Gay Marriage is GO...

[Jamezz]

That pastor is a flat out idiot. The one issue I have with this ruling is that I consider it a clear violation of the 10th amendment. The closer to the people these decisions are made the better. But here we have big Gov't sticking their nose in people's lives again.

 

[Harambe]

u can argue all you want law of the land.

but since the holocaust jews dont trust the laws. they thought the law said move to ghetto yada yada you know the stories

they obeyed everythning. s
so LDS they might also change the sustaining the law part aka obey the law of the land

I like how you just compared people that lost the battle to share the word "marriage" with those that were burnt alive. That was fantastic.

 

[Harambe]

And that was one of the silly arguments against marriage equality. Some people (and I've spoken to plenty) actually believed that churches in states where gay marriage was already legalized were being forced to perform same sex marriages lol.... not true at all.

Then there were the people claiming that eventually it would lead to religions being forced to perform same sex marriages. And that, my friends, is a textbook example of a slippery slope logical fallacy.

It really is. And at that point, if it ever came to that, I'd actually be against it. As someone that has the power to sign marriage certificates and perform ceremonies(which isn't much power at all), if I had a problem with someone's relationship I would refuse to do the ceremony. Anyone who tries to write a law telling me I have to is going to have to fine me.

But you also have to wonder why would a gay couple want to be married in, say, an LDS temple? a place where their union clearly not wanted or respected? No law is going to change that. No amount of armed men coming into a temple and demanding a gay sealing take place is going to change their attitude about it.

 

[Harambe]

That pastor is a flat out idiot. The one issue I have with this ruling is that I consider it a clear violation of the 10th amendment. The closer to the people these decisions are made the better. But here we have big Gov't sticking their nose in people's lives again.

Whether you view gay marriage as a freedom of speech, or religion, is defined and protected by the First Amendment.

Therefore, there is no violation.

 

[Stoked]

There are more pressing issues at hand than gay marriage imo

To those denied these rights and privileges it's a huge deal. Not fixing a problem when we can because some don't consider it the biggest problem is simply bad policy.

 

[Jamezz]

Whether you view gay marriage as a freedom of speech, or religion, is defined and protected by the First Amendment.

Therefore, there is no violation.

What does freedom of speech and/or religion have to do with getting married, please explain. Nobody is keeping any gay person from speaking their mind or joining any religion they want or not want to.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

That pastor is a flat out idiot. The one issue I have with this ruling is that I consider it a clear violation of the 10th amendment. The closer to the people these decisions are made the better. But here we have big Gov't sticking their nose in people's lives again.

And according to the court, the opposite ruling would have been a clear violation of the 14th amendment. The way I see it, the 14th amendment exists so that the 10th amendment can't be used to discriminate or to reduce the civil rights of a portion of its citizenry.

 

[Gameface]

That pastor is a flat out idiot. The one issue I have with this ruling is that I consider it a clear violation of the 10th amendment. The closer to the people these decisions are made the better. But here we have big Gov't sticking their nose in people's lives again.

I believe the founding fathers intended to allow states the ability to form their own legislation on administrative, tax, ordinance type issues. I can't remember who it was who said it, but the idea was that it would hamper the federal government to get tangled up in such mundane issues, while it provides the states with something to do so that they stay away from the more important responsibility of government which is to ensure the rights of all individuals and provide for protection against foreign enemies.

Not sure when the idea that the 10th Amendment gave the right to states over the rights of the individuals within those states, but it is completely incorrect. States do not have the "right" to violate my individual rights. The state's interests do not supercede the rights of individuals.

The term "state's rights" is a misnomer.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/supreme-court-affirms-right-to-gay-marriage-122495807066.html



Sorry if this already got posted, I just saw it. Supreme Court has ruled. What impact will this realistically have on anything besides gay people being able to get married?

It will make a lot of Christian conservatives very, very angry , stoke their persecution complex and feed their delusion that gays, and affording them the same rights as they enjoy, represent a threat to their religious freedom.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I never really did get this whole topic. I read it is projected to be like fewer than 2% of all marriages performed. The only thing that might concern me is if the next push is to try to force religions to perform and accept gay marriage. I can see that as a bit of a rub. But realistically there is no difference in society to the vast majority of people.

There still exists freedom of religion in this country. No one will be forcing Churches to perform gay weddings. If anything, this ruling affirms that marriage is a civil ceremony at its heart and not a religious one and thus subject to other Constitutional protections afforded under civil law. Religions can continue to be bigoted and homophobic in their teachings and practices with regards to their members, they just can no longer be bigoted and homophobic with regards to homosexuals who are not their members.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

From Guberner Butthurt's Facebook post. I don't agree, so it's not an issue about of religion, but states rights. They knew they were beat, and didn't have a leg to stand on.. so they made a new leg out of nothing.

Conservatives: Kicking and screaming to the end.

This quote is precisely why we need Federal Constitutional protections, so as to prevent states, under the rubric of state sovereignty (and more subject to narrow factional tyranny of the majority), to deny civil rights to their residents.

Thank God (or whoever) for the Federal Government and the protections it affords to this country's traditionally marginalized, oppressed minorities.

For all these people so disappointed about the Federal Government intrusion on state prerogatives, their position is based entirely on the premise that they are in the majority and will not be the ones denied rights and full participation in society. Were the shoe on the other foot, I'd wager my entire retirement fund that their unshaking and unwavering devotion to state sovereignty would undergo something of a transformation, and they would welcome with open arms Federal intrusion on the sacred principle of state's rights.

 

[Gameface]

This quote is precisely why we need Federal Constitutional protections, so as to prevent states, under the rubric of state sovereignty (and more subject to narrow factional tyranny of the majority), to deny civil rights to their residents.

Thank God (or whoever) for the Federal Government and the protections it affords to this country's traditionally marginalized, oppressed minorities.

For all these people so disappointed about the Federal Government intrusion on state prerogatives, their position is based entirely on the premise that they are in the majority and will not be the ones denied rights and full participation in society. Were the shoe on the other foot, I'd wager my entire retirement fund that their unshaking and unwavering devotion to state sovereignty would undergo something of a transformation, and they would welcome with open arms Federal intrusion on the sacred principle of state's rights.

When city and state regulations on firearms went before the Supreme Court conservatives had little to say about "state's rights." They applauded to SC upholding their constitutional protections.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

A good day. One that I'm very sure will be looked back upon as a day the U.S. did the right thing.

One day, this will be on the same level as Plessey vs. Ferguson as a watershed ruling for civil rights.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

There are more pressing issues at hand than gay marriage imo

There's almost always more pressing issues at hand. So, are you suggesting that IF something ISN'T the single, most pressing issue existing at that moment, that it is not worth any of our time and effort to address?

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

That pastor is a flat out idiot. The one issue I have with this ruling is that I consider it a clear violation of the 10th amendment. The closer to the people these decisions are made the better. But here we have big Gov't sticking their nose in people's lives again.

The only reason big Gov't is 'sticking their note in people's lives' is that people are sticking their nose in other people's lives. If so many straight people (and particularly conservative Christians) were not so obsessed with homosexuality and marginalizing homosexuals, there would have been no need for big Gov't intervention. They are victims of their own bigotry. It's hard to feel too sorry for them.

 

[Jamezz]

I believe the founding fathers intended to allow states the ability to form their own legislation on administrative, tax, ordinance type issues. I can't remember who it was who said it, but the idea was that it would hamper the federal government to get tangled up in such mundane issues, while it provides the states with something to do so that they stay away from the more important responsibility of government which is to ensure the rights of all individuals and provide for protection against foreign enemies.

Not sure when the idea that the 10th Amendment gave the right to states over the rights of the individuals within those states, but it is completely incorrect. States do not have the "right" to violate my individual rights. The state's interests do not supercede the rights of individuals.

The term "state's rights" is a misnomer.

Fair enough, I hereby demand my right to not having to pay for a higher home and car insurance, as well as having to pay higher taxes in general for being a single man.

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states that 'No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'

The only entity that has made and will enforce a law is the Government with this new ruling, one that doesn't address the discrimination sustained by non-married citizens. See, I can play the 'interpret it your own way' game too and find holes where there shouldn't be any. Bottom line is that I believe that this Reconstruction Amendment, as all others, were meant to be interpreted at an individual level.

 

[Xsy]

Huge congratulations to my fellow LGB comrades, and a huge congratulations to the Christian community that thinks the end of the world is now coming.

Gay people can get married, and Christians are one step closer to being with God.

Great day for everyone.

 

[Dr. Jones]

does this mean Trey Lyles is gay?

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Fair enough, I hereby demand my right to not having to pay for a higher home and car insurance, as well as having to pay higher taxes in general for being a single man.

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states that 'No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'

The only entity that has made and will enforce a law is the Government with this new ruling, one that doesn't address the discrimination sustained by non-married citizens. See, I can play the 'interpret it your own way' game too and find holes where there shouldn't be any. Bottom line is that I believe that this Reconstruction Amendment, as all others, were meant to be interpreted at an individual level.

You're not denied the provision. That interpretation would never pass muster. I'm sure you know that.

Gay couples WERE denied the provision.

 

[Jamezz]

does this mean Trey Lyles is gay?

Thanks, this thread needed a touch of humor.