DescentBB

that whole hyphenation thing gets real clumsy after a few generatons. Names resemble stuff out of Spanish nobility.......

Here's another little bit for consideration.

Canada has had gay marriage legal for ten years. The country didn't self-destruct, we didn't get taken over by north korea, people didn't start to try and marry horses or dogs, and no harems came up... life went on.

so yeah congratulations to america for catching up to the rest of the world.

Actually I think we're doing better than Australia now, which is kind of fun.

So by the basis of this ruling. Based upon the 14th amendment and the constitutional right for me to bear arms. Did the SCOTUS just make it illegal for any state, city, or principality to deny me my CCWP?

interesting question, actually, CUDA. If the court holds to the current(20 year old, or so) interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, no. However, you might be surprised at the outcome of the judicial test, based on Scalia's view that the 2nd does not preclude restrictions on carry or regulation of handguns.

Depends…

Marriage was declared a “fundamental right” but gun ownership is a “protected right” subject to restrictions.

I think we may see a lot of worms crawling out of a lot of cans.

vision wrote:

Spidey wrote:Adopting the name of your spouse is more than just tradition, it serves to solidify the union as well as other legal purposes.

While we are on the topic, I'm against that name-changing business. For too long it has been a symbol of patriarchy. The "tradition" is the man owns the woman and is branded with his name. Sure, you might not think of it that way, but that's the history.

I kinda do see it that way too, and it doesn't sit well with me. Even though these days it's mostly tradition, I still can't help but feel like a woman sacrifices part of herself to the man when she takes up his family name. Back here two-part surnames are growing increasingly popular though.

Xfing wrote:

vision wrote:While we are on the topic, I'm against that name-changing business.

I kinda do see it that way too, and it doesn't sit well with me.

I like the idea of the couple choosing a new name together and both changing it.

Xfing wrote:I kinda do see it that way too, and it doesn't sit well with me. Even though these days it's mostly tradition, I still can't help but feel like a woman sacrifices part of herself to the man when she takes up his family name. Back here two-part surnames are growing increasingly popular though.

Since my maiden name came from my step father adopting me, it was preferable to take on my husband's last name when I married. It sounds better too. Kids used to make up bad names with my adopted name while I was in school, so there was no love lost.

By the way, I didn't know that "religious liberty" is not a "right". I see the new angle religious conservatives are going to take after this decision.

I find it astounding, TC, that some folks are claiming that this ruling infringes upon their religious freedom. If you are a sworn public official, and the nation is founded on a strict separation of Church and State, you HAVE to uphold the law. If that inpinges on your religion, quit the government job. Otherwise, it isn't as if any church has to recognize the wedding if it violates their beliefs, nor do any churches HAVE to perform weddings(already one blatant lie circulated about that in Utah circles a year back and long debunked, by the way). How does this impact anyone's religious beliefs?

It stuns me that they would claim that's the case, while really it is a civil rights issue -- and always has been a civil rights issue.

What's really going on is they're saying 'yes, you can get married, but only if you match what WE think you should match'.

But in ten years' time (or earlier I hope), americans are just going to think of marriage between two of the same gender as no big deal.

Ferno wrote:But in ten years' time (or earlier I hope), americans are just going to think of marriage between two of the same gender as no big deal.

This is already the case.

callmeslick wrote:interesting question, actually, CUDA. If the court holds to the current(20 year old, or so) interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, no. However, you might be surprised at the outcome of the judicial test, based on Scalia's view that the 2nd does not preclude restrictions on carry or regulation of handguns.

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't part of the decision for the right to gays marrying based on the fact 36 states already approved and SCOTUS brought the rest of the states in line? As such, Cuda's point is the same. If the vast majority of states have relaxed CCW then shouldn't the other few be brought in line?

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:interesting question, actually, CUDA. If the court holds to the current(20 year old, or so) interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, no. However, you might be surprised at the outcome of the judicial test, based on Scalia's view that the 2nd does not preclude restrictions on carry or regulation of handguns.

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't part of the decision for the right to gays marrying based on the fact 36 states already approved and SCOTUS brought the rest of the states in line? As such, Cuda's point is the same. If the vast majority of states have relaxed CCW then shouldn't the other few be brought in line?

actually, as stated the right to marry was stated to be a 'fundamental right'. As I noted, you might try and make a case for CCW, but it might be rejected. Even Scalia likely wouldn't go that way.

Your freedom ends where other people's starts. So if taking away your freedom to discriminate impinges upon your religious liberty, then tough luck - the freedom of people you discriminated against comes first.

Why do so many people go that way, anyway? How does not serving gays at a restaurant help maintain your "moral integrity"? so weird.

Xfing wrote:Why do so many people go that way, anyway? How does not serving gays at a restaurant help maintain your "moral integrity"? so weird.

It's a BS argument meant to disguise the fact they find gays "icky".

Twisting themselves into knots, even a year ago. But mark my words, the religious lobby is going for defining "religious liberty" as a right, a codified right to be bigots.

https://www.yahoo.com/music/s/religious ... itics.html

It'll be thrown out before it makes second reading.

First amendment will see to that.

Vander wrote:

Ferno wrote:But in ten years' time (or earlier I hope), americans are just going to think of marriage between two of the same gender as no big deal.

This is already the case.

No it really isn't. Or do you reserve the right to pick and choose which portion of the country is "America?"

Taken as a whole, Thorne, over 2/3 of your fellow citizens accept that fact right now. Less that 20% are opposed to the point of suggesting overturning the ruling. The poster suggesting we're 'already there' may be a tad optimistic, but we're getting there.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Or do you reserve the right to pick and choose which portion of the country is "America?"

Don't we all?

I don't know about that, Vander. I'm pretty inclusive, and don't see where the statement was incorrect.

Real American fallacy. No real American would allow gay marriage.

vision wrote:Real American fallacy. No real American would allow gay marriage.

Interesting twist on no-true-scotsman

vision wrote:Real American fallacy. No real American would allow gay marriage.

Except it was Vander that defined “America” as a group that didn’t include everyone, and ST had every right to take offence.

And then of course you had to twist what he said into something he never said.

Simmer down there. I don't have time to explain comments to you that other people have no trouble understanding.

No need to explain the comment, I already know what it means.

Maybe you should include more context, so us dumb people won’t jump to conclusions…because I’m pretty sure you aimed that comment at ST.

Spidey wrote:Except it was Vander that defined “America” as a group that didn’t include everyone, and ST had every right to take offence.

How dare you suggest I don't speak for every single American.

Vander wrote:

Spidey wrote:Except it was Vander that defined “America” as a group that didn’t include everyone, and ST had every right to take offence.

How dare you suggest I don't speak for every single American.

of course you do, but only on alternate Wednesdays. Tomorrow is Spidey's turn.