SCOTUS strikes down ban on gay marriage

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

It will certainly be an interesting argument to follow. Also, I'd love to see one of the more prominent 2nd amendment activists that have their legal people on retainer test this theory by carrying someplace like CA, NYC, or DC.

Nah, that's not the way it works.  We're being ruled by the arbitrary whims of whoever holds power.  Words are twisted however they need to serve their goals.

They don't want national reciprocity.  They'll twist and rationalize any way they need to justify denying national reciprocity.  

[grampster]

 
The U.S. Constitution says nothing about marriage.   It is not a power vested in the federal government in the legislative, executive, or judicial sections, therefor it is a power reserved to the states, or to the people.

The Constitution has not been obeyed by the legislature, the executive or the judicial for quite a long time now.  All three entities have usurped the powers reserved to the states and the people continually over the last 5 decades and longer.  It's been sped up over the last 20 years.

[brimic]

YEEhaw! This side-effect of the gay marriage ruling will make liberals EXPLODE

http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/yeehaw-this-side-effect-of-the-gay-marriage-ruling-will-make-liberals-explode/

Yeah, no.
Go ahead and see if your license keeps you out of prison in New Jersey.
if you are looking for scotus to make logical and cobsistent rulings, you are barking up the wrong tree.

[Angel Eyes]

At least one member of the clergy is seeing the funny side:

https://whitewatercrossing.org/ive-decided-to-marry-bacon/#more-7280

[Tallpine]

At least one member of the clergy is seeing the funny side:

https://whitewatercrossing.org/ive-decided-to-marry-bacon/#more-7280

Finally coming out of the smokehouse 

[roo_ster]

#LoveWins even in the Middle East.

https://twitter.com/Raqqa_Sl/status/614534534449623045

#Syria #ISIS Executed a gay man in #DirZour by throwing him from High building in front of the people #LoveWins #IS

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/06/isis-celebrates-lovewins-by-tossing-4-gays-from-roof-of-building/

A different sort of rainbow symbolism:


I think that the libertines are going to regret undermining Christianity at some time in the not too distant future as the vacuum is filled by other belief systems.

[Perd Hapley]

I'm actually laughing since your example of a "personal belief" is not actually a personal anything. It's about all the fact one can get in regards to what marriage is. Social construct defined by the society using it.

Even there, your personal opinion is out of the closet, and flamboyantly evident. 

At least, in your previous post, if you had stopped with "marriage is a social construct," you would have just stated a fact. Maybe that's why I quoted more than just that factual statement. Did you not consider that?

Marriage is a social construct, not a scientifically established fact. It's a social construct that changes to meet the needs and wishes of society. It's changed many times in the past, and it will continue to change in the future, regardless of your opinion....Gay marriage is in and it's here to stay.

I won't bother with the "here to stay" part, though it seems like a pretty big contradiction to idea that marriage changes. But leaving that aside, your personal opinion is that marriage can change so that it excludes one of the sexes, and furthermore that the change we've seen in marriage recently is due to the changing "needs and wishes of society." Also, your definition seems to suggest that no other definition of marriage could be considered. Those are the personal opinions to which I referred. So...

Firstly, let's understand our own objectivity, or lack of it. Secondly, I find your wax nose view of marriage to be so out of control, that you have the nose off of the face, and not really being a nose anymore. Though I suppose you might also quibble about the definition of "nose." As for marriage changing along with the needs and wishes of society - well - that's obviously not been allowed to happen here, has it?

Furthermore, my libertarian nature isn't confused at all. My libertarian nature is screaming "why can't we just have the government stop licensing marriage!?!"
But nobody wants to the intelligent thing...

The intelligent thing would be to dismiss your absurd ideas out of hand, as the social justice warrior babble it has always been. It hurts, but it's true.

, so we are stuck with this really, really, really stupid fight

Which was started by your side of the argument.

If .gov is handing out marriage licenses, than they have to hand them out to everyone.

What happened to marriage just being something that meets the needs of society? You realize you're argument justifies antimiscegenation laws just as much as same-sex marriage, right? No, I don't think you do.

As far as people getting screwed. Ha-ha! Welcome to the problems inherent in having the government define marriage.

You mean, having the government undefine marriage, as it just did. Thanks, Liz and company. Thanks so much.

[De Selby]

How does supporting gay marriage entail in any way bans on interracial marriage??

Marriage has for a good century now been an institution that serves individuals.  It allows them to treat their partners property and person in many respects as their own.  Prohibiting gay marriage denied that option to people on the basis of their chosen sexual/love partners.  That's why it went down in flames - if you're going to give couples a legal leg up on life decisions and basic economic choices, you have to extend it to all couples.

Does this mean polygamy may someday be legal?  Probably.  And other than one religion's book, what's the reason it shouldn't be?

The bible (or more properly, beliefs about the bible which bear little to no relationship to its authors' beliefs) is/are not a sound basis for law making.  The framers didn't write canonical laws into the constitution for a reason - many of them weren't even Christian.  You don't have to be a Christian to enjoy rights.

[makattak]

How does supporting gay marriage entail in any way bans on interracial marriage??

Marriage has for a good century now been an institution that serves individuals.  It allows them to treat their partners property and person in many respects as their own.  Prohibiting gay marriage denied that option to people on the basis of their chosen sexual/love partners.  That's why it went down in flames - if you're going to give couples a legal leg up on life decisions and basic economic choices, you have to extend it to all couples.

Does this mean polygamy may someday be legal?  Probably.  And other than one religion's book, what's the reason it shouldn't be?

The bible (or more properly, beliefs about the bible which bear little to no relationship to its authors' beliefs) is/are not a sound basis for law making.  The framers didn't write canonical laws into the constitution for a reason - many of them weren't even Christian.  You don't have to be a Christian to enjoy rights.

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.

[Jamisjockey]

How does supporting gay marriage entail in any way bans on interracial marriage??

Marriage has for a good century now been an institution that serves individuals.  It allows them to treat their partners property and person in many respects as their own.  Prohibiting gay marriage denied that option to people on the basis of their chosen sexual/love partners.  That's why it went down in flames - if you're going to give couples a legal leg up on life decisions and basic economic choices, you have to extend it to all couples.

Does this mean polygamy may someday be legal?  Probably.  And other than one religion's book, what's the reason it shouldn't be?

The bible (or more properly, beliefs about the bible which bear little to no relationship to its authors' beliefs) is/are not a sound basis for law making.  The framers didn't write canonical laws into the constitution for a reason - many of them weren't even Christian.  You don't have to be a Christian to enjoy rights.

Heretic!  Marriage is traditional! 

I can't believe I'm saying this.....I agree with DS for once.

You mean, having the government undefine marriage, as it just did. Thanks, Liz and company. Thanks so much.

The problem ultimately is that we ever let government define marriage at all.  Marriage is ultimately a religious concept.  When you get government involved, it becomes inherently secular.




So much wailing and gnashing of teeth, as if this ruling somehow invalidates the religious marriages many undertake as part of their belief system under their god. 

[makattak]

So much wailing and gnashing of teeth, as if this ruling somehow invalidates the religious marriages many undertake as part of their belief system under their god. 

Oh, hey, this canard! It's a fun one.

As I've responded to this one before: homosexuals getting married does not affect my marriage at all. Just as the TPP, abortion, ISIS, and the Export-Import bank have no effect on my marriage.

My positions on all of these have to do with the well-being of the country, not my marriage.

[Tallpine]

Since I'm not a county clerk, baker, or preacher, I guess it doesn't affect me - yet 

[Perd Hapley]

How does supporting gay marriage entail in any way bans on interracial marriage??

Never said it did, obviously. Go back to what Liz said - marriage is a social construct that changes according to society's needs and wishes. So she can't object to any marriage laws, except on utilitarian grounds. If she really believed her own argument, she'd be OK with anti-miscegenation laws, if that's what people felt was best. She would also be OK with states democratically declining to recognize same-sex marriage, as many have done.

Marriage has for a good century now been an institution that serves individuals.  It allows them to treat their partners property and person in many respects as their own.  Prohibiting gay marriage denied that option to people on the basis of their chosen sexual/love partners.  That's why it went down in flames - if you're going to give couples a legal leg up on life decisions and basic economic choices, you have to extend it to all couples.

Well, yeah, if you've already decided to redefine marriage as just any two humans, regardless of sex. But that makes no sense.

The bible (or more properly, beliefs about the bible which bear little to no relationship to its authors' beliefs) is/are not a sound basis for law making.  The framers didn't write canonical laws into the constitution for a reason - many of them weren't even Christian.  You don't have to be a Christian to enjoy rights.

This stupid argument again. Because teh geyz were tying the knots right and left, before teh Christianz took over, and changed every marriage tradition in the entire world, retroactively, so that marriage was always heterosexual from the beginning of time. Those sneaky little Christians.

[Perd Hapley]

The problem ultimately is that we ever let government define marriage at all.  Marriage is ultimately a religious concept.  When you get government involved, it becomes inherently secular.

Liz, straighten this guy out, would ya? Marriage is just an endlessly malleable social construct, that the state defines at will.

[Ron]

Let us all celebrate the gay community finally getting the government out of their bedrooms and relationships by formally being allowed to have the government as a legal party to their relationships.  

Once a society rejects the concept of objective truth the descent into absurdity is inevitable.

More and more it will be seen that the real goal here is the destruction of historical institutions that don't fit the cultural Marxist agenda. That would be any institution that attempts to hold to tradition or any concept of objective truth.

This isn't being driven by love for or by homosexuals but by hatred; hatred of traditional American culture and particularly hatred of conservative American Christianity. Tolerance of homosexuality was achieved decades ago and the gay community in whole has experienced greater economic success in America than the average. They won that battle a long time ago. This is something different.

Tolerance of the gay lifestyle it appears was never the goal, acceptance wasn't even good enough. We must celebrate, we must confess that it is on par or even more enlightened than mere heterosexuality. If you refuse to confess its equality or superiority to traditional morality you will be attacked and destroyed.    

This will be another cudgel used to attack the freedom of religion, otherwise known as freedom of conscience.

[zxcvbob]

Let us all celebrate the gay community finally getting the government out of their bedrooms and relationships by formally being allowed to have the government as a legal party to their relationships.  

Once a society rejects the concept of objective truth the descent into absurdity is inevitable.

More and more it will be seen that the real goal here is the destruction of historical institutions that don't fit the cultural Marxist agenda. That would be any institution that attempts to hold to tradition or any concept of objective truth.

This isn't being driven by love for or by homosexuals but by hatred; hatred of traditional American culture and particularly hatred of conservative American Christianity. Tolerance of homosexuality was achieved decades ago and the gay community in whole has experienced greater economic success in America than the average. They won that battle a long time ago. This is something different.

Tolerance of the gay lifestyle it appears was never the goal, acceptance wasn't even good enough. We must celebrate, we must confess that it is on par or even more enlightened than mere heterosexuality. If you refuse to confess its equality or superiority to traditional morality you will be attacked and destroyed.    

This will be another cudgel used to attack the freedom of religion, otherwise known as freedom of conscience.

QFT.

And Muslims (radical or orthodox, I'm not familiar enough with the religion to know which) will get a free pass because they are also trying to destroy western culture in general and America in particular.  You won't find *any* Halal bakers or mosques attacked for not participating in homosexual weddings.

[TommyGunn]

Does this mean polygamy may someday be legal?  Probably.  And other than one religion's book, what's the reason it shouldn't be?

A guy may have many wives, which he can barely support .... but what if he has six children per wife?   Are taxpayers supposed to supliment his income when he can't afford more than two urchins?  Three ....four? 
Yeah we have WIC programs and other support for indigent people but I don't see it as a benefit to society to create a condition where,  in all probability,  more will be added.

The bible (or more properly, beliefs about the bible which bear little to no relationship to its authors' beliefs) is/are not a sound basis for law making.  The framers didn't write canonical laws into the constitution for a reason - many of them weren't even Christian.  You don't have to be a Christian to enjoy rights.

Yes it is, if one doesn't wish to go against God's wishes.   We started doing that the moment Eve took the bite from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and we all know (or ought to) what happened then.
How many of our founders were athiests?   I know some were deists.  But I believe the greatest majority of them did believe in God.  Back then each state actually did have an "official" religion, of a sorts -- and if you didn't like it, you voted with your feet.   It was to the Federal Government that the proscription of establishing a official religion attended.  <<<< And that is why the founders "didn't write canonical laws into the constitution."

[SADShooter]

Heretic!  Marriage is traditional! 

I can't believe I'm saying this.....I agree with DS for once.

The problem ultimately is that we ever let government define marriage at all.  Marriage is ultimately a religious concept.  When you get government involved, it becomes inherently secular.




So much wailing and gnashing of teeth, as if this ruling somehow invalidates the religious marriages many undertake as part of their belief system under their god. 

Yes, and now the Federal government has intervened. I believe most will agree that once this bloated, stinking camel enters the tent, it does not leave, but rather occupies ever greater space, crowding out the original occupants, in this case liberty. This decision opens the door to increasing intrusion by government into peoples' personal lives. This intrusion will not stop, and I warrant may affect all of us in unpleasant ways. So, in a sense, we're now all gay. That is at least prison gay/omnisexual, because we're going to be screwed legally, by a faceless, amorphous entity seeking only its own gratification.

Not a victory for liberty, but less choice for states, communities, and ultimately, individuals.

[lupinus]

I wonder if Mrs Lupe could do with another wife to help share the workload...

Course once in the same house their biological clocks would probably sync and I'd end up in the loony bin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dogmush]

At the risk of making light of what, to many, is serious:

https://youtu.be/GjgGWOpksEw?t=43


*expletive deleted*it like this is why we are supposed to have a small, limited in power government.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Liz, straighten this guy out, would ya? Marriage is just an endlessly malleable social construct, that the state defines at will.

"Society"

"State"

I'm pretty sure those are two different words with different meanings. *checks dictionary* yep, two different words that mean different things.

[De Selby]

So basically the people most upset about gay marriage want the Christian bible to be the basis of our family law.

What could possibly be wrong with having a single contested religion define people's civil rights?

Those sects of Christians who still practice discrimination against gays remain free after this decision to not marry same sex partners.  I fail to see the great evil in churches, clubs, or whoever else doesn't believe in legal discrimination being able to host gay marriages.

[De Selby]

Oh, hey, this canard! It's a fun one.

As I've responded to this one before: homosexuals getting married does not affect my marriage at all. Just as the TPP, abortion, ISIS, and the Export-Import bank have no effect on my marriage.

My positions on all of these have to do with the well-being of the country, not my marriage.

Can you articulate even one real world scenario whereby the country goes to pot because gays can marry?  Or even suffers any loss other than the loss of happiness by people who hate gays?

[Balog]

So basically the people most upset about gay marriage want the Christian bible to be the basis of our family law.

Yep, the nuclear family unit being composed of a man and woman having children, and the parents binding themselves together legally and socially, is a crazy unheard of thing only found in the Bible.

[De Selby]

Yep, the nuclear family unit being composed of a man and woman having children, and the parents binding themselves together legally and socially, is a crazy unheard of thing only found in the Bible.

How does this decision have any impact on nuclear, man woman families whatsoever?