HOME | DD
bakki β Legalized!
#newspaper #mlpmylittlepony
Published: 2015-07-01 02:00:01 +0000 UTC; Views: 10296; Favourites: 216; Downloads: 243
Redirect to original
Description
I assume this happened long time ago in Equestria before its current generation..Anyway congrats to america for getting same-sex marriage legalized!
I see that there's lots of effort and quite a long wait for it to happen.
I think this is quite a step forword for human culture.
I'm kinda shocked that american got that before Thailand tho :/
Related content
Comments: 51
Considering how few stallions there are I can see gay marriage being around before straight marriage.Β Although that must mean that magic mirror thing from G1 was still around.
π: 1 β©: 0
I wondered which flag got torn down thenΒ Β
π: 1 β©: 0
In a fantasy world where the sexes exist for "diversity", this might make sense.
Together with liberalism, lol
π: 1 β©: 0
And thus Mares and Stallions can finally marry! Before that every foal ever was illegitimate.
π: 1 β©: 1
Well, that explains all the abandoned ones...
π: 1 β©: 1
They at least kept the monsters well fed.
π: 1 β©: 0
You have no idea, how hard I'm laughing right now.
π: 0 β©: 0
Well we're overpoppulating anyway so good for them
π: 0 β©: 0
And that's why there are less males in Equestria.
π: 0 β©: 1
There would be fewer females too, wouldn't there?
π: 0 β©: 1
There should, but there ain't.
π: 0 β©: 0
Wait... the newspaper says "different-sex" marriage was legalized.
So... heterosexual marriage was illegal in EquestriaΒ up until now?!
I knew lesbianism was popular, but DAMN...
π: 0 β©: 0
Be careful, though.
If being in same-sex relationship is the whole new trend and boring old heterosexuality dies out, so will the humanity.
π: 0 β©: 3
If you think heterosexuality is boring, then I think you may have caught the gay yourself my friend
π: 0 β©: 1
Don't be dumb.
I'm asexual.
π: 0 β©: 0
Well,Β marriage was never a precondition for reproduction anyway, so I don't see this changing anything.
And hey, if things get dicey, there's always cloning!
π: 0 β©: 0
We're pretty overpopulated, so it doesn't really matter.
π: 0 β©: 0
Canada: It's about time, ya damn Yanks.
(For the record, same-sex marriage has been legal in Canada for over a decade now; since 2005, in fact)
π: 0 β©: 3
That's because you're awesome 
π: 0 β©: 1
Perhaps, quite possibly.
On a somewhat humorous note, this apparently happened on Twitter shortly after legalization was made official:
twitter.com/MadelnCanada/statuβ¦
The irony is delicious and palpable,
π: 0 β©: 0
Nah, I was just saying, that's all.
π: 0 β©: 0
Well looks like we'll have two nations crumble in the very near future . . .
π: 0 β©: 0
Here's the thing: This is the *fifteenth* time the Supreme Court has ruled on marriage-being-a-right.
No-one was saying they didn't have the right to rule on this last week, and this is the type of ruling they've historically made before- most notably 48 years ago with interracial marriage.
No-one goes around saying the Supreme Court couldn't do that, so what's different about this one?
Precisely nothing.
-"Not only that, 2 supreme court justices who voted yes needed to recuse themselves because they had performed same-sex marriages, and are therefore bias. Which means that the actual count would have been 4-3 instead of 4-5, and it shouldn't have passed."-
Scalia has been openly against it before. He should recuse himself on the exact same grounds. That'd bump it down to 3-3. I bet at least one of the other justices against have as well. That'd be 3-2 or less, in favor of this ruling.
You can't argue that 'only those who are one way should recuse themselves, and not those another way.'
Additionally, someone who performed a marriage could still view it as an individual state thing, they aren't incompatible views. So really, Scalia should've recused himself for open bias, but just because one was involved in one does not declare one's stance in a significant way.Β 5-3 or more.
-"It also goes against the 1st amendment of the separation of Church and State, because the Federal Government can not force churches to provide same-sex marriages."-
Churches still aren't. Churches are never required to perform marriage ceremonies (Priests don't have to perform for non-Christians, Rabbis don't for non-Jews, heck, nothing stopping any priest from limiting it to only a select group based on any criteria), only the government is entailed to.
*However*, some churches who wished to, couldn't. Including the one my parents go to.
So freedom of religion was impinged before, where Churches who wished to express their freedom could not, but this way, where it's allowed, Churches are allowed to chose as per the first amendment.
π: 0 β©: 0
While I would love to discuss everything you said, I am far too tired right now so if you actually care to here my views then just shoot me a message back. However I would like to address the last thing which you said. At the very core of what our government was designed for, is the protection of three things; Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That's what the Revolutionary War was fought for and that is what the founders were trying to protect. So while the legality of both the state's ability to outlaw gay marriage and the supreme courts ruling can and will be debated for years to come, it is abundantly clear that those states which did outlaw gay marriage were violating the principles which this nation was found on.
π: 0 β©: 1
Don't worry, I think I covered everything in terms of legal detail, and you got the intent correct right there ^^
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh, well, what a pleasant surprise. Since I haven't been following this at all, I was going to have to do a fair amount of research to find anything like what you said about Scalia. There were still some points which could have been made without having any kind of knowledge on this specific issue, but as it appears you have already successfully argued in favor of the legality of the SC's decision, I'll leave them be.
π: 0 β©: 1
Honestly at this point I just find it fun to go around and quash the legal-arguments by people who didn't think through the legalities ^^
π: 0 β©: 1
Ya it's always fun to do things like this, but the guy did bring up some points to consider. And had his assertions been correct, well it wouldn't be the first time in which the quickest way to solve an issue was used and then thatΒ led to long term consequences. In this instance it all checks out and is legal, but it should always be something that the people consider, because while the legal way is often slower it is that way on purpose to prevent corruption of the government. Though that only works if the people themselves aren't corrupt as well which doesn't seem to be the case for the general populous.
π: 0 β©: 0
You must have big hands. Big strong hands. To be grasping at that many straws.
π: 0 β©: 1
Betteroffdeader :Β Lul,Β +1
π: 0 β©: 0
As far as the churches and the religion aspect, I'm pretty sure the ruling is only about the issuing of marriage licenses and the legality of said marriages. Β Doesn't say anything about the actual performing of said weddings.
π: 0 β©: 1
One does wonder where people get the idea it'd be required when, you know, no pastor, rabbi, tribal elder, ship captain, or similar is legally required to wed anyone.
Clerks have to, because that's their job and it's the paperwork end, but on the religious end nothing is required.
π: 0 β©: 1
If they are willing to completely bypass the 10th amendment, at what point does the 1st become void next? We have rights, rights that the government cant take away from us, so here's my question to you, why are you not upset that our government thinks of our Constitution as nothing more than toilet paper?
π: 0 β©: 1
If you're willing to bypass the 14th amendment, at what point does the 1st become void?
"Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Additionally, as a number of churches are pro gay marriage, the ban was arguably already in 1st amendment breach.
While the states do have rights, citizens do have Federal protections explicitly, the 14th (and 1st) apply here and not the 10th, as has been established in 14 prior court cases that address whether or not marriage is a right, and if you're willing to ignore parts of the constitution when your opponents are, in fact, following it better than you are, you really shouldn't try a slippery slope argument like that.
π: 0 β©: 0
Oh, so is THIS why foals were stated to "come from magic mirrors" in previous times? Β
(Yes, this is what actually happened in previous generations. Β Lauren Faust herself had to clarify that in G4, foals were made "in the mammalian way")
π: 0 β©: 0
Equestria can now share more of the love like America has now!
π: 0 β©: 0
This just in, second sex of pony species discovered!
π: 0 β©: 0
Rainbow Dash: AAW, YEAH!!
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>