SCOTUS Rules 5-4 for Gay Marriage

[Mountain Man]

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.

As this Supreme Court has proven time and time again, it doesn't matter what the law actually says. They have their agenda, and they're going ram it down our throats and to hell with the Constitution.

[RumTumTugger]

As this Supreme Court has proven time and time again, it doesn't matter what the law actually says. They have their agenda, and they're going ram it down our throats and to hell with the Constitution.

like making up a right in the constitution to allow killing of innocent human beings to roe v wade.

[seer]

In his opinion Justice Thomas speaks to religious liberty in light of this decision.


http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...4-556_3204.pdf

Numerous amici—even some not supporting the
States—have cautioned the Court that its decision here
will “have unavoidable and wide-ranging implications
for religious liberty.” Brief for General Conference of
Seventh-Day Adventists et al. as Amici Curiae 5. In our
society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution;
it is a religious institution as well. Id., at 7. Today’s
decision might change the former, but it cannot change
the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will
come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches
are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse
civil marriages between same-sex couples.
The majority appears unmoved by that inevitability. It
makes only a weak gesture toward religious liberty in a
single paragraph, ante, at 27. 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.” Ibid.
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.7


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.

[Bill the Cat]

I don't think they ignored precedent here. In fact, precedent backs them up, as far as I can tell. Loving v. Virginia, in particular. The Supreme Court made interracial marriage legal across the land. Chief justice Earl Warren said:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Sound kinda familiar? You're not going to find too many people today who disagree with that decision. In fact, I suspect that the large majority considers it to be a good decision. And if that was an appropriate constitutional decision regarding marriage, the same-sex decision should be as well, as far as I can tell.

I'm talking about another precedent.

Maynard v. Hill

"marriage, in the sense in which it is dealt with by a decree of divorce, is not a contract, but one of the domestic relations. In strictness, though formed by contract, it signifies the relation of husband and wife, deriving both its rights and duties from a source higher than any contract of which the parties are capable, and as to these uncontrollable by any contract which they can make. When formed, this relation is no more a contract than `fatherhood' or `sonship' is a contract."

Atherton v. Atherton

"A husband without a wife, or a wife without a husband, is unknown to the law."

[Mountain Man]

I don't think they ignored precedent here. In fact, precedent backs them up, as far as I can tell. Loving v. Virginia, in particular. The Supreme Court made interracial marriage legal across the land. Chief justice Earl Warren said:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Sound kinda familiar? You're not going to find too many people today who disagree with that decision. In fact, I suspect that the large majority considers it to be a good decision. And if that was an appropriate constitutional decision regarding marriage, the same-sex decision should be as well, as far as I can tell.

The key word being "marriage" which has traditionally, historically, and morally been between a man and a woman and is exactly how Justice Warren intended the word to be understood. The reasons a man and woman of different races should be allowed to marry has nothing to do with any argument in favor of gay marriage. It's comparing apples to weasels.

[Bill the Cat]

Never going to happen. Now that we have a Supreme Court who rules by fiat and has declared gay marriage a Constitutional right, America's churches will be powerless in the face of the inevitable lawsuits, and many churches will be forced to close their doors. This is a game changer for America, and effects are going to be devastating.

The Chief Justice's dissent was rather stinging.

[Cow Poke]

I've never heard this story. What happened?

Long story short, we were at the forefront of the Christian Home School Movement, and Attorney General Jim Mattox had decided he was going to stop the movement in its tracks. I was warned to put my child back in school or "face the consequences" after I had already talked to the Superintendent of Schools and was given the impression I was OK. Three warrants were issued for my arrest, and I was arrested, but back in the good old days, public opinion flew in the face of the prosecutors, so they tried to pretend like it didn't happen. AFTER my arrest and loss of my job and expenditure of a whole boatload of money.

[Cow Poke]

I'm really wondering if you are actually reading my posts. I explicitly stated that it is wrong for the government to prevent the free-exercise of religion.

Yes, I saw that. Comprehended it. Understood it, even!

At no point did I ever imply that it's "not really discrimination" or that it "doesn't count" because it occurs less often than perceived.

You're attacking a viewpoint which I have not proffered.

No, I'm not.

[Rational Gaze]

But there won't be.

This is what happens when you rely on the machinations of the state to enforce your beliefs onto others. When it gets hijacked by others, then the same machinations will be used against yourself.

We are meant to preach the Gospel and be living examples of the Gospel message to non-believers and then leave it up to the Holy Spirit. If that person chooses to reject the Holy Spirit by continuing in their unbelief then that is their choice. God, after all, is a respecter of human free-will, as He wishes us to freely choose to enter into a relationship. He does not wish to force us into a relationship with Himself. Thus, if God respects human free-will, then I will too.

Secondly, I don't see why we, as Christians, should pay much heed to what the state calls marriage. We do not need a government marriage license to be married before the eyes of God, and marriage before the state does not equate to marriage before God. The better option is to take the government out of marriage entirely.

[seer]

This is what happens when you rely on the machinations of the state to enforce your beliefs onto others. When it gets hijacked by others, then the same machinations will be used against yourself.

We are meant to preach the Gospel and be living examples of the Gospel message to non-believers and then leave it up to the Holy Spirit. If that person chooses to reject the Holy Spirit by continuing in their unbelief then that is their choice. God, after all, is a respecter of human free-will, as He wishes us to freely choose to enter into a relationship. He does not wish to force us into a relationship with Himself. Thus, if God respects human free-will, then I will too.

Secondly, I don't see why we, as Christians, should pay much heed to what the state calls marriage. We do not need a government marriage license to be married before the eyes of God, and marriage before the state does not equate to marriage before God. The better option is to take the government out of marriage entirely.

This is true to a degree, but as citizens of this nation we have not only the right but the duty to have our voices heard in the halls of Government. Whether we win or lose I think it is important - if only to preset the populous with a contrary view.

[Cow Poke]

This is what happens when you rely on the machinations of the state to enforce your beliefs onto others. When it gets hijacked by others, then the same machinations will be used against yourself.

We are meant to preach the Gospel and be living examples of the Gospel message to non-believers and then leave it up to the Holy Spirit. If that person chooses to reject the Holy Spirit by continuing in their unbelief then that is their choice. God, after all, is a respecter of human free-will, as He wishes us to freely choose to enter into a relationship. He does not wish to force us into a relationship with Himself. Thus, if God respects human free-will, then I will too.

Secondly, I don't see why we, as Christians, should pay much heed to what the state calls marriage. We do not need a government marriage license to be married before the eyes of God, and marriage before the state does not equate to marriage before God. The better option is to take the government out of marriage entirely.

I have always been proud to say ".. therefore, by the power vested in me by the State of Texas, and more importantly, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, I now pronounce you...."

I have already begun deleting that reference to the State of Texas, and, quite honestly, it hurts a bit.

[One Bad Pig]

Live look-in at TWeb:

Looks to me like a classic case of projection.

I'm not angry, just profoundly disappointed.

[firstfloor]

I think this is part of a greater Spiritual problem, not a political one. I think the "Providence of God" is being removed from our Nation because we, as a nation, have turned our backs on Him. We are, in that regard, becoming Europe.

It is a fundamental misconception to think that the United States is Christian or even religious. You are confusing the people with the legal entity that owns them.

[Kristian Joensen]

Time for states to start repealing all their marriage laws and all references to marriage in the law? Defunding the issuing of marriage licenses? Removing all other restrictions? For Christians to boycott government marriage entirely?

[Cow Poke]

It is a fundamental misconception to think that the United States is Christian or even religious.

Yeah, yeah yeah... you've spewed forth this drivel before.

You are confusing the people with the legal entity that owns them.

No, I am not. You may see yourself as a subject to your master, I see myself as a citizen of the United States. Nobody owns me but God.