SCOTUS Rules 5-4 for Gay Marriage

[Cow Poke]

And I have a feeling that the Texas law will be challenged and overturned. They want everything, as I have been saying all along. This is only the beginning.

Yes, as the young gay man who testified FOR* the Pastor Protection Bill said before the Texas Senate --- his "community" is dead set on battling the Church.




*for those who aren't aware - the reason he testified FOR the bill is because he was disgusted with "his community" for plotting against the Churches in meetings he had attended.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I'm going to voice a unpopular opinion here. I feel gay marriage should be legalized, however, there must be a major concession to religious Churches and organizations allowing them not to be forced to perform ceremonies that are against their will.

That particular bogeyman has never been a real issue. Only the barest fringe of marriage equality supporters want to force religious institutions to perform ceremonies against their will, and those who argue for such a notion are rightly denounced as quacks by the rest of us.

The only people who should be "forced" to provide marriage licenses are those who work in the public offices which issue marriage licenses, and only because that is literally their job.

[Cow Poke]

That particular bogeyman has never been a real issue. Only the barest fringe of marriage equality supporters want to force religious institutions to perform ceremonies against their will,

That's all it takes - the militant anti-Church activists who will find a sympathetic activist judge. It only takes one.

and those who argue for such a notion are rightly denounced as quacks by the rest of us.

And that's your right.

[mossrose]

That's all it takes - the militant anti-Church activists who will find a sympathetic activist judge. It only takes one.



And that's your right.

Happens over and over here.

I hope the court has also thought ahead to changing the divorce laws.

The first couple in Canada to marry under the legislation (who sued a religious group, btw), decided to divorce after not very long and ran into trouble because nobody thought farther than the end of their pc noses.

[Cow Poke]

Happens over and over here.

I hope the court has also thought ahead to changing the divorce laws.

The first couple in Canada to marry under the legislation (who sued a religious group, btw), decided to divorce after not very long and ran into trouble because nobody thought farther than the end of their pc noses.

Yup, and I think children adopted into these "marriages" will be hurt when the euphoria passes.

[Bill the Cat]

That particular bogeyman has never been a real issue. Only the barest fringe of marriage equality supporters want to force religious institutions to perform ceremonies against their will, and those who argue for such a notion are rightly denounced as quacks by the rest of us.

The only people who should be "forced" to provide marriage licenses are those who work in the public offices which issue marriage licenses, and only because that is literally their job.

Denmark has a law that requires the institution to perform same sex marriages. The leftists on the SCOTUS seem to LOOOOOVE what Europe does, so it won't be long before the "quacks" win again.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Denmark has a law that requires the institution to perform same sex marriages. The leftists on the SCOTUS seem to LOOOOOVE what Europe does, so it won't be long before the "quacks" win again.

Denmark is also a Monarchy with a State Church. Their Constitution explicitly establishes a state religion. Ours explicitly prevents the establishment of a state religion.

[Littlejoe]

That particular bogeyman has never been a real issue. Only the barest fringe of marriage equality supporters want to force religious institutions to perform ceremonies against their will, and those who argue for such a notion are rightly denounced as quacks by the rest of us.

The only people who should be "forced" to provide marriage licenses are those who work in the public offices which issue marriage licenses, and only because that is literally their job.

yeah, it's not an issue to all you "moderate" voices of support, but I guarantee it's an issue to some...and it's already happened/happening in Canada, so...I don't know why you would think it will be any different here.

[Cow Poke]

I remember when liberals exercised their disdain for marriage by "shacking up". Now, they demand that marriage include them.

[Bill the Cat]

Denmark is also a Monarchy with a State Church. Their Constitution explicitly establishes a state religion. Ours explicitly prevents the establishment of a state religion.

I don't think that matters very much to the current sitting justices. They seem to be having a field day with being the arbiters of what the law SHOULD say instead of what it DOES say.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

yeah, it's not an issue to all you "moderate" voices of support, but I guarantee it's an issue to some...and it's already happened/happening in Canada, so...I don't know why you would think it will be any different here.

It will be different here for the same reason that laws regarding Free Speech and gun ownership and communicating-in-French are different, here: the US and Canada have very different Constitutions and very different laws.

[Cow Poke]

Denmark is also a Monarchy with a State Church. Their Constitution explicitly establishes a state religion. Ours explicitly prevents the establishment of a state religion.

Yeah, that part of the first amendment that says "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is ALWAYS upheld, right?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I don't think that matters very much to the current sitting justices. They seem to be having a field day with being the arbiters of what the law SHOULD say instead of what it DOES say.

I rather disagree with this. Reading the Majority Opinion, the Justices seem to be very focused on what the law DOES say.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Yeah, that part of the first amendment that says "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is ALWAYS upheld, right?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In cases where the free exercise of religion is being impinged upon, I'll be right next to Christians arguing against such unconstitutional actions. However, these cases seem to be far fewer than many Christians believe.

[Bill the Cat]

I rather disagree with this. Reading the Majority Opinion, the Justices seem to be very focused on what the law DOES say.

Not really. They are ignoring prior precedent and using the same tired excuses and interpretations they have been using for the last decade.