Same sex marriage is now legal

Gene L

So you guys can quit pretending. You know who you are.

mohican

Justice Antonin Scalia'

Hubris is sometimes defined as o'erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall,' he wrote. 'With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them – with each decision that is unabashedly not based on law, but on the "reasoned judgment" of a bare majority of this Court – we move one step closer.'

104RFAST

Secession anyone,which state will go first? The SCOTUS cant read" established by the States" what makes you think
they can read the 2nd amendment.

shush

Is that an offer?

Dr. db

Still not sure why government is in the marriage business.

breamfisher

Dr. db wrote: »

Still not sure why government is in the marriage business.

Taxes.

tennmike

breamfisher wrote: »

Taxes.

And CONTROL. Once control of a thing can be established, then they can do pretty much anything they want regarding controlling whatever 'thing' over which they have usurped control.

Varmintmist

Any bets that this agenda stops here??

snake284

alphasigmookie wrote: »

I'm sure some of the liberal judges felt the same way about Heller. I always approve of the SC depriving legislators the power to vote to deprive any citizen of their rights.

Yeah most libs approve of taking power away from one branch and giving it to another if it advances their Agenda...

samzhere

Dr. db wrote: »

Still not sure why government is in the marriage business.

My point exactly. The problem is terminology. Here's my solution, which I've posted here before:

Change the legal term "marriage" to "civil union" in all federal, state, and local jurisdictions. Allow ANY two adults not currently "married" to someone else to enter into a civil union, and this provides all the conventional legal benefits or burdens of a "marriage" on those 2 adults. Period. But it's not a "marriage" per se, just a legal civil union that's only for legal purposes, and therefore has zero moral or religious implications.

Then, as is done now, any religious or spiritual (wiccan, church of what's happenin' now, etc) to proclaim "marriage" for any couple whom they choose to recognize. This marriage is for social, moral, and religious purposes only and does not confer any legal recognition of that couple's connection. Only a civil union can do that.

Such a change in terminology therefore removes all moral and religious implications in same sex unions.

Easy?

Gene L

The fact is the government has been in marriage since they license marriage, here-to-fore, heterosexual marriage and banning same sex marriage.

This decision doesn't affect me in any way, nor does the ACA. So I don't care who marries whom, or who joins whatever healthcare the wish, or don't wish. I have to say I'd have liked to see the ACA fail, but because it would have been a defeat for POTUS, not because it influences my life.

So, I don't care about same sex marriage. I've got enough problems in MY life already without worrying about laws that don't affect me. If SCOTUS would have made painting yourself green a right, it wouldn't bother me since I don't intend on painting myself green.

If they took a national vote on SSM, I'm pretty sure it would not pass. Nor would allowing blacks the right to vote, for that matter. But SCOTUS is not bound by public opinion. Sometimes we have to grin and bear it.

tennmike

So same sex marriages, and marriage licenses must be acknowledged and honored by all 50 states.

Does this mean that the states must honor the CCW licenses of all other states? Seems fair to me.

Teach

Email I just got from a longtime friend, another teacher who got out of the profession just before the liberals took total control:

A. Back off and let those men who want to marry men, marry men.
B. Allow those women who want to marry women, marry women.
C. Allow those folks who want to abort their babies, abort their babies.
D. In three generations, there will be no Democrats.


I love it when a plan comes together!



Jerry

samzhere

cpj wrote: »

Pour that man an ice cold IPA in a tall frosty glass.

So many things to give a flip about, this isn't one.

Agreed. I really don't care a bit about same sex marriage. I actually believe it's legal in accordance with the 12th amendment. And the Constitution supersedes all other laws. But I also don't care, even though I'm happy for my gay friends. They're good folks. The Scotus decision was the right one.

samzhere

By the way, although I totally agree that same sex "marriage" is Constitutional I also think it's only a civil proceeding that will be recognized -- let's face it, most states already allowed it anyway -- but I also believe that no church or minister can be required to perform the marriage ceremony nor will that right be compromised, via the freedom of religion. Remember, civil law may be based partly on religion but it must be separate from it.

timc

Like I've said before, I'm glad I'm old, I fully expect one day that God will smite the Sodom and Gomorrah this country has become!

Farm Boy Deuce

cpj wrote: »

Pour that man an ice cold IPA in a tall frosty glass.

So many things to give a flip about, this isn't one.

I thought I PA was supposed to be imbibed at room temp?

breamfisher

cpj wrote: »

I'm an equal opportunity ass hole.

You sure you want to say this on a gay marriage thread?

Eli

breamfisher wrote: »

You sure you want to say this on a gay marriage thread?

:roll2:

NN

cpj wrote: »

Here is where it gets sticky. The first flit couple that sues or throws a hissy because they can't get married at the First Baptist Church should have their asses kicked. You want gay marriage? You got it. You won. Go dance a jig. However! your right to marriage is not in ANY way shape or form a ticket to acceptance! Dont act like Dicks's because someone doesn't support your lifestyle. Don't be a bitch and sue. If you find someone that doesn't want to marry you, FIND ANOTHER PERSON WHO WILL.
I think that's pretty damn fair. That's my stance. I don't agree with that lifestyle, but I ain't gonna tell you who you can marry, nor will I persecute you for your choices. . But that doesn't mean I won't make jokes about you. Doesn't mean I'm going to be best buddies with you. Suck it up and deal with it. Kind of a neutral agreement if you will. If you don't like it, and demand more, well, you can kiss my fat white ass because that's ALL you're getting.


I'm an equal opportunity ass hole.

I'm glad I'm an old Marine

---

don't think I could put up with this stuff

---

sometimes it was bad enough just having WM's

Buffco

alphasigmookie wrote: »

I'm sure some of the liberal judges felt the same way about Heller. I always approve of the SC depriving legislators the power to vote to deprive any citizen of their rights.

You need to read Robert's dissent. This has nothing, NOTHING to do with the Constitution.

Buffco

If you are among the many Americans-of whatever sexual orientation-who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate
the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not
celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.

Eli

NO, the government shouldn't be 'licensing' marriages in the first place.................. but as long as they are, they need to freely offer those licenses to every consenting adult, rather than only a chosen subset.

This is not the end of the issue; this is the beginning.

coolgunguy

samzhere wrote: »

By the way, although I totally agree that same sex "marriage" is Constitutional I also think it's only a civil proceeding that will be recognized -- let's face it, most states already allowed it anyway -- but I also believe that no church or minister can be required to perform the marriage ceremony nor will that right be compromised, via the freedom of religion. Remember, civil law may be based partly on religion but it must be separate from it.

Therein lies the problem. This wasn't about rights. As you stated, most states were already allowing this. It will be about enforcement, despite your wishes to the contrary.

cpj wrote: »

Here is where it gets sticky. The first flit couple that sues or throws a hissy because they can't get married at the First Baptist Church should have their asses kicked. You want gay marriage? You got it. You won. Go dance a jig. However! your right to marriage is not in ANY way shape or form a ticket to acceptance! Dont act like Dicks's because someone doesn't support your lifestyle. Don't be a bitch and sue. If you find someone that doesn't want to marry you, FIND ANOTHER PERSON WHO WILL.
I think that's pretty damn fair. That's my stance. I don't agree with that lifestyle, but I ain't gonna tell you who you can marry, nor will I persecute you for your choices. . But that doesn't mean I won't make jokes about you. Doesn't mean I'm going to be best buddies with you. Suck it up and deal with it. Kind of a neutral agreement if you will. If you don't like it, and demand more, well, you can kiss my fat white ass because that's ALL you're getting.


I'm an equal opportunity ass hole.

I hope this is how this plays out, but I fear that it won't...recent history tells me otherwise.

Flashover

Quote from a friend of mine today when discussing the issue

"I can’t wait until they freak out over straight guy friends getting married in order for one to get things like health care from one guy’s corporate job. There are sexless marriages, and you can’t prove someone is actually not gay."

coolgunguy

Flashover wrote: »

Quote from a friend of mine today when discussing the issue

"I can’t wait until they freak out over straight guy friends getting married in order for one to get things like health care from one guy’s corporate job. There are sexless marriages, and you can’t prove someone is actually not gay."

You can, but it'll take some effort...and dedication. :tooth:

bullsi1911

I cannot fathom someone going through all that to have the privilege of being taxed.

tennmike

bullsi1911 wrote: »

I cannot fathom someone going through all that to have the privilege of being taxed.

I'm guessing y'all is talking about the marriage penalty tax. Unintended consequence?

Jermanator

I want everyone to consider something else.... For many people that I know, that was a huge single issue pushing people away from some more conservative candidates. Kind of like I will not even begin to consider a candidate unless they have a favorable view of 2A-- is the way they were on gay marriage. Since this is supposedly settled business, I think they are more likely to listen to and support some candidates that they wouldn't have otherwise.

My wife (a huge supporter of gay rights) also noted that both Clinton--a woman, and Obama-- a (half) black guy, have campaigned against gay marriage and now are suddenly cheering it. She suggested that members of previously oppressed groups (women and blacks) should have had no business in actively oppressing others and pointed out their moral inconsistencies.

Overall, I think this will be a good thing. That, and my children's strong dislike of the Michelle Obama school lunches have created a pro-freedom line of thinking in my social circles outside of this forum.

shush

Flashover wrote: »

............ and you can’t prove someone is actually not gay."

cpj wrote: »

Trust me. :tooth:

Errrrrrrm.................HELL NO!!!!!!

Varmintmist

cpj wrote: »

Here is where it gets sticky. The first flit couple that sues or throws a hissy because they can't get married at the First Baptist Church should have their asses kicked. You want gay marriage? You got it. You won. Go dance a jig. However! your right to marriage is not in ANY way shape or form a ticket to acceptance! Dont act like Dicks's because someone doesn't support your lifestyle. Don't be a bitch and sue. If you find someone that doesn't want to marry you, FIND ANOTHER PERSON WHO WILL.
I think that's pretty damn fair. That's my stance. I don't agree with that lifestyle, but I ain't gonna tell you who you can marry, nor will I persecute you for your choices. . But that doesn't mean I won't make jokes about you. Doesn't mean I'm going to be best buddies with you. Suck it up and deal with it. Kind of a neutral agreement if you will. If you don't like it, and demand more, well, you can kiss my fat white ass because that's ALL you're getting.


I'm an equal opportunity ass hole.

Are there unicorns in your fantasy land?

This had nothing to do with marriage as much as it had to do with forcing their ideology on people. If it was about being together, then they would have just shut up and been together. Problem is when you have people like Lilly Tomlin who just shuts up and does her thing, she doesnt get noticed and doesnt force others to her will, and that is what this has ALWAYS been about.