Now that same sex marriage has finally been legalized by the United

1. 84

   gmwilliamsposted 8 years ago

   
   States Supreme Court, why ARE there SOME opposed to this basic human right?  What are they REALLY FEARFUL of?   LBGT Americans have the same basic rights as other Americans.  It is about time that people realize this.

   replyreport
   1. 93

      wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Why?  Because their god tells them it's evil.  Because it's different and different is scary.  Because they are repulsed by homosexuality, having a different orientation themselves.  Because they accept the lie that gay parents will raise a gay child, spreading the "disease" and sending the child to hell.  Because they set themselves up as the moral police of the world.
      
      Because it's different.

      replyreport
   2. 59

      Superkevposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I honestly don't care who you decide to marry, I do think the decision, as it has always been, should have been left up to the individual states. I believe this to have been legislating from the bench.
      
      So now gays can go through divorce court, custody battles and division of property just like the rest of us, be careful what you wish for I guess. So I have no real problem with gays being allowed to marry....right now.
      
      The moment they try to force a religious group, business or church to violate their religious beliefs to accommodate them, that is when my tacit support for their new found rights to marry will cease.

      replyreport
      1. 93

         wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         It's all right, then, for states to repress and discriminate against groups the majority don't like?  Races, perhaps, or sexual orientation are just the beginning - is it all right to discriminate (state by state) against women, the disabled, religious groups, even children?
         
         Or are we one nation, with liberty and justice for ALL rather than this group having justice and freedom in Maine and that group only in Alabama?

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Superkevposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Can you tell me the name of the state that was allowing discrimination against people based on race, sexual orientation, disability, religion, sex or age before this decision was handed down on Friday?

            replyreport
            1. 0

               PrettyPantherposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               Um, not allowing gay people to marry is discrimination, so a bunch of them.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Superkevposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Justice Scalia said it best
                  
                  “A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine un-elected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”
                  
                  Prop 8 was put forward in California and approved by a plurality of voters. The courts decided they didn't like that and reversed the will of the voters. They were okay with that, but what happens when a court overturns a vote that the liberals did like? Marriage had always up to this point been the domain of the individual states. What you will see now, as my state is doing, will be states simply getting out of the "marriage business" and everyone, including gays having to do what they already had means to do, enter in to contractual civil unions.   
                  
                  You can be rather agnostic about the whole thing and still say it is horribly reasoned case law, which it definitely is. And, as I said, I will remain agnostic right up until the moment a gay couple, once again, attempts to force a church, business or individual to violate their religious convictions to accommodate them.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     PrettyPantherposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                     If you believe it is acceptable for a business to refuse to serve a homosexual couple because of religious beliefs, then you must consider it acceptable for a business to refuse to serve an interracial couple because of religious beliefs.  In fact, religion was used as an argument against interracial marriage in exactly the same way Christians are using religion as an argument against gay marriage.
                     
                     So, are you on board with allowing businesses to refuse to serve interracial couples based on their religious beliefs?

                     replyreport
                     1. 93

                        wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                        I can see it now: a mixed race couple enters the restaurant and the maitre'D demands either a marriage certificate to some other person than the one they are with OR some other method of proving they are not a married couple.  Same for one race visiting a dying member of another race in the hospital.  Or, as in the SCOTUS case, the state IRS wanting taxes from an inheritance! 

                        replyreport
            2. 93

               wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               Idaho allows housing discrimination of gays when renting a house/apartment.  The proposed law to include sexual orientation in the list of prohibited discriminations went down in flames just recently, which also means you can terminate employment because someone is gay as well.  Before the SCOTUS decision, nearly half the states allowed discrimination of gays in all matters related to marriage - next of kin, inheritance (that's actually what the SCOTUS case was about), insurance, taxes, etc.
               
               Prior to 1967 many states discriminated against blacks for a whole raft of reasons, including inter-racial marriage prohibitions.  Same for sex - individual states controlled whether women could be discriminated against.  The list in nearly endless where a group was free to live their life in one state but not the one next door.

               replyreport
   3. 62

      Moshkaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Now that same sex marriage has been legalized in the United States, they will call for the churches to loose their tax exempt status, to further dismantle the first amendment.

      replyreport
   4. 68

      rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      And now maybe there might be a chance we can get this issue politicians use to side track the election out of the way once and for all. Is it now a non issue? Nah, they will just use it as a moral cry to repeal it.

      replyreport
2. 0

   ahorsebackposted 8 years ago

   Quite simply , I or they don't care if you're gay , maybe it's simply the institution of marriage , one man one woman in our culture , that they wanted protected .    Victory came simply because the states didn't want to foot the costs of  billion dollar law suits.   That's  really  about the the biggest  reason .

   replyreport
3. 70

   Aime Fposted 8 years ago

   I think some people are just really resistant to change. Probably the same people who lost their minds when women were allowed to vote. Any sort of change to the status quo just frightens some people because they automatically think change = bad.
   
   I personally can't see how allowing two men or women to marry each other affects any straight person negatively on any level, so I think it's just a natural response for some. Change is scary for them.

   replyreport
   1. 93

      wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      But...but...Rick Joyner says Katrina (which surely hurt millions of people) was God's judgement against gays!  http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/j … osexuality
      
      (The nuts are always funny, if a little sad that people actually listen to them)

      replyreport
   2. 84

      gmwilliamsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, change is scary for some people. It can be quite unnerving, even immobilizing.  They want things to be the way they are or they want to revert to a "simpler" time where everyone knew their respective or as they are apt to say, preordained places.  This has inspired me to write yet another hub.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         So now we  enter a new age , Someone once said , " a wise man learns more from a fool than a fool from a wise man ", .....I still say five percent of a population making fifty percent of the noise .I mean   Who cares .   Maybe our media , our courts , our political reps , our "leaders " can get on to REAL issues in their jobs  . Maybe accomplish something serious!
         What will gays do now that their not getting so much attention ?

         replyreport
         1. 93

            wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            I'd have to say it WAS a "real" issue to those being discriminated against.  A very serious "real" issue, and should be considered as such by the rest of the nation - discrimination and repression is very real and something to be eliminated wherever possible.

            replyreport
         2. 70

            Aime Fposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Just because it's not important to you/you can't relate doesn't mean it's not a serious issue.
            
            I personally feel much better about raising children in a world where people stand up for themselves when they know they're not being treated fairly. Considering the still very large and unsettling number of hate crimes that are directed at LGBT youth, I think it's a pretty huge deal that one of the most powerful nations in the world has now stepped up and said that they deserve the same treatment as the rest of us. Hopefully that will affect how future generations treat people who are different. My daughter gets to grow up knowing that it's normal for two men or two women to love each other and I'm so, so happy about that. Hopefully that means that if she or one of her friends turns out to be attracted to the same sex, they won't face the same struggles and discrimination as this generation and past generations have.
            
            Though, based on your comment, it looks like some people still don't see the importance of of this issue and will stall that progress a bit, but...can't fix everything all at once, I guess.

            replyreport
4. 82

   psycheskinnerposted 8 years ago

   I think it is odd to say you don't care who people marry, but you support the right of states to ban people form marrying whom they like.

   replyreport