0
   

Full US Marriage Equality Betting Pool

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Jan, 2014 02:35 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:
The U.S.is between 50 and 200 years behind most of the 1st world when it comes to health care. It's at least 20 years behind a number of 1st world countries around drug legislation. It's about 40 years behind re alcohol and tobacco legislation (specifically around advertising).

I say somewhere between 20 - 40 years to catch up on marriage equality.

edit: so for the purposes of this thread and Canada's 10 year anniversary having passed recently ... I think 2025 is possible. Mebbe.
Your post ASSUMES that there is only ONE single direction in which these things go.

Thay can change in ANY direction,
not just along the way that u expect.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Jan, 2014 03:25 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
David, this is a betting pool.

My bet is on 2025 for Full US Marriage Equality.
jcboy
 
  7  
Reply Sat 18 Jan, 2014 03:38 pm
@ehBeth,
The Advocate predicts full Marriage equality in all fifty states in five years. I still say by 2016.

In 5 Years, Marriage Equality In All 50 States?

Quote:
While LGBT organizations around the country lauded today's landmark rulings in favor of marriage equality, advocates also made clear that this victory is only one step in the ongoing fight for full legal recognition and equality for LGBT Americans.

The Human Rights Campaign promised to continue pushing for marriage equality in New Jersey, Hawaii, Oregon, Nevada, and other states around the nation. At a press conference outside the court in Washington, D.C., HRC president Chad Griffin encouraged activists to "set a new goal — within five years, we will bring marriage equality to all 50 states. The work of equality is far from complete."

"Today’s historic decisions put two giant cracks in the dark wall of discrimination that separates committed gay and lesbian couples from full equality,” said Griffin, who, when he was with the American Foundation for Equal Rights, brought together the bipartisan legal team of Ted Olson and David Boies that brought the Prop. 8 case to the Supreme Court. "While we celebrate the victory for Californians today, tomorrow we turn our attention to the millions of LGBT people who don’t feel the reach of these decisions. From the Rocky Mountains to the heart of the South, it’s time to push equality forward until every American can marry the person they love and all LGBT people are guaranteed equal protection under the law."

President Obama called Griffin's cell phone shortly after the ruling was announced. Calling from Air Force One, the president congratulated the two couples represented in the Prop. 8 case.

"We're proud of you guys, and we're proud to have this in California," Obama said, according to audio that aired live on MSNBC as the president spoke by phone from aboard Air Force One en route to Senegal. "And it's because of your leadership things are heading the right way. So you should be very proud today."

"The fight is by no means over," said Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented Edie Windsor in the case that struck down section 3 of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.

The attorney who successfully argued Windsor's case before the Supreme Court celebrated her client's victory in U.S. v. Windsor, in which the court ordered the government to repay Windsor the $363,000 she was charged in taxes after the death of her wife of 44 years, Thea Spyer — taxes Windsor would not have been forced to pay if her spouse had been a man.



http://editorial.advocate.com/sites/advocate.com/files/imce/uploadedimages/1044731_10151676711323855_1286262298_n.jpg
0 Replies
 
jcboy
 
  5  
Reply Sat 18 Jan, 2014 04:34 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:


I see the function of the courts as being the enforcement of what the law actually says.


I’d be interested in hearing your version of what the law actually says, but keep in mind before you post The Constitution is the supreme law. Go ahead, I could use a chuckle this evening.
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Jan, 2014 05:45 pm
In the spirit of the betting pool guess, I would say that it will take until 2028 before all 50 states adopt same sex marriage.
I must admit that I did not support the strategy of pushing for "marriage" vs "unions" in the fight. It introduced religion into the equation when the issue should have focused on equal treatment with regards to such things as taxation or end of life decisions.
As a life long southerner I don't think that would have been a problem for most of us. But when "marriage" was used...

As an aside, Dr King's birthday is celebrated on Monday. The banks and the post office will be closed. Walmart will not have MLK Day Sales. At least not this year.
I argued, briefly, against the holiday, suggesting instead that the weekend closest to his birthday be a time when churches, synagogues, mosques and whatever would celebrate our religious diversity.

0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 18 Jan, 2014 06:05 pm
@jcboy,
jcboy wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:


I see the function of the courts as being the enforcement of what the law actually says.


I’d be interested in hearing your version of what the law actually says, but keep in mind before you post The Constitution is the supreme law. Go ahead, I could use a chuckle this evening.

It's fascinating that you are unable to argue without trying to involve the character, knowledge level, etc. of your debating opponent, all of which are irrelevant to making or disproving any point.

The Constitution makes no reference whatever to marriage. Therefore, it is hard to see how laws that existed in the Founders' times and for centuries afterwards can be violations of the Constitution. If they were, one would think that the Founders, who wrote and ratified the Constitution, would have indicated some dissatisfaction with them.

I would prefer the courts to enforce the law as it's written, rather than using it as a springboard for forcing their personal politics down the throats of the electorate. I'd rather that issues be determined by the votes of millions of citizens, or their elected representatives, which is the same thing, than by a handful of people.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Jan, 2014 06:42 pm
People in the u.s. have gotten married at city hall or Las Vegas or whatever small format place, sans a religious ceremony, for quite a long time. My husband and I, for instance, back in '79. I consider it a civil procedure. I understand very well that a great many take the vows as religious, but I don't think the religious somehow own marriage as a state of living.

I remember that when I first went to Italy, people had their church ceremonies, but also were mandated to have city hall marriages. At least that was true in Rome, as we got caught up in a lot of marriage joy outside the marriage office (whatever it was called) at the Campidoglio. Have a great photo somewhere in the house. She got to wear the dress twice..
0 Replies
 
jcboy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Jan, 2014 07:12 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:


I would prefer the courts to enforce the law as it's written, rather than using it as a springboard for forcing their personal politics down the throats of the electorate. I'd rather that issues be determined by the votes of millions of citizens, or their elected representatives, which is the same thing, than by a handful of people.


Now look here cracker, Debra already explained it in this thread.

Quote:
The Constitution protects all individuals (homosexuals included) from the abuse of government power. The fact that it has taken 138 years of feet-dragging history after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce constitutional limitations on state governmental powers does not require the courts to abstain from enforcing the Constitution and ridding this country of the evils the Constitution sought to prohibit.

Liberty, justice, and equal protection under the law are basic concepts that are not subject to the whims of majoritarian politics and elections. Rights protected by the Constitution against governmental usurpations must be vindicated by our courts. Thomas, your desire to leave the determination of the individual rights of disfavored minorities in the hands of majoritarian politics flies in the face of the constitutional values upon which this country was founded.


I'm not here to argue with some bigot cracker. Nothing is going to change your mind. Fortunately you’re one of the dying breeds.
Below viewing threshold (view)
jcboy
 
  5  
Reply Sat 18 Jan, 2014 08:40 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
The Constitution protects all individuals (homosexuals included) from the abuse of government power. The fact that it has taken 138 years of feet-dragging history after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce constitutional limitations on state governmental powers does not require the courts to abstain from enforcing the Constitution and ridding this country of the evils the Constitution sought to prohibit.

Liberty, justice, and equal protection under the law are basic concepts that are not subject to the whims of majoritarian politics and elections. Rights protected by the Constitution against governmental usurpations must be vindicated by our courts. Thomas, your desire to leave the determination of the individual rights of disfavored minorities in the hands of majoritarian politics flies in the face of the constitutional values upon which this country was founded.


Still waiting. But I expected that resonse from you. You’re an over aged bigot living in Florida.

Now let me give you a bit of fashion advice, when your waste is wider then your shoulders, don’t tuck your shirt in and post the photo on Facebook, as your kind would say, its very unbecoming.
Brandon9000
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 18 Jan, 2014 09:04 pm
@jcboy,
jcboy wrote:

Quote:
The Constitution protects all individuals (homosexuals included) from the abuse of government power. The fact that it has taken 138 years of feet-dragging history after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce constitutional limitations on state governmental powers does not require the courts to abstain from enforcing the Constitution and ridding this country of the evils the Constitution sought to prohibit.

Liberty, justice, and equal protection under the law are basic concepts that are not subject to the whims of majoritarian politics and elections. Rights protected by the Constitution against governmental usurpations must be vindicated by our courts. Thomas, your desire to leave the determination of the individual rights of disfavored minorities in the hands of majoritarian politics flies in the face of the constitutional values upon which this country was founded.


Still waiting. But I expected that resonse from you. You’re an over aged bigot living in Florida.

Now let me give you a bit of fashion advice, when your waste is wider then your shoulders, don’t tuck your shirt in and post the photo on Facebook, as your kind would say, its very unbecoming.

Name calling and disparaging references to age, apparently prove my viewpoint wrong. You cannot prevail on the level of rational argument and aren't inclined to try. You do not wish to subject your ideas to a fair competition with mine on the basis of discussion. Therefore you forfeit the debate. By the way, it's spelled "waist," not "waste."
jcboy
 
  5  
Reply Sat 18 Jan, 2014 09:09 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

"waist," not "waste."


Not in your case, now answer the question Brandon N.
Brandon9000
 
  -4  
Reply Sat 18 Jan, 2014 09:14 pm
@jcboy,
jcboy wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

"waist," not "waste."


Not in your case, now answer the question Brandon N.

I have answered every question I'm aware of, but if you have another, I'll give it a try.
jcboy
 
  4  
Reply Sat 18 Jan, 2014 09:16 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

jcboy wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

"waist," not "waste."


Not in your case, now answer the question Brandon N.

I have answered every question I'm aware of, but if you have another, I'll give it a try.


Quote:
The Constitution protects all individuals (homosexuals included) from the abuse of government power. The fact that it has taken 138 years of feet-dragging history after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce constitutional limitations on state governmental powers does not require the courts to abstain from enforcing the Constitution and ridding this country of the evils the Constitution sought to prohibit.

Liberty, justice, and equal protection under the law are basic concepts that are not subject to the whims of majoritarian politics and elections. Rights protected by the Constitution against governmental usurpations must be vindicated by our courts. Thomas, your desire to leave the determination of the individual rights of disfavored minorities in the hands of majoritarian politics flies in the face of the constitutional values upon which this country was founded.


Go ahead, your free to answer it now.

Now don't back peddle.
Brandon9000
 
  -4  
Reply Sat 18 Jan, 2014 09:20 pm
@jcboy,
First of all, it isn't a question, it's a quotation. I answered what I take to be the question some time back in this thread. I said,

"I don't see anything in that quotation which proves that judges may rule that the Constitution prohibits things it never refers to at all in order to invalidate votes/laws that they personally don't like. "

If you have some specific question in mind, you'll have to actually ask it.
jcboy
 
  4  
Reply Sat 18 Jan, 2014 09:28 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

If you have some specific question in mind, you'll have to actually ask it.


why? you won't answer it. You’ll back peddle like you’ve done over the last five years. You've never come up with a legal argument, you bigoted rednecks cry and whine about the constitution, just remember it’s your constitutional right to be a redneck just as it’s my right to be gay in this country.
Brandon9000
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 18 Jan, 2014 09:37 pm
@jcboy,
jcboy wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

If you have some specific question in mind, you'll have to actually ask it.


why? you won't answer it. You’ll back peddle like you’ve done over the last five years. You've never come up with a legal argument, you bigoted rednecks cry and whine about the constitution, just remember it’s your constitutional right to be a redneck just as it’s my right to be gay in this country.

I will answer it, if I understand what it is. By the way, a rational and honest person shouldn't rely on name calling as an argument. I have answered the question I thought you were asking. I have repeatedly stated the basis for my opinion. It's not my fault if you don't read my posts. I think that you either can't or won't make a clear statement of what you are asking. If you won't state your question, then you can hardly blame me for not answering it.
jcboy
 
  3  
Reply Sat 18 Jan, 2014 09:40 pm
@Brandon9000,
Here we go again, you can answer it now.

Quote:
The Constitution protects all individuals (homosexuals included) from the abuse of government power. The fact that it has taken 138 years of feet-dragging history after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce constitutional limitations on state governmental powers does not require the courts to abstain from enforcing the Constitution and ridding this country of the evils the Constitution sought to prohibit.

Liberty, justice, and equal protection under the law are basic concepts that are not subject to the whims of majoritarian politics and elections. Rights protected by the Constitution against governmental usurpations must be vindicated by our courts. Thomas, your desire to leave the determination of the individual rights of disfavored minorities in the hands of majoritarian politics flies in the face of the constitutional values upon which this country was founded.
Brandon9000
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 18 Jan, 2014 09:45 pm
@jcboy,
jcboy wrote:

Here we go again, you can answer it now.

Quote:
The Constitution protects all individuals (homosexuals included) from the abuse of government power. The fact that it has taken 138 years of feet-dragging history after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce constitutional limitations on state governmental powers does not require the courts to abstain from enforcing the Constitution and ridding this country of the evils the Constitution sought to prohibit.

Liberty, justice, and equal protection under the law are basic concepts that are not subject to the whims of majoritarian politics and elections. Rights protected by the Constitution against governmental usurpations must be vindicated by our courts. Thomas, your desire to leave the determination of the individual rights of disfavored minorities in the hands of majoritarian politics flies in the face of the constitutional values upon which this country was founded.


It's not a question. It's a quotation. If you want to ask a question then ask one. If you don't, I'll conclude that this is just some game you're playing because you can't compete in a fair debate.
jcboy
 
  2  
Reply Sat 18 Jan, 2014 09:46 pm
@Brandon9000,
And what does that quotation mean to you?
 

Related Topics

New York New York! - Discussion by jcboy
Prop 8? - Discussion by majikal
Gay Marriage - Discussion by blatham
Gay Marriage -- An Old Post Revisited - Discussion by pavarasra
Who doesn't back gay marriage? - Question by The Pentacle Queen
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/14/2019 at 12:49:35