It's Finally Here: Equality for Marriage

[Cycle]

Love it, Hades.

Here's one back:

[Lustful Bride]

Ugh the hardest thing since all this is arguing with so many people that not all Christians hate gays. And that there are a fair amount who are pro gay rights. *points to self and my old church*

It makes me sad that on so many sites that I enjoy I see cheers for people finally gaining Equality while at the same time mixing it in with so much "Religion should die" and "You religious people are the problem, when have you ever done anything good?"

@_@ Its terrible because it completely ignores all those who were ostracized by their own church for choosing to stand with what they believed was right.

But on happier notes this still doesn't fully take away from the achievement.  :-)

I think I heard somewhere that there are lines of people waiting to get married standing outside of the courts eagerly waiting their turn. Man the people who make wedding cakes are probably looking like this right now. XD

[Blythe]

Ugh the hardest thing since all this is arguing with so many people that not all Christians hate gays. And that there are a fair amount who are pro gay rights. *points to self and my old church*

It makes me sad that on so many sites that I enjoy I see cheers for people finally gaining Equality while at the same time mixing it in with so much "Religion should die" and "You religious people are the problem, when have you ever done anything good?"

@_@ Its terrible because it completely ignores all those who were ostracized by their own church for choosing to stand with what they believed was right.

My father is the member of a church that supports LGBT equality. While I'm not religious myself and can only speak for me, I've always been personally grateful for those who are religious who have supported same-sex marriage and rights. Allies are allies, whether they are Christian, pagan, atheist, etc. And I'm grateful for those allies. So long as they're good people, I'm cool with them.  ^^

[Lustful Bride]

My father is the member of a church that supports LGBT equality. While I'm not religious myself and can only speak for me, I've always been personally grateful for those who are religious who have supported same-sex marriage and rights. Allies are allies, whether they are Christian, pagan, atheist, etc. And I'm grateful for those allies. So long as they're good people, I'm cool with them.  ^^

Wish more people were like you elsewhere. But then again this is the internet and we always see the worst of Humanity on it by default. @_@

Edit: Except for E, it seems we see more of the good on here than the bad, maybe because E has standards.  8-)

[Oniya]

Yup.  One of my old gaming buddies - who is solidly Christian - did up her FB profile picture with the pride overlay thingy.  She stays on my list. 

The person who 'friended' me because of being in the same crochet group - and who posted passages from Leviticus yesterday - she got booted.  I'm not sure if that one still gets my public posts on her feed, but I posted my opinions of Leviti-citers just in case.  (Better be taking that bacon-wrapped shrimp off the barbie...)

[Lustful Bride]

Yup.  One of my old gaming buddies - who is solidly Christian - did up her FB profile picture with the pride overlay thingy.  She stays on my list. 

The person who 'friended' me because of being in the same crochet group - and who posted passages from Leviticus yesterday - she got booted.  I'm not sure if that one still gets my public posts on her feed, but I posted my opinions of Leviti-citers just in case.  (Better be taking that bacon-wrapped shrimp off the barbie...)

8-) Ooohhhh Sick burn.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPOqDShuE2M

[Jag]

My friends list is one person lighter today...which is sad. But it was a long time coming. Not going to discuss the full details here in public, but lets just leave it at that I have no clue how someone becomes so hateful and vicious.

[ReijiTabibito]

While I can agree that this is, as many people are saying, this generation's landmark ruling (much like Brown v Board of Education, which is the one I've heard invoked the most), I'm actually sitting in the camp that Chief Justice Roberts occupies - worrying that certain parties or persons might see this as an avenue of judicial overreach and, like Jindal, attempt to remove/abolish/whatever the SCOTUS in order to try and prevent similar circumstances that happen in the future.

Is this a day of great celebration, from sea to shining sea?  Yes.  Absolutely, people everywhere are.

I just worry about the price this victory may cost.

Oh, and Inki?  SCOTUS can actually be overruled.  The Dred Scott decision - which affirmed slavery - was eventually overruled by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which to me is Lincoln's truest legacy.  So it is possible to overrule SCOTUS - but it takes a big move in order to do so.  So expect to start hearing noises from the right-wing fundie nutjobs about adding another Amendment to the Constitution.


Back to my main line of inquiry: was this the right path to victory?

I recently watched an excellent program from Canada, called the Murdoch Mysteries (which broadcast here in the US as The Artful Detective).  For those of you not in the know, the show takes place in turn of the century Canada, Toronto to be specific, and deals with the strange cases investigated there by the titular Murdoch (the in-house Detective at the Fourth Precinct), his assistance Constable Crabtree, and his superior Inspector Brackenreid.

Being the period of history that it is, lots of things are happening in the West, and both situations that were going on at the time (one episode I watched dealt with the Irish Republican Brotherhood and an assassination attempt on the life of a visiting British royal), as well as famous people (such as Arthur Conan Doyle).

The pilot episode dealt with the electrocution of a young woman.  For those of you familiar with this period in history, this was when the War of the Currents was ongoing.  Naturally, the episode's guest star was the master of lightning, Nikola Tesla.  At one point, Tesla and Murdoch are talking, after evidence is discovered that some of Tesla's staff might have bribed someone to vote their way about the debate for Toronto to adopt AC or DC.  Tesla's response, while certainly controlled, is epic fury:

"I don't NEED to bribe ANYONE to convince them to adopt AC.  The forces of LOGIC and REASON will eventually COMPEL EVERYONE to, if they wish to remain competitive."

Now, that's a paraphrase, but the idea is basic - AC will triumph because people will eventually see the rightness of it.


As stated previously, the Supreme Court decision I've seen invoked most frequently as parallel to this one is Brown v Board of Education.  I agree...but only in the sense that it was instrumental in bringing equality to a new level.  But there is a key difference between the two decisions, from where I stand.  This one ends the debate.  For all time.  Gay marriage is legal.  There needs to be no more work done.  Brown, in comparison, required another decade of work, the decision being made in 1954, with the Civil Rights Act happening with LBJ in the 60s.

When the CRA was signed into law, it had to go through the whole process of becoming a law.  It had to pass the House.  The Senate.  Then be signed and granted the power of law by the Executive Branch.  And even then, Johnson knew that this would be world-turning for a lot of people - most notably the Deep South, and the 'Dixiecrats,' who were single-issue voters: segregation in this case.  Johnson told people that signing the CRA would cost the Democrats the South for a generation.  And it has - the Dixiecrats (who I personally believe should be separated from the mass of Republicans they claim to belong to) switched sides.  Despite the Republicans being, up to that point in history, the hated Party of Lincoln.  (Personally I think old AL would be tornado-spinning in his grave if he saw today's party.)

Even so!  It was law.  The elected representatives of two-thirds of the states, plus the elected executive of the US (and Johnson flattened his opponent, Barry Goldwater, in the election that put him in office for signing the CRA) all agreed that this should become law.  Brown made the way for it, but the eventual victory belonged to the states, who saw the rightness of the CRA.

Here, I fear there's very little of that.  I'm already hearing - "Five people can decide the course of an entire nation?  That ain't right!!"  (Add in your varying degrees of thick accent)

Yes, I can agree, if we had done things the way that Brown/the CRA had gone, it would have been more time.  But from where I was sitting, the tide was already going this way.  An animated map of the US from the website VOX.com showed that out of the 50 US states, 37 of them already have laws on their books allowing same-sex marriage.  That's almost 75% of states in the US.  And frankly, even though Texas is one of the states that is still holding out, there's enough voting power in the country that a law could have been passed through Congress (I think) that would have been the CRA for this issue.

If it had gone that way, voters and haters all around would have had to have blamed the government - though from my chair, that seems to be the grand strategy of those naysayers today; make sure government doesn't do anything and then say government is ineffective, which is like putting water in a freezer and then saying the water is now ice.

But it would have been a few hundred people, of varying ages and backgrounds, rather than "five against four."

We already know that though this fight is won - to use an analogy, though Richmond has fallen - the opposition refuses to see that it is so.  This fight has not had its Appomattox yet, for some.  They foolishly believe that victory is still possible, and that only if they hold to our conviction, can they resist the tide of 'immorality' that threatens to consume them.


Maybe it's just the cynic in me saying all this.  Maybe it is over and within a year all of this idiot talk will cease.  But I can't help but wonder until then: what price victory?

[Cycle]

Ask a same sex couple who wants to get married if the price paid is worth it.

[Inkidu]

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

While I can agree that this is, as many people are saying, this generation's landmark ruling (much like Brown v Board of Education, which is the one I've heard invoked the most), I'm actually sitting in the camp that Chief Justice Roberts occupies - worrying that certain parties or persons might see this as an avenue of judicial overreach and, like Jindal, attempt to remove/abolish/whatever the SCOTUS in order to try and prevent similar circumstances that happen in the future.

Is this a day of great celebration, from sea to shining sea?  Yes.  Absolutely, people everywhere are.

I just worry about the price this victory may cost.

Oh, and Inki?  SCOTUS can actually be overruled.  The Dred Scott decision - which affirmed slavery - was eventually overruled by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which to me is Lincoln's truest legacy.  So it is possible to overrule SCOTUS - but it takes a big move in order to do so.  So expect to start hearing noises from the right-wing fundie nutjobs about adding another Amendment to the Constitution.


Back to my main line of inquiry: was this the right path to victory?

I recently watched an excellent program from Canada, called the Murdoch Mysteries (which broadcast here in the US as The Artful Detective).  For those of you not in the know, the show takes place in turn of the century Canada, Toronto to be specific, and deals with the strange cases investigated there by the titular Murdoch (the in-house Detective at the Fourth Precinct), his assistance Constable Crabtree, and his superior Inspector Brackenreid.

Being the period of history that it is, lots of things are happening in the West, and both situations that were going on at the time (one episode I watched dealt with the Irish Republican Brotherhood and an assassination attempt on the life of a visiting British royal), as well as famous people (such as Arthur Conan Doyle).

The pilot episode dealt with the electrocution of a young woman.  For those of you familiar with this period in history, this was when the War of the Currents was ongoing.  Naturally, the episode's guest star was the master of lightning, Nikola Tesla.  At one point, Tesla and Murdoch are talking, after evidence is discovered that some of Tesla's staff might have bribed someone to vote their way about the debate for Toronto to adopt AC or DC.  Tesla's response, while certainly controlled, is epic fury:

"I don't NEED to bribe ANYONE to convince them to adopt AC.  The forces of LOGIC and REASON will eventually COMPEL EVERYONE to, if they wish to remain competitive."

Now, that's a paraphrase, but the idea is basic - AC will triumph because people will eventually see the rightness of it.


As stated previously, the Supreme Court decision I've seen invoked most frequently as parallel to this one is Brown v Board of Education.  I agree...but only in the sense that it was instrumental in bringing equality to a new level.  But there is a key difference between the two decisions, from where I stand.  This one ends the debate.  For all time.  Gay marriage is legal.  There needs to be no more work done.  Brown, in comparison, required another decade of work, the decision being made in 1954, with the Civil Rights Act happening with LBJ in the 60s.

When the CRA was signed into law, it had to go through the whole process of becoming a law.  It had to pass the House.  The Senate.  Then be signed and granted the power of law by the Executive Branch.  And even then, Johnson knew that this would be world-turning for a lot of people - most notably the Deep South, and the 'Dixiecrats,' who were single-issue voters: segregation in this case.  Johnson told people that signing the CRA would cost the Democrats the South for a generation.  And it has - the Dixiecrats (who I personally believe should be separated from the mass of Republicans they claim to belong to) switched sides.  Despite the Republicans being, up to that point in history, the hated Party of Lincoln.  (Personally I think old AL would be tornado-spinning in his grave if he saw today's party.)

Even so!  It was law.  The elected representatives of two-thirds of the states, plus the elected executive of the US (and Johnson flattened his opponent, Barry Goldwater, in the election that put him in office for signing the CRA) all agreed that this should become law.  Brown made the way for it, but the eventual victory belonged to the states, who saw the rightness of the CRA.

Here, I fear there's very little of that.  I'm already hearing - "Five people can decide the course of an entire nation?  That ain't right!!"  (Add in your varying degrees of thick accent)

Yes, I can agree, if we had done things the way that Brown/the CRA had gone, it would have been more time.  But from where I was sitting, the tide was already going this way.  An animated map of the US from the website VOX.com showed that out of the 50 US states, 37 of them already have laws on their books allowing same-sex marriage.  That's almost 75% of states in the US.  And frankly, even though Texas is one of the states that is still holding out, there's enough voting power in the country that a law could have been passed through Congress (I think) that would have been the CRA for this issue.

If it had gone that way, voters and haters all around would have had to have blamed the government - though from my chair, that seems to be the grand strategy of those naysayers today; make sure government doesn't do anything and then say government is ineffective, which is like putting water in a freezer and then saying the water is now ice.

But it would have been a few hundred people, of varying ages and backgrounds, rather than "five against four."

We already know that though this fight is won - to use an analogy, though Richmond has fallen - the opposition refuses to see that it is so.  This fight has not had its Appomattox yet, for some.  They foolishly believe that victory is still possible, and that only if they hold to our conviction, can they resist the tide of 'immorality' that threatens to consume them.


Maybe it's just the cynic in me saying all this.  Maybe it is over and within a year all of this idiot talk will cease.  But I can't help but wonder until then: what price victory?

Eh, not technically, remember that the SCOTUS determines whether the amendment itself is constitutional. I know what you're talking about and it involves a lot of sketchy legalese on Lincolon's camp's part, but the SCOTUS decided to uphold the 13th amendment just like they upheld slavery. It's a lot of political wheeling-dealing that equates to the court essentially changing its mind/position.

The same thing happened with separate but equal. The supreme court upheld that one too, but changed their minds on that as well.

To the point of this. Yes, there is going to be fallout, there was fallout with civil rights too. I think it's ultimately worth it. Generally when we talk about marriage in the modern world it's not that gay people can't be together and love one another, it's a legal benefit and protection. I totally expect the nation is going to take a bump as more couples are now taking the marriage tax break. I think the "up-front" cost is going to piss off a lot of people, and even maybe irk some who were supportive (and I know this is tangentially related--but for instance, I'm not sure how I feel about many states paying the totality of a person's HIV medications) when that cost hits.

I hardly think it's going to cause a civil war, it's going to be a little rough, but all I hope with these things is the pendulum sings a little less wildly. Moderation is a rare resource these days.

[ReijiTabibito]

Ask a same sex couple who wants to get married if the price paid is worth it.

They'll say yes.  I'm not doubting that.  But I don't think the full bill for this victory has come in yet.  It is already a long, long-ass bill - just look back in history - but something tells me that the costs are not all tallied yet.

To the point of this. Yes, there is going to be fallout, there was fallout with civil rights too. I think it's ultimately worth it. Generally when we talk about marriage in the modern world it's not that gay people can't be together and love one another, it's a legal benefit and protection. I totally expect the nation is going to take a bump as more couples are now taking the marriage tax break. I think the "up-front" cost is going to piss off a lot of people, and even maybe irk some who were supportive (and I know this is tangentially related--but for instance, I'm not sure how I feel about many states paying the totality of a person's HIV medications) when that cost hits.

Right.  The argument hasn't been that gay people can't be married for quite some time.  It's whether or not their marriage can be legally recognized by the state, for purposes like medical visits, wills, other legal benefits that are provided to spouses.  In that respect, it's similar to the slave marriages of the antebellum South - they happened, but nobody paid them any mind because they weren't "legal."

As for the cost, we'll see.  There are going to be bumps, as you said, I just wonder how big they'll be.

I hardly think it's going to cause a civil war, it's going to be a little rough, but all I hope with these things is the pendulum sings a little less wildly. Moderation is a rare resource these days.

Not in the sense that we understand civil war.  This isn't going to be people shooting each other in the streets, brother vs brother style.  A Second Civil War will be something totally different from what we have perceived.  It will be ideological, it'll be waged with bon mots instead of bullets; persuasion of minds rather than perforation of bodies.  But it will rip our country apart as badly as the first one.

[Cycle]

But I don't think the full bill for this victory has come in yet.  It is already a long, long-ass bill - just look back in history - but something tells me that the costs are not all tallied yet.

Agreed.  Its not over and there are more fights to come.  And whatever price is paid to win those will also be worth it.

[Drake Valentine]

So like I said, let me know what you think about this. Do you think it should have been done sooner? Do you think the timing was rather fair? Do you think they should have taken more time to make the decision? Let me know what you feel and think about this ruling.

Mainly, I'm indifferent to it as a whole. I never seen any real issue to it as to why it was never allowed in the first place, everyone should have their rights to do as they pleased(but there were those strong Christian areas that oppose it.) 

So I am just one of those on the fence about it, neither supporting or against it. The same can be said to my views of other marriages be they interracial, heterosexual, or whatever.

[Ephiral]

Reiji; it seems to me that the question here is: What's the greater harm? The hurt feelings and anger of bigots (who, as you point out, are already a waning minority), or treating a significant section of the population as less than human? If the former, your slow-burn approach might be the way to go. personally, I say it's the latter. Similarly, in the case of Brown and the CRA... I think it would've been much better if the CRA had been passed when Brown came down, because it would've meant a lot less black people being beaten and killed.

[ReijiTabibito]

Eph, nobody's doubting that it would have been much better if the CRA had been passed six months post-Brown rather than ten years after that.  It would have meant a lot less death and conflict and all the violence that happened in the South as a result of the Civil Rights Movement.

But this decision and Brown-CRA aren't to be equated with each other.  The former is a pure move on the part of SCOTUS, whereas the latter (and the Movement overall) was a combined action on the part of all three branches of the US government.  The Judiciary made an opening for the Legislative and Executive Branches to take action, and they did.

The analogy will hold if, after this, Congress and President Obama (or any President, really) pass a law like how LBJ passed the CRA - but until then, the two situations aren't the same.

[Inkidu]

What people don't seem to get, from where I'm looking at it, is that no church has to marry a gay couple. A gay couple cannot go into a church and demand to be married, but by the same token, a gay couple cannot be stopped by a religious group from going down to the local justice of the peace and having a wedding certificate signed.

Call it civil union, recognized domestic partnership, etc. No one has to be married under God in this nation to get the benefits of a legal marriage under US law. No church has to recognize any marriage as being one under God, but they can't deny the legal benefit either.

[Oniya]

What people don't seem to get, from where I'm looking at it, is that no church has to marry a gay couple. A gay couple cannot go into a church and demand to be married, but by the same token, a gay couple cannot be stopped by a religious group from going down to the local justice of the peace and having a wedding certificate signed.

Call it civil union, recognized domestic partnership, etc. No one has to be married under God in this nation to get the benefits of a legal marriage under US law. No church has to recognize any marriage as being one under God, but they can't deny the legal benefit either.

Exactly this.  I suspect that certain churches are already prepared to offer the ceremony, just like I'm sure certain florists, cake designers, formal-wear shops and catering services are prepared to do truckloads of business in providing for gay weddings.  Those who aren't, or don't want to - don't have to.

[Inkidu]

Exactly this.  I suspect that certain churches are already prepared to offer the ceremony, just like I'm sure certain florists, cake designers, formal-wear shops and catering services are prepared to do truckloads of business in providing for gay weddings.  Those who aren't, or don't want to - don't have to.

I myself support happiness. So many people in the world are far too miserable. I'm a Christian, but I take the golden rule seriously.

Also, Leviticus is a weird book, even for the Old Testament it's really... weird. My point being if God really does determine it a sin, I'm in no place to cast any stone, and that's between Him and them. Judge not lest ye be judged and all that.

Maybe I should go around pelting fire and brimstoners with beanbags with Rock printed on them.

[Mathim]

I'm embarrassed to say, I first heard about this on imdb.com. But this is awesome, finally this country wakes the fuck up and enters the modern age in a big way. Now for all the hundreds of other big ways we need to advance...

[ReijiTabibito]

Also, Leviticus is a weird book, even for the Old Testament it's really... weird. My point being if God really does determine it a sin, I'm in no place to cast any stone, and that's between Him and them. Judge not lest ye be judged and all that.

I will not openly derail the thread with this statement.  Therefore, I'm sticking this here, so you have to choose to read it.

That was kind of the whole point, Inki.  God made up all the insane, weird laws in the OT to show that if people were capable of perfection, they wouldn't need God/Jesus.  It was meant as a sign to point to the real plan.

[Oniya]

I will not openly derail the thread with this statement.  Therefore, I'm sticking this here, so you have to choose to read it.

That was kind of the whole point, Inki.  God made up all the insane, weird laws in the OT to show that if people were capable of perfection, they wouldn't need God/Jesus.  It was meant as a sign to point to the real plan.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

Oddly enough, many of the laws make sense from the standpoint of 'small, nomadic population without modern cleaning and food-storage abilities'.  The proscribed foods were more likely to contain parasites.  The sex rules maximized potential conception rates.  Rules about infirmities being signs of disfavor would tend to weed those out of the population.  The thing is, humanity is no longer a small, nomadic population without modern cleaning and food-storage abilities in most of the world.  We don't need every possible birth to occur.  We can properly store pork and shellfish.  We can cure infirmities.  We'd do much better to listen to the commandment of 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'  (Which I'm hoping is the 'real plan'.)

[ReijiTabibito]

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

That's always been the plan.  Read Acts, when Peter speaks to the centurion Cornelius.  Or, more simply: "I am the new covenant."  If there's an old one and a newer one comes along, guess what you do with the old one?

[kylie]

      CNN had a link to this poll, which I thought was interesting (and hopeful for the long run, imo) on the question of how the religious demographic breaks down over business service and religious exemptions:

"Majority oppose 'religious freedom' laws that could discriminate."

(Though it's a thinner majority among younger Republicans, it's a start.)

In the CNN/ORC Poll, most Democrats (70%) and independents (60%) say wedding-related businesses should be required to provide services to same-sex couples as they would different-sex couples, while Republicans break broadly the other way, 67% say religious reasons are a valid justification for refusing service.

Looking at Republicans and independents who lean toward the Republican Party, 60% in that group say wedding-related businesses should be allowed to refuse services to same-sex couples, but there are sharp divides within that group by age and ideology. Moderate and liberal Republicans and Republican-leaners broadly say wedding-related businesses should be required to serve all couples the same way (58%) while three-quarters of conservative Republicans favor allowing a caterer or florist to refuse service for religious reasons (74%). Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents under age 50, 56% say wedding-related businesses should be required to serve same-sex and different-sex couples the same way while among those age 50 or older, 72% think they should not be required to do so.

[Inkidu]

Well, while one can't discriminate, you can't make someone provide their services if they don't want to do so. If Christian wedding service people are so offended I think it'd be best if the couple just looked elsewhere because you run into a religious freedom versus discrimination and well that's as sticky a wicket that was ever stuck. I think the service has the edge, because they can take the "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

All they need is one little petty non-illegal reason.

Easy answer is go find someone who wants your money.

[kylie]

      It's perhaps a little less sticky now that the Court has said states cannot refuse to certify marriages on the basis of orientation. 

      There was already the Elaine Photography case where the Court refused to undo the state rulings that photographers could not call refusal to provide service solely on the basis of orientation.  As I recall, the plaintiffs had attempted to shift their rationale from a language of freedom of religion to one of freedom of speech before sending it to the Supremes, but they didn't take it up at all. 

      Sure some people might pull off "mundane" excuses until it becomes an obvious pattern worthy of legal attention.  But there are also laws that one can't discriminate in the public provision of services.  That's what the New Mexico case was basically about.  With the addition of specific state non-discrimination laws, which are notably missing from some states however.  Now the Supreme Court opinion has placed sexual orientation a shade closer to a basic liberty, so that would be in play if it were to come again to a national question.  Once this is treated as a basic aspect of recognized identity classes, then I would expect it's easier to argue it's worthy of protection from other forms of discrimination like selective denial of service.