Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

SCOTUS Rules 5-4 for Gay Marriage

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Rational Gaze View Post
    Rights are not dependent on the edicts of the state or on pieces of paper. Rights are exclusive claims that require no action on the part of others to be upheld. Hence, freedom to voluntary association is a human right, education and healthcare are not. It's simply a matter of objective fact.
    And yet the Supreme Court has manufactured a new "right" out of thin air. For that matter, didn't the government declare healthcare a right, too? As I recall, that was one of the central arguments in favor of Obamacare, that by not extending "free" healthcare to every man, woman, and child, we were infringing on their basic human rights.

    Your problem is that you believe that words can have objective meaning, but as we learned in the Supreme Court's Obamacare ruling yesterday and in this ruling today that language can be redefined at a whim to support whatever the current agenda happens to be. I'm reminded of the following exchange from Lewis Carol's Through the Looking Glass:
    "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
    "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
    "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

    Our government is making it increasingly clear they, and not we, are the masters.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • #77
      Exactly Bill the Cat. This is just one step towards a larger goal.
      Faith is not what we fall back to when reason isn't available. It's the conviction of what we have reason to believe. Greg Koukl

      The loss of objectivity in moral thought does not lead to liberation. It leads to oppression. Secular ideologies preach liberty, but they practice tyranny. — Nancy Pearcey

      Comment


      • #78
        I'm listening to the arguments between Kagan, Ginsburg, and Attorney Bursch. It's like the arguments were unimportant and their minds were already made up.
        Last edited by Bill the Cat; 06-26-2015, 01:17 PM.
        That's what
        - She

        Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
        - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

        I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
        - Stephen R. Donaldson

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by fm93 View Post
          They should make a carnival ride out of all these slippery slopes
          I would LOVE to be wrong. I would rather prepare for the worst than be blindsided, however.
          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
          sigpic
          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

          Comment


          • #80
            I'm new around here though I'm a good lurker. I could be wrong on what I'm about to post and I may be missing some things, but here goes.

            The decision on gay marriage by the US Supreme Court will create more problems than it solves. I believe that the advocates for gay rights will now push hard for more changes. Not just changes in laws, local or State, but in the culture itself. There seems to be a huge push to blur the lines of gender and I believe this is also part of the picture of gay acceptance (and by that I mean accepting same-sex as equal to both morally and legally as opposite sex relationships.) What one generation tolerates the next generation embraces.

            I've enjoyed reading the posts prior to this one and think you all have touched on many of the issues this decision will complicate (like child custody, divorce settlements, etc) but this decision also opens the door for other "marriage configurations" beyond the pairing of two people (same sex or otherwise).

            I believe that Churches will eventually lose their tax-exempt status and that this country will head into an "anything goes" as long as the two people (or three or four) are consenting. We are already seeing in our schools where a boy can declare himself a girl or a girl declare herself a boy. And this declaration can be fluid. One day you can identify as a girl and another day as a boy.

            I hope this isn't seen as going off topic. The same-sex issue is just one sub-issue in a larger issue of human sexuality. If the "freedom to express our human sexuality wherever it leads" is a Pandora's Box, same-sex marriage is just one aspect of a much larger picture.
            Faith is not what we fall back to when reason isn't available. It's the conviction of what we have reason to believe. Greg Koukl

            The loss of objectivity in moral thought does not lead to liberation. It leads to oppression. Secular ideologies preach liberty, but they practice tyranny. — Nancy Pearcey

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Papa Zoom View Post
              I believe that Churches will eventually lose their tax-exempt status...
              Last Wednesday night, anticipating that SCOTUS would rule the way they did, several of our men brought up the "tax exempt" status. They were assuring me, as Pastor, that if it came to that, hey would not only continue giving, but would do their best to help out if somebody stopped giving because of the loss of tax advantage.

              Christians shouldn't be giving for the tax advantage anyway.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                Christians shouldn't be giving for the tax advantage anyway.
                True, but our money goes a lot further with it.
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                  What are the ramifications of that? Will people you marry in the church then need to appear before a Justice of the Peace as well in order for the state to recognize them as married? Or will you encourage them to forego the benefits of legal marriage instead?
                  Shortly after I posted that, I thought - "wait a minute" - the ONLY such certificate I have was from the State of Ohio, because my baby sister asked me to perform the wedding there, and I filed for the authorization so I could legally sign her wedding license. SINCE then, the requirements have been significantly reduced or eliminated.

                  Texas requires no such certificate.

                  Texas Statutes
                  Sec. 2.202

                  The following persons are authorized to conduct a marriage ceremony:

                  a licensed or ordained Christian minister or priest;
                  a Jewish rabbi;
                  a person who is an officer of a religious organization and who is authorized by the organization to conduct a marriage ceremony; and
                  a justice of the supreme court, judge of the court of criminal appeals, justice of the courts of appeals, judge of the district, county, and probate courts, judge of the county courts at law, judge of the courts of domestic relations, judge of the juvenile courts, retired justice or judge of those courts, justice of the peace, retired justice of the peace, or judge or magistrate of a federal court of this state.
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                    What are the ramifications of that? Will people you marry in the church then need to appear before a Justice of the Peace as well in order for the state to recognize them as married? Or will you encourage them to forego the benefits of legal marriage instead?
                    So, the answer to the question is - I'm fully qualified as a Christian minister to marry people, no "legal" status required on my part.
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      True, but our money goes a lot further with it.
                      Absolutely, and the "Ministerial Housing Allowance", which allows many Churches to afford a minister, is already targeted and in peril.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                        I'm listening to the arguments between Kagan, Ginsburg, and Attorney Bursch. It's like the arguments were unimportant and their minds were already made up.
                        That's apparently how the Supreme Court works these days. They've already made up their minds before the case is even brought to court, and the trial is just a formality.
                        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                        Than a fool in the eyes of God


                        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          The "Gay Marriage" vs "Religious Liberty debate:

                          Christianity Today

                          Source: CT

                          Below is what the justices said in today's majority opinion and four dissents, as well as a summary of related survey data.

                          Essentially, the majority believe the First Amendment gives religious groups and people "proper protection" to "continue to advocate" their beliefs on traditional marriage. But the dissenters are more skeptical, and concerned that "people of faith can take no comfort" in the ruling.

                          "Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises," acknowledges Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority in Obergefell v. Hodges, "and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here."

                          He explains that while that "sincere, personal opposition" cannot be "enacted law and public policy" without harming gay couples and violating the Fourteenth Amendment, he favors a continued "open and searching debate" between those who favor and oppose same-sex marriage.

                          "It must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned," writes Kennedy in a paragraph that will likely become the focus of scrutiny by church-state experts.

                          "The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths," he continues, "and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered."

                          Chief Justice John Roberts is less confident. In his dissent, he argues that today’s decision "creates serious questions about religious liberty."

                          "Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority—actually spelled out in the Constitution," he writes. "Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for dissenting religious practice." But he says the Supreme Court is too much of a "blunt instrument" to do likewise. [Thus the evangelical argument for "if you can't beat them, amend them."]

                          © Copyright Original Source

                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by mossrose View Post
                            And, except for Texas, good luck with trying to acquire any sort of pastor protection, or any other protection on religious grounds.

                            That was promised to us, and went down the pipes at the very first marriage.
                            Ordained religious ministers in Canada are not required to marry same-sex couples. That has been the case in all countries to legalize same-sex marriage thus far. Please don't spread false rumors.

                            The only exemptions have been when the government or council employs a person specifically to conduct civil marriages. Often the decision has been that that person, by virtue of the fact that they are employed by the taxpayer and not by a church be required to marry both straight and gay people as part of their job.

                            No one is going into churches and forcing unwilling clergy to marry gay couples. Not in any country. It's not a thing. So cease and desist with your false fear-mongering.
                            "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                            "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                            "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              Yes, I saw that. Comprehended it. Understood it, even!
                              No you didn't.

                              Post #38

                              Cow Poke: Oh, so as long as discrimination doesn't happen A LOT, it's not really discrimination? Or, because an offense occurs only SOMETIMES, it doesn't count?

                              He never said anything close to that, so you definitely didn't understand it.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                                Ordained religious ministers in Canada are not required to marry same-sex couples. That has been the case in all countries to legalize same-sex marriage thus far. Please don't spread false rumors.

                                The only exemptions have been when the government or council employs a person specifically to conduct civil marriages. Often the decision has been that that person, by virtue of the fact that they are employed by the taxpayer and not by a church be required to marry both straight and gay people as part of their job.

                                No one is going into churches and forcing unwilling clergy to marry gay couples. Not in any country. It's not a thing. So cease and desist with your false fear-mongering.
                                Mossrose lives in Canada I take her word over yours Starlight who says one thing and who's actions show the opposite.
                                Last edited by RumTumTugger; 06-26-2015, 05:13 PM.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                82 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                278 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                109 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                195 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                355 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X