# Historic week in America!!!!



## geoand (Jun 26, 2015)

I feel good about what has occurred this past week for Americans today and in the future!!!!


----------



## wilma (Jun 26, 2015)

Good week for moving forward...


----------



## am1 (Jun 26, 2015)

Seems like a social issue that should not be allowed on here.


----------



## wilma (Jun 26, 2015)

am1 said:


> Seems like a social issue that should not be allowed on here.



Huh, i was talking about capturing the escaped prisoner...


----------



## Fern Modena (Jun 26, 2015)

Whether you are pro- or anti- this week's court decisions, you must admit that we have seen history in the making these last few days.

Its only "a contentious social issue" if people make it one.

An interesting factoid...today's court decision came on the eve of what is known as "Gay Pride Weekend," when several large cities across the country will have large parades.

Fern


----------



## CO skier (Jun 26, 2015)

Fern Modena said:


> Whether you are pro- or anti- this week's court decisions, you must admit that we have seen history in the making these last few days.
> 
> Its only "a contentious social issue" if people make it one.
> 
> ...





am1 said:


> Seems like a social issue that should not be allowed on here.



Agreed.    .


----------



## wilma (Jun 26, 2015)

Fern Modena said:


> Whether you are pro- or anti- this week's court decisions, you must admit that we have seen history in the making these last few days.
> 
> Its only "a contentious social issue" if people make it one.
> 
> ...




OMG, you should see the San Francisco Bay area today, flags everywhere!!


----------



## am1 (Jun 26, 2015)

Fern Modena said:


> Whether you are pro- or anti- this week's court decisions, you must admit that we have seen history in the making these last few days.
> 
> Its only "a contentious social issue" if people make it one.
> 
> ...



In Toronto as I am sure others they take over the city.  It is very vulgar and should not be tolerated.  I would not bring my kids to the city that weekend.  Public nudity is public nudity and against the law.


----------



## wilma (Jun 26, 2015)

am1 said:


> In Toronto as I am sure others they take over the city.  It is very vulgar and should not be tolerated.  I would not bring my kids to the city that weekend.  Public nudity is public nudity and against the law.



Its only "a contentious social issue" if people make it one.


----------



## am1 (Jun 26, 2015)

wilma said:


> Its only "a contentious social issue" if people make it one.



You did by posting it.  I am for it mostly, but there is no need to post it here.


----------



## wilma (Jun 26, 2015)

am1 said:


> You did by posting it.  I am for it mostly, but there is no need to post it here.



posting what? flags everywhere?


----------



## Passepartout (Jun 26, 2015)

Nothin' contentious as far as I can see. Just the opposite. Witnessing history in the making is sorta wonderful!

What a country!

Jim


----------



## Talent312 (Jun 27, 2015)

Regardless of which side of the issue you are on, it is remarkable how social norms have shifted how in such a brief period of time.  It was less than 20 years ago (1996) that President Clinton signed the "Defense of Marriage" Act. The only other major societal changes that occurred this rapidly in my lifetime were technical in nature --  television (yes, I'm that old), desktop PC, internet and cell phones.

BTW, I am in favor of capturing escaped prisoners, generally.
.


----------



## pedro47 (Jun 27, 2015)

Fern Modena said:


> Whether you are pro- or anti- this week's court decisions, you must admit that we have seen history in the making these last few days.
> 
> Its only "a contentious social issue" if people make it one.
> 
> ...



I Agree This was A Good Week.


----------



## easyrider (Jun 27, 2015)

Obama Care, gender neutral marriage and replacing the stars and bars with the rainbow flag are definitely historic events. 

I think President Obama is the only president I have ever seen on tv singing anything. He did a decent job of singing Amazing Grace at Pinckney's funeral, imo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmRAxJIa0u8


Bill


----------



## CO skier (Jun 27, 2015)

One of the founding principles of the USA is religious liberty.  It is historic when the Supreme Court treads on this.

Every citizen deserves to be treated equally under the law.  "Civil Unions" grants all these legal rights.

Calling it marriage crosses the line of separation of Church and State.

There must have been a better way to achieve these historic changes.


----------



## Laurie (Jun 27, 2015)

CO skier said:


> One of the founding principles of the USA is religious liberty.  It is historic when the Supreme Court treads on this.
> 
> Every citizen deserves to be treated equally under the law.  "Civil Unions" grants all these legal rights.
> 
> ...



Actually there were over 1000 laws where the designation "civil unions" did not grant equality.  That's a misconception.

Also btw, being married in a church doesn't convey marriage legally. There has to be a legal component for any marriage rights under the law.


----------



## CO skier (Jun 27, 2015)

Laurie said:


> Actually there were over 1000 laws where the designation "civil unions" did not grant equality.  That's a misconception.



This could be corrected by the Legislative Branch of our government, as it should have been, instead of the Judicial Branch.

Throughout our history, one of the three Branches of our government always has the upper hand, and it changes from time to time.

Those time, such as during my lifetime, when nine people set the policies of our country, are my least favorite times.


----------



## PStreet1 (Jun 27, 2015)

I think Alan Dershowitz' statement about the supreme court's marriage ruling bears being considered (and keep in mind Dershowitz is in favor of the outcome of the ruling--but not the means):
He argues that the change in the marriage laws was coming anyway; 36 states have already changed.  It is a trend, and within 5-10 years it would have been accepted in the remaining 14 states.  However, having the court actively change laws is a different matter.  "And so the question really is, is this the role of the courts or is this the role of the legislator? This was inevitable. It was going to happen, but is it better to come through the judiciary or is it better to come from the people? *And that's an argument reasonable people can disagree about*."

In regard to the Obamacare ruling, whether you favor Obamacare or don't, the court, in this case, also, legislated, and that isn't its function. The court is supposed to rule on the "correctness" of the wording of the law and whether the law violates the constitution.  In this case, the court should have thrown the issue back to Congress, but didn't because of the consequences to 6.4 million people--which is perhaps a testimony to their kindness, but not a testimony to their judicial roles. 

The social outcomes of these two rulings definitely are matters of opinions/beliefs, and really can't be argued about very well because one's stance on them is so largely rooted in one's basic belief system.  

The role of the court, however, I think a logical issue--much easier to argue one way or the other.  For me, when the court legislates, that puts an un-elected body in charge of making law, and our system of government was designed to prevent either the executive branch or the judicial branch from doing that.  Having a ruling that you support is a high price to pay for altering the constitutional basis of the courts' function.


----------



## taterhed (Jun 27, 2015)

Yup, historic time. 

Maybe one day we'll all treat each other with respect and dignity and not flaunt our biases, religions or prejudices for all to see and hear.  

Yes, that that was a bi-directional comment.  Oops.
That was an equal-opportunity comment.  er...

You get my drift.


----------



## wilma (Jun 27, 2015)

CO skier said:


> Those time (*??*), such as during my lifetime, when nine people set the policies of our country, are my least favorite times.



Yes, the supreme court justices have made many civil rights rulings throughout the years to move the country in the right direction. If not people would still use religious freedom to keep blacks at the back of the bus and out of the schools. It's time to move forward.


----------



## presley (Jun 27, 2015)

What a relief to see some equal rights for once.


----------



## CO skier (Jun 27, 2015)

wilma said:


> Yes, the supreme court justices have made many civil rights rulings throughout the years to move the country in the right direction. If not people would still use religious freedom to keep blacks at the back of the bus and out of the schools. It's time to move forward.



No, that was not what I was referring to.


----------



## taterhed (Jun 27, 2015)

PStreet1 said:


> I think Alan Dershowitz' statement about the supreme court's marriage ruling bears being considered (and keep in mind Dershowitz is in favor of the outcome of the ruling--but not the means):
> He argues that the change in the marriage laws was coming anyway; 36 states have already changed. It is a trend, and within 5-10 years it would have been accepted in the remaining 14 states. However, having the court actively change laws is a different matter. "And so the question really is, is this the role of the courts or is this the role of the legislator? This was inevitable. It was going to happen, but is it better to come through the judiciary or is it better to come from the people? *And that's an argument reasonable people can disagree about*."
> 
> In regard to the Obamacare ruling, whether you favor Obamacare or don't, the court, in this case, also, legislated, and that isn't its function. The court is supposed to rule on the "correctness" of the wording of the law and whether the law violates the constitution. In this case, the court should have thrown the issue back to Congress, but didn't because of the consequences to 6.4 million people--which is perhaps a testimony to their kindness, but not a testimony to their judicial roles.
> ...


 
Nice.  Very impressive post.

I have only one (semi-serious) question in response to your post:  What are we supposed to do when the legislative branch does absolutely nothing at all?  Partisan politics are just killing me.  And that's all I'll say about that.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jun 27, 2015)

taterhed said:


> Nice.  Very impressive post.
> 
> I have only one (semi-serious) question in response to your post:  What are we supposed to do when the legislative branch does absolutely nothing at all?  Partisan politics are just killing me.  And that's all I'll say about that.



We are supposed to vote them out and vote new people in to do the job.


----------



## Elan (Jun 27, 2015)

taterhed said:


> Nice.  Very impressive post.
> 
> I have only one (semi-serious) question in response to your post:  What are we supposed to do when the legislative branch does absolutely nothing at all?  Partisan politics are just killing me.  And that's all I'll say about that.


Exactly.  That's the inherent flaw with a republic - too difficult for the will of the masses to become law.
So the Supreme Court expedited things.  Personally, I'm OK with that.  

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Laurie (Jun 27, 2015)

CO skier said:


> This could be corrected by the Legislative Branch of our government, as it should have been, instead of the Judicial Branch.


How much time and effort would have to be used to change over 1000 laws?

Also, again, marriage is a legal status, conveyed (or withheld) by the government, and not a religious one in any sense of the law. This does separate Church and State, as is the law and intent of the founding of our country.

Now if someone were in favor of eradicating marriage as a legal status altogether for everyone, and using the term "Civil Unions" for all couples' legal rights - then you could have equality under the law.

In that case, again, 1000 of laws would need to be changed, and all married people would have to go get Civilly United for those protections to continue. 

The way it happened was a whole lot simpler, if the goal is equal rights under the law.


----------



## CO skier (Jun 27, 2015)

PStreet1 said:


> It was going to happen, but is it better to come through the judiciary or is it better to come from the people? *And that's an argument reasonable people can disagree about*."



That is my same point.  I agree with the legal outcome, but not that the outcome was determined by the Judicial Branch or the resulting nominal outcome.

This was no slam dunk.  The decision was another 5-4 decision.  The Court is as conflicted as the rest of the country.

Has anyone else on this thread bothered to read both sides of the Court's ruling?  The dissenting judges do not object to the outcome, either.   Their objections speak to what this decision did to the Constitution.


----------



## taterhed (Jun 27, 2015)

dioxide45 said:


> We are supposed to vote them out and vote new people in to do the job.


 
You sir, are correct.

Again, ask a simple question--get a simple answer.

Unfortunately, at this point, I'll be 'writing-in' all my choices.  

sigh.


----------



## Laurie (Jun 27, 2015)

Apparently, Roberts wasn't even aware that marriage legal status can't be granted by a religious institution.

https://youreadygrandma.wordpress.c...ge-cant-legally-involve-churches-or-religion/


----------



## dioxide45 (Jun 27, 2015)

PStreet1 said:


> I think Alan Dershowitz' statement about the supreme court's marriage ruling bears being considered (and keep in mind Dershowitz is in favor of the outcome of the ruling--but not the means):
> He argues that the change in the marriage laws was coming anyway; 36 states have already changed.  It is a trend, and within 5-10 years it would have been accepted in the remaining 14 states.  However, having the court actively change laws is a different matter.  "And so the question really is, is this the role of the courts or is this the role of the legislator? This was inevitable. It was going to happen, but is it better to come through the judiciary or is it better to come from the people? *And that's an argument reasonable people can disagree about*."



I think the big flaw here is that while it is legal in 36 states, how many were legalized due to the legislative process vs the judicial? Perhaps someone has definite numbers? Many of those states where it was legal is because the courts stepped in. In Ohio, it was a constitutional amendment that banned same sex marriage. It was also banned in California by a constitutional amendment before overturned by the courts. So it would have been a long time before it would have changed. I think we would have been a lot farther off than just 5-10 years before it would have been legalized in all 50 states through the legislative or democratic process.


----------



## wilma (Jun 27, 2015)

CO skier said:


> Has anyone else on this thread bothered to read both sides of the Court's ruling?  The dissenting judges do not object to the outcome, either.   Their objections speak to what this decision did to the Constitution.



Yes....But somehow they thought it was ok for 9 people to decide the 2000 election....

My favorite comments were by Justice Thomas: "The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away."


----------



## Passepartout (Jun 27, 2015)

Guess I'll put my 2 cents worth in while I can, 'cause the 'uncontentious' part of this thread is fading fast.

All the decisions this week were made by a divided court. There were NO unanimous decisions. That means that some of the justices came down on both sides. The majority rules. That's why our democracy works. It ain't perfect, but  for 239 years next week it's worked.

We witnessed history. Not all will agree with all the decisions made. There are systems in place to remedy those that in time prove to be either poor choices or unworkable (example-Prohibition). 

But to call discrimination, 'religious rights' is wrong. It isn't religious, and it isn't right.

Jim


----------



## CO skier (Jun 27, 2015)

From the original case arguments:

"Justice Scalia asked whether ministers would be able to refuse to marry two gay men. The answer was that it has to be worked out under state laws. He said, but that could happen ? it could happen that a minister would be forced to marry two gay men, in violation of his beliefs.

"Justice Alito asked, well then why not marry four gay men together? Why just two?"


----------



## SueDonJ (Jun 27, 2015)

What strikes me is the absolute contrast between what happened at the end of last week due in part to a belief that all are not equal, and what happened at the end of this week due wholly to the belief that all are equal.  I much prefer that we, the country, reach inclusionary decisions regardless of which branch is tasked with the process.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jun 27, 2015)

CO skier said:


> From the original case arguments:
> 
> "Justice Scalia asked whether ministers would be able to refuse to marry two gay men. The answer was that it has to be worked out under state laws. He said, but that could happen ? it could happen that a minister would be forced to marry two gay men, in violation of his beliefs.
> 
> "Justice Alito asked, well then why not marry four gay men together? Why just two?"



But don't you find it difficult to believe that a couple wanting to be married would force the issue from an officiant, religious or laity, who would publicly denounce their union?  Marriage is such a personal thing, such a wondrously happy thing, that it seems a preposterous idea for a couple to not invite the services of an officiant who is as happy about the marriage as they are.

The point being, nobody needs to worry about being forced to perform when there are millions of officiants who would be delighted to be included.

The other thing, the thing about marrying four men?  That's just obfuscation, same as the marrying animals thing, the marrying pedophiles and children thing, the marrying your sister thing ... all nonsense arguments that serve only to detract from the "two consenting adults should be able to marry each other" single issue at hand.


----------



## CO skier (Jun 27, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> The point being, nobody needs to worry about being forced to perform when there are millions of officiants who would be delighted to be included.



I am sure that there will be those who will force the issue on conservative ministers for no other reason than to make the 5 o'clock news.


----------



## Passepartout (Jun 27, 2015)

There will be things to work out. The florists, the bakers, the wedding planners, the officiants. It will work out. As it is now, businesses who choose to advertise services are subject to 'equal accommodation'. If they plan weddings, bake the cake, provide flowers for one, they cannot discriminate. I was reading the comments from around our community in this morning's fishwrapper. Predictably, a local Southern Baptist minister said he wouldn't be performing same-sex weddings. We'll see.

I like that we have a new name for same-sex weddings.

*WEDDINGS.* They're ALL the same.

Jim


----------



## geoand (Jun 27, 2015)

CO skier said:


> That is my same point.  I agree with the legal outcome, but not that the outcome was determined by the Judicial Branch or the resulting nominal outcome.
> 
> This was no slam dunk.  The decision was another 5-4 decision.  The Court is as conflicted as the rest of the country.
> 
> Has anyone else on this thread bothered to read both sides of the Court's ruling?  The dissenting judges do not object to the outcome, either.   Their objections speak to what this decision did to the Constitution.



The Court ruled not so many years ago that who can marry who is not a State issue.  The Court ruled that interracial marriages can not be banned.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jun 27, 2015)

CO skier said:


> I am sure that there will be those who will force the issue on conservative ministers for no other reason than to make the 5 o'clock news.



You may be right - idiots may well present themselves as idiots no matter what we're talking about.  But I don't think they'll be supported from the majority within or outside their singular communities.  I will say, if/when any idiots present themselves then I'll say they're idiots and support the officiant's right to practice according to his/her own belief system.


----------



## Passepartout (Jun 27, 2015)

wilma said:


> My favorite comments were by Justice Thomas: "The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. *The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.*"



This was so full of crap! These comments from someone who until 1967 and the Supreme Court decision in Loving v Virginia, couldn't marry the (white) woman he married. 

Read more here if interested: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/26/clarence-thomas-gay-marriage_n_7672858.html

Jim


----------



## SMHarman (Jun 27, 2015)

Passepartout said:


> There will be things to work out. The florists, the bakers, the wedding planners, the officiants. It will work out. As it is now, businesses who choose to advertise services are subject to 'equal accommodation'. If they plan weddings, bake the cake, provide flowers for one, they cannot discriminate. I was reading the comments from around our community in this morning's fishwrapper. Predictably, a local Southern Baptist minister said he wouldn't be performing same-sex weddings. We'll see.
> 
> I like that we have a new name for same-sex weddings.
> 
> ...


Not true. Gay weddings have a far higher budget usually. 

In a prior life I sold wedding invitations. This statement is backed by hard data.


----------



## DaveNV (Jun 27, 2015)

I don't intend to step too deeply into this discussion because I have very strong opinions about the topic.  But I wanted to share this:

I have been officiating weddings for nearly ten years.  I was ordained by a nondenominational church specifically so I could be available to people who wanted a nonjudgmental person to do their ceremony. I can't tell you how many couples have asked me to officiate for them because they didn't know who else to ask. Even if they didn't know what kind of ceremony they wanted, every couple had definite ideas of what they didn't want.  My task was to deliver it.

I've done weddings of all types, from simple two-people-and-a-witness ceremonies to extravagant events with hundreds of people present.  Some couples were particularly religious, but felt uncomfortable having a truly religious ceremony.  Others were decidedly non-religious, and didn't want a stranger preaching to them at such a personal occasion. I've done both straight and gay weddings, and they are surprisingly similar events.

At the end of the day, regardless of how the couple was constructed, their political or religious leanings, or the extent of the event, it was all about joining a loving couple together in legal matrimony, to solemnize their committed personal relationship.  I felt privileged to help give them the same legal rights every other married couple has.

Performing my brother's wedding on a beach in Hawaii a few weeks ago, where he finally married the love of his life, a lovely woman he has adored for thirty years, was the most emotional part of this journey for me.

Marriage is about love, not about politics.

Dave


----------



## Elan (Jun 27, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> You may be right - idiots may well present themselves as idiots no matter what we're talking about.  But I don't think they'll be supported from the majority within or outside their singular communities.  I will say, if/when any idiots present themselves then I'll say they're idiots and support the officiant's right to practice according to his/her own belief system.


Well said.  I think most of us who support the SC's decision feel the same way.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Luanne (Jun 27, 2015)

BMWguynw said:


> Marriage is about love, not about politics.
> 
> Dave



Well said.


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Jun 27, 2015)

As an officer of the court, I would always, always shake my head at the injustice of allowing incarcerated felons, including mass murderers, the right to be married, but not law-abiding, taxpaying, good-deed-doing, same-sex couples. I just could never wrap my mind around that.

Fortunately, living in Massachusetts solved that SMH problem back in 2004.

Now I can celebrate for all.


Well played, SCOTUS.


-


----------



## taterhed (Jun 27, 2015)

BMWguynw said:


> I don't intend to step too deeply into this discussion because I have very strong opinions about the topic. But I wanted to share this:
> 
> ....
> 
> ...


 
Well said.  

Only one thing is sure...things continue to change and evolve.
Interesting times.


----------



## rleigh (Jun 27, 2015)

"It's only a contentious social issue if people make it one" ?

You can say that about all contentious social issues, and yes this thread very much is, as these topics have been controversial for a long time, since the building of this country and long before.

It includes the Big Three noted in the rules: politics, religion, and controversial social issues. 

One of them being states rights. Ask the founding fathers if this was a controversial issue.

I find it weird that most of America is ignoring that as an issue.

One of the things that bothers me about this all is the arrogance. Like everyone is supposed to be celebrating both decisions, and /$&@! those who aren't because that's what everyone is "supposed" to think. Guess what? Not everyone agrees, and for a variety of reasons, and that doesn't make them ignorant, cold-hearted, backwards, etc.

That is what makes it a controversial social issue.


----------



## rleigh (Jun 27, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> But don't you find it difficult to believe that a couple wanting to be married would force the issue from an officiant, religious or laity, who would publicly denounce their union?  Marriage is such a personal thing, such a wondrously happy thing, that it seems a preposterous idea for a couple to not invite the services of an officiant who is as happy about the marriage as they are.
> 
> The point being, nobody needs to worry about being forced to perform when there are millions of officiants who would be delighted to be included.



I have heard this argument before and I don't understand it, considering we've already seen it take place with the florist and bakery cases. The florist in Washington lost her court case and the judge's ruling declared something to the effect that she had to give 100 percent support by being at the wedding, working with all wedding party members, etc. As with the bakery cases, these were long-time customers. The vendors never refused before, only for the weddings, which they saw as supporting such a union would be against their religion.




SueDonJ said:


> The other thing, the thing about marrying four men?  That's just obfuscation, same as the marrying animals thing, the marrying pedophiles and children thing, the marrying your sister thing ... all nonsense arguments that serve only to detract from the "two consenting adults should be able to marry each other" single issue at hand.



Again, another argument I don't understand. How can the polygymy question not be considered? Polygymists use the exact same arguments that homosexuals do. How is it not the same? I'm not just talking the religious "cults," but also secular threesome-and foursomes who just want this same thing. How is it not a legitimate argument?


----------



## rleigh (Jun 27, 2015)

Passepartout said:


> There will be things to work out. The florists, the bakers, the wedding planners, the officiants. It will work out. As it is now, businesses who choose to advertise services are subject to 'equal accommodation'. If they plan weddings, bake the cake, provide flowers for one, they cannot discriminate. I was reading the comments from around our community in this morning's fishwrapper. Predictably, a local Southern Baptist minister said he wouldn't be performing same-sex weddings. We'll see.
> 
> I like that we have a new name for same-sex weddings.
> 
> ...



The problem with the bakery and florist cases was that they weren't discriminating because they were gay. They were both long-time customers of the vendors and they served them knowing they were gay. The problem came in when they wanted to be of service and a part of celebrating something that is against their religions, and they saw that doing so would be a sin they, the vendors themselves, were commiting. 

It wasn't that they were making a stand or discriminating because they thought the homosexuals were sinning; they saw it as they themselves would be.

In the Washington florist case, the judge who ruled against the florist said she had to take part 100 percent and give full support to all wedding party members and be there at the wedding the whole time.


----------



## Passepartout (Jun 27, 2015)

Many Conservative and religious groups are seeking exemptions to the marriage equality law. Yes, there will be court cases, but it will all sort out. There is a difference between holding ones words and thoughts within, and sharing them openly. If one is in business to serve one group, the law says that they must serve all people equally.

If you care to read a synopsis of several political and religious groups' pleas, here is an article from the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/u...ps-seek-exemptions-after-same-sex-ruling.html

Remember, there was a time in America when no interracial marriages were legal, and people of African descent were considered 3/5 of a human. We've moved on as a country, and will continue to grow in equality.


----------



## TTom (Jun 27, 2015)

*We're growing up!*

I must say, having read the entire thread, that the level of restraint being exercised on both sides is pretty remarkable.

There was a time when a thread like this would not have remained open more than about 15 minutes.

It is a testament to the maturity of the participants of this discussion, which is clearly controversial and which is really against the published TUG rules. that the discussion is allowed to continue.

Perhaps, TUGGERs are growing up and can now agree to disagree without becoming unpleasant. We are a part of the changing world. Let's change with it!

Thanks to you all for your input!

Tom


----------



## Clemson Fan (Jun 27, 2015)

CO skier said:


> I am sure that there will be those who will force the issue on conservative ministers for no other reason than to make the 5 o'clock news.



There's no way a conservative minister will be forcefully compelled to perform a gay marriage.  Catholic priests will only marry members of the Catholic Church.  Muslims will only marry Muslims, etc. etc.  Any religion (Muslim, Catholic, Southern Baptist, etc. etc.) will still be allowed to practice their religion however they see fit including refusing to perform gay marriages.


----------



## Ken555 (Jun 27, 2015)

Clemson Fan said:


> There's no way a conservative minister will be forcefully compelled to perform a gay marriage.  Catholic priests will only marry members of the Catholic Church.  Muslims will only marry Muslims, etc. etc.  Any religion (Muslim, Catholic, Southern Baptist, etc. etc.) will still be allowed to practice their religion however they see fit including refusing to perform gay marriages.




Exactly. A little common sense goes a long way in these types of discussions.


Sent from my iPad


----------



## SueDonJ (Jun 27, 2015)

Clemson Fan said:


> There's no way a conservative minister will be forcefully compelled to perform a gay marriage.  Catholic priests will only marry members of the Catholic Church.  Muslims will only marry Muslims, etc. etc.  Any religion (Muslim, Catholic, Southern Baptist, etc. etc.) will still be allowed to practice their religion however they see fit including refusing to perform gay marriages.



34 years ago two of the four in-residence priests at my Boston Catholic church refused to officiate at mine and Don's wedding because Don is Protestant.  And the other two would only do it if we attended pre-cana instruction (before it became a requirement) and agreed to having only a wedding ceremony and not a Mass.

Every time I hear someone say that a religious or lay person can be forced to officiate at any type of service despite their personal beliefs, I wonder how it can be true, what it is that's different now from when I got married.

I understand somewhat the rational that business owners (florists, caterers, etc) shouldn't be able to discriminate.  I don't at all understand forcing an officiant to act against his/her own beliefs regardless of the situation.  Isn't that the purpose of the law, extending the right to make a decision for oneself based on personal beliefs and regardless of its inconsequential impact on others??


----------



## Fern Modena (Jun 27, 2015)

The reason I said "It's only a contentious social issue if people make it one" is because _the rules of this bulletin board_ exclude contentious social issues. It is possible to discuss the rulings of this week without nasty discourse, and being argumentative, and that is what I am/was advocating. To do otherwise is to risk getting this thread shut down.

Fern



rleigh said:


> "It's only a contentious social issue if people make it one" ?
> 
> You can say that about all contentious social issues, and yes this thread very much is, as these topics have been controversial for a long time, since the building of this country and long before.
> 
> ...


----------



## Clemson Fan (Jun 27, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> Every time I hear someone say that a religious or lay person can be forced to officiate at any type of service despite their personal beliefs, I wonder how it can be true



That's because it's not true.  While all states are now legally compelled to allow gay marriage, that won't extend down to every religious figure that performs marriages.  They'll still be allowed to enjoy their own personal freedom of religion.  Catholic priests aren't compelled to marry Muslims and vice versa.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jun 27, 2015)

rleigh said:


> The problem with the bakery and florist cases was that they weren't discriminating because they were gay. They were both long-time customers of the vendors and they served them knowing they were gay. The problem came in when they wanted to be of service and a part of celebrating something that is against their religions, and they saw that doing so would be a sin they, the vendors themselves, were commiting.
> 
> It wasn't that they were making a stand or discriminating because they thought the homosexuals were sinning; they saw it as they themselves would be.
> 
> In the Washington florist case, the judge who ruled against the florist said she had to take part 100 percent and give full support to all wedding party members and be there at the wedding the whole time.



This sounds more like a situation of a overzealous judge. No florist providing a service for a heterosexual couples wedding would have to participate in 100% and give full support. In many cases people pick up the flowers, they are not even delivered.

I really don't understand why someone would think that providing a service, be it a cake or flowers would somehow be supporting something against their religion. They are selling a product or service. What is the difference between selling someone cupcakes for their date night vs selling a cake for a same sex marriage? I would think that the service provider is making it something more than it is to try to prove their own point?


----------



## am1 (Jun 27, 2015)

dioxide45 said:


> I really don't understand why someone would think that providing a service, be it a cake or flowers would somehow be supporting something against their religion. They are selling a product or service. What is the difference between selling someone cupcakes for their date night vs selling a cake for a same sex marriage? I would think that the service provider is making it something more than it is to try to prove their own point?



I would side with if people do not want to do something they should not be forced to do it.  Just like in most cases if people want to do something they should be able to do it if it does not affect others negatively.  

I am okay with people being for and against gay marriage if thats what they feel is right.


----------



## rleigh (Jun 27, 2015)

I second that this is a great discussion; informative too.





dioxide45 said:


> This sounds more like a situation of a overzealous judge. No florist providing a service for a heterosexual couples wedding would have to participate in 100% and give full support. In many cases people pick up the flowers, they are not even delivered.
> 
> I really don't understand why someone would think that providing a service, be it a cake or flowers would somehow be supporting something against their religion. They are selling a product or service. What is the difference between selling someone cupcakes for their date night vs selling a cake for a same sex marriage? I would think that the service provider is making it something more than it is to try to prove their own point?



Yes it was that judge's specific orders that had me thinking he overstepped. As for other "sins," I agree there are lots of points that can be thrown in there, ie a cake for a divorce party, etc. I think the law says they must show consistency to prove it's a true belief? Not sure. The law is sorta loophole-y and gray with these cases anyway.


----------



## Passepartout (Jun 27, 2015)

rleigh said:


> Yes it was that judge's specific orders that had me thinking he overstepped. As for other "sins," I agree there are lots of points that can be thrown in there, ie a cake for a divorce party, etc. I think the law says they must show consistency to prove it's a true belief? Not sure. The law is sorta loophole-y and gray with these cases anyway.



Now there is such a thing as a church being forced to marry anyone. No Catholic priest is forced to marry 2 protestants- or even one and a Catholic. See Post 55. No Mormon Bishop is forced to marry 2 Muslims. Gay or straight. No Southern Baptist is forced to marry two women.

But if someone is providing a good or service, they must provide it equally for all potential customers- not based on discrimination. In most states, for example, if someone wants to buy a (cake- or anything). The seller must sell it to them- UNLESS there is a non-discriminatory reason. They can refuse the sale if the person is filthy, smelly, demanding, drunk, or any number of reasons. But they cannot refuse the sale because the potential buyer is Black, Latino, is Polish, Nazi, or MUSLIM. (Race, creed, color, Nat'l origin or religion) In my state, the words '*or sexual orientation*' have not been added to the anti-discrimination laws. Yet. We have hope that the legislature will take heed that these 3 words are important, necessary and truly the will of the people, but it's Idaho. And the wheels of Justice grind slowly.

Jim


----------



## SMHarman (Jun 27, 2015)

^ you reminded me of this link. 

http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/a-30-second-guide-to-how-gay-marriage-ruling-affects-you/


----------



## dioxide45 (Jun 27, 2015)

am1 said:


> I would side with if people do not want to do something they should not be forced to do it.  Just like in most cases if people want to do something they should be able to do it if it does not affect others negatively.
> 
> I am okay with people being for and against gay marriage if thats what they feel is right.



I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with that, however if someone wishes to not do business with people for any reason they should have to disclose that when they advertise said goods or services. That way ALL potential customers can make an informed decision about who they too are willing to do business with.


----------



## CO skier (Jun 27, 2015)

TTom said:


> I must say, having read the entire thread, that the level of restraint being exercised on both sides is pretty remarkable.


There are more than two sides to the Court's ruling, and that is where so many people are so uninformed.

Most people want to cast and align this as "pro" or "anti" gay marriage.  This is insignificant compared to the real issue.  The third, and really the only, important issue is that the Supreme Court essentially legislated the definition of Marriage for all Americans, against the will of a number of States whose citizens had spoken through their State Legislatures.  Our founding fathers would be aghast; they would not care a whit about the specific issue, they would object to how casually the Court dismissed the Constitution in this issue.


----------



## Passepartout (Jun 27, 2015)

Well, it's that we are the UNITED States. It's as important for uniformity in laws as for the Constitution (Which Roberts said this law isn't about). The issue of equality HAS to be nationwide. Your marriage should be valid in Hawaii, Colorado, New Jersey and everywhere else. My Scottish marriage is valid worldwide. US and State laws have recognized marriage licenses issued and performed worldwide for hetero couples. Equality DEMANDS that the same recognition be extended to ALL married couples. The U.S. had achieved 34 states allowing all couples to marry. The Court simply added the last remaining 16 and the territories.

This is NOT a big deal. It's just marriage. Nothing to fear from people who love one another being able to marry and that marriage being recognized like any other one.

If you are hetero, and don't want to marry someone of the same sex, no worrys. No one will force you to do so.


----------



## geoand (Jun 27, 2015)

CO skier said:


> There are more than two sides to the Court's ruling, and that is where so many people are so uninformed.
> 
> Most people want to cast and align this as "pro" or "anti" gay marriage.  This is insignificant compared to the real issue.  The third, and really the only, important issue is that the Supreme Court essentially legislated the definition of Marriage for all Americans, against the will of a number of States whose citizens had spoken through their State Legislatures.  Our founding fathers would be aghast; they would not care a whit about the specific issue, they would object to how casually the Court dismissed the Constitution in this issue.



The Court had previously taken action in removing the ban on interracial marriages.  Several States had to remove their legislation forbidding this.  The current decision is no more or no less.

In fact the Court has taken action in several areas and declared laws in States as unconstitutional.  Many States had to change their laws on the death penalty.  Those laws were in the books but yet the Court has seen fit to tell the States they must change their laws.

Just because a law is in the books and had been there for years and at the will of the people does not make that law constitutionally sound.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Jun 28, 2015)

CO skier said:


> There are more than two sides to the Court's ruling, and that is where so many people are so uninformed.
> 
> Most people want to cast and align this as "pro" or "anti" gay marriage.  This is insignificant compared to the real issue.  The third, and really the only, important issue is that the Supreme Court essentially legislated the definition of Marriage for all Americans, against the will of a number of States whose citizens had spoken through their State Legislatures.  Our founding fathers would be aghast; they would not care a whit about the specific issue, they would object to how casually the Court dismissed the Constitution in this issue.



I think you're a little uninformed about the genius of how the founding fathers created our government.  It's a 3 branch system (legislative, executive and judicial) and there are checks and balances where no single branch holds all the power.  The Supreme Court was well within their constitutional powers to do what they did.

For the record, I actually voted against same sex marriage whenever it was put on a ballot I was voting on.  It wasn't a big issue for me, but that's how I did vote.  I guess I'm just not a big fan of some of the gay rights parades I've witnessed first hand.


----------



## Stressy (Jun 28, 2015)

BMWguynw said:


> I don't intend to step too deeply into this discussion because I have very strong opinions about the topic.  But I wanted to share this:
> 
> I have been officiating weddings for nearly ten years.  I was ordained by a nondenominational church specifically so I could be available to people who wanted a nonjudgmental person to do their ceremony. I can't tell you how many couples have asked me to officiate for them because they didn't know who else to ask. Even if they didn't know what kind of ceremony they wanted, every couple had definite ideas of what they didn't want.  My task was to deliver it.
> 
> ...



You know how you have "read" posters for years and have never met them?  You form the voice you have assigned them in your head...and you might even imagine what they look like...and this takes the form of your imagination every time you read their posts?

YOU, Sir, are one of the kindest and most gentle people I have ever "read" and no second banana is Jim. Passepartout. Keep doing your thing. Both of you!


----------



## laura1957 (Jun 28, 2015)

Stressy said:


> You know how you have "read" posters for years and have never met them?  You form the voice you have assigned them in your head...and you might even imagine what they look like...and this takes the form of your imagination every time you read their posts?
> 
> YOU, Sir, are one of the kindest and most gentle people I have ever "read" and no second banana is Jim. Passepartout. Keep doing your thing. Both of you!



So true!! Certain posters I always look forward to reading.


----------



## laura1957 (Jun 28, 2015)

Clemson Fan said:


> I think you're a little uninformed about the genius of how the founding fathers created our government.  It's a 3 branch system (legislative, executive and judicial) and there are checks and balances where no single branch holds all the power.  The Supreme Court was well within their constitutional powers to do what they did.
> 
> For the record, I actually voted against same sex marriage whenever it was put on a ballot I was voting on.  It wasn't a big issue for me, but that's how I did vote.  I guess I'm just not a big fan of some of the gay rights parades I've witnessed first hand.



I am fairly certain that I would never want to see a gay rights parade - just by what I have read/heard about them. Same way I would not want to attend the mardi gras parades I have heard about.....gay/straight - both seem a little too crazy for me 

But I am thrilled for the couples I know who have been in love for decades...


----------



## 1950bing (Jun 28, 2015)

Mankind continues to fall further away


----------



## Jason245 (Jun 28, 2015)

CO skier said:


> One of the founding principles of the USA is religious liberty.  It is historic when the Supreme Court treads on this.
> 
> Every citizen deserves to be treated equally under the law.  "Civil Unions" grants all these legal rights.
> 
> ...


Given your statement, you appear to have been ignorant of the prior laws. Given that all this is a mute point,  I won't bother to respond in a way other than that it is all a mute point since the courts have ruled.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk


----------



## Jason245 (Jun 28, 2015)

dioxide45 said:


> I think the big flaw here is that while it is legal in 36 states, how many were legalized due to the legislative process vs the judicial? Perhaps someone has definite numbers? Many of those states where it was legal is because the courts stepped in. In Ohio, it was a constitutional amendment that banned same sex marriage. It was also banned in California by a constitutional amendment before overturned by the courts. So it would have been a long time before it would have changed. I think we would have been a lot farther off than just 5-10 years before it would have been legalized in all 50 states through the legislative or democratic process.


Well start with the first one (court order) and work your way down.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk


----------



## Jason245 (Jun 28, 2015)

CO skier said:


> From the original case arguments:
> 
> "Justice Scalia asked whether ministers would be able to refuse to marry two gay men. The answer was that it has to be worked out under state laws. He said, but that could happen ? it could happen that a minister would be forced to marry two gay men, in violation of his beliefs.
> 
> "Justice Alito asked, well then why not marry four gay men together? Why just two?"


People get married at the court house all the time. Ministers can refuse to perform services the same as Muslim imams can refuse to perform Jewish weddings if they want.  

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk


----------



## Conan (Jun 28, 2015)

It's always been interesting to me that although a U.S. Supreme Court decision sets precedent, the Court can only take on a case like this when an individual comes to them with an actual instance of injustice. Here are some of the human stories in the case.

Quoting from the Opinion of the Court:

                     Recounting the circumstances of three of these cases illustrates the urgency of the petitioners' cause from their perspective. Petitioner  James Obergefell, a plaintiff in the  Ohio case, met John Arthur over two decades ago. They fell in love and started a life together, establishing a lasting, committed relation. In 2011, however, Arthur was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS. This debilitating disease is progressive, with no known cure. Two years ago, Obergefell and Arthur decided to commit to one another, resolving to marry before Arthur died. To fulfill their mutual promise, they traveled Ohio to Maryland, where same-sex marriage was legal. It was difficult for Arthur to move, and so the couple were wed inside a medical transport plane as it remained on the tarmac in Baltimore. Three months later, Arthur died. Ohio law does not permit Obergefell to be listed as the surviving spouse on Arthur's death certificate. By statute, they must remain strangers even in death, a state-imposed separation Obergefell deems "hurtful for the rest of time." He brought suit to be shown as the surviving spouse on Arthur's death certificate. 

  April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse are co-plaintiffs in the case from Michigan. They celebrated a commitment ceremony to honor their permanent relation in 2007. They both work as nurses, DeBoer in a neonatal unit and Rowse in an emergency unit. In 2009, DeBoer and Rowse fostered and then adopted a baby boy. Later that same year, they welcomed another son into their family. The new baby, born prematurely and abandoned by his biological mother, required around-the-clock care. The next year, a baby girl with special needs joined their family. Michigan, however, permits only opposite-sex married couples or single individuals to adopt, so each child can have only one woman as his or her legal parent. If an emergency were to arise, schools and hospitals may treat the three children as if they had only one parent. And, were tragedy to befall either DeBoer or Rowse, the other would have no legal rights over the children she had not been permitted to adopt. This couple seeks relief from the continuing uncertainty their unmarried status creates in their lives. 

  Army Reserve Sergeant First Class Ijpe DeKoe and his partner Thomas Kostura, co-plaintiffs in the Tennessee case, fell in love. In 2011, DeKoe received orders to deploy to Afghanistan. Before leaving, he and Kostura married in New York. A week later, DeKoe began his deployment, which lasted for almost a year. When he returned, the two settled in Tennessee, where DeKoe works full-time for the Army Reserve. Their lawful marriage is stripped from them whenever they reside in Tennessee, returning and disappearing as they travel across state lines. DeKoe, who served this Nation to preserve the freedom the Constitution protects, must endure a substantial burden. 

The cases now before the Court involve other petitioners as well, each with their own experiences. Their stories reveal that they seek not to denigrate marriage but rather to live their lives, or honor their spouses' memory, joined by its bond. 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf


----------



## Passepartout (Jun 28, 2015)

Conan said:


> It's always been interesting to me that although a U.S. Supreme Court decision sets precedent, the Court can only take on a case like this when an individual comes to them with an actual instance of injustice. Here are some of the human stories in the case.
> 
> [Big Snip]
> 
> ...



When the law is 'humanized', rather than 'conceptualized', it becomes clear that the court took the proper course.


----------



## am1 (Jun 28, 2015)

My other concern is there a need for spouses to receive support payments, medical benefits, %50 of pension etc?  If there are no kids involved I would expect both partners to work if need be.  If not that is their choice.  How big will the financial cost be from this for employers, social security etc.


----------



## wilma (Jun 28, 2015)

am1 said:


> My other concern is there a need for spouses to receive support payments, medical benefits, %50 of pension etc?  If there are no kids involved I would expect both partners to work if need be.  If not that is their choice.  How big will the financial cost be from this for employers, social security etc.



Same cost for all married couples. Most large businesses have already seen the future and provided coverage for all couples.


----------



## Jason245 (Jun 28, 2015)

am1 said:


> My other concern is there a need for spouses to receive support payments, medical benefits, %50 of pension etc?  If there are no kids involved I would expect both partners to work if need be.  If not that is their choice.  How big will the financial cost be from this for employers, social security etc.


Administrative costs actually decrease since now they can get rid of the domestic partner benefits many were previously offering. . This is actually good for business. Thanks to the marriage penalty,  this is also good for the treasury of America. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk


----------



## DaveNV (Jun 28, 2015)

Stressy said:


> You know how you have "read" posters for years and have never met them?  You form the voice you have assigned them in your head...and you might even imagine what they look like...and this takes the form of your imagination every time you read their posts?
> 
> YOU, Sir, are one of the kindest and most gentle people I have ever "read" and no second banana is Jim. Passepartout. Keep doing your thing. Both of you!





laura1957 said:


> So true!! Certain posters I always look forward to reading.




Thank you both so very much.  Your words are very kind praise I take sincerely to heart. I am miles from perfect, but I try to be a kind and helpful person someone would want to know.  I live by the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you") and as is said in Matthew 7:1. "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Everything else changes without notice. I blame my Mother. 

Dave


----------



## CO skier (Jun 28, 2015)

Passepartout said:


> But to call discrimination, 'religious rights' is wrong. It isn't religious, and it isn't right.



The issue is not as simple and straightforward as it may sound.

Does anyone believe that many church sponsored adoption agencies can continue to exist under this ruling?  Doesn't this impact the religious freedom of the women who use these services?

And what about the faith-based and secular adoption agencies that do continue to operate?  Can the birth mothers choose (some people would say discriminate) the home life for their children?


----------



## davidvel (Jun 28, 2015)

CO skier said:


> There are more than two sides to the Court's ruling, and that is where so many people are so uninformed.
> 
> Most people want to cast and align this as "pro" or "anti" gay marriage.  This is insignificant compared to the real issue.  The third, and really the only, important issue is *that the Supreme Court essentially legislated the definition of Marriage for all Americans*, against the will of a number of States whose citizens had spoken through their State Legislatures.  Our founding fathers would be aghast; they would not care a whit about the specific issue, they would object to how casually the Court dismissed the Constitution in this issue.


I don't see how this conclusion could be reached by reading the Court's opinion. The Court did not define marriage, the opponents to gay marriage did. Opponents stated that marriage _is fundamental_. The Court deftly used the opponents' definition against them. 

The opponents to same-sex marriage said that gays shouldn't marry because marriage is:
- a timeless institution
- it has ancient origins
- there is a transcendent importance of marriage
- there is a special beauty to marriage 
- there are important privileges and responsibilities to marriage

The Supreme court did not redefine marriage, it accepted the definition given by those that oppose gay marriage. It then said to those that oppose gay marriage, *You are Right*. Marriage is so important that it is a fundamental right, and States cannot withhold this from gay couples. The reasons given why marriage is a fundamental right "apply with equal force to same-sex couples." States cannot withhold from gay couples the benefits (emotional, legal and economic) that are conferred by the State when one marries.  

(Opponents also stated, often as their primary argument, that their religion forbids it; a reason the Court obviously can't consider as a basis for denying a fundamental right and State-granted benefits.)


----------



## falmouth3 (Jun 28, 2015)

Clemson Fan said:


> There's no way a conservative minister will be forcefully compelled to perform a gay marriage.  Catholic priests will only marry members of the Catholic Church.  Muslims will only marry Muslims, etc. etc.  Any religion (Muslim, Catholic, Southern Baptist, etc. etc.) will still be allowed to practice their religion however they see fit including refusing to perform gay marriages.



I found this to be true when preparing for my first wedding.  My husband to be, who was not Catholic, had to agree to raise his  children as Catholics before the priest would agree to marry us.  Luckily that marriage produced no children anyway.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jun 28, 2015)

I don't even know when government got involved in marriage.  Does anyone know?  100 years ago it was a ceremony with witnesses.  Government wasn't involved. 

I don't think the government should stand in the way of any couple wanting to marry, even if it's a same-sex couple.  If government must be involved, then of course I applaud the decision to make it "legal."  

Still I am questioning why it has anything to do with the law.  A couple can live together for several years and have a common law marriage, so divorce laws apply.   So I see no reason for government to be involved at all.  Maybe I am just too libertarian.  

Then again, I don't want people sued because they don't want to bake a cake for a wedding, for whatever reason.  Others' religious liberties should not be infringed.  Or put another way, people should be allowed to refuse business to anyone they want.  Why does any person's freedom have to impinge on another person's freedom?  And why would you want to force someone to do flowers or take pictures or bake a cake for a wedding, if his/her heart isn't going to be in it.  Move on and find another person.


----------



## Passepartout (Jun 28, 2015)

CO skier said:


> Does anyone believe that many church sponsored adoption agencies can continue to exist under this ruling?  Doesn't this impact the religious freedom of the women who use these services?
> 
> And what about the faith-based and secular adoption agencies that do continue to operate?  Can the birth mothers choose (some people would say discriminate) the home life for their children?



So, are you saying that being an unwanted child or a child in a single parent household is somehow preferable to being raised in a loving, two parent household? How so? And if the single gender household is somehow broken by death or divorce, the guardianship of the children, under existing law, is already defined. No need to re-invent the wheel.

I am no expert on adoption agencies, but would presume that the birth mother fills out some sort of application that would include preferences for an adoptive family.


----------



## Conan (Jun 28, 2015)

Since I quoted some paragraphs from the Opinion of the Court, let's give Justice Scalia equal time.  Rather than quote at length from Scalia's dissent in Obergefel, which he begins by saying "The substance of today's decree is not of immense personal importance to me," here he is speaking more frankly in his dissent in the sodomy case, Lawrence v. Texas:

[The Supreme Court] has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct. I noted in an earlier opinion the fact that the American Association of Law Schools (to which any reputable law school must seek to belong) excludes from membership any school that refuses to ban from its job-interview facilities a law firm (no matter how small) that does not wish to hire as a prospective partner a person who openly engages in homosexual conduct.
....
Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children's schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive. The Court ... is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of [homosexual] culture are not obviously "mainstream"; that in most States what the Court calls "discrimination" against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html


----------



## DaveNV (Jun 28, 2015)

rickandcindy23 said:


> I don't even know when government got involved in marriage.  Does anyone know?  100 years ago it was a ceremony with witnesses.  Government wasn't involved.



According to this Wikipedia page, marriage licenses have been required in Massachusetts since 1639.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_license

Dave


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Jun 28, 2015)

I have always viewed this as a civil rights/civil liberties issue, period.

Justice Scalia was scathing and I feel he was very biased. Chief Roberts was more objective in saying that the Constitution had nothing to do with it, but was more objective in his opinion.

Here is what Justice Kennedy wrote (preamble from a piece in Mother Jones):

"Penned by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the 5-4 opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to allow same-sex couples to marry. "[T]he reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples," Kennedy wrote. The court's four conservative justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, dissented.

"_*No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family," Kennedy concluded in his opinion. The challengers "ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."*_


----------



## wilma (Jun 28, 2015)

What was very moving is seeing my 20-30 year-old kids, nieces & nephews, and their friends (primarily heterosexual) send out updated facebook profile photos with the rainbow colors in the background. they are the future of this country.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jun 28, 2015)

wilma said:


> What was very moving is seeing my 20-30 year-old kids, nieces & nephews, and their friends (primarily heterosexual) send out updated facebook profile photos with the rainbow colors in the background. they are the future of this country.



Same here, Wilma.  It's so good to see the next generation on the whole being much more tolerant of differences than the generations before them, and they're more creative with social media than I'd ever think to be!


----------



## CO skier (Jun 28, 2015)

Passepartout said:


> So, are you saying that being an unwanted child or a child in a single parent household is somehow preferable to being raised in a loving, two parent household? How so? And if the single gender household is somehow broken by death or divorce, the guardianship of the children, under existing law, is already defined. No need to re-invent the wheel.
> 
> I am no expert on adoption agencies, but would presume that the birth mother fills out some sort of application that would include preferences for an adoptive family.



You missed my point.  I have no objection to same-sex adoptive parents.

My point is entirely how the new law affects the birth mothers' rights and their ability to "discriminate."

Both of my children were adopted through a private, secular agency.  (Ours was an "open" adoption where everyone knew everyone, to the extent possible.  We maintain contact with both birth mothers to this day; it worked out great).

The mission of the adoption agency is, as much as possible, to make sure that everyone involved is as comfortable as possible with the placement .  Part of our process involved a very tough, but very necessary, questionnaire that could be viewed as highly discriminatory, if one wanted to adopt that perspective.  The adoptive parents would prepare a short introductory report describing interests, vacations, hobbies, or anything else that might be of interest to prospective birth mothers (it was recommended to include a lot of pictures in the report as examples of what was written).

The birth mothers would, presumably, fill out a similar questionnaire (but no profile report).  The adoption agency would match adoptive parents and birth mothers based on the answers to the respective questionnaires and provide to the birth mothers the three profile reports that seemed the best match .  The birth mothers would then choose the adoptive parents.  (Some birth mothers wanted to see ALL the profiles.  They always seemed to choose one of the first three, though.  That is how well the questionnaire process worked.)

Maybe there have been lawsuits in the intervening years and the selective process is no longer allowed.  My hope is that the government kept their nose out of a process that was working just fine.


----------



## CO skier (Jun 28, 2015)

Beaglemom3 said:


> Chief Roberts was more objective in saying that the Constitution had nothing to do with it, but was more objective in his opinion.



I think you might misunderstand Judge Roberts' comment.

He meant that the Constitution does not give the Court the power to do what it did.

Here is a quote from his dissent:

"But this Court is not a legislature.  Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us.  Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.  The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise [neither force nor will but merely judgment]."


----------



## TTom (Jun 28, 2015)

*Showing my bias?*

I think this would all work better for all parties involved if it were not for the existence of a number of JERKS who delight in causing controversy.

I would never think to try to engage someone for something as important as a wedding (or a funeral or an anniversary or an adoption) if their personal preference was not compatible with my own or, more precisely, if their personal preference precluded them from providing the best, most committed possible service.

To try to litigate that a particular service provider serve me when they do not want to is asking for an unpleasant and unsatisfactory experience. What is to be gained by that, other than proving you are somehow "right?"

That having been said, I would also expect that people who provide services make decisions based on something other than inherent prejudices. It's one thing for a member of the clergy to choose not to unite people who are not of their faith, it is a completely different story for a restaurant to say, "no blacks (or gays or women or Muslims) allowed." There are limits on both sides.

Of course, I also had to shake my head at the couple in New York who is(?) suing the Waldorf because one of their wedding guests accidentally(?) shot someone, and the Waldorf cancelled the reception.

I am not gay, but, being in the performing industry for a long time, many of my colleagues certainly were. They were always respectful of my choice, and I of theirs. For us, it was never an issue. I am happy that they are now able to openly share a commitment the same way I can, and that they will enjoy the "benefits" of marriage, should they choose it.

Tom


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Jun 28, 2015)

CO skier said:


> I think you might misunderstand Judge Roberts' comment.
> 
> He meant that the Constitution does not give the Court the power to do what it did.
> 
> ...



 Yep, I see your point and  I get it, totally. No misunderstanding.  I just did not want to synthesize more of his 29 page opinion. It boiled down to that for me. We could go on & on re: his opinion, but in the interest of time and space, I just touched on it, skimmed it.

  My focus was to put out there what Justice Kennedy said, in essence, but again, skimming isn't always clear to others.

  I have a law degree and see things a bit differently than most posting here. I write briefs (not boxers) for a living.

-


----------



## Passepartout (Jun 28, 2015)

CO skier said:


> You missed my point.  I have no objection to same-sex adoptive parents.
> 
> My point is entirely how the new law affects the birth mothers' rights and their ability to "discriminate."



I didn't miss your point either. What you want is the right to discriminate and be able to call it 'based on your religious beliefs'. But discrimination is discrimination.


----------



## DaveNV (Jun 28, 2015)

TTom said:


> I am happy that they are now able to openly share a commitment the same way I can, and that they will enjoy the "benefits" of marriage, should they choose it.
> 
> Tom





The tongue-in-cheek joke I've always made is that married gay couples deserve to enjoy the same pain and suffering married straight couples enjoy. 

Dave


----------



## presley (Jun 28, 2015)

BMWguynw said:


> The tongue-in-cheek joke I've always made is that married gay couples deserve to enjoy the same pain and suffering married straight couples enjoy.



Reminds me of what I've always said:

The definition of gay is happy. Why only let miserable people get married?


----------



## Clemson Fan (Jun 28, 2015)

Passepartout said:


> I didn't miss your point either. What you want is the right to discriminate and be able to call it 'based on your religious beliefs'. But discrimination is discrimination.



There are many forms of legal discrimination.  Affirmative action, freedom of religion, even men's and women's bathrooms, etc. etc.  Like it or not, all of us discriminate every single day in the daily choices we make.

Do you not believe that those people actual truly have those religious beliefs and instead are just hiding behind them and using them as an "excuse" to discriminate?  That's what it sounds like to me.


----------



## davidvel (Jun 28, 2015)

wilma said:


> Huh, i was talking about capturing the escaped prisoner...


And they captured the second!


----------



## wilma (Jun 28, 2015)

davidvel said:


> And they captured the second!



Truly historic week! And the US women beat China!!!


----------



## VegasBella (Jun 28, 2015)

CO skier said:


> You missed my point.  I have no objection to same-sex adoptive parents.
> 
> My point is entirely how the new law affects the birth mothers' rights and their ability to "discriminate."
> 
> Both of my children were adopted through a private, secular agency.  (Ours was an "open" adoption where everyone knew everyone, to the extent possible.  We maintain contact with both birth mothers to this day; it worked out great).



Private domestic adoptions are unlikely to be affected by this ruling. Private agencies may be restricted from discriminating against prospective adoptive parents in the way that public agencies are. What that means is that they would have to accept them as clients and provide their services. But I doubt there will be any spillover from marriage law to adoption law. 

Choosing a guardian for your child is a personal choice. Birth parents who have parental rights (not birth parents whose children were removed due to abuse or neglect and who have had their parental rights terminated) can choose not to make an adoption plan with anyone they choose for any reason. Similarly, adoptive parents can choose not to adopt a child for any reason. The state cannot interfere with that, in the same way the state cannot force you to marry someone you don't want to marry.

To reiterate: The adoption agency provides a service and is a business. Currently, in the US (not in the UK) _private _adoption agencies may discriminate against gay parents. They don't even need a religious exemption, they just can. (They can also discriminate based on other factors.) But that could change in the future. If it changes and agencies are no long allowed to discriminate, all that would mean is that they would have to allow gays to use their business and they would have to provide services. NOT that they would have to provide an adoptive child. 

Women and couples who choose to place their children for adoption are NOT providing a business service. In fact, they are legally prohibited from receiving monetary compensation for placing their children. It's against the law to pay someone in order to adopt their child. You cannot buy a baby. Babies =/= cakes. The ins and outs of adoption law are governed by state family law (for the most part - ICWA notwithstanding), not by business law. A woman who doesn't want to make a wedding cake for a gay couple may be breaking the law by discriminating but a woman who doesn't want to make a baby for a gay couple would not.


----------



## am1 (Jun 28, 2015)

For all the people who were in this for financial gain what is next for them?


----------



## Passepartout (Jun 28, 2015)

am1 said:


> For all the people who were in this for financial gain what is next for them?



Congratulations on the most nonsense post in a thread meant to celebrate an an amazing, wonderful week that went from despair over a senseless hate killing through the saving of affordable healthcare for millions of citizens and continued through our nation being united in marriage equality, and now all within a week the last fugitive prison breaker has been taken into custody.

What the [bleep] are you talking about?


----------



## wilma (Jun 28, 2015)

am1 said:


> For all the people who were in this for financial gain what is next for them?


----------



## dioxide45 (Jun 28, 2015)

Passepartout said:


> Congratulations on the most nonsense post in a thread meant to celebrate an an amazing, wonderful week that went from despair over a senseless hate killing through the saving of affordable healthcare for millions of citizens and continued through our nation being united in marriage equality, and now all within a week the last fugitive prison breaker has been taken into custody.
> 
> What the [bleep] are you talking about?



Just looking to rile up the populace. Nothing more it seems. Par for the course...


----------



## Ken555 (Jun 28, 2015)

dioxide45 said:


> Just looking to rile up the populace. Nothing more it seems. Par for the course...




Yeah...some posts are really meant to be ignored.


Sent from my iPad


----------



## Passepartout (Jun 28, 2015)

Like a trophy trout. Sometimes ya gotta rise to the bait.


----------



## CO skier (Jun 28, 2015)

CO skier said:


> Most people want to cast and align this as "pro" or "anti" gay marriage.  This is insignificant compared to the real issue.  The third, and really the only, important issue is *that the Supreme Court essentially legislated the definition of Marriage for all Americans,* against the will of a number of States whose citizens had spoken through their State Legislatures.  Our founding fathers would be aghast; they would not care a whit about the specific issue, they would object to how casually the Court dismissed the Constitution in this issue.





davidvel said:


> I don't see how this conclusion could be reached by reading the Court's opinion.



That conclusion is what Justice Roberts with Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas reached:

"But this Court is not a legislature.  Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us.  Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.  The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise [neither force nor will but merely judgment.]"

Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens through the democratic process to adopt their view.  That ends today.  Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.  Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept."


and Justice Scalia with Justice Thomas, too:

"This is a naked judicial claim to legislative -- indeed, _super_-legislative power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government.  Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices reasoned judgment.  A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy."


----------



## Luanne (Jun 28, 2015)

CO skier said:


> That conclusion is what Justice Roberts with Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas reached:



Good thing they were in the minority.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Jun 28, 2015)

Passepartout said:


> through the saving of affordable healthcare for millions of citizens



Bait taken. 

There's nothing affordable about the ACA because it's still managed by and keeps in business all the health insurance companies and their redundant and superfluous infrastructures.

The only way to do affordable healthcare is to make it a single payer system (Medicare for all) and to get all the health insurance companies out of the game entirely.  There are way too many layers of middle men that get between the doctor and patient.  The ACA did nothing to change that and in fact it probably made it worse.  There's no political will on either side of the aisle to do that due to the millions of health insurance jobs that would be lost.

Frankly the ACA is a big pile of legislative poo!


----------



## wilma (Jun 28, 2015)

Think that Stephen Colbert sums up the dissenting judges best:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/28/stephen-colbert-scotus-gay-marriage_n_7680398.html


----------



## Passepartout (Jun 28, 2015)

Originally Posted by CO skier:
"Most people want to cast and align this as "pro" or "anti" gay marriage. This is insignificant compared to the real issue. *The third, and really the only, important issue is that the Supreme Court essentially legislated the definition of Marriage for all Americans*, against the will of a number of States whose citizens had spoken through their State Legislatures. Our founding fathers would be aghast; they would not care a whit about the specific issue, they would object to how casually the Court dismissed the Constitution in this issue."

The Court didn't 'legislate' the definition of anything. They simply made every person (or couple) who applies for a (government) Marriage License equal. That's all. Don't make this more complicated more than it needs to be.

The Founding Fathers never even considered interracial, let alone single gender marriage. The Constitution is a 'living document', subject to interpretation by the very institution who ruled this week that ALL couples, in every State and Territory, have the right to apply for and receive a Marriage license, and that that Marriage License (once completed and acted upon) will be recognized throughout the United States as valid.

Jim


----------



## Luanne (Jun 28, 2015)

Clemson Fan said:


> Bait taken.
> 
> There's nothing affordable about the ACA because it's still managed by and keeps in business all the health insurance companies and their redundant and superfluous infrastructures.
> 
> ...



Totally agree that we should have a single payer system.  But we don't, and didn't seem to be getting very far in promoting it.  ACA may not be perfect, but it sure has been a lifesaver (in the real sense) for many.  My dd for one couldn't get medical insurance do to a pre-existing condition before ACA.  I've read posts from folks who were self-employed and went without medical insurance for themselves, insuring only their children, for years until now.


----------



## Passepartout (Jun 28, 2015)

Clemson Fan said:


> The only way to do affordable healthcare is to make it a single payer system (Medicare for all) and to get all the health insurance companies out of the game entirely.



I agree 1000%. But we had to start somewhere. There was no way to go from for profit, giant, health insurance 'middlemen' to single payer, British, German, Japanese, etc. health care systems. There simply would be too much political and economic push-back to EVER make the leap.

We already have single-payer health care for Veterans, for Medicare, but with the disallowing government from negotiating prescription prices, and other considerations, single payer was sunk before it ever left port.

It may happen. I hope I live long enough to see it. Not likely.


----------



## am1 (Jun 28, 2015)

Passepartout said:


> Congratulations on the most nonsense post in a thread meant to celebrate an an amazing, wonderful week that went from despair over a senseless hate killing through the saving of affordable healthcare for millions of citizens and continued through our nation being united in marriage equality, and now all within a week the last fugitive prison breaker has been taken into custody.
> 
> What the [bleep] are you talking about?



Lobbyists, lawyers, protester and other groups.  Lots of people are in this for financial gain.  Not for what is best for some or all people.  Now their attention will be put to another issue.  Wall Street and Washington will be watching.


----------



## Luanne (Jun 28, 2015)

am1 said:


> Lobbyists, lawyers, protester and other groups.  Lots of people are in this for financial gain.  Not for what is best for some or all people.  Now their attention will be put to another issue.  Wall Street and Washington will be watching.



Just like with everything else.

But those who this issue really matter to were not in it for financial gain, but for equal rights and human dignity.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Jun 28, 2015)

Luanne said:


> Totally agree that we should have a single payer system.  But we don't, and didn't seem to be getting very far in promoting it.  ACA may not be perfect, but it sure has been a lifesaver (in the real sense) for many.  My dd for one couldn't get medical insurance do to a pre-existing condition before ACA.  I've read posts from folks who were self-employed and went without medical insurance for themselves, insuring only their children, for years until now.



While its increased the number of insured, it's anything but affordable as its name makes it out to be.  I don't think it has any real staying power because it's going to become so expensive so quickly that the government will need to step in and make significant modifications and cutbacks to it.  A good portion of your tax (and really deficit) dollars are going to go to the insurance companies and their massive infrastructure and not actual patient care.


----------



## Luanne (Jun 28, 2015)

Clemson Fan said:


> While its increased the number of insured, it's anything but affordable as its name makes it out to be.  I don't think it has any real staying power because it's going to become so expensive so quickly that the government will need to step in and make significant modifications and cutbacks to it.  A good portion of your tax (and really deficit) dollars are going to go to the insurance companies and their massive infrastructure and not actual patient care.



I blame the insurance industry, not the ACA.


----------



## Elan (Jun 29, 2015)

Clemson Fan said:


> While its increased the number of insured, it's anything but affordable as its name makes it out to be.  I don't think it has any real staying power because it's going to become so expensive so quickly that the government will need to step in and make significant modifications and cutbacks to it.  A good portion of your tax (and really deficit) dollars are going to go to the insurance companies and their massive infrastructure and not actual patient care.


That's fine.  It will undoubtedly need tweaking or perhaps even a complete overhaul.  But at least the ball is rolling.  

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Elan (Jun 29, 2015)

This thread makes me really wish there were national referendums for some of the key issues that face our society.  Let the people speak, and be done with it.  

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## SueDonJ (Jun 29, 2015)

Elan said:


> This thread makes me really wish there were national referendums for some of the key issues that face our society.  Let the people speak, and be done with it.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk



Thinking of civil rights in particular, I agree with national referendums as opposed to individual states but not so much with the "let the people speak" thing.  Think of all the times in our history when if the majority rule were allowed to stand then the minority would have been subjugated by the majority.  There's a reason for the country's three-tiered system, a reason why majority rule isn't and shouldn't be the be-all and end-all.  "Equal protection under the law" is a far superior tenet to "majority rule."


----------



## Elan (Jun 29, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> Thinking of civil rights in particular, I agree with national referendums as opposed to individual states but not so much with the "let the people speak" thing. Think of all the times in our history when if the majority rule were allowed to stand then the minority would have been subjugated by the majority. There's a reason for the country's three-tiered system, a reason why majority rule isn't and shouldn't be the be-all and end-all. "Equal protection under the law" is a far superior tenet to "majority rule."


Not if done correctly.  Obviously, the issues presented via national referendum would be very specific and limited.  I'm not proposing that we have a national vote every Tuesday.
The fact of the matter is that ultimately, the majority should rule.  I'd just like it to happen more efficiently.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Passepartout (Jun 29, 2015)

Elan said:


> This thread makes me really wish there were national referendums for some of the key issues that face our society.  Let the people speak, and be done with it.



Actually a VERY bad idea. What you get then is the 'tyranny of the majority'. There soon becomes the subjugation of the minority who are unable to EVER get enough votes to rise above that level.

The American system of democracy- while far from perfect- built on election of the law makers by more or less popular election tends to keep more balance in the system. Of course, I feel that the recognition of money as speech tilts the balance too far towards the wealthy, but so far, it is what it is.

Jim


----------



## SueDonJ (Jun 29, 2015)

Elan said:


> ... The fact of the matter is that ultimately, the majority should rule.  I'd just like it to happen more efficiently.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk



I disagree.    The US is a republic, not a democracy.


----------



## dominidude (Jun 29, 2015)

Elan said:


> Not if done correctly.  Obviously, the issues presented via national referendum would be very specific and limited.  I'm not proposing that we have a national vote every Tuesday.
> The fact of the matter is that ultimately, the majority should rule.  I'd just like it to happen more efficiently.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk



I remember one day in high school being the lone dissenter in a math problem. All of those who had "solved" the problem, including the teacher, had arrived at a particular result, and I was the only one pointing out how everyone else was wrong.

Turns out I was right, and everyone else was wrong (yes, including the teacher).

Majority rule stinks. The rule of law is the only thing that lasts. As Benjamin Franklin said:
A Republic, if you can keep it.

http://www.bartleby.com/73/1593.html


----------



## Elan (Jun 29, 2015)

OFFS!  Yes, I'm proposing that we vote nationally to be allowed to publicly stone cats and small children. 
 Really? 


Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## SueDonJ (Jun 29, 2015)

Elan said:


> OFFS!  Yes, I'm proposing that we vote nationally to be allowed to publicly stone cats and small children.
> Really?
> 
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk



  I don't think that you want to stone cats or children.  But maybe if you explain which items you think would benefit more from "majority rule" than the system in place now, we might understand you better?


----------



## am1 (Jun 29, 2015)

The majority should not always rule.  

But the goal now seems to be what can get the most votes without alienating the other side too much is the way to go.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Jun 29, 2015)

Luanne said:


> I blame the insurance industry, not the ACA.



The ACA keeps all the insurance companies in play.  So how can you blame one but not the other?


----------



## Clemson Fan (Jun 29, 2015)

Elan said:


> That's fine.  It will undoubtedly need tweaking or perhaps even a complete overhaul.  But at least the ball is rolling.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk



I kind of agree with that.  However, I don't think either party has the will or backbone to do what's actually needed.  What makes healthcare so expensive in the U.S. is the layers and layers of middle men and women.  Getting rid of that will cost millions of jobs which neither party will sign onto.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Jun 29, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> I don't think that you want to stone cats or children.  But maybe if you explain which items you think would benefit more from "majority rule" than the system in place now, we might understand you better?



The presidential election.  The electoral college stinks!  Why should someone's vote from Florida count a hell of a lot more than my vote in Hawaii?

My parents are flaming liberals who retired to SC.  Their presidential election vote in SC is meaningless.  I usually flip flop between parties, but if I want to vote for the Republican candidate in Hawaii I might as well not even bother going to the polls.


----------



## geoand (Jun 29, 2015)

Clemson Fan said:


> While its increased the number of insured, it's anything but affordable as its name makes it out to be.  I don't think it has any real staying power because it's going to become so expensive so quickly that the government will need to step in and make significant modifications and cutbacks to it.  A good portion of your tax (and really deficit) dollars are going to go to the insurance companies and their massive infrastructure and not actual patient care.



I don't know about the accuracy of above but can confidently say that ACA dropped the cost of DW and my insurance by by over $800 a month.


----------



## taterhed (Jun 29, 2015)

Ugggg. 

Been grinding my teeth over this thread so long, my molars are starting to hurt.

Any country that gives (ultimately) free medical care to aliens and indigents (who need healthcare too) but prohibits productive citizens from getting insurance based on their 'conditions'.....and then bankrupts the same productive citizens when they get sick....needs a review/reform for the healthcare system IMO

I don't have a solution, but I sure have the bills and price increases for my healthcare.

True story: took the kid to the Urgent health for broken wrist. At the end 'yup, it's broke...' they offered him a sling to wear home. keep in mind, he hadn't been in a sling for 3 hours. I said sure. Then, WAIT. How much will I/my insurance be billed for that that disposable paper/cloth sling?

I waited 20 mins, but finally got an answer: my insurance negotiated price (not full price mind you, a _discounted_ price) for the sling was $39. 

I said thanks, but no. I bought it from the drugstore in the parking lot (same lot) when I filled his prescription: $9.99 for a real cloth sling. 

Somebody needs to fix healthcare before it 'sinks' all on its own.

JMHO


----------



## SueDonJ (Jun 29, 2015)

Clemson Fan said:


> The presidential election.  The electoral college stinks!  Why should someone's vote from Florida count a hell of a lot more than my vote in Hawaii?
> 
> My parents are flaming liberals who retired to SC.  Their presidential election vote in SC is meaningless.  I usually flip flop between parties, but if I want to vote for the Republican candidate in Hawaii I might as well not even bother going to the polls.



Great.  Now I know to expect when we move to SC that my vote will be meaningless.    (Although, it usually is anyway because Don and I cancel each other out more times than not.  And "flaming liberal" is sometimes the kindest thing he calls me during election seasons. )

Despite the electoral college giving all of us fits at one time or another, I do see the sense in its purpose.  But I also think it can be legitimately questioned whether the numbers are tweaked often enough or correctly.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Jun 29, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> Despite the electoral college giving all of us fits at one time or another, I do see the sense in its purpose.  But I also think it can be legitimately questioned whether the numbers are tweaked often enough or correctly.



It's an outdated system that long ago outlived its intended purpose.  With it now there are really only a dozen or so states that have any real meaning (and power) with presidential elections.  That's were 80% of the spending and campaigning is done.  Here in Hawaii you barely even know that there's a presidential election going on.  That's not so bad because we get spared all the commercials. 

BTW, if there was no electoral college we never would've had Bush 2 as president.


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 29, 2015)

Folks - some people are taking advantage of this thread to go way over the political line.  That will get is closed down quick.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Jun 29, 2015)

SueDonJ said:


> Great.  Now I know to expect when we move to SC that my vote will be meaningless.



If you move to the same town as my parents and join the Democratic Party with them there you'll increase the membership by 50%! 

The small crowd does have its benefits.  My parents got to have lunch and pretty long personal conversations with both Michelle Obama and Joe Biden when they were campaigning for the presidential primary 7-8 years ago.


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 29, 2015)

Clemson Fan - please stop.


----------



## PStreet1 (Jun 30, 2015)

The electoral college isn't "entirely outdated."  This video, while simplistic in the beginning, takes less than 5 minutes to watch, and it does explain the rationale that keeps the electoral college as a part of our process.  http://prageruniversity.com/Politic...stand-the-Electoral-College.html#.VZInaJepQgs

At any given time in our history, this country has had the potential to be, or was, dominated by one faction; however, so far, the systems that are in place have always managed to change what faction dominates or what states are swing states or what issues turn out to be relevant.  The only time most people get upset about the checks and balances being there are when the party/faction/idealogy currently dominating isn't one they agree with; the rest of the time, most of us are are quite content with one faction/party/idea logy dominating because, after all, "it's the right one."

I'd rather keep the process and put up with my belief--obviously, the correct one--not currently being in vogue than junk the systems that, at least so far, have kept this country vacillating between viewpoints, but in general, moving forward.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Jun 30, 2015)

PStreet1 said:


> The electoral college isn't "entirely outdated."  This video, while simplistic in the beginning, takes less than 5 minutes to watch, and it does explain the rationale that keeps the electoral college as a part of our process.  http://prageruniversity.com/Politic...stand-the-Electoral-College.html#.VZInaJepQgs
> 
> At any given time in our history, this country has had the potential to be, or was, dominated by one faction; however, so far, the systems that are in place have always managed to change what faction dominates or what states are swing states or what issues turn out to be relevant.  The only time most people get upset about the checks and balances being there are when the party/faction/idealogy currently dominating isn't one they agree with; the rest of the time, most of us are are quite content with one faction/party/idea logy dominating because, after all, "it's the right one."
> 
> I'd rather keep the process and put up with my belief--obviously, the correct one--not currently being in vogue than junk the systems that, at least so far, have kept this country vacillating between viewpoints, but in general, moving forward.



Good old Denis Prager.  While I agree with the tyranny majority argument that has been bought up in this thread before, I really think it's outdated when it comes to the electoral college.  When he speaks of coalition building and voter fraud in the video I actually think those are strong arguments against the electoral college.  The electoral college creates a system where in each election only a handful of states hold all the power.  That's where all the campaigning time and money is spent.  Everybody else is essentially ignored.  Also with voter fraud it's a lot more powerful if by just doing it in one state you can swing a whole election (hanging chads anyone! - not that I really think that had any basis).  The "swing states" do sometimes change, but probably in about 30 or so states it hasn't changed in 100 years or so.  

There have been 4 elections in our history where the winner of the popular vote lost the election, but it's only happened once since 1888.  To me that speaks to the electoral college being outdated.  I'd much rather have it where every citizens vote counts the same as everybody else's.  As it stands now my presidential vote in Hawaii probably only counts 1/5 or even less than somebody voting in Florida or Michigan.


----------



## Passepartout (Jun 30, 2015)

Clemson Fan said:


> [Big Snip] I'd much rather have it where every citizens vote counts the same as everybody else's.



Much of this thread has been about the marriage decision, that I suspect affects darn few TUGgers. For those affected, Hurray!

One of the most important decisions was announced on the last Monday of the session will effect every voter. The one that takes control of drawing voting districts away from lawmakers who are subject to it's effect, and puts that control in the hands of independent commissions, and makes their drawing of districts final. So long, Eldridge Gerry, been nice knowing you! So much for convoluted boundaries engineered to assure passage of key elections.

Read more here from Nat'l Constitution Center: http://news.yahoo.com/constitution-...inning-legal-trouble-101811888--politics.html

Jim


----------



## Ken555 (Jun 30, 2015)

Passepartout said:


> Much of this thread has been about the marriage decision, that I suspect affects darn few TUGgers. For those affected, Hurray!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yes, this is huge. And quite welcome.


Sent from my iPad


----------



## CO skier (Jun 30, 2015)

Passepartout said:


> Much of this thread has been about the marriage decision, that I suspect affects darn few TUGgers.



Justice Scalia explained how this decision affects every American citizen, including TUGgers.

"It is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create 'liberties' that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention.  This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776; the freedom to govern themselves."

______________________________________________________________

Putting the specific issue aside and reading the dissenting opinions for what the justices have to say regarding Constitutional rights should inform every American who believes in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

It is _how _the Supreme Court reached its decision that offends.  Constitutional Amendments are intentionally exceedingly difficult to enact and for very good reasons.  The five justices essentially hung a sign on the Fourteenth Amendment that reads, "Express Lane for unwritten Constitutional Amendments starts here."  Every citizen, if not angered, should at least be concerned.

The true message of the dissenting justices, sadly, gets lost in all the emotion surrounding the marriage issue.


----------



## rleigh (Jun 30, 2015)

CO skier said:


> [....]
> 
> The true message of the dissenting justices, sadly, gets lost in all the emotion surrounding the marriage issue.


 

Yes, this, absolutely agree 100%. This is what's driving me crazy!


----------



## wilma (Jun 30, 2015)

CO skier said:


> The true message of the dissenting justices, sadly, gets lost in all the emotion surrounding the marriage issue.



http://entertainthis.usatoday.com/2...ms-critics-of-the-scotus-gay-marriage-ruling/


----------



## Passepartout (Jun 30, 2015)

CO skier said:


> Putting the specific issue aside and reading the dissenting opinions for what the justices have to say regarding Constitutional rights should inform every American who believes in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
> 
> It is _how _the Supreme Court reached its decision that offends.  Constitutional Amendments are intentionally exceedingly difficult to enact and for very good reasons.



CO skier, you continue to quote the dissenting justices. In the interest of equal space for both sides, here's an excerpt from the majority opinion: "In the majority opinion, the justices outlined several reasons same-sex marriage should be allowed. They wrote that the right to marriage is an inherent aspect of individual autonomy, since "decisions about marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make." They also said gay Americans have a right to "intimate association" beyond merely freedom from laws that ban homosexuality.

Extending the right to marry protects families and "without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser," the justices wrote.

The majority concluded that the right for same-sex couples to marry is protected under the 14th Amendment, citing the clauses that guarantee equal protection and due process.

OK. I get it. You don't like the ruling. But it's over.* Marriage equality is the law of the land in the United States and it's territories.* Post flyers in your neighborhood. Buy billboards. Pay for TV ads, but you'll not change my mind, and my meagre words are not likely to change yours. 

I think I've said (probably more than I needed to) on this subject.

The purpose of the thread was to celebrate a very historic week. Not to re-try the arguments that were held before open court many months ago.

Jim


----------



## TUGBrian (Jun 30, 2015)

pretty sure everyone has said their peace on this...


----------

