So Same-sex marriage is now legal all across America.

[Gikoku]

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

And I find that to be pretty darn awesome! Shame it took so long, but eh what can ya do.

Unsurprisingly homophobes have gone bonkers and have threatened to fly themselves to Mars and whatnot for fear of having their beloved marriages tarnished by gay marriage cooties. Meh, they'll live.

So yeah, thanks Obama (no sarcasm).

 

[queenofdisco]

Get your gay on America, get your god damn gay on.

 

[Quistrix]

Yay for e-koala-ty!

 

[cheezMcNASTY]

I'm finding it hard to celebrate when this is, like, two decades too late.

GOOD for them. Seriously. Celebrate your asses off (okay, you KNOW what I meant). That county clerk in Texas is the worst kind of trash. We should just give the whole state back to Mexico. Reunite the fattest state in the union with the fattest country in the world. WHO'S DOWN????

In other news, the pope declared evolution and the big bang theory as congruent with their belief system.

Apparently it's the year of killing ignorance that's been long overdue. Yay America, yay Jesus, yay beer.

 

[Firis]

My mom brought up a good point, between the Confederate flag controversy and the same-sex marriage thing combined literally dominating the news; what is the Government doing that they don't want eyes on?

Yay America, yay Jesus, yay beer.

My thoughts exactly, super down with the new pope, and super down with same-sex marriage, and I am super super down for beer, I am down to clown with all of it. Tired of riots though.
Bernie Sanders for 2016

 

[Zarkes]

With marriage and sanctity now legal I fear this spells the end of an era for gay bars.

 

[queenofdisco]

In other news, the pope declared evolution and the big bang theory as congruent with their belief system.

Yeah, because screw genesis. Let's pretend that part of the book doesn't even exist.

 

[Gikoku]

I'm finding it hard to celebrate when this is, like, two decades too late.

GOOD for them. Seriously. Celebrate your asses off (okay, you KNOW what I meant). That county clerk in Texas is the worst kind of trash. We should just give the whole state back to Mexico. Reunite the fattest state in the union with the fattest country in the world. WHO'S DOWN????

In other news, the pope declared evolution and the big bang theory as congruent with their belief system.

Apparently it's the year of killing ignorance that's been long overdue. Yay America, yay Jesus, yay beer.

I feel the same, hell this should've been done even further back when the whole nation was in a civil rights movement dance party. But at least it's finally done and done now instead of being put off even further beyond. But there's still a ways to go for everything else, for example in many states you can still be fired from your job just for lovin' male buttsecks. Pssh.

God I love that new pope, each time he opens his mouth he just continues to turn the religious world upside down, he's incredibly refreshing. I just hope that when his time is up, he doesn't get replaced by some out of touch shmuck "Oh yeah kiddies time to bring out the Old Testament, we're goin' Oooold School!"

My mom brought up a good point, between the Confederate flag controversy and the same-sex marriage thing combined literally dominating the news; what is the Government doing that they don't want eyes on?

Wouldn't surprise me, that's usually how it is with them. What have they managed to screw up this time to finally give way to pigs flying and rainbow moons in the sky. "Oh, what's that, Justin Bieber's just been arrested for a DUI? Aww yeaah, ain't nobody got time for dat NSA nonsense!"

But I'd like to think that just once, this was simply a collective act of pure common sense and simple good human nature.

With marriage and sanctity now legal I fear this spells the end of an era for gay bars.

Probably, I'd like to imagine it'll eventually get to the point where gays and lesbians no longer need to have their own damn bars just for a hookup. But instead can go to any bar they want and "get lucky" just like every other straight person out there.

 

[cheezMcNASTY]

I feel the same, hell this should've been done even further back when the whole nation was in a civil rights movement dance party. But at least it's finally done and done now instead of being put off even further beyond. But there's still a ways to go for everything else, for example in many states you can still be fired from your job just for lovin' male buttsecks. Pssh.

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[Albion Knight]

 

[Precipice]

I'm kinda late to this. I hope no one minds.

I don't like the way this was done. I will carry the banner of gay pride in the next parade myself, shirtless and doing my very best techno viking (or as close to that as you can get to YMCA) the whole way, but the way it was done was wrong. The wording in the decision and opinions are so vague and loose and ambiguous, it opens the door to a large number of unanticipated precedents. An example: teacher-student relationships are, on the whole, a bad thing, yes? But if they're two consenting adults, it's okay because SCotUS said so. What's an adult? Well, that language differs from state to state, from context to context. So, a dirty 54 year old gym teacher with his sweaty old man balls, and a 17 year old child, let's say your child, or your brother or sister. They're getting married and it's totally cool.

I don't have a perverse, twisted, demented mind, so that's the worst thing I can think of. But there are some sick people out there who will use this decision to defend some really awful stuff they're doing; that was absolutely not the intent of the justices. I would have much preferred congressional legislation that specifically, clearly, precisely states that this freedom is being expanded to same-sex couples nationwide, as opposed to opening up Pandora's box there.

With marriage and sanctity now legal I fear this spells the end of an era for gay bars.

Well it's been 38 days and I announce with tremendous pride that gay bars are still in business. Best karaoke I've ever seen, and thus far the only positive I've found in moving to Texas.

 

[HobbeBrain]

But if they're two consenting adults, it's okay because SCotUS said so.

My opinion on this whole thing has proven to be quite controversial, but my honest belief is that as long as too people are romantically attracted to one another and have a mutual respect for each others psychological well-being, then who the hell is anyone else to say that those two people can't marry? So I don't see a 54 year old and a 17 getting jiggy with it a problem, provided they satisfy the criteria I said above.

Obviously it's difficult to tell whether the 54 year old is just trying to get with the 17 year old because they want a hot piece of ass and all 54 year old women's asses look like soggy pizza dough (possibly, I haven't looked). But if he did genuinely like the 17, and she genuinely liked him... I don't see a problem.

 

[Quistrix]

Oh Hobbesy, you never change. :lol:

 

[queenofdisco]

and all 54 year old women's asses look like soggy pizza dough (possibly, I haven't looked).

They do, trust me. I know.

 

[Gikoku]

I agree with Mr. Hobbelits, I honestly couldn't care less for however big an age gap there is between two consenting lovers, as long as it's within the legal range of the respective state they're in. 18 year old boy and 90 year old woman banging each others' brains out? Go ahead. Just don't do it in my living room or on my damn front lawn, that's all I ask.

I'm kinda late to this. I hope no one minds.

I don't like the way this was done. I will carry the banner of gay pride in the next parade myself, shirtless and doing my very best techno viking (or as close to that as you can get to YMCA) the whole way, but the way it was done was wrong. The wording in the decision and opinions are so vague and loose and ambiguous, it opens the door to a large number of unanticipated precedents. An example: teacher-student relationships are, on the whole, a bad thing, yes? But if they're two consenting adults, it's okay because SCotUS said so. What's an adult? Well, that language differs from state to state, from context to context. So, a dirty 54 year old gym teacher with his sweaty old man balls, and a 17 year old child, let's say your child, or your brother or sister. They're getting married and it's totally cool.

I don't have a perverse, twisted, demented mind, so that's the worst thing I can think of. But there are some sick people out there who will use this decision to defend some really awful stuff they're doing; that was absolutely not the intent of the justices. I would have much preferred congressional legislation that specifically, clearly, precisely states that this freedom is being expanded to same-sex couples nationwide, as opposed to opening up Pandora's box there.

No worries. Are we talking pedophilia here or just the massive age gap? Teacher-Student relationships are going to always happen as long as there are dirty teachers around to pursue it, this law won't make a difference either way. Besides, what you described can already legally happen in a hetero scenario, the teacher will naturally lose his job afterwards, but as long as the student isn't a minor by the respective state's law... then they're questionable marriage is good to go. Only addition now is that it can happen to be a gay teacher & student.

The lack of specifics I figure was just them assuming common sense, i.e. all the extra legal details are a given so stuff like underage and incest would still be under their own laws.

They do, trust me. I know.

I was gonna ask how, but I think I'll leave it.

 

[Precipice]

the teacher will naturally lose his job afterwards

I understand the intent and spirit of the decision. I'm concerned about the letter of it. Because the wording of the decision and opinions on it is just bonkers, it can very easily be used to protect stuff it wasn't meant to protect which can be a bad thing and very often is. All it takes is a stupid judge, an unscrupulous lawyer and a criminal. In fact, the decision is already being used as a justification/defense for a teacher accused of having sex with a student in a city not far from where I live. If it is successful, the teacher stands to regain her position, as teacher of the student. You can't fire and/or not hire someone for something that's protected by the constitution. Not even talking about marriage. Just swapping of bodily fluids.

I hadn't even thought of incest, but let's flex the definition of the words "adult" and "consent" a little bit and Forrest Gump's girlfriend can get married to her very loving dad, who is always hugging her and kissing her and touching her. Catholic priests hooking up with little boys, Farmer Foghorn Leghorn getting a marriage license for him and his horse, maybe therapists can get in on the action and take advantage of their extremely vulnerable and unstable clients. Definitions get bent all the time. Just ask Clinton. What does "is" mean? I don't know anymore. No one can agree on what adult means, and it's disconcerting how many people have skewed definitions on what consent means.

Edit: Relevant.

Because the Supreme Court is the Supreme Court, their decision overrides any conflicting law in any municipality and jurisdiction. For instance, there's a law on the books in Texas' Title 5 that outlaws homosexual conduct. It's still there, it just has a big line scratched through it because of the 2003 Texas Supreme Court decision on Lawrence v. Texas. But that's just one state that was ready to make a change. When you're going federal, it's a change to all states, all at once, no takebacks and absent state representation or recourse.

I just disagree with the method. Should have been done via legislation. Legislation can and often does get it wrong the first time around but it can be fixed with a revision. A Supreme Court decision is so difficult to overturn, amend, refine or correct, even if the justices wanted to (they don't because that means admitting screwing up), because they need a case brought before them to do so.

 

[Gikoku]

I understand the intent and spirit of the decision. I'm concerned about the letter of it. Because the wording of the decision and opinions on it is just bonkers, it can very easily be used to protect stuff it wasn't meant to protect which can be a bad thing and very often is. All it takes is a stupid judge, an unscrupulous lawyer and a criminal. In fact, the decision is already being used as a justification/defense for a teacher accused of having sex with a student in a city not far from where I live. If it is successful, the teacher stands to regain her position, as teacher of the student. You can't fire and/or not hire someone for something that's protected by the constitution. Not even talking about marriage. Just swapping of bodily fluids.

I hadn't even thought of incest, but let's flex the definition of the words "adult" and "consent" a little bit and Forrest Gump's girlfriend can get married to her very loving dad, who is always hugging her and kissing her and touching her. Catholic priests hooking up with little boys, Farmer Foghorn Leghorn getting a marriage license for him and his horse, maybe therapists can get in on the action and take advantage of their extremely vulnerable and unstable clients. Definitions get bent all the time. Just ask Clinton. What does "is" mean? I don't know anymore. No one can agree on what adult means, and it's disconcerting how many people have skewed definitions on what consent means.

Edit: Relevant.

Because the Supreme Court is the Supreme Court, their decision overrides any conflicting law in any municipality and jurisdiction. For instance, there's a law on the books in Texas' Title 5 that outlaws homosexual conduct. It's still there, it just has a big line scratched through it because of the 2003 Texas Supreme Court decision on Lawrence v. Texas. But that's just one state that was ready to make a change. When you're going federal, it's a change to all states, all at once, no takebacks and absent state representation or recourse.

I just disagree with the method. Should have been done via legislation. Legislation can and often does get it wrong the first time around but it can be fixed with a revision. A Supreme Court decision is so difficult to overturn, amend, refine or correct, even if the justices wanted to (they don't because that means admitting screwing up), because they need a case brought before them to do so.

The system is screwed up no matter which way you slice it. Funny you threw the horse in there though since zoophilia is actually legal in Texas (few other states as well if I recall correctly, including my own). They can have it be vague or have it meticulously specified down to the tiniest detail, and people will still find a way to circumvent it. As has been done countless times. In fact just recently (well, kinda recently) a du Pont family member was trialed for raping his 3-year old daughter and had a mountain of evidence against him, but got away with a simple probation wrist slap with the most illogical excuse possible. I will agree though, the vagueness will allow it to entice whatever morons there are out there even more to try and take advantage of it, but stuff like that is unavoidable. Where there's a will, there's a way. No system of control has ever been perfect.

I guess for them they figured it easier to just give it a blanket stamp of approval, and then clean up the underlying mess later.

 

[HobbeBrain]

They do, trust me. I know.

My mother is 54. I hope that's just a coincidence.

Lawrence v. Texas.

Ever so slightly off topic, but can I just say that I love how in America the court debates are titled as "x vs y"? It makes it sound like this Lawrence guy had a fight with everyone in Texas, which, obviously, is hilarious, and makes both politics and history lessons far more engaging. I remember from one lesson we learned about a case literally called "Brown vs. the United States of America". The US went to war with just one guy? All them tanks and planes and troops trying to scope out a single man? What the hell did he do, punch Abraham Lincoln in the face?!

It's brilliant. So, yeah, thanks George Washington, Obama, or whoever it may be who is responsible for this.

EDIT: Precipice, you have a very lucid and articulate writing style that is a pleasure to read. Hence, receive from me a like.

 

[queenofdisco]

My mother is 54. I hope that's just a coincidence.

 

[Precipice]

Ever so slightly off topic.

Oh I love it too. It's one of the many joys of being an American. Another is making fun of foreigners.

EDIT: Precipice, you have a very lucid and articulate writing style that is a pleasure to read. Hence, receive from me a like.

Indeed. There's something nice about not being confused for white trash. I appreciate the compliment, thank you.