The PokéCommunity Forums  

Go Back   The PokéCommunity Forums > Off-Topic Discussions > Discussions & Debates
Sign Up Rules/FAQ Live Battle Blogs Mark Forums Read

Notices

Discussions & Debates The place to go for slightly more in-depth topics. Discussions and debates about the world, current events, ideas, news, and more.


Reply
Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.  
Thread Tools
  #1    
Old March 26th, 2013, 08:08 AM
Lance
Master of Dragons
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Blackthorn City
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Send a message via Skype™ to Lance
Given the recent surge in support, this could be the tipping point for the legalization of Same-Sex marriage in the U.S.

Quote:
The US Supreme Court is hearing arguments on whether the state of California can ban same-sex marriage.

The justices are weighing a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex nuptials, passed after gay marriage became legal there.

They could uphold the ban, narrowly overturn it, or invalidate all state same-sex marriage bans in America.

The hearing comes as opinion polls show a rapid rise in public support for same-sex marriage.

As arguments began on Tuesday, justices questioned both the merits of the arguments and the parties' legal standing to bring the case to the high court.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, often seen as a swing vote between the four conservative and four liberal justices, suggested that children of same-sex couples would suffer an "immediate legal injury" from the ban.

Defenders of Proposition 8 marched to the court in the hundreds, perhaps thousands, accompanied by a band of kilted pipers. As the numbers swelled, the police presence thickened.

At times, the antagonists faced off. I watched a shouting match between two young men with duelling signs: one drawing attention to suicides that followed homophobic bullying, the other stating that homosexuality was against God's will.

Will the sound and fury make any mark on the nine justices inside? Of course not. But on an issue that defines our times, it signals the depth of feeling on both sides.

Among the spectators in the court on Tuesday is a lesbian cousin of conservative-leaning Chief Justice John Roberts, the Los Angeles Times reports.

Tuesday's case concerns California's ban on same-sex marriage, known as Proposition 8, which was approved by that state's voters in a referendum in November 2008.

Its passage came only after some 18,000 gay marriages had already taken place in the state, following California's legalisation of such unions earlier the same year.

Two same-sex couples filed a lawsuit, known as Hollingsworth v Perry, against Proposition 8.

As the state of California refused to defend it, the organisation that had sponsored Proposition 8 stepped in as defendants.

In 2010, a federal court ruled against Proposition 8, saying the state had not demonstrated a good reason for infringing on what the judge saw as the fundamental right of all couples to marry.

Supporters of the ban appealed against that ruling, but the court of appeals also ruled the amendment unconstitutional.

Anti-gay marriage activists then petitioned the Supreme Court to review the case. They want the question of whether marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman to be left up to individual US states.

The Obama administration is not taking part in the case but has filed what is called a "friend of the court" brief asking the Supreme Court to strike down the anti-gay marriage amendment.

In the Hollingsworth v Perry case, the court could uphold the ban, strike it down and invalidate similar bans in other states, or rule narrowly that California's law was unconstitutional.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear another case on same-sex marriage: a challenge to a federal law defining marriage as between a man and a woman only. The 1996 law, the Defense of Marriage Act, denies federal tax and other benefits to same-sex married couples.

Both cases are expected to be decided by June.

Currently, nine US states and Washington DC permit same-sex marriage. Eight other states allow civil unions or domestic partnerships with virtually all state marriage benefits, but do not allow couples to marry.

Recent opinion polls have shown a rapid growth in public support for the issue, with most Americans now believing it should be legal.

The Supreme Court cases follow a flurry of declarations in support of gay marriage by high-profile figures, including last week by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Days earlier, Ohio's Rob Portman became the first Republican senator to back gay marriage.

And now three Democratic senators - Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Mark Warner of Virginia and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia - have adopted the same stance.
How do you think the court will rule? And why?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2    
Old March 26th, 2013, 08:38 AM
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
I was watching CNN the other night with Don Lemon and they put this all in a context that everyone should really be able to relate to regardless of perspective. Taxes.

Nobody wants to pay taxes if they don't have to. XD

And one of the cases, they were saying, is about how an elderly lady had to pay an estate tax when her life-long partner who she had been living with and unable to marry had unfortunately passed away. Had she been able to get married like heterosexual couples then she would not have had to pay.

Best argument possible for tea party type folks I think.

As for what the Supreme Court will rule, I think they'll only overturn the California instance since that's what is before the courts. Would be great if they could do it country-wide, but I don't see it happening.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3    
Old March 26th, 2013, 08:58 AM
Esper's Avatar
Esper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Prop 8 is going down. I hope it goes down with all the other marriage bans - a complete overturn of all bans everywhere - but at the very least the court will narrowly strike it down or decide they shouldn't be the ones to make the decision and leave it up to the second highest court, which has already struck it down. So unless the court decides that they should be the ones to decide these things and they decide that Prop 8 is perfectly constitutional (which is very unlikely) it's going down.
__________________

deviantart blog pair
Reply With Quote
  #4    
Old March 26th, 2013, 09:10 AM
QuilavaKing's Avatar
QuilavaKing
(>^.(>0.0)>
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Oregon
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Nature: Careful
Send a message via Skype™ to QuilavaKing
If we're lucky this could be the end to all same sex marriage bans. At the very least, I can't imagine how Prop 8 could stay in place.
__________________
#156 :: Quilava

The Volcano Pokemon


Reply With Quote
  #5    
Old March 26th, 2013, 05:12 PM
Shiny Celebi
Donator Tier 3
Community Supporter Tier 3
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Internet
I hope they at least overturn Prop 8, it would be nice if they would overturn all the same sex marriage bans but I dont think that will happen even though it should.
__________________
BMGf Ever Grande City
Reply With Quote
  #6    
Old March 26th, 2013, 05:43 PM
Zorua's Avatar
Zorua
Adventurous One.
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Gender: Female
Nature: Gentle
Quote:
Would be great if they could do it country-wide, but I don't see it happening.
Wouldn't overturning Prop 8 have a similar effect on pretty much every single law banning gay marriage, since technically they're also rendered unconstitutional as well?
Reply With Quote
  #7    
Old March 26th, 2013, 07:33 PM
CarcharOdin's Avatar
CarcharOdin
Master of The Universe
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Monterey, California, USA
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Nature: Naughty
Prop 8 should never have passed in the first place.

That wasn't exactly California's finest hour.
__________________
CarcharOdin gets high on life to forget about drugs.
Reply With Quote
  #8    
Old March 26th, 2013, 08:09 PM
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X
Oops
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
With how the commentary has been going so far on Prop 8, I don't think that a outright ban on this will happen. Overturning it, yes, but a total ban on any laws of that kind no. But still, Prop 8 being overturned may cause the more open-minded states to reconsider their current stances.
__________________
Follower of Carlinism since 2008.

Come play Runescape
Reply With Quote
  #9    
Old March 26th, 2013, 11:27 PM
Vintage Arachnid
im always watchin
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Nature: Timid
Send a message via Skype™ to Vintage Arachnid
As much as I (and countless of others) would love to see them strike down all bans on same-sex marriage I seriously doubt it'll happen, but I do believe that Prop 8 will be overturned. I read countless reviews over what happened today (technically yesterday but I haven't gone to bed yet so today it is) and this is what most media outlets (that I have read) are assuming is going to happen. Nonetheless June can't come fast enough.
__________________

THE EXTREMELY JEALOUS PAIR OF CAREFULWETPAINT
Reply With Quote
  #10    
Old March 27th, 2013, 08:41 AM
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X
Oops
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote:
Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) stood before conservatives gathered at a Faith and Family Rally in Austin on Tuesday and spoke about what he perceives as a sustained attack on their values by gay rights activists.

“This is a very unsettling time in our nation’s history,” Perry said, according to the Associated Press. “These are the days when a person is vilified when they state that they believe fundamentally that marriage is between one man and one woman.”

Perry spoke just hours after the Supreme Court heard arguments on Proposition 8, California's gay marriage ban. On Wednesday, the justices will consider a case challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Perry went on to suggest that the decision by LGBT rights advocates to fight for equal treatment was proof that they were themselves intolerant.

“The underlying problem is that there is this very vocal, very litigious minority of Americans willing to legally attack anybody who dares utter a phrase or even a name that they don’t agree with,” he said. “In a twisting of logic, they insist on silencing the religious in the cause of tolerance. Now I ask you, where is the tolerance in that?”

The Austin American-Statesman reports that a heckler in the back of the crowd disagreed with Perry's remarks, yelling that the governor was finished politically.

Perry has been a consistent opponent of gay rights throughout his tenure as governor. He's supported a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and helped usher through a 2005 state ballot amendment that officially defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. During his 2012 GOP presidential campaign, Perry put his fight against gay rights front and center with a campaign ad that quickly became one of the most disliked videos on YouTube.

On Tuesday, Perry told reporters that Texas was "fairly clear about where" it stands on gay marriage.

"The people of the state of Texas, myself included, believe marriage is between one man and one woman,” Perry said, according to the Dallas Morning News.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...p_ref=politics

Oh Ricky, you so funny.
__________________
Follower of Carlinism since 2008.

Come play Runescape
Reply With Quote
  #11    
Old March 27th, 2013, 08:51 AM
Lance
Master of Dragons
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Blackthorn City
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Send a message via Skype™ to Lance
Somebody should tell Rick Perry what NBC just ran:



ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #12    
Old March 27th, 2013, 10:32 AM
Esper's Avatar
Esper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twilight Sky View Post
Wouldn't overturning Prop 8 have a similar effect on pretty much every single law banning gay marriage, since technically they're also rendered unconstitutional as well?
It depends on how they strike down Prop 8. The court could decide that it really isn't right for them to make the decision and kick it back to a lower court which has already ruled against it. That wouldn't set a precedent, but at least California would be rid of Prop 8. The court could also decide something narrow and specific to California, such as the fact that 10,000 or more same-sex couples were granted legal marriages before Prop 8 took those away. In that sense it could say that Prop 8 can't take away a right that was already granted. Since most (all?) states with marriage bans have never allowed same-sex marriages it wouldn't really affect them. I think there are other possibilities in which they narrowly strike down the law, but I can't remember them.
__________________

deviantart blog pair
Reply With Quote
  #13    
Old March 27th, 2013, 12:19 PM
Kanzler
スペースディスコ ��82.
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Perry's logic does make sense though. As a societal construct, everybody is able interprets marriage individually, but consequently from being a construct, it's an institution that is recognized communally. Maybe the state should get out of the issue of marriage all together, and split spousal benefits among the whole population? If one gay marriage doesn't affect a straight one, then whatever the state effectually defines as marriage shouldn't affect those who don't agree with it. I'm pretty sure tax benefits don't "sanctify" marriage.

They should just come to Canada in the meantime. And regardless of how things turn out =D
__________________
Cadance.
Reply With Quote
  #14    
Old March 27th, 2013, 12:33 PM
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X
Oops
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Thats more in line with what I'd want to see anyway.

Splitting the system apart - Leaving the traditional 'marriages' as a religious only construct, while having Civil Unions being used for more official stuff - Tax benefits, and whatever other special benefits that marriage currently gives.

Ideally, a Church deciding to allow gay marriages would be decided church by church - Each church's stance being based on the majority of it's members.

Civil Unions would apply for every person, no matter their race, gender, or orientation.

This would solve both problems at once - Giving gays and lesbians their rights, and letting the church feel good about keeping marriage 'sacred'.

Essentially split the system, seperating the religious and economic constructs.
__________________
Follower of Carlinism since 2008.

Come play Runescape
Reply With Quote
  #15    
Old March 27th, 2013, 01:00 PM
Kanzler
スペースディスコ ��82.
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
That is a really good idea! I think it would sound pretty reasonable to most people to have both a marriage recognized socially and a civil union recognized by the state. There could be no better vocabulary used to describe those arrangements. It makes it super clear that civil unions are about non-discriminatory relationships in the context of government. I was thinking along the lines of throwing out government recognition of 2-people relationships all together, but screw that.

Side note and unrelated. Augsberg like Bavaria? :O
__________________
Cadance.
Reply With Quote
  #16    
Old March 27th, 2013, 03:48 PM
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. X View Post
Thats more in line with what I'd want to see anyway.

Splitting the system apart - Leaving the traditional 'marriages' as a religious only construct, while having Civil Unions being used for more official stuff - Tax benefits, and whatever other special benefits that marriage currently gives.

Ideally, a Church deciding to allow gay marriages would be decided church by church - Each church's stance being based on the majority of it's members.

Civil Unions would apply for every person, no matter their race, gender, or orientation.

This would solve both problems at once - Giving gays and lesbians their rights, and letting the church feel good about keeping marriage 'sacred'.

Essentially split the system, seperating the religious and economic constructs.
I very much like that idea
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #17    
Old March 28th, 2013, 09:49 AM
Esper's Avatar
Esper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
I used to think that we should have marriages be totally religious and that everyone who wants government recognition of their partnership should get a civil union, whether they're married or not. There's a simple sense in that and it seems fair.

But what about, say, if you find yourself injured and you've been taken to a Catholic hospital because it's the only one nearby? Or what if you want your kids to go to the best school in the area and it's a private religious school? Would they recognize your civil union (or for that matter, your marriage if it was done under a different religion)? If every institution (schools, hospitals, whatever) that is taking on a role in the public sphere is willing to follow the law and treat every civil union like it does a marriage in every respect then I wouldn't be bothered, but I feel like we're not quite there yet.
__________________

deviantart blog pair
Reply With Quote
  #18    
Old March 28th, 2013, 09:55 AM
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X
Oops
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
As far as I know, hospitals can't turn a person away based on their origntation, or if they are or are not married.

As for religious schools, they would be allowed to set their own standards for who they accept as students. They aren't public schools, so they are already allowed to pick and choose as is.
__________________
Follower of Carlinism since 2008.

Come play Runescape
Reply With Quote
  #19    
Old March 28th, 2013, 11:13 AM
Esper's Avatar
Esper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. X View Post
As far as I know, hospitals can't turn a person away based on their origntation, or if they are or are not married.

As for religious schools, they would be allowed to set their own standards for who they accept as students. They aren't public schools, so they are already allowed to pick and choose as is.
With hospitals I was thinking more along the lines of visiting privileges or decision making if someone where on life support or something like that. You know, those cases where only "family" are allowed.

I might be confusing private schools with charter schools, but I thought they still had to follow some minimum rules and laws.
__________________

deviantart blog pair
Reply With Quote
  #20    
Old March 28th, 2013, 11:21 AM
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarf View Post
I used to think that we should have marriages be totally religious and that everyone who wants government recognition of their partnership should get a civil union, whether they're married or not. There's a simple sense in that and it seems fair.

But what about, say, if you find yourself injured and you've been taken to a Catholic hospital because it's the only one nearby? Or what if you want your kids to go to the best school in the area and it's a private religious school?
I think the hospital is obligated to treat you regardless. In terms of visitation and the like, once those rights are granted be it through marriage or a civil union, they would need to follow them as that is the law

And, private schools can do whatever they want, they're private. But, I don't see why they would have to acknowledge someone's marriage? O_o Is that part the requirements? I'd imagine there could very well be children from single parents there, so what would it matter to them?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #21    
Old March 28th, 2013, 11:36 AM
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X
Oops
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Since the hospitals are open to the public, they would have to follow current standards.

Private schools and charter schools are similar, but charter schools have specific standards that they must follow, other then that they can do what they like. Private schools can make and/or use whatever standards they like.

Saw this pic, can't resist.

__________________
Follower of Carlinism since 2008.

Come play Runescape

Last edited by Mr. X; March 28th, 2013 at 08:55 PM. Reason: Your double post has been automatically merged.
Reply With Quote
Reply
Quick Reply

Sponsored Links
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Minimum Characters Per Post: 25



All times are UTC -8. The time now is 01:15 PM.


Style by Nymphadora, artwork by Sa-Dui.
Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.