SCOTUS - Same Sex Marriage a Right in Every State

[mohican]

 

So why don't you guys go marry each other?

stop being a phag

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

stop being a phag

 

If I were, you could marry me legally.

[calfoxwc]

well, this leftist Obamao mafia regime tried to force churches to fund

insurances for stuff that violated their beliefs.

 

The Supreme Court struck that down, as refusing to decide against the freedom of religion.

 

Now, gay twosomes, or threesomes with a sheep in the mix, will flock (sorry...lol) to

Christian businesses to keep fighting the left's culture war. Forcing any Christian into

accepting and serving people on the overt basis of gay false "marriage" would do the

same thing the court rules against. Cause offense and betrayal, and violation of peoples'

legimate religious beliefs.

 

I wish liberals would accept the Supreme Court's decision about our 2nd Amendment rights.

 

but no, that is to be argued and fought against forever.

 

http://www.umc.org/news-and-media/court-contraception-mandate-violates-employers-religious-freedom

[Browns149]

Do you guys really think the Gov't is going to try to force Church's to marry gay people?

 

I, for one, don't think that will happen.

 

I also don't think Marriage is a religious ceremony, to begin with

 

I would bet more people get married outside of a religious setting then have it done in a Church.

 

How many people get married in Vegas every year? Not sure, but drive-up wedding chapels, and Elvis impersonators don't really qualify as religious.

[Clevfan4life]

You strung a bunch of stuff together that's minimally coherent. Scalia is basing that as much or more as a constructionists than from other viewpoints.

 

Sometimes the Court has ruled constitutionally but immorally. (Dred Scott) and sometimes the court has ruled both immorally and unconstitutionally - Both ObamaCare decisions and this.

 

Obamacare was "immoral"? You can make constitutional arguments that I'll listen to and maybe agree with some and not with others. But using the Obama care decision as a point of counterweight to the Dred fucking scott decision is appalling. There is no direct line between them on the scale of morality.

[calfoxwc]

for Cleavage

***************

Principle Definition

dictionary.search.yahoo.com

n. noun

• 1. a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning

[jrb12711]

Do you guys really think the Gov't is going to try to force Church's to marry gay people?

 

I, for one, don't think that will happen.

 

I also don't think Marriage is a religious ceremony, to begin with

 

I would bet more people get married outside of a religious setting then have it done in a Church.

 

How many people get married in Vegas every year? Not sure, but drive-up wedding chapels, and Elvis impersonators don't really qualify as religious.

 

You know what's funny about that? People talk about how sanctity of marriage is gone with this decision when, in one foul swoop, one can marry someone in your car by someone dressed as Elvis. Yeah, that's definitely not invalidating sanctity as two same-sex people who love each other alright.

[Browns149]

 

You know what's funny about that? People talk about how sanctity of marriage is gone with this decision when, in one foul swoop, one can marry someone in your car by someone dressed as Elvis. Yeah, that's definitely not invalidating sanctity as two same-sex people who love each other alright.

So now that gay people can marry, I wonder if they will get an Elton John or Liberace impersonator to do those ceremonies?

[Westside Steve]

Do you guys really think the Gov't is going to try to force Church's to marry gay people?

 

I, for one, don't think that will happen.

 

I also don't think Marriage is a religious ceremony, to begin with

 

I would bet more people get married outside of a religious setting then have it done in a Church.

 

How many people get married in Vegas every year? Not sure, but drive-up wedding chapels, and Elvis impersonators don't really qualify as religious.

 

Well who stands to profit from that? Correct. I would imagine trial lawyers are teing that ball up already.

 

WSS

[calfoxwc]

A bare 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court today purports to invent a "fundamental right" for same-sex individuals to "marry" and attempts to forcefully impose this new-found right on the entire nation. This is raw judicial activism.

The Court's decision fundamentally rewrites the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to radically redefine the bedrock institution of marriage, which is older than the Court itself.

The legally flawed decision of five unelected and unaccountable justices drew sharp dissents from the other four justices.

Chief Justice John Roberts correctly observes that the Court's activist opinion hijacks the democratic process and is not based on the rule of law: "[D]o not Celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it," warns Roberts. Justice Antonin Scalia rightly calls the Court's decision a "threat to American democracy." The "pretentious" and "egotistic" decision, notes Scalia, "robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves."

The American people must continue to uphold marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Court can no more redefine marriage than it can redefine gravity. That five unelected justices in black robes call same-sex unions "marriage" does not change the fundamental nature of true, authentic and natural marriage. Today's illegitimate decision not only robs Americans of the right to self-governance, but also robs children of the right and joy of having both moms and dads.

Now that the Court has makes a wrong turn and purports to redefine the natural created order of marriage, that decision is lawless - and we will stand in principled resistance to an unjust law.

Liberty Counsel's Legal Team is working across the nation to uphold natural marriage, our religious liberties, and our rights of conscience.

We need your help now as we build our war chest to defend against an unprecedented assault by radical extremists intent upon destroying the foundations of our culture.

Your generous, tax-deductible gift today will help enable our legal team to meet these coming challenges - and there will be many!

[LogicIsForSquares]

Kicking and screaming won't change that times are different. Marriage existed well before Christianity and will survive letting gays marry.

[Clevfan4life]

You are truly ignorant, and have no idea of my opinions. Extending this into a generality with the 19th amendment thrown in is a lame ploy that only someone like you would deal with. I also have never called for the repeal of the 13th amendment. Rolling women's rights, and the abolition of slavery in with letting LGBTEIEI'os marry is intellectually lazy and bankrupt and displays a severe lack of intellect.

 

I am being kind when I suggest that you stick to the subforums that deal with womens sports.

 

It's only a lame ploy and "intellectually lazy" because you cannot allow them to be equated or you lose your narrative. And it fits you like a cheap suit, well done.

 

[Clevfan4life]

I for one can't believe Thomas's dissent where he stated that slaves didn't lose their dignity or humanity because the govt allowed them to be slaves. That there is the real deal slouch into moral relativism. Unreal what people can do and/or say generations after the fact. He would absolutely not be holding that sentiment for one solitary moment if this universe was a just universe and immediately after him writing that a time slip opened up underneath him and sucked him back in time to candyland where ngrs don't walk, they RUN!!!! +1 to anyone who gets that reference.

[StinkHole]

 

Hooray for the SCOTUS!

 

Time for a parade! What fags lol.

 

 

[WalterWhite]

Congrats Woody and Clevefan4life!!!!

 

 

[LogicIsForSquares]

Yeah I could have gone without seeing that shit.

[OldBrownsFan]

To be honest with you, I don't care about your religion. Please try not to take that personally, as it applies to all religion. Human rights > religious freedom.

 

Human rights and religious freedom are not opposite ends of the spectrum. Many times they go together. Civil unions were the right compromise. I don't know how the Supreme Court in making this ruling can now deny polygamy since these 5 unelected justices have taken it upon themselves to redefine marriage. Two of the liberal justices had already officiated gay weddings but that didn't stop them from doing the right thing and recusing themselves from the bench on deciding this issue.

[LogicIsForSquares]

I don't know why the government is involved with marriage at all. It is a religious ceremony. Make everything a civil union in the eyes of the law and let religions cover marriages. At that point, I wouldn't give a shit if someone wants to be in a civil union with 20 people so long as they are all wanting to be involved. They have the right to be dummies.

[Browns149]

When the Supreme Court makes a decision that people like, the Justices did what they were "APPOINTED" to do,

 

But when the Supreme Court makes a decision people don't like, then people go to the "UNELECTED" card.

[OldBrownsFan]

When the Supreme Court makes a decision that people like, the Justices did what they were "APPOINTED" to do,

 

But when the Supreme Court makes a decision people don't like, then people go to the "UNELECTED" card.

 

Whether you agree with their decisions or not they are unelected judges appointed most of the time on political grounds instead of just being great lawyers. They don't always get it right either.

[Browns149]

 

Whether you agree with their decisions or not they are unelected judges appointed most of the time on political grounds instead of just being great lawyers. They don't always get it right either.

No they don't always get it right, I agree there,

 

I was just pointing out when they do well, no one brings up that they are unelected.

[OldBrownsFan]

I don't know why the government is involved with marriage at all. It is a religious ceremony. Make everything a civil union in the eyes of the law and let religions cover marriages. At that point, I wouldn't give a shit if someone wants to be in a civil union with 20 people so long as they are all wanting to be involved. They have the right to be dummies.

 

I would agree with that (making civil unions for government purposes) and then those who want to can have a religious marriage ceremony or not.

[choco]

One thing I wanted to chime in and say here, one problem most have when viewing this case, the idea that somehow the scotus has rewritten laws, redefined marriage, that govt needs to stay out of it.....you complete ly missing what just happens. I know some of you are old enough to have had remedial civics...

 

These cases came before the court because laws were written by state legislatures banning ssm. The scotus merely struck down those laws that prevent any consenting person from engaging in the contract, a legally equal contract, based on sexual orientation and thus gender. Tax status, right to inherit property, etc.

 

Who is actually guily of trying to define marriage are those claiming its purely between a man and woman...religious doctrine, historical trends, species procreation....these excuse is irrelevant today in America, the great experimental melting pot. I understand the reason for the slippery slopes and strawmen, but I find it more sad than anything, for your souls, that you stand by your convictions that deny your fellow Americans the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

Read that last line again.

 

All that happened here is the court says that no state may deny a marriage license to a same sex couple. This is equal protection in terms of tax law, inheritance law, divorce and property law, and so much more legal shit they've never had access to. You're distress over what this means for you pales in comparison to that of some not allowed to visit a dying partner in the hospital because its "family" only.

 

Let's be honest....the outrage is based on the lack of YOUR ability to now define marriage.

 

I'm proud because 225 years later, America still works. The system of checks and balances set up by those brilliant men still to this day guides this country to the right choice, even though the process takes time. I'm sorry many of you are upset about it....I wish it wasn't so. No one is asking you to like or accept it, just allow it. And to do so because its whats good, its whats right, and its what everyone is entitled to as an American.

 

Kids born today by large part find it strange that blacks were once held as slaves, that women were actually considered property and couldn't vote. Most rational people now would agree....and in 50 years, when we're all dead, people will think this was also absurd. Wrong side of history, indeed.

 

I'm sure there will be some gay activists which push the boundaries and try to force this on a church or business, which I expect to get shot down if and when it ends up in court. The right to marry is not the right to marry anywhere by anyone. I didn't get married in a church to my opposite sex wife, so there's options available that it should never have to happen. Now that they gained the same rights, they may not like to repercussions as well....the lack of attention and special treatment (ahem, Micheal Sam). They'll now have to deal with life on the same terms, for both the good and bad.

[OldBrownsFan]

This was no slam dunk by the Supreme Court as it was a narrow 5-4 ruling with four of the dissenting justices writing opinions on why this was not a good decision reached by the court.

[calfoxwc]

Well, that's a good post, Choco -

 

but I still see ulterior motives to ignoring civil unions, and forcing the redefinition of marriage -

 

a culture war by the left.

 

And as Judge Roberts said - it's a mistake - it does not convince the rest of America into acceptance.

 

I personally think it alienates much of America. Now Americans are being FORCED to provide services

regarding false marriages and are FORCED to betray their own principles and spiritual beliefs.

 

Doesn't sound like freedom to me. Sounds like leftwing belligerence and tyranny in the left's culture war.

 

I've always said, that I always respected gays in business and always treated them like anybody else.

 

No longer. Of course, I can say that cause I'm retired, but now, gays are culture terrorists - agree with us,

placate us, accept us, and our forcing you to violate your beliefs on perversion, or we will behead your

reputation, and your business, and both will die.

 

I always heard from gays that they just wanted to "live and let live". Now it's become "we get to live and

you get to ordered by liberal courts to pay us a bunch of money if you don't want to treat us like we are

not perverted".

 

Gays have now crossed the line towards being the rest of America's belligerent culture terrorists.

 

1-3 % of the population gets all the power to destroy anybody who doesn't agree with them.

 

Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear 2nd Amendment cases twice. But gay garbage

and obamaocare garbage? Oh, the lefty judges will insist on hearing those cases forthwith.

[calfoxwc]

And along with trying to give illegals the vote, the left figures that

should give them every close election win.

 

America needs to shift directions, or we end up going to hell in a handbasket.

 

Big, serious trouble.

[calfoxwc]

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/gay-marriage-still-doesnt-exist-no-matter-what-the-supreme-court-says/

[MLD Woody]

[OldBrownsFan]

Some of the dissenting opinions of the Supreme Court Ruling:

 

Roberts:

 

"Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority—actually spelled out in the Constitution," he writes. "Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for dissenting religious practice." But he says the Supreme Court is too much of a "blunt instrument" to do likewise.

"The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to 'advocate' and 'teach' their views of marriage," writes Roberts. "The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to 'exercise' religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses."

Roberts looks ahead to the likelihood of future conflicts between gay rights and religious rights, such as the tax status of conservative Christian colleges. He notes:

 

Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage.

There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.

Alito:

The majority attempts, toward the end of its opinion, to reassure those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights of conscience will be protected. We will soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.

Thomas:

In his own dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas argues that "the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect."

"It appears all but inevitable that [civil marriage and religious marriage] will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples," Thomas writes. He continues:

The majority appears unmoved by that inevitability. It makes only a weak gesture toward religious liberty in a single paragraph. And even that gesture indicates a misunderstanding of religious liberty in our Nation’s tradition.

Religious liberty is about more than just the protection for “religious organizations and persons . . . as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.” Religious liberty is about freedom of action in matters of religion generally, and the scope of that liberty is directly correlated to the civil restraints placed upon religious practice.

Although our Constitution provides some protection against such governmental restrictions on religious practices, the People have long elected to afford broader protections than this Court’s constitutional precedents mandate. Had the majority allowed the definition of marriage to be left to the political process—as the Constitution requires—the People could have considered the religious liberty implications of deviating from the traditional definition as part of their deliberative process.

Instead, the majority’s decision short-circuits that process, with potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty.

Scalia:

According to Scalia, the five justices in the majority are using the 14th Amendment in a way that was never intended by its writers. "When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so," he wrote.

"They [the majority] have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a 'fundamental right' overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since."

Scalia called out the majority for acting like activists, not judges. (He was similarly critical in Thursday's ruling on health care.) "States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices' 'reasoned judgment,'" he wrote.

Scalia's scorn went beyond picking apart the majority's legal judgement. He also made fun of their language.

The majority began its opinion with the line: "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."

 

Scalia wrote that if he ever were to join an opinion that began with that sentence he "would hide my head in a bag," saying such language was more like the "mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie" than, say, legendary Chief Justice John Marshall.

[tiamat63]

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/gay-marriage-still-doesnt-exist-no-matter-what-the-supreme-court-says/

 

What a fucking joke of an article. Especially the part about the constitution making no direct or in-direct reference to the gay community.

 

Cal, I agree with you on multiple things. I would however, suggest you stop using that website as a source for argument. Especially if that's the best they can produce.