SCOTUS strikes down ban on gay marriage

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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.

Indeed.  Marriage isn't a government thing.  Whether you said your vows on the courthouse steps or your favorite church, you aren't married because the government said you are, you're married because YOU said you are. 

[RocketMan]

Easy solution in government??   
I predict churches who don't tow the sodomists' line on gay marriage will be sued within a year in less than 60 days.

FTFY

[Tallpine]

Next: ban straight marriage because it makes the Gaze feel bad 

[RocketMan]

Next: ban straight marriage because it makes the Gaze feel bad 

Thinking about it, the notion doesn't sound all that far fetched anymore.

[lee n. field]

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?

Ah, can one marry in a church, without involving the state at all?

I recall, when we married, before things broke up the minister called us over to finish up "the real form" that he would at some point deliver to the courthouse.

[TommyGunn]

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

IIRC Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that the problem with "Roe vs. Wade" was that SCOTUS usurped powers that ought to belong to the state and thus prevented society from resolving the problem of abortion.
This court decision has done the same with regards to Gay Marriage.
Gays constitute maybe 1-2% of society.   I tend to think this is more serious in principle than in fact.
But, that principle is still important and someday it will come up and bite society on the butt in a far more important manner.
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.

[lupinus]

IIRC Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that the problem with "Roe vs. Wade" was that SCOTUS usurped powers that ought to belong to the state and thus prevented society from resolving the problem of abortion.
This court decision has done the same with regards to Gay Marriage.
Gays constitute maybe 1-2% of society.   I tend to think this is more serious in principle than in fact.
But, that principle is still important and someday it will come up and bite society on the butt in a far more important manner.
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.

Yeah that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ron]

More Orwellian silliness from an organ of government.

Words have meaning and marriage is what marriage is, regardless of stupid court rulings.

Considering that homosexuals are such a small percentage of the population and that only a small percentage of them want to participate in the now legal charade I'm not really worried about this whole issue.
 
On a side note a lot of "gay marriages" are "open" marriages with no children. That is not a marriage 

[dogmush]

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.

We might be talking past each other.  The Government should (and does, mostly) treat marriages as a contract.  I'm certain that plenty of folks in Germany have deeper, and even religious, aspects to their marriages.  But the statement was "Germany treats marriage as a legal contract"  I took that to mean, the government entity that is "Germany".  Any other reading doesn't make sense.  Germany is not a nation of loveless athiests, of course the individuals invest any amount of deeper meaning into their marriages.

Pretty much how we do it here.

*Also FWIW no one swears to the justice of the peace. The vows (including yours) are to your god(s) and your spouse.

[BlueStarLizzard]

More Orwellian silliness from an organ of government.

Words have meaning and marriage is what marriage is, regardless of stupid court rulings.

Considering that homosexuals are such a small percentage of the population and that only a small percentage of them want to participate in the now legal charade I'm not really worried about this whole issue.
 
On a side note a lot of "gay marriages" are "open" marriages with no children. That is not a marriage 

Probably the same number of open marriages without children on the straight side.

Seriously, can you guys ever discuss gays without bringing out a whole lot of stupid, irrelevant and judgemental crap?

If no one is going to do the smart thing and seriously work at getting rid of state certified marriage, than gay marriage is on the table. If straight marriages preformed in one state are recognized in all the others, than this is fair.
Marriage may not have been a part of SCOTUS's oversight before, but, thanks to this kerfuffle, it is now. So suck it up and deal.

[roo_ster]

Probably the same number of open marriages without children on the straight side.

Seriously, can you guys ever discuss gays without bringing out a whole lot of stupid, irrelevant and judgemental crap?

If no one is going to do the smart thing and seriously work at getting rid of state certified marriage, than gay marriage is on the table. If straight marriages preformed in one state are recognized in all the others, than this is fair.
Marriage may not have been a part of SCOTUS's oversight before, but, thanks to this kerfuffle, it is now. So suck it up and deal.

Not even close. 

[lupinus]

Probably the same number of open marriages without children on the straight side.

Seriously, can you guys ever discuss gays without bringing out a whole lot of stupid, irrelevant and judgemental crap?

If no one is going to do the smart thing and seriously work at getting rid of state certified marriage, than gay marriage is on the table. If straight marriages preformed in one state are recognized in all the others, than this is fair.
Marriage may not have been a part of SCOTUS's oversight before, but, thanks to this kerfuffle, it is now. So suck it up and deal.

Can you ever discuss gay issues without getting butt hurt?

The federal government has zero legally authority to regulate marriage. Not one damn bit of authority to do so. The only legally correct move here would have been to knock it down as a power reserved to the states and to the people of those states. Instead, they took it upon themselves to grant yet another level of authority to the federal government. Good job.

It's not about ones personal views on what some consenting adults want to do. My personal beliefs are what they are, their beliefs are what theirs are. If they want to legalize it then do it through the proper channels instead of judicial activism. THAT is what the bulk of the problem here is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dogmush]

The federal government has zero legally authority to regulate marriage. Not one damn bit of authority to do so. The only legally correct move here would have been to knock it down as a power reserved to the states and to the people of those states. Instead, they took it upon themselves to grant yet another level of authority to the federal government. Good job.

There is precedent on the books that SCOTUS can rule on marriage, and no one was really screaming for that to be overturned prior to 2010.  It's also pretty well known that SCOTUS HATES reversing an earlier SCOTUS decision.  They will, but it takes a lot. I'm not sure what everyone really expected here.

I'm not disagreeing that I'd like the state out of my relationship altogether, but that was a pipe dream.

[lupinus]

Oh I'm not saying I was holding my breath that they'd pass over a chance to screw with powers that should be reserved for the states.

But that doesn't mean I firmly believe it would have been the correct ruling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dogmush]

It's worth remembering that this particular power was usurped by fed.gov in 1862, and by SCOTUS in 1967.

[Ron]

Probably the same number of open marriages without children on the straight side.

Seriously, can you guys ever discuss gays without bringing out a whole lot of stupid, irrelevant and judgemental crap?

If no one is going to do the smart thing and seriously work at getting rid of state certified marriage, than gay marriage is on the table. If straight marriages preformed in one state are recognized in all the others, than this is fair.
Marriage may not have been a part of SCOTUS's oversight before, but, thanks to this kerfuffle, it is now. So suck it up and deal.

LOL, Orwellian doublethinkers get all riled up when you point out that they are saying; that which is not, is, or that which is, is not.

Marriage is a man/woman arrangement to connect and grow families. Since recorded history.

My point was that a percentage of "gay marriages" are sham marriages for political or other purposes and don't even fit into any concept of marriage.

You suck it up and deal with your own irrational thoughts  

[Balog]

Ah, can one marry in a church, without involving the state at all?

I recall, when we married, before things broke up the minister called us over to finish up "the real form" that he would at some point deliver to the courthouse.

Many churches take the whole "Obey the civil authorities placed over you" thing seriously, so I would assume it's almost always going to be a get both scenario.

[dogmush]

Ah, can one marry in a church, without involving the state at all?

I recall, when we married, before things broke up the minister called us over to finish up "the real form" that he would at some point deliver to the courthouse.

I missed this.  IM (limited)E, Yes. But generally not Christian ones.

[GigaBuist]

The federal government has zero legally authority to regulate marriage. Not one damn bit of authority to do so.

Yeah, they do. The 14th's relevant bit:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It doesn't take a very fancy reading of the 14th to find the fed's ability to jack their way into marriage.  It's not a new thing either.  That same clause keeps states form preventing interracial marriages. 

This wasn't much of a debatable issue in the judicial circles.  When reading the opinion of the 6th circuit that upheld's Michigan's ban and finally gave the SCOTUS a split their opinion was little more than "Meh, tossing this up.  It's not our place to overturn the will of the people but we know it'll happen eventually anyway so we're punting.  Here's the split you needed to shut this crap up."

[BlueStarLizzard]

LOL, Orwellian doublethinkers get all riled up when you point out that they are saying; that which is not, is, or that which is, is not.

Marriage is a man/woman arrangement to connect and grow families. Since recorded history.

My point was that a percentage of "gay marriages" are sham marriages for political or other purposes and don't even fit into any concept of marriage.

You suck it up and deal with your own irrational thoughts  

So, I'm guessing you're totally in support of legalizing polyogomy than. 

Hate to burst your bubble, but "Marriage" has been a lot of things in the course of recorded human history, many of which don't fall in line with your little, narrow definition.
Get over it, move on.

The 14th clears the way for Federal decisions on marriage. It's within  the scope. Instead of whinging because "omg! Gays married is not right!!!" and hiding behind BS "historical fact" maybe try to think up a way this could be used to our benefit. The 14th could be handy to those of us who want some things recognized nationally.

[MechAg94]

Many churches take the whole "Obey the civil authorities placed over you" thing seriously, so I would assume it's almost always going to be a get both scenario.

I have heard that principle in my Church with the exception of laws that conflict with the Word.  A guest pastor I heard predicted 10 years or so ago that the SC would legalize it based on the 14th Amendment.  His concern then and now was that he thought gay marriage was against Biblical teaching and he would refuse to do it.  How many Churches and pastors will compromise I don't know.  Many Churches have compromised on quite a bit these days so it would not surprise me to see it. 

As far as bluestarlizzard's comment, I agree that heterosexuals have been walking all over the sanctity of marriage for quite some time now.  I find myself not caring what homosexuals do if they keep it to themselves.  It is what they might try to legally force me to do that I am concerned about.  Considering their motivations with this, I think there will be plenty of homosexual activists pushing the limits even further.

[MechAg94]

On the other hand, we will soon have the new Reality TV Gay Divorce Court!!!! 

[Ron]

So, I'm guessing you're totally in support of legalizing polyogomy than.  

Hate to burst your bubble, but "Marriage" has been a lot of things in the course of recorded human history, many of which don't fall in line with your little, narrow definition.
Get over it, move on.

The 14th clears the way for Federal decisions on marriage. It's within  the scope. Instead of whinging because "omg! Gays married is not right!!!" and hiding behind BS "historical fact" maybe try to think up a way this could be used to our benefit. The 14th could be handy to those of us who want some things recognized nationally.

A polygamous marriage is in fact a marriage. It is also discouraged in Christianity but that is another discussion.

Words have meanings and are defined by usage (which can change over time).

We are being commanded by government to accept the new definition and start using it, or else. Nothing organic taking place here, just a power move.

Your hyperventilation's and attempts at shaming me show the emptiness of your non-arguments. That is the common tactic of the leftists to compensate for the lack of historical or reasoned arguments. Attacks, shaming, ostracize all in place of an actual reasoned position.

If you have a more historical definition than what I provided please enlighten us.

Otherwise cut out the crap and argue the position. Don't try and bait me into personal attacks because your moral/historical position is weak.  

Marriage is a man/woman arrangement to connect and grow families.

A little clunky due to being written on the fly but true nonetheless.

 

[Hutch]

As a side note, the libertarian me is in somber, reluctant agreement with SCOTUS on this one, but I still cringe.  When there are closely held principles in conflict, I defer to the 9th Amendment.  Not all of the rights we have are enumerated in the Constitution.  "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."  It is not seemly to deny people the right to make the wrong choice.  Otherwise, they are not free at all.

Otoh...

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice will not sleep forever".

Off to check quotes.

Minor edit to punctuation.  I didn't realize that BOTH of those were from TJ.

[BlueStarLizzard]

My moral and historical argument is not weak. You just refuse to pay attention to it.

And I'm just not going around and around and around on the subject, again.

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. You live in a society in which majority rules. Hate to tell you this, but the majority either supports gay marriage or doesn't care about it, supporting it by default.
Gay marriage is in and it's here to stay. The 14th amendment covers this. It's covered marriage before.

And, FWIW, the whole personal attacks thing? Yeah, if your talk the talk, walk the walk. I told you to stop whining and asked why you had to bring up a salacious "factoid" about "gay" marriage. You sit and accuse me of not making any reasoned arguments and being all emotional like a leftist.
Who's exactly is bringing the personal attacks instead of arguing the facts?