Equal marriage rights

Not really. The temp filling in for him just isn't taking the job seriously enough.

 

Dude...where is the link?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-ruling/

 

:-D


I think it's a great idea. They have the right to be just as miserable as everyone else!

 

I have to say, the best part about this thread is how we're all tip-toeing around the HBT potential of the topic... and I like that a topic as controversial as this can be posted, and not spiral out of control. Go us! :major

 

Despite potentially being HBT, it's the right thing to do, a huge step forward, and absolutely guaranteed by our Constitution. Humor aside, it's a civil matter, not an ecclesiastical one and the Supreme Court saw it as such.

It's hard enough to find someone to love and be happy with in this world, and no one has the right to make it harder...

:major

 

I think deep down we all know why this hasn't gone HBT.

 

I'm surprised westboro hasn't freaked out yet.

 

SSSSSHHHHHHHHH!!!! Don't remind everyone! :-D

 

Any chance of them picketing the US Supreme Court Building? :eek Guess NOT!

@the mekanic: I fully agree with you.

 

Thanks for the link, I hadn't heard what the totals were. It was a close call overall, 5-4

 

If you really want some entertainment, you should read Scalia's dissenting opinion.

It's as comical as it is disturbing in it's purported "reason". After reading more than one of his opinions, I don't believe he is fit to wear his robe.

 

I don't think Canadians want our haters, but are too polite to say so.

 

Now THAT is hilarious. :-D

 

Anyone else find it interesting these discussions are only on moral grounds?
The economic impact to many couples and companies will be "interesting" to say the least. Companies that allow spousal visits to remote sites have to deal with homophobics now.
The list of non-moral issues will be pretty long.

 

That sounds more like a social impact than an economic one. Discrimination will exist regardless of marital status.

 

Changing the definition of "marriage"?.
Looking up the word "marriage" on Google:
"The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship" is given first. The Supreme Court found that "a man and a woman" is not part of the definition of marriage, although some states think that is wrong.
I was just commenting that however small there will be social and economic issues as well as the moral ones.

 

Thats gonna bite them when they realize it doesn't matter.

There is no natural law. Law is a man-made construct. In addition, the declaration of independence does not address same sex marriages.

Texas cannot legally oppose same sex marriages anymore whether they agree with it or not. Religion and national law are completely separate. Religious laws are not recognized by our government.

Separation of church and state, remember? Conservatives in Texas apparently do not.

 

Well, conveniently enough, no one is saying that because it's legal everyone *has* to marry someone of the same gender. Heterosexuals are still welcome to get married. Good grief!

 

Said religion also condemns divorce, very strongly and often, at least if you look to its most prominent holy text, yet there is no outcry at all against that being legal by federal mandate.

Double standards are bad for credibility. That's one of the reasons the separation between church and state needs to be there - so religion can stay true to its core beliefs instead of constantly having to compromise or rewrite them as society changes, faster and faster every year.

 

And now the law-makers will argue over whether marriage is part of religion...
or not...:confused

I found 2 interesting articles.

http://www.historyofmarriage.org/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Marriage_and_religion

 

They would like to claim it is, just like morality is supposed to be based on religion. It's not, and a lot of people are ignoring them more and more, which is why this countries demographic is busy shifting.

 

Didn't their head nutcase die a while back? May not be safe for work: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...c5cd30-ae2b-11e3-a49e-76adc9210f19_story.html

Yep, he dead.

The interesting part to me is how will the gay community react when other, well less popular, some illegal 'sexual preferences' demand their rights as well. Will imams be forced to have gay weddings in their mosques? :cool

Whatever 2 (or more:-D) consenting adults do in private, I don't care.

 

Hopefully not, their rights should be as protected as the rights of everyone else. Similarly, an imam who believes it is okay to marry a same-sex couple has a right to do so without fear of harassment or other severe consequences.

Live and let live, simply put.

 

Nice thought, but he would be dead in a week I think.

 

Hence the use of the word "should". We don't live in a perfect world yet.

 

Would a perfect world allow freedom of choice? I think so. This choice may be for the better, but it does take away Texas freedom to choose. Just as I think Utah should be able to allow polygamy if they want.

 

Freedom of choice =|= Free to make any choice.

The old saying, "your right to throw a punch ends where my face begins" comes to mind.

 

But will churches who do not condone gay marriage be able to not have them at their church?

 

Yes. That is an ecclesiastical matter, not a civil matter.

 

Freedom of choice does not exclude law, however.

 

What about the 3 bakeries who were sued and lost for refusing to make a gay wedding cake because of their religion? Weddings bring in a lot of money for churches, so might be more a business deal.

Me personally, I don't care. I will make banners for gay weddings, liberal politicians, whatever, as long as it is legal. I like $. :-D

 

That's what I meant when I said their rights need to be protected as well. Forcing them to have gay marriage at their church is just as wrong as the opposite.

In an ideal world both sides coexist. Same-sex couples are allowed to get married, which gives them access to the legal protection and benefit that the secular institution of marriage provides in today's society - which is the right thing to do, because those legal rights are not contingent on a religious belief or authority.

And churches who believe gay marriage is a sin are allowed to refuse to marry a same sex couple. In return, they have to refrain from interfering when the opposite-minded church next door agrees to perform the ceremony, because that is the other church's right.

And just like that we are back to the right to throw punches being countered by the right not to be punched in the face again...

Though to be honest, I really don't understand why this is an issue. I don't think there is a large number of couples out there who would choose to have their wedding in a church where everyone, including the officiating minister, openly hates their guts and wants them to burn in hell. It would kind of ruin the loving and supportive atmosphere most couples prefer to be surrounded by when they say their vows to each other.

 

The decision has nothing whatsoever to do with forcing anyone to do anything, including forcing a church to perform same-sex marriage against its wishes. What the decision involves is states not being able to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Obviously that's over simplified, but that's a huge part of it.

What will be interesting is watching how current pending legislation in Michigan pans out. One of our ultra-conservative politicians has sponsored a bill that would require all marriages in the state be performed by clergy. He claims that will protect civil servants (who are legally able to perform marriages now) from being "forced" to perform same-sex marriage against their will. What it really is, however, and I think most folks here can see it even if they are against same-sex marriage, is an end run around the decision. The idea is that if churches are allowed to refuse to perform same-sex marriages, but only churches are allowed to perform marriages of any kind, then same-sex couples will be unable to marry here.

 

Mimsy, it's so nice to see a post by someone who can see both sides of the story.

My fellow Christians need to keep a few things in mind:

• It's not illegal for 2 men or women to live together like husband and wife.
• Marriage is not the sole domain of Christianity.
• The second commandment.

 

They also need to come into the 21st century where our current technology has proven that this is not a choice, but indeed you are born this way. The only choice is whether you deny or accept your feelings.

When it comes to sin, Christianity makes it clear that it doesn't matter if you do the the accepted thing if you don't feel it in your heart. That is still a sin in Christianity. I guess you could take drugs/medication to alter your state of mind, but then that too is a sin.

That means you can never be forgiven, and that sounds a little contradictory to the religion and not at all the act of a loving deity.

 

More likely this will happen: All clergy will be put into a position where they can be forced to perform same sex marriage ceremonies, because a SCOTUS decision says they have to.

Instead of legislating same-sex marriage out of the state, it will become a vehicle for violating the religious freedom that clergy should be enjoying.

 

I know it doesn't look at it when you look at the mainstream media, but most of us have.

And that is before we even go into the whole part where we are not supposed to judge our fellow man. Let's just let whoever has never sinned in his life be the first person to vote in favor of banning other people's sins, and go back to loving our neighbors as we love ourselves, shall we?

EDIT:
Apologies for double posting. I got distracted by a pizza delivery. :-o

 

I wonder if this will set a precedent where my Louisiana concealed carry license has to be honored in all 50 states?

 

Highly unlikely. If a Louisiana concealed carry license was honored for some citizens of Louisiana but not for others, depending on something they were born with, possibly, but since it isn't, it doesn't fall under the same scope of basic discrimination.

 

Sorry, I didn't mean to generalize that. My family has not, though I know Christians who have as well.

 

I hadn't thought of that aspect, but you're absolutely right. And that would be equally wrong. Honestly, I can't see it getting out of committee, because it's completely ridiculous and even the guy sponsoring it freely admits he did it in order to get around a potential SCOTUS ruling (all three bills were introduced earlier this month in anticipation of a decision). One of the bills addresses clergy being forced to perform marriages "against their beliefs", but there would be no way for him to have his cake and eat it, too, really. Not when it comes to this and especially not since the decision came down.

While I have to admit a small, mean part of me would be absolutely tickled at the thought of some of the more, um, vehemently vocal local clergy being forced to perform same-sex marriages, I would be one of those people I hate if I viewed that as a victory. And if I plan to look myself in the mirror ever again, I wouldn't be able to sit back and not try to defend their right to not do it.

 

Exactly.

An important aspect of religious freedom that often is overlooked, is freedom from other people's religion. None of us want to be forced to live our life according to values we strongly disagree with. That means we have to allow that same courtesy towards others - we shouldn't force someone who disagrees with our values to follow them.

 

Absolutely! No matter how tempting it is. I have to remind myself of that more often than I care to admit. :-o

A friend posted this the other day, and I really kind of love it: