Loving v Virginia: Web Link

I think that they appear to be so sweet!

The USA is indeed a better place because of this struggle for LBGT marriage.

VIVA AMERICA! VIVA! GORA!

It is also interesting that the decision was 5 to 4, with Kennedy the swing voter. Clarence Thomas voted against the decision even though his marriage in 1987 to a white woman would not have been legal in many states prior to Loving v Virginia in 1967.

Roz

I have always admired Ms. Anita Hill for speaking her truth. She has remained an honorable woman. I believed every word that she spoke under oath.

Web Link

Justice Thomas will always be a snake in the grass.

VIVA ANITA HILL! VIVA!

It is not a question of equal rights, but do the LGBTQRST group want their own flag now?Maybe ?

In society, marriage was not considered a "right". It was a union of a man and a woman'

Is it in the best interest of our community to redefine Marriage ?

Hi Terry: thanks for commenting. I hope others will chime in on these matters.

I don't have much to say about the flag, except that I have several: stars and stripes, Oakland A's and a big ol' maize-n-blue model with an M on it that comes out every year in November. Perhaps you have more than one, too?

As to rights vs union, I'm not sure I understand how that distinction is helpful. The term 'rights' becomes important when somebody is excluded from something that others in the country have access to -- the Q becomes: should this be a 'right' available to all, or is there a proper reason for the exclusion of some? The Court majority concluded that the reasons given for excluding same-sex couples from marriage rights (and rites) were unpersuasive, to the point of irrationality.

I also think that way too much is made of this 'redefinition' claim, as if marriage is the same everywhere (it's not), and has remained static over time (it hasn't). Here's a few examples from the Opinion:

"The ancient origins of marriage confirm its centrality,
but it has not stood in isolation from developments in law
and society. The history of marriage is one of both continuity
and change. That institution?even as confined to
opposite-sex relations?has evolved over time.
For example, marriage was once viewed as an arrangement
by the couple?s parents based on political, religious,
and financial concerns; but by the time of the Nation?s
founding it was understood to be a voluntary contract
between a man and a woman.

Under the centuries-old doctrine of coverture, a married
man and woman were treated by the State as a single,
male-dominated legal entity. As women
gained legal, political, and property rights, and as society
began to understand that women have their own equal
dignity, the law of coverture was abandoned. These
and other developments in the institution of marriage over
the past centuries were not mere superficial changes.

Rather, they worked deep transformations in its structure,
affecting aspects of marriage long viewed by many as essential.
See generally N. Cott, Public Vows; S. Coontz, Marriage;
H. Hartog, Man & Wife in America: A History (2000).

These new insights have strengthened, not weakened,
the institution of marriage. Indeed, changed understandings
of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new
dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations,
often through perspectives that begin in pleas or
protests and then are considered in the political sphere
and the judicial process."

And yeah --- I do think it's best for the community if we recognize our differences and accept one another, as well as extend the promise of full participation in American life to LGBT Americans. The unions of other couples are unaffected, and the extension improves the lives of those who are affected. What's not to like?

I remember being on the fence about gay marriage many years ago. One thing that caused me to do a rethink was hearing Tina Fey (as Sarah Palin) say this about marriage: "I believe that marriage is a sacred institution between two unwilling teenagers."

BTW, has everyone heard?: Sarah Palin's daughter Bristol Palin, the "abstinence ambassador" and strong vocal supporter of "traditional family values" is pregnant with yet another out-of-wedlock baby. If you're wondering why Sarah Palin has been uncharacteristically silent on this Supreme Court gay marriage ruling, that's why.

"Is it in the best interest of our community to redefine Marriage ?"

Yes, I think so.

It's hard for me to discuss the issue of gay marriage without considering the bigger issue of how I view gays in general. And this may be the case with many others.

All families have a "funny" uncle who never married, or an auntie who always had female roommates and never had children. Gays have been, and will always be in this world and I accept that.
Everyone ought to do as they please inside their own homes as long as they don't hurt themselves or others.

But I can't help but recoil at the sight of two men kissing, or two women snuggling together (although in our society women can do this more openly). It's an instictive reaction that I get.
I just can't equate that behavior with the sight of a man and a woman doing the same thing.
Therefore, the idea that gay marriage is the same as straight marriage just doesn't work in my mind.

I appreciate that gay men and women fall in love everyday (not with each other, of course). What the world needs is more love, I get that, I wish ISIS, the Taliban, and other hate groups would come to believe in this.
I just can't come to grips with same sex marriage.

Sorry but to say otherwise would not be true for me.

@unk: "But I can't help but recoil at the sight of two men kissing, or two women snuggling together (although in our society women can do this more openly). It's an instictive reaction that I get.
I just can't equate that behavior with the sight of a man and a woman doing the same thing.
Therefore, the idea that gay marriage is the same as straight marriage just doesn't work in my mind."

I can understand the surprise of seeing two men kissing for the first time. I was a bit shocked myself when I came to California as an undergraduate student and saw two men kissing in a hallway for the first time.

But I think that it is a problem to dismiss gay marriage because you have an "instinctive reaction" against two men kissing or two women snuggling together. That's exactly the sort of argument that was used to justify laws against interracial marriage. Some people just had a shock at the sight of, say, a black man kissing a white woman. They had an "instinctive reaction" against it. Many still do. So following the reasoning you outlined above, what would you say about people expressing the opinion that a mixed interracial marriage is not the same as an unmixed marriage because it "just doesn't work" in their minds? What would you say to people who say they "just can't come to grips" with mixed-race marriages?

The problem with the Supreme court ruling on gay marriage, is that they opened Pandora?s box. Mormons (for example) must be salivating with the thought that if two gender like people can be married in the legal sense, then what is to stop being married to multiple spouses. The answer is nothing. Because it is ?more right? for a man to marry many wives then it is for a man to marry a man or a women to marry a women. This argument can be extended ad infinitum and ad nauseam to fit anyone, anywhere, anyhow, anytime.

1. Fortunately, the major era of the AIDS epidemic is some what history!!! With the advent of "drug cocktails", AIDS remains just around the corner, the next encounter.

2. A male spouse cannot impregnate a male spouse, a female spouse cannot impregnate a female spouse.

3. The final ultimate act of love that results in bearing a child is no more?

4. What will become of the population?

5. Is artificial insemination the wave to come?

6. Adoption is a part of that wave to come?

7. is the sin (crime) of adultery ruled out in same sex marriage? Not a sin? not a crime?

8. In a divorce, who has custody, who pays alimony, who raises the children? How is it determined? By whom?

9. Divorce between two married male, who will be the father and how is the father determined? How is the mother determined?

10. Divorce between two married female, who will be the mother and how is it determined? How is the father determined?

I guess Bristol Palin just couldn't save herself for marriage...Web Link my my my...

I've traveled extensively and have observed males kissing on the lips.
I don't understand why it's such a deal in the US? I have never thought of single folks who don't marry as "funny" or a woman who has never given birth and remained single as a closeted woman. I've always believed that in many parts of the world that women share homes/expenses because they need the addition of another income to survive...especially if they have children or parents to care for. Women make less money so it makes sense that they combine resources to survive. That's how I see it.

The process of legalizing gay marriage has been gradual. Lots of points of view have been expressed in the public media and in American courts. Nobody has hijacked anything. In my opinion, marriage between 2 adults is over-rated anyways. I understand how being married has it benefits for many couples but I don't care. I greatly appreciate that there are millions and millions of adults worldwide that choose to remain single. That is simply the way it is!

Loving v. Virginia made perfect sense when the decision was made. In 2015, there are tens of thousands of interracial marriages on planet earth and most folks and young people could care less. The same will happen re: same sex marriage. The frenzy will pass. I promise, the frenzy pass.

If it doesn't pass fast enuf for you, then consider moving to a highly restrictive community, on the moon, and find yourself a comfy crater!

i rest my case...

@Bill: "The problem with the Supreme court ruling on gay marriage, is that they opened Pandora's box. Mormons (for example) must be salivating with the thought that if two gender like people can be married in the legal sense, then what is to stop being married to multiple spouses."

Now you're worrying about the "Mormon threat"? You didn't happen to vote for Mitt Romney in the last Presidential election, did you Bill? You know he's Mormon, right? That's right, you almost voted for someone who was going to turn the White House into a den of sin. Who knows how many extra wives he might have taken on once he had the power of the Presidency in his hands?

I did recently see a news story about two woman and a man who were all in an "unconventional marriage" together. Not for me, but they seemed to be happy with their arrangement so good for them. The question of whether they should be able to be formally married just isn't the sort of thing that keeps me up at night.

Seems that if such things do really bother you that you should be at least as concerned about Bristol Palin announcing yet another out-of-wedlock pregnancy. Isn't that counter to your views on the importance of traditional marriage in raising a family? Or are you going to give her a pass because she (hypocritically) expresses conservative views?

How come it matters that in a same sex marriage, if 2 males/2 women are married that it necessarily means that one must be perceived/described as the "father" and the other as the "mother". When the parents are of the same sex, it seems to me that what matters most is that they are both responsible adults and both loving of any children present in their family.

The definition of what constitutes a family is interesting to discuss.

There is case law to review to further understand how complex custody cases are resolved.

When there are more children on planet earth, then there are more individuals on the planet and it's more crowded.

I hope that this is helpful.

ps I have never thought of "adultry" as either a "sin" or "crime".

Wow -- this thread's starting to grow. It's like old times, minus a few of the bridge-dwellers.

Hi Bill: I disagree that polygamy is a done deal, but neither do I fear to examine it if the polys come out of the woodwork with their cause. I feel the same way about cousins, just so West Virginia doesn't feel left out.

The point is that the Constitution requires Americans to be treated equally ('Equal Protection' of the law), unless there's a good enough reason to make a distinction between/among them. Each claim is distinct and different from the others, and should be viewed on its own merits/demerits.

The case for/against SSM was exhaustively debated, and litigated. The arguments against it were found in the Prop 8 case to be unfounded at best, and spurious at worst. I don't know what arguments the polys and anti-polys might have to bring forward -- but I know they're Not the same arguments as in SSM.

So, they get their day in court like everybody else -- that's how it works.

Michael: I don't think that this ruling dooms our species to extinction (we're finding other ways to accomplish that untimely end). But I DO think that there are adoptable kids out there who'll have a better shot at a good life as a result of it.

I'll get back with you tomorrow Tom. You left the door wide open to argument in your story line. Right now I have to get back to work to pay taxes for all the new Social Security and Medicare recipients.

C'mon back when you're ready. Happy for a conversation. Wait -- are you from West Virginnie?

Southern Poverty Law Center

This information may help in understanding the myths about the LBGT community: Web Link

GOOD LUCK to adults that adopt children in need of a family.

M. Austin:

"What will become of the population?" What specifically is your concern?

I don't understand what you mean by "adultry"? Please explain.

Thousands upon thousands of Americans have benefited from the science of articifical insemination. What specifically is your concern? Many couples/families are happy when a baby is born! My primary concern is that a baby be loved and nurtured by the parents/family/community.

Adoption is a universal process...it happens all over the earth and most likely in all societies as well as in the animal kingdom.

@ Damon - no I did not vote for Romney. I am not fond of private equity owners. They are the epitome of greed. Look what they did to Mervyn?s as an example.
@ Tom ? born and raised in California. Just today a guy in Billings, Montana, took out a marriage application for his ?second? wife. Like I said Pandora?s Box is wide open.
Engineers are required to do risk assessments to make sure that unintended actions of their designs do no harm, "nil nocere", to material or humans. Hopefully the Supreme Court was smart enough to do the same on a social level. We will see.

Hi Bill: re Billings, do you recall that Joan Cusack line from the movie Working Girl (good movie): "Sometimes I sing and dance around the house in my underwear. Doesn't make me Madonna."

Taking out an application is like dancing around in your drawers -- anybody can do it. Having the app granted is like becoming Madonna -- a very different thing. If the app is denied, as seems likely, that could start (and Only start) the legal challenge process. Pandora's Box is barely even drafty inside.

I think you are also assuming that if the Obergefell case had not come down, that guy would not have taken out the same application. I don't think we know that, nor do we know how many other polygamy apps get filed in the country during any given week. It's a big country. And you know what your mama told you about assumptions.

About risk, I'm glad engineers deal in practical certainties, based on physical science. I prefer my Bay Bridge upright, after all (okay, bad example). But law isn't science, it's political philosophy, and it changes (dare I say 'evolves'?) over time. We have a precedent system in our law that allows for both stability and predictability for the most part, and for growth to better serve the current needs of society. I think the majority got this one right, but where you come out on this stuff has a Lot to do with where you come in on the political spectrum.

What is a two-spirit person? As I recall, Native Americans absorbed two spirit children who were orphaned.

I'm curious how two spirit Native Americans fit into their tribal communities and who decides how they can behave?

How do Native American courts differ from American courts re: two spirit children. Are two spirit people different from LBGT people? How are they different and how are they the same? Can two spirit people be married by their tribal leaders or must they be married white folks style...in courts or civic ceremonies?

Two Spirit People:

Web Link

If Bruce Jenner no longer exists, how come some people say that Caitlyn is a two spirit person?

Study: Gay Marriage Is A Farce
March 8, 2015 by CH
?Gay marriage was never primarily about expanding the marital franchise to ?historically oppressed groups? in the interest of faaiiiiiirness or haaaaaaaarm reduction, as RAWMUSCLGLUTES Andrew Sullivan perpetually insisted through his fog of roidpouting. Gay marriage is a leftoid equalist project to undermine and eventually to destroy the traditional and biologically heterocentric configuration of marriage. Gay marriage is nothing less than a front in the everlasting equalist war against white male European culture.?
?Gay marriage is one cultural schism put to use by the Lords of Lies toward the redefinition and de-stigmatization of marriage from an organic mate pair system which safeguards the primacy of paternity assurance to a free-for-all ?liberation? that corrodes trust between heterosexual couples and renders hetero beta males wholly prostrate to an antagonistic marriage market stripped of any protections for their particular interests.?
?Mark my words, a massive elite push to legitimize and maybe even codify polyamory is next on the agenda.?
?Gays and lesbians? just like you and me. Except not at all like you and me. And that?s a truth the equalists dearly want to hide from view.?
?Homosexuality is a brutally horrific mental disorder and NOTHING they say or spin will change that.?


"For those who might not be aware of it, the World Health Organization identifies as being MENTALLY ILL (those who suffer from "DISORDERS" of the mind) Transsexuals and Transvestites. Further, the WHO indirectly references "Homosexuals" by including in it's International Classification of Diseases those who have "DISORDERS OF SEXUAL PREFERENCE."
And that's why the LGBT community is so ardent about saying homosexuality is not a choice (ie., not a "preference") in their ongoing attempt to legitimize themselves and their perverted lifestyle! Take away the idea of "choice" and they can claim they are ?victims of bigotry? and, thereby, DEMAND special status and privileges."

"Oh but of course, the entire global LGBT community is feverishly working to stifle the truth by PRESSURING the World Health Organization to declassify sexual deviates as those who are mentally ill. In fact, it appears the WHO may actually cave in to the idiotic pressure to comply with corrupt Political Correctness regardless of actual scientific findings. Once again, "Silence the truth at any cost" is the popular clamor of the day!"

Sometimes, a post like the one above should be left up, only because it speaks for itself. Otherwise, folks might not believe sentiments like that really still exist.