Same-Sex Marriage

So...ok I can see an issue here. But what about the other side? The court rules in favor of the rights of a group of individual and a lot of people cheer. But when others who were against the ruling take a stand then the same group of individual cry shame on them. Ones are willing to give rights to groups of people who ones think were not treated right, but then are very quick to trample on other people who only want their rights. Seems to me if one is going to cheer for one group getting a right, then they should be very careful not to trample on those that also have the right to oppose.

Seems to me by what I read in the news and other places that such a view is NOT accepted, and ones are very quick to run down and trample on the ones who oppose the issue.

For example I am a white man. Now if I say I hate blacks ( which by the way I don't) I am viewed as being prejudice. If I was a black man and said I hate whites hardly anyone notices, as if the blacks have the right to hate the whites but the whites have no right to hate the blacks.

From what I have read and seen on the news all are giving the impression that if one does not accept this current viewpoint in the understanding of marriage one must be prejudice, lacking education or just a complete idiot. That to me is fundamentally wrong.

I believe adults must be given a choice and not be run down or pressured to bring their views into line with general society and that is what I see happening with this issue. This is not an issue of right or wrong, it is an issue of not making the people who choose different than what others believe is right as someone who is wrong or prejudice and should have to change to fit the majority.

I am not speaking about this site in particular, but in general that is the viewpoint out there in the real world.

Out of all the comments we've had so far, only Ryan and (possibly) you have expressed disfavor at the ruling. That's still not very many posters, true, but its the only sample we have.

I also have been around the spankosphere quite a bit, and the attitudes I've encountered regarding gay marriage lean very, very heavily toward the pro side. That may not be true of the LSF as well, but going off of prior experiences I think its safe to assume that it is, particularly for the more active members who are the only ones likely to make their opinions on this topic heard.

If this post gets buried under angry protests from the previously silent majority, I'll know I was wrong.


Not really comparable situations.

Surely this is exactly what the removal of the ban on same sex marriage permits - it permits gays and lesbians to have the same choices and rights as the majority.

For my last word on this subject since I am a Canadian and really have no connection with the SC ruling I will say this and only this.

It is a fact that 4 out of 9 SC Judges voted against this ruling. That tells me there are serious legal questions about this subject, but so many seem to be willing to ignore those questions. From what I read those questions concerned the rights of others, but many choose to ignore that as well.

Second the USA is a democratic country based on the will of the people, but you have individual states who conducted a free vote and now you have over ruled the will of those people and yet you celebrate because you did. Good for those who celebrate, I wonder what happens the next time your state votes on a issue and gets over ruled by people outside the state. I guess many of you think that is fine, unless of course you voted the other way and then how do you feel?

Thirdly you want to give rights to certain types of people of marriage but are willing to take away the right to practice the right also guaranteed in your constitution of every individual being able to practice their religion. You want to force individuals who hold certain jobs to do things against their held beliefs yet you fight for the other side because they believe it is a right to do what they want.

So on one side of the room you have a gay couple who demand a marriage license. On the other side of the room you have a county clerk whose religion says it is wrong and does not want to issue to license. The couple could go to another clerk not under such compulsion but no they want this particular clerk to issue it. The clerk could find another job, but this is his/her living and should not have to give it up especially as we all know jobs are tight. People have rights but it seems many are determined to force the clerk out of his to give to the couple their rights over the clerk. And the worst part is, they do this without a thought about the clerks rights and celebrate doing so. County clerks are just one small part of those affected by this.

Wow people, what happens when it comes down to your rights to have this site and enjoy spanking or being spanked. One day the courts may rule you are wrong and take away that right even though you are adults and have rights. Oh wait...many are willing to give up the rights of the county clerk...I guess such individual rights are not that important.

I think the USA is a great country and I visit often. Whether I agree with the court is neither here nor there as I am Canadian, but as someone who is sitting back not involved in all the hype this is a strange situation. And a dangerous one as the rights of an individual are in danger. Some may think what are a few individuals compared to the whole community of gay people. My friends those individuals may well be you one day so be very careful what you are prepared to give up.

End of my writing about this. I am sure all will live another day and continue on despite what ever happens. May the USA prosper and continue, a great place to live, at least for those people who don't lose their individual rights to practice what they believe in. Oh and please don't get hurt feelings by what I write, just remember what I say when it comes the day you lose your rights as an individual, you may feel a lot different on that day.

CS

For one thing, that argument would hold more water if several of the judges in question weren't blatantly partisan.

For another, the supreme court is designed so that the majority ruling is final. The system was set up with the knowledge that the court will have to take a stand on controversial subjects, and that close votes will sometimes happen.


Except that there's a ton of legal precedent for the federal government doing just that, most famously in regards to the Civil Rights Act. Some powers are reserved for individual states, but it has since been decided that these do NOT include the power to oppress segments of the state's population and deny them the rights and privileges that other citizens enjoy. Since marriage confers legal benefits, including financial ones designed to help with childrearing, barring homosexual couples from getting married constitutes a denial of rights and privileges, and possibly oppression depending on how you define that.

This is exactly the kind of situation where the Federal government is supposed to step in. Just like with black suffrage. If my state votes on an issue in a way that violates constitutional principles or defeats the purpose of having a liberal democracy in the first place, I only hope that the feds will do their job once again.


For one thing, I don't know of any religion in the world that bars its adherents from living in a society where gay people can get married.

For your county clerk example: what if he doesn't want to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple? Should that still be his right? What if he's a xenophobe who doesn't want to issue one to a pair of immigrants? What if he just doesn't like the couple and doesn't feel like marrying them? Should these all be protected by the government? They shouldn't be, and they aren't. This is no different.


Except, we wouldn't be the county clerk in your example. We would be the homosexuals in the states that are trying to fight gay marriage, being discriminated against for our sexuality. The county clerk would be the people who send Februs and Flopsy threatening emails demanding the site to be taken down.

Taking away a bigot's ability to persecute someone else is NOT persecution of the bigot, it is simply equality.


What are a few individuals not getting a ruling that won't really effect them at all, compared to the whole community of gay people getting one that will substantially change their lives for the better? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.


My feelings aren't hurt, though I'm a little annoyed by the smugness of your conclusion. Hopefully you'll still read this, even if you don't feel like writing any more in response.

Oh sorry, I wonder how many people think the same about the 5 judges who voted yes?


Never said to stop them from marrying, only said don't trample on others in order to do so.


What if he/she isn't all those things, what then? Throw them in jail, beat them up. kick them out of their jobs...


And who defines the bigot...you...or some one who disagrees with the court decision?


You make my point...what are a few individuals...just people who can be thrown in the trash heap I suppose. Unless of course you happen to be one of those people.

SNM ---you showed exactly what I am worried about. I don't really care if anyone of any sex gets married to who or whatever, just don't trample on others to do so.

The End

CS

Scalia had a reputation long before this.

And, as I said, a narrow majority is still a majority. The supreme court's ruling isn't de-legitimized by that. You'll note that a narrow majority is also all that's needed for elections, for instance.


I don't understand the distinction that you're drawing. Who is being "trampled" by this decision? And, is there any way to legalize gay marriage that would not "trample" on these individuals?


If a government agent refuses to perform their duties for all citizens because of personal biases, then they get fired. A police officer can't not help you because he thinks your religion is heretical. A teacher can't refuse to accept a student because of their skin color. To allow these things would mean the end of a functioning society.

You're being very silly with the melodramatic "beat them up and throw them in jail" speculation.


A bigot is someone who is intolerant. Not wanting gays to be able to marry is intolerant.

Who exactly is the ruling intolerant of? Who is it bigoted against? Who is going to face discrimination as a result of this ruling? People who don't want homosexual unions don't have to get them. Your rights and freedoms end where someone else's begin.


You're very deliberately ignoring the point I was making here. People who don't want gay marriage aren't being "thrown on the trash heap." They're just being forced to live in a society where people can do things that they don't approve of for personal and intangible reasons. Compare this mild inconvenience with the massive benefit that the ruling allows to homosexuals, and its a pretty clear cut utility equation even without getting into the egalitarian and social justice aspects of it.


Again, please explain how to separate these two.


Kay.

I remember being forced to attend a lecture at school when I was sixteen on the dreadful evils of homosexuality. The lecture was given by a retired senior policeman who castigated the government for decriminalising homosexual acts in private for men over the age of 21. The policeman was obviously a deeply religious man who was utterly sincere in his beliefs but I wondered how he thought he had the right to dictate to other people how they should live their lives. How would he have felt if he was told it was illegal to believe in God?

What it comes down to in the end is personal choice. Love is love after all in whatever shape or form it comes in. Gay love is every bit as valid as a mans love for a woman in my opinion. You are of course free to think what you like but I believe the US government got it right as did David Cameron. In fact I would say its the best, most human thing Cameron has ever done.