What state will be LAST to legalize gay marriage?

[Guest032516]

Or will a future Supreme Court ruling simply legalize for the last group of holdout states?

At this point, really, what is the point of opposing it? Take a look at this fascinating interactive map:

http://exp.lore.com/post/53935203050...medium=twitter

At first, in the 1990s, just about every state turns black or dark gray as gay marriage is specifically made illegal by law or by state constitutional ban.

Then in 2000, beginning in Vermont, states begin turning pink or red depending on whether civil unions or gay marriage is legalized. Probably about one third of the US population now lives in a state where gay marriage/civil unions are legal.

Needless to say, most of the hold outs are in the South of the mountain west.

In 2103 and 2014, gay marriage (not just civil unions) will probably be legalized in Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Oregon. If you toss in just one big state, like Ohio or Pennsylvania, then at least half of the US will have marriage equality. All that will have occurred in about 15 years.

So, at this point, is there any principled argument for opposing it? Do you rally want Texas or OK or whatever state you are living in to the the LAST state?

People below about the age of 40 generally support it and young people overwhelmingly support it. So, why continue to ban it? To keep old people happy?

I only ask this because I think it is important that IBHankering be allowed to marry the tranny of his choice and that IIFFOFDB be allowed to marry not just his sister, but his hillbilly brother as well.

[nwarounder]

OK will definitely be the last state, if ever. Cruelty best explains many of it's civil liberty infringements. If it goes against the bible here, you can bet there is a felony punishment attached to it.

I doubt you will see SCOTUS doing anything further on it, not for very long time anyway unless some states just go crazy and start putting people in jail for it. Wouldn't put that past some though.

[BlueFaery]

AZ as they break the law believing they are above the law.

[CuteOldGuy]

Blue Faery, I'd like to be illegally above you!

[Chica Chaser]

Originally Posted by BlueFaery

AZ as they break the law believing they are above the law.

You may be exactly right with these extreme right-wing wackos we have out here running the show.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Blue Faery, I'd like to be illegally above you!

Heh, my thoughts exactly...and guess who is right here in town with her?

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Blue Faery, I'd like to be illegally above you!

That confirms his gayness...

[acp5762]

Gay Marriages are really quite hideous. Marriage is designed to be a covenant between a man and women and God. The spiritual aspect of marriage is that a man and women love one another to the extent that they should bear children in the likeness of each other, as man was created in the likeness of God. Homosexuals are incapable of this. Gay marriage is a mockery of what god intended for marriage to be. Something's should be regarded as sacred, marriage between man and women is one of them, but unfortunately many people don't see it that way.

[CJOHN]

Originally Posted by acp5762

Gay Marriages are really quite hideous. Marriage is designed to be a covenant between a man and women and God. The spiritual aspect of marriage is that a man and women love one another to the extent that they should bear children in the likeness of each other, as man was created in the likeness of God. Homosexuals are incapable of this. Gay marriage is a mockery of what god intended for marriage to be. Something's should be regarded as sacred, marriage between man and women is one of them, but unfortunately many people don't see it that way.

how about lesbian couple using your sperm to produce children?

[acp5762]

Originally Posted by CJOHN

how about lesbian couple using your sperm to produce children?

Well that brings up another question. Should Homosexuals be permitted to adopt. apparently some states allow it. But Iam against it. To answer your question. I wouldn't donate my sperm to a lesbian. I think by their nature they forfeited their ability to bear children in a natural sense. So lets just keep it that way.

[JD Barleycorn]

I'm not sure you really understand what the SCOTUS decided.

Prop 8: The people who brought the case don't have any standing and they lost at the appeals level. So the SCOTUS basically said that everything that occurred after the wrong people filed suit didn't happen. That means the loss at the appeals court didn't happen so the law goes back into force. Now the caveat is that it pretty much requires the governor or state attorney to challenge the injunction and that is not going to happen. So gay marriage in California will not really be legal but Brown is not going to challenge the latest injunction to suppress the vote of the people. So it is only a matter of a few weeks.

DOMA: Section 4 of DOMA was declared unconstitutional. That is a tax code, a federal tax code. Two lesbians were married in California and one of them died. Instead inheriting like a normal married couple the survivor was given a $350,000 tax bill. She sued the federal government (this is all Clinton's fault don't you know) for not treating her like a married spouse. She won. So the SCOTUS ruled that the federal government shall treat all gay, married partners will be treated just like normal married partners but only in the states that legalized gay marriage. So nothing has really changed except that the federal government can no longer discriminate against gay married people.

So gay marriage is not legal in any more states than before the decision. They have opened a couple of cans of worms though. When polygamy is legalized (the Mormon/Arab vote) who will get the benefits from the federal government? The first, second, or third wife? Depending on how current law is written they would either split the benefits or all would recieve an equal, full share no matter how many years there were married. Wouldn't that piss off the 20+ year wife if her co-wife of only 2 years got the same amount of benefits. I can see a lawsuit there too.

[JCM800]

as long as religious fucks out there still think they can "pray away the gay" or some shit like that, there will be enough opposition to prevent some states to legalize it. and it seems to be all based on religion.

at this point in 2013 who the fuck cares if gays want to marry.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by acp5762

Gay Marriages are really quite hideous. Marriage is designed to be a covenant between a man and women and God. The spiritual aspect of marriage is that a man and women love one another to the extent that they should bear children in the likeness of each other, as man was created in the likeness of God. Homosexuals are incapable of this. Gay marriage is a mockery of what god intended for marriage to be. Something's should be regarded as sacred, marriage between man and women is one of them, but unfortunately many people don't see it that way.

So, in other words, you have no principled arguments.

You just have your religious beliefs, which many people don't share and which are not supposed to be the basis for laws in nation that has a constitutional ban on establishment of religion.

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by acp5762

Gay Marriages are really quite hideous. Marriage is designed to be a covenant between a man and women and God. The spiritual aspect of marriage is that a man and women love one another to the extent that they should bear children in the likeness of each other, as man was created in the likeness of God. Homosexuals are incapable of this. Gay marriage is a mockery of what god intended for marriage to be. Something's should be regarded as sacred, marriage between man and women is one of them, but unfortunately many people don't see it that way.

Wow dude, that is only a Christian point of view, not an American point of view. You may disapprove of the Constitution, but it specifically calls for separation of church and state. Try reading a little more and listening a little less. You sound very cultish, and not very Christian-like. This is the very reason Repubs fail so often in politics.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I'm not sure you really understand what the SCOTUS decided.

Prop 8: The people who brought the case don't have any standing and they lost at the appeals level. So the SCOTUS basically said that everything that occurred after the wrong people filed suit didn't happen. That means the loss at the appeals court didn't happen so the law goes back into force. Now the caveat is that it pretty much requires the governor or state attorney to challenge the injunction and that is not going to happen. So gay marriage in California will not really be legal but Brown is not going to challenge the latest injunction to suppress the vote of the people. So it is only a matter of a few weeks.
What does "will not really be legal" in California mean? Proposition 8 was struck down as unconstiutional. The California gay marriage statute that Prop 8 overturned is once again the law in California..

DOMA: Section 4 of DOMA was declared unconstitutional. That is a tax code, a federal tax code. Two lesbians were married in California and one of them died. Instead inheriting like a normal married couple the survivor was given a $350,000 tax bill. She sued the federal government (this is all Clinton's fault don't you know) for not treating her like a married spouse. She won. So the SCOTUS ruled that the federal government shall treat all gay, married partners will be treated just like normal married partners but only in the states that legalized gay marriage. So nothing has really changed except that the federal government can no longer discriminate against gay married people.
And that affects how many millions of people?

So gay marriage is not legal in any more states than before the decision. They have opened a couple of cans of worms though. When polygamy is legalized (the Mormon/Arab vote) who will get the benefits from the federal government? The first, second, or third wife? Depending on how current law is written they would either split the benefits or all would recieve an equal, full share no matter how many years there were married. Wouldn't that piss off the 20+ year wife if her co-wife of only 2 years got the same amount of benefits. I can see a lawsuit there too.

The polygamy argument was, is, and always will be a bullshit argument. There are perfectly good, rational reasons to prohibit more than one spouse. You don't have to look into any religious scriptures to find a reason to oppose it.

[acp5762]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

So, in other words, you have no principled arguments.

You just have your religious beliefs, which many people don't share and which are not supposed to be the basis for laws in nation that has a constitutional ban on establishment of religion.

I think that religion is the principal argument of why same sex marriages haven't been implemented in many states. If religion didn't exist at all in this country, in other words if America was an atheist country, the debate over same sex marriages wouldn't exist and marriage as we know it in a spiritual sense wouldn't exist. Marriage would simply be a legal contract between two people regardless of gender. So religion plays a part on how we view marriage and it can get marbled in the legal and political issues of same sex marriages.