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.

[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!

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by 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.

Actually it is generally considered offensive and has a long history of being used as a derogatory slur in the English language. Also most gay/lesbian/bisexual/transsexual/whatever people generally just want the same rights and privileges that heterosexual people have. This doesnt mean that there are not plenty of nutcases within LGBT community, but the same can be said for any grouping of humans.

[mapuc]

Should we lend this Pastor a lighter and some gasoline ?

http://www.hngn.com/articles/103690/...y-marriage.htm

However, a former Baptist pastor from Texas, who is also against same-sex marriage, has taken it one step further - and beyond - by declaring that he will set himself on fire if the Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality.

Markus

[vienna]

Regarding the legal aspects of this decision and a few of the other more recent decisions, one thread has run through all: the Constitution, as it now stands does allow for this decision and the others. If the Right really wants to change or preserve certain aspects of what they view as correct, they should then push to change the Constitution. However, they know they stand very, very little chance of ever getting a sufficient number of votes in the House or Senate to pass legislation to put those amendments to the Constitution before the states for ratification, much less getting three-fourths of the states to approve their ratification. So, they revert to filing endless lawsuits in a Quixotic quest to enforce their narrow 'moralities' on the larger population, in general. The really said thing for them is, in pursuing their lawsuits, the inevitable decisions only serve to further diminish any sway they might have and further push away their goals...


<O>

[vienna]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Should we lend this Pastor a lighter and some gasoline ?

http://www.hngn.com/articles/103690/...y-marriage.htm



Markus

Never gonna happen; the old blusterer will probably claim he was misquoted by the liberal, mainstream media and then wait for his Fox News job offer...


<O>

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

Actually it is generally considered offensive and has a long history of being used as a derogatory slur in the English language.

Exactly.
It does not have the same ''bite'' in Slovene

[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.