Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

http://www.hrc.org/campaigns/stand-for-marriage

Cool.

Same love, right?

Enjoy the music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlVBg7_08n0

This is a historical event that these people deserve to have.
For the first time in my life I want to check twitter. George Takei may have already said something hilarious about this.

At 6/26/13 04:41 PM, stafffighter wrote: This is a historical event that these people deserve to have.
For the first time in my life I want to check twitter. George Takei may have already said something hilarious about this.

love that guy

It's a step in the right direction, for sure, but let's not get too overhyped about this, because here's what's happen so far:

Doma is unconstitutional: the federal government will observe and upheld same-sex marriages. This does not mean the government has legalized gay marriage, rather it will observe it as a legal binding structure between two adults. This leaves whether gay marriage is legal or not to states rights still.

Prop 8: it's not that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, rather, the court ruled that the plaintiff and the supporters of Prop 8 had not legal basis for their appeal process. The Supreme Court, however, did not rule whether Prop 8 was constitutional or not. That would have been a much more definitive ruling had they did.

What's interesting to me in both these cases is the make-up of the majority versus the desentting. Scalia flipped from supporting Doma to being against prop 8, while sotomyer went the opposite. Man Supreme Court justices are weird.

Still, it's a good day, but there's still a lot of work to do. Keep moving forward.

Um, no it's not? Gay marriage is still illegal in most of the United States. It's a state's right to determine its legality. Super misleading title there bro.

What this did was repeal DOMA and equalize marriages in states where gay marriage is LEGAL. It's still completely illegal in all other states.

At 6/26/13 05:36 PM, HollowedPumkinz wrote: Um, no it's not? Gay marriage is still illegal in most of the United States. It's a state's right to determine its legality. Super misleading title there bro.

What this did was repeal DOMA and equalize marriages in states where gay marriage is LEGAL. It's still completely illegal in all other states.

What this does mean is that states won't be won by half steps. If you get married there, you're married. That is a profound step.

At 6/26/13 05:36 PM, HollowedPumkinz wrote: Um, no it's not? Gay marriage is still illegal in most of the United States. It's a state's right to determine its legality. Super misleading title there bro.

What this did was repeal DOMA and equalize marriages in states where gay marriage is LEGAL. It's still completely illegal in all other states.

Well, you can get arrested for smoking weed if you bought it in a state it's legal in
but I don't think they can take away your marriage certificate.

At 6/26/13 07:11 PM, TomCheatedonApril wrote: Today, god turned his face on America.

You didn't capitalize God. You're going to hell.

My brother will be happy.

I guess all we have to do is get the effect to trickle down the ladder.

At 6/26/13 05:36 PM, HollowedPumkinz wrote: What this did was repeal DOMA and equalize marriages in states where gay marriage is LEGAL. It's still completely illegal in all other states.

Not completely illegal. Because DOMA is repealed you can get married to someone of the same sex in Massachusetts and then move to Mississippi and they have to recognize your marriage and treat it equal to heterosexual marriages. That's the way it should be because the constitution explicitly says this in the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

I've said it before I'll say it again, lets just get it over with already and make it legal across the country. History is on the side of gay marriage.

At 6/26/13 09:58 PM, hecticjon wrote: gay marriage is handled on a state-by-state basis because states' rights, so as long as certain state governments continue to be full of crotchety old Catholic Republican TRUE Patriots this ain't gonna happen

No actually Catholics tend to be Democratic. Republicans tend to be Protestant. In particular Massachusetts produced Ted Kennedy who ended up being a Social Conservative due to his Catholicism. But no Catholicism has a history in America of being accused of being anti-American, when the first Catholic presidential candidate ran for President (Al Smith) he lost because of a huge outcry over his Catholicism. People accused him of wanting to make the government a puppet of the Pope and said that the first thing he would do is build a Fortress in DC for the Pope to rule America from.

At 6/26/13 10:23 PM, hecticjon wrote: holy shit wtf have i been doing in general, this is the most insightful and educational post i have read on these forums in the past year or so

Yeah man that's what I was saying earlier. Politics seems like a pretty ok forum. It's too bad I'm really not into politics that much.

About damn time.

Can't wait for this to come apply to all states. It's just a matter of time when states realize there is more benefits to gay marriage then just letting gays marry. I am certain that giving more people the ability to put their incomes together where they previously couldn't not only that but they will be happier in general. We will see improvements in all states that support gay marriage now.

Just a matter of time to see the pluss sides to everything.

At 6/27/13 05:20 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Like most other Americans, it doesn't really affect me at all. Obama didn't seem to be as involved as he suggested he would be though.

Whether you realize it or not it affects you alot if you live in these states. It just wont affect you directly, it will affect you indirectly.

My 5 step plan to marry my chimp lover is proceeding just as planned...
yes.... REJOICE YOU FOOLS.... REJOICE.... BUT SOON....

At 6/27/13 05:20 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Like most other Americans, it doesn't really affect me at all. Obama didn't seem to be as involved as he suggested he would be though.

How could he? From the get-go this was a state-level issue that the federal government had little to do with(with the expection of taxes and benefits, which the federal government is responsible for, but that was solves with the court's ruling on DOMA) so unless he was going to pass a federal level law (which would have been a trick in itself with the current state of Congress) which he still probably wouldn't have, given how his views on gay marriage have "evolved".

I'm a bit worried about the Prop 8 ruling, as it sets an interesting precedent, which is what the 3 distenting judges were talking about: Prop 8 was a ballot initiative put on by the voters, not proposed by the state congress. When Prop 8 passed and was challenged in the state Supreme Court, Jerry Brown, the California state attorney general at the time, declined to defend the measure in court. As a result, the defence for the law was a separate group of non-state affliated attorneys. The argument made to the Supreme Court from the Prop 8's opponents was that these "stateless" (forgive me for the lack of a better term) lawyers had no right to an appeal once the state Supreme Court made its ruling. This is what the Supreme Court ruled in favor of. Do you see the problem yet?

Well, with the way the ruling went, it's now legally possible for the state to put up a ballot initiative but then decide not to defend it in in the Supreme Court- but if the state's not going to defend a law that they proposed and passed, why did it put it up in the first place? Why should we let nonstate affiliated lawyers defend the constitutionally of state law before the state Supreme Court?

Again, to be clear: I'm happy about the ruling. I'm just not happy how the ruling went about.

Hopefully this will allow more people to realize that Marriage as it is understood today bears as much semblance to the meaning of a marriage in previous generations as the use of the term racist today bears semblance to acts of racial hatred in the past.

The purpose of marriage was for the upper classes a strategic move, and for everyone else a way of keeping adults committed to the upbringing of children.

It's not all that surprising that [even without the flat-earthers who actively sought to bring about this change] traditional marriage as defined above [Not as defined by the Christian right] would fall to a new marriage where its sole purpose was to fulfill the short-term emotional and sexual needs of not-so-young-adults. Modern contraception, paternity tests, female economic dominance, and child support laws render fatherhood obsolete. And if a child can be raised [however poorly] by only one parent, then marriage itself is that sense "obsolete".

Of course conservatives, always acting against their own interests, fell for the notion that marriage is about love.

Moreover, this cheering over being allowed to marry has made me more ashamed of being Homosexual than anything else. The sheer pettiness of these people is astounding. They're a few percentage points of the population, and of the entire homosexual population only a few percentage points actually do get married. Since roughly a third of heterosexual marriages end in failure, I can't imagine how low the percentage of homosexuals that are in omitted marriages is.

They care more about the *idea* of being married than anything else. It's about their ego, their need to feel equal to everyone else.

It would have been far better if Marriage had been made a criminal offense decades ago.

At 6/27/13 09:20 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Has never heard this side of the arguement before, is kinda stunned and shocked honestly.

You really feel this way? Gay marriage probably isn't so popular and the reason why its not very successful might be because of society itself and the fact they look down on it and don't accept it. I doubt it has anything to do with the fact people are homosexual.

The only real negative to raising a child as a homosexual couple is the fact you need a mother and father figure at early birth for a child to develop properly. You can't have 2 of the same sex, they need to be different sexes. You learn everything you need to learn by the time you turn age 2, you learn how to flirt you learn all the important stuff. So you need to visually see a male and female, not only that but you need to see how they interact with other males and females. It is through this observation that children create who they are and their personalities, morals and ethics. It also helps determine how they will behave socially. So if a homosexual couple knows this, they need to simply get the opposite sex to interact with their child throughout their whole life. Then the only real negative to this kind of relationship is thrown out the window.

The fact we can give gays marriage means we give more people and equal opportunity to be successful in this world. Its hard enough doing it alone, why not let people try to do it together.

At 6/27/13 09:39 PM, PMMurphy wrote:

The only real negative to raising a child as a homosexual couple is the fact you need a mother and father figure at early birth for a child to develop properly.

Citation needed.
Lol.

You learn everything you need to learn by the time you turn age 2

Hm. Really now.
Well. That sounds true. I better not look it up.

Here it is.

At 6/27/13 09:39 PM, PMMurphy wrote:

At 6/27/13 09:20 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Has never heard this side of the arguement before, is kinda stunned and shocked honestly.

You really feel this way? Gay marriage probably isn't so popular and the reason why its not very successful might be because of society itself and the fact they look down on it and don't accept it. I doubt it has anything to do with the fact people are homosexual.

I'm not sure where you get this idea from. I even said in the post that the percentage of the population that is homosexual is a few percentage points.

Gay Marriage's popularity among the majority of its supporters is due to their indignation at any form of "inequality" -- That is to say, any form of observed differences between peoples and groups that they consider morally reprehensible. That is to say, they wish to make the world flat.

The only real negative to raising a child as a homosexual couple is the fact you need a mother and father figure at early birth for a child to develop properly.

Yes, but I see this as moot because the only thing smaller than the proportion of homosexuals who actually plan to get married long term are the proportion of homosexuals who plan to get married long term AND raise a child.

The fact we can give gays marriage means we give more people and equal opportunity to be successful in this world. Its hard enough doing it alone, why not let people try to do it together.

How exactly does marriage constitute a form of opportunity? We're not talking about the right of people to pool their resources, cohabitate, or create civil contracts.

It's not about economics but about social recognition, about being seen as "Equal to everyone else" as proxied by a social institution which predates Christ and might very well predate civilization.

Well you see, there are lots of federal things you can't get claimed to unless you have a spouse. So all gays simply can't get them.

There are gays who die in hospitals where heterosexuals would live because they can't get funding.

That legal documentation slip of paper, really is a big deal.

At 6/27/13 09:58 PM, PMMurphy wrote: Well you see, there are lots of federal things you can't get claimed to unless you have a spouse. So all gays simply can't get them.

There are gays who die in hospitals where heterosexuals would live because they can't get funding.

That legal documentation slip of paper, really is a big deal.

If it is such a big deal why do so few of them get married when it is legal?

The desire for equal recognition and status can explain what a desire for equal legal protection cannot. True monogamy entails as much burdens as it does benefits, which is why growing numbers of straight men are avoiding marriage like the plague.

At 6/26/13 06:15 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 6/26/13 05:36 PM, HollowedPumkinz wrote: Um, no it's not? Gay marriage is still illegal in most of the United States. It's a state's right to determine its legality. Super misleading title there bro.

What this did was repeal DOMA and equalize marriages in states where gay marriage is LEGAL. It's still completely illegal in all other states.

What this does mean is that states won't be won by half steps. If you get married there, you're married. That is a profound step.

The Federal Government shouldn't even be allowed to handle marriages under any circumstances, it should be up to the religions and only to the religions on how they do marriage through it's already gone to the point where more and more people are rather seeing marriage more differently for they don't see it as marshal devotion.

In either case, the Government should rather focus (in general) on how long people have lived together and how long people have lived alone, I care not if such individuals are straight nor gay when it comes to this, the only thing I care so is that Government bringing Marriage to Government is the same thing as Government bringing Religion into Government which in trade violates the Wall of Separation between State and Religion. I should also note that state governments within this nation shouldn't be allowed to handle marriage either for the same reason as I mentioned above.

yea i agree completely. It's so dumb how these legal issues are making peoples lives harder than they need to be. Over petty stuff too.

The only reason i support gay marriage is due to the legal bindings and restrictions in society it produces. If it wasn't for this i see no need for gays to go through holy matrimony where most religions hate them that create it.

At 6/27/13 09:54 PM, PMMurphy wrote: Here it is.

Even if something is accepted widely even by a scientist, it doesn't make it a fact. This man proposes theory, but does not give statistics or actual evidence to back up his claims. It reminds me of the one child theories of how they're spoiled and not competitive because they don't try since they never had to compete for their parents love with a sibling. Actual statistics show no difference between single children and children with siblings.

The problem of things like this of course is that it assumes all women are the same and that all men are the same. When it comes right down to it there's no real definition for what a father/mother figure is, it's a broad ambiguous term that is very vernacular. A woman can be strong and command respect like a father and a man can be gentle and kind and be like a mother, this study takes the sexist step in assuming that is never the case simply because of gender. I know of plenty of couples who are like that.

Yea your right your completely right.

SO to continue my arguement i had with you before.

Sociology and psychology will never advance until we get the mathematics down for it :P