Naturally.
Although, the reception always seems to die down after I chose my human sacrifice, and eat their heart.
Talk about doing a Happy Dance! Gay Happy Dance, of course.
I’m wearing my “Have A Gay Day” T-shirt with the rainbow smiley face on it. Already gotten 7 compliments on it, and 12 smiles with thumbs up!
The anti-abortion, anti-homosexual crew that hangs out at the local women’s health center on Saturdays asked 'So now is it okay for a man to marry a baboon?" I shot back “Is it okay for a grandfather to marry his 10 year old granddaughter? That’s an opposite sex marriage.” The clinic escorts and the police guard cheered! One told me “That was awesome.”
They’ll use it like Roe v. Wade to energize their base. At a national level, nothing will be done because its existence gives the something with which to commiserate with their constituents. At a state level, we could be in for many attempts to chip away at the ruling.
Congratulations fiveroptic!
Congratulations panache!
And congratulations to anyone who now has the option to make their existing or future marriage legal.
Two years ago there was a brief discussion on the board about getting marriage equality for all 50 states. There was some debate about whether it would happen by the end of the decade, and here we are with 5 years to spare!
I really really hope they do. This will hurt them.
This statement by Joe Biden is beautiful.
A day later, I’m still just pleased as punch. Really really happy punch.
I understand, and my comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I remember the civil rights movement of the 60s. I worry about my grandson, as he’s young, idealistic, and headed off to Arizona to go to college. I plan to have a talk with him about how a SCOTUS decision doesn’t mean that suddenly everyone is going to abandon their prejudices, and to please protect himself when off campus.
What makes you think that they can’t? Justices Thomas and, well, I can’t remember if it’s Scalia or Alito, have make it quite clear that they are ready to “reconsider” Roe v. Wade; why not “reconsider” this ruling as well?
They should have responded, “I don’t know about 10, but what if the granddaughter is 18 - or, for that matter, if he wants to marry both of his 18-year-old twin granddaughters? They’re both consenting adults, and marriage between willing adults is now a fundamental human right, apparently.”
That doesn’t matter, (despite insest being illegal in a lot of states, and gay relationships are not), her retort to the anti-SSM Sippery Slope argument was to shine a light on not only is the slope they’re claiming is slippery is not only bone dry but not even a slope.
You know how terrifying those flat plains with good traction are.
Many, many congrats from Germany! You know, I have many beefs with American politics and societal issues, and my relationship to the U.S. is a love/hate thing, but sometimes, despite all your religious hang-ups, you do the right and proper thing before our oh-so secular country. The thing is, the man on the street here doesn’t have any religious problem with SSM, but the influence of the Catholic church and cleric is sufficient for one of the ruling parties that still carries the Christian label, the CDU, to shy away from granting the rights to gays that you now do. Shows one more time that real separation of state and church can trump a wide-spread secularism of the people when there’s still too much political influence of the old religious cadres. Often, people here complain about too much American societal and cultural influence (“Must we adapt everything that comes from America? Oh the humanity!”), but this time I hope, together with the Irish referendum, this will lead to the necessary changes in SSM politics soon here.
And not to forget, to all the people in this thread who can marry now: have a nice wedding and wonderful marriage :).
Yes, but much less so than those frictionless inclined planes that people imagine existing. 
The correct response to this is “Someone married you.”
And the funny thing is, the sins that most of these people seem to think will provoke this kind of reaction are generally sexual ones. Not things like predatory lending, wealth inequality, mistreating strangers, or in general not treating others the way you would like to be treated.
The arguement may be more in line with Bernstein v. Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association , a legal case from New Jersey.
A same-sex couple sued a Methodist church whichrefused to rent them church owned property for a marriage ceremony. The New Jersey court ruled in favor of the couple.
So the question will be settled, over a series of future lawsuits, what exactly is the acceptable boundary line when religious practice clash with same sex marriage rights.
The court ruled that the church must rent out its seaside pavilion for a marriage which the church does not condone.
Could a church be forced to rent its chapel or synagogue? Does it matter if that religious organization limits use of the building to only its enrolled members?
Can a minister, rabbi, or imam be forced to officiate a same sex marriage since the religious officiant’s ability to sanction a marriage puts him/her in the role of a state official for that purpose?
We’ll eventually see cases to address similar questions, and meanwhile a lot of rabblerousing about enacting laws to favor the religious liberty not to be forced to be involved in such ceremonies.
If you rent it out to the public, you lose your discretion as to who you can rent it out to. This goes for off-church properties or the church property itself, if you’re in the habit of renting it out for the use of non-congregants.
Same-sex marriage being legal does not prohibit businesses from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. States that prohibit that discrimination continue to do so (like New Jersey, which did not have same-sex marriage in 2012) and states that don’t will probably, sadly, mostly continue to not.
The “pets” thing is obviously nonsense but, realistically speaking, this very likely is the first of many, many legal cases that will be used to attempt to legalize polygamy. It’s a very, very long road and certainly public opinion is not remotely in support of polygamous marriages, but the lawsuits will come. As indeed will the ones about incest (after all, the state concerns about genetic problems don’t apply if two brothers marry, right?) and various other ones involving consenting adults which the general public (myself included in some instances, no doubt) will find distasteful.
And, actually, that’s a good thing. The burden of demonstrating that a freedom should be withheld should fall on the state, and if the state cannot demonstrate a harm or come up with a more compelling reason than “it’s icky”, maybe whatever-it-is shouldn’t be illegal. These things must be hammered out in the legal system in order to ensure we are not causing misery to some for no public benefit.
Freedom. It’s messy but it’s worth fighting to do right.
I know you’re joking but, generally speaking, can we not do this? While I’m sure some lesbians are exhibitionists, by and large they’re not kissing each other for the benefit of straight men watching them.
You left out “Rend raiments.”
The Right Wing may rail about this for some time to come, but I think they’ll lose in the end and won’t be able to make it a lasting wedge issue like they have with abortion. Many think abortion harms the fetus, while no one can really point to harm done when two consenting adults love each other and want to get married. They might try “think of the children!” rhetoric, but gays were adopting and raising families before marriage for them become legal, so it seems to be a non-issue.
I keep finding myself randomly smiling and giggling than for no other reason that I’m living in a country where my marriage would be equal to anyone elses.