Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Same sex marriage is now legal

2»

Replies

  • bullsi1911bullsi1911 Moderator Posts: 10,854 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    I'm guessing y'all is talking about the marriage penalty tax. Unintended consequence?

    Hell, just the paying for a marriage license. They went through all that BS to make sure they get taxed. Not just that, but it was the unconstitutional asking for permission for, and taxing of, a religious ceremony.

    Everything else that marriage conveys could have been done with wills and powers of attorney, which can be done almost free using online resources and forms.
    To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
    -Mikhail Kalashnikov
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,351 Senior Member
    timc wrote: »
    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!

    I agree, that's the only thing that worries me. Personally I don't care what you do or how you live your life. But just don't drag me to hell with you.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • mohicanmohican Member Posts: 380 Member
    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.
    or you could take an originalist (sp) view that since marriage is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, then control of it resides in the states and the people....

    If an amendment should ever be stricken by an Article V convention due to misuse, (and improper ratification) the 14th amendment would top the list.....
  • mohicanmohican Member Posts: 380 Member
    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.


    If left to DC and other federal districts then the Heller decision would be correct. I'm all for states regulating their gun laws. If marriage is to be regulated, then it should be at the local or state level.

    I'm waiting to see if a ballsy governor will give the Andy Jackson reply regarding this decision.....
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,531 Senior Member
    This just opens the door to complete litigation and discrimination towards Christianity when churches refuse to marry them.

    Justice Kennedy's opinion states "in the eyes of the law",not "in the eyes of God". So the Christian church has some thin ice standing to combat the inevitable litigation...
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,628 Senior Member
    There's almost a third of a billion people here, all of them individuals, all of them ostensibly free. It's a statistical certainty that at any given time, several million of them will be off the reservation, taking a long walk on the wild side. Who cares? I don't.
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 11,467 Senior Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    This just opens the door to complete litigation and discrimination towards Christianity when churches refuse to marry them.

    Justice Kennedy's opinion states "in the eyes of the law",not "in the eyes of God". So the Christian church has some thin ice standing to combat the inevitable litigation...

    No. Any church can chose to marry anyone, regardless. No litigation. Catholic priests can refuse to marry non-Catholics and visa veras, why would it be illegal to refuse to marry gays? Marriage, as defined by SCOTUS in this case is a LEGAL issue, not a religious contract. Read the law. Christianity has absolutely NOTHING to do with it. I don't think Jews recognize same-sex marriage and I know Muslims do not.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • DoctorWhoDoctorWho Senior Member Posts: 9,496 Senior Member
    Actually, you can find gay & lesbian houses of worship, Christians, Jews, Muslims perhaps not openly G/L/T, and so many Orthodox religious people either in the closet or something worse.
    Let God judge these people, there are worse offenders than openly gay folks .. Instead of fighting over all these issues, we should rather fight the real societal evils that affect our Nation.
    "There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
  • ShootrShootr New Member Posts: 25 New Member
    Such a change in terminology therefore removes all moral and religious implications in same sex unions.

    I don't think you get it. These are exactly the things they want to change the most. They want "everyone" to be forced to believe what they believe. Freedom went out the window on this. They could have had civil unions. They didn't want that. They think there's a "stigma" society puts on what they do. And they're right and it is never going to change. Sorry but that's just a fact. You will never get everyone to agree to this. Most people might but not all. And those people will become the exiles. That's what this is really all about. They somehow thing they can get even with religious people by forcing them to convert or lose their job, lose their business, lose their safety, etc.. Look around. They are ALREADY doing this. What's next? What we have in this country is fascism. Christians are the new Jews. There will be efforts to eliminate any church that teaches it's wrong to be gay. That is what makes this all very wrong. What happened to freedom? No one was stopping those people from living like they want. And most states were moving toward voting for stuff like civil unions and marriage in some states. It's their attempts at forcing their views on people that is very, very dangerous. Was it really impossible for them to get a cake baked for that wedding? They went looking for someone to bully. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. Worse actually. Hippies came along and pushed free love and free thinking and free everything. But they are the worst this country has seen at taking freedoms. And taking away the freedom to own guns is high on their list of objectives. Think about it. Aren't we supposed to be able to decide what we think for ourselves? If you don't agree with them they will put you out of business. That's scary. I've never mistreated a gay person in my life. But they are about to mistreat me. Because I will never go along with their agenda. I don't care that much that they get married. But they will not stop there.
    JeSuisCharlie
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 11,467 Senior Member
    It's the civil unions that gays want, because there are lots of advantages (maybe) for civil union, a.k.a. "marriage." Taxes, insurance, etc. Gays have been getting married for years in churches that will marry them, but for legal purposes, they're not married which is what they want.

    Gays don't want "special privilege" in marriage, they just want equality with us. No one can force moral acceptance on anyone, but legal acceptance is another question. In GA at one time it was illegal for interracial marriage. Now it's legal, of course, but no one can force a preacher to perform it. Any elected official, I would think, would be compelled to if not perform the ceremony, certify it legally.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,531 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    No. Any church can chose to marry anyone, regardless. No litigation. Catholic priests can refuse to marry non-Catholics and visa veras, why would it be illegal to refuse to marry gays? Marriage, as defined by SCOTUS in this case is a LEGAL issue, not a religious contract. Read the law. Christianity has absolutely NOTHING to do with it. I don't think Jews recognize same-sex marriage and I know Muslims do not.

    You clearly forget the suing of the cake makers who refused to make wedding cakes for gays because it violated their Christian values.

    This will be the key that unlocks the door for Obama to attack Christianity outright and in public. He will make an enemy of the church who won't marry a gay couple and they'll be publicly shunned. Just wait.

    This SCOTUS decision has NOTHING to do with gays legal aspect of marriage. It's agenda, pure and simple.

    Just like Arizona's voter ID law being cast down the other day....it's all agenda.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 11,467 Senior Member
    A cake maker is not a church. Baking cakes is not protected by the First Amendment.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,628 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    It is if the reason you won't make a cake is based on religious views.

    And that's a question yet to be decided by the SCOTUS - when does the free exercise of religion stop and the obligations incumbent with voluntarily obtaining a business license begin.
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 11,467 Senior Member
    One could claim about any exemption based on religious views. They tried that with segregation in the 1960s with refusing to serve blacks. IIRC, the SCOTUS ruled that a business engaged in commerce could not discriminate. Since churches are not engaged in commerce, are protected by the First, they shouldn't be forced to perform gay ceremonies. And they won't be, paranoia aside.

    An interesting possibility to consider are the wedding chapels in Las Vegas. Since they ARE engaged in interstate commerce and are not churches, I'd assume they will perform same-sex marriages. Willingly for a charge.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement