Current Events > Alito and Thomas are already taking aim at the Obergefell decision

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1313111854701514754

What a country.

---

Goddamn cultists ruining it for everyone, as usual.

---

yep

---

Yep, who cares about people's basic rights so long as the people who believe in the sky wizard can still discriminate against you based on what gender you like to put your junk in/on.

---

How long until they dismantle interracial marriage as well?

---

Assuming any SCOTUS decision is "settled law" is just asking for disappointment when it's actually not.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Assuming any SCOTUS decision is "settled law" is just asking for disappointment when it's actually not.

Which is why you shouldn't rely on the court to ensure people's basic human rights.

---

Bump

---

The French have an invention for this.

---

The US should have just given civil unions all the current legal benefits that are offered to marriages and then let "marriage" be a practice of religious institutions that confers no benefits.

---

s0nicfan posted...

The US should have just given civil unions all the current legal benefits that are offered to marriages and then let "marriage" be a practice of religious institutions that confers no benefits.

or, just remove marriage from federal statute entirely.

Questionmarktarius posted...

or, just remove marriage from federal statute entirely.

Same difference, really, but yea that would have worked too.

---

Solar_Crimson posted...

How long until they dismantle interracial marriage as well?

Was there a religious reason behind banning it before?

---

It's so strange how some people, upon hearing that gay marriage is now legal, instantly have the thought of "well, nobody should be able to get married then."

It's a lot of "taking your ball and going home" energy.

---

and they're hailing Kim Davis as a martyr, of course

---

Fucking pieces of shit.

Fuck every single one of them.

---

FlameTurtle posted...

It's so strange how some people, upon hearing that gay marriage is now legal, instantly have the thought of "well, nobody should be able to get married then."

It's a lot of "taking your ball and going home" energy.

Nobody is saying that. The discussion is over whether marriage, a religious institution, should confer legal benefits to married couples in a country that has constitutionalized the separation of church and state.

I think there are good arguments for having benefits that encourage family stability which is why I suggested moving those benefits over to civil unions which anybody can get.

Either way, the only reason anybody can even make a religious liberty argument is because people keep insisting that "marriage" specifically should be a protected right and not the legal benefits conferred to it.

---

dotsdfe posted...

Fucking pieces of shit.

Fuck every single one of them.

---

s0nicfan posted...

Nobody is saying that. The discussion is over whether marriage, a religious institution, should confer legal benefits to married couples in a country that has constitutionalized the separation of church and state.

I think there are good arguments for having benefits that encourage family stability which is why I suggested moving those benefits over to civil unions which anybody can get.

Either way, the only reason anybody can even make a religious liberty argument is because people keep insisting that "marriage" specifically should be a protected right and not the legal benefits conferred to it.

Marriage and civil union aren't mentioned in the constitution, therefore the 10th amendment strongly implies that it's entirely up to the states.

You can make a convincing 14th amendment argument that limiting it to "one man and one woman" is unconstitutional, or the ERA would have made that a moot point had it ever ratified.

Fuck religion.

---

s0nicfan posted...

marriage, a religious institution

Marriage existed before and exists outside of Christianity

---

_HayleyWilliams posted...

Marriage existed before and exists outside of Christianity

Yeah, marriage is not religious, though often the blessing of <insert deity/deities here> is sought.
Theres a material difference between the legal concept and the religious ceremonies associated with it.

_HayleyWilliams posted...

Marriage existed before and exists outside of Christianity

I didn't say it was a Christian institution. I said it was a religious one.

---

s0nicfan posted...

I didn't say it was a Christian institution. I said it was a religious one.

But it is not always a religious institution and the clear implication by American conservatives is to protect Christianity and assert its dominance in the country.

We don't need to redefine a word just because some people feel their freedom is attacked if gay are described as "married". This is just hateful people reiterating that the LGBT community should be othered. The whole "I should be free to practice my religion" is just a bullshit smoke screen. That argument doesn't even make sense. "You and I doing the same thing independent of each other is an attack on my freedom!"

---

_HayleyWilliams posted...

But it is not always a religious institution and the clear implication by American conservatives is to protect Christianity and assert its dominance in the country.

We don't need to redefine a word just because some people feel their freedom is attacked if gay are described as "married". This is just hateful people reiterating that the LGBT community should be othered. The whole "I should be free to practice my religion" is just a bullshit smoke screen. That argument doesn't even make sense. "You and I doing the same thing independent of each other is an attack on my freedom!"

Conversely, if the state had conferred equal rights through civil unions and people didn't hyper obsess over "if it's not called marriage it doesn't count" then people wouldn't have to be sitting here stressing that the supreme court might change its mind. Hyper conservative Christians couldn't argue that their religious freedoms were violated because gay people would be getting civil unions (and so would everyone else from a legal perspective).

I'm simply suggesting that there was a path forward that got everyone what they wanted, but whatever. This is an old issue and I'm not even arguing against anyone because we're all defending the right of gay people to marry, so let's not take this any further because there's no point.

---

Oh yeah, that would definitely get them to stop hating gay people

You solved it, dude

---

s0nicfan posted...

The US should have just given civil unions all the current legal benefits that are offered to marriages and then let "marriage" be a practice of religious institutions that confers no benefits.

Marriage existed thousands of years before Christianity. Claiming marriage should just be a religious thing has absolutely no basis in reality. Marriage has always historically been a business contract. Do you know what a dowry is? If you don't then look it up. That ruins any argument for marriage being some sacred religious event only.

---

That's not what I said at all, but this is now the second time you've intentionally misconstrued what someone said in this topic, so either you're just trolling or have significant cognitive impairment. I guess that's what I get for posting in good faith.

---

s0nicfan posted...

I didn't say it was a Christian institution. I said it was a religious one.

This is incorrect.

Gamerguymass posted...

Marriage has always historically been a business contract.

then, why do we limit it to two nowadays?

littlebro07 posted...

Was there a religious reason behind banning it before?

who said you needed one?

Also, defining the union of a man and a woman as marriage and a same sex couple as a civil union when theyre literally the same, legally speaking, sounds a bit like theyre separate but equal.
Remind me, but wasnt there a famous SC decision that found that separate cannot be equal?
Seems a lot easier to simply follow the jurisprudence of literally every human society ever and define any such union between individuals as marriage!

or... just ratify the goddamn ERA

Questionmarktarius posted...

then, why do we limit it to two nowadays?

Puritanical upbringing, but also historically marriage between more then two people has been a guy with a harem of wives who have been little better the slaves.

---

I hope democrats stack the court if they run all three branches following this election. Fuck the rules.

---

dotsdfe posted...

Fucking pieces of shit.

Fuck every single one of them.

_HayleyWilliams posted...

Fuck religion.

---

Sayoria posted...

I hope democrats stack the court if they run all three branches following this election. Fuck the rules.

If they run all 3 they can just impeach justices

---