BruceVC

Well this is the first time you have made some points that I agree with, the main one being " if a same sex couple can give this kind of love and care to child out there who needs it, then so be it. " And also you are correct in your view that having a straight married couple as parents doesn't necessarily mean that the children will be raised in a happy and healthy environment for a variety of reasons

Yes and considering the fact the majority of American people now support same-sex marriage a vote would produce the same result, as you can see from the links I posted. The second one being a comprehensive one that actually covers several polls

Who do you guys typically vote for ? This applies to any Canadian citizens like Volo, Malc and Oerwinde

Can you explain why this is not a good law? Please go into details if required around the failure of process Read the dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Roberts I'll really make it easy for you, here's a link to the complete court opinion including the majority opinion, the case precedents, and all three dissenting opinions from Roberts, Scalia and Thomas http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2111845-14-556-3204.html#document/p1 Can you explain why this is not a good law? Please go into details if required around the failure of process you can read J. Robert's dissent if you wish. like it or not, the question that came before the Court is not a new one. marriage is a right, but the legal definition o' marriage has been established and settled for a long time and currently more than half o' States in the US do not recognize same-sex marriage. it is o' course, perfectly reasonable that as society changes, the People may change such definitions, but that is the role of legislators and not Justices. "The majority today neglects that restrained conception of the judicial role. It seizes for itself a question the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that question. And it answers that question based not on neutral principles of constitutional law, but on its own “understanding of what freedom is and must become. "Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer." the Justices of the Court decided that their will and wisdom were greater than that o' The People. perhaps the wisdom o' 5 Justices is more admirable than that o' the people o' the United States of America, but the Constitution does not grant the Court the power to subvert the will o' the people in a case such as this. there were no Constitutional right to same-sex marriage before today. 5 Justices thought that there should be such a right so now there is such a right. the process were subverted. I understand both of you have a very good understanding of the American legal system. I have very little practical knowledge or how something like the Supreme Court should interpret decisions apart from what I read or see on channels like CNN and there assessment But I think I understand Gromnirs objection, you are saying that basically the 5 judges who voted in favor of this law are speaking on behalf of the American public and possibly are undermining what the American public really want. I have two points in response The majority of Americans now support same sex marriage http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-53-of-americans-support-same-sex-marriage/ ( 53 % support it and 39 % are opposed http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm I can produce other links but they all say the same thing, most Americans support same-sex marriage. How is this subverting the will of the American people if they are in favor of it? Just because certain intransigent states and there legislators refuse to accept this it doesn't mean this is what the American people want 2. In the states where there laws refuse to accept same sex marriage how would you suggest this change gets implemented without the decision of a body like the Supreme Court, do you think people will just wake up one day and decide to do the right thing? Sometimes legislation is needed to enforce change ...history tells us this in other examples of discrimination....because surly you guys agree that not allowing same-sex marriage is a form of discrimination?

Can you explain why this is not a good law? Please go into details if required around the failure of process

" Marketing operations " Nonek please, we agreed you would keep the hyperbole and grandstanding to a minimum in order to encourage reasonable debate ?

Well done for posting this monumental political and social development This is a really positive step for true equality and recognition in the eyes of the law for same-couples in the USA Another reason why this is important for me personally is I often get into debates about the appalling rise of homophobia in some African countries and one of the spurious counter-arguments some people use who try to defend this homophobia in Africa is points like " but even in America they don't allow gay marriage in some states, so if America can discriminate why can't Africa " This argument now becomes moot

Interesting perspective, I never thought about it like that in regards to the lack of patriotism I see from some Canadian forum members

That cartoon made me laugh....the reality is I live in a country where that really happens sometimes ...you guys don't really Last week South Africa allowed Omar Al-Bashir, the current dictator of Sudan, to leave our country during an AU conference despite the fact he is on the wanted list of the ICC (International Criminal Court ) and we are signatories of the Rome Statute which meant we should have arrested him. The issue is our courts said he needs to be detained but he still managed to slip out the country There is a real accusation that the government still doesn't understand what its responsibilities are in regard to being committed to being aligned to organisations like the ICC

I am of the opinion that Canada should just become part of the great and noble USA ....you guys do share a border and you are very influenced by the USA so what have you got to lose...think of the superior military you will gain ? No way. Canada was settled by the people who wanted nothing to do with the US or were chased out by the Patriots. Then we confederated as a country because we were afraid of being absorbed into the US in the aftermath of the civil war. Our history has been one big eff you to being American, not going to stop now. Plus we would have to abandon the monarchy and become a republic. Imagine, a greasy self serving politician as our head of state instead of the classy wonderful Queen we have. But you personally, if you could vote to get Canada to join the USA would you support it ? I know this will never happen, I am just interested in your view. So weigh up the overall benefits from the possibly misplaced patriotism. Because my experience has been most of you Canadians don't seem that patriotic...for example Malc and Volo don't even support your country in sport....so you may as well just become part of the USA if you don't really care about things like national identity ?

I'm at the airport now and will be boarding the plane in about 20 minutes, I am excited about my trip to the coast...I can't wait to see my family and hit the sea

So there is another angle to Obamacare, the reality is it part of his legacy If you are a supporter of his, like me, and everything he has done for the USA then of course you want it to succeed. I understand the majority of Americans on these forums don't seem to like Obama too much but I think history will definitely regard him favorably Another important point is I know the Republicans have promised to repeal Obamacare if they come to power in 2016...but these wins in the Constitutional Court just ensure that Obamacare becomes more trenchant and harder for the Republicans to repeal. What alternative would they offer for the millions of Americans now benefiting from Obamacare if they want to get rid of it?

Volo it hurts my feelings when you say things like that

we lived south o' buffalo for awhile. leafs were, at the time, kanadas' team... all the more so in the geographic area near to Gromnir. and we thought it were obvious that Gromnir were no more serious than you. HA! Good Fun! Of course you were joking, that was obvious ...and it was funny

Well this really has ended well, with a resounding victory for the gamer, and a black eye for the corrupt media whom wanted Steam to not allow a basic consumer right. I do wonder whether this would have occured before Gamergate, and whether the public actually standing up for their rights, and spurning the regressive press has given the publishers a little more respect for their audience. It's really surprising to see how quickly Warner Bros. stepped in, and an indication of how valuable this audience is to their business. On the celebration of historical revisionism, it's to be expected, Orwell really was a prophet in many ways. No Nonek, GG has nothing to do with this....but maybe it has. Making someones personal details available just seems.....unethical, craven and an unnecessary step ? Sounds like something GG would do...so you probably right How many times do you have to shoot yourself in the foot in the same thread? Quite fascinating. Oh no, have I done it again ...for shame How did I do it this time ?

Well this really has ended well, with a resounding victory for the gamer, and a black eye for the corrupt media whom wanted Steam to not allow a basic consumer right. I do wonder whether this would have occured before Gamergate, and whether the public actually standing up for their rights, and spurning the regressive press has given the publishers a little more respect for their audience. It's really surprising to see how quickly Warner Bros. stepped in, and an indication of how valuable this audience is to their business. On the celebration of historical revisionism, it's to be expected, Orwell really was a prophet in many ways. No Nonek, GG has nothing to do with this....but maybe it has. Making someones personal details available just seems.....unethical, craven and an unnecessary step ? Sounds like something GG would do...so you probably right

I am of the opinion that Canada should just become part of the great and noble USA ....you guys do share a border and you are very influenced by the USA so what have you got to lose...think of the superior military you will gain ?

To have lived my formative years under communism, yes. The statement "I have lived in a totalitarian* state" is, however, technically correct (the best kind of correct!). *for a given value of "totalitarian" Fair enough, besides I imagine the residual impact of Communism would still have resonated in Hungary for years after 1990 ?

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/25/politics/supreme-court-ruling-obamacare/index.html For me this is excellent news but I am more interested in our American friends views on Obamacare. Do you like it, is it working ? What don't you like I have only a high level knowledge of it so I am keen to get different perspectives on the overall state and predictions around Obamacare

I'm touched by your concern for my levels of understanding regarding the ways a totalitarian state operates, I really am, but I have lived in one, thankyouverymuch. So maybe if you could dial down the condescension, it would be much appreciated. Sorry, it is hard to convey tone over the web. I'm genuinely curious as I realize my perspective may differ from most. Also, you didn't answer my question. I honestly think the term "totalitarian state" is meaningless. There's a huge spectrum of various possible systems of governance with authoritarian attributes (and varying levels thereof); calling all of them "totalitarian" makes the term rather useless. So yeah, personally, I reserve the term for the platonic ideal of the Orwellian nightmare. But alum you would have been too young to live under Communism ?

I'm just pointing out that the complete breakdown of civil liberties people envision as the ultimate and inevitable end result of "restricting freedom of speech in video games" seems not to have happened in Germany (yet). Germans had a very specific reason for banning that topic (although history revisionists will speculate about it) They also had banned any violence against humans in games, I don't know if this still holds true. That said, I'm curious what the First World standard for them to consider a state oppressive is. Because it seems like you people have a very Hollywood idea of what a totalitarian state is. You originally from Cuba right, I imagine you have experienced real dictatorial policies ? Whats your definition?

I imagine being Greek you probably know loads of archaeologists..right Melki darling

I'm just pointing out that the complete breakdown of civil liberties people envision as the ultimate and inevitable end result of "restricting freedom of speech in video games" seems not to have happened in Germany (yet). You make me laugh....no you right. Germany is still a free society despite this " interference " in the design of certain games

Okay that really seems a step to far..seriously guys It reminds me of what we going through in South Africa. There is a movement called " Rhodes must fall " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodes_Must_Fall where a vociferous group of people want to remove any statues and memorabilia associated with colonialism or British history. I have no issues with statues being moved to museums because apparently they are offensive but people want them destroyed and basically they want to change and or become unaware of history Colonialism was a terrible injustice to African people but you cannot deny it happened, it is part of African history. And people like Rhodes represent the good and the bad of that history " Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it." It would be like the Jews deciding the Holocaust never happened and deciding to remove any references to it in there history books. Its counter productive to a progressive future as we learn from our mistakes and the actions that others inflict on us