world

Gay U.S. couples wed on historic day as conservatives resist

142 Comments
By CLAIRE GALOFARO and KIM CHANDLER

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

142 Comments
Login to comment

SCOTUS is on a roll !

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Let's wish the newly married couples the very best and everybody get on with their lives. This won't even be an issue in the next decade. What is clear is that we have 5 justices who know how to read the constitution, and 4 who put their religious beliefs and personal opinions above the very words of the text. Minority liberty subject to the tolerance of a majority is no liberty at all.

0 ( +12 / -12 )

@Crazy Joe "Let's wish the newly married couples the very best"

And let the USA be true paradise for them!Perhaps, someday we will see gay sitting at the Resolute desk in Oval Office of the White House........

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Sorry day for personal liberty and a horrible week for American democracy overall. The answer for gay marriage is to ban government sanction for any and all marriages. Let any two or more Americans define marriage for themselves. The government has no business getting into the bedroom of anyone, gay, straight, polygamous, anyone. The Constitutional right to gay marriage necessarily implies that any opposition to this policy - for personal moral or religious reasons- must be crushed by the machinery of government. Further down the slippery slope and you can see that there is also no logical reason to discriminate against real marriage equality. By real "marriage equality" I mean marriage between any two or more people - bar none.

What the court has done only heighten the already severe polarization and internal tumult in America today. Americans hate each other. Don't believe me - read the responses to this post. The rationale for redefining marriage law and the legal reasoning behind it (and not gay marriage itself) is the real problem facing the country now. We should have privatized marriage. If marriage was completely privatized, than gay marriage would not have done any harm to anyone. Since marriage is so closely associated to religion, the failure to privatize it imposes the will of the government (the tyranny of the majority) onto Christians, Jews, Muslim, - people of every religion. I am not a religious person but I do not wish to foist my views on others as this ruling does.

America is already experiencing a low level civil war. The attack on religious institutions will now heat up. For example, if churches do not begin to support gay marriage their tax exempt status will be ended. Those that support it will continue to get it. There will be a big fight over that but those that holdout based on their conscience will lose. So we can look forward to that in the years to come. Churches that refuse to perform gay weddings are already being called bigoted and they will be attacked by lawsuits and the government until they bend to the will of the majority. Religious institutions, churches, schools, charities are all on borrowed time. This is a win for those that hate the religious, but it does violence to individual liberty and does the country no good. All Americans will be worse off. This was all so unnecessary.

Attacking the religious views of others - as this misinformed and un-American ruling does - is wrong, Freedom of religion in America will be curtailed. The other first amendment right to freedom of speech is next. Democrats in the US Senate are already talking about that. America has been fundamentality transformed into something other than what it was born to be. If you are an American you should read George Orwell's 1984 so you will know what is in store for you.

-11 ( +13 / -23 )

Kennedy is an historic figure. He will be mentioned with the other great SCOTUS judges in history.

Despite the current outrage from the normal sources living in the dark ages, this change will not be a big deal. Just like letting gays in the military. No one talks about that anymore because it is a non-issue. The push back on it came from people who want to hate others that are different from themselves and once the law is changed, nothing much happens. In the end, no one is affected by gays getting married other than the couples themselves.

The haters will always hate, misusing religion to pretend their hate is justified. But life will go on after this wise decision and in a few years no one will care. The haters will target some other group to hate as that is sadly just who they are. Haters.

6 ( +12 / -6 )

America is already experiencing a low level civil war. The attack on religious institutions will now heat up. For example, if churches do not begin to support gay marriage their tax exempt status will be ended. Those that support it will continue to get it. There will be a big fight over that but those that holdout based on their conscience will lose. So we can look forward to that in the years to come. Churches that refuse to perform gay weddings are already being called bigoted and they will be attacked by lawsuits and the government until they bend to the will of the majority. Religious institutions, churches, schools, charities are all on borrowed time. This is a win for those that hate the religious, but it does violence to individual liberty and does the country no good. All Americans will be worse off. This was all so unnecessary.

Precisely. Performing thse "marriages" should be a freely offered act - or not at all

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

In Las /vegas, all wedding chapels are ready now. Vegas craim wedding capitol for years anyway Gay or lesbianst, they are not married to slot machines, ..

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

"If you are an American, you should read George Orwell's 1984 so you will know what is in store for you."

Not only American, but every sane person should read it. Besides Orwell, I read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley and We by Yevgeny Zamyatin. Those writers very well predicted current situation in western world.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

I'm all for equality, but, to be quite honest, I would be pretty turned off if the romantic couple smooching at the next table in a restaurant are both dudes. Call me old-fashioned. In one sense, I can accept it in the name of equality, but I can't exactly accept it as a normal lifestyle either.

I don't hate gay behavior, I just can't understand it. It seems like I'm the only one on here who feels this way, so I suppose I'll take some hits for typing these thoughts out. My apologies to anybody who is offended by reading this, but that's how I feel about it.

By the way, I support the Supreme Court's decision concerning gay marriage, however, it doesn't seem fair that churches should be forced to perform gay marriage services if they don't wish to do so.

0 ( +11 / -11 )

"By the way, I support the Supreme Court's decision concerning gay marriage, however, it doesn't seem fair that churches should be forced to perform gay marriage services if they don't wish to do so."

Churches aren't forced to perform religious marriage ceremonies. That wasn't part of this decision.

4 ( +8 / -3 )

"Churches aren't forced to perform religious marriage ceremonies. That wasn't part of this decision."

Not yet.

-5 ( +6 / -12 )

Well I suppose that all civil rights started as "imposing your beliefs onto others." Seems to fit the criteria.

Gay people were the ones who were denied benefits. People were fighting to keep them outside of the system of marriage. They wanted one union for a man/woman and a different one for homosexuals, or none at all. There was no justification for this other than simply not wanting it to happen.

Being religious does not grant you any special rights or privileges. It's time that these people learn that they are not above the law, especially laws dealing with civil rights. If you don't like it, move to a country like a Middle Eastern theocracy and maybe you will feel more at home.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Wonderful day!

1 ( +11 / -10 )

Churches are not going to be forced to marry Gay people. That is yet another piece of idiotic propaganda from the rightwing spin doctors. What this ruling does say is that redneck states cannot prevent gay couples from getting married legally thought the local governments. 13 states were saying that Gay people could not get married and have the same rights as other couples. That is over now. Welcome to 2015 Ohio, Tennessee and other backward places.

No gay people are going to want to get married in anti-gay christian church. That is absolutely lunacy.

What a fantastic week for liberal causes and the improvement of the USA. Obama is a on huge roll right now, everything is going his way. He will be lauded as one of USAs best Presidents by historians.

5 ( +12 / -9 )

I don't hate gay behavior, I just can't understand it. It seems like I'm the only one on here who feels this way, so I suppose I'll take some hits for typing these thoughts out. My apologies to anybody who is offended by reading this, but that's how I feel about it.

Not at all, we are of one mind. No need to apologise for standing up for your beliefs. Political correctness has everyone on the run

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

The two guys kissing in this here photo look like average decent guys who could've landed a hot gal sometime in their lives. Ohwell, whatever floats ur boat I guess-

And let the USA be true paradise for them!Perhaps, someday we will see gay sitting at the Resolute desk in Oval Office of the White House........

@yamashi. Even though I loathe your comment, it just might be possible. With all them libs snapping their fingers for the right to this or that, to lawfully allow same-sex marriage.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

The two guys kissing in this here photo look like average decent guys who could've landed a hot gal sometime in their lives. Ohwell, whatever floats ur boat I guess-

True enough, for the first part

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

The answer for gay marriage is to ban government sanction for any and all marriages.

Wolf, as zurconium stated, no one, no matter their sexual or religious beliefs or race, would want to get married by a church that does not welcome them. This has nothing to do with religion at all.

The problem with your assertion is that it is EXACTLY government sanction that the gays are seeking. Cohabitation has been quite normal for over a decade, and some liberal churches already perform "ceremonies" for gays - but their unions are not recognized by the government, meaning they had none of the rights available to spouses. They could not make medical decisions for their loved ones, could not join in long-term legal contracts such as joint mortgages, could not share each other's pensions, to name a few.

This is purely a secular issue.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Congrats to all the happy couples! And as a gay friend of mine said: 'High time homosexual people have the same right to kill a happy relationship by the misery of matrimony as heterosexual ones'.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

I'm all for equality, but, to be quite honest, I would be pretty turned off if the romantic couple smooching at the next table in a restaurant are both dudes.

LoL. Agree with you. Guess we gotta get used to it, contemporary times these are ny friend. Gone are the days when they all stayed in the "closet" and didn't come out.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Political correctness has everyone on the run

Only if you consider non-discrimination to be political correctness. And even if you do, that's still not a reason to not do the right thing.

America moved forward one step as a nation yesterday. Good on them.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Great move by the USA into the 21th Century.

Another controversial topic resolved and by that alone will safe many tax-dollars.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

@paulinusa

Churches aren't forced to perform religious marriage ceremonies. That wasn't part of this decision.

Yeah, and religious bakers aren't going to be forced to make cakes for gay wedding celebrations either. Churches are absolutely going to be sued for not performing gay weddings. The point isn't the religious wedding, it is the case law that is built and the forced social change created by coercing churches into being open to doing what they do not want to do or face sanction from the state. Churches will be forced to either give up their moral teachings or go out of business. Either way, the Left sees it as a victory.

Progressive hate religion and if truth be told do not have much use for marriage either. Just read what feminists write about marriage and you will see what I mean. The point of gay marriage is to undermine an institution that progressives believe is oppressive. They do not believe in the traditional family unit. For them, "it takes a village". Just adding same sex marriage does not bring about actual marriage equality. There are other types of marriage that are still left out - for now.

Marriage used to be something special and was tied to a noble social purpose. Gay marriage undermines marriage by making it irrelevant. If any two or more people can marry, what's so special about that? There is no point unless you count tax breaks. Sure, heterosexuals haven't done a great job with it either but traditional marriage has been under attack by the welfare state for at least half a century. What women needs a man to help raise the kids when the government will reliably send a check every month. What man needs to fret about his moral obligations to his children when his progeny can be assured the basics by way of government support? Besides, if his sex partner decides not to get an abortion that is her choice - and obligation - not his. Gay marriage quite easily leads to polygamous marriage, marriage between relatives, and every other potential pairings or combinations one can think up. If two or more people say they love one another how can the government stand in the way of love? You cannot stop incestuous relationships by law any more than it can stop gay ones.

-9 ( +7 / -16 )

Couples doing heavy kissing are annoying to people around them period, may the be teens, 2 men, 2 women or a man and a woman .

Some things are better reserved to private areas.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

On the federal level, the big difference in how some tax laws had been applied. Now, for better or worse, they will be applied more equitably. That same-sex married couples, regardless of where they live, will be recognized as married for federal tax purposes. As long as the couple was legally married in a jurisdiction that sanctions the weddings, they are married in Uncle Sam's tax eyes even if they later move to a state that does not recognize same-sex marriages.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

One of my gay friends has waited so many years to marry his partner. HIs joy, their joy is just so infectious! Congrats to our gay brothers and sisters. Sorry, it took so long!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b715GKJNWXA

What the court has done only heighten the already severe polarization and internal tumult in America today. Americans hate each other. Don't believe me - read the responses to this post.

Nah...au contraire, wolfie, you're the one doing that on a daily basis. You could've just welcomed the happy day tens of thousands of your fellow Americans who have waited so long, instead... As for the responses to your post (essentially the same old contrived phantom liberal-menace clap trap, last gasps of a dying opposition that'll eventually fade into irrelevance and obscurity) well I didn't see a single "hate" reaction to bolster your claim. Not hate dude, mostly just delight with this week's SCOTUS outcomes and hint of bemusement at the ridiculous reaction of the actual haters and parrots.

Marriage used to be something special and was tied to a noble social purpose. Gay marriage undermines marriage by making it irrelevant.

An argument so weak beggars belief it's even still used. Maybe your marriage is now made irrelevant? I'm sure it made no change at all to anyone else's. Certainly won't affect my marriage. Anyway it isn't "gay" marriage, it's just "marriage".

"All love is equal."

So, all you doomsayers who predicted disaster and calamity to the USA but never could say why... feel free to check your hat at the door when you move to Russia!

Knock knock... who's there? Gay rights, affordable healthcare and this Bald eagle! USA, USA!

1 ( +9 / -8 )

Marriage used to be something special and was tied to a noble social purpose. Gay marriage undermines marriage by making it irrelevant.

An argument so weak beggars belief it's even still used. Maybe your marriage is now made irrelevant? I'm sure it made no change at all to anyone else's. Certainly won't affect my marriage.

Not going to affect mine either. My marriage is my marriage, I don't see how anyone else's marriage has any bearing on it whatsoever. Plenty of marriages have spousal abuse, or infidelity, and/or end in divorce. None of them have ever had an impact on my marriage. I don't see why gay marriage, whether a good one or troubled one, would ever make a difference to my marriage.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.

-4 ( +7 / -11 )

The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.

Fair enough. Which is why kids have a natural right to have a mother and father. The happiness of gay couples is a different matter

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

Marriage is a religious tendency not a natural one. Very few animals, etc mate for life, polygamy and many partners are the order for nature.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.

Ignoring that a couple is a family, What is your point?

1 ( +7 / -6 )

As a person born straight and influenced by many around me that being gay is wrong...I applaud this decision. The constitution is not under attack though in some ways the way it is interpreted by many SHOULD be under attack. Every human being has a right to love and no government or organization has the right to deny that. Even if you think it is wrong. You may not understand it, because you were born and raised different. I don't undersatnd many ways that Japanese view the world but as another human learning their culture, no matter how stupid an outsider thinks something is, that doesn't make it so. Fighting something that doesn't hurt you is just your own fear and insecurity. You may think your way is a better way but the USA is made up of many diverse people. Live how you want at home. If you see two guys kiss, did you feel hurt? Why? Your own fears. The two guys in the picture could have gotten a hot chick.....that was said...but even a straight guy who doesn't want or get your definition of a hot chick? So what. I see people with spouces and loved ones that I find very unattractive to me....but I don't judge him or her. If they found true love...or even temporary happiness...good on em. If they are just boning for a month before their job tranfers them back home...good on em......if they just met on an app for sex that day...good on em...not my business.

5 ( +8 / -4 )

On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.

Makes no sense..

you're saying that same sex marriage who want to create a family don't have the "natural tendency to create families".

Would mean the marriages of hetero couples who, for whatever can't have child, or choose not to have a child are meaningless unless "they circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates.". Grandma can't get married because the natural "tendency of such a union is not to create families".

Weak... very weak.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Still can't find coverage of the issue in Japanese media. What's up with that?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@wolfpack and @sfjp330

You have gotta understand, marriage is more than just some religious thing. It existed long before Christianity or religion in general.

There have been gay couples, long lasting ones, where one partner was unable to be in a hospital room deemed for kin only. Things like that, taxes, etc and just the option to say "we are married" is much more important than the approval of a religious group.

Furthermore, as far as I can tell there is no actual specific lines in the bible that say, clearly or directly, that being gay is sin. Nothing. The line you quoted translates several ways, but the gist is that a man can make children with women. Not that he has to...unless you are saying being a single man is a sin?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

They could've picked a better picture at least. Ugh

-7 ( +5 / -11 )

A picture of two guys getting married in an article about gay marriage seems about as appropriate as it gets.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

Gay people were the ones who were denied benefits.

And yet in Australia they already pretty much have the same rights that straight couples do. Funny that

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Wolfpack: Gay marriage undermines marriage by making it irrelevant.

You make yourself irrelevant.

Whatever "losses" you are sustaining, they are all in your mind. Gay people didn't steal anything from you.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Give it 20 years and marriage for straight or gay people will largely be a thing of the past anyway. I wouldn't say good riddance to it but it is a waste of a perfectly good day and an annoying inconvenience and expense to others. Great news to see equality for all but gay people are joining something on the downslope. Just live together and be happy. You don't need this pantomime.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Now we MUST push for polygamy! Love must win!

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Sorry day for personal liberty

You have ZERO idea what personal liberty is if you think this decision by the court is wrong! This GRANTS personal liberty.

Time for the world to get their Judeo-Christian heads out of the butts and recognize that freedom is just that, freedom, with no restraints based upon some archaic beliefs that people of the same sex can not love each other.

My wife is a female....so what, that is MY choice, however NO ONE should be enforcing their beliefs onto others, and being against same sex marriage is just that, pushing your own thoughts and beliefs onto people who dont agree or think the same as you do!

3 ( +5 / -2 )

The GOP must be devastated....yet again! Like it or not, Obama has achieved some amazing things while in office and supported other issues like this one. With so many trying to stop him, he has managed to tackle the big issues:

Getting Bin Laden

Health care

Unemployment

Immigration

Cuba

Putting gun control in the spotlight numerous times

Finding a solution to the Iran issue by taking the initiative to talk to them

the list goes on.

Mark my words, history will judge him as one of the greats. I wouldn't mind seeing his face on Mt. Rushmore!

4 ( +7 / -3 )

For me this is a basic issue stemming from a basic question. The question really is, "Should a country like the USA in the year 2015 deliberately discriminate against a sizeable minority of Americans due to their sexual orientation?" The answer is a resounding No. Just as other generations had to get used to e.g. inter-racial marriage, which many used to find unnatural and hard to understand, ours has to get used to same-sex marriage. I applaud this decision and hope all these couples find great happiness in wedlock.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

My wife is a female....so what, that is MY choice

@Yubaru. Assuming you're a male, kudos. Who (males) in their right mind could resist/deny/neglect a woman's curves, intellect, charm, company etc??

With so many trying to stop him, he has managed to tackle the big issues

He's just doing his job. Americans voted for "change". Obama on Mt. Rushmore next to those conservatives? Ur dreaming pal-

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Obama on Mt. Rushmore next to those conservatives?

Right, kind of hard to believe: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln, all four trying to preserve the status quo.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I wouldn't mind seeing his face on Mt. Rushmore!

Plenty of room at the back of the mountain.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Marriage is a religious tendency not a natural one. Very few animals, etc mate for life, polygamy and many partners are the order for nature.

Exactly, a rare sensible comment. Marriage is not an instinct but an acquired trait. Religion, cults, interest groups, politics have no business in indoctrinating free born humans telling them which choice is the right one.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Assuming you're a male, kudos. Who (males) in their right mind could resist/deny/neglect a woman's curves, intellect, charm, company etc??

Fair assumption, but there are males that find, for what ever reason other males to be to their likes or desires.

It is inherently wrong to assume that all are the same. If two men or two women choose to be in love with each other and decide to marry, what right does anyone have to dictate that their choice is immoral or wrong?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

If two men or two women choose to be in love with each other and decide to marry, what right does anyone have to dictate that their choice is immoral or wrong?

Precisely! That's why I call for Father-Son And Mother-Daughter marriage NOW!

No marriage-equality without incest or polygamy.

-3 ( +3 / -5 )

Marriage between man and woman is and always will be naturally legal but gay marriage is at the mercy of ruling political party and always changing laws. Today honey haystack maybe future ruling for them.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

@gcbel

Knock knock... who's there? Gay rights, affordable healthcare and this Bald eagle! USA, USA!

I can certainly understand your happiness. Congratulations to you. But this is a false victory. This ruling deepens the divide and alienation among Americans. It would have been better to remove marriage as a government concern. The USA is more divided today than it was yesterday. Do you really believe that sexuality is seen in the same manner as say race? They are not synonymous.

@Stranderland

I don't see why gay marriage, whether a good one or troubled one, would ever make a difference to my marriage.

The affect on your individual marriage is beside the point. Overall government sanction of gay marriage makes it a part of everyone's marriage whether you want to acknowledge it or not. Marriage is already a weak social institution. It was weakened initially in the wake of the Great Society 50 years ago. No one predicted the catastrophic impact on marriage that followed when the role of the provider in families was shifted from (at that time) the father to the government. Look at it's effect on black families. Children have been the primary victims and society overall has suffered.

I suppose you could say that at this point social disintegration appears inevitable anyway so it doesn't make much difference. It certainly doesn't help as has been suggested. The statistics of family stability will more than likely show continued decline in future years. Many on the Left are happy to see this as they see the two parent family structure as oppressive. Read what feminists are saying about marriage. Their goal is to abolish it so the village (read government) can raise the next generation.

@Yubaru

You have ZERO idea what personal liberty is if you think this decision by the court is wrong! This GRANTS personal liberty.

Tell that to the religious owners of a bakery that were put out of business for their religious beliefs. Do you believe that religious liberty is consistent with the liberty of gay marriage? Gay marriage has made the idea of religious liberty into a zero sum game. The religious are now yet another group that can be branded as bigots and themselves oppressed. Is that something to celebrate?

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Wolfpack,

You are taking this historic SCOTUS decision hard, as you should. Instead of making up fiction about the ruling and its results, like for example gays marrying undermines marriages everywhere which is insane, you may want to ask yourself why once again you are on the wrong side of history. How many times will it take being wrong before you ask yourself why am I always wrong. The vast majority of people now support gay marriage, you are being left behind.

So stop feeling sorry for yourself and just drop the regressive loony positions you always take and embrace 2015. If we liberals can accept gays, we can even accept you. Then maybe you can be right for once. It feels great, take my word for it.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Fair assumption, but there are males that find, for what ever reason other males to be to their likes or desires.

Yeah, I know. Didn't mean any disrespect @Yubaru. I usually agree with ur comments. Like just now- "for whatever reason males find other males to be of their likes or desires".

You know, I've heard plenty of women say, "what a slap in the face to us women" . . . If two very attractive males become . . . Ahhem- "lovers".

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I was shocked when I got word that they (the Supreme Court) ruled in favor of gay marriage, I don't think this is going to lead to any thing good for America! Especially with the current racism and gun violence sweeping across the country.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Next step in the process ? Get rid of the term "same sex marriage" It's marriage, folks ! ! ! ( Never did care for the term "international marriage either !)

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Equality.

Long time coming, but here all the same.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

The U.S. Supreme Court did not decide, and under the Constitution cannot decide, what religious beliefs individuals should hold or practice in their personal lives, what religious or moral values they should hold in conducting their own private lives apart from any governmental or commercial functions, what the clergy of any religious must do in the course of performing religious functions, or what religious houses of worship must do in terms of hosting religious ceremonies.

Under the First Amendment, Congress can make no law concerning an establishment of religion. That would appear to mean that neither Congress nor the U.S. Supreme Court have any constitutional or legal authority to require any member of the clergy to conduct any religious ceremony, to govern the substance or contents of any religious ceremony, or to require that any house of worship, of any religion, host any religious ceremony inconsistent with its religious beliefs. The same Constitution that requires equal treatment of all before the law also safeguards religious beliefs and religious worship as matters of personal conscience, not subject to governmental control.

The wisdom of those who drafted the Bill of Rights, religion does not control the government, and the government does not control or suppress religion. We do not live in a theocracy, but we have freedom of religion. This court decision does not change that.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I can certainly understand your happiness. Congratulations to you.

I really don't think you do. No reason to congratulate me. I'm just happy that right has been done to some very good people (and I'm talking about people I know) who've been waiting for a very long time. Yeah, I'm delighted but I'm not the one to be congratulated; not any more than you'd congratulate an elated guest at someone else's wedding.

But this is a false victory.

No, it's a real victory! :-)

This ruling deepens the divide and alienation among Americans.

The status quo was untenable and a cause of division and alienation. I believe the ruling is for the best. Equality for all. We'll move on. If not doing what was right because it might cause division and alienation were a reason to cling to status quo we'd have country where it'd be okay to discriminate against women, minorities, gays, Catholics, Jews... In a few years we was a nation will have moved on. Most of the folks who were against will probably even be loathe to admit it.

The USA is more divided today than it was yesterday.

Doesn't have to be. You could just be happy for the folks who now can realize a once elusive dream.

Do you really believe that sexuality is seen in the same manner as say race?

I believe discrimination on the basis of either race or sexual preference is wrong. And I believe that we gradually build a more perfect union by dismantling inequality and challenging prejudice. I believe the right thing to do is sometimes hard, it comes at cost but is the only way forward. It isn't over yet.

Knock, knock!

0 ( +3 / -3 )

"This ruling deepens the divide and alienation among Americans." - comments

Anyone who wishes to ratchet up their gay anger can always join the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, KS. Plenty of support there for those who feel they didn't get the chance to hate more or enough.

The only people working to divide and alienate Americans are the bigots and freaks that populate talk radio. Enough already.

Hey, they're gay, they're here and they're human beings. Sorry to break the news to the racist homophobes.

It's all in God's plan. Now, can we please leave these human beings in peace and just let them do as they wish in their own lives. Good luck to them, and all the heterosexuals, who are just sick of all the fuss about things that have no impact on their own choices and beliefs.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

I wish to address the poo-pooing aimed at Wolfpack and others. Yesterday was a milestone. A red letter date in US domestic history. Perhaps the most significant event in the past 60 years in America. We're talking Brown v Board of Education level of importt-- which, if you don't know, was the beginning of the end of legal racism in the US.

Yesterday, "Gay rights" arrived. Full equality are here and here to stay. It is no overstatement to say what has preceded is done; and a new era has begun. And that new era is not what you, the liberal minded think. It is actually what Wolfpack thinks. It is an end that which was, and the start of -- what they believe- is the beginning of ascendant immorality and the death of our republic.

Many here downplay Wolfpack's concerns. They are, from our perspective, alarmist, silly, out-of-date and, let's face it, retrograde. But that is only because we believe what we believe. Believe what Wolfpack, and tens of millions of my fellow Americans and many in my country for the past 190 years, believe, and it looks very different.

Social conservatives -read (mostly) the Christian right wing -- have very good reason to be afraid and pissed off. Until yesterday, they enjoyed a position of privilege. Until yesterday, "Christian morality" in its largest but still mostly traditional understanding, constituted common sense. Since 1820, good moral people where Christian -- whatever that means -- and bad moral people where not. It was that simple.

That common sense, default social understanding of what is ok (Christian) and what is not (not "christian") has cast a long shadow. Outside of certain regions of my country, it largely has lost. Hollywood and liberal democracy represent the values of more Americans than the New Testament. Except in the law, much of the old order remained. It has been loosing ground since its ascendancy in the late 1800s, but it still held ground.

In the Law, despite the entirely secular structure and function of our system, the default was " Christian" morality, when oblique standards of right and wrong conduct were concerned. This moral common sense has, as I said, been in retreat for a long time.

Yesterday, it died.

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that being gay Americans are fully American. As such, they will get their due.

And when their due conflicts with the religious sensibilities of other Americans, those sensibilities will bow.

It will take a decade ore more. The court cases will be heard on whether one persons religious liberty will all them to discriminate against a gay American. Judements will be rendered. Appeals will be filed. There will be victories for the Old Ways, but mostly there will be set backs. And in 15 years time, no matter who sits in the Oval Office or on the bench in the Supreme Court, it shall come to pass:

The First Amendment will not provide protections for those who do not accept gays. They will be made to comply if they want to be part of the America of 2030.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

They will be made to comply if they want to be part of the America of 2030.

Only 46 years off Orwell's prediction. Not bad.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Wowsers!

"that new era is not what you, the liberal minded think. It is actually what Wolfpack thinks. It is an end that which was, and the start of -- what they believe- is the beginning of ascendant immorality and the death of our republic." - comment

That's a big wedge of history pie. 1820 Christians = good, not = bad? Please check reference with Protestant church influence for 1800's American Society as well.

Today the Supreme Court decided that human beings have the same rights whether they are attracted to the same sex or opposite sex. The Supreme Court didn't decide it "is the beginning of ascendant immorality and the death of our republic". That was the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

kcjapan

I grant the above is my read American history and jurisprudence. Nevertheless, two sources, if you are interested, that in no small way inform my read are:

-- The Battle Cry of Freedom, by McPherson for the history, and -- Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies, by Chemerinsky.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Hey Zurc

You are taking this historic SCOTUS decision hard, as you should. Instead of making up fiction about the ruling and its results, like for example gays marrying undermines marriages everywhere which is insane, you may want to ask yourself why once again you are on the wrong side of history

Of course I have taken things hard this week. I've known for a number of years that America was becoming less free and more socialist. When you see liberty regress and - from my perspective - a retrograde concept of 'equally' prevail there is much to mourn. Civilizations are born, mature, consume themselves and peter out; only to be reborn again.

There are many Americans that still have the old view of America as an exceptional place where the emphasis was on the rights of individuals. It is very sad to see the idea of America coming to an end. The new fundamentally transformed America will go on. Half the country is happy and the other half is not. It is what it is. Life goes on.

Although I am marjorly bummed, I am also liberated from protecting something that I fear will be lost. That is what you must do now. Our roles are reversed. I can now sit back and criticize the shortcomings of society. In a way, the revolution is the easy part. Protecting it is much harder. I will criticize and you will spin.

From my standpoint the American experiment is a failure. Whereas the old America was exceptional, the new America is not. It is just a European social democracy misplaced on the other side of the Atlantic. But it was great while it lasted.

Enjoy your victory and if you seek to enter a gay marriage yourself - good luck to you.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

"From my standpoint the American experiment is a failure." - comments

That's throwing in the towel a little early.

Certainly, if the fate of civilization, rested on whether homosexuals, had the same rights as heterosexuals, this whole thing would just open the apocalyptic chasm on Pennsylvania Avenue. FOXNews can't wait.

The American experiment is a failure? Is it?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Now it's other countries like Russia and Japan to step up

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Enjoy your victory and if you seek to enter a gay marriage yourself - good luck to you.

Not even a cheap shot. There is nothing wrong with a guy loving another guy.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

That's throwing in the towel a little early.

The writing has been on the wall for decades. America reached it's promise for a short time in the 1960's. It has been devolving and regressing ever since. Our rights are no longer kept unharmed by the Constitution.

Not even a cheap shot. There is nothing wrong with a guy loving another guy.

Not meant as a cheap shot. I don't care who other posters marry or sleep with. It's none of mine - or the governments - business. The fact that government is involved at all in marriage and so many other things is the tragedy of modern America.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I don't care who other posters marry or sleep with. It's none of mine - or the governments - business. The fact that government is involved at all in marriage and so many other things is the tragedy of modern America.

Wasn't the Supreme Court case started because of the Federal "Defense of Marriage" in 1996 by President Clinton? I don't remember conservatives complaining about government involvement in marriage then but when the shoe is on the other foot it seems to them at least, the end of an era and a nation rather than one developing in a way that provides freedoms and equal rights to all its citizens.

Recently Ireland, a little ol' Catholic country piped the post with gay marriage.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

The fact that government is involved at all in marriage and so many other things is the tragedy of modern America.

The government is only involved in marriage insofar as it relates to government issues. People, both heterosexual and homosexual, can get married without the government having anything to do with it. I knew a married lesbian couple in the early '90s, when same-sex marriage wasn't allowed. But if you want tax benefits, and to be treated like a family member by society (like when someone dies, or is in intensive care), governmental recognition of marriage is required.

The affect on your individual marriage is beside the point. Overall government sanction of gay marriage makes it a part of everyone's marriage whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

Ridiculous. Someone else's marriage, gay or otherwise, is their marriage, not mine. Do you think my wife is going to be ok with my cheating, because someone else did it too? Do you think we should get a divorce rather than working out problems, because some other couple went that route? No. Each marriage is its own marriage, and is the responsibility of the people in that marriage. If you want to let that affect your own marriage, that's your right too, but that doesn't mean that marriage as an institution has a problem, it means that your marriage has a problem

Marriage is already a weak social institution. It was weakened initially in the wake of the Great Society 50 years ago. No one predicted the catastrophic impact on marriage that followed when the role of the provider in families was shifted from (at that time) the father to the government. Look at it's effect on black families.

If what you were saying was true, then you would see the same issues in all races, not just black families. Your very example disproves your theory.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Marriage in its essential form, is the domain of a man and woman. Whether people choose to have kids or not - the role of a mother and father plays a vital part in the raising of any family. So for same sex couples, I think civil partnership is a more appropriate word. And at present, gays suffer no discrimination under Australian law. Even though Australia isn't a member of the rainbow community things are pretty equal

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@Strangerland

The government is only involved in marriage insofar as it relates to government issues.

That is exactly my point. Marriage is nothing more than a legal contract in the eyes of the government. The government has no business associating itself with the personal lives of it's citizens. All government sanctioned "marriages" should be seen as power's of attorney which grant an individual or group of named people the ability to function as a legal entity. All tax implications would follow accordingly. Marriage is a personal and private decision that government has no right to intrude upon.

But if you want tax benefits, and to be treated like a family member by society (like when someone dies, or is in intensive care), governmental recognition of marriage is required.

No. You just need a civil union or power of attorney. That separates out the private choices and intimacy aspect of relationships which is none of the business of government anyway. This is what many feminists want - the dissolution of marriage - so ultimately people on both sides should be able to agree to this.

Ridiculous. Someone else's marriage, gay or otherwise, is their marriage, not mine.

Okay, that is your opinion but I disagree. The bottom line for me is a matter of free association and personal morality. I am now forced to associate my marriage with, in my view, a morally repugnant form of marriage due to the actions of five judges. The rules have changed for me in the 'middle of the game' so to speak and I object. We either privatize marriage and make all marriages civil unions or I would want a new form of marriage sanctioned by the government that applies to heterosexuals that have moral objections to gay marriage. One of these two options should be acceptable to all people while allowing all the same rights to happiness and legal protection. I am not religious myself but these options could be a good compromise so that those with moral objections and religious couples could also feel respected.

I really do not think this ends the debate of marriage. There will be unintended consequences for government intervention into peoples private lives. The Left never account for the fallout from their social engineering. It is just a new beginning that will fracture American society for many years to come.

@zichi

I don't remember conservatives complaining about government involvement in marriage then but when the shoe is on the other foot it seems to them at least

I acknowledge this point and it is valid. The difference now is that when DOMA was made into law it was in reaction to social change that was not yet complete. Now that phase of the culture war is all but over. There used to be a social consensus on marriage as being between a man and woman only. That consensus no longer exists. But like with the abortion debate a judges ruling will not end the conflict. The question now is how will the government accommodate and adjust to the new reality where millions of people who like me object to being associated with a corrupted public institution. It needs to be either privatized or a new institution created to accommodate the newly disaffected. Hopefully that will be the next step in the evolution of marriage.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I am now forced to associate my marriage with, in my view, a morally repugnant form of marriage due to the actions of five judges.

It doesn't say much for the strength of your marriage if other people's marriages make yours weaker. How have you ever been able to reconcile with people being allowed to divorce, or with marriages that have infidelity?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

a morally repugnant form of marriage

Wolf, could you go into more detail about this?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

"I am now forced to associate my marriage with, in my view, a morally repugnant form of marriage due to the actions of five judges." - comments

If this is the form of "argument" "conservatives" use, the opinion deserves some exploration.

The claim is all marriage is only as strong as every individual expression of marriage.

The drop of ink in the milk argument. If a legal contract of marriage is struck between two gay consenting adults the horror of the same sexness condemns all marriages by association. The logic then: gay marriage bad, all marriage bad.

By this logic all marriages, at all times, are sullied by all marriages that do not conform to the poster's moral comfort.

The man who beats his wife, cheats and does no chores must also be viewed as morally repugnant and thereby harming someone else's marriage somehow. The wife who gambles, drinks to excess and cooks poorly is also guilty of moral repugnance and compromises her neighbor's marriage.

Briefly, any behavior that can be suspect of moral repugnance now forces someone else's marriage to associate their marriage as a dirty and filthy bond because someone, somewhere, globally, is of poor character. And, judges at the US Supreme Court have caused this harm to everyone's marriage, everywhere.

Only a fool couldn't see the logic behind how someone else's morally repugnant marriage destroys all marriages. No marriage is safe when the black ink moral repugnance is blended into the pure white sanctity of marriage.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Some good news out of the US for a change. Congratulations.

And for all those drama queens predicting the end of civilisation just because consenting adults can marry - take a look at the 18 countries that already have same sex marriage. The world hasn't ended.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

@StrangerLand

It doesn't say much for the strength of your marriage if other people's marriages make yours weaker

It doesn't say much for the strength of your point of view if you attribute a statement to me that I did not make. I'll assume that you made a mistake. But if you would like to actually address what I wrote..... please do.

@SuperLib

Wolf, could you go into more detail about this?

What level of detail are you interested in dirty boy?

@kcjapan

The claim is all marriage is only as strong as every individual expression of marriage.

Actually no it isn't. You and Stranger are both barking up the wrong tree.

The logic then: gay marriage bad, all marriage bad.

No. The logic is that I got married when marriage was more or less based on the same model it had been for centuries. Marriage will become even more of a joke than it became last week when polygamous marriage, certain incestuous marriage, and other alternative marriage arrangements become legal as logic dictates they must. I am already married so I cannot go back in time and reconsider my relationship options. But the gay marriage ruling does affect the status of the institution of marriage that we belong and that affects me very deeply. That may not be your opinion but it is mine and that is all that matters to my relationship. I want my marriage institution they way it was when I got married. You don't care but I don't care that you don't care.

The fight over marriage is not over. It has just started.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

It doesn't say much for the strength of your point of view if you attribute a statement to me that I did not make. I'll assume that you made a mistake. But if you would like to actually address what I wrote..... please do.

Sure, let's look at what you said:

I am now forced to associate my marriage with, in my view, a morally repugnant form of marriage

You are associating your marriage with gay marriage. The implication that gay marriage makes your marriage lesser somehow. So contrary to your last comment, you most definitely have said that gay marriage makes yours weaker somehow. So I repeat my conclusion - it doesn't say much for the strength of your marriage.

The logic is that I got married when marriage was more or less based on the same model it had been for centuries.

And if your marriage is strong, then other people's marriages shouldn't change that whatsoever. Have the vows you taken changed? Has your commitment lessened?

Please explain how gay marriage has any impact whatsoever on your own.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

So far the gay marriage of Frank and Tom doesn't really intrude on Alice and Stan's happy marriage.

Some are proposing Frank and Tom's marriage has harmed Alice and Stan's bond.

Their marriage was once a place of sacred peace. But, now that Frank and Tom have the same rights as Alice and Stan, Alice and Stan no longer know how they can have faith in marriage since everyone can marry anyone. Poor Alice and Stan. Their marriage wasn't strong enough to withstand Frank and Tom's marriage.

Maybe the US Supreme Court didn't consider the case of Frank and Tom and Alice and Stan. The evidence seems fairly compelling against Frank and Tom considering all the trouble they made for Alice and Stan.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Oh well, if people are"deeply affected" then I say let's repeal the gay marriage law immediately. Because it's all about Wolfpack, right?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

What level of detail are you interested in

The parts that cause you to say that gay marriage is morally repugnant.

The fight over marriage is not over. It has just started.

Uh, Wolf, those of us who are moderates and those on the Left are practically begging you to make this an issue. I just hope Cruz and Jindal make it deep into the debates. Jindal especially, since he paved the way for creationism to be taught to American children in public schools. Now he is saying that God made marriage.

We need to expose the fact that some people put the Bible above the Constitution and they are better suited for positions in the church than public service.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

A truly incredible decision by the US Supreme Court, really good on them. Now for Australia to step up and move forward.. Although I think it still might have been better if it were legitimized by a referendum

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

No. The logic is that I got married when marriage was more or less based on the same model it had been for centuries. Marriage will become even more of a joke than it became last week when polygamous marriage, certain incestuous marriage, and other alternative marriage arrangements become legal as logic dictates they must. I am already married so I cannot go back in time and reconsider my relationship options. But the gay marriage ruling does affect the status of the institution of marriage that we belong and that affects me very deeply. That may not be your opinion but it is mine and that is all that matters to my relationship. I want my marriage institution they way it was when I got married. You don't care but I don't care that you don't care.

The fight over marriage is not over. It has just started.

Well put

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

The fight over marriage is not over. It has just started.

Next step: The Ultra super supreme court!

0 ( +6 / -6 )

@Strangerland

Must you continue to read your own conclusions from my words?

You are associating your marriage with gay marriage.

Five judges have associated gay marriage as being synonymous with traditional marriage. That is their doing, not mine. Surely that fact does not elude your understanding.

The implication that gay marriage makes your marriage lesser somehow.

No. The ruling implies that my marriage is no different from gay marriage. This is an association that I object to just as I object to polygamous marriage, marriage between adults and 13 year old adolescents, and incestuous marriage. You may not agree, but despite the efforts of the Left my beliefs are not under their (or your) control.

So I repeat my conclusion - it doesn't say much for the strength of your marriage.

I conclude that your reasoning and futile attempts at mind reading does not say much for your reasoning skills.

Next step: The Ultra super supreme court!

The next step will be in the states. There are options. Keep reading.

@Super

The parts that cause you to say that gay marriage is morally repugnant.

All of them.

Uh, Wolf, those of us who are moderates and those on the Left are practically begging you to make this an issue

SuperLib a moderate? More like your run of the mill Noam Chomsky. Why not SuperModerate instead? Religious people and those that believe in the Constitution will find a way. I just read that several states are already considering ending government issued marriage licenses. It is the right thing to do - the privatization of personal relationships. Contract law can handle the legalities.

We need to expose the fact that some people put the Bible above the Constitution and they are better suited for positions in the church than public service.

I do not believe in the bible and the Constitution does not grant the right for the Federal government to make marriage laws for the states. Not even the 14th amendment which was written to protect the just freed slaves.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Five judges have associated gay marriage as being synonymous with traditional marriage. That is their doing, not mine. Surely that fact does not elude your understanding.

Five judges have said that gay people should have the same rights as straight people. It's your decision to decide that has some impact on your marriage.

The implication that gay marriage makes your marriage lesser somehow.

No. The ruling implies that my marriage is no different from gay marriage.

Exactly, and somehow that makes your marriage lesser. If you don't believe that it makes your marriage lesser, than what is the relevance? So again, I'm left with the exact same conclusion - if gay marriage somehow makes your marriage lesser, it doesn't say much for the strength of your marriage.

I just read that several states are already considering ending government issued marriage licenses. It is the right thing to do - the privatization of personal relationships.

So lets see this through. The government cancels marriages altogether, and switches to a system of civil partnerships only. But, gay civil partnerships would then bring down the quality of your civil partnership. So you're back to the same point you were at.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

No. The ruling implies that my marriage is no different from gay marriage.

Yes and that was the correct action so that all citizens have the same rights and freedoms but you could get divorced and live with your partner. My son and his partner have been together for 24 years, have two beautiful children who are are now teenagers and they never considered marrying because they don't believe in that institutional arrangement.

Why should your marriage be any different or more special than anyone else?

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Good point

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Wolfpack

re my last post.

It was rude. I apologise. Early morning bad temper.....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@lucabrasi That is quite alright and I appreciate your kindness. This is a very emotional issue and things can get pretty rough and tumble on the Japan Today forums. I do not take your comments personally. I get worked up at times myself and have written thoughts that I probably would not have if given more time to reflect on them. I actually enjoy the criticism my posts sometimes (often) receive. Our give and take here helps me understand my own views better. I have been posting here for many many years and my views have changed and strengthened over time because of it.

@StrangerLand

Five judges have said that gay people should have the same rights as straight people. It's your decision to decide that has some impact on your marriage.

I see what you are saying but you are missing my point altogether. I am fine with having the same legal rights as gay couples. Tax breaks, benefits, visitation to families in the hospital, etc. It's impact on my marriage has to do with my right to free association. Gay marriage takes that away from me. My views on it could be termed Libertarian and is not based in religion. The stated goals of the gay marriage advocates can be accomplished through private contract law which would also have the affect of offering true equality to all people people who are in committed relationships and not just gays and straights. Wouldn't you like to see that?

Exactly, and somehow that makes your marriage lesser. If you don't believe that it makes your marriage lesser, than what is the relevance? So again, I'm left with the exact same conclusion - if gay marriage somehow makes your marriage lesser, it doesn't say much for the strength of your marriage.

Your are wrong about that but you will believe what you believe.

My objection is because marriage as it is currently implemented is administered by States (and now controlled by the Federal government). Because straight and now gay marriage is a public concern and my marriage is included under the same umbrella as gay marriage I am no longer satisfied with the public administration of marriage. I know you do not agree and I know you want all people to see gay relationships as being no different from any other but that is just not going to happen.

I do not see this issue at all the same as the miscegenation laws of 50 years ago. I believe gays can have all the legal protections of any other citizen in the eyes of the state, but marriage is a private matter. I object to having my marriage associated with gay marriage - that is the bottom line. I have my moral standards and it shouldn't be the role of the government in a free society to tell the people what is right or wrong anyway when it comes to who anyone loves. That's what get's people at each others throats to begin with on social issues.

So lets see this through. The government cancels marriages altogether, and switches to a system of civil partnerships only. But, gay civil partnerships would then bring down the quality of your civil partnership. So you're back to the same point you were at.

First, thank you for addressing my actual view of the issue and not what you have been imagining my views to be. A civil partnership that applied to all people would be administered through contract law which is a private agreement between people, groups, etc. The governments role is to adjudicate disputes over that private agreement not to set it's terms. Marriage now is a specially recognized government institution distinct from all others. It is an important distinction in my view. Contract law is a relationship that is between the parties and it is whatever they want it to be and is not pre-defined or limited by the government as to what it's nature shall be. Look at the possibilities of switching to such a system. There will be no future contention between religious and secular people over the nature of their marriage. Religious people will have a religious marriage and it can be recognized as such in law. Non-religious people have a secular arrangement. It's the best solution possible in a pluralistic society.

As-long-as I do not seek to impinge upon the freedoms of the people I meet in my daily life at work, in my neighborhood, or anywhere else and they and they do not impinge upon mine, I feel secure and satisfied with my point of view. As it is now, I feel that I am not being respected by my government and do not consider it legitimate.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

My objection continues to be and will always be having my marriage associated with a type of relationship that is in my opinion just as repulsive as pedophilia is to the average person.

The average person does not seem to agree with your bigot views and your beliefs to seriously restrict your fellow human beings who should be enjoying all the same freedoms which you advocate for yourself and your family.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

to judge a human being by their sexual preferences is worse than fascist (sorry that i'm straight :).

buy anyways, as the greatest john lennon said: whatever gets you through the night, is alright...

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

@TakahiroDomingo

to judge a human being by their sexual preferences is worse than fascist (sorry that i'm straight :).

People are judged by their sexual preferences everyday in courtrooms around the world. So your argument is weak. I would even guess that you are also judgmental of other peoples sexual preferences. How would you judge a man who prefers to have sex with 16 year old boys? Or how about a Mother who prefers to have sex with her adult child? How about a man who prefers to live with and have sex with three woman and another man? How about a women who desires sex with her dog? People make judgements about sexuality all the time and rightfully so. Unless you do not believe that there is such a thing as sexual perversion you are likely no different.

@zichi

The average person does not seem to agree with your bigot views and your beliefs

If you took a worldwide poll I would bet that the average person would be in agreement with my view. However my opposition to homosexual marriage doesn't mean I oppose their right to the same legal rights under the law as I have. I just do not want my marriage associated with theirs. If marriage were taken out of the public realm that would solve the problem for everyone. It would also allow for many other forms of marriage equality that are currently being denied to people that love on another. Are you against that? Sound like you are. Are you a bigot?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Well now with that settled,watch the divorce rate officially go past 50%.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

If you took a worldwide poll I would bet that the average person would be in agreement with my view. However my opposition to homosexual marriage doesn't mean I oppose their right to the same legal rights under the law as I have. I just do not want my marriage associated with theirs.

if you took a worldwide poll on anything American the average person would disagree but this law only applies to America so it would be irrevelant. I think you are not fine about GAY anything and are repulsed by it but now you are backed into a corner looking for a way out. Since marriage by religion alone isn't legal it will remain in the public realm.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

A civil partnership that applied to all people would be administered through contract law which is a private agreement between people, groups, etc. The governments role is to adjudicate disputes over that private agreement not to set it's terms. Marriage now is a specially recognized government institution distinct from all others. It is an important distinction in my view. Contract law is a relationship that is between the parties and it is whatever they want it to be and is not pre-defined or limited by the government as to what it's nature shall be. Look at the possibilities of switching to such a system. There will be no future contention between religious and secular people over the nature of their marriage. Religious people will have a religious marriage and it can be recognized as such in law. Non-religious people have a secular arrangement. It's the best solution possible in a pluralistic society.

I can understand what you are saying here. There is no reason that government needs to be involved in marriage per se. Rather they could be involved in unions, where straight or gay people have the same rights, and leave marriage to be purely a private thing.

But I do see one flaw in your logic with all of this. You don't like that you marriage is associated with a gay people. Well, even if the government did get out of marriage, and switch to only civil partnerships, both you and gay people would be on the same level there, and if a gay person got married privately, they would be married, same as you. So it doesn't really change your circumstance whatsoever from how it is now.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I gotta say whatta sad day it is! Marriage now is abstracted and reduced to a business deal. I won't bow to political correctness or the mob mentality. People talk about rights. What are rights? Nothing but a serious bourgeoisie concept that rips apart cultural society to smithereens. If gays have the "right" to marry, what about the right for others to be polygamous; or what about the subset of society that's into beastiality? Yeah it sounds sick, but what people do behind their own closed doors is their right, right?

Let's not stop with the gays then; there are a ton of people who enjoy underage partners who psychologists can verify are "born that way", yet they are discriminated against and locked away in jail. So let's be a social democracy and recognize everyone's rights equally.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

If gays have the "right" to marry, what about the right for others to be polygamous;

That's a good question. If they aren't hurting anyone, why shouldn't they be allowed to be polygamous? After all, monogamy is rooted in Christianity, and not everyone is Christian. Sow why shouldn't they have the right to marry if all parties give consent?

or what about the subset of society that's into beastiality?

This is different however. Animals cannot give consent, and therefore bestiality is animal cruelty. It is hurting others (in this case an animal). Therefore, since one party can never given consent, the rights of the one do not trump the rights of the other, and bestiality will never be legal.

there are a ton of people who enjoy underage partners who psychologists can verify are "born that way", yet they are discriminated against and locked away in jail.

Children are not able to legally give consent - even if they give it, they aren't developed enough to understand what that means, and therefore consent cannot be legally given. We have chosen as a society to protect our young who don't know better, from those who do. Therefore the rights of the adult do not trump the rights of the child, and sexual relations with minors will never be legal.

It's pretty straightforward. If all parties are consenting, there is no reason they shouldn't be able to do it. If any parties are not consenting, there is every reason that they shouldn't be able to do it.

Any more questions?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

As a religious person, you can already see the next step coming, militant gays wanting to take revenge on the Churches who denounce their lifestyle.

I do think though, given the US has a healthy birthrate and no depopulation issues, we can afford to give a little on this issue, even if gay marriage was not what God intended.

Japan however is a different matter given its dire demographic situation.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I do think though, given the US has a healthy birthrate and no depopulation issues, we can afford to give a little on this issue, even if gay marriage was not what God intended.

Japan however is a different matter given its dire demographic situation.

It would seem you are trying to imply that gay people, denied the right to marry those that they love, would suddenly turn straight so that they could get married.

...Which would show a complete and total lack of understanding of why someone is gay.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

"As a religious person, you can already see the next step coming, militant gays wanting to take revenge on the Churches who denounce their lifestyle." - comments

This one should be green-lighted for a screenplay. Sony has some success with filmic controversy.

Knock, Knock, Who's There?: 'Vengeful Gays' vs. 'Westboro Baptists'

What a hoot.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

For a very small minority in the world, homosexual beings are receiving quite the acceptance from media outlets for a largely taboo or obscure way of living- not religious based assumptions, but at least scientifically abnormal.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Legally recognised and accepted. Being gay is officially no longer cool.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Legally recognised and accepted. Being gay is officially no longer cool.

Yeah, because facing discrimination and being denied rights that other people take for granted was so cool.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@zichi

I think you are not fine about GAY anything and are repulsed by it but now you are backed into a corner looking for a way out. Since marriage by religion alone isn't legal it will remain in the public realm.

A way out of what? I oppose gay marriage just as I oppose any other form of marriage other than traditional marriage. Not sure what you mean by 'looking for a way out'.

@StrangerLand

Well, even if the government did get out of marriage, and switch to only civil partnerships, both you and gay people would be on the same level there, and if a gay person got married privately, they would be married, same as you. So it doesn't really change your circumstance whatsoever from how it is now.

Private civil partnerships would in fact change my 'marriage circumstance'. My relationship would no longer be associated with an institution called marriage (which is currently administered through the state). My marriage would be a private contract only between me and my partner. For me that is a big difference. A simple though not perfect analogy would be if the government was in charge of setting the membership requirements for some community organization. Currently whenever an organization changes in a way that I do not support, I can freely disassociate myself from it. In the case of marriage I cannot. If I do, I lose all of the benefits that those that were denied gay (now polygamous, incestuous, etc.) marriage. I could not for instance, visit my partner in the hospital. So I am forced into publicly administered marriage. I think maybe more people will see that privatizing marriage is the only pluralistic option once other forms of 'marriage equality' become legal (as logic demands they be).

That's a good question. If they aren't hurting anyone, why shouldn't they be allowed to be polygamous?

Yes. And polygamy was never allowed to be discussed when arguing the legitimacy of 'gay' marriage equality so the public has essentially agreed to polygamous and other forms of marriage without discussing it's implications for society. That is the slippery slope that the Left always scoffs at.

@Mr. Noidall

Let's not stop with the gays then; there are a ton of people who enjoy underage partners who psychologists can verify are "born that way", yet they are discriminated against and locked away in jail. So let's be a social democracy and recognize everyone's rights equally.

Exactly. Pedophiles are almost never cured from being pedophiles. You could say they are born that way. If they are born that way, why should they be persecuted. Sound familiar?

@StrangerLand

This is different however. Animals cannot give consent, and therefore bestiality is animal cruelty.

Animals under current law do not have to give consent when they are butchered and placed in a grocery store for sale to be eaten. Why do you think they have the right not to be involved in bestiality. There is currently a moral objection to bestiality because of religious and other moral reasons. Currently mores about bestiality run strongly against it. However as we have seen with gay marriage, they could change.

Children are not able to legally give consent - even if they give it, they aren't developed enough to understand what that means, and therefore consent cannot be legally given.

The age of legal consent is arbitrary and varies from state to state and even cultural to culture. Muslims do not have a problem with marriage to much younger girls than in the West in general. Also, how do you know when an individual is developed enough to understand what consent to marriage means? Something doesn't magically happen to people overnight when they turn 18. Age of consent could easily change in the future as we get a better understanding of human development.

It's pretty straightforward. If all parties are consenting, there is no reason they shouldn't be able to do it. If any parties are not consenting, there is every reason that they shouldn't be able to do it. Any more questions?

Right - so when a women wants to marry her adult son and the son consents why shouldn't they be able to do it? Even though there is now 'marriage equality' these consenting adults cannot marry. Is that straight forward enough for you?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Wolfpack @zichi

A way out of what? I oppose gay marriage just as I oppose any other form of marriage other than traditional marriage. Not sure what you mean by 'looking for a way out'.

No you don't you totally opposed GAYS regardless of whether theres GAY marriage or not. You actually compared with pedophiles. That's not someone who accepts anything about being GAY.

Exactly. Pedophiles are almost never cured from being pedophiles. You could say they are born that way. If they are born that way, why should they be persecuted. Sound familiar?

I think you and all the other GAY haters and bashers are now on a road to nowhere so give it up and get back to your own marriage instead of fearing what others are doing with theirs.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Wolfpack

Exactly. Pedophiles are almost never cured from being pedophiles. You could say they are born that way. If they are born that way, why should they be persecuted. Sound familiar?

You are totally opposed to GAYS regardless of whether there's GAY marriage or not.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Readers, please stay on topic. Pedophilia is not relevant to this discussion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

CNN Poll: Americans favor gay marriage and socialism!!!!

According to a new CNN/ORC poll, 63% support the Court's ruling upholding government assistance for lower-income Americans buying health insurance through both state-operated and federally-run health insurance exchanges. Slightly fewer, 59%, say they back the ruling which made same-sex marriages legal in all 50 states.

Support for each ruling is sharply divided by party, with most Democrats and independents behind both, and most Republicans opposed to both

Wolfpack, et. al. have lost. Americans want liberal democratic policies. The only way they hold onto power is through gerrymandering, and voter suppression

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Americans want liberal democratic policies.

Americans in Blue states want those liberal policies. Not Red-

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

No. Americans everywhere. First, half of your so-called red states are not red. Just Republican controlled because of dirty tricks and, gerrymandering. Second, just like in your blue states you got conservatives, in your died red in the wool Republicans states, you got liberals.

Who are younger and browner.

Ie., the future.

Conservatives have lost. Either embrace single-payer and equal rights or go the way of the dino.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Wow, Sabbath. The way you force that "embrace or else" down our throats. . . . Almost like ozzy singing, "Satan laughing, spreads his wings." ( oh lord yeah-)

Conservatives have not lost. I dnt see them in the oval office come '16, but guess its all about voting for the lesser of two evils. I'm from a Blue state, ohwell.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The way you force that "embrace or else" down our throats.

You are mistaken. I'm not forcing anything on anybody. I describe the case as it is.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

According to a new CNN/ORC poll, 63% support the Court's ruling upholding government assistance for lower-income Americans buying health insurance through both state-operated and federally-run health insurance exchanges.

The poll is a bit unclear, wha they should have and failed to mention those 63% are the growing number of people that can't find work and have seen their wages decrease under Obama and that is another reason why you see unemployment, health benefits on the rise, since he can't create jobs, substitute that for more entitlements.

Slightly fewer, 59%, say they back the ruling which made same-sex marriages legal in all 50 states.

Whatever, the law is past, let's move on, I hope now all the whiners can say America is a just country, we are not racist because we have a Black president and we don't discriminate against Gays anymore. Now we can put this all aside and take a break.

Support for each ruling is sharply divided by party, with most Democrats and independents behind both, and most Republicans opposed to both

And that's ok. Each to his own.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Each to his own.

Right. Coming from one of JT's most ardent defenders and promoters of the party of its-my-way-or-the-highway.

In truth, conservatives demand. They demand compliance when they run the show. They demand 'fairness' when in the minority.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I love how conservatives were all about the law coming into the SC judgement, then suddenly they're "not going to follow it" and you even have would-be presidents flat-out saying they encourage people not to follow the laws of the nation. A party of cry-babies and law-breakers.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

@Black Sabbath

Conservatives have lost. Either embrace single-payer and equal rights or go the way of the dino.

I agree with you Black Sabbath. The 'dinos' have lost. But it isn't just "conservatives" that have lost. It is the American system of government that has been lost. This was never only about the kind of 'marriage equality' that now simply limits marriage to between just heterosexuals and homosexuals to the exclusion of all other forms of sexuality. Or government controlled health care that funnels private and public funds to crony-capitalists in the insurance and health care industries. If it was then the Left could have pushed for a Constitutional Amendment for these things and have been done with it.

This latest fight has alway been about the relationship between government and it's citizens and the inevitable oppression that occurs when personal liberty is bulldozed over by government. You have only succeeded in substituting one form of oppression with another. You do not agree because you do not believe that religious people have a right to their own religious beliefs in all parts of their life. But millions of other people do. I am not even religious and even I can see that.

Since the time I realized that there was no longer a consensus about marriage I understood that the only solution was to privatize marriage in order to end conflict over the matter. That way everyone gets their choice and are not forced to participate in, or be excluded from, a government institution that has been entangled into so many personal matters such as employment, taxes, hospital visitation rights, child custody rights, etc. Now it is just exacerbated friction among American's and clearly threatens the second amendment right to freedom of religion. Religion is actually in the Constitution. Marriage isn't. That was left for the states to manage. For me and my "dino" way of thinking all American citizens have lost. You do not know it because rule by the elites have not gotten around to you yet. But sooner or later they will to you as well. It is inevitable. And when they do the people you so gleefully enjoy attacking now will not commiserate with you. That will laugh at you for your ignorance.

So congratulations! The Left has won and American's are more divided now then they have been since the Civil War. The uniquely American idea that people have inherent rights and are to be free of government control is for all intents and purposes dead. I accept that. Now religious people and those that have moral objections to the dictates of government have become the 'other' to be oppressed. Good job! It took awhile but you have accomplished your goal.

I have only to sit back and watch it fall apart year after year. The deconstruction of "America" that began in earnest in the 1960's is well underway. American's cannot even agree on what it is to be an American. The national debt is ever growing and will continue to grow indefinitely. Ignore Greece - it cannot happen here they say. American's are ever more alienated from one another and factionalized. The "hate" isn't over. It has only begun. The old freedoms that were once taken for granted are now essentially under the control of a small group of lawyers, bureaucratic elites and social engineers that rule no differently than the top down dictates of the old USSR.

@smithinjapan

I love how conservatives were all about the law coming into the SC judgement, then suddenly they're "not going to follow it" and you even have would-be presidents flat-out saying they encourage people not to follow the laws of the nation. A party of cry-babies and law-breakers.

Now that the Left is in charge civil disobedience is no longer legitimate? When the Left were cry babies it was cool but now it's against the law. Hilarious! This is actually great. I can just sit here and pick apart the Left's hypocrisy and failures including all of the attendant unintended consequences of Progressivisms short-sighted win at all cost ways and laugh. I love it. What do I care, I have no skin in the game anymore - I am a dinosaur and my views do not count. Inclusiveness and tolerance is great isn't it?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The Left has won and American's are more divided now then they have been since the Civil War.

Very melodramatic of you. We aren't even as divided as we were in the 60s. A knowledge of history helps.

The uniquely American idea that people have inherent rights and are to be free of government control is for all intents and purposes dead.

Uh, we went over that with slavery. You invent an America that never existed and pine for those fanstasy days gone past.

Again, a knowledge of history helps.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

" You do not agree because you do not believe that religious people have a right to their own religious beliefs in all parts of their life." - comments

As usual, the hysterical sales pitch is easily revealed as prejudice; a careful reading reveals a bigoted world view that is glaringly evident.

The religious myopia holds:

"people have a right to their own religious beliefs in all parts of their life".

What they cannot acknowledge:

"people have a right to their own religious beliefs in all parts of their life, but not the right to dictate their beliefs in denying the rights of other human beings."

Some special claim on the state or condition of all marriages is the pinnacle of religious arrogance. So, it's not as if nothing were achieved by this absurd contention. But it's pretty close to nothing.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Gay U.S. couples wed on historic day as conservatives resist

"As he (non-conservative) lost his mind, can he see or is he blind"? - those are lyrics from Ozzy's- IRONMAN

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@Black Sabbath

Uh, we went over that with slavery. You invent an America that never existed and pine for those fanstasy days gone past.

How's that? I never said America always lived up to it's ideals. There was always significant opposition to slavery all throughout American history. Many of the Founders wanted to do away with slavery even though they themselves owned them. The idea of gay 'marriage' is a new invention over the last decade or so (gay relationships have always existed of course). Denying gay marriage is not a fundamental wrong of the likes of slavery. It is behavior related. Akin to denying polygamous or incestuous marriage. The color of a persons skin is in your DNA. Homosexuality is in the mind. It is behavior. Race is genetic. Not the same thing as Justice Kennedy strains to equate. If you cannot understand that then you are anti-science.

Answer me this. Did you think President Obama was a good person when he was running for president? Do you realize that by the new standard of civil rights, Obama was an avowed bigot when he was elected? Bigotry was acceptable then. Now it's bad? Come on - get real!

This issue is not about civil rights. It is about political power and changing the relationship between Americans and their government. The people are no longer free when the government can tell them what their values must be or else lose their job or potentially be fined or go to prison because you fail to accommodate someone else's new civil right to a certain sexual behavior.

Instead of accommodation of different beliefs America has outlawed the right to dissent about sexual behavior. There was a better way that would have avoided the coming rancor over religious and moral freedom.

Now the bigots are on the Left. The Christianity haters. The haters of people that do not conform. Privatizing marriage to be a civil contract would have avoided the animosity that is taking place over the invention of a new civil right. Face it, you hate the fact that people do not agree with you. So you intend to use the government to force them to comply. Very Orwellian of you.

@kcjapan

"people have a right to their own religious beliefs in all parts of their life, but not the right to dictate their beliefs in denying the rights of other human beings."

So when Obama was denying the rights of gay people back when he was elected in 2008 it was okay to dictate his religious beliefs in denying the rights of other human beings? Would you have or did you vote for Obama the bigot in 2008? Did you call Hillary Clinton a bigot two years ago?

So now there is a principle of civil rights that didn't exist when the Left supported Obama just a few years ago that is intolerable anywhere else in American society?

Some special claim on the state or condition of all marriages is the pinnacle of religious arrogance.

I agree. Get the government out of marriage. I addition, the government does not have a special claim on the state or condition of all marriages. These are private interactions between private citizens. It is the pinnacle of government arrogance. Get the government out of my bedroom!!!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Wolfpack

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I appreciate it when someone takes to time explain their opinion with a a structured post. I'll take each paragraph in turn, starting with the first, as each contains a distinct building block to your argument.

First, I did not mean to imply that which you argued against. Namely, that equal rights for homosexuals was part of America's past. Indeed, I make that very point above on this thread when I wrote:

"The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that gay Americans are fully American. As such, they will get their due."

My point is that the America of the past -- America from its founding onwards -- contained common and routine instances where the the State, both federal and state governments, infringed on individual rights. Indeed, it was systematic, intentional and strongly enforced. Case in point: Women. During first half of our republic, they could not vote, you know doubt know. But they also couldn't sign contracts in most states (backed by SCOTUS), nor could they own or inherit property in their own rights (again, backed by SCOTUS). A husband could with impunity beat the crap out of his wife. I could go on, but you must get the point by now: Women were largely chattel. That's half the nation right there.

Now, and this is key: That was the point. Women were NOT considered possessors of those inaliable rights because they were not men.

And even more to the point, and I cannnot stress this enough, stripping away your loathsome judicial doctrine supporting full equality for women there was nothing in the Constitution to avail them their inaliable rights afforded to them by law because the law never contemplated them. Going with your so-called 'originalist' and 'strict construction,' all the rights and protections did not and never would apply to females.

In many cases the courts lead the way. That is the ugly truth of how change has occurred.

I characterize your view as idealistically Libertarian -- which is all very well and good, only that it is ahistorical.

That country never has existed.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@Black Sabbath

I appreciate your serious effort to engage. I know you mean well and believe that the gay marriage decision is a positive thing for society. I think that respecting people of various sexualities could have been a positive but - in my opinion - the way it was handled has damaged American society. It seems American's can never make a change that doesn't amount to a zero sum game creating winners and losers.

My point is that the America of the past -- America from its founding onwards -- contained common and routine instances where the the State, both federal and state governments, infringed on individual rights.

True. America back to it's founding was like all other nations in the sense that most individuals had no real tangible things called rights. They were ruled by Kings and dictators. Even white males that did not own land/property where not able to vote in America's new democracy. However, the reasoning that allowed others to gain the right to vote and other rights was due to this founding ideal:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

So it is true that many aspects of civic life, many common rights were denied to poor white men, minorities, and women. But, the Constitution has a built in mechanism to manage change. It is called an amendment.

"The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that gay Americans are fully American. As such, they will get their due."

Well guess what? I now believe that I (and certain religious people) are no longer considered fully American. Why you ask? Because I do not have the right to free association - supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution. This is a case where one person's rights is allowed to supersede another's. Do you not believe I have a right to free association?

A husband could with impunity beat the crap out of his wife. I could go on, but you must get the point by now: Women were largely chattel.

I've never heard that beating up one's wife was considered legal at any point in American history. I think you are over doing it here. I'd need more proof on this claim rather the anecdotal evidence. Yes some crimes go unpunished but that does not mean it was accepted or legal.

Now, and this is key: That was the point. Women were NOT considered possessors of those inaliable rights because they were not men.

Past wrongs do not justify future wrongs. Affirmative action in all of it's myriad of forms is a good example of this. Racism has been used to combat racism for nearly 50 years in America. In all cases, white people, and particularly white males have suffered a 'disparate impact' on their civil rights for half a century. And it get's worse - and is an example of where Liberals always seem to fail in thinking things through. Affirmative action is used to justify discrimination against Asians in higher education. Likewise the misnamed 'marriage equality' will be used to discriminate against religious people and people of certain moral convictions.

In my case, I and others like me are the losers in the zero sum game of gay marriage. Free association is the loser in this decision and for no good reason.

That country never has existed.

I agree. But the ideal exists. That ideal is beginning to recede after many, many years of progress.

And even more to the point, and I cannnot stress this enough, stripping away your loathsome judicial doctrine supporting full equality for women there was nothing in the Constitution to avail them their inaliable rights afforded to them by law because the law never contemplated them.

I disagree. The Constitution allows for amendments to provide for all of these things. There was an amendment to the Constitution to grant women the right to vote. To grant blacks their freedom and right to vote. You failed to follow the Constitution. My new word for this is "micro-facism". An amendment to the Constitution would have made gay marriage legitimate in the eyes of all Americans. Now we have a legal mess and guaranteed future conflict.

In many cases the courts lead the way. That is the ugly truth of how change has occurred.

In many cases courts become legislators. And executives become legislators. To the detriment of the people.

I characterize your view as idealistically Libertarian -- which is all very well and good, only that it is ahistorical.

The right to free association is basic to American life. The reason it seems Libertarian to some is because American government has grown to invade nearly all aspects of American life. Even marriage law peeks into the bedroom when it comes to divorce law.

I characterize your view as 'a means to an ends' and is all too common in America history. To gain political power, politicians pit people against one another promising to give them benefits and deny them to others. The Democrat party are experts at this. They used slavery to enrich themselves and win elections. They used Jim Crowe to win elections and benefit white people. When the civil rights era made segregation a dirty word they began to use affirmative action - in all of it's forms - to continue to pit groups of Americans against one another and have used this strategy to successfully win elections.

That country never has existed.

No, America has never lived up to it's ideals and the Supreme Court seems bound and determined to ensure that it never does. In my opinion America progressed until about the 1960's. The Constitution was amended and people were explicitly extended protections that they should have had long before. Now laws are passed in Congress and endorsed by the courts to force me to buy things, it forces me to associate with people that I disagree with, it allows government to discriminate against people based of their skin color in employment, housing, and education (racism to combat racism), it allows unions to force workers to contribute to the political activities that they oppose or lose their jobs.

Now American's have no understanding of the countries founding ideals. The goal now is accomplish ideological goals through any means necessary. America had a chance- now it is lost.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

America got a little closer to plunging into the underworld this week.

:-(

1 ( +4 / -3 )

America got a little closer to plunging into the underworld this week.

Amazing how America can start wars, invading sovereign nations that have not attacked them, how they can have police shooting innocent children holding toy guns, how they can have people being murdered in their church for the color of their skin, but it takes giving people who love each other the right to be married that causes some people to think America has 'got a little closer to plunging into the underworld'.

It's absolutely baffling.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

it takes giving people who love each other the right to be married that causes some people to think America has 'got a little closer to plunging into the underworld'.

I do not know what Steve means by 'plunging into the underworld' but for millions this horrendous decision is just further confirmation of the cultural decline and social division that has been ongoing in America for decades. America is in decline in terms of political, military, and economic power. This decline has been a conscious choice. Gay marriage alone will not by itself destroy American exceptionalism. It doesn't help.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

"Gay marriage alone will not by itself destroy American exceptionalism"

"American Exceptionalism" is the theory that the United States is inherently different from other nations.

What a convoluted world view. Gay people won't destroy American exceptionalism. American Exceptionalism is another form of racism. Marriage is destroyed by "Gay Marriage'

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wolfpack

I do view equality before the law as a good thing, an America ideal. As you point out, though, it is tough to find the proper balance between protecting an individuals's liberty interest when that liberty interest runs up against another's liberty interest. IOW words, freedom and equality do not always go hand in hand. Choices must be made. Here, we have a homosexual's liberty interest running afoul another's religious liberty. More precisely, we have the fundamental right of religious liberty set forth in the 1st Amendment running up against the newly determined (you'd say decreed) fundamental right to marry.

You are correct to point out that we can amend the Constitution. You are incorrect to believe that Madison -- the architect of our fundamental law -- and many early Americans contemplated that is the only way we can "manage change" in society. States and Congress can makes laws. And, importantly, SCOTUS can exercise judicial review of those laws. The 'proper balance' between the courts and the legislature has been, from the beginning of our republic. Indeed, the very case which established judicial review of laws, Marbury v. Madison, was viewed by those who disagreed with the holding as an imperial decree by men who had not been voted for and a violation of the rule of law.

The very language conservatives use today in their dissent with the recent rulings harkens back to those who reviled Marburry v. Madison. In short, this is, once again, and old argument. We've been going round and round on the circle game from the beginning. From the beginning.

In recent history, conservatives justices have been just as prone to circumvent the legislative will of the American people as have liberal justices. I know it is a matter of faith for conservatives that what I wrote is simply not true.

But it is.

The Robert's court, using largely Judicial doctrine, dictated five years ago that corporations are people. (Five years, I like to point out, before they decided gays are).

SCOTUS, in Bush v. Gore, dictated the results of a presidential election.

Now, these two ruling to me are, oh, I don't know, ten, fifty, one-hundred times more important that whether a guy can marry a guy. You may disagree. Or you may agree and say, "Yeah, that's what I'm talking about!!"

But you'd be wrong to say so. Not only for the foregoing reason, that we have three branches of government, and the courts have a say on how we balance the conflict between equality and liberty.

Further, until last week, the single greatest overreach, as it were, of judicial authority since the Civil RIghts era was accomplished by movement conservatives and a conservative cabal on the supreme court.

I'm talking here about SCOTUS determining that we Americans have an individual right to bear arms. That was by judicial decree, in direct conflict with your view of how things are supposed to be done in our country. And yet, because (I assume) you agree with the holding, you did not really give much thought to how far SCOTUS went awry.

And that is the point:

I would take your alarmism more seriously would you apply it evenly. You don't. When you get your way in the political and judicial process, all is right in America. When you lose, the sky is falling.

The sky is not falling.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ah Christians playing victim. May I point out that most everyone involved in making this happen were straight and Christian.At about 1.5% of thePopulation, there is no way Gays by themselves could have make this happen without a vast majority of straight and mostly Christian people who agreed with them and worked to make it happen.

So even within the Christian population of the United States, the ones complaining are a minority. Ironically the ones complaining are the ones that are driving Americans out of Christianity.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Christopher Blackwell

I do not think it appropriate to stokes the flames of animosity. There are still plenty of young gay people who live in areas hostile to them. Lording our victory over the Christian right will not help these at risk individuals.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

but it takes giving people who love each other the right to be married that causes some people to think America has 'got a little closer to plunging into the underworld'.

It's absolutely baffling.

Not really. One legalisation demand is now following the other

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

You skipped the whole "Amazing how America can start wars, invading sovereign nations that have not attacked them, how they can have police shooting innocent children holding toy guns, how they can have people being murdered in their church for the color of their skin..." part of that quote.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@kcjapan

"American Exceptionalism" is the theory that the United States is inherently different from other nations.

Actually the 'idea' of America was what was considered exceptional. The idea that the rights of citizens are innate and not something that was granted by government. No other nation sees the world that way. Well that was until Obama fundamentally changed America of course. Now America is no more exceptional than the Brits and the Greeks.

@Black Sabbath

States and Congress can makes laws. And, importantly, SCOTUS can exercise judicial review of those laws.

Yes of course legislatures at the federal and state levels can make laws. And courts are to settled differences over these la I do not recall they have ever been ab

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Strangerland

So, you're pointing out that the US is a powerful nation in the world. Well done.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Not just a powerful nation in the world, the most powerful nation in the world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I meant from a historical perspective.

I look at it this way: that the US acts like every other great power in history is, to say the least, hardly surprising. The strong do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must.

That the US also advances liberal, pluralistic values and secular humanism, i.e. justice, is to me exceptional.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

that the US acts like every other great power in history is, to say the least, hardly surprising.

But not acceptable either.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Acceptable. That is a moral judgment.

You realize, I hope, that infusing morality into foreign policy is an American invention.

"Mr. Wilson bores me with his Fourteen Points; why, God Almighty has only Ten!"

-- Clemenceau

Tell me, Strangerland, with China and Russia. Who you gonna call?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

To be honest, I was thinking more of these two points with that comment:

how they can have police shooting innocent children holding toy guns, how they can have people being murdered in their church for the color of their skin

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"Now America is no more exceptional than the Brits and the Greeks." - comments

The Brits and the Greeks aren't exceptional? Ask one Brit, ask one Greek, are they exceptional? You're damn right they are. Exceptional right down to their Magna Carta and Gortyn Code.

This weird nationalism is blended into the racism and prejudice of the gay-nots. When asked for their opinion, the reader finds a complex and multi-layered cultural bulwark on the gayness. The subject was once the gayness and how many will concoct new prejudices and corruptions. Now, the Brits and the Greeks are involved.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The Brits and the Greeks aren't exceptional?

You brought up the American exceptionalism thing. I was just trying to agree with you by bringing up the two countries that President Obama mentioned when he was asked about the topic. There are no exceptional nations - at least not anymore. What is exceptional about America, Great Britain, or Greece? No country believes in the innate rights and autonomy of individuals anymore. All nations believe that their subjects exist for the benefit of the state in whatever form it exists at any particular point in time. Obama has fundamentally changed America. It no longer aspires to it's own unique founding ideals.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites