Gay marriage is legal nationwide in the US

dew said:

Welp, fuck... my bad trusting google translate. Widow annuity sounds like what I was trying to convey, heh.

Oh, good. I was scared for a while there.

Megalyth said:

gif

Hilariously appropriate. This is art.

Republicans are not pleased.

Well someone had to come along and shit on it at some point right

Zed said:

Republicans are not pleased.

When are they?

With this ruling the US took one huge step towards becoming a non-hypocritical nation. I just hope that someday the US becomes the bastion of equality and freedom that so many people make it out to be.

Finally some good political sense in a year so far full of ill-suited radical and oppressive events. It's a small step, and I wish humanism will extend to the other countries, so people can stop with all the needless death that keeps happening in the name of fanaticism and primitive imperialism (even today ISIS has committed several terrorist attacks but it's off-topic)...

I'm still waiting for the failed war on drugs to end.

That's great. Now can the bottom feeding media shut up about this already?

This is totally great news, took long enough!

RUSH said:

I'm still waiting for the failed war on drugs to end.

I don't see that happening any time soon, because it's pretty much going to require the elimination of all corruption in the US government. Because the corruption within the US government is the root cause of the "War on Drugs" a host of other issues.

Fulgrim said:

the bastion of equality and freedom that so many people make it out to be.

There are times where I forget that there are even people that believe this.

Correct me if I am wrong, but don't individual US states control things like this? What is stopping individual states from just not allowing this? I don't live in the US so I don't know exactly how things work over there, but I was under the impression that the federal government doesn't have a say in this.

Finally.

geo said:

Anyway, I'm glad they can finally marry the same gender or be what they want. Its one step closer to Star Trek harmony where aliens are the enemies. I just want people happy and productive. When straight families and their kids attend the gay pride parade for the spectacle of it all.... no one cares if you're GLTB anymore. The generation that cared is dead or dying.

Truly one of the best posts in the thread.

EDIT

RUSH said:

I'm still waiting for the failed war on drugs to end.

I honestly still can't believe it's a thing.

At the rate things get done in America, I'm guessing it will be over by roughly.... The year 3000. Yeah, that seems like an accurate estimate all things considered.

:(

Glad this is finally legal everywhere in the US. ^_^;

hardcore_gamer said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but don't individual US states control things like this? What is stopping individual states from just not allowing this? I don't live in the US so I don't know exactly how things work over there, but I was under the impression that the federal government doesn't have a say in this.

Supreme Court says it has a say in this and states can STFU because discrimination be bad and unconstitutional.

hardcore_gamer said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but don't individual US states control things like this? What is stopping individual states from just not allowing this? I don't live in the US so I don't know exactly how things work over there, but I was under the impression that the federal government doesn't have a say in this.

This is what is known as nullification, the ability for a state to nullify a federal law. It used to be a right of state governments. Theoretically. The federal government, however, has never respected it and to my knowledge it was never actually a written right for the states, merely a theoretical power.

Unsurprisingly, most if not all attempts to use it were to prevent equality, mostly from the southern states against the concept of racial integration.

About time. Now my wife and I are legal in more than just 30-some states.

Arctangent said:

This is what is known as nullification, the ability for a state to nullify a federal law. It used to be a right of state governments. Theoretically. The federal government, however, has never respected it and to my knowledge it was never actually a written right for the states, merely a theoretical power.

Unsurprisingly, most if not all attempts to use it were to prevent equality, mostly from the southern states against the concept of racial integration.

Good luck with that, nullification is against federal law. I should know, I posted the historical link in the South Carolina thread. Good try now fella.

hardcore_gamer said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but don't individual US states control things like this? What is stopping individual states from just not allowing this? I don't live in the US so I don't know exactly how things work over there, but I was under the impression that the federal government doesn't have a say in this.

No. Constitution flat out says States cannot impair the ability of individuals to make contracts. Civil unions are a contract.

hardcore_gamer said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but don't individual US states control things like this? What is stopping individual states from just not allowing this? I don't live in the US so I don't know exactly how things work over there, but I was under the impression that the federal government doesn't have a say in this.

Allowing something as a state law is generally easier than disallowing it.

While certain states did allow gay marriage, other states aren't obliged to recognize their marriage, and neither does the federal government, even in the state that does allow it.

It is simularly true with marijuana in Colorado. Even if you do all your business in that state, the Feds can still jump in and arrest you for drug use. It is still a crime at the federal level.

I'm not disappointed with the SCOTUS decision today, but I do feel like it's not as big a deal as people are making it out to be. Nevermind that same sex marriage is legal when in many states they can still get fired for being married, or being trans. Or, you know, in basically every state but California it being a defensible position to use the fact that someone is trans to justify murdering them.

But, it's a first step, I guess. However small it may be.

It's been fun watching Fox News pundits twist themselves in knots to try to reverse the "too bad, it's the law" banner they've been waving for the past decade.

Wait a second, I thought Doomworld is a family friendly forum with Christian values in mind?

Pretty cool. It’s for the better good; people should have more freedom with decision making and what they want to be.

Fulgrim said:

With this ruling the US took one huge step towards becoming a non-hypocritical nation. I just hope that someday the US becomes the bastion of equality and freedom that so many people make it out to be.

While I agree with equality and approve of the right to marriage, this is a terrible argument that you're comparing to. So the US joined the ranks, of what? All the other homosexual approving super nations out there... like Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, India, the entire African Continent, the entire South American Continent, pretty much all of the Middle East/Indochina and pacific Asian countries, etc? Because most, if not all, of those nations completely disallow, if not criminalize homosexuality... some even by the sentence of death. Even United Kingdom only recently legalized homosexual marriage.

The fact that it was legal in many states before it was federally approved was already light years ahead of marriage equality on the USA's behalf. We were easily one of the least hypocritical countries on the issue to begin with

An... interesting... response from an old high school acquaintance on facebook (Australia): http://imgur.com/MNPeINI

She's very religious, of course.

stewboy said:

An... interesting... response from an old high school acquaintance on facebook (Australia): http://imgur.com/MNPeINI

She's very religious, of course.

Considering everything she's listing is generally a criminal act (and others that I've heard are marriage of animals, marriage of children, etc) which adversely affect or harm people or animals not yet capable of making decisions on their own (or lack the intelligence to do so), and not a harmless agreement between two conscending adults of age, she's making a very poor point. Incest is also criminal as its known to causes genetic deformities in offspring. Polygamy is questionable, though... that's also usually between conscending adults. That'll probably be the next huge legalization debate.

Actually, I think incest is technically legal in either the US as a whole or some states. I forget if it extends to incest between siblings or just incest between cousins, but I have read that some fairly closely-related incest is legal within the US area.

Which, to be honest, it might not need to be illegal. I dunno, it's one of the weirder cases since human psychology tends to keep sibling relationships from actually turning into romantic ones ( even if the two aren't related; close childhood friends actually tend to be weirded out by thoughts of pursuing romance with each other ) but nature in general tends to have little issue with incest as long as it doesn't continue for too long. It's still pretty awkward, though.

Less ambiguous is the fact that she mentioned polygamy. Sure, everyone in an open relationship must be okay with the fact that it's an open relationship, but if there's no problems there what exactly is the issue with having multiple partners? I don't think I could handle a relationship like that myself, but I can think of literally no reason to forbid the people who could from pursuing one.

Arctangent said:

Less ambiguous is the fact that she mentioned polygamy. Sure, everyone in an open relationship must be okay with the fact that it's an open relationship, but if there's no problems there what exactly is the issue with having multiple partners? I don't think I could handle a relationship like that myself, but I can think of literally no reason to forbid the people who could from pursuing one.

This.