Finally some good news!

[Narrock]

Supreme Court halts gay marriage in Utah
By Brooke Adams | The Salt Lake Tribune
First Published 42 minutes ago
Updated 1 minute ago

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday put same-sex marriages in Utah on hold, granting the state’s request for a stay while it appeals a ruling that laws banning such marriages are unconstitutional.

The court said the stay would be in place until the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver makes a decision on Utah’s appeal.

[Jay]

My resolutions are: Be less of a douche on the NT

[Narrock]

Oh. I get it.... I'm a douche for expressing my personal beliefs. Got it.

[Ganzo]

Oh. I get it.... I'm a douche for expressing my personal beliefs. Got it.

If they are your personal beliefs, why are you trying to enforce them as a law on to others? For example in this case our personal beliefs match, however I've very much against this decree of the Supreme Court. Marriage in the US is handled by the court, which makes it a civil action that have nothing to do with religion and should be covered by the separation of Church and State. Churches can have a right to refuse a religious wedding ceremony for a gay couple but a court should not have that right being a non-religion affiliated state organization.

[Narrock]

How about leaving the decision to a referendum? Let the people decide. Seems fair, right? Well, we had that referendum here in California a couple years ago, and the result was that the majority of Californians opposed same sex marriage. But then a couple years later, a liberal gay activist judge decided to overturn the referendum because he thought it was unconstitutional to deny gays the right to marry. Then the U.S. Supreme court upheld his decision. Why would they do that, yet put gay marriage on hold in Utah? In this matter, I think the courts should stay out of it, and leave it up to the voters.

[Ganzo]

he thought it was unconstitutional to deny gays the right to marry

I completely agree, it is unconstitutional, if we have a separation of state and church, than state court should not make decisions on who can and cannot marry based on religious dogma. At the same time churches should be free to deny marriage based on the same religious dogma.

As far as letting the voters decide, this is something that was already provisioned for in our constitution and does not need a new referendum, the only reason you are calling for it is because you know that in majority people will vote to oppose it based on their religious beliefs, however this still would be a violation of people's rights based on the beliefs of the majority, not based on the laws of our country.

I bet we could have a referendum to ban Islam in US right now and it would pass by an overwhelming vote, but that still would be a violation of Freedom of Religion.

[brinstar]

ganzo is 100% right

letting the majority decide on the rights of the minority is a recipe for tyranny and oppression

[Gaazy]

I cant get it through my head mindia. How in any fucking way does two homos getting married affect you? Why do you care so much? If there was some kind of effect on your life...like it making you make less money, or your children would die or some shit...I could see it. But why? Why do you care if they want to be miserable like regular married people? Just because it gives you the creeps seeing two dudes together? Good reason.

[Narrock]

I just belong to the camp that wants to keep the definition of "marriage" as being between a biological man and a biological woman. I'm all for civil unions that afford same sex couples the same marital rights as a traditional couple though. I have no problem with that whatsoever.

[Gaazy]

Fair enough, im not poking personal jabs at you. Still dont see why it bothers you though. Like I said, if it affected something in your way of living then sure, fuck them. But it doesnt.

[Ganzo]

I'm all for civil unions that afford same sex couples the same marital rights as a traditional couple though. I have no problem with that whatsoever.

But the ban of the Supreme Court is specifically targeting a Civil Union. Any marriage performed in a court is a Civil Union, not a Religious Union since our Judges are not Ordained (some might be but that is a personal choice not a requirement).

[Narrock]

Ganzo, maybe if the gays weren't so militant and ultra-annoying I *might* change my perspective a little bit, but did you know that for a brief time, that the gays in California got the law changed so that the marriage certificate said "Person A" and "Person B" instead of husband and wife? That fucking bothers me tremendously. Thank God that later it got reinstated to husband and wife.

And do you remember what obama's stance on gay marriage was when he took office? He was staunchly opposed to it, or we were led to believe, until a couple years ago when he waffled on it and now he's all of a sudden pro gay marriage. You know what that was all about... he was trying to get the moderate vote and lied about it... which leads me to think about how he lied about obamacare just to get it passed ("if you like your health care plan you can keep it.... if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" and all that other bullshit). Obamacare would never have passed unless he told those lies.

Anyway, back on target.. I don't think the courts should mess with civil unions with marriage benefits.

[Ganzo]

Ganzo, maybe if the gays weren't so militant and ultra-annoying I *might* change my perspective a little bit, but did you know that for a brief time, that the gays in California got the law changed so that the marriage certificate said "Person A" and "Person B" instead of husband and wife? That fucking bothers me tremendously. Thank God that later it got reinstated to husband and wife.

Just because you don't like someone, doesn't mean they don't deserve the same rights. Hell, I'm very conservative and in no way think that being gay is not a sin and a fairly large one at that; however until I can reach a point where I am without a sin, there is no way I'm going to be telling someone else what they should or should not do. Discrimination and oppression does not come from anywhere else - it starts with you. There is a great song by NOFX "Re-gaining Unconsciousness"

First they put away the dealers,
keep our kids safe and off the street.
Then they put away the prostitutes,
keep married men cloistered at home.

Then they shooed away the bums,
then they beat and bashed the queers,
turned away asylum-seekers,
fed us suspicions and fears.
We didn't raise our voice,
we didn't make a fuss.
It's funny there was no one left to notice
when they came for us.

[Spazz]

HOLY SMOKES NOFX name drop.

[Tikker]

.

[Spazz]

[Tikker]

.

[Spazz]

A few years back I saw Fat mikes cokie the clown thing and it gave me depression and I havent really listened to them since.

[Spazz]

Just found it kind of dark i guess.

[Ginzburgh]

http://www.collegehumor.com/video/68468 ... irlfriends