Marriage Equality

Status
Not open for further replies.
james4321 said:
Great to see the USA passing this into law. How much longer until our lawmakers follow suit?
Click to expand...


What happened is that 4 judges out of 7 decided they would decide a change in law, rather than the law makers. So our 'lawmakers' won't be following suit. If you want our 'lawmakers' to follow suit, maybe you want them to follow suit of some US states but not others :confused:


And if we are talking about 'marriage equality', I assume bigamists also get equality? Multiple marriages means multiple equality, right? All sorts of combinations might require 'equality' now.
 
RooFlyer said:
What happened is that 4 judges out of 7 decided they would decide a change in law, rather than the law makers.
Click to expand...

OK I stand corrected about the process - but I'm delighted to see that it is now legal in the USA. Thats what needs to happen here, the sooner the better.
 
can someone please say what this thread is about? Internet searches show all sorts of crazy things.....

Edit: BTW am not in Australia so am not up to date on news there
 
US Supreme Court ruled 4-3 (Correction: it was 5:4) to allow gay marriage, thus over-riding those states where the elected legislators have decided otherwise. Personally, I don't think that that's the way to run a country, but there you go. (Edit: I can see there's many holes in that last argument, but it'll stand for this thread.)

This is sometimes called 'marriage equality' but its actually 'equality' applied rather selectively. As in Animal Farm, some people wanting to marry are more equal than others :) .
 
Last edited:
lovetravellingoz said:
It is USA news

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0
Click to expand...

Just for the record - I don't have any problem with gay people doing whatever they want to - I am very much a "live and let live" type of person.

But this bit confused me:

"Justice Kennedy rooted the ruling in a fundamental right to marriage. Of special importance to couples, he said, is raising children.“Without the recognition, stability and predictability marriage offers,” he wrote, “their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.”"
 
Text deleted after the post it referred to was deleted, else it would be mis-construed.

More reasoned argument by a dissenting judge :

The Members of this Court have the authority and the responsibility to interpret and apply the Constitution. Thus, if the Constitution contained a provision guaranteeing the right to marry a person of the same sex, it would be our duty to enforce that right. But the Constitution simply does not speak to the issue of same-sex marriage. In our system of government, ultimate sovereignty rests with the people, and the people have the right to control their own destiny. Any change on a question so fundamental should be made by the people through their elected officials.”
Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage. The decision will also have other important consequences.

It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. E.g., ante, at 11–13. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.
Click to expand...

Not only Americans it seems.
 
Last edited:
This court ruling has nothing to do with ridiculing illogical conclusions that have nothing to do with the new orthodoxy. how anyone can seriously think, or suggest, this will support people sleeping with animals, or overturn bigamy laws is beyond rational thought. Try actually addressing the issue instead of bringing in rubbish arguments. <redacted>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am not going to debate any abusive comments here suffice to say this: There appears to be fixating on the words 'Animal Farm'. Its a pretty well known book with the concept I mentioned - how some animals are more equal to others. It was an analogy by Orwell to the unequalness in human society. I was using it in turn as an analogy to the use of the slogan 'Marriage equality' which sounds motherhood ... who can argue with equality, eh? However if 'marriage' is between 2 people, then 'marriage equality' should also apply to bigamous situations - John marries Jane, then he marries Susan, then he marries Sarah etc. That would be equality' for John just like it will be for James and Paul.

Where bestiality came from is beyond me. :confused: (Edit: refers to now redacted text.)
 
Last edited:
Struggling to Redeem Your Frequent Flyer Points?
The Frequent Flyer Concierge team takes the hard work out of finding reward seat availability. Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, they'll help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

It's great to see that 'marriage equality' has arrived in the States with this ruling. It's clear what the context of equality is I should think.

[mod hat]

Remember to debate the topic not each other.

[/mod hat]
 
juddles said:
Just for the record - I don't have any problem with gay people doing whatever they want to - I am very much a "live and let live" type of person.

But this bit confused me:

"Justice Kennedy rooted the ruling in a fundamental right to marriage. Of special importance to couples, he said, is raising children.“Without the recognition, stability and predictability marriage offers,” he wrote, “their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.”"
Click to expand...

My bolding. What that means I think is that the judge believes that under traditional marriage laws, unmarried parents have been harming and humiliating their children, presumably since the beginning of time.

Examples of unmarried parents under traditional marriage laws: mother of child who's father has absconded or never stayed with the mother; mother or father of children whose partner has died. Who knew that these classes of parents were so awful?

This is why I don't like judge made law. If they get whacky, you can't do much about it . If elected politicians get loopy, they can be disposed of at the next election.
 
apparently Australia is a democracy ...yet the current leader of this democracy continues to reference his personal beliefs for his reason to not allow same sex marriage...doesn't sound very democratic to me...let the people of Australia decide...I've said my piece..enjoy your day :D
 
Frankly I don't mind one way or the other. What I do think is that there are more important (urgent) issues that need attention. Wasting time on trying to stop this is just silly.
 
samh004 said:
I t's great to see that 'marriage equality' has arrived in the States with this ruling. It's clear what the context of equality is I should think.
Click to expand...

Yes - as far as the US is concerned, it appears to be what 5 unelected US citizens decide, (as opposed to the 4 who thought otherwise). Not being bound by new the US law I believe I'm at liberty to express my own context of 'Marriage Equality' here and not to be abused for it in these forums (not referring to your post there, samh004 :) ) . <redacted>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So much hate in the world I have no issue with allowing couples marry - whatever their gender. I dont understand why we need to check out other people's sleeping partners.

GPH said:
Frankly I don't mind one way or the other. What I do think is that there are more important (urgent) issues that need attention. Wasting time on trying to stop this is just silly.
Click to expand...

But that pretty much applies to all social change.
 
1) but why should bigamy be illegal? If I love 2 people and they love me back, WHO ARE YOU to judge that and stand in our way?

2) homosexual couples do not have children. That is basic biology.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Enhance your AFF viewing experience!!

From just $6 we'll remove all advertisements so that you can enjoy a cleaner and uninterupted viewing experience.

And you'll be supporting us so that we can continue to provide this valuable resource :)


Sample AFF with no advertisements? More..

Recent Posts

Currently Active Users

Total: 932 (members: 36, guests: 896)
Back
Top