The Shrine

Yeah there are a lot of people congregating around the supreme courts in DC today. Kind of cool.

I sincerely hope they end this stupid discrimination against Gays/Lesbians and it's not some half win/half loss.

I don't fully understand what Theodore Olson was attempting to do. The Justices did a better job of defending gay marriage then he was.

I really hope we're coming to the end of this debate in this country. Love is love.

Love shouldn't really matter here. It's an issue of equal rights under the law (rights bestowed through the institution of marriage).

I sympathize with the religious and social objectors, because I don't believe anyone should have carte blanche to marry whoever/whatever they want, especially when there are religious or cultural roots in the institution of marriage... but the whole problem boils down to rights and unequal access to benefits. The government has woven these things into marriage and, thus, it must be a valid option for gays/common law/etc.

Meanwhile in Canada, over a decade ago....

United Church Urges Ottawa to Recognize Same-Sex Partnerships Statement from the Largest Protestant Denomination in Canada

February 26, 2003

In a presentation on February 13, 2003, The United Church of Canada suggested to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that the committee should recommend to Parliament that the federal government adopt a legislative framework that provides the same civil recognition for heterosexual and homosexual couples....
Full article: http://www.buddybuddy.com/church05.html

Oh, and it was successful.

Anarky wrote:I don't fully understand what Theodore Olson was attempting to do. The Justices did a better job of defending gay marriage then he was.

The guys defending gay marriage were top class in comparison to who was against it:

Pro:
Theodore Olson - Solicitor General for President Bush
Donald Verrilli Jr. - Current Solicitor General (for Obama)

Con:
Chuck Cooper - Who the fuck is this guy?! Iran-Contra?

TRMS pointed out this difference (rather humorously) (around the 3:00 mark) on their Monday show. Cooper inexperience in arguing this stuff showed rather clearly, and you could find numerous times where Scalia was trying to argue for him.

Also, keep in mind that Kagan was Obama's Solicitor General prior to taking the job in the Supreme Court. (Verrilli replaced Kagan.) So, she's pretty experienced in being in Olson's spot, defending a position in front of the Supreme Court.

kali o. wrote:I sympathize with the religious and social objectors, because I don't believe anyone should have carte blanche to marry whoever/whatever they want, especially when there are religious or cultural roots in the institution of marriage... but the whole problem boils down to rights and unequal access to benefits. The government has woven these things into marriage and, thus, it must be a valid option for gays/common law/etc.

The whole problem is language. This argument would have been won already if they properly separated the difference between religious marriage and legal marriage. Gays want to be legally married. They could give a shit if one religion or another doesn't recognize it. Religion is a choice; they can always find a church that respects religious gay marriage. You can't do that with legal marriage. And the term "civil union" doesn't solve that, because it's legally a different term than "marriage".

Most of the opposition's position was centered around religious marriage. The arguments were actually pretty valid: nobody should force a church to re-define the terms of marriage. They are right. However, nobody was asking the government to step in and change how the church defines religious marriage.

People couldn't separate the two, because nobody referred to it in those terms. The GOP probably did that on purpose, but the pro-gay side should have picked up on that and showed people the difference.

Am I the only one who laughs whenever I read the title of this thread? :-)

Ugh if you were you aren't any more :P

Zeus wrote:Am I the only one who laughs whenever I read the title of this thread? :-)

Not really. Jon did a "Gay Oral" joke on his Thursday show.

Yeah and now oral jokes will never be funny ever again

SineSwiper wrote:

Zeus wrote:Am I the only one who laughs whenever I read the title of this thread? :-)

Not really. Jon did a "Gay Oral" joke on his Thursday show.

Yeah, I did see that. I was actually commenting on the way that subject heading was put together :-)

Sorry, Shrin, I just couldn't believe that here of all places no one had actually said anything. Usually we jump ALL OVER something like that. After I had smirked a couple of times and no one said anything, I just had to see if people missed it or something.

Clearly we've all matured! And you've gone backwards!

My comment was more about how I'm laughing every time I read the subject now lol

Now I just stop reading at Supreme Court

Shrinweck wrote:Yeah and now oral jokes will never be funny ever again

You want to go back to being way too anal on this subject?

Eric wrote:Clearly we've all matured! And you've gone backwards!

This is what having 3 kids to feed does to ya. You start to relive your childhood through them :-)

Hahahah, Shrin. Got ya!

I've stayed abreast with Lesbian Rights and have heard the oral arguments for Gay Marriage. The religious right must reach around to a compromise where both sexual preferences (gay and straight) are satisfied with the current times. A happy ending is what we all want, right?