Page 49 of 193 FirstFirst ... 3947484950515999149 ... LastLast
Results 481 to 490 of 1930

Thread: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

  1. #481
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,433

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    The next move, if the right is serious about the so called damage this will cause society, will be for them to push to have government eliminate all benefits that accrue to those who hold paper. Tax and other law should be based on individuals and the rights of individuals. To do otherwise will open up the courts to the next wave of social, sexual, rights seekers.
    I certainly hope that won't happen and don't really think it's even a remote possibility. There are simply many advantages to recognizing marriage and stripping those advantages away because a small % of the population can now also get married would be the ultimate exercise in self destructive bigotry.

  2. #482
    Guru

    Winchester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    3,825

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by csbrown28 View Post
    I didn't read it, but do you think that is what the decision demands? I mean I'm a supporter of SS marriage, but I don't think that religious institutions should be forced to marry if they don't want to.
    I don't think they should be forced to marry people either. However I think it will eventually come down to you either marry everyone or no one, no picking and choosing.

  3. #483
    Guru

    Winchester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    3,825

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    We haven't seen any and it isn't likely to happen anytime soon. This issue is just way too out there, especially since you can get someone to get ordained for free for your specific wedding with little effort, and the government provides the service as well. Now, I can see lawsuits if the JoPs refuse, or worse, are allowed to refuse by law, as some states are trying to do. But that is different because they are being paid by the state to do this.
    You're probably right.

  4. #484
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 04:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,652

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Winchester View Post
    I don't think they should be forced to marry people either. However I think it will eventually come down to you either marry everyone or no one, no picking and choosing.
    See^^^ It's already happening. You do realize that by virtue of your statement you are invalidating the right of a person to religiously express their faith. This right is precisely the right to pick and choose!


    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  5. #485
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:53 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,353

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    So .... it sounds like the SCOTUS left it up to the States to still make the decision as to the legality of SSM, but if done in a state where it IS legal, they states that have banned it must recognize it as legal. A bit nuanced and lets see if those states which still ban it either reverse their ban or re-litigate.

    I do agree with the decision though - if State A says it's legal and the couple moves to State B where it's illegal - State B still has to recognize the marriage. It seems reasonable.
    "Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority's approach is deeply disheartening," he wrote. "... The majority's decision is an act of will, not legal judgment."

    Roberts wrote: "If you are among the many Americans -- of whatever sexual orientation -- who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. ... But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."

    we don't have a court that upholds the constitution. we have a court that does whatever the hell it wants based on the political view of the justices.

    2 times in 1 week they have failed up hold the constitution and instead come up with unconstitutional acts.

    the entire bench needs to be removed and arrested for violation of their duty this week. they have proven that they are not capable of office or capable of
    constitutional judgement just whatever whim they want to pass when they want to pass it.

    next we will see them stopping all over religious rights next.

  6. #486
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,433

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by JayDubya View Post
    Tyranny is not a win just because you agree with what the tyrant does today.
    What is bizarre to me is equating the expansion of a right (in this case to marry) with tyranny. I find the concepts directly opposed - expanding rights that don't infringe on anyone else's rights is the polar opposite of my idea of "tyranny." Tyranny would be living in Saudi Arabia where the Imams or whatever dictate their narrow religious views on the rest of us and those of us who step out of line get charged with crimes and punished. We're doing the exact opposite - expanding individual freedom.

  7. #487
    Guru
    csbrown28's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    NW Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,987

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Winchester View Post
    I don't think they should be forced to marry people either. However I think it will eventually come down to you either marry everyone or no one, no picking and choosing.
    I dunno, I don't agree. I mean making a bakery baked a cake for a SS couple is not the same as forcing a Baptist minister to perform a SS marriage. I would be shocked if that's what it comes to.
    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary (or faith) depends upon his not understanding it.”

  8. #488
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 02:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    That's my point - same thing happens here. We're well past the time when government has any national interest in promoting marriage through tax and benefit policy. Government should be out of the marriage business. The government should treat all individuals equally regardless of their marital status. If government wasn't in the business of picking winners and losers based on marital status, you wouldn't have had this massive battle over sanctioning same sex marriage.
    You mentioned something about churches being required to be married, that simply is not true, churches can refuse to marry for any reason.


  9. #489
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,923

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    See^^^ It's already happening. You do realize that by virtue of your statement you are invalidating the right of a person to religiously express their faith. This right is precisely the right to pick and choose!


    Tim-
    You should probably go back and read the discussion. He thinks that no one but government employees should be able to sign the marriage certificate/license altogether, which would completely avoid lawsuits on this issue. He did not say that such lawsuits would be right and should go through.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  10. #490
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    46,197

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    These people are on here gloating and rubbing it in...they'll never get an apology from me.

    Marriage certificates are a relic of yesteryear. Over half of married couples divorce. To not prepare for the possibility is foolish
    Some of them are. Butwhat does that tell you about who they are and ultimately, how they feel about themselves?

    Going into a marriage preparing for the divorce is a pretty rock solid way to ensure you will need that preparation. Just sayin.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •