Pittsburghers Celebrate SCOTUS Ruling (Philadelphia, York: house, salaries, quality of life)

[Geeo]

Daryl Metcalfe (R-Cranberry) and his ilk aside, even the conservatives and Republicans I saw on the news and talk shows last night and this morning are pretty glad that these cases have been settled by the Supreme Court. This would have been an issue that further relegated the Republican party to irrelevance had the radical right wing of the party been able to further exploit the issue and alienate even more people.

The next phase that is coming is individual lawsuits in states that don't have equality from litigants who may have been married in ann equal state and moved to, say, Pennsylvania, where the federal rights they had are now taken away.

[Copanut]

Being a Big Dumb White Conservative Guy, I am truly happy that gays are allowed to marry. Hey, misery loves company!

[youngabe]

Originally Posted by bradjl2009

Look what one of Butler County's finest said on the issue.

But not so fast, says Pa. Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, a Cranberry Republican. Metcalfe says the court decision improves chances of passing his constitutional amendment allowing marriage only between a man and a woman. “They’re going to make our citizens now pay as federal taxpayers to support an immoral lifestyle, immoral behavior, that some states, some very liberal states, have chosen,” says Metcalfe.


How does this bigoted clown keep getting elected. I don't think all people against gay marriage are bigoted, but with this and other opinions of this guy I have no doubt he's rather prejudice.

Aside from the sheer lack of knowledge on the issue, what drives me insane about comments like this is something that most people don't consider...the economic BENEFIT to same-sex marriage. The glaring issue is that it's simply a civil rights issue, but morons like Metcalfe can't even see the economic benefit. If Pennsylvania continues to be in the stone age on social issues, we aren't going to gain the population that we COULD gain if EVERYONE felt that they were a welcome resident in the state of Pennsylvania. More residents equals a larger tax base. Gay marriage equals more people spending their money in our state on EVERYTHING wedding related. I specifically remember when New York state allowed same-sex marriage, the economical benefit was cited. Goons like Metcalfe truly are so out of touch with social issues, it pains me that people like him are in any form of elected position for a diverse society. With mentality like his, growth in the entire state will be stymied. It's a damn shame, since the leaders of the city of Pittsburgh are so pro-gay. Our state's out-of-touch views could potentially hinder the growth of Pittsburgh, even though the city itself is progressive, it wouldn't do incoming gay residents enough since the state level makes them feel unwelcomed.

[UKyank]

Originally Posted by youngabe

Aside from the sheer lack of knowledge on the issue, what drives me insane about comments like this is something that most people don't consider...the economic BENEFIT to same-sex marriage. The glaring issue is that it's simply a civil rights issue, but morons like Metcalfe can't even see the economic benefit...

While I think PA should embrace gay marriage & not impose restrictions on what adults want to do I don't necessarily find the above a compelling argument.

The tax breaks, refunds, spousal pensions benefits, healthcare, estate/inheritance taxes etc that the state would not collect (not that this is a valid argument for denying rights either of course ) probably outweigh whatever residents would choose not to live in PA because of its laws (not to mention that most states hold the same laws as PA does currently on the issue, rather then PA being an outlier.)

[that412]

Originally Posted by Q-tip motha

I don't think all people against gay marriage are bigoted either,

Sure they are. What other reason even exists for opposing same-sex marriage? No matter how you slice it, every reason people give boils down to having a huge problem with the concept of homosexuality. It might not be an overt hatemongering form of bigotry, but anyone who says they oppose same-sex marriage is essentially claiming that gays belong in a sub-category of human/American and are not deserving of the same basic rights as everyone else.

In any event, as positive as the DOMA ruling was, this joy is still overshadowed too much by that terrifying VRA decision.

[Q-tip motha]

Originally Posted by that412

Sure they are. What other reason even exists for opposing same-sex marriage? No matter how you slice it, every reason people give boils down to having a huge problem with the concept of homosexuality. It might not be an overt hatemongering form of bigotry, but anyone who says they oppose same-sex marriage is essentially claiming that gays belong in a sub-category of human/American and are not deserving of the same basic rights as everyone else.

Religious beliefs don't necessarily constitute bigotry. They're hypocritical and very selective of what they choose to use from their religion, but not necessarily full of hate or contempt at the thing they oppose.

[that412]

Originally Posted by Q-tip motha

Religious beliefs don't necessarily constitute bigotry. They're hypocritical and very selective of what they choose to use from their religion, but not necessarily full of hate or contempt at the thing they oppose.

I'd argue that's just semantics

Religious beliefs may be the root of and a convenient excuse for intolerance, but it's intolerance all the same. Not to mention that same-sex marriage is a legal issue; no one would be mandating that MY church has to marry gays. Therefore, if I'm citing religious beliefs as a reason that legal rights and benefits should not be extended to same-sex couples, at the end of the day I'm still just saying that these couples are inferior and less deserving of the same rights as heterosexual couples.

[Stijl Council]

Originally Posted by that412

Religious beliefs may be the root of and a convenient excuse for intolerance, but it's intolerance all the same.

I always think of this article when I see people debate the topic:

Look, here’s the deal: It doesn’t matter if you think you’re a nice person. And it doesn’t matter if your tone, attitude, sentiments and facial expressions are all very sweet, kindly and sympathetic-seeming. If you’re opposing legal equality, then you don’t get to be nice. Opposing legal equality is not nice and it cannot be done nicely.

You can't deny people their rights and be nice about it

[jay5835]

Originally Posted by Q-tip motha

Religious beliefs don't necessarily constitute bigotry. They're hypocritical and very selective of what they choose to use from their religion, but not necessarily full of hate or contempt at the thing they oppose.

Originally Posted by Stijl Council

I always think of this article when I see people debate the topic:

You can't deny people their rights and be nice about it

What Stijl said. I can't imagine how anyone could even type Q-Tip's first sentence, let alone present it as truth.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by bradjl2009

But not so fast, says Pa. Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, a Cranberry Republican. Metcalfe says the court decision improves chances of passing his constitutional amendment allowing marriage only between a man and a woman. “They’re going to make our citizens now pay as federal taxpayers to support an immoral lifestyle, immoral behavior, that some states, some very liberal states, have chosen,” says Metcalfe.


How does this bigoted clown keep getting elected. I don't think all people against gay marriage are bigoted, but with this and other opinions of this guy I have no doubt he's rather prejudice.

Did you really need to provide me with another reason to knock Cranberry?