.S. Federal Code Title 5 Part III says: The President may prescribe rules which shall prohibit... discrimination because of marital status. Yet more than 1,000 laws provide overt legal or financial benefits to married couples. Marital privileging marginalizes the 50 percent of Americans who are single. The U.S. government is the main perpetrator, but private companies follow its lead. Thus marital privilege pervades nearly every facet of our lives. Insurance policies—ranging from health, to life, to home, to car—cost more, on average, for unmarried people compared to those who are married. It is not a federal crime for landlords to discriminate against potential renters based on their marital status. And so on." |
| magicalfreddiemercury 18.07.2015 08:50 |
Panchgani wrote: I would like for civil marriage to be abolished. It might end social & financial discrimination against single people.Marriage by state license is a legal contract giving partners legal say in each other's health care, financial dealings including taxes and investments, in child rearing, child custody, estate sharing in cases of divorce, benefits in case of death of a spouse, etc. Without the marriage contract, each of those situations could turn into a costly and time-consuming civil lawsuit. It’s plain, for me at least, that religious institutions should never have sole authority over families in this way - imagine the grief a child-free-by-choice couple would receive, for example, or a couple ready to end it that’s stuck with no option for divorce - yet the church would hold that authority over all married people if government authority were taken away. There are also couples of no faith to consider, and there are plenty of them with their numbers, in fact, growing. How would they declare or form their union if not with a license or contract saying they are a family unit entitled to the benefits of such? Some don't care either way and opt to live together without further ado. But most rely on the security marriage - by law - allows. If anything, I think religious institutions should stay out of the marriage business except to offer a 'blessing', after-the-fact, for those who might seek it. (I've been out of town so haven't read messages after the above quoted one. I'm sorry if I'm parroting comments made since) |
| Saint Jiub 18.07.2015 13:49 |
"partners legal say in each other's health care, financial dealings including taxes and investments" This is where single people get screwed over by the government. link |
| YourValentine 19.07.2015 04:53 |
I am not familiar with all the details of social security and tax laws in the USA but isn't it true that in the USA - like in all other countries - married people are legally obliged to provide for the spouse? If a married person has no job, is old or incapable to work, they won't get any public welfare as long as the spouse is able to provide for the costs of life. Therefore it is obvious that the government helps with taxes and health care to make it possible for the married couple to provide for themselves while single people usually have to be taken care of by the tax payers when they are in need - which is, of course, totally okay. I am not challenging the fact that there might be financial injustice for single people but you cannot compare it to the legal discrimination gay people have had to face for so long and still have to face in many countries, mine included. Your government does not keep single people from basic rights because they are single. It is a huge difference if you are denied the same rights based on your sexual preference, race or gender or if you lose some $$ because you are not married. If you do not understand the difference, it is really hard to explain. We have the same discussions with people who have no children: should they get the same pension when they did not provide for the next generation of tax payers? Should the get less money in old age even if they paid the same or even more into their pension funds? It is all about fair distribution of money and not about constitutional rights, please understand the difference. |
| Saint Jiub 19.07.2015 13:58 |
YourValentine wrote: We have the same discussions with people who have no children: should they get the same pension when they did not provide for the next generation of tax payers? Should the get less money in old age even if they paid the same or even more into their pension funds? It is all about fair distribution of money and not about constitutional rights, please understand the difference. ... I agree, but I said nothing about the constitution. It is all about the fair distribution of money (including insurance costs). I am married and on the "correct" side of the law, but I still believe single and divorced people are getting a raw deal. |