AL Supreme Court orders probate judges not to license same sex marriages

[7,052,770]

Which state mandates segregated bathrooms? That's up to each individual establishment, and many of them have unisex bathrooms. In addition, it's not at all uncommon at places like gas stations for people to go into the "wrong" bathroom if there's a long line for one and none for the other. Or if you just sneak into the women's restroom, you'll probably get away with it, or at worst, just get told off by a cashier or something.

There's no parallel to gay marriage here -- if a gay couple somehow tricked a county into marrying them, they wouldn't just get a lecture, their marriage would be dissolved and they would be in trouble. The counties where it's illegal can't make an exception and just allow a gay marriage in a pinch (like businesses can with the restrooms), nor allow them all the time (a parallel to the very common unisex bathrooms).

[CJK]

Let's take my analogy to a ridiculous extreme: desegregating public showers. Right now you, me, and everybody else on the planet agrees that this would cause the world to end. Just like the vast majority of the southern whites thought that the world would end if racial segregation was abolished and the vast majority of people believed that gays were sick freaks. Yet I've personally seen no scientific evidence to substantiate this.

If society and media relentlessly portrayed such showers as being a routine, mundane manner instead of a taboo sexual fantasy and emphasized that males acting on their instincts were low class scum, you could plausibly argue that the situation would be no different than women wearing skimpy and provocative clothing in our everyday lives. In 1900 bear arms were considered to be utterly scandalous, and modern bikinis simply unimaginable. The only countries today that actually protect women in this regard are Muslim.

This is the door you are opening by mindlessly cheering the end of thousands of years of gender restrictions on marriage. Nobody in the 1960s civil rights movement had the faintest idea that their activities would later be used to justify homosexual marriage.

[bedstuy]

Let's take my analogy to a ridiculous extreme: desegregating public showers. Right now you, me, and everybody else on the planet agrees that this would cause the world to end. Just like the vast majority of the southern whites thought that the world would end if racial segregation was abolished and the vast majority of people believed that gays were sick freaks. Yet I've personally seen no scientific evidence to substantiate this.

If society and media relentlessly portrayed such showers as being a routine, mundane manner instead of a taboo sexual fantasy and emphasized that males acting on their instincts were low class scum, you could plausibly argue that the situation would be no different than women wearing skimpy and provocative clothing in our everyday lives. In 1900 bear arms were considered to be utterly scandalous, and modern bikinis simply unimaginable. The only countries today that actually protect women in this regard are Muslim.

This is the door you are opening by mindlessly cheering the end of thousands of years of gender restrictions on marriage. Nobody in the 1960s civil rights movement had the faintest idea that their activities would later be used to justify homosexual marriage.

So, are you against the reforms of the civil rights movement?

That's the fatal flaw with these slippery slope arguments.  I guess society can never, ever give anyone rights or ease up on any social restriction or taboo.  We can't legalize birth control because it will lead to legalizing bestiality or whatever.  It's an insane position.

[afleitch]

Just out of interest CJK, and moving this away from your more scatological concerns, would you agree with your own position expressed earlier, that by extension it is possible to uphold the ban on interracial marriage as that didn’t stop blacks from marrying, as long as they married other blacks.

The fact that blacks could actually love a white person (and vice versa) and there wasn’t anything suspect about it, there wasn’t anything unnatural about it, there wasn’t a threat to the family, or to marriage or society or the church of whatever didn’t count for anything when that law was still in place. And the only reason it didn’t count for anything in law, was that the state arbitrarily decided that black people marrying white people was a threat.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Let's take my analogy to a ridiculous extreme: desegregating public showers. Right now you, me, and everybody else on the planet agrees that this would cause the world to end. Just like the vast majority of the southern whites thought that the world would end if racial segregation was abolished and the vast majority of people believed that gays were sick freaks. Yet I've personally seen no scientific evidence to substantiate this.

If society and media relentlessly portrayed such showers as being a routine, mundane manner instead of a taboo sexual fantasy and emphasized that males acting on their instincts were low class scum, you could plausibly argue that the situation would be no different than women wearing skimpy and provocative clothing in our everyday lives. In 1900 bear arms were considered to be utterly scandalous, and modern bikinis simply unimaginable. The only countries today that actually protect women in this regard are Muslim.

This is the door you are opening by mindlessly cheering the end of thousands of years of gender restrictions on marriage. Nobody in the 1960s civil rights movement had the faintest idea that their activities would later be used to justify homosexual marriage.

once again, there would be literally nothing wrong with this. why are you fearmongering about it?

[CJK]

Just out of interest CJK, and moving this away from your more scatological concerns, would you agree with your own position expressed earlier, that by extension it is possible to uphold the ban on interracial marriage as that didn’t stop blacks from marrying, as long as they married other blacks.

The fact that blacks could actually love a white person (and vice versa) and there wasn’t anything suspect about it, there wasn’t anything unnatural about it, there wasn’t a threat to the family, or to marriage or society or the church of whatever didn’t count for anything when that law was still in place. And the only reason it didn’t count for anything in law, was that the state arbitrarily decided that black people marrying white people was a threat.

It was in my opinion completely constitutional, whether or not it was morally right. The court should not be reinterpreting the constitution no matter how noble minded. Even if the court had done nothing the racial restrictions would have eventually have been abolished. It would have been better to do that than traumatize both races. But I don't think you can equate racial restrictions on marriage, which was a pure American invention with the fundamental gender restrictions on marriage.

[afleitch]

Just out of interest CJK, and moving this away from your more scatological concerns, would you agree with your own position expressed earlier, that by extension it is possible to uphold the ban on interracial marriage as that didn’t stop blacks from marrying, as long as they married other blacks.

The fact that blacks could actually love a white person (and vice versa) and there wasn’t anything suspect about it, there wasn’t anything unnatural about it, there wasn’t a threat to the family, or to marriage or society or the church of whatever didn’t count for anything when that law was still in place. And the only reason it didn’t count for anything in law, was that the state arbitrarily decided that black people marrying white people was a threat.

It was in my opinion completely constitutional, whether or not it was morally right. The court should not be reinterpreting the constitution no matter how noble minded. Even if the court had done nothing the racial restrictions would have eventually have been abolished. It would have been better to do that than traumatize both races. But I don't think you can equate racial restrictions on marriage, which was a pure American invention with the fundamental gender restrictions on marriage.

Well that's me out of here.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

However, the bathroom analogy isn't a good one as we don't have a situation where everyone isn't provided access to a bathroom for their gender.  (Unless you're going to argue we have more than two genders by using a definition not based on physical attributes.)

Everybody has access to a public bathroom so long as they choose the one that matches their sex. In a like manner everybody has access to marriage so long as they choose an opposite sex partner.

Yes of course marriage is not the same thing as going to the bathroom but the legal principals are the same. Also, unwanted interest situations already exist in bathrooms as gay men and straight men are required to use the same facilities.

Terrible analogy. We all need to take a leak. Marriage is a government recognised union of two people who are not related. That union has traditionally been, in good faith between a man and a woman who love each other with a sexual intimacy (scam marriages aside). That union may, or may not result in children. As to what sex, if any happens within that marriage is also of no business to the state. Even gay marriage opponents are generally not interested in policing that area. The reason why state sanctioned marriage has been between a man and a women was because of general ignorance or dismissal of the fact that two men or two women may love each other with that same level of sexual intimacy. And that love is innate within them. Whether or not they raise children or what intimacy they have should be of no business to the state for the same reason the state should not have an interest in prohibiting a post menopausal woman from marrying.

Intimacy?  You seem to be assuming the opponents of SSM are basing their opposition upon a definition of marriage based on love.  The traditional marriage they espouse has a definition of marriage based on property.  Clearly men can only be owners and women can only be the owned.  This property based definition of marriage also explains of course why interracial marriage was such a bugaboo as well, tho we got over that sooner once marriage changed from being the sale of a dependent woman to a union of two equals.

[pbrower2a]

Just out of interest CJK, and moving this away from your more scatological concerns, would you agree with your own position expressed earlier, that by extension it is possible to uphold the ban on interracial marriage as that didn’t stop blacks from marrying, as long as they married other blacks.

The fact that blacks could actually love a white person (and vice versa) and there wasn’t anything suspect about it, there wasn’t anything unnatural about it, there wasn’t a threat to the family, or to marriage or society or the church of whatever didn’t count for anything when that law was still in place. And the only reason it didn’t count for anything in law, was that the state arbitrarily decided that black people marrying white people was a threat.

Bans on SSM look similar in spirit to the old bans on interracial marriage. States have authorized SSM without getting obvious bad consequences. Oh, it disgusts people? Tough luck! I don't want any blasphemy laws, do you?

It was in my opinion completely constitutional, whether or not it was morally right. The court should not be reinterpreting the constitution no matter how noble minded. Even if the court had done nothing the racial restrictions would have eventually have been abolished. It would have been better to do that than traumatize both races. But I don't think you can equate racial restrictions on marriage, which was a pure American invention with the fundamental gender restrictions on marriage.

[CJK]

I just want to clarify that I'd be fine with having civil unions as a solution, but when you push to redefine a gender-specific institution like marriage it's going to lead to have a lot of unfortunate implications. Separate but equal has been vilified over the years but it is a lot more nuanced than its critics let on.

[SteveRogers]

Just out of interest CJK, and moving this away from your more scatological concerns, would you agree with your own position expressed earlier, that by extension it is possible to uphold the ban on interracial marriage as that didn’t stop blacks from marrying, as long as they married other blacks.

The fact that blacks could actually love a white person (and vice versa) and there wasn’t anything suspect about it, there wasn’t anything unnatural about it, there wasn’t a threat to the family, or to marriage or society or the church of whatever didn’t count for anything when that law was still in place. And the only reason it didn’t count for anything in law, was that the state arbitrarily decided that black people marrying white people was a threat.

It was in my opinion completely constitutional, whether or not it was morally right. The court should not be reinterpreting the constitution no matter how noble minded. Even if the court had done nothing the racial restrictions would have eventually have been abolished. It would have been better to do that than traumatize both races. But I don't think you can equate racial restrictions on marriage, which was a pure American invention with the fundamental gender restrictions on marriage.

Well that's me out of here.

Same.

[King]

lmao CJK

[bedstuy]

Even if the court had done nothing the racial restrictions would have eventually have been abolished. It would have been better to do that than traumatize both races.

Separate but equal has been vilified over the years but it is a lot more nuanced than its critics let on.

The traditional marriage they espouse has a definition of marriage based on property.  Clearly men can only be owners and women can only be the owned.

Same-sex marriage is as bad as race mixing and women's rights!!!

[CJK]

Really? You guys think there was no traumitization going on in South in the 1950s and 1960s?

If you really believe separate but equal is wrong you should be advocating the abolition of all sex segregation everywhere.

[Ebowed]

Even if the court had done nothing the racial restrictions would have eventually have been abolished. It would have been better to do that than traumatize both races.

Separate but equal has been vilified over the years but it is a lot more nuanced than its critics let on.

The traditional marriage they espouse has a definition of marriage based on property.  Clearly men can only be owners and women can only be the owned.

Same-sex marriage is as bad as race mixing and women's rights!!!

LMAO

[King]

just when I thought you couldn't get any more lmao

lmao ^ 2

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Even if the court had done nothing the racial restrictions would have eventually have been abolished. It would have been better to do that than traumatize both races.

Separate but equal has been vilified over the years but it is a lot more nuanced than its critics let on.

The traditional marriage they espouse has a definition of marriage based on property.  Clearly men can only be owners and women can only be the owned.

Same-sex marriage is as bad as race mixing and women's rights!!!

Agreed.  They're all equally bad, but that's because none of them are bad.  I realize the selective quote you made of me could be taken the other way without its context.

[Brittain33]

I just want to clarify that I'd be fine with having civil unions as a solution, but when you push to redefine a gender-specific institution like marriage it's going to lead to have a lot of unfortunate implications. Separate but equal has been vilified over the years but it is a lot more nuanced than its critics let on.

Yeah, that was a defensible position for the right 10 years ago, but now it comes across as desperation because you recognize certain defeat on the terms of marriage.

[Brittain33]

Really? You guys think there was no traumitization going on in South in the 1950s and 1960s?

Introduced by Loving v. Virginia?

[All Along The Watchtower]

Note that opponents of gay marriage 99.99999* times out of 100 oppose homosexuality in general (because gays are icky).

_{with the remaining fraction of a percentage being statistical noise.}

[Badger]

You guys are missing the best line of all about inter-racial marriage.

It was in my opinion completely constitutional, whether or not it was morally right.

Dude, seriously, stop posting. You are an embarrassment to every blue avatar here.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Note that opponents of gay marriage 99.99999* times out of 100 oppose homosexuality in general (because gays are icky).

_{with the remaining fraction of a percentage being statistical noise.}

Thank you for putting me in your special, little 0.1%.....

I don't think gays are icky, I'm simply told that assisting gay marriage isn't okay by my lord and savior. And god doesn't need a reason to oppose something.

[CJK]

I just want to clarify that I'd be fine with having civil unions as a solution, but when you push to redefine a gender-specific institution like marriage it's going to lead to have a lot of unfortunate implications. Separate but equal has been vilified over the years but it is a lot more nuanced than its critics let on.

Yeah, that was a defensible position for the right 10 years ago, but now it comes across as desperation because you recognize certain defeat on the terms of marriage.

So again, if you think that inherent gender qualifications are illegal on marriage, why do you support them on public restrooms? If you think that a separate but equal solution stigmatizes all gays as sick freaks, why do you find the bathroom restrictions not stigmatizing all men as perverts and all women as fragile little girls?

[afleitch]

I just want to clarify that I'd be fine with having civil unions as a solution, but when you push to redefine a gender-specific institution like marriage it's going to lead to have a lot of unfortunate implications. Separate but equal has been vilified over the years but it is a lot more nuanced than its critics let on.

Yeah, that was a defensible position for the right 10 years ago, but now it comes across as desperation because you recognize certain defeat on the terms of marriage.

So again, if you think that inherent gender qualifications are illegal on marriage, why do you support them on public restrooms? If you think that a separate but equal solution stigmatizes all gays as sick freaks, why do you find the bathroom restrictions not stigmatizing all men as perverts and all women as fragile little girls?

Personally I'm glad it's maintained, so I can nip into the disabled toilet should I ever be in a restaurant with you given your obsession over people's toilet habits.

[SteveRogers]

I just want to clarify that I'd be fine with having civil unions as a solution, but when you push to redefine a gender-specific institution like marriage it's going to lead to have a lot of unfortunate implications. Separate but equal has been vilified over the years but it is a lot more nuanced than its critics let on.

Yeah, that was a defensible position for the right 10 years ago, but now it comes across as desperation because you recognize certain defeat on the terms of marriage.

So again, if you think that inherent gender qualifications are illegal on marriage, why do you support them on public restrooms? If you think that a separate but equal solution stigmatizes all gays as sick freaks, why do you find the bathroom restrictions not stigmatizing all men as perverts and all women as fragile little girls?

Because the right to choose who you marry is substantially more important to one's sense of self-worth than where you go to the bathroom. Done.