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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
    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.
    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


    • #47
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      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.
      Last edited by RumTumTugger; 06-26-2015, 10:58 AM.

      Comment


      • #48
        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
        .
        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


        • #49
          Originally posted by Yttrium View Post
          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."
          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


          • #50
            Originally posted by Yttrium View Post
            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.
            Last edited by Mountain Man; 06-26-2015, 11:05 AM.
            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


            • #51
              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              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.
              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


              • #52
                Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                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.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                  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.
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    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.
                    My Amazon Author page: https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B0719RS8BK

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Rational Gaze View Post
                      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.
                      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


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Rational Gaze View Post
                        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.
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by fm93 View Post
                          Live look-in at TWeb:

                          Looks to me like a classic case of projection.

                          I'm not angry, just profoundly disappointed.
                          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


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            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.
                            “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                            “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                            “not all there” - you know who you are

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              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?

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                                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.
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                7 responses
                                62 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                247 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                107 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                194 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                330 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X