SCOTUS strikes down ban on gay marriage

[Balog]

It is generally not possible to recreate a marriage by will, poa, or contract, so no.  I would tell them to get married if they wanted to have all the same rights and powers towards each other that married people do - there isn't another way to do it.

The government's interest is in giving its citizens the reality of the relationship they want to have.  If no one cared about being married, there would be no government interest in recognising marriage.  But that's not the world we live in - people do want those rights.

Is this some type of thing where the words you are using are some ozzie variant that mean a different thing, because that sentence makes no sense.

[Balog]

Which is a point I made much earlier in this thread.

I don't think .gov should be involved in any marriage.

However, as the laws currently stand, .gov is involved and as long as it is, the .gov definition of marriage must be all inclusive.

So it should include non-romantic relationships?

[White Horseradish]

Care to wager on how long it will be before similar lawsuits are brought in the US?

It will happen right after USA gets a state church.

Care to wager on when that will happen?

[Balog]

It will happen right after USA gets a state church.

Care to wager on when that will happen?

Does your church ever allow weddings outside of its congregation? Congrats, you're now a public accomodation! Etc

[cordex]

It will happen right after USA gets a state church.

Care to wager on when that will happen?

Just to be clear, you don't believe that non-state-sponsored, US churches will be sued to compel them to violate their beliefs on homosexual marriage.  Is that an accurate representation of your position?

[Tallpine]

Funny, except for Ladypine changing her last name on her drivers license, I don't recall ever presenting our marriage certificate to anyone in nearly 34 years.  We just file taxes jointly, go to the doctor/hospital together when necessary, put both of our names on deeds and titles, bought two houses together, etc etc etc.

We could have just jumped a broom out under an oak tree and no one would know any difference.

So I'm somewhat dubious of all of the "hardships" that same sex couples claim to have  

[KD5NRH]

Funny, except for Ladypine changing her last name on her drivers license, I don't recall ever presenting our marriage certificate to anyone in nearly 34 years.  We just file taxes jointly, go to the doctor/hospital together when necessary, put both of our names on deeds and titles, bought two houses together, etc etc etc.

Depends on the state's common law marriage definition; here, jointly owning property, living together for a few months and presenting yourselves as married will meet the requirements. 

The odd part comes if you want to make it more official; you can file a declaration of common law marriage so it's on the books, but if you want a real marriage certificate you'll have to move out for, IIRC, 90 days and dispose of jointly owned property to dissolve the common law marriage before you can apply for a marriage license.

[Tallpine]

Depends on the state's common law marriage definition; here, jointly owning property, living together for a few months and presenting yourselves as married will meet the requirements. 

The odd part comes if you want to make it more official; you can file a declaration of common law marriage so it's on the books, but if you want a real marriage certificate you'll have to move out for, IIRC, 90 days and dispose of jointly owned property to dissolve the common law marriage before you can apply for a marriage license.

Oh, we have a proper marriage license and signed certificate.  It's just been tucked away in a file drawer for thirty years.  Nobody other than the DMV ever asked to see it.  More and more couples don't even change her last name, so who knows?


Here's another one: back then, Colorado required the woman to have a blood test within 30 days before issuing a marriage license.  I don't know if any state still does that, but if so - which same sex partner gets stuck in the arm    

[MechAg94]

It will happen right after USA gets a state church.

Care to wager on when that will happen?

I think you can be assured that gay activists will attempt to do it here.  It won't be quite the same justification, but they will come up with something.  I won't bet against them winning.  Courts can be screwy these days.

[Tallpine]

Homosexuals wanting to get "married" in a church makes about as much sense as blacks wanting to join the KKK 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Already here
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/20/idaho-citys-ordinance-tells-pastors-to-marry-gays-/

[White Horseradish]

Does your church ever allow weddings outside of its congregation? Congrats, you're now a public accomodation! Etc

Our church has a few things that are for parishioners only. If it were to limit weddings this way, it would only make sense.

Just to be clear, you don't believe that non-state-sponsored, US churches will be sued to compel them to violate their beliefs on homosexual marriage.  Is that an accurate representation of your position?

They may be sued, but I don't think the suits will be successful.

So I'm somewhat dubious of all of the "hardships" that same sex couples claim to have  

It's really not that hard to find stories where people were denied inheritance, thrown out of their homes, or denied hospital visitation. Since neither of you has died, and you don't have family that would be willing to create problems for you along those lines, it's hardly surprising you haven't seen these issues firsthand.

This is a lot like people who have never needed to defend themselves being dubious about guns being necessary.

Already here
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/20/idaho-citys-ordinance-tells-pastors-to-marry-gays-/

This again...

Once again, this has been discussed many times - this is a commercial wedding chapel, a business, not a real church.

Seriously, how many times are you going to bring up the same three completely irrelevant things?

[BlueStarLizzard]

So it should include non-romantic relationships?

Sure.
Why not?

Furthermore, the possible abuses (which I think are going to happen) that are the result of .gov being given the power to define marriage is irrelevant to the question of if gays should be allowed to legally marry.
Those abuses are made possible by other laws (most of which are actually unconstitutional) and the emphasis should be on those rather than who should be allowed to marry.

You guys keep bring these things up as a reason to not allow gays to marry when the system that exists (obamacare providing coverage for spouses, churches potentially being sued for discrimination, businesses ordered to provide services) is already being abused in the name of marriage.

[Perd Hapley]

I guess I'll have to take my gay lover on down to the local wedding chapel. The ceremony will have a Confederate battle flag theme.

[Jamisjockey]

I guess I'll have to take my gay lover on down to the local wedding chapel. The ceremony will have a Confederate battle flag theme.

Holy *expletive deleted*it that would be the troll of the decade.
Two black guys trying to get married with a confederate themed wedding......

 

[lupinus]

Holy *expletive deleted*it that would be the troll of the decade.
Two black guys trying to get married with a confederate themed wedding......

 

Needs a flaming cross and white bed sheets for the table cloths.

[Perd Hapley]

Actually, we both identify as black women. But we feel strongly that Confederate lives matter.

[AJ Dual]

Just to be clear, you don't believe that non-state-sponsored, US churches will be sued to compel them to violate their beliefs on homosexual marriage.  Is that an accurate representation of your position?

Which is the actual line in the sand that everyone here should be able to agree on, no matter our individual positions on same-sex marriage otherwise.

European state churches are not a bellwether of any kind for the U.S. scenario, since we don't have state churches.

I'm sure that by careful judge shopping, and finding the right area, Berkeley CA, Madistan WI, Austin TX, or whatever... they'll even get a few low-level "wins". I'll take notice when it actually reaches Federal appellate court. Everything before that is just posturing, however much it may suck for the individual churches that have gotten sued.

[TommyGunn]

There is no proscription against murder in Buddhist countries? Or are theirs also Biblical based, even though they have no Bible?

I was not refering to Buddhist countries, and I have no idea what they base proscriptions on murder on.   
Is this important for some reason?
Ask a Buddhist.

[cordex]

Which is the actual line in the sand that everyone here should be able to agree on, no matter our individual positions on same-sex marriage otherwise.

Why that and not the baker example?

[Ron]

Why that and not the baker example?

Exactly, the line has been crossed already.

Granted they were small expeditionary missions but the full assault is coming. The intel gained from the skirmishes will used along with the added firepower of the SC decision.

For those who think the constitution is going to protect the corporate churches of America have you been living under a rock?

If tax exempt status for orthodox churches survives half a decade I'll be surprised.  

Christians won't take up arms over this but will finally realize their government isn't interested in protecting them any more than it is interested in protecting truly persecuted Christians around the world.

There will continue to be corporate churches towing the line serving mammon and perversity. But there will also be small assemblies meeting in homes and the like and the church will continue on, maybe even creating its own black market for goods and services.  

[RoadKingLarry]

Why that and not the baker example?

That's the level I kind of get irritated at.

I'm an atheist. I DO NOT care if Joe and Jim or Sue and Sally want to get "married" I really DO NOT CARE. If that is what they want to do, who am I to judge. If I'm wrong and there is a creator that cares about such stuff then that's who they will have to reckon with.

Being an atheist however does not make me antagonistic towards folks of a religious bent (so long as they don't try to force their religious strictures on me).

I fully support anyone's right to refuse service to someone based on their moral/religious tenants. I am vehemently opposed to those that seek to force someone at the point of a gun, (and that is what it really boils down to isn't it?) to violate their deeply held religious beliefs.

This crap of gays going to an obviously Christian owned business, bakery, photographers and such, and insisting they participate in something that is more or less known to be against their religious beliefs and then using the power of government to destroy their lives because they don't "celebrate" your gayness is abhorrent to me.

It is my opinion that simply declining to participate in something that goes against your moral/religious beliefs is in fact the free exercise of religion and therefore a protected action under the 1st Amendment.

[White Horseradish]

Is this important for some reason?

Yes.

The proscription is not at all uniquely Biblical, and there is no reason to think it is.

US law is not Biblical law. 4 of the 10 Commandments are in direct contradiction to the Constitution.

[RoadKingLarry]

Which 4 would those be?

[TommyGunn]

Yes.

The proscription is not at all uniquely Biblical, and there is no reason to think it is.

US law is not Biblical law. 4 of the 10 Commandments are in direct contradiction to the Constitution.

I never said it was "uniquely Biblical."
And  I also never said US Law was biblical.  American jurisprudence was based on Judeo-Christian ethics, not the Bible.

I would be interested in knowing which commandments are in contradiction to the Constitution.