SCOTUS: Same Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide

[The Ghost of Bob Starr]

This is good news. I don't care for the term lifestyle or preference, to me it's just who they are. I don't consider being heterosexual a lifestyle or a preference, I consider it to natural, for me. For others homosexuality is natural for them.

I'd like to see this on the inside ring of the bottom of the in-n-out cup instead of John 3:16. Can you make this happen Strad?

[Stradling]

I'd like to see this on the inside ring of the bottom of the in-n-out cup instead of John 3:16. Can you make this happen Strad?

Doubtful, although I know one of her best friends is a gay man.

[Jason]

Nice.  You don't agree with the gay "lifestyle."  And, please tell us more about how you aren't worked up about this, and yet you've already posted a few time in this thread and thrown some sour grapes out there over the ruling.

 

I'm curious to know what freedoms you are demanding that you don't already have.  

and what were those? No specific freedoms, just saying

Edited June 26, 2015 by Angels N Skins

[Angelsjunky]

Well, AJ.  This entire thread was civil until your post.

 

I'm just trolling messing around, nate.

 

Anyhow, this is great news - a major victory for civil rights.

[red321]

Anthony Kennedy's closing paragraph

[Angelsjunky]

What is the "Gay Lifestyle", anyways? Leather boy orgies and bath house massages? I'm just wondering what people have in mind that gay people do with their time.

[Jason]

So this turns into a symantics arguement? You guys feel free to discuss it. I meant nothing by it.

[mtangelsfan]

This was inevitable.  So the ruling is quite unsurprising to me.  Just another fail by Christians trying to use the government to do what they are supposed to do themselves.

 

I don't like it that glen attacks the first person who says he doesn't agree with the lifestyle.  This is the kind of close-minded bs that the left is always accusing Christians of.

 

My only concern on this is what is to stop a gay couple from suing a church that refuses to marry them?  This is an honest question, not trying to be trolling or anything.

 

 

[mtangelsfan]

So this turns into a symantics arguement? You guys feel free to discuss it. I meant nothing by it.

 

They want everyone to think like them.  1984

[Adam]

I bet there are a bunch of gay dudes who cheat on their BFs who are pissed because now there is going to be an expectation of marriage.  Those gay playas had the best out of all time. The GOP should pounce on that voting segment

Edited June 26, 2015 by Adam

[fan_since79]

My only concern on this is what is to stop a gay couple from suing a church that refuses to marry them?  This is an honest question, not trying to be trolling or anything.

 

There's still the First Amendment. Freedom of religion protects the right of pastors to refuse to confer the sacrament of marriage on homosexuals if their church believes it to be a sin.

[Stradling]

Mt I really struggle with that as well. I kind of see it in a few different ways. One I look at it through the eyes of personable responsibility. Why the hell would a gay couple want to get married in a church that doesn't accept their marriage. Two, I don't believe a church should have to marry a couple that goes against their beliefs. Three I feel that if the church is getting government funding in the way of tax breaks, then they should be required to allow the marriage. So here's my solution. I'm assuming when you think of church you think of the building and the pastors and the people who attend the church as really being the church. So perhaps the building itself is available for weddings, with different personnel to preside over the wedding.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Stradling

[Adam]

Mt I really struggle with that as well. I kind of see it in a few different ways. One I look at it through the eyes of personable responsibility. Why the hell would a gay couple want to get marriage in a church that doesn't accept their marriage. Two, I don't believe a church should have to marry a couple that goes against their beliefs. Three I feel that if the church is getting government funding in the way of tax breaks, then they should be required to allow the marriage. So here's my solution. I'm assuming when you think of church you think of the building and the pastors and the people who attend the church as really being the church. So perhaps the building itself is available for weddings, with different personnel to preside over the wedding.

 

Why would they want a cake from someone who doesn't want to bake them a cake? 

[nate]

Why would they want a cake from someone who doesn't want to bake them a cake? 

 

Plenty of dicks out there (no pun intended) who just want to troll for lawsuits.

[Stradling]

Why would they want a cake from someone who doesn't want to bake them a cake?

Sorry but those people were attention whores, all of them.

[Stradling]

I have less of a problem with a private company refusing service to someone than I do of a church refusing the use of its building.

[mtangelsfan]

Mt I really struggle with that as well. I kind of see it in a few different ways. One I look at it through the eyes of personable responsibility. Why the hell would a gay couple want to get married in a church that doesn't accept their marriage. Two, I don't believe a church should have to marry a couple that goes against their beliefs. Three I feel that if the church is getting government funding in the way of tax breaks, then they should be required to allow the marriage. So here's my solution. I'm assuming when you think of church you think of the building and the pastors and the people who attend the church as really being the church. So perhaps the building itself is available for weddings, with different personnel to preside over the wedding.

 

Well, church can have different meanings but still, the church owns the building.  Do you know of any other circumstance of the owners being forced out of their building so a group of strangers can then use said building for their own reasons?

 

The tax break argument also.  Every non-profit gets tax breaks.  So it should be all or nothing.

[gotbeer]

 

My only concern on this is what is to stop a gay couple from suing a church that refuses to marry them?  This is an honest question, not trying to be trolling or anything.

 

Valid concern.  Probably something the Supreme Court will have to address eventually.  

 

As for the ruling.  Good for those that seek it.  In objection of the decision.

 

 

"This universal definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman is no historical coincidence. Marriage did not come about as a result of a political movement, discovery, disease, war, religious doctrine, or any other moving force of world history — and certainly not as a result of a prehistoric decision to exclude gays and lesbians,"   Roberts wrote. "It arose in the nature of things to meet a vital need: ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and father committed to raising them in the stable conditions of a lifelong relationship."

 

 

 

 

Considering straight people are divorcing and it seems the norm of children to grow up in single families in the US.  Guess it means that nature was already doomed in the US before this ruling.

[mtangelsfan]

I have less of a problem with a private company refusing service to someone than I do of a church refusing the use of its building.

 

Wait, what?

 

So should a mormon church building be forced to allow a synagogue to practice there?  Should a Mosque be forced to allow a Christian babtism?

 

In a church, a wedding is a sacred rite. 

[wopphil]

I couldn't disagree more with this decision. I think states should get to decide this issue, not 9 completely out of touch (mostly) senior citizens.

On a personal level, I have no objection whatsoever to gay marriage. The last time I had the chance to vote on the issue, I voted in favor of it. I just don't think the courts should be deciding this issue.

[Stradling]

Well, church can have different meanings but still, the church owns the building. Do you know of any other circumstance of the owners being forced out of their building so a group of strangers can then use said building for their own reasons?

The tax break argument also. Every non-profit gets tax breaks. So it should be all or nothing.

Like I said mt it's tough. You're much more involved in this area than I am, but half the new churches here are in industrial areas where the church doesn't appear to be beautiful or sacred and I'm guessing the only thing that makes it beautiful are the people. There will be a compromise I'm sure as it relates to taxes, allow gay marriages get this tax credit, don't allow you lose this tax credit. In the end all we know is people with strong beliefs one way or another will not be happy.

[Stradling]

Wait, what?

So should a mormon church building be forced to allow a synagogue to practice there? Should a Mosque be forced to allow a Christian babtism?

In a church, a wedding is a sacred rite.

That's an easy enough fix.

[fan_since79]

I couldn't disagree more with this decision. I think states should get to decide this issue, not 9 completely out of touch (mostly) senior citizens.

 

 

Justice Scalia agrees with you:

"Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, 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."

[Glen]

This was inevitable.  So the ruling is quite unsurprising to me.  Just another fail by Christians trying to use the government to do what they are supposed to do themselves.

 

I don't like it that glen attacks the first person who says he doesn't agree with the lifestyle.  This is the kind of close-minded bs that the left is always accusing Christians of.

 

My only concern on this is what is to stop a gay couple from suing a church that refuses to marry them?  This is an honest question, not trying to be trolling or anything.

 

 

First off, I didn't attack him, I questioned him.  Second, he called it a lifestyle, and being gay isn't a lifestyle.  It's not a choice.  He was mincing words to hide his distaste for the ruling.  

 

As for your question...that's a good one and I don't have a ready answer.  In theory I agree that if you aren't comfortable providing a service you shouldn't have to do it, but in practice that leads to separate but equal.  

[Spirit]

Like I said mt it's tough. You're much more involved in this area than I am, but half the new churches here are in industrial areas where the church doesn't appear to be beautiful or sacred and I'm guessing the only thing that makes it beautiful are the people. There will be a compromise I'm sure as it relates to taxes, allow gay marriages get this tax credit, don't allow you lose this tax credit. In the end all we know is people with strong beliefs one way or another will not be happy.

 

 

This is a church building in Africa.  It may not look beautiful or sacred to you, but I assure you it is to the people who go there.