We already have laws against bigamy that are firmly rooted in all facets of law and society and it's been tried and defended.
What possible correlation does polygamy and gay marriage have? Aren't you more interested in beastiality?
What link doesn't it have?
Gay marriage legalization is based on the concept that the government can't infringe on people's rights to be happy and their right to define their marriage. So now I might want to define my marriage with 5 other people instead of 1. Who are you to tell me I can't?
"Well, I'm the guy that tells you there are guys you can hit and there's guys you can't. Now, that's not quite a guy you can't hit, but it's almost a guy you can't hit. So I'm gonna make a fuckin' ruling on this right now. You don't fuckin' hit him. You understand?"
That's the gist of it. Apply it as appropriate Mr. Five Wives and Husbands.
The idea that a majority in a pool of nine can override the majority in a pool of 320 million and can divine as fundamental rights that clearly weren't contemplated as such 230 or even 150 years ago should strike every last one of us as at least problematic. This is essentially legislation by Court, in the absence of legislatures willing to do the same. And gone is the necessity of persuading one's fellow citizens, so long as you can persuade the justices and those whose opinions matter to them.
I am extremely happy with the outcome of this, it is a day for several of my close friends to celebrate personally and I celebrate with them. But how we got there is deeply troubling.
Agreed. See the dissent by Roberts. Sadly, in both US and Canada, this is becoming the only way to force an electorate to embrace their conscience. Very undemocratic and this shouldn't be lost on people.
RE: RE: RE: Don't pollute this thread with bullshit Â
We already have laws against bigamy that are firmly rooted in all facets of law and society and it's been tried and defended.
What possible correlation does polygamy and gay marriage have? Aren't you more interested in beastiality?
What link doesn't it have?
Gay marriage legalization is based on the concept that the government can't infringe on people's rights to be happy and their right to define their marriage. So now I might want to define my marriage with 5 other people instead of 1. Who are you to tell me I can't?
"Well, I'm the guy that tells you there are guys you can hit and there's guys you can't. Now, that's not quite a guy you can't hit, but it's almost a guy you can't hit. So I'm gonna make a fuckin' ruling on this right now. You don't fuckin' hit him. You understand?"
That's the gist of it. Apply it as appropriate Mr. Five Wives and Husbands.
So basically no logical reason at all. Gotcha.
When we realize that gay folks aren't doing anything Â
(G-d, how many times can you write that in a day?)
A picture of the rainbow flag saying "This flag is free speech" and a picture of Confederate flag saying "This flag is not?"
Why is Free Speech so difficult to understand. It protects the rights of individuals from government. The Confederate flag can be flown by individuals, on cars, on clothing, etc. as protected by the 1st Amendement. It is the flying of that flag by a government office that is in question. That is a huge fundamental difference.
Way too much basic logic in your post Matt, sadly many wouldn't get it
The same fookin moron is posting stuff like "Ban this flag, it offends me" with a picture of a rainbow flag. Again, people aren't calling for censorship or the banning of the Confederate flag. Rather, they are saying it is inappropriate for a government agency to be flying it and taking it down would be a start to trying to change the racist, hateful, separatist, and treasonous nature of the Southern culture.
Or this genius post: pictures of several Black rappers wearing the Confederate flag in some form on their clothing. Again, what individuals do is separate from what the government does. More importantly, Black people wearing this doesn't make it any less of a hateful, racist, and traitorous symbol just like them using the N word doesn't make any less of a vile word.
Granting people their just deserved civil rights doesn't infringe on yours. If you don't like homosexuality, then don't marry someone of your gender.
Yes I grew up in that era. These last 3 cases the Roberts court decided will fundamentally change America.
In regard to Obamacare, it was the Obama administration and Congress that fundamentally changed America. Anyone hoping for SCOTUS to annul it was clinging to a very thin thread. With today's ruling, America had already fundamentally changed, that's what allowed a culturally influenced Court to hear the case and rule at this time.
Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.
Can you imagine churches and synagogues and mosques refusing to perform gay marriages? Refusing to recognize the marriages as being legal? The activists would go completely ballistic. They would demand that they be stripped of favorable tax treatment. The argument would be that "proper" protection does not include the exemption. That small paragraph does not really limit anything.
I can't imagine the orthodox Jewish community performing gay marriages. Otoh, conservative and especially reform congregations would probably be fine with it.
Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.
Can you imagine churches and synagogues and mosques refusing to perform gay marriages? Refusing to recognize the marriages as being legal? The activists would go completely ballistic. They would demand that they be stripped of favorable tax treatment. The argument would be that "proper" protection does not include the exemption. That small paragraph does not really limit anything.
It limits the opinion to State action while allowing religious institutions to continue teaching and preaching as they see fit.
I do agree there very well may be a shit fit, butReligious exemptions are numerous and enshrined by law (no pun intended).
I just hope the Activists take the win gracefully (no pun intended).
Actually it all depends on how aggressive the "injured" party is and which state it occurs in. Again, the most radical gay activists will try to use this ruling for further leverage. It is only a matter of time now. In their mind (and in the minds of many liberal legislators and jurists), the only thing that is enshrined is what the Supreme Court just declared.
Can you imagine churches and synagogues and mosques refusing to perform gay marriages? Refusing to recognize the marriages as being legal? The activists would go completely ballistic. They would demand that they be stripped of favorable tax treatment. The argument would be that "proper" protection does not include the exemption. That small paragraph does not really limit anything.
Go ask my rabbi if he'll marry a jew and a non-jew. And then stop by the female catholic priest to ask her if she'll do the same.
Nice try Deej. My rabbi would absolutely refuse to marry 2 women or 2 men as it is unholy to him. If you were standing in front of him requesting that, he would wrap tefillin around you and pray with you. Then he would ask you to make Wednesday minion every week and light candles after shabbat. Finally he would ask that you show up for Yom Kippur services after fasting from sundown to sundown.
[quote]Can you imagine churches and synagogues and mosques refusing to perform gay marriages? Refusing to recognize the marriages as being legal? The activists would go completely ballistic. They would demand that they be stripped of favorable tax treatment. The argument would be that "proper" protection does not include the exemption. That small paragraph does not really limit anything. {/quote]
churches and synagogues and mosques aren't the ones that recognize marriages as being legal
The State does - that is the whole point of this ruling
I am sure a catholic church can refuse to perform a gay marriage ceremony just like they can refuse to marry me because I am Jewish
my question is Why do you care?
no one is forcing you to get gay married
no church is going to have to perform a gay marriage if they don't believe in it ..
I don't expect you to understand why this debate won't end here.The hard left activists don't give one whit about religious liberty. They laugh at the deeply religious. Mock them when they quote the Bible. Sneer that it was written long ago. Dismiss passages that clearly deal with this issue.
Oh it won't stop. A florist who denies service on religious grounds will not be given latitude to do that. They will scream discrimination and the business will be ruined. The dissenting opinions in this case clearly contemplated that. So perhaps you can't see it but the justices in the minority certainly can. Read their opinions.
If it were just about having the legal ability to marry then simply issuing government certificates would suffice. The hardcore left don't want just that. They believe in a zero sum game. Your religion needs to change and adapt. Even Obama suggested that last night.
discriminate or segregate right now. And same sex marriage is legal.
Religious freedom in the United States is protected by amendment. That means Churches can marry folks if they want and the marriages will be sanctioned by the state. Right now. But religions will also have the freedom to not marry people. As they also are right now.
The state will not tell the churches what doctrine to preach.
People can still get married at another church or outside if s religious setting altogether.
BTW, how could this not be over? What's left to decide?
His ad hominem attacks on Kennedy undermine his dissent. His argument basically boils down to, "Hey, I'm not a bigot - I'm just trying to turn the clock back a little bit. And by the way, Kennedy sucks and he can't write."
I think Roberts struck the right chord, basically: This decision is a really nice result for a lot of good people who deserve to be happy. It's just a really nice result that was beyond our constitutional authority.
Whether you agree with him or not, his constructionism is a lot more digestible than Scalia's.
Scalia has gotten more asinine with every dissent. He can try to be witty only so many times (when he is not plagiarizing some quaint meme someone else came up with) before his obvious attempt to make it about him gets boring. Really when you boil down all his nonsensical fluff, all he is doing is masking the fact that his every dissent is basically "we should not be doing our job and ruling on this".
He is fast becoming a parody at this point
A florist who denies service on religious grounds will not be given latitude to do that.
From a Justice Scalia opinion ...
Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.
(Footnote omitted.) We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said,
are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.
you fucking piece of shit...I stand for my principles. You just antagonize people with your loopy brain dead comments.
Here's why this is not over...
from Gawker
Quote:
The jig is up. The world has turned and left you fuming, seething, weeping. Fuck you, Mike Huckabee. Fuck you, Bryan Fischer. Fuck you, Maggie Gallagher. Fuck you, Ben Carson. Fuck you, Fox News. You should all feel like assholes because you are all assholes. And now you’re also, definitively, losers. And it feels incredible.
This is the hard left speaking to you. Nothing gracious about it. Just pure venom. This will never end.
Religious organizations don't have to perform gay marriages Â
We already have laws against bigamy that are firmly rooted in all facets of law and society and it's been tried and defended.
What possible correlation does polygamy and gay marriage have? Aren't you more interested in beastiality?
Polygamy is marriage between consenting adults. That's the relationship between gay marriage and polygamy.
On what grounds should polygamy be illegal?
I think the argument is that there is a coercive element to it, in modern parlance a misogynistic one too. And I agree that the foundations that undergird it are weakened, but the possibility of a fringe polygamy movement and some shitty reality shows should not outweigh affording equal marriage rights to millions of our fellow citizens.
Just because you don't have to be heterosexual to enter into this contract doesn't up and change the underlying principal that marriage is a contract between TWO people.
The suggestion that polygamy is on the table is not only ridiculous, but reeks of idiocy. Find another red herring.
You want a better argument to portray this as destroying humanity? Â
you fucking piece of shit...I stand for my principles. You just antagonize people with your loopy brain dead comments.
Here's why this is not over...
from Gawker
Quote:
The jig is up. The world has turned and left you fuming, seething, weeping. Fuck you, Mike Huckabee. Fuck you, Bryan Fischer. Fuck you, Maggie Gallagher. Fuck you, Ben Carson. Fuck you, Fox News. You should all feel like assholes because you are all assholes. And now you’re also, definitively, losers. And it feels incredible.
This is the hard left speaking to you. Nothing gracious about it. Just pure venom. This will never end.
between two people of opposite sexes. If definition with regard to sex is malleable, why shouldn't it be with regard to the number of people?
If the distinction between a change in who may enter into a contract and how many people may be party to that contract isn't clear, there's nothing anyone can say to change your mind.
between two people of opposite sexes. If definition with regard to sex is malleable, why shouldn't it be with regard to the number of people?
If the distinction between a change in who may enter into a contract and how many people may be party to that contract isn't clear, there's nothing anyone can say to change your mind.
This is one of those rare occasions where I think chris is right (which troubles me). There is no getting around the fact that this weakens prohibitions on relationships between consenting adults. But so fucking what? I don't particularly like polygamy, but if that's the price of giving gay men and lesbians the ability to marry so be it.
between two people of opposite sexes. If definition with regard to sex is malleable, why shouldn't it be with regard to the number of people?
If the distinction between a change in who may enter into a contract and how many people may be party to that contract isn't clear, there's nothing anyone can say to change your mind.
Agreed that Chris is right on this one. The response to him is not actually responsive to what he said.
you fucking piece of shit...I stand for my principles. You just antagonize people with your loopy brain dead comments.
Here's why this is not over...
from Gawker
Quote:
The jig is up. The world has turned and left you fuming, seething, weeping. Fuck you, Mike Huckabee. Fuck you, Bryan Fischer. Fuck you, Maggie Gallagher. Fuck you, Ben Carson. Fuck you, Fox News. You should all feel like assholes because you are all assholes. And now you’re also, definitively, losers. And it feels incredible.
This is the hard left speaking to you. Nothing gracious about it. Just pure venom. This will never end.
Pure venom coming from the left? That's cute.
Read it. Sometimes you learn more about people when they win than when they lose. The folks at Gawker represent the hard left. Complete turd blossoms in all their glory. There are many others like them..some I'm sure are here on BBI.
You are a racist homophobe that tries to come of as reasonable . But as soon as anyone pokes you with a stick all that reasonable mask does is fall by the way side to expose the racist homophobe you are that hides behind principle
RE: It a took a massive change of public opinion to make this happen Â
On many social issues, the country is just flat-out moving left. Take abortion: according to Gallup, the "pro-choice" label has a six point lead over "pro-life," its biggest lead since 2004 or so. "Illegal under all circumstances" never goes above 21% or so, and now stands at 19%.
I believe that the recent messes over race also play to the left. Conservatives can deny all they want, but with young voters, non-whites and religious unaffiliated all playing a bigger role, a significant move back to the right seems unlikely at the Federal level. It's different at the state and local level, I think, where financial/tax issues related to public employee unions favor conservatives, and will continue to for decades, I suspect.
As far as polygamy is concerned, I was surprised to find that at least on line, the arguments aren't all that clear-cut. The fact remains, however, that SCOTUS is influenced by public opinion, and polygamy just isn't popular, especially since many examples of it in modern US life tied to child sex and forced marriages. Link - ( New Window )
like it was moving moderately to the right until gay rights hit critical mass. The inability or unwillingness of conservatives to separate gay rights from the panoply of "morals issues" has undermined their credibility on any of them.
and Obamacare the Republicans to their advantage can focus on the Economy and Foreign Affairs going forward
Obamacare is still a winning issue for them, and is likely to be moreso as some of the delayed portions of the bill start to come due. Now actually proposing an alternative is not a winning issue, but it's red meat. But gay rights seems likely to be a millstone at the next election, because significant swaths of the base are not ready to accept this decision as final (hint: it is) and they're going to demand candidates sate that. In so doing they'll alienate young voters and motivate a lot of donations and prominent support of whomever gets the Democratic nod, presumably Hillary.
before the major negatives of Obamacare show up fully. Just as it turned people to the right originally, it is now in a quasi-honeymoon period where, at the very worst, it will be neutral for the Democrats.
Meanwhile, various other social issues are moving people to the left at the Federal level, even as they move to the right at the state and local level.
LOL..Leave it to Texas, first with a stupid take on the ruling Â
This newly invented federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage should peaceably coexist alongside longstanding constitutional and statutory rights, including the rights to free exercise of religion and speech, County clerks and their employees retain religious freedoms that may allow accommodation of their religious objections to issuing same-sex marriage licenses.”
Umm hate to correct the AG of Texas but decisions prior to 1970 already addressed the fact that Public Servants can't pick and choose who they serve.
put down the first time it went to court. It has no parallel to gay marriage as I see it. Marriage is a traditional institution that goes back long before Western codes of law.
So to me the issue in gay marriage is, what is a marriage? It's a right to marry. but what does that mean? Can I marry my 12 year old daughter off to my cousin to become a queen? That was a traditional form of marriage.
The old debate was always about "redefining marriage" Culturally it has already been redefined again and again.
And as we move now into this century, marriage is about two people entering into a personal and legal union. There is no reason to deny that right, a right I always felt they had in the first place.
Now the compassion to Obamacare thing going on in this thread. One is the removal of a federal or state mandate, and one is the imposition of one. conflating the two is nonsense.
Quote:
We already have laws against bigamy that are firmly rooted in all facets of law and society and it's been tried and defended.
What possible correlation does polygamy and gay marriage have? Aren't you more interested in beastiality?
What link doesn't it have?
Gay marriage legalization is based on the concept that the government can't infringe on people's rights to be happy and their right to define their marriage. So now I might want to define my marriage with 5 other people instead of 1. Who are you to tell me I can't?
"Well, I'm the guy that tells you there are guys you can hit and there's guys you can't. Now, that's not quite a guy you can't hit, but it's almost a guy you can't hit. So I'm gonna make a fuckin' ruling on this right now. You don't fuckin' hit him. You understand?"
That's the gist of it. Apply it as appropriate Mr. Five Wives and Husbands.
The idea that a majority in a pool of nine can override the majority in a pool of 320 million and can divine as fundamental rights that clearly weren't contemplated as such 230 or even 150 years ago should strike every last one of us as at least problematic. This is essentially legislation by Court, in the absence of legislatures willing to do the same. And gone is the necessity of persuading one's fellow citizens, so long as you can persuade the justices and those whose opinions matter to them.
I am extremely happy with the outcome of this, it is a day for several of my close friends to celebrate personally and I celebrate with them. But how we got there is deeply troubling.
Agreed. See the dissent by Roberts. Sadly, in both US and Canada, this is becoming the only way to force an electorate to embrace their conscience. Very undemocratic and this shouldn't be lost on people.
Quote:
In comment 12345209 glowrider said:
Quote:
We already have laws against bigamy that are firmly rooted in all facets of law and society and it's been tried and defended.
What possible correlation does polygamy and gay marriage have? Aren't you more interested in beastiality?
What link doesn't it have?
Gay marriage legalization is based on the concept that the government can't infringe on people's rights to be happy and their right to define their marriage. So now I might want to define my marriage with 5 other people instead of 1. Who are you to tell me I can't?
"Well, I'm the guy that tells you there are guys you can hit and there's guys you can't. Now, that's not quite a guy you can't hit, but it's almost a guy you can't hit. So I'm gonna make a fuckin' ruling on this right now. You don't fuckin' hit him. You understand?"
That's the gist of it. Apply it as appropriate Mr. Five Wives and Husbands.
So basically no logical reason at all. Gotcha.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
(G-d, how many times can you write that in a day?)
A picture of the rainbow flag saying "This flag is free speech" and a picture of Confederate flag saying "This flag is not?"
Why is Free Speech so difficult to understand. It protects the rights of individuals from government. The Confederate flag can be flown by individuals, on cars, on clothing, etc. as protected by the 1st Amendement. It is the flying of that flag by a government office that is in question. That is a huge fundamental difference.
Way too much basic logic in your post Matt, sadly many wouldn't get it
Or this genius post: pictures of several Black rappers wearing the Confederate flag in some form on their clothing. Again, what individuals do is separate from what the government does. More importantly, Black people wearing this doesn't make it any less of a hateful, racist, and traitorous symbol just like them using the N word doesn't make any less of a vile word.
Granting people their just deserved civil rights doesn't infringe on yours. If you don't like homosexuality, then don't marry someone of your gender.
Quote:
Look up Warren Court.
Yes I grew up in that era. These last 3 cases the Roberts court decided will fundamentally change America.
In regard to Obamacare, it was the Obama administration and Congress that fundamentally changed America. Anyone hoping for SCOTUS to annul it was clinging to a very thin thread. With today's ruling, America had already fundamentally changed, that's what allowed a culturally influenced Court to hear the case and rule at this time.
Quote:
Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.
Can you imagine churches and synagogues and mosques refusing to perform gay marriages? Refusing to recognize the marriages as being legal? The activists would go completely ballistic. They would demand that they be stripped of favorable tax treatment. The argument would be that "proper" protection does not include the exemption. That small paragraph does not really limit anything.
I can't imagine the orthodox Jewish community performing gay marriages. Otoh, conservative and especially reform congregations would probably be fine with it.
Quote:
Quote:
Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.
Can you imagine churches and synagogues and mosques refusing to perform gay marriages? Refusing to recognize the marriages as being legal? The activists would go completely ballistic. They would demand that they be stripped of favorable tax treatment. The argument would be that "proper" protection does not include the exemption. That small paragraph does not really limit anything.
It limits the opinion to State action while allowing religious institutions to continue teaching and preaching as they see fit.
I do agree there very well may be a shit fit, butReligious exemptions are numerous and enshrined by law (no pun intended).
I just hope the Activists take the win gracefully (no pun intended).
Actually it all depends on how aggressive the "injured" party is and which state it occurs in. Again, the most radical gay activists will try to use this ruling for further leverage. It is only a matter of time now. In their mind (and in the minds of many liberal legislators and jurists), the only thing that is enshrined is what the Supreme Court just declared.
Quote:
Can you imagine churches and synagogues and mosques refusing to perform gay marriages? Refusing to recognize the marriages as being legal? The activists would go completely ballistic. They would demand that they be stripped of favorable tax treatment. The argument would be that "proper" protection does not include the exemption. That small paragraph does not really limit anything.
Go ask my rabbi if he'll marry a jew and a non-jew. And then stop by the female catholic priest to ask her if she'll do the same.
Nice try Deej. My rabbi would absolutely refuse to marry 2 women or 2 men as it is unholy to him. If you were standing in front of him requesting that, he would wrap tefillin around you and pray with you. Then he would ask you to make Wednesday minion every week and light candles after shabbat. Finally he would ask that you show up for Yom Kippur services after fasting from sundown to sundown.
So perhaps your perspective is not the only one.
churches and synagogues and mosques aren't the ones that recognize marriages as being legal
The State does - that is the whole point of this ruling
I am sure a catholic church can refuse to perform a gay marriage ceremony just like they can refuse to marry me because I am Jewish
my question is Why do you care?
no one is forcing you to get gay married
no church is going to have to perform a gay marriage if they don't believe in it ..
why can't two people who are in love be married ?
how does this reduce your quality of life?
Exactly.
And the government would never, ever make him perform a Catholic ceremony or a Jew/gentile ceremony.
So why in the world do you think the government would want to make him perform a gay ceremony.
This decision has absolutely fuckall to do with what religious folks do or don't do in their places of worship.
It is 100% about the government legally recognizing marriage.
Your fear is completely unfounded, and frankly isn't even logical.
Oh it won't stop. A florist who denies service on religious grounds will not be given latitude to do that. They will scream discrimination and the business will be ruined. The dissenting opinions in this case clearly contemplated that. So perhaps you can't see it but the justices in the minority certainly can. Read their opinions.
If it were just about having the legal ability to marry then simply issuing government certificates would suffice. The hardcore left don't want just that. They believe in a zero sum game. Your religion needs to change and adapt. Even Obama suggested that last night.
Oh this is not over.
Religious freedom in the United States is protected by amendment. That means Churches can marry folks if they want and the marriages will be sanctioned by the state. Right now. But religions will also have the freedom to not marry people. As they also are right now.
The state will not tell the churches what doctrine to preach.
People can still get married at another church or outside if s religious setting altogether.
BTW, how could this not be over? What's left to decide?
I think Roberts struck the right chord, basically: This decision is a really nice result for a lot of good people who deserve to be happy. It's just a really nice result that was beyond our constitutional authority.
Whether you agree with him or not, his constructionism is a lot more digestible than Scalia's.
He is fast becoming a parody at this point
From a Justice Scalia opinion ...
Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.
(Footnote omitted.) We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said,
are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.
Here's why this is not over...
from Gawker
This is the hard left speaking to you. Nothing gracious about it. Just pure venom. This will never end.
What possible correlation does polygamy and gay marriage have? Aren't you more interested in beastiality?
Polygamy is marriage between consenting adults. That's the relationship between gay marriage and polygamy.
On what grounds should polygamy be illegal?
Quote:
We already have laws against bigamy that are firmly rooted in all facets of law and society and it's been tried and defended.
What possible correlation does polygamy and gay marriage have? Aren't you more interested in beastiality?
Polygamy is marriage between consenting adults. That's the relationship between gay marriage and polygamy.
On what grounds should polygamy be illegal?
I think the argument is that there is a coercive element to it, in modern parlance a misogynistic one too. And I agree that the foundations that undergird it are weakened, but the possibility of a fringe polygamy movement and some shitty reality shows should not outweigh affording equal marriage rights to millions of our fellow citizens.
The suggestion that polygamy is on the table is not only ridiculous, but reeks of idiocy. Find another red herring.
Here's why this is not over...
from Gawker
Quote:
The jig is up. The world has turned and left you fuming, seething, weeping. Fuck you, Mike Huckabee. Fuck you, Bryan Fischer. Fuck you, Maggie Gallagher. Fuck you, Ben Carson. Fuck you, Fox News. You should all feel like assholes because you are all assholes. And now you’re also, definitively, losers. And it feels incredible.
This is the hard left speaking to you. Nothing gracious about it. Just pure venom. This will never end.
Pure venom coming from the left? That's cute.
If the distinction between a change in who may enter into a contract and how many people may be party to that contract isn't clear, there's nothing anyone can say to change your mind.
Quote:
between two people of opposite sexes. If definition with regard to sex is malleable, why shouldn't it be with regard to the number of people?
If the distinction between a change in who may enter into a contract and how many people may be party to that contract isn't clear, there's nothing anyone can say to change your mind.
This is one of those rare occasions where I think chris is right (which troubles me). There is no getting around the fact that this weakens prohibitions on relationships between consenting adults. But so fucking what? I don't particularly like polygamy, but if that's the price of giving gay men and lesbians the ability to marry so be it.
Quote:
between two people of opposite sexes. If definition with regard to sex is malleable, why shouldn't it be with regard to the number of people?
If the distinction between a change in who may enter into a contract and how many people may be party to that contract isn't clear, there's nothing anyone can say to change your mind.
Quote:
you fucking piece of shit...I stand for my principles. You just antagonize people with your loopy brain dead comments.
Here's why this is not over...
from Gawker
Quote:
The jig is up. The world has turned and left you fuming, seething, weeping. Fuck you, Mike Huckabee. Fuck you, Bryan Fischer. Fuck you, Maggie Gallagher. Fuck you, Ben Carson. Fuck you, Fox News. You should all feel like assholes because you are all assholes. And now you’re also, definitively, losers. And it feels incredible.
This is the hard left speaking to you. Nothing gracious about it. Just pure venom. This will never end.
Pure venom coming from the left? That's cute.
Read it. Sometimes you learn more about people when they win than when they lose. The folks at Gawker represent the hard left. Complete turd blossoms in all their glory. There are many others like them..some I'm sure are here on BBI.
Thanks, in part, I'm sure, to the Westboro Baptist Church
Quote:
Public was strongly against gay marriage just a short time ago.
Thanks, in part, I'm sure, to the Westboro Baptist Church
I'd bet 90% of the country couldn't tell you anything about the WBC
I believe that the recent messes over race also play to the left. Conservatives can deny all they want, but with young voters, non-whites and religious unaffiliated all playing a bigger role, a significant move back to the right seems unlikely at the Federal level. It's different at the state and local level, I think, where financial/tax issues related to public employee unions favor conservatives, and will continue to for decades, I suspect.
As far as polygamy is concerned, I was surprised to find that at least on line, the arguments aren't all that clear-cut. The fact remains, however, that SCOTUS is influenced by public opinion, and polygamy just isn't popular, especially since many examples of it in modern US life tied to child sex and forced marriages.
Link - ( New Window )
Obamacare is still a winning issue for them, and is likely to be moreso as some of the delayed portions of the bill start to come due. Now actually proposing an alternative is not a winning issue, but it's red meat. But gay rights seems likely to be a millstone at the next election, because significant swaths of the base are not ready to accept this decision as final (hint: it is) and they're going to demand candidates sate that. In so doing they'll alienate young voters and motivate a lot of donations and prominent support of whomever gets the Democratic nod, presumably Hillary.
Meanwhile, various other social issues are moving people to the left at the Federal level, even as they move to the right at the state and local level.
Umm hate to correct the AG of Texas but decisions prior to 1970 already addressed the fact that Public Servants can't pick and choose who they serve.
So to me the issue in gay marriage is, what is a marriage? It's a right to marry. but what does that mean? Can I marry my 12 year old daughter off to my cousin to become a queen? That was a traditional form of marriage.
The old debate was always about "redefining marriage" Culturally it has already been redefined again and again.
And as we move now into this century, marriage is about two people entering into a personal and legal union. There is no reason to deny that right, a right I always felt they had in the first place.
Now the compassion to Obamacare thing going on in this thread. One is the removal of a federal or state mandate, and one is the imposition of one. conflating the two is nonsense.