The Marriage Equality Juggernaut just keeps rolling on

Discussion in 'Freedom and Liberty' started by chelloveck, Jan 18, 2015.

  1. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    Much has happened in the arena of marriage equality judicial review, since the time I posted The dominos keep on teetering and toplling | Survival Monkey Forums back in April last year.

    36 US States have now achieved marriage equality for same sex, and opposite sex couples, while several States now have appeals and litigation pending. Until last friday, SCOTUS has deferred dealing with the issue, but it has now decided to consider submissions on the matter, and issue a ruling by June 2016.
    Supreme Court agrees to take on same-sex marriage issue -

    Expect amicus briefs to descend upon SCOTUS like snowflakes from an Alaskan blizzard. (Edit: or glitter at the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras) I can almost guarantee one dissenting Judge. He shall be known by the argle bargle of his opinion. ;)

    Justice Scalia’s DOMA Dissent: A glossary of argle-bargle.


    Via: Marriage Equality Round-Up - November 21st
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2015
    Motomom34 likes this.
  2. Yard Dart

    Yard Dart Vigilant Monkey Moderator

    I am gonna break a rule I have for myself and comment on this subject. I don't give a rip if you like whatever perversion you have.... as long as it is kept within your own bedroom. What I am sick of, is this gay equality stuff being jammed down the people's throat in an attempt to make us accept your lifestyle.... as if we are the ones that need to be tolerant.... I for one don't care what you do.... but get it out of my face. Gay folks can do whatever they like, but when you start shoving your agenda in my face.... I take issue with your position and will push back even more than I would under normal Opposition.

    I strongly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman..... period.

    If you want to have a civil union, to allow for similar marriage rights that are enjoyed by a man & woman.... fine. But marriage is unique.... stop trying to co-opt that term so that your ilk feel "accepted or mainstream" within society... you are not.

    I understand there is a need by some to push this agenda.... even in a survival/prepper type forum. But in my opinion, it does not belong here and IMO this platform should not be used for agenda's along these lines.

    And though I respect your contributions and service @chelloveck , I am not sure why you give a rip about why or how our country approaches this subject.... you are of another nation... focus within, and leave us to our own destiny, respectfully.
  3. Dunerunner

    Dunerunner Brewery Monkey Moderator

    Mindgrinder likes this.
  4. tulianr

    tulianr Don Quixote de la Monkey

    Well, it is posted under Freedom and Liberty. I can see it as valid. It is certainly "off topic," as are what must surely be a majority of the posts here. (Whether we all want to admit it or not, the monkey is as much a social media site as is facebook. It is just more focused in content, and is more limited in the mindset of posters.) I imagine if I were gay, I would consider the right to marry just as important as the right to own a gun.

    I knew gays in the Marine Corps, served with them, deployed with them, respected them; even had a gay Marine as a room mate for a short time. He was a good guy. He kept the cleanest room, and was the most considerate room mate, of any Marine I roommed with. I have no problems with them. I have gay friends now. I find it stupid that they are denied the same basic rights as the rest of us because their biological wiring is different. Christians like to scream about gays and lesbians trying to force their agenda upon society, but it is a Christian influenced society that has been forcing their Christian-based morality down the throats of gays for centuries. Freedoms and rights should apply to ALL - Black, White, Man, Woman, Gay, Straight, Liberal, Conservative, Muslim, Christian, Sheep, or Prepper.
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2015
  5. Yard Dart

    Yard Dart Vigilant Monkey Moderator

    Though I agree with everything you said @tulianr ....I do not believe that marriage as a term should be applied. That is solely reserved in my book to be amongst man & woman.

    I have served as well, beside those that are of different beliefs.... but I think that we are allowing a slippery slope... I for one do not condone the marriage of man to a sheep.... or a dad to his daughter. Once you open the gate... what is right and what is wrong. I will for one be a voice that say's nay, as that is what God has deemed me to follow in our teachings.
  6. Dunerunner

    Dunerunner Brewery Monkey Moderator

    The divorce lawyers love the new business opportunities, though!! It just makes it such that nothing can be objected to on moral grounds, and many of our laws are based on morality. What is right and what is wrong. When we begin to set aside our values and moral judgment, nothing is will stand.
  7. 3M-TA3

    3M-TA3 Cold Wet Monkey Site Supporter++

    Well stated, and I think many of us feel the same way. A few years ago Oregonians voted to amend the State Constitution to define marriage between a man and a woman. Some citizens disagreed with it, but the majority of voters passed it. The amendment was challenged by activists, then the State Attorney General decided not to defend it. The Judge in the case would not allow any other entity to act as the defendant, and so summarily ruled in favor of the activists. The next day. along with several other gay couples, the Judge married his longtime partner.

    Thus the will of people was overturned by a small group of activists that included an Attorney General who refused to defend the State Constitution and an activist Judge with a conflict of interest who did not recuse himself.

    Frankly, I have enough of my own problems to deal with without taking on everybody else's. As long as it's between consenting adults of the same species I don't give a rip. I do care, however, when activists push social agendas down my throat.
  8. Yard Dart

    Yard Dart Vigilant Monkey Moderator

    [applaud]:5s: I concur completely!!!
    D2wing, Sapper John and kellory like this.
  9. tulianr

    tulianr Don Quixote de la Monkey

    I certainly respect your beliefs, as I try to respect the appropriate beliefs of all. I think, though, that we should base our law on reason and compassion rather than the elements of any one religion.

    I agree that the marriage to a sheep should be forbidden. A sheep cannot be considered to be a fully consenting party to the undertaking. The marriage of a dad to his daughter should also be forbidden; not because it is so written in a book, but because the two cannot be considered mutually consenting adults, in any proper way. Ignoring the potential for retardation and deformation in the procreation from such a union, a child is never going to have an equal and balanced emotional relationship with a parent. Therefore, a law against such a union is fair and just, and is not based on any arbitrary religious judgement. Finding a non-religious justification against same sex marriage though is not so easy. Our government is not in any way based on the Christian religion, and neither should be its laws. There has to be a non-religious reason to prohibit something, if we really imagine ourselves to live in a non-theocratic, relatively free society.

    Many people want to say that "Marriage is between one man and one woman." That is as much a belief as any religious teaching. The word "marriage" carries no such defining characteristics. It comes to us from old French marier, meaning to marry, which passed down from the latin maritus, meaning lover. It seems to have come from the word mas, meaning masculine, before that. None of that necessarily says that it means a union between one man and one woman. It could mean a union between a man and his sheep as far as the etymology of the word is concerned.

    I fully support churches and clergy having the right to refuse to take part in same sex marriages. I support caterers having the right to refuse service to same sex nuptials (yes, I know they have lost in court, and I think that's wrong). I don't think anyone should have to participate in any wedding ceremony that they disagree with; but I don't think we should be able to tell people who they can marry.
    mysterymet, chelloveck and kellory like this.
  10. Mindgrinder

    Mindgrinder Karma Pirate Ninja|RIP 12-25-2017

  11. Mindgrinder

    Mindgrinder Karma Pirate Ninja|RIP 12-25-2017

    Seems to be the Rights outlined in your Constitution are God-given...
    Seems to me that your President is sworn in on a bible, as is all testimony in a court of law.
    Seems to that your Government is not only based on Christianity....but your Rights are granted by their God.


    Well....let's see here.....complex topic.

    Agreed, 2 consenting adults can do whatever they please behind closed doors.
    Agreed, 2 consenting adults who are sexual partners should share the same tax structure as a
    traditionally married "couple".

    Do I agree that they have a Right to call in "marriage" and demand that a religious figurehead must be forced to perform the ceremony?

    Do I think male homosexuality is natural?
    Maybe some are born this way but intuition tells me that more are culturally conditioned.

    Do I think there is a gay agenda?
    Absolutely positive. People take their kids to the Pride Parade in Vancouver to watch men dance around is ass-chaps and roleplay BDSM.

    Do I think this is cool?
    Not so much. If I had kids they would not be going to this parade but they would also be clearly instructed on our own family values and why we disagree with this lifestyle.

    It's quite sad that parents have to have this conversation with their children at an ever earlier age before the "education system" starts teaching them that it's entirely normal and "modern".

    Anyway.....this is a massively complex issue....I doubt it can be hashed out in 1 thread.
    D2wing and Motomom34 like this.
  12. NotSoSneaky

    NotSoSneaky former supporter

    Personally I think the .gov has no business being in the "marriage" business.
  13. Dunerunner

    Dunerunner Brewery Monkey Moderator

    Mindgrinder and NotSoSneaky like this.
  14. oldawg

    oldawg Monkey+++

    AH HA, Now I see the reason the Army is pushing so hard for those DARPA gazz powered mules!![OO]
  15. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    I would like to respond to your post more fully, but I'm under some time constraint, so will respond quickly to the bits that I can within my time window

    1. Although you and many others agree with that proposition, it is a proposition that does not enjoy universal agreement. Amidst that disagreement, is a conversation being pursued within the US nation, and the Australian nation, among a number of nations around the world as to whether marriage inequality among couples (regardless of sexuality) is an acceptable government policy. Although people's interests in this site vary considerably in subject matter, as far as liberty and freedom is doesn't start and end with the Second Ammendment, or the free exercise of religion clause of the First Ammendment.

    I appreciate that the mere raising of the issue is a matter of contention for some people with some particularly firmly held religious views. I understand that, and respect the rights of those people to hold and to articulate those views; but to avoid engaging in a conversation concerning a contentious contemporary human rights issue, because of the sensitivities of some people, I don't think that serves the interests of human society much at merely serves the interests of those who wish to maintain the status quo without regard for the Nation as a whole.

    2. Many would agree with you I am sure. That has certainly been the case in some 2nd Ammendment discussions, and other topics that have more of a sociological / political / economic flavour to them. Although SM is mostly populated by Americans, and it is a web site established by is visited by, and also populated with members from all over the world. If discussion was only tolerated of American citizens and residents only...there is the risk of insularity of opinion. Whether you agree or disagree with what some correspondent from Australia, or Sweden, or Canada et al, have to say, that they may bring a different perspective to the table adds to the diversity and richness of the conversation. By encouraging people to justify and support their stance on issues with evidence and thoughtful argument, that helps us all be better informed and prepared to contribute to the quality of the decisions that we make as citizens of our various societies.

    I give a rip with what happens in the USA, because whatever social movement / phenomena travels through America, inevitably travels to Australia. Sometimes to the good of Australian citizens, sometimes to Australia's detriment.

    3. Whether we like it or not, to various degrees, The USA's and Australia's destinies are intertwined. I make no demands that Americans believe what I as an Australian believe...nor to do as Australians would do. It would be best to think on this particular issue, that regardless of whether one is "straight" or "gay", male or female, black, white or brindle, liberal or conservative, religious or non religious, we are all humans, sharing our common humanity; and humanity has no boundaries.

    My own view is that marriage is a human institution, and a human right...not just a religious rite.
    tulianr likes this.
  16. kellory

    kellory An unemployed Jester, is nobody's fool. Banned

    Not a Right, but a Rite. A ritual, a promise, a binding. An intertwining of lives. A PERSONAL and PRIVATE bonding. Not a gay rights parade, a doodaa parade, a special flag, and dogs being walked in tuu-tuus kind of thing.
    It is NOT a marriage, because it CAN NOT produce offspring, which is one of the purposes of "marriage", and always has been. A marriage must be comsumated before the ritual is complete, because children are intended! It is to perpetuate the family line. The BLOODLINE. Marriages were arranged for the betterment of the family, not the individual, and had legal bindings upon property.
    So NO, IT IS NOT A RIGHT, BUT A RITE. and it's meaning and purpose is both under constant attack, and being perverted to serve political ends.
    T. Riley, Motomom34 and NotSoSneaky like this.
  17. tulianr

    tulianr Don Quixote de la Monkey

    Kellory, I can see your perspective; but arguing that things need to remain as they are because that's the way they have always been, is not a valid argument. That argument would leave us with Jim Crow laws in the southern US, among them the prohibition against interracial marriage. If you take the argument back even further, it brings up even more silly anachronistic ideas.

    Change is hard. Status quo is easy. What is necessary is taking yourself out of your comfort zone and trying to put yourself in the shoes of another. When I listen to one of my gay friends, they don't want to rule the world. They don't want to turn the world upside down. They don't even want a parade. All they want is what you and I have - the chance to have a normal life, and to be treated equally in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of their fellow citizens.

    What they are being offered by many of their fellow citizens is "separate but equal" - "you can have your civil union, but no marriage, that right/rite we reserve for ourselves." "Separate but equal" is a phrase that harkens back to the pre-civil rights days, and it means the same thing now as it did then - crap. If it were equal, it wouldn't need to be separate.

    Most of these folks are just like the rest of us. They go to work, they come home, have a beer, fight about whose turn it was to take out the garbage, argue about the check book, and go to sleep hoping traffic won't be bad on the freeway tomorrow. They aren't monsters. They aren't the leather-wearing, Village People rejects that one sees in some Gay Pride festivals on television. Sadly though, those types are the visions that many conjure up in their minds when they consider the issue of same-sex marriage.

    We shouldn't even be asking ourselves whether we should allow same sex marriage, we should asking ourselves how we came to this stage of our nation's development without addressing this glaring civil rights inequality.
    chelloveck likes this.
  18. azrancher

    azrancher Monkey +++

    I also think this way... however the problem is with the benefits given to a married couple, eliminate the benefits, i.e. tax breaks etc, and make civil union able to inherit their partners estates etc and you've solved the problem, but don't call it marriage.
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2015
    Mindgrinder likes this.
  19. kellory

    kellory An unemployed Jester, is nobody's fool. Banned

    Tuli, I too have gay friends, and even gay family. I know all that. But this in your face, shouting, glaring gay pride crap is an affront, and a daily assault.
    When girls were forced into the boy scouts, it was hailed as equality, when a boy tries to get into the girl scouts it's called a perversion. Call it what you will, but it ain't a marriage. Those rules were set in stone, a long time ago, and they aren't just words.
    Sapper John and NotSoSneaky like this.
  20. kellory

    kellory An unemployed Jester, is nobody's fool. Banned

    Why do we even say "set in stone, or cut in stone"? It is because it implies permanence. It is not really true, because the stone will wear away eventually, but the mean is clear....and the meaning is what matters. Words have meanings. The word " marriage " has a set meaning, and the mesnings behind the words don't change by whim. When words get bastardized, they become, meaning-less, they lose their value, they become polluted.
    (Wez al dun did atall thers todo, soz we's proly derped itall up.) This is not language. It is barely comprehensible, each word has a value and a meaning, and when we start bending words to fit what they are not, or bending meanings to imply what IS not, we are destroying language.
    "marriage" is what it is, a union between a man and a woman, before God, for the betterment of the family, and with the intent of children. Without mating, the ritual is not complete. The ritual determines parentage of children as born of a couple, or "out of Wedlock" and therefore a bastard".
    The announcement of intent to wed before witness, and exchanging gifts "I give my love a packet of pins, and with this gift our love begins" was enough along with cohabitation, to determine parentage, but to convey "coveture" of the wife's bridal portion, (dowry) required the full ritual.
    My point is clear here. Words already HAVE meanings. And those meanings matter. "marriage" is not a stretch to fit one size fits all word.
survivalmonkey SSL seal warrant canary