4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> U.s. Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage In Every State
Chris S.
post Jun 27 2015, 02:44 AM
Post #1


Learning Apprentice Player
*

Group: Members
Posts: 808
Joined: 3-June 11
From: United States
Member No.: 12.988



Better late than never but a big win:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gay...d8e5_story.html

One of my best friends is gay - and up until now our state prohibited gay marriage - so I am glad that she and her partner can finally have that right now.

We're all one people. There is no black or white, male or female, gay or straight.

We all belong to the same race : humans - and we all deserve equal.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fkalich
post Jun 27 2015, 03:44 AM
Post #2


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.713
Joined: 12-February 07
From: People's Republic of Lawrence Kansas
Member No.: 1.189



It is not about Billy and Tony doing the ceremony. It is a money grab for entitlements, public and private. And America bought it hook line and sinker.

If children were involved I would not object to that so much. But for the most part they won't be. Homosexual couples now will be getting financial benefits both public and private who in now way really merit these, where there is no real justification for it. Marriage benefits have always been rooted in supporting children, not for the couple itself. Yes many married couple have had no children and still reaped financial benefits, but that does not mean it is a great thing to now extend the pool of undeserving who are now on the payout list.

Bottom line, in both the public and private sector, single people are going to be the ones subsidizing the entitlements. Money does not grow on trees. Everybody has to pay their share for these things, in the form of higher taxes and lower wages. But single people will have to pay for them, and they will get nothing back in return. If you are single and you are happy with this, you are more pleased with handing your money out to the undeserving than I am.


This post has been edited by fkalich: Jun 27 2015, 03:44 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Huargo
post Jun 27 2015, 08:32 AM
Post #3


Tone Seeker
*

Group: Members
Posts: 392
Joined: 26-May 13
From: Barcelona, Spain
Member No.: 18.287



Great news!!!! Congrats United States!!


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kristofer Dahl
post Jun 27 2015, 09:33 AM
Post #4


GMC Founder & Rocker
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 14.959
Joined: 15-August 05
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Member No.: 2



Well this sounds like a great step in the right direction.

With all the antagonism gay people have to live with, I can imagine this must be a relief.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mertay
post Jun 27 2015, 11:36 AM
Post #5


GMC:er
Group Icon

Group: GMC Senior
Posts: 2.432
Joined: 27-May 13
From: Turkey / izmir
Member No.: 18.294



Congrats, I hope many other country's follow this big step.


QUOTE (fkalich @ Jun 27 2015, 02:44 AM) *
It is not about Billy and Tony doing the ceremony. It is a money grab for entitlements, public and private. And America bought it hook line and sinker.

If children were involved I would not object to that so much. But for the most part they won't be. Homosexual couples now will be getting financial benefits both public and private who in now way really merit these, where there is no real justification for it. Marriage benefits have always been rooted in supporting children, not for the couple itself. Yes many married couple have had no children and still reaped financial benefits, but that does not mean it is a great thing to now extend the pool of undeserving who are now on the payout list.

Bottom line, in both the public and private sector, single people are going to be the ones subsidizing the entitlements. Money does not grow on trees. Everybody has to pay their share for these things, in the form of higher taxes and lower wages. But single people will have to pay for them, and they will get nothing back in return. If you are single and you are happy with this, you are more pleased with handing your money out to the undeserving than I am.


I think I understand your objective point of view, although I'm not aware of marital benefits in USA system as probably there are many differences to where I live.

The way I see it as an outsider (besides the social upgrade of culture), its similar the laws that try to prevent racism as some of them also require money from tax payers but have been going on for many years.

If you have concerns on fake marriages, I'm sure they'll find ways to prevent it. Here in Turkey we have compulsory military service and naturally some try to play the fake gay card to try and escape this service. But the tests work, from what I heard there is nothing nice about these tests (even humiliating in some ways) but again somehow the system works.

Of course this is a giant but only the first step, I hope everything works fine along the way.

This post has been edited by Mertay: Jun 27 2015, 12:42 PM


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jstcrsn
post Jun 27 2015, 01:23 PM
Post #6


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.641
Joined: 29-March 08
From: kansas, USA
Member No.: 4.733



I don,t have a problem with this at all,not even soo much as having the federal government overstep states sovereignty issue , which has been a big part of the fight . The problem I see is, if it is now a constitutional right, who can deny someone there right ?, right . Unfortunately I believe many religious as well as private organizations will be forced to give up there right to refuse service (on any grounds), is this still a free country?. if you think someone is bigoted or not, I don,t care, they should choose who they want to serve or not. .we have already seen retailers across America being forced to serve . what happens now when tax exempt organizations are forced to loose tax exemptions or serve someone they don,t want to. Like it or not the most efficient (around the globe ) to natural disasters -are religious groups . way faster, better organized , way more effective than any Government. I believe over time ,these organizations will soon disappear , and then our wonderful big brother can step in and manage everything . So I am going to have to agree , in a round about way with Fkalich. Another bait and switch for the American people
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
klasaine
post Jun 27 2015, 02:41 PM
Post #7


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.664
Joined: 30-December 12
From: Los Angeles, CA
Member No.: 17.304



Attached Image


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mertay
post Jun 27 2015, 04:01 PM
Post #8


GMC:er
Group Icon

Group: GMC Senior
Posts: 2.432
Joined: 27-May 13
From: Turkey / izmir
Member No.: 18.294



Seems a lot happened today, saw this on a friends facebook;

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hpho...3c0fd75fcc3d219


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Todd Simpson
post Jun 27 2015, 11:41 PM
Post #9


GMC:er
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 13.767
Joined: 23-December 09
From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Member No.: 8.794



It's about time eh? smile.gif Some folks are still complaining that they are somehow injured by fairness. sad.gif I was glad to see it got voted 6 to 3 on the supreme court but sad to see 3 supreme court justices voting for prejudicial intent.

QUOTE (Chris S. @ Jun 26 2015, 09:44 PM) *
Better late than never but a big win:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gay...d8e5_story.html

One of my best friends is gay - and up until now our state prohibited gay marriage - so I am glad that she and her partner can finally have that right now.

We're all one people. There is no black or white, male or female, gay or straight.

We all belong to the same race : humans - and we all deserve equal.



Well said smile.gif I"m ashamed it's taken this long and ashamed that some folks feel non straight couples should be discriminated against. Being a "Proud Southerner", I take a good bit of heat for believing in the concept of equality. Somehow folks seem to have gotten things twisted.

QUOTE (Kristofer Dahl @ Jun 27 2015, 04:33 AM) *
Well this sounds like a great step in the right direction.

With all the antagonism gay people have to live with, I can imagine this must be a relief.



--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mudbone
post Jun 28 2015, 01:24 AM
Post #10


Learning Apprentice Player
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1.750
Joined: 6-May 10
From: Charlotte, NC (residence)/Boston, MA (home) USA
Member No.: 10.329



Hopefully now we'll get divorce equality.


--------------------


He who laughs last thinks slowest.

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens


Gear:

Guitars: Uncle Rufus' Twanger Classic
Amps: Mississippi Boom Box
Mojo: Hammer of Odin and a pair of Ox gonads
Inspiration: Samuel Adams Boston Lager

Zero to Hero: 1,387/10,000

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Todd Simpson
post Jun 28 2015, 01:48 AM
Post #11


GMC:er
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 13.767
Joined: 23-December 09
From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Member No.: 8.794



Hopefully! smile.gif Here is Stephen Colbert with the Conservative viewpoint!




QUOTE (Mudbone @ Jun 27 2015, 08:24 PM) *
Hopefully now we'll get divorce equality.



--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AK Rich
post Jun 28 2015, 04:01 PM
Post #12


Learning Guitar Hero
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.327
Joined: 10-September 11
From: Big Lake, Alaska
Member No.: 13.839



QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Jun 27 2015, 02:41 PM) *
It's about time eh? smile.gif Some folks are still complaining that they are somehow injured by fairness. sad.gif I was glad to see it got voted 6 to 3 on the supreme court but sad to see 3 supreme court justices voting for prejudicial intent.


It was a 5 to 4 decision. ACA decision was 6-3


While I support the union of 2 people of the same sex being able to receive the same benefits as a married couple. This is in no way, shape or form, marriage. And I believe the court overstepped it's bounds on something that should clearly be left up to the states.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mertay
post Jun 28 2015, 05:48 PM
Post #13


GMC:er
Group Icon

Group: GMC Senior
Posts: 2.432
Joined: 27-May 13
From: Turkey / izmir
Member No.: 18.294



The police didn't let them celebrate at İstanbul Taksim...cause of ramadan ohmy.gif mad.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ben Higgins
post Jun 29 2015, 10:25 AM
Post #14


Instructor
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 13.765
Joined: 11-March 10
From: England
Member No.: 9.820



QUOTE (klasaine @ Jun 27 2015, 01:41 PM) *
Attached Image


Got the horn


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jstcrsn
post Jun 29 2015, 01:15 PM
Post #15


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.641
Joined: 29-March 08
From: kansas, USA
Member No.: 4.733



Lets here your answers people. What happnes when 3 people want to get merried, 3 men, 3 women, 2 men and a girl. Isn't this the logical conclusion , and if so, should their right of "fairness" be trampled on.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Todd Simpson
post Jun 29 2015, 01:23 PM
Post #16


GMC:er
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 13.767
Joined: 23-December 09
From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Member No.: 8.794



I'd vote for any legislator who supports legislation to let people marry and love whomever they choose whether it's by the couple or by the threesome smile.gif It's not the govt's job to tell us who to love or how many.


QUOTE (jstcrsn @ Jun 29 2015, 08:15 AM) *
Lets here your answers people. What happnes when 3 people want to get merried, 3 men, 3 women, 2 men and a girl. Isn't this the logical conclusion , and if so, should their right of "fairness" be trampled on.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
klasaine
post Jun 29 2015, 03:58 PM
Post #17


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.664
Joined: 30-December 12
From: Los Angeles, CA
Member No.: 17.304



There'd probably be fewer breakups over infidelity - ?

We're the 18th country in the world to adopt same sex marriage (marriage equality).
I can not find statics on how many 3 (or more) party marriages have taken place in those countries.

Most likely be some Mormon challenges. Though I don't really think there's gonna be droves of 'party of 5 looking to get a marriage license'.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AK Rich
post Jun 29 2015, 09:06 PM
Post #18


Learning Guitar Hero
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.327
Joined: 10-September 11
From: Big Lake, Alaska
Member No.: 13.839



QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Jun 29 2015, 04:23 AM) *
I'd vote for any legislator who supports legislation to let people marry and love whomever they choose whether it's by the couple or by the threesome smile.gif It's not the govt's job to tell us who to love or how many.


Wait, what? It's not the Gov's job but you would support a legislator who would seek to do just that?
If Gov should stay out of the matter , they should do so altogether shouldn't they?
If it is not the job of Gov to tell us who we can't marry , then how is it the job of Gov to tell us who we can?

For me this is all irrelevant. The institution of Marriage is already defined and no Gov, or panel of unelected and lifetime appointed judges should be able to change that.

As I have stated before. I have no problem at all with the union of two people of the same sex receiving the same benefits as a married couple, but that kind of union is not marriage. And no Gov or Court will dictate to me an altered definition of Marriage.

Folks can do as they want but they should have no expectation that everyone will willingly, or be forced by law to accept it. The morals that we choose to live by are not subject to Gov approval in this matter. If they want acceptance, then let them convince us as they have many people, but do not try to force us to accept it.




--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Todd Simpson
post Jun 29 2015, 10:17 PM
Post #19


GMC:er
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 13.767
Joined: 23-December 09
From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Member No.: 8.794



No. smile.gif I'd support a legislator who would recognize that it's NOT the govs job to decide for us who to love or how many. Legislators make legislation. I'd vote for one who'd make legislation that got them out of the bedroom. smile.gif

It's not the govts job to tell us who we can or can't marry. Also (IMHO) not their job to tell us how many we can marry if we so choose. Thus, I do not support the laws that say multiple marriage partners are forbidden. Hope that clears things up smile.gif

The "Institution" of Marriage as a spiritual construct can mean anything to anybody. In terms of the law, the Institution should be open to all adults no matter what their preference of partner or number thereof, IMHO smile.gif

If you don't want to recognize same sex marriage as marriage, that is your right smile.gif I'd vote to defend it. We have every right to recognize, or not recognize what other people think is or is not "Marriage". But beyond personal recognition......not so much.

Gay folks aren't trying to force anyone to do anything. They don't want to force anyone to marry same sex if they don't want to smile.gif So there's no "force" in the decision. Just a recognition of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness as requisite whether one happens to be gay or straight. One more of the last vestiges of bigotry finally downed smile.gif


QUOTE (AK Rich @ Jun 29 2015, 04:06 PM) *
Wait, what? It's not the Gov's job but you would support a legislator who would seek to do just that?
If Gov should stay out of the matter , they should do so altogether shouldn't they?
If it is not the job of Gov to tell us who we can't marry , then how is it the job of Gov to tell us who we can?

For me this is all irrelevant. The institution of Marriage is already defined and no Gov, or panel of unelected and lifetime appointed judges should be able to change that.

As I have stated before. I have no problem at all with the union of two people of the same sex receiving the same benefits as a married couple, but that kind of union is not marriage. And no Gov or Court will dictate to me an altered definition of Marriage.

Folks can do as they want but they should have no expectation that everyone will willingly, or be forced by law to accept it. The morals that we choose to live by are not subject to Gov approval in this matter. If they want acceptance, then let them convince us as they have many people, but do not try to force us to accept it.


This post has been edited by Todd Simpson: Jun 29 2015, 10:19 PM


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
klasaine
post Jun 29 2015, 11:09 PM
Post #20


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.664
Joined: 30-December 12
From: Los Angeles, CA
Member No.: 17.304



As a freelance musician ... this can only mean more gigs!


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 


RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st January 2017 - 07:20 AM