US Supreme Court supports gay marriage...a great day for America, a bad day for faith-based bigotry

davesdatahut: It is distressing that today's rulings were not 9-0, but it remains a day to be proud of the institution of democracy.
How four justices could vote against the idea of equal protection under the law is beyond me. But at least a majority showed the door to the forces of faith-based bigotry.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/us/politics/supreme-court-gay-marriage.html

near50ohoh: let me see if i understand this issue first. my small meandering may help others get their head around the impact of this decision.
1) gay couples wish to marry, not to overturn heterosexual unions, but so they can have the same rights and privileges as every other tax paying, law abiding adult citizen does in a free society.
2) not having this right to equality diminishes the rights of those who have this freedom, contrary to the naysayers' opining. it undermines the value and validity of marriage and it's obligations and freedoms when it is not extended due to reasons other than adult and citizenry status. and being of sufficient ability to comprehend the severity of the commitment. (as in of sound, sober mind and thoughtful pursuit of this goal as a contractually bound couple with a meeting of the minds. who fully intend to engage in this relationship for the rest of their lives.)
3) what possible motivation other than bigotry is there to refuse an adult the opportunity to live their lives freely and openly if they act responsibly within the laws of their country for just purposes such as the love and support of themselves and their families?
4) this refusal of marriage affects inheritance and benefit laws as well as child protection and the welfare and stability of partners who need a guardian as well as simply a piece of paper that they can put on their walls or their safe deposit box. it may leave people in untenable positions and ask the state to intercede, especially financially, rather than allow a loving partner the right of guardianship and final say in medical and legal matters
without dispute from family members at the worst time of their lives and deaths.
5) the civil union alternative is inadequate to meet all the above needs and give the respect every citizen is entitled to under the auspices of the law without further challenges and costs to society.
6) if the society wishes to be viewed unchallenged as a free and fair society to the larger world to gain good will and trade, then each citizen must have equal protection and rights under the laws. or the society should face sanction from the united nations which would cost horrendously each and every citizen both financially and morally
7) it seems apparent that with divorce and parental right terminations as high and ill advised as they are, the hetero sexual community has done serious damage to their own credibility in saying that gay marriage somehow attacks a perfect union and should be avoided somehow.
8) how is there a loss in changing things to make every one equally free and self responsible under the law in a society? and how does it impact your day to day life if she and she or he and he in another city and/or country may marry and care for each other, other than to broaden your world view about positive things such as love and family? rather than crime and addictions?
those are the issues i see and on a personal note? dave, i followed your directions and did my first solo cut and paste!! champers for me and you!! pats dave on back and says good teacher!!
i'm a liberal and believer and am glad canada as a country provides for gay marriage. i do like that about my country indeed. uh here i sit awaiting the response with raincoat on.

near50ohoh: in regards to the world's perception of this civil rights issue and possible trade and cache implications to countries who don't work out gay marriages, i did some very quick online research:
for nafta, the north american treaty of trade, canada has gay marriage and mexico has civil unions
for g8, the super power nations: canada and france have gay marriage, germany and the united kingdom have civil unions which leaves italy, japan and russia
in the g20, south africa, canada, brazil, argentina, and france have gay marriage, mexico,germany, united kingdom have civil unions which leaves china, japan, south korea, india, indonesia, russia, turkey, italy, and saudi arabia
around the world gay marriages are recognized in argentina, belgium, brazil, canada, denmark, france, iceland, netherlands, norway, portugal, spain, south africa, and sweden

my question now is are you and your country a leader or a follower in the issue of gay rights and will you be a full and participating trade partner if you are not? will you hold on to your current role as the world's teacher in human rights ' issues? and all the trade privileges inherent with that respect or cache?

davesdatahut: Near, on points 1 through 8, I couldn't have said it better myself.
On the point after 8....yer on yer way to being a member of that class of people glued to technology. May these forces serve you well.
And now that you know how to cut and paste, perhaps you would consider cutting and pasting points 1 to 8 in that other thread - the one with a whole lot more players. Go ahead. It'll do some good.
I don't know if what you say shows a liberal view or not. And it doesn't matter none, anyways, what name you attach to it. Saying it matters more than the label.

near50ohoh: nu uh i'll let you do the tech it's ur thread . you have my permission to move the points. and the last point too is that the world is starting to get that things must change. thx for the accolades, i'm glad you like it.

davesdatahut: Nice try! You gotta do it, or else it'll pop up under my name.
They are your words...copy em...hit reply in the other thread...paste em.
Go ahead. You'll get your tech gold star and bat back the forces of darkness.

magnusalexrawstron: you refer to faith based bigotry, but marriage is a religious thing,doh!

near50ohoh: then a bloody lot of atheists arent really married!!

davesdatahut: Marriage is not necessarily a religious thing. There are marriages sanctioned by religions and there are marriages not sanctioned by religions, but by the state. The faith-based bigotry comes into play when people, for faith-based reasons, do not want to see same-sex couples get the same marital rights under civil law as straights simply because of sexual orientation.

davesdatahut: If Jesus is as people said he was, it should be obvious which side he'd come down on, and it ain't the side a whole lotta people are claiming in his name.

davesdatahut: If Jesus were alive today, I suspect he'd need a whole lotta restraint to avoid smacking some sense into the vast majority of his supposed followers, then taking all the money they've given in his name and redistributing it a bit.

Mendez: If you bother to read some historical facts, you will discover that homosexuals (mostly male individuals), were not only tolerated, but even appreciated as personal servants all the way up to the level of emperor, in the Greek-Roman world when Jesus is said to have lived. In a way, they were better off then than they have been until very recently in modern times.

An example: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinous

near50ohoh: let us keep in mind however that Jesus was a zealot tool to fight against the greeks and romans. he did not follow them

Mendez: He tried to include all the outcasts in society and give them equal rights.

Food for thought: If he suddenly showed up and displayed similar attitudes today, he would certainly be an embarrassment to many church leaders that claim to follow in his footsteps. I guess their sandals are a few sizes too small, though...

near50ohoh: its his message but humanity doesnt have the capacity to follow his ideals or anyone else's. we are fallible. divinity is not, perfection is not

davesdatahut: For a little extra food for thought....one of the great movie scenes on the topic...

GeraldTheGnome: The majority rule and it isn't bigotry that is faith based or not faith based, it's not bigotry at all. The majority rule.

davesdatahut: Can you explain, Gerald...what majority are you referring to?

Stassi SUR: about 3% of the population in the US is gay?

GeraldTheGnome: It's self explanatory, besides no US Supreme Court, no Government, no State should decide what is best for the majority of the State or the country, let the majority vote on things or don't make a move without the majorities wishes via a court or vote by politicians on any subject that the majority should rule upon.

davesdatahut: Gerald, part of the way this country was set up was to prevent the tyranny of the majority, so that the minority has the same rights as the majority. Indeed, under the Constitution, the Supreme Court DOES decide what is the law of the land when local or state laws conflict with the Constitution. The checks and balances of our government require it. Otherwise, the majority could decide, whenever it wants, who gets rights and who doesn't. And that would include the gay population, whether its 3 percent, 5 percent, 10 percent of whatever.
Should the majority have been allowed to carry the day back in the 1950s and 60s when blacks were trying to get the same rights as whites? Of women when they were trying to get the same rights as men? If so, I think we all know how that would have gone.
As for those who would deny gays the right to marry, it represents faith-based bigotry at its worst. Religions, in their most ignorant forms, teach people that gays are bad and that god says so and that they should not be treated the same as straights. Fortunately, our great Constitution does not allow that kind of intrusion in civil law.