John Wilkes Booth

in all seriousness, i am glad for gay people that they can get married.

also i think it's interesting how efficient it was for the supreme court to just rule that gay marriage is legal across the board vs trying to make it legal in each state individually through individual pieces of legislation which people could vote on.

i can almost guarantee you that if we had left this issue up to the populace of this country, we'd be fighting over it for the next couple decades to come.

which i think in a way helps to demonstrates my point that democracy is inefficient and clumsy and that autocratic rule has its perks, which westerners generally refuse to acknowledge out of some dogmatic dedication to the ideological baggage of the enlightenment

Xurtio

Democratic and autocratic are two extremes. We live in a Republic in the US.

__________________
H̓̇̅̉yͤ͏mͬ͂ͧn͑̽̽̌ͪ̑͐͟o̴͊̈́͑̇m͛͌̓ͦ̑aͫ̽ͤ̇n̅̎͐̒ͫ͐c̆ͯͫ̋ ̔̃́eͯ͒rͬͬ̄҉

Josef K

The majority of Americans support same-sex marriage, actually.

grtwhtgrvty

Can you stop

DwnWthVwls

Stop what?

__________________
I don't got a god complex, you got a simple god...

John Wilkes Booth

alright, but i think the basic spirit of my initial point is unaffected by either of these nuanced attempts at contradicting what i said. my basic point is that if the issue was left up to individual states, this issue would have dragged on for at least the next few decades.

the same basic logic applies to say racial desegregation or the abolition of slavery. the way the 'republic' was originally set up to work, as a voluntary collection of individual states, has essentially been overruled by a more centrally controlled and slightly more autocratic federal system.

and then we simply arbitrarily decide when to support 'states rights' vs majority rule on a federal basis, depending on where we happen to stand on any particular issue. i.e. i see liberals whine about the DEA enforcing federal drug laws in states that are passing legislation to decriminalize or legalize marijuana, and then the same liberals will turn around and rejoice at the federal system imposing the legalization of same sex marriage on states where the populace disagrees and in some cases the states have actually moved to put in place legislation that would ban the practice.

it seems like putting in place a constitutional amendment is so damn impossible that we've opted in favor of the supreme court using a sort of convoluted logic to change laws via interpreting the existing constitution, based on their political persuasion. and then the only way this is still changed by citizens voting is indirectly; liberal presidents appointing liberal justices and vice versa.

where as if we just got ourselves a nice strong vladimir putin type dictator, he could bypass all this bureaucratic nonsense and be like "nah son, here's how this **** is going to go"

The Batlord

__________________

fiddler

Uhhh that's what the Supreme Court is supposed to do?? They decide if a law is unconstitutional. People are misunderstanding. They didn't create a new law. But rather said that banning it is unconstitutional. It's the law of the land, yes, because it's now unconstitutional to create a law saying otherwise. IF people would realize and understand this, they would realize that nothing has been done out of the way or shady or anything.

__________________
Every being is intelligent. But if you measure a fish's intelligence on it's ability to climb a tree, it will live forever thinking it's stupid.

grtwhtgrvty

This is a thread celebrating the next step towards equality for LGBT people. It's cool that you're an ally, etc. etc, thank you. Even though it's the bare minimum. Obviously everyone should be, but yeah, that's cool. That being said, it's like going to a rape support group as a non rape victim and citing things rape apologists have said on twitter. It's not your problem, so why are you coming to a celebratory thread and citing these homophobic things that actually trigger and affect actual gay people negatively, and have no actual effect on you.

It'd be one thing if it was actual LGBT people feeling oppressed by the person's commentary, and was coming to this thread to express this feeling in order to gain emotional support, but it's not. It's a middle aged straight man who's life is more or less unaffected, perpetuating the bigotry of someone who isn't even bigoted towards him.

It seems like a sorry attempt to get cozy with gay people and solidify your role as an ally. It doesn't bring anything positive to the conversation. All it did is, once again, emphasize the fact that you are indeed a straight man who is pro gay rights, while simultaneously perpetuating bigotry through unintelligent, meaningless commentary, ultimately serving as a glorified bumper sticker for the anti-gay movement.

It's not like you're sticking up for anyone. You're not negatively affected by this, and in need of support. You're just trying to find another excuse to feel good about yourself, to use this movement as a platform for self righteousness, possibly negatively affecting gay people, and reminding them of their personal struggle and oppression in the process.

Yeah he does need to shut up. Maybe you should stop quoting him for literally no reason. You're only perpetuating homophobia and embedding the feeling of oppression in LGBT people by needlessly citing anti-gay remarks as a straight person.

DwnWthVwls

If only gay people supported this change it wouldn't have happened. You should be grateful millions of straight people are on your side. That's a pretty shitty attitude.

__________________
I don't got a god complex, you got a simple god...