Homo-marriage ruling just issued by SCOTUS

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Tis on CNN right now.

The gay activists on the TV seem happy.

[CCIP]

Um, isn't "homo" technically a defamatory slur?

[Betonov]

Not really. Just a shortening.
Some may be ofended, but those are usually the: we want priviliges, not just rights group, so who cares.

[CCIP]

I dunno, I've heard both ways, thus wondering. I don't think any of my gay friends would appreciate being called that, though, in the same way black people probably wouldn't appreciate being called a "negro" (which, hey, is just Spanish for "black" anyway, right?)

More to the point, I think it's more than just gay activists who should be happy for a bit of sanity in the country and for taking a dumb political non-issue off the table.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by CCIP

More to the point, I think it's more than just gay activists who should be happy for a bit of sanity in the country and for taking a dumb political non-issue off the table.

Amen, it's good to have some good news on the table. Well done SCOTUS for a sensible ruling.

[Betonov]

My lesbian friend never resented when I called her homo.
Depends on the person really.

And I shall take the chance to congratulate the USA for making a step forward. Everyone should suffer in marriage.

[CCIP]

And sentiment aside, if you read the actual text of the ruling ( http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...4-556_3204.pdf ), there is an important legal dimension to the opinion on Oberfeld v. Hodges that I think is well-argued and only makes sense in the context of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The final paragraph of the opinion, making its rounds on social media, is as follows:

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

It is so ordered.

Emphasis mine. Again, setting sentiment and activism aside, I am not sure there's any constitutional grounds for withholding those rights. And my view is that even if you're not particularly into gay people's own interests, this does help reinforce everyone's equal access to legal aspects of marriage (which affects things like custody and visitation rights, inheritance, taxes, insurance, etc.) which are significant. On the religious side, well, religious organizations have their own right to work out their stance, whatever it is. But I think the legal side here is important to keep level. The opinion outlines that as well:

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.

Of course, not everyone agrees. For example, Justice Roberts, dissenting, has this to say in his conclusion:

If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate
the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.
I respectfully dissent.

[Jimbuna]

I agree with the ruling but my understanding is that it was 5-4 a close thing.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

I agree with the ruling but my understanding is that it was 5-4 a close thing.

9 people, 3 women and 6 men.

2 men for, 3 women for
4 men against, 0 women against.

Take from that what you will.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Betonov

My lesbian friend never resented when I called her homo.
Depends on the person really.

Probably as it was a sapient observation!

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by CCIP

Um, isn't "homo" technically a defamatory slur?

Isn't everything?

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Isn't everything?

You General Topics.

[CCIP]

Then how come we're not allowed to say **** or **** on the forums? :P

[Betonov]

Oh my god, I wish I was a priest in the US right now.

Since religion is still free to chose whether they marry same sex couple in church, a lot of them will refuse.
And I'd make millions by marrying gays.

I can see it now:

Beton church of the blessed immigrant from the Balkans, we marry you, I'll personally talk to God later about it. We accept cash or check.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Betonov

Beton church of the blessed immigrant from the Balkans, we marry you, I'll personally talk to God later about it. We accept cash or check.

Go to Vegas, dress as Elvis and you're sorted.