In partnership with CBSSports.com
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
It's still a state institution. The assignation of a religiously-assigned meaning to what is effectively a secular vehicle (unless you believe the US should have a theocratic government, but that's an entirely different bit of crazy) should never have been allowed to happen in the first place, and it's about time it was struck down.
You can't have one without the other. The right to be free to live your life as you see fit requires that others have the same.
The federal government has no business regulating marriage or defining what it is or isn't. Marriage licenses have never been issued by the federal government and marriage has existed for many hundreds of years before the U.S. was even founded. The federal government was wrong in 1996 to suddenly step in and try to dictate to us what marriage is and isn't. This ruling simply corrects that and restores the status quo that existed prior to 1996.
This post was edited by MrWoodson 13 months ago
I completely agree with this. I'm a native New Yorker and I had a front-row seat to 9/11, but I was still against the PATRIOT Act from the beginning, I was against the coalition of various agencies into DHS, and I'm against any and all forms of domestic surveillance. There are far too many panicky, scared people who are willing to hand over rights for the illusion of security.
FFS, if the NSA couldn't stop two idiot teenagers in Boston, how do we really expect them to stop a major bankrolled terrorist operation?
So you want states right to choose to be done away with?
IMO the amount of divorces nowadays changed what the word marriage means more than this does.
"Isn't it amazing what somebody will do when he can't bunt." - Vin Scully
What benefits do common law couples get? Even Georgia doesn't recognize common law marriage. I'm not sure who does anymore.
Dude, shut up. Two loving gay people in a stable relationship are tearing the fabric of this country apart! We have to preserve the right of Britney Spears to have a 55-hour long marriage before it ended in divorce!
Don't forget Kim Kardashian and that 72 day marriage.
I think right after 9/11 was different. We didn't know what was coming next and it was necessary to do some things to make sure we were safe. It was like temporarily declaring marshall law in an emergency (e.g. riots, natural disaster). But the key is "temporary". We don't need a Department of Homeland Security (how very Eastern Bloc of us) and we don't need drones flying overhead watching our every move and we don't need all our internet communications permanently collected and monitored. The NSA is absolutely out of control.
Both are reflections that it has now been redefined in such a way that there are no distinguishing characteristics to the word.
"Marriage" in our society now means a temporary agreement that provides tax benefits. Nothing else.
The funny thing is that all the gay couples I know really could care less about whether or not the government recognizes their marriage. All they want are the rights afforded to married couples.
Aren't those the same exact thing? The government has to recognize it for them to have those rights.
Snoweden leaving the country with state secrets and sharing them with Russia and China is the very definition of espionage.
Oversight is nonexistent. Whether it's Justice (e.g. FBI/Fast and Furious). Treasury (e.g. IRS), State (e.g. Bengazi) or Homeland Security and the White House (CIA/NSA), they just stonewall and lie to Congress until Congress loses interest and moves on to something else. We never get answers to anything.
Oh, of course not, I'm just highlighting the hypocrisy.
The states rights people are sticking their heads in the sand if they think states rights aren't immenantly going to be infringed upon.
The states that do not allow same sex marriage are going to be attacked for discrimination by the federal government.
The big issue with gay marriage, at least in GA, has been using the term "marriage" to refer to a gay couple that chooses to live together for life. Extremely religious people seem to have a huge hangup regarding this. My gay friends do not care if you call it marriage or life partnership or whatever terminology you want to use. They just want the rights afforded to married couples.
Welcome to the slippery slope.
When "Marriage" has no inherent meaning, people get to decide to make it mean whatever they want it too.
So was the public release of the Pentagon Papers. Snowden unquestionably has broken the law, but sometimes breaking the law is necessary. We have no way of knowing what is going on most of the time otherwise. And the government intentionally leaks classified info all the time for its own purposes with absolutely no ramifications. Snowden will suffer the consequences. He will be tracked until he's eventually caught and imprisoned, probably for the rest of his life. But that doesnt mean the NSA is not doing anything wrong. Regardless of what you think of Snowden, we now know what the NSA is up to and IMO it's way out of control.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by MrWoodson 13 months ago
Heterosexual people already get to decide to make marriage mean whatever they want it to. How does allowing homosexual couples to marry make it any worse?
This post was edited by mtreber1 13 months ago
Sure. They want the same substantive rights. What you call it doesn't make a difference to many people. However, some "civil union" and "domestic partnership" arrangements would give couples only a small fraction of the rights that "married" couples have.
That's kind of the conundrum... Snowden uncovered a potential wrongdoing... but in doing so, he obviously broke the law. Even if you think he was right to uncover the program and that he's a great guy, he still broke the law. In my opinion, he should be prosecuted and the American public should scrutinize the government's spying programs. There were two wrongs committed... both need to be remedied.
Gay sex is icky.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports