SCOTUS strikes down ban on gay marriage

[White Horseradish]

The other legal battle that will likely ensue will be forcing churches to perform gay, poly, etc. marriages with the stick for not doing so being revocation of tax exempt status.

Equality =/= freedom.

Easy solution - stop giving out the marriage certificate in the church. If the church isn't giving out government documents, there is no reason whatsoever for the government to tell them what to do. A church that does not wish interference can simply perform ceremonies with no paperwork.This doesn't need to be a law, just a decision on the part of the church. 

[charby]

Easy solution - stop giving out the marriage certificate in the church. If the church isn't giving out government documents, there is no reason whatsoever for the government to tell them what to do. A church that does not wish interference can simply perform ceremonies with no paperwork.This doesn't need to be a law, just a decision on the part of the church. 

Need to do what Germany does

http://germany.usembassy.gov/acs/getting_married/

[Perd Hapley]

What about it? It's plenty traditional, and I have yet to see a coherent explanation of why it's bad. Sure, you get more in-laws, but it's not the job of the government to protect people from bad decisions.

Nobody's keeping you from binding yourself to as many men or women or cabbages as you choose. But heaven forbid government not be involved in your kooky relationships.

[Perd Hapley]

Easy solution - stop giving out the marriage certificate in the church. If the church isn't giving out government documents, there is no reason whatsoever for the government to tell them what to do. A church that does not wish interference can simply perform ceremonies with no paperwork.This doesn't need to be a law, just a decision on the part of the church.  

   Tell that to your local baker.

[Ben]

   Tell that to your local baker.

Exactly why this going through SCOTUS the way it did will be a problem (it doesn't need to be, but the same people who are banning the Confederate flag will make it one).

Again, given the gay / non-gay ratio in the population,  I see it as a net loss of freedom.

[lupinus]

So anyone got any leads on a good island? Unsettled small country sized block of land? Somewhere with easy to subjugate locals we could take over?

Cause I'm about tired of this *expletive deleted*it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KD5NRH]

So anyone got any leads on a good island? Unsettled small country sized block of land? Somewhere with easy to subjugate locals we could take over?

The moon has a weight loss bonus.

[brimic]

Easy solution - stop giving out the marriage certificate in the church. If the church isn't giving out government documents, there is no reason whatsoever for the government to tell them what to do. A church that does not wish interference can simply perform ceremonies with no paperwork.This doesn't need to be a law, just a decision on the part of the church. 

Easy solution in government??   
I predict churches who don't tow the sodomists' line on gay marriage will be sued within a year.

[grampster]

Easy solution in government??  
I predict churches who don't tow the sodomists' line on gay marriage will be sued within a year.

Exactly.  The 1st amendment has been basically dissolved at the present time anyway.

[lupinus]

Easy solution in government??  
I predict churches who don't tow the sodomists' line on gay marriage will be sued within a year.

Wouldn't be surprised. And I'll be interested to see how many church's will refuse, as they've said they would.

What I'd love to see is for a state to tell SCOTUS to go to hell and refuse to issue the licenses, in accordance with their laws/constitutions, on the basis that their ruling is a blatant overreach of federal authority.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[De Selby]

So a law restricting people,from doing something they otherwise would do is gone.  Freedom is on the retreat?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Easy solution in government??  
I predict churches who don't tow the sodomists' line on gay marriage will be sued within a year.

The gays have long had that exact "easy solution".  Nobody was withholding from them the freedom to do their own thing: they could've loved whoever they wanted, held their religious ceremonies, made their vows, lived and slept together, and called it whatever they wanted.  

But that was never acceptable to them.  The goal was to force people to agree with gay marriage.  Letting gay people live their own lives and do their own thing doesn't serve that end.

Letting churches do their own thing doesn't serve that end, so don't expect that to be acceptable.

You will conform.

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

Wouldn't be surprised. And I'll be interested to see how many church's will refuse, as they've said they would.

What I'd love to see is for a state to tell SCOTUS to go to hell and refuse to issue the licenses, in accordance with their laws/constitutions, on the basis that their ruling is a blatant overreach of federal authority.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Me too. Love to see a State (s) tell SCOTUS pound sand.

[Ben]

So a law restricting people,from doing something they otherwise would do is gone.  Freedom is on the retreat?

A law forcing people to do something they otherwise wouldn't do has been enacted. Freedom is on the retreat.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Need to do what Germany does

http://germany.usembassy.gov/acs/getting_married/

That's bassackwards.  Of all the features of a marriage, a piece of paperwork signed by a government registrar would seem to be the least relevant.  

If a couple does everything a marriage normally entails (wedding, vows, changing names, living together as a family, buying property, conceiving & raising kids, etc) except get that registrar's signoff, would anyone argue seriously that they aren't married?

But that registrar's signoff is the only factor German law considers?  

And I suppose our law is no better.

[Viking]

This. I could care less about the gays getting married. I am more worried about stuff like churches and pastors being forced to perform marriages they do not want to.

Ditto.

Also, the SJWs are already fighting amongst themselves about this issue. Hilarious.

[charby]

That's bassackwards.  Of all the features of a marriage, a piece of paperwork signed by a government registrar would seem to be the least relevant.  

If a couple does everything a marriage normally entails (wedding, vows, changing names, living together as a family, buying property, conceiving & raising kids, etc) except get that registrar's signoff, would anyone argue seriously that they aren't married?

But that registrar's signoff is the only factor German law considers?  

And I suppose our law is no better.

Germany treats marriage/union as a legal contract, not a religious action.

[dogmush]

Germany treats marriage/union as a legal contract, not a religious action.

For the most part, so do we.

[lupinus]

So a law restricting people,from doing something they otherwise would do is gone.  Freedom is on the retreat?

Where does the federal government have the authority tell states what marriage licenses they MUST issue? I don't care where one stands on pseudo marriage of folks of the same sex, the Feds and therefor SCOTUS, have no authority to dictate such.

States rights, and people's rights within states that choose not to issue marriage license to homosexuals, have been massively eroded. So yes, it's on the retreat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Regolith]

Where does the federal government have the authority tell states what marriage licenses they MUST issue? I don't care where one stands on pseudo marriage of folks of the same sex, the Feds and therefor SCOTUS, have no authority to dictate such.

States rights, and people's rights within states that choose not to issue marriage license to homosexuals, have been massively eroded. So yes, it's on the retreat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

States, like all governments, do not have rights. They have powers.

Individuals have rights.

[lupinus]

States, like all governments, do not have rights. They have powers.

Individuals have rights.

And that makes any difference to the point....how exactly?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Perd Hapley]

For the most part, so do we.

Why do you say that?

[dogmush]

Many, Many, Many Americans get married without involving a church at all.

Even those that do involve a church, make sure they conform to the secular requirements.  An American marriage license doesn't have a spot for which church married them, nor does it have a spot for the churches approval/disapproval.

If you were to look at the documents of a married couple you would be hard pressed to know their religion, but would know the government entity that approved it down to the county level.

[snark on] and 50% of them dissolve with the assistance of lawyers.[/snark]

How is that not more like a contract?

[KD5NRH]

Germany treats marriage/union as a legal contract, not a religious action.

And that should be the extent of government involvement; recognizing the contract and potentially mediating disputes when it is dissolved.

[Perd Hapley]

Many, Many, Many Americans get married without involving a church at all.

Even those that do involve a church, make sure they conform to the secular requirements.  An American marriage license doesn't have a spot for which church married them, nor does it have a spot for the churches approval/disapproval.

If you were to look at the documents of a married couple you would be hard pressed to know their religion, but would know the government entity that approved it down to the county level.

[snark on] and 50% of them dissolve with the assistance of lawyers.[/snark]

How is that not more like a contract?

That looks like a false dichotomy of either govt or church, and if it's not a religious ceremony, it's all government's territory. I think you're leaving out the very large part that personal, familial, and social motives play in marriage vows. For example, as a religious person, part of my reluctance to divorcing my wife would be the fact that I gave my word to God that I would "have and hold for better or worse," etc. But I've never heard of anybody saying, "Hey, Jim, how can you do this? You swore to the justice of the peace that you would love her always in sickness and in health, and now you're just blowing it all off?". If we're offended about someone leaving their spouse, it's usually because the spouse is terminally ill, or because we think they should stay together for the children, that sort of thing.* The government is just a functionary that keeps the records, and demands some i's be dotted before the arrangement is done away with.


*My point is not that people should stay together for their children. I'm not looking to start that stupid debate.