US Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage

[Bolty]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14p...6_3204.pdf

From the Majority:

The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.

Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here. But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied.

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

From the Roberts Dissent:

When decisions are reached through democratic means, some people will inevitably be disappointed with the results. But those whose views do not prevail at least know that they have had their say, and accordingly are—in the tradition of our political culture—reconciled to the result of a fair and honest debate. ... But today the Court puts a stop to all that. By deciding this question under the Constitution, the Court removes it from the realm of democratic decision. There will be consequences to shutting down the political process on an issue of such profound public significance. Closing debate tends to close minds. People denied a voice are less likely to accept the ruling of a court on an issue that does not seem to be the sort of thing courts usually decide.

If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.

From the Scalia Dissent:

This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government.

But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch.

If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: "The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity," I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.

From the Alito Dissent:

By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas. Recalling the harsh treatment of gays and lesbians in the past, some may think that turn-about is fair play. But if that sentiment prevails, the Nation will experience bitter and lasting wounds.

I will get to explain to my son someday that yes, I lived in a time where people were actually banned from getting married simply because of their sexual preference. It will seem bizarre and backwards to him, because it was.

What a tremendous victory for civil rights and equality not just in the US, but around the world, as hopefully this sets a strong example elsewhere. The US wasn't the first to do this, but it'll be a major driving force.

I found Justice Alito's dissent particularly amazing. That this decision would marginalize "Americans who have traditional ideas." If I believe something that is wholly unfair and wrong to a sizeable portion of the population, and a law is passed that runs against that belief, I'm not being marginalized. I was wrong, because it was my beliefs that were marginalizing other people. This seems entirely basic and elementary.

An amazing day. Glad I could see it happen.

[Jenjan]

If you want to know what I think of the dissents, just change the subject of the case from gay marriage to interracial marriage. The arguments are just as valid in that context - that is to say equally wrong.

There is a role for democracy in civil rights, but there's also a role for a constitution. Not everything should come down to a vote.

[FireIceTalon]

As a Marxist, I have a few different view points on the whole thing. Fundamentally....

As a communist, I cannot be against same-sex marriage. To be against it would be antithetical to being a communist in the first place, and in general I am pretty ecstatic about the decision. This is going to open up alot of doors for many sectors of the working class in economic terms, and it also gives me some hope that much of the American populace isn't as backwards or reactionary as it seems (though sometimes it can be). Also, the insurmountable tears being shed by right-wing tea party assholes, the religious right, and other reactionary scum on this very moment makes me feel quite warm and fuzzy throughout But also...

On the other hand, I generally dislike the institution of marriage in general, hopefully the next stop will be the abolition of marriage as a whole (but that is another topic)? While certainly a victory, it is still a hollow one, because the problems run so much deeper and more fundamental than this. I guess the capitalists have decided though, that it is more profitable to allow same-sex couples to get married. Indeed, I fear this will also steer more radical social movements onto more "acceptable" paths (i.e. bourgeois leftism and/or social democracy), even if this does result in immediate and tangible positive benefits. I still think this will have more benefits for financially well off gays and lesbians than it will for poor and working class ones. Further, I fear that many right-wingers and KKK types may socially marginalize and even harass and assault gay/lesbian couples they see in public to express their outrage as a result of this decision. Lastly, I am not sure it does anything to help those in the transgender community, specifically.

All in all though I am not against the decision regardless of what ideological backdrops are behind it, and I am happy for all those who will benefit from it, however small they may be. Progress is progress, though this should hardly be a final goal. I've already heard some people telling their stories of gay and lesbian couples lining up to get their long deserved marriage licenses in various locations throughout the country, and much of it is very moving.

[DeeBye]

If you want to see something incredible, go read the comments on Fox Nation in any of the multiple articles about this.

[FireIceTalon]

I can only guess what they are saying on Fox. I'm sure the average comment is something along the lines of "It's cultural Marxism run amok I tell you!!! What has happened to American family and moral values!??!?!!!!!!"...with big, salty tears streaming down their faces. Hehe.

But even with this decision, the LGBT community will still face much of the same oppression and discrimination that women and POC do under the social relations of capitalism (in particular if they are working class) - even if they are now allowed to marry legally. Perhaps to a lesser extent, in that it is easier to hide your sexual orientation then it is your gender or skin color, though the fact they would have to hide it at all still indicates there is a problem.

[LavCat]

I read the full decision. I have to say I agree with Roberts, I cannot find it in the constitution. Then again, Kennedy knows an awful lot more about law than I do. I am very happy.

The main problem is finding someone who would want to marry me.

[Taem]

That's funny, because neither is drug use specifically mentioned in the Constitution, yet look what we have? I feel the explosion of marketed designer drugs really took off once all drugs we're regulated by the fda and made illegal, and this is why most drugs will never be legal, not to "protect" us, but because money is money folks... gat marriage wasn't up against such stark adversity.

[kandrathe]

That's funny, because neither is drug use specifically mentioned in the Constitution, yet look what we have? I feel the explosion of marketed designer drugs really took off once all drugs we're regulated by the FDA and made illegal, and this is why most drugs will never be legal, not to "protect" us, but because money is money folks... but marriage wasn't up against such stark adversity.

Well, technically neither marriage or drug regulations are well laid out in the constitution. The Congress can make laws, which are supposed to withstand constitutional challenges. Roberts dissent was more that over many years a feckless Congress failed to act to create a national marriage equality law. In fact, under Pres. Clinton, we had DOMA, a national marriage inequality law. So we've backed into marriage equality via judicial correction of a bad law ( implying rights from the Fourteenth Amendment’s vague promise that liberty shall not be denied without due process — otherwise known as “substantive due process” ). I actually stand closer to FIT on this, where I don't think it is governments business to approve, or deny the private, civil relationships of adult citizens. Much of the arguments relate to civil transactions which could be clearly spelled out without the assumptions of marriage and "spousal benefits". Such as; beneficiaries - one or many, "next of kin" visiting you in hospital, parental rights, etc. I celebrate the righting of a wrong, but grieve the further empowering of a government with decisions which should not be under State or Federal scrutiny in the first place. Simply put, now same sex couples can be taxed differently based upon their relationship status. Does this make any sense?

RE: MARRIAGE

Roberts’s Obergefell dissent is, at its heart, an attack on the method Justice Anthony Kennedy used to reach the majority’s conclusion that the Constitution forbids states from denying equal marriage rights to same-sex couples. Kennedy held that marriage is a fundamental right, and that this right extends to same-sex couples. Roberts offers a harsh response:

Stripped of its shiny rhetorical gloss, the majority’s argument is that the Due Process Clause gives same-sex couples a fundamental right to marry because it will be good for them and for society. If I were a legislator, I would certainly consider that view as a matter of social policy. But as a judge, I find the majority’s position indefensible as a matter of constitutional law.

This is not a frivolous critique, as the Court’s fundamental rights jurisprudence has long been one of the most rudderless and unbounded areas of the law. As Roberts explains, the Obergefell plaintiffs’ “‘fundamental right’ claim falls into the most sensitive category of constitutional adjudication.” This claim does not rest upon a right that is specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Rather, the plaintiffs argued that marriage discrimination violates “a right implied by the Fourteenth Amendment’s requirement that ‘liberty’ may not be deprived without ‘due process of law.’”

This method, of implying rights from the Fourteenth Amendment’s vague promise that liberty shall not be denied without due process — otherwise known as “substantive due process” — has a dark history. As I explain in my book, Injustices: The Supreme Court’s History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted, conservatives used this doctrine to hobble laws intended to benefit workers in the early twentieth century. The Supreme Court used it to strike down laws establishing a minimum wage, ensuring that laborers would not be overworked, and protecting workers’ right to organize.

(Substantive due process also formed the basis of a decision conservatives love to hate — Roe v. Wade — although, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has explained, a Supreme Court decision abolishing substantive due process would not necessarily mean the end of the right to choose.)

Think Progress -- Chief Justice Roberts’ Marriage Equality Dissent Has A Hidden Message For Conservatives

RE: DRUGS

• The Pure Food and Drugs Act of 1906 -- To protect people from the sale of "adulterated" or "misbranded" foods or drugs
  
• The Harrison Act (1914) -- originally was to track the sale of narcotics, like Opium. Trading and using was still an individual right. In 1915, it was amended to add a tax. By 1921, regulating narcotics was fully in federal law enforcement control.

The true addict, by universally accepted definitions, is totally enslaved to his habit. He will do anything to fend off the illness, marked by physical and emotional agony, that results from abstinence. So long as society will not traffic with him on any terms, he must remain the abject servitor of his vicious nemesis, the peddler. The addict will commit crimes-mostly petty offenses like shoplifting and prostitution-to get the price the peddler asks. He will peddle dope and make new addicts if those are his master's terms. Drugs are a commodity of trifling intrinsic value. All the billions our society has spent enforcing criminal measures against the addict have had the sole practical result of protecting the peddler's market, artificially inflating his prices, and keeping his profits fantastically high. No other nation hounds its addicts as we do, and no other nation faces anything remotely resembling our problem.

My view here is we need to stop arresting users of drugs, and start focusing on the distribution networks of illegal drugs.

[LemmingofGlory]

I found Justice Alito's dissent particularly amazing. That this decision would marginalize "Americans who have traditional ideas." If I believe something that is wholly unfair and wrong to a sizeable portion of the population, and a law is passed that runs against that belief, I'm not being marginalized. I was wrong, because it was my beliefs that were marginalizing other people. This seems entirely basic and elementary.

Justice Thomas has Alito beat by a long shot in terms of sheer WTFery.

The corollary of that principle is that human dignity
cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not
lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity)
because the government allowed them to be enslaved.
Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity
because the government confined them. And those denied
governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity
because the government denies them those benefits. The
government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it
away.

Being treated in an undignified way does make you lose dignity. And over time, you do feel inferior. It becomes an undercurrent in your life. You fear that your image will be damaged by a detail about you, inconsequential to character, that others may learn about you. You fear that your safety will be imperiled if your parents know that detail. You fear that you'll be given a hard time in hospitals visiting your partner because you're not legally family, but those people who disowned your partner will have full-access. The very least the government can do is treat you with the very dignity your own family won't. Justice Thomas is just embarrassing here. Dignity isn't a status toggle. It's a meter, like health or mana, and that meter can have its maximum reduced or its contents depleted.

Ultimately, none of the Justices objected with anything that a particularly bright highschool student hasn't already refuted somewhere on the internet. Their objections are based entirely on either non-sequiturs, a willful disregard of precedent, religious Chicken Little, or a cherry-picked understanding of marriage through history. None of them reasonably explained why Loving v. Virginia failed to be a parallel. Oh, sure, they waived their straight pride flags and yelled "TRADITION!", but tradition doesn't justify a government restriction.

On the other hand, I generally dislike the institution of marriage in general, hopefully the next stop will be the abolition of marriage as a whole (but that is another topic)? While certainly a victory, it is still a hollow one, because the problems run so much deeper and more fundamental than this.

*FIT comes in and plants his "No fun allowed" sign.*

I guess the capitalists have decided though, that it is more profitable to allow same-sex couples to get married.

I'm reminded of the majority opinion in this case and this statement: "Respondents’ argument that allowing samesex
couples to wed will harm marriage as an institution rests on a
counterintuitive view of opposite-sex couples’ decisions about marriage
and parenthood." Because I feel, rather consistently, that you have a counterintuitive view of society and culture due to a blind spot where "theory of mind" ought be. To take an issue about personal security and spin it up into the machinations of The Invisible Hand, your tired old communist diatribe, is myopic in the extreme. Or maybe you just want attention. Gross.

Further, I fear that many right-wingers and KKK types may socially marginalize and even harass and assault gay/lesbian couples they see in public to express their outrage as a result of this decision. Lastly, I am not sure it does anything to help those in the transgender community, specifically.

As I said to you a few years back, your fears are largely based on a mechanical understanding of culture and not on what it's like to actually live in it. At the time you became hilariously offended and misconstrued what I was trying to say to you, but that's kinda expected because of the neckbeard I imagine you have, perhaps in homage to your philosophical forebears.

Yes, it does seem plausible that aggressors like the Klan could assault gay people. But does this make it likely? No. If you've kept up with the Klan at all, you'll notice they've been shying away from outright violence big time since America went all World Police on terrorism. They're still Pac-Man-ghost-cosplaying bigots, but they understand violence is bad PR. If you've kept up with major incidences of violence against LGBT people at all, or if you've lived in the American South as a gay person, or if you've even known any actual gay people in real life, you might have a better idea of how threatened they feel in public in general.

You know what, though? Right now the Klan has bigger problems: http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/06...rally.html

One of their most treasured symbols has become a shameful and embarrassing mark of racism (it already was to many people, fwiw) in the wake of Dylann Roof's murder tantrum. To them, their heritage is being attacked and that precious symbol they could casually bumpersticker on their mud-caked lifted pick-ups without it necessarily being read as "I H8 DARKIES" is losing ground in polite culture. They can't have that anymore without looking like they're halfway to putting on a pointy white dunce cap.

And you doubt that trans people are helped by this decision? Dude, really? Previously, a trans person may not have been able to marry BECAUSE their partner had the same legal gender. The mind boggles at your need to comment without content. But enough of comments unFIT for print.


If you guys want to watch a professional butt baby lose his mind over this issue, watch Roy Moore!
(1) http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/06...berly.html
(2) http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index....roy_m.html

Roy Moore has a storied career of being Chief Justice of Alabama's supreme court, and being removed from office for failing to comply with a court order to keep his religious monuments out of the state judicial building. Of course, he once again holds that office because Alabama voters elected him a second time since they're magnificent idiots. His ability to feel persecuted while holding high office and playing life on easy mode (white heterosexual christian male) is remarkable, but perhaps his earlier career as a personal injury lawyer helped with finding his inner victim.

Personally, I'm pretty stoked about this decision. I spent all day watching twitter explode in rainbows, and when evening fell I cooked out for a bunch of my friends and broke several of them with the spice level of my kebabs. My local friend group is (largely gay) internet weirdos, so it was high fives all around. And now maybe even I can get married! Alabama got gay marriage months ago, but Roy Moore demanded the county clerks refuse to issue licenses. Now I'm just waiting to see him go down as a martyr again.

-Lem

[FireIceTalon]

I'm reminded of the majority opinion in this case and this statement: "Respondents’ argument that allowing samesex
couples to wed will harm marriage as an institution rests on a
counterintuitive view of opposite-sex couples’ decisions about marriage
and parenthood." Because I feel, rather consistently, that you have a counterintuitive view of society and culture due to a blind spot where "theory of mind" ought be. To take an issue about personal security and spin it up into the machinations of The Invisible Hand, your tired old communist diatribe, is myopic in the extreme. Or maybe you just want attention. Gross.

Actually no offense, but I'm afraid it is YOU that has the counter-intuitive and myopic view of society, my friend: You want to separate a decision made through the bourgeois legal system from the totality of bourgeois historical rule, which is just laughable. As a result, it is your analysis that is filled with the blind spots here.

My point was/is, is that this decision will NOT change the structural dynamic of homophobia under bourgeois rule - just as the Civil Rights Movement didn't (and couldn't) end racism (and as a matter of fact, it can be argued that America is even more racist now than it was back then, but that's another topic). It is completely folly and idealistic to think that homosexuals can ever have the same social legitimacy as heterosexuals under capitalist social relations, regardless of what laws are passed.

Yes, this decision is a victory, but again, it only discredits the LEGAL basis for the justification of homophobia, not the justification of or homophobia in and of itself. Heterosexuality is STILL the default position on sexual relations in bourgeois society, and will be so long as capitalism exists - regardless of what idealist, bullshit hippie liberal views of "culture" you may have. The capitalist system and its development transcends "culture". Sorry if I am not jumping up and down and screaming with joy like most liberal idiots are now who now naively think that gays and lesbians will have equal footing in society. This is why as a Marxist I find liberals to be even more, in some ways, annoying than their so-called conservative counterparts. You achieve one legal victory and think you've won. You have not. Like pretty much all liberals, you make the grave mistake of looking at things through an 'identity' politics lens, instead of trying to make sense of how and why 'identity' politics interacts with CLASS relations.

Make no mistake about it: I certainly favor this decision, it was a LONG time coming. But it is far from the achievement of our end goals(s) from the perspective of a revolutionary leftist, and it is a far cry from homosexuals achieving genuine equality.

As I said to you a few years back, your fears are largely based on a mechanical understanding of culture and not on what it's like to actually live in it

You have it backwards, I'm afraid. Once again, it is liberals such as yourself that have the mechanical understanding of history. You want to separate bourgeois law from the social relations itself, and you just can't do that. That isn't how the world works.

The heart of the matter is this: this decision is another example and point in capitalism's history where it is going through an ideological transformation. Most forms of bigotry are on the decline in being used as justifications for bourgeois rule. The capitalist class has become more secular and less traditional in its outlook, because it is NECESSARY for it to do so. The NEWER and more legitimate theory for justifying oppression and exploitation under capitalism is a concept called MERITOCRACY.

In order for this theory to make even the slightest bit of sense, capitalism must seek to integrate "out groups" into the dominant system by co-opting liberation movements and opening up high-level positions for educated and upwardly-mobile members of these "out groups." By officially opposing discrimination and integrating affluent members of "out groups," capitalism creates a mirage of meritocracy that becomes the new defining justification for exploitation now that older ideas such as white or Christian supremacy have lost their power. That is essentially what this decision is, just as women's suffrage and the first feminist movement was, just as the Civil Rights movement was.

As capital develops more globally, the dominant ruling class ideologies become more cosmopolitan, socially liberal and inclusive. While being less likely to be religious, racist, and nationalist. Because they MUST, in order to justify their class rule. But this has nothing to do with capitalism becoming a nicer, more benevolent system - far from it - it is still as oppressive, exploitative, and irrational as ever. This process will become more apparent as older, more conservative generations die off and the capitalist class is replaced by younger and more libertarian rightist types. However, just because the ruling class is ideologically changing doesn't mean these things are going away. There is a difference between appearance and functionality.

I just find bourgeois leftists who are now shouting "equality achieved!!!" that are overly delighted by this decision almost as annoying, as the religious right-wing idiots who are on suicide watch as a result of it. The meritocracy narrative will continue - just like when Obama got elected we heard clueless black celebrities like Will Smith and Oprah say that racism has essentially ended.

Lastly, regarding Transgenders, the discrimination they face goes beyond sexual orientation, which this law does not (and cannot) address.

but that's kinda expected because of the neckbeard I imagine you have, perhaps in homage to your philosophical forebears.

Cute. (presumptuous) stereotypes against people with large beards as people who presumably sit at a computer all day and never go outside, to summarize your rosy facebook liberal nonsense. Just like if all poor people work harder, they will better their unfortunate circumstances, right?

Actually, I shave pretty regularly (weekly). Especially during times of the year when it is reaching triple digits outside like now. So your little discriminatory stereotype ad-hominem (that doesn't even apply to me anyways) only serves to make you look like a dumbass. I would expect nothing less from a clueless utopian liberal, though.

[kandrathe]

The two best social media comments I've seen in the past few days,

1) "Great! Now even my gay friends will get married before I do."
2) " My Facebook page looks like an explosion of confederate flags, and skittles rainbows."

and...

Geez, FIT...

[LemmingofGlory]

Actually no offense, but I'm afraid it is YOU that has the counter-intuitive and myopic view of society, my friend: You want to separate a decision made through the bourgeois legal system from the totality of bourgeois historical rule, which is just laughable. This leads to a short-sighted view and analysis where you cannot see the forest through the trees, and thus why bourgeois idealism always fails and comes up short in its explanatory power, leading to a complete distorted or even vulgar view of the actual social conditions (whether it is of the "left" or "right" variety, it makes no difference).

HAHAHA! "No u"! Oh man, all this jargon is like if tumblr was communist instead of social justice butthurt. It still smacks of "I spend all day stewing in my own juices." I really don't know where all of your assumptions come from when what you've seen of my perspective is rather minute, but then I don't see the need to go on world-building diatribes in every thread.

My point was/is, is that this decision will NOT change the structural dynamic of homophobia under bourgeois rule - just as the Civil Rights Movement didn't (and couldn't) end racism (and as a matter of fact, it can be argued that America is even more racist now than it was back then, but that's another topic).

This is a point that no one would argue. Why do you think it's profound? It is abundantly clear to everyone, most especially LGBT people, that marriage isn't the end-all.

It is completely folly and idealistic to think that homosexuals can ever have the same social legitimacy as heterosexuals under capitalist social relations.

This is the funniest line you've ever written.

Yes, this decision is a victory, but again, it only ends the LEGAL basis for the justification of homophobia, not homophobia itself. Heterosexuality is STILL the default position on sexual relations in bourgeois society, and will be so long as capitalism exists - regardless of what idealist, bullshit hippie liberal views of "culture" you may have.

No, wait, this is funnier.

Sorry if I am not jumping up and down and screaming with joy like most liberal idiots are now who now naively think that gays and lesbians will have equal footing in society.

This is what I said about your problems with theory of mind, man. Your perception of what people are thinking is biased toward your own view that everyone is a clueless moron.

As capital develops more globally, the dominant ruling class ideologies become more cosmopolitan, socially liberal and inclusive. While being less likely to be religious, racist, and nationalist. Because they MUST, in order to justify their class rule. But this has nothing to do with capitalism becoming a nicer, more benevolent system - far from it. This process will become more apparent as older, more conservative generations die off and the capitalist class is replaced by younger and more libertarian rightist types.

You're just a big red sandwich board, aren't ya?

Lastly, regarding Transgenders, the discrimination they face goes beyond sexual orientation, which this law does not (and cannot) address.

Of course it does, but you seemed to be baffled that they would benefit whatsoever. Durr.

Cute. (presumptuous) stereotypes against people with large beards as people who presumably sit at a computer all day and never go outside, to summarize your rosy facebook liberal nonsense. Just like if all poor people work harder, they will better their unfortunate circumstances, right?

I don't think you understand what the term "neckbeard" means. Also, your insults don't work together.

Actually, I shave pretty regularly. Especially during times of the year when it is reaching triple digits outside like now. So your little discriminatory stereotype (that doesn't even apply to me anyways) only serves to make you look like a dumbass. I would expect nothing less from a clueless, utopian liberal who just got backed into a corner, though.

To be so refuted by your regular shaving truly cuts me to the quick. I am slain. *actually literally dies, in much the same way that the term neckbeard was abundantly literal*

I bet you're fun at parties.

-Lem

[FireIceTalon]

HAHAHA! "No u"! Oh man, all this jargon is like if tumblr was communist instead of social justice butthurt. It still smacks of "I spend all day stewing in my own juices." I really don't know where all of your assumptions come from when what you've seen of my perspective is rather minute, but then I don't see the need to go on world-building diatribes in every thread.

Indeed, you haven't provided much perspective to the whole situation, which is precisely my point . The little perspective you have provided, is faulty and misguided at best. If you don't like people calling you out on bullshit, then here's a word of advice: don't spew (or in this case type) bullshit.

No one is making any assumptions here. I objectively pointed out and explained how this decision is an example, among many, on how the capitalist class is increasingly rejecting traditional justifications (religious bigotry, racial supremacy) in favor of different ideologies to justify their class rule. As well as there still being a correlation between class struggle and heteronormativity. Just because these things are in decline in a legal context doesn't mean they are going away - again, function vs. appearance. There is a dissonance between what we say about homosexuality and its practical reality, regardless of the law. Same-sex marriage being legal isn't cultural equality, it is cultural assimilation. It isn't acceptance, it is tolerance. The goal for socialists isn't to assimilate or conform into bourgeois heteronormative culture (or any realm of bourgeois culture & society for that matter), but rather to DESTROY it entirely, and sweep it into the dustbin of history where it fucking belongs.

I don't see any jargon (except from liberals and conservatives about this whole decision) or 'world building' here, just an real-world analysis of how things ACTUALLY are. Perhaps it is in your little bourgeois civil rights utopia where all the jargon and 'world-building' is taking place. Liberals love capitalism with rainbows and unicorns, afterall.

You know, it IS POSSIBLE to think critically about things, even when they are in general a good thing. Like I said, I think this news is good news and I support the decision, but that doesn't mean we should keep our heads up our asses, be content, and not critically analyze the sociological aspects of it.

This is a point that no one would argue. Why do you think it's profound? It is abundantly clear to everyone, most especially LGBT people, that marriage isn't the end-all.

One problem: many people DO argue this point, both in person and in various social media outlets. You'd have to be living on another planet to deny this. Be as it may, it is not apparently and abundantly clear to everyone. Not by a long shot.

This is the funniest line you've ever written. No, wait, this is funnier.

What? I don't see the oppression and treatment of a sector of society as second class citizens being funny in the least. Scoffing at the truth is going to get you nowhere, except make you look elitist (as liberals tend to do to themselves) and out of touch, which you clearly are.

You're just a big red sandwich board, aren't ya?

Maybe. But it is more than can be said for what you have brought to the picnic thus far.

This is what I said about your problems with theory of mind, man. Your perception of what people are thinking is biased toward your own view that everyone is a clueless moron.

Not everyone, just people who say things that indicate they are clueless morons If one doesn't want to be labeled as such, don't do or say things that would make one to believe you are. Pretty simple really.

Yes, I find a multitude of objections and problems within many non-Marxist theories, regarding sociological conditions. But that isn't the same thing as thinking of all of them as morons. Some of them certainly can be, though.

I don't think you understand what the term "neckbeard" means. Also, your insults don't work together.

Oh, I know what it means. I was just pointing out your failed attempt to use an ad hominem to tie your already incoherent analysis of things together.

I bet you're fun at parties.

A blast, actually Especially if I'm at least slightly intoxicated.

No one is stewing in their own juices man. More likely, you are simply frustrated because you have a dislike or misunderstanding of radical/revolutionary political theory either A). because its trendy and convenient to hold socially acceptable "middle ground" politics, or B.) because Marxist theory provides an inconvenient analysis of how things are, for your particular worldview, and furthermore (and this is key): you cannot refute it. Or, I suspect a combination of the two.

[kandrathe]

Lemme summarize...

"Marriage is a wonderful institution. Who wants to live in an institution? " -- Karl Groucho Marx

[LemmingofGlory]

Indeed, you haven't provided much perspective to the whole situation, which is precisely my point . The little perspective you have provided, is faulty and misguided at best. If you don't like people calling you out on bullshit, then here's a word of advice: don't spew (or in this case type) bullshit.

I noted that you made a strawman out of me and you now claim your purpose was to indicate that I hadn't built up my "argument" to the same extent that you have? Yeah, no.

I honestly don't feel as if you've "called me" on anything so much as you've said the exact same thing you say in every thread, regardless of whether it's about politics or peanut butter sandwiches. Absolutely everything that comes out of your mouth must relate to your pet obsession whether or not you demonstrate an ignorance of the topic under discussion, in which you may ignore details as meaningless since you understand the puppetry of the system.

Perhaps it is in your little bourgeois civil rights utopia where all the jargon and 'world-building' is taking place. Liberals love capitalism with rainbows and unicorns, afterall.

Do you know the reason tumblr social justice folk have such trouble promoting their causes? It's for this very reason: you can't evoke social change by treating everyone as opponents. For as much as you talk about changing the system, this perception of yours that labels people you talk to with "liberal" and "conservative" (said as slurs, evidently) and turns them into nemeses is divisive.

What? I don't see the oppression and treatment of a sector of society as second class citizens being funny in the least. Scoffing at the truth is going to get you nowhere, except make you look elitist (as liberals tend to do to themselves) and out of touch, which you clearly are.

Here's the thing: when you admit you know little of my perspective, why would you ascribe my laughing as "scoffing"? It was much heartier than that, actually! The thing about it is, I find crackpots incredibly hilarious, and I'm pretty sure that's what you are. Your entire world revolves around one significant idea, you require no additional details, and everyone else is a "them" for not ascribing to it. It's magnificent what you manage to say sometimes.

Maybe. But it is more than can be said for what you have brought to the picnic thus far.

Does anyone ever bring anything to the table that you didn't bring yourself? You're like a sack lunch at a potluck.

For example, kandrathe said some pretty funny things! Some of the more fun things in the thread so far. I would like there to be more fun things.

For instance, did you guys see Entertainment Weekly's rainbow twitter icon?

   

How did they not catch this?!

Meanwhile, it's come to light that my county's probate judge will (evidently begrudgingly) issue marriages licenses but has declined to continue performing ceremonies for anyone. To me, this seems like a flagrant unwillingness to do his fucking job. It's outright unprofessional. If you're a public servant, you serve the public. You don't get to decide to have fewer duties than other probate judges because you might have to marry some gay people, and you happen to find that gross. Grow up.

And then there's Texas level insane: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/2...0F20150629

To tell county clerks that they need not do their job when it comes to gay couples is (once again) unprofessional, discriminatory, and just wrong. I want to see an Onion article along the lines of "Texas attorney general tells Jewish and Muslim grocery store cashiers they may refuse to sell pork products."

-Lem

[FireIceTalon]

Then perhaps you should focus more on putting your "perspective" out there, than trying to personally discredit me or the framework which I operate within? Just a thought. And...

You calling anyone a crackpot is laughable at best, when you either refuse to (or cannot) come up with a reasoned argument to counter my points about queer couples under capitalist rule and how heteronormativity works as a sociological process within said system. All you do is resort to personal attacks and ad hominems, because you likely have little knowledge of the issues at hand (and if you do have knowledge, you've yet to demonstrate so). If what I am saying is so off base, crazy, and just something Ive arbitrarily cooked up in my imagination as you seem to imply, provide a logical and structured argument to prove so. Thus far, you haven't even begun to formulate any counter-argument to my points, much less actually do it successfully. I suspect it comes from an inability you have to think critically about sociological issues, and you are too concerned with trying to discredit the Marxist method as a way of getting at me, instead of discussing the issues themselves.

But at this point, I am not really interested anymore in possibly having a intellectual discussion with you on queer relationships and class rule, cause I am quite certain you will just respond with more of the same ad hominem mumbo jumbo. You are a complete joke. Enjoy ignore.

[LemmingofGlory]

Then perhaps you should focus more on putting your "perspective" out there, than trying to personally discredit me or the framework which I operate within? Just a thought. And...

Because not a single person on this forum feels the need to lay out their entire socioeconomicpolitical outlook in order to discuss individual topics. I provide plenty of meat for conversation. Yours is the same old gnawed bone, in every thread. That's what I'm saying.

You calling anyone a crackpot is laughable at best, when you either refuse to (or cannot) come up with a reasoned argument to counter my points about queer couples under capitalist rule and how heteronormativity works as a sociological process within said system.

I'm a professional, and I meet crackpots at conferences sometimes. They come across like you do: completely convinced, needing no new input, and they have no time for you if you think they're wrong. They want to be either refuted (which they regard as impossible!) or they want you to accept that they're right. That's why I don't engage your points. It's why I don't try to convince nutters that they haven't proven P = NP. I just accept that they almost certainly haven't. I reserve the right to be unconvinced without necessarily having to provide a counterweight, especially with things like communism where historical implementation has been catastrophic.

I suspect it comes from an inability you have to think critically about sociological issues, and you are too concerned with trying to discredit the Marxist method as a way of getting at me, instead of discussing the issues themselves.

It's unwise to accuse someone of not being able to think critically in the same sentence where you demonstrate having misread them.

But at this point, I am not really interested anymore in possibly having a intellectual discussion with you on queer relationships and class rule,

That's fine. It's not what the thread was about in the first place.


A broader update on the crazy front, we have Texas and Alabama being the most pouty about having to formally recognize same-sex unions. Several other states are issuing stays on gay marriages until the 25 day appeals period has passed. It's so much childish posturing. Is it so much to ask that these people just admit "Okay, look, we knew we were doing something blatantly in violation of the 14th Amendment, but we REALLY JUST DIDN'T LIKE GAYS. We lost. We get it. We still don't like you people." ?

It's even shameful when politicians flip-flop the other way. Obama really should've come out and been honest saying, "I supported same-sex marriage this entire time, but for political reasons I felt it best to pretend I didn't until the tide of public opinion was safe. I apologize for being a diaper baby about this, but at least I have my big boy pants on now. But hey, you gays who supported me thinking I was on your side, you were right. Compare that to all of the people who supported Republican candidates for their anti-gay stance who are, at heart, not remotely anti-gay at all. It's just a non-issue for them."

I have basically no fear of churches that squick from homosexuality will be forced into performing same-sex unions, but holy crap so many of these states are making a big to-do about "WE WILL PROTECT THE POOR BIGOTED CHURCHES FROM THE GAYS THAT WISH TO WED THERE." Basically, to me it seems like one of those fears that could exist but in actuality won't, such as John Oliver's example of space bestiality. Even in Alabama, there are so many LGBT-friendly churches and faith communities that if you want a gay church wedding, it's not hard to find. Many churches here have performed same sex ceremonies for years (minus the legal oomph).

-Lem

[kandrathe]

Because not a single person on this forum feels the need to lay out their entire socioeconomicpolitical outlook in order to discuss individual topics. I provide plenty of meat for conversation. Yours is the same old gnawed bone, in every thread. That's what I'm saying.

I liked the picnic analogy. FIT always brings borscht and only borscht, made with REDDEST of beets, and we know that soon into our festivities he'll be angrily throwing it all over us and calling us "city folk", er, I mean bourgeoisie.

... "a reasoned argument to counter my points about queer couples under capitalist rule and how heteronormativity works as a sociological process within said system."

Um. How about the treatment of homosexuals under past and present communist governments? I see no rainbows there. Or, are we projecting to the fantasy-land Marxist utopia that has never, and will probably never exist?

I suspect it comes from an inability you have to think critically about sociological issues, and you are too concerned with trying to discredit the Marxist method as a way of getting at me, instead of discussing the issues themselves.

Or, the insanity of lacking Gemeinschaftsgefühl. I suspect you are incapable of seeing anything beyond those RED goggles with RED blinders. >90% of the average persons life involves interacting with the capitalist system, either earning or spending wages. I'm sure if you put your mind to it, the mere act of defecating might hold some insights into the glory of Marx, and the failure of Das Capital.

But at this point, I am not really interested anymore in possibly having a intellectual discussion with you on queer relationships and class rule,

Is that was this was? You vigilantly stand ready with your hammer and sickle, ready to have "an intellectual discussion defending Marxism" regarding whatever the thread's topic is at hand.

   
It's Anti-Übermensch defender of the Marxism.

[FireIceTalon]

I was going to let this go after putting Lem on ignore, but since you seem to want to push this...Fine.

Um. How about the treatment of homosexuals under past and present communist governments? I see no rainbows there. Or, are we projecting to the fantasy-land Marxist utopia that has never, and will probably never exist?

Interestingly enough, it was Lenin and the Bolsheviks who decriminalized homosexuality after centuries of repression against queers under capitalist, Tsarist leadership. Perhaps you should put the Ayn Rand novels down and read a little more about the history of socialism (and no, The Black Book of Communism doesn't count).

And my friend, the only thing utopian are people like you who hold the myopic and EXTREMELY mechanical, deterministic view that capitalism represents the end of history. This system is already imploding across the globe, and I would say to think that this system can continue as it is, unabated, without any kind of radical social change taking place in the future - THAT is utopian thinking.

I suspect you are incapable of seeing anything beyond those RED goggles with RED blinders. >90% of the average persons life involves interacting with the capitalist system, either earning or spending wages. I'm sure if you put your mind to it, the mere act of defecating might hold some insights into the glory of Marx, and the failure of Das Capital.

Perhaps because Marxism does a BETTER (note better, not perfect) job at explaining and understanding the world as it actually is, than mainstream political theories do? I'm sure that didn't occur to ya. If I found other methods to be better, I would adopt those, but very clearly they aren't. It is you, not I, that sticks to a particular framework for the sake of holding up your ideological values, instead of attempting to actually understanding the material workings of the world. You choose to construct your view the world in an abstract, metaphysical way so you can see it as how you WANT to see it, rather than as it IS. Idealism at its finest.

Fucking a, you make 50 bucks an hour, it is probably not in your class interests to adhere to a framework that slaughters your sacred cows and challenges your PRIVILEGED position in society, regardless of how truthful that framework may be. Given you are part of the so-called labor aristocracy, your dislike of Marxism comes as no surprise, really. I can understand that. But your credibility on judging its legitimacy as a systemic paradigm, is at best, shoddy.

And I fail to see how Das Capital "failed", since its primary objective was to provide and serve as a scientific analysis and description of what capitalism is and how it functions, based on an extremely rigorous research and inquiry. I would say in that sense, it has been very largely successful. Bourgeois economists still read it, and some have even tried to refute it but thus far have had little or no success in doing so. Marx was fascinated with capitalism, almost obsessed I would say, and wanted to learn EVERYTHING about how it worked, independent of any ideological or moral judgements.

Is this drivel really the best you have? A privileged white, straight Christian libertarian male who makes 50 bucks an hour typing, that denounces Marxism. Jeez, I've never seen that before, lulz

[kandrathe]

Interestingly enough, it was Lenin and the Bolsheviks who legalized homosexuality after centuries of repression against queers under capitalist, Tsarist leadership. Perhaps you should you should put the Ayn Rand novels down and read a little more about the history of socialism (and no, The Black Book of Communism doesn't count).

Um, yup. For roughly a decade, and I do mean roughly, because it was more on paper than in reality. Uncle Joe Stalin, purged those brave enough to have taken up Mr. Lenin on his forward human rights agenda. So, my advice is you might want to also put the Ayn Rand novels down and read a little more about the history of socialism (and no, The Black Book of Communism doesn't count).

And my friend, the only thing utopian are people like you who hold the myopic and EXTREMELY mechanical, deterministic view that capitalism represents the end of history.

Well, you don't know that I am utopian at all. Perhaps I'm just nihilistic. Perhaps we are doomed to a fate of servitude.

This system is already imploding across the globe, and I would say to think that this system can continue as it is, unabated, without any kind of radical social change taking place in the future - THAT is utopian thinking. It is not the Marxists who are utopian, it is the historians who view history in a deterministic linear, and non-dialectical fashion and think that society stays stagnant that are the utopian ones.

Yadda yadda yadda imploding, yadda yadda. Yup, since the late 1800's.

Perhaps because Marxism does a BETTER job at explaining and understanding the world as it actually is, than mainstream political theories do? I'm sure that didn't occur to ya.

Oh, it did, then I studied it in depth and rejected it. Perhaps you can not conceive of some one with a different experience, or view point?

If I found other methods to be better, I would adopt those, but very clearly they aren't. It is you, not I, that sticks to a particular framework for the sake of holding up your ideology in favor of actually understanding the material workings of the world.

I choose to remain grounded in the framework of reality as it is.

You make 50 bucks an hour, it is probably not in your class interests to adhere to a framework that slaughters your sacred cows and challenges your PRIVILEGED position in society, no matter how truthful that framework may be. Given you are part of the so-called labor aristocracy, your dislike of Marxism comes as no surprise, really. Your credibility on Marxism's legitimacy as a paradigm, is at best, shoddy.

I see you prefer to make up facts, like my wages, and draw conclusions from your twisted fantasies. I guess in order to understand, I would need to be like Karl Marx, an unemployed parasite, mooching off Friedrich Engels Jr. who was supported by his fathers textile company. Or, perhaps, just a mediocre political science student with little post baccalaureate prospect kissing the behinds of Marxian faculty in the back waters of Wyoming.

My guess is that you have long lost any objectivity to the reality of normal people, as well as any sense of humor.

For the remainder of our imminent disagreement perhaps we might just re-read the history --> http://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/thread-13138.html

I doubt anything substantively different would emerge from further tilting at this windmill.