Free Allegiance Forums

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments...pts/12-144a.pdf

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments...argument=12-144

Frankly I found it fascinating... almost as fascinating as the hoards of people on my FB trying to tell me that Prop8 and DOMA were in front of the Senate today (or Congress) or how almost no one actually understood the arguments presented in front of the Supreme Court regarding prop 8.

Sad, really, because it wasn't all that complicated. Do we get to rule on this? Should we rule on this? How should we rule on this?

Meanwhile in Scotland: http://geekologie.com/2013/03/sure-why-not...2C+and+Awesome)

Jedi marriage becoming legal.

Which says something about our thoughts of the state of marriage institutions today, considering that actual jedi aren't allowed to marry according to star wars.

As for the ruling, I'm 'pro-gay' , but don't really care how it breaks down so long as the benefits packages are the same/similar as 'heterosexual' marriage.

Sure they were! Ki-adi Mundi had several wives. Luke Skywalker got married (as did Princess Leia but she didn't become a full knight until after)... as did Jaina Solo.

I can't copy the text from my smartphone, but see the 2nd paragraph under history: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Marriage

The problem is this case *does* have some important things it's discussing. It just gets lost in the hooplah of "civil rights!"

Like what? Equality under the law seems pretty clear cut.

There are some pretty serious states rights issues involved in this, specifically balloting versus state legislative branch versus federal protection.

Also involved is the very basic (but completely unmentioned) involvement of first amendment's separation of church and state.

phoenix1 wrote:QUOTE (phoenix1 @ Mar 27 2013, 03:32 PM) The problem is this case *does* have some important things it's discussing. It just gets lost in the hooplah of "civil rights!"

not really, and it is all about civil rights.

the only interesting thing in the debate is how ludicrous the anti-marriage people have become, with certain people (agri is looking at you chelsen vicari) going around insisting that they are being discriminated against because they arent able to use the state to discriminate against people any more. it would be laughable if only the debate hadnt got as far as it had, and the cretinry werent as well-funded and as powerful as they are.

yeah my first thought was it is kind of hard for intelligent people to argue against gay marriage at this point