The Gay Marriage Thread 2012

**BaneTheBrawler** · 2012-10-09 22:01

Okay. Thanks for clarifying.

**archibaldcrane** · 2012-10-10 09:44

Well, Wisconsin and California have already constitutionally amended against it.

Good luck to the rest of the states. Only the Supreme Court can fix this, and I don't know if they're ready to do that yet.

My theory has always been: Voting became race-neutral in 1870. Voting became gender-neutral in 1919. A 49 year gap.

Marriage became race-neutral in 1967. Marriage will become gender-neutral in 2016, 49 years later.

You've got 4 years left, homos.

**Waraji** · 2012-10-10 09:59

Fuck, who are the prospected presidential candidates for that year? Quite a perfect time to throw in a third party wouldn't you say?

**Waraji** · 2012-10-10 14:27

I think archi responded to this on the wrong thread.

**archibaldcrane** · 2012-10-10 17:25

Indeed I did.

Why would that be a perfect time for a 3rd party? Support for gay marriage is already a part of the official Democratic platform.

**Koul** · 2012-10-10 17:26

Jesse Ventura might run in 2016. which, would be amazing.

**kuronosan** · 2012-10-10 19:42

Originally Posted by Koul

Jesse Ventura might run in 2016. which, would be amazing.

No it wouldn't, he's a fucking good awful conspiracy theorist wackjob.

**archibaldcrane** · 2012-10-10 21:43

Good awful.

Lol.

Jessie's aight in my book. He's a bit of a conspiracy theorist because he was sent to fight in Vietnam based on a conspiracy. Google Bay of Tonkin. Considering both that and the Iraq wars were the result of conspiracies, I'll not be that upset when he of all people questions the official 9/11 story.

**Cantih** · 2012-10-10 22:36

Originally Posted by Zealot

I just meant in general, I was thinking right before coming in here that we need a viable 3rd party.

Maybe if somebody rounded up all the smaller parties without conflicting ideologies and united them under the same banner, and got some organization behind the Occupy movement, and also courted disenfranchised Republicans and Democrats along with the glut of independents. Would be at least enough to get 5% of the vote in a national election and be recognized.

My general thought on the matter is, if the GOP implodes, what's going to happen is the saner/moderate republicans will jump ship (maybe managing to take the name of the party with them), and the blue dog democrats in the house will break party and join with them.
When one party goes, the other is probably going to fracture too since the opposition pressure won't be around to push them together.

**Rhyis.** · 2012-10-10 23:21

Give them marriage but ban divorce. Let the lulz commence.

**Yuri-G** · 2012-10-18 14:32

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/18/justic...html?hpt=hp_t1
New York appeals court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act

New York (CNN) -- A federal appeals court in New York became the nation's second to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, finding that the Clinton-era law's denial of federal benefits to married same-sex couples is unconstitutional.
The divisive act, which was passed in 1996, bars federal recognition of such marriages and says other states cannot be forced to recognize them.
Read the ruling (PDF)
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined Thursday that the federal law violates the Constitution's equal protection clause, ruling in favor of a widow named Edith Windsor, an 83-year-old lesbian who sued the federal government for charging her more than $363,000 in estate taxes after being denied the benefit of spousal deductions.
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.e/img/3...bttn_close.gif
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/ass...story-body.jpg

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/ass...story-body.jpgSame-sex marriage and the election
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.e/img/3...bttn_close.gif
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/ass...story-body.jpg

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/ass...story-body.jpgDOMA would deny soldier's wife benefits
The case centered on the money Windsor wanted back, but raised the more looming question of whether the federal government can continue to ignore a state's recognition of her marriage and financially penalize her as a result.
Timeline: Same-sex marriage
"Homosexuals are not in a position to adequately protect themselves from the discriminatory wishes of the majoritarian public," wrote Dennis Jacobs, a conservative judge in New York.
A federal appeals court in Boston made a similar ruling in May, but the moves are considered largely symbolic as the issue is expected to eventually be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Man tells senators: Defense of Marriage Act cost me my home
"This court has a limited jurisdiction," CNN legal analyst Paul Callan said. "But this is a very favorable decision for those who believe that the Defense of Marriage (Act) unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex couples."
Those who back striking down the law "believe this decision will give them a very strong position arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court in the future," he said.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo also weighed in on the three-judge-panel's decision, saying it "provides further momentum for national progress on this important civil rights issue."
Boston appeals court rules Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional
In February, the Obama administration ordered the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the law, though a GOP-backed group has since taken up the issue in courts across the country.
Currently, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York and the District of Columbia issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Maryland, Washington, Maine and Minnesota are voting on the issue in November referendums.
Five states -- Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey and Rhode Island -- currently allow civil unions that provide rights similar to marriage.

**GoggleHead** · 2012-10-18 14:47

Jesus, format that shit.

**Yuri-G** · 2012-10-18 15:05

cilck the link if you want it formatted, it's busy today at work

**GoggleHead** · 2012-10-18 15:06

Then don't copy/paste the article, just link to it.

**Ksandra** · 2012-10-18 15:08

Knock it off. Shit's not that serious.

**Churchill** · 2012-10-18 17:55

seems pretty serious tho

**Eurell** · 2012-10-19 09:05

lol, the video on that link.

Romney really has been consistent about this issue unlike Obama.

Hey guys, its good to consistently be a giant dickbag.

**ringthree** · 2012-10-19 11:50

Originally Posted by Zealot

I just meant in general, I was thinking right before coming in here that we need a viable 3rd party.

Maybe if somebody rounded up all the smaller parties without conflicting ideologies and united them under the same banner, and got some organization behind the Occupy movement, and also courted disenfranchised Republicans and Democrats along with the glut of independents. Would be at least enough to get 5% of the vote in a national election and be recognized.

You would have a massive clusterfuck that is just as bad as the Democrats and Republicans.

If you don't like two groups of politicians, why would you like to add another one? Why do people think that a new party would be any better than the ones that already exist?

**archibaldcrane** · 2012-10-19 12:41

Because a new party may disagree with things the two major parties agree with - foreign interventionalism, federal reserve, capitalist society, etc. etc. etc.

**GoggleHead** · 2012-10-19 12:51

It would also serve to break the false dichotomy of Good vs Evil we have with the current situation, which would hopefully lead to a more level-headed political discourse overall.

Thread: The Gay Marriage Thread 2012

Thread Tools

Re: The Gay Marriage Thread 2012

Re: The Gay Marriage Thread 2012

Latest Threads

Up & Coming Threads

Hottest Threads