As gay marriages begin in Florida, Supreme Court is set to meet on issue

[AGENT J]

As gay marriages begin in Florida, Supreme Court is set to meet on issue - The Washington Post

As gay marriages begin in Florida, Supreme Court is set to meet on issue


Gay couples began marrying in Miami on Monday, kicking off a pivotal week when the Supreme Court will have a chance to consider whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry or whether states may limit marriage to a man and a woman.A Miami-Dade County judge gave couples there a head start before marriages begin elsewhere Tuesday in the nation’s third-most-populous state. With the addition of Florida, more than 70 percent of Americans now live in the 36 states and the District of Columbia where same-sex marriages are allowed, according to estimates by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law. On Friday, Supreme Court justices will meet in private to consider whether to act on cases that could provide a nationwide answer on whether same-sex marriages must be allowed. On the same day, a federal appeals court will consider bans in Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana.

Backup links:
Miami judge weds gays and lesbians after ruling against ban
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/06/us/same-sex-weddings-begin-in-florida.html?_r=0
Miami Judge Who Overturned Ban Weds Gays and Lesbians - ABC News
Same-sex marriages start in Miami, hours before rest of Florida | Reuters
Same-sex marriages start in Florida earlier than expected; couples elated - LA Times
After Miami

seems I'm right on track, I've been saying for a while now that i think equal rights will be national at the latest by the close of 2016 but wouldnt be surprised if it happened in 2015.


#EqualRightsAreWinning!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[AGENT J]

Human Rights article/update

The war was basically over in June 2014 about one year after the fall of DOMA when every single state had people fighting for equal rights. The fall of DOMA was huge like many educated in law and rights pointed out and many uneducated anti-gay rights people denied. It was the biggest shot fired with a direct hit that many simply knew would cause the dominoes of bigoted and illegal discrimination to fall. Now theres just some little battles here and there and some desperate last minute tactics some fearful and hateful bigots will try to use that will also fail.

Marriage Equality Begins in Florida

Moments ago, same-sex couples across Florida began marrying, following the expiration of a federal judge’s stay on a ruling overturning the state’s ban on marriage equality.

County clerks in a few counties across the state began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples late Monday night in anticipation of the official expiration of the stay at midnight, making Florida officially the 36th state, plus Washington, D.C., with marriage equality. Gay and lesbian couples can now legally marry statewide in Florida.
More than 216 million Americans – 70 percent of the country – now live in a state with marriage equality.




Gallup puts support for marriage equality at 55 percent – an astonishing 15 points increase from just 5 years ago – with other polls showing support at even higher margins. And support for same-sex marriage rights continues to grow in virtually every demographic group. According to ABC News/Washington Post, 77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage equality. 40 percent of Republicans – an all-time high and jump of 16 points in under two years – now support marriage for gay and lesbian couples, while the number of Catholics supporting marriage has grown to 62 percent, according to the New York Times. These numbers continue to grow, with no indication that support will slow down.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Great news for freedom and equality, bad news for hate-filled bigots. The world's a changin', folks. You can get on board the tolerance and peace train or you can go cry in a corner while the world moves on without you.

 

[AGENT J]

Great news for freedom and equality, bad news for hate-filled bigots. The world's a changin', folks. You can get on board the tolerance and peace train or you can go cry in a corner while the world moves on without you.

most people are on board already, even the majority of people that "think or feel" its wrong are educated enough to understand how rights work and they arent against equal rights

 

[OrphanSlug]

While I'll always profess we would be better off with the government out of the Marriage business, the number of States looking for equality of marriage is a good sign. As such, this is all good news that the majority of the States have something that equates to Marriage Equality. The remaining States blocking these efforts should fall soon enough.

 

[Deuce]

While I'll always profess we would be better off with the government out of the Marriage business, the number of States looking for equality of marriage is a good sign. As such, this is all good news that the majority of the States have something that equates to Marriage Equality. The remaining States blocking these efforts should fall soon enough.

You will profess that now, but can you honestly say you held and expressed this position prior to 2004?

And do you really want the government to stop recognizing legal family units? Why?

 

[OrphanSlug]

You will profess that now, but can you honestly say you held and expressed this position prior to 2004?

And do you really want the government to stop recognizing legal family units? Why?

Pretty much yes, I've held the position that we would be better off if government was out of the marriage business. I did question sociologically that position several times for the purpose of historical argument and debate about the prevalence of homosexuals over human history and population growth, but I did not abandon the position in doing so. I usually argued there was no concern for a growing society or all of a sudden numeric change in percentage of those that are homosexual just because of government interference or the removal of it. I may have evolved here and there on the strength of my statements, but the ideology was always there on what the government at any level should and should not be defining.

To the next question, yes. I do not have any problem with government recognition of any union among consenting adults as long as there is equality in doing so. I do however have a big problem with the government saying a marriage is one thing and unions are something else. Furthermore there is no Constitutional power or authority given to the government to define, license, or restrict personal relationships. As such, consenting adults should be completely free to choose their own relationship, boundaries for them, and sexual practices without concern of any government interference. And with that position I hold that government should not be using relationship definition as a means to decide marriage or how they end, child custody between parents, adoption practices, immigration, military service laws, or anything else we have seen the government do while abusing their authority doing so.

The argument that we need to support the recognition of a "family unit" is a ploy, designed to avoid the argument of appealing to government to be the moral barometer for a society by making the will of the majority the standard for the minority. Have we not been through enough of that bull**** to realize the mistake?

As a tie in to the OP, I am in the extreme minority on the position on government involvement in marriage. Because of the next best thing for me to advocate for is marriage equality, even with my concerns on government still being in the business of marriage identification.

 

[Deuce]

Pretty much yes, I've held the position that we would be better off if government was out of the marriage business. I did question sociologically that position several times for the purpose of historical argument and debate about the prevalence of homosexuals over human history and population growth, but I did not abandon the position in doing so. I usually argued there was no concern for a growing society or all of a sudden numeric change in percentage of those that are homosexual just because of government interference or the removal of it. I may have evolved here and there on the strength of my statements, but the ideology was always there on what the government at any level should and should not be defining.

To the next question, yes. I do not have any problem with government recognition of any union among consenting adults as long as there is equality in doing so. I do however have a big problem with the government saying a marriage is one thing and unions are something else. Furthermore there is no Constitutional power or authority given to the government to define, license, or restrict personal relationships. As such, consenting adults should be completely free to choose their own relationship, boundaries for them, and sexual practices without concern of any government interference. And with that position I hold that government should not be using relationship definition as a means to decide marriage or how they end, child custody between parents, adoption practices, immigration, military service laws, or anything else we have seen the government do while abusing their authority doing so.

The argument that we need to support the recognition of a "family unit" is a ploy, designed to avoid the argument of appealing to government to be the moral barometer for a society by making the will of the majority the standard for the minority. Have we not been through enough of that bull**** to realize the mistake?

As a tie in to the OP, I am in the extreme minority on the position on government involvement in marriage. Because of the next best thing for me to advocate for is marriage equality, even with my concerns on government still being in the business of marriage identification.

It's not a ploy, because you just discarded all of the aspects of that "family unit," legally speaking. You wanted no relationship status involved in adoption, immigration, etc, so why exactly in your ideal world does the government need to bother recognizing a family unit?

 

[OrphanSlug]

It's not a ploy, because you just discarded all of the aspects of that "family unit," legally speaking. You wanted no relationship status involved in adoption, immigration, etc, so why exactly in your ideal world does the government need to bother recognizing a family unit?

Because it is not the government's business. By the Constitution there is no real power given to the government to recognize or define what is a "family unit" just as there is no power given to government to recognize or define marriage. As such there is no Constitutional reason to use someone's relationship status, or sexual orientation, as a threshold for adoption.

Citizenship is another matter and therefor immigration does not fall under the same category as recognition of a "family unit."

 

[Deuce]

Because it is not the government's business. By the Constitution there is no real power given to the government to recognize or define what is a "family unit" just as there is no power given to government to recognize or define marriage. As such there is no Constitutional reason to use someone's relationship status, or sexual orientation, as a threshold for adoption.

Citizenship is another matter and therefor immigration does not fall under the same category as recognition of a "family unit."

So you don't want them to recognize family units, exactly what I said. What's the ploy?

 

[OrphanSlug]

So you don't want them to recognize family units, exactly what I said. What's the ploy?

I thought I already covered that in post #7, what are you confused about?

 

[joko104]

The Tampa news featured the top of page 1 a big picture of two gay men marrying, picking a black man and white man marrying to kill two birds with one stone in being PC. :lol:

 

[AGENT J]

I thought I already covered that in post #7, what are you confused about?

Government will always be involved in legal marriage, theres no other ways to have the contract and rights protected
people that dont want a legal marriage are free to do so

 

[peacefulgasbag]

Great news for freedom and equality....

 

[OrphanSlug]

Government will always be involved in legal marriage, theres no other ways to have the contract and rights protected
people that dont want a legal marriage are free to do so

Explain to us why a contract is needed, and who is being protected from what?

 

[AGENT J]

Explain to us why a contract is needed
2.) and who is being protected from what?

1.) sure thats easy kids, inheritance, property, medical, family issues and many other rights etc
2.) spouses and family from infringements and the above being denied, taken away etc

government will always be involved in legal marriage :shrug:
like i said if people dont want a legal marriage they are free to not have one right now

 

[OrphanSlug]

1.) sure thats easy kids, inheritance, property, medical, family issues and many other rights etc
2.) spouses and family from infringements and the above being denied, taken away etc

government will always be involved in legal marriage :shrug:
like i said if people dont want a legal marriage they are free to not have one right now

What makes you think all of that goes away if one does not have a contract with the government? Worse, you are basically saying a marriage is all about finances and outside controls.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)What makes you think all of that goes away if one does not have a contract with the government?
2.) Worse, you are basically saying a marriage is all about finances and outside controls.

1.) because it factually would without some other contract, laws, protections etc (government)
2.) actually i didnt say that in anyway whatsoever, you said that lol but please make up another failed strawman. Did you miss the part about people are free to not have a legal marriage? oooops try again

 

[OrphanSlug]

1.) because it factually would without some other contract, laws, protections etc (government)
2.) actually i didnt say that in anyway whatsoever, you said that lol but please make up another failed strawman. Did you miss the part about people are free to not have a legal marriage? oooops try again

Not necessarily, the whole purpose of "contract, laws, protections, etc. (government)" is about control. To ensure an outcome that I contend the government has no Constitutional authority to enforce upon the populace. It has nothing to do with free to not have a legal marriage or not, it has to do with an unequal determination that also the government has no Constitutional authority to make. I have not missed anything, nor engaging in a Strawman (you may want to look up what that means.) By definition government interference into what is "legal marriage" for the purpose of protecting something is control.

 

[Reformedfindlay]

Nearly all the states that disallow SSM are the same states that happened to support slavery.

What a backwards part of the USA, a shame.

 

[Reformedfindlay]

Not necessarily, the whole purpose of "contract, laws, protections, etc. (government)" is about control. To ensure an outcome that I contend the government has no Constitutional authority to enforce upon the populace. It has nothing to do with free to not have a legal marriage or not, it has to do with an unequal determination that also the government has no Constitutional authority to make. I have not missed anything, nor engaging in a Strawman (you may want to look up what that means.) By definition government interference into what is "legal marriage" for the purpose of protecting something is control.

What's the issue here? The ultimate authority on interpreting the constitution is the SCOTUS (sorry, I have yet to read the previous discussion, my time left is short before class begins).

 

[AGENT J]

Not necessarily, the whole purpose of "contract, laws, protections, etc. (government)" is about control. To ensure an outcome that I contend the government has no Constitutional authority to enforce upon the populace. It has nothing to do with free to not have a legal marriage or not, it has to do with an unequal determination that also the government has no Constitutional authority to make. I have not missed anything, nor engaging in a Strawman (you may want to look up what that means.) By definition government interference into what is "legal marriage" for the purpose of protecting something is control.

yes necessarily because it its not the marriage contract it will be other contracts or laws with government still involved

and yes you most certainly used a strawman denying that fact wont change it. You stated something that was factually not true, you created a false position and then argued against it/judged it. by definition thats a strawman that your post is 100% guilty of. You might want to look that word up.

like i said government will always be involved one way or another to those that want legal marriage and protection of rights.

 

[OrphanSlug]

What's the issue here? The ultimate authority on interpreting the constitution is the SCOTUS (sorry, I have yet to read the previous discussion, my time left is short before class begins).

Not really an "issue." I am being challenged on my position that the government has no authority to define, license, or restrict personal relationships. So, consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships for whatever purpose.

 

[OrphanSlug]

yes necessarily because it its not the marriage contract it will be other contracts or laws with government still involved

and yes you most certainly used a strawman denying that fact wont change it. You stated something that was factually not true, you created a false position and then argued against it/judged it. by definition thats a strawman that your post is 100% guilty of. You might want to look that word up.

like i said government will always be involved one way or another to those that want legal marriage and protection of rights.

So you say, but it does not make it so. And I engaged in no strawman, government protections equates to control. There is no way to separate government protections from control, especially when the government without authority defines, licenses, and attempts to restrict personal relationships. So, no false position and a totally accurate assessment of what defining marriage has done. Now we need marriage equality, and the majority of the States now have it in some regard. The good news is I can be ok with marriage equality as I know the government will always be involved in marriage one way or another. Governments hate to give up control, but that does not remove my stance on the matter nor is it a strawman.

 

[AGENT J]

Not really an "issue." I am being challenged on my position that the government has no authority to define, license, or restrict personal relationships. So, consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships for whatever purpose.

you are? by who?