The Pitters' Place

Today is a good day.

Is that pastor going to set himself on fire now?

Awesome.

By a vote of 5-4. I mean, yay equality, but also, WTF!!!

I'm not sure what makes me happier - today and yesterday's rulings, or the collective tears of the whiny conservatives.

Monk wrote:today and yesterday's rulings

What happened yesterday?

George RR Martin has even more weddings to plan.

sikax wrote:

Monk wrote:today and yesterday's rulings

What happened yesterday?

SCOTUS upheld a part of Obamacare (subsidies for insurance or something), 6-3 decision.

That's just great. Now Yellowstone is going to erupt and kill us all.

So - not understanding how the American model of Federal laws vs State laws work, does this now mean that it is legal in the entire country or do States still have the right to object to the ruling?

People on FB seem to have very different views on the application of this ruling

They ruled that banning gay marriage at the state level is unconstitutional, so it's now legal in all 50 states.

Pretty much the only way for a state to object to the ruling is to secede from the Union.

thesalmonofdoubt wrote:So - not understanding how the American model of Federal laws vs State laws work, does this now mean that it is legal in the entire country or do States still have the right to object to the ruling?

People on FB seem to have very different views on the application of this ruling

So basically no state can pass a law that goes against what either their own state constitution or the federal constitution says. The SCOTUS today ruled that laws against same-sex marriage go against what the constitution says, thus making all such state laws invalid.

Most excellent - Hopefully this would have some influence on our legal system by virtue of morality shaming us to be at least as accommodating as America..

Anakin McFly wrote:Is that pastor going to set himself on fire now?

This is the first thing I thought of when I read the headlines today.

Cool and all, but a separate question: what does it mean when there's a flame or a crown or whatever next to a post?

When you create your own topic there are a couple emojis you can choose from to populate in the thread title; I chose the flame as a reference to the pastor who said he'd set himself on fire.

The WBC are actually celebrating, saying that with this, God's destruction of America is going to happen any moment now.

Boomer wrote:When you create your own topic there are a couple emojis you can choose from to populate in the thread title; I chose the flame as a reference to the pastor who said he'd set himself on fire.

Lol. Thanks, I should have known that.

thesalmonofdoubt wrote:So - not understanding how the American model of Federal laws vs State laws work, does this now mean that it is legal in the entire country or do States still have the right to object to the ruling?

People on FB seem to have very different views on the application of this ruling

The Supremacy Clause

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

It means that every state must allow same-sex marriages and must recognize those made in the other states.

I just saw this elsewhere.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7674990

...oh.

Well, there are still those couples who threatened to divorce if marriage equality happened.

Anakin McFly wrote:http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7674990

...oh.

Well, there are still those couples who threatened to divorce if marriage equality happened.

Yes. Protesting the sanctity of marriage by getting a divorce will sure show them evil queers 'Muricans are ridiculous.

I think the couple that went viral with that threat to divorce was Australian.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 13415.html

Australians are ridiculous.

BruceSmith78 wrote:I think the couple that went viral with that threat to divorce was Australian.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 13415.html

Australians are ridiculous.

Australians are definitely ridiculous. They insist on living in a country where everything is designed to fuck up their shit.

BruceSmith78 wrote:I think the couple that went viral with that threat to divorce was Australian.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 13415.html

Australians are ridiculous.

But...aren't they just proving the point that it's one's right to do just that?

I'm sure I remember reading that they wouldn't actually be allowed to divorce because they intended to continue their relationship and raise their children together, and according to Oz law: 'The only grounds for divorce is that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. That is, that there is no reasonable likelihood that you will get back together. You must have been separated for at least 12 months and one day in order to satisfy the Court that the marriage has broken down irretrievably'.

That's aside from the fact that divorcing and living in sin as part of a protest against 'un-Christian' marriage is fucking stupid.

I'm actually really bugged by this Rick Scarborough thing. The media basically just took something he said and started a completely false rumor that he actually said something else. And even now people are going on asking "hey so is that pastor guy going to set himself on fire like he said he would?"

First off, just listening to his actual words in the audio, it's a huge stretch to try and say that what he said is in anyway the same as "I will self-immolate if gay marriage is legalized." His actual words were simply "We are not going to bow, we are not going to bend, and if necessary we will burn." Now upon hearing that, my first thought is to wonder "hmm, what does he mean there?" Because it's a weird thing to say. But it's clearly not any kind of promise of a specific act that he will take. If a guy wanted to threaten to self-immolate, saying "if necessary we will burn" would just be a really bizarre way of saying so. Why say "we?" Is he saying he'll burn the whole church down? And there was no "if gay marriage is legalized", just "if necessary".

So my thought was "oh, I guess he's basically saying the equivalent of 'we will fight to the death'". I mean, if someone says to you "I'll fight to the death to stop this thing from happening", you don't expect that means he'll commit suicide if it happens.

Secondly, his actual explanation makes more sense than my own conclusions about what he meant, and WAY more sense than the media's lie that he was threatening to self-immolate. At least makes way more sense to anyone who bothers to learn the context and a little knowledge of the Bible. There's a story in the Bible, well known at least to Christians, about 3 guys who refuse to bow down to an idol, and are punished by being thrown into a fire. So all he was saying was that even under threat of being punished by death, he would not obey a law which forces him to bow down to an idol.

So you could claim, as some media is still doing, that that whole thing was just a made-up backtrack to not admit that he chickened out of killing himself. Gee, lucky for him that the words he originally used not only sound very little like threatening to self-immolate, but fit in perfectly with a well-known Bible story!

Anyway, I hate to defend this guy because I obviously disagree strongly with his views on the whole subject. But come on media, this was nothing but spreading sensationalist lies to get a better headline.

Yeah, I agree. This is why the media often sucks.

I blame Anakin. He posted the story.