Page 84 of 193 FirstFirst ... 3474828384858694134184 ... LastLast
Results 831 to 840 of 1930

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

  1. #831
    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 Deuce View Post
    How many times did this happen with interracial marriages? How many churches have been forced to perform interracial marriages against their will?
    they are not the same and shouldn't be treated as such.

    Plenty of churches already perform ceremonies for same-sex couples. That is their choice.=
    The ones that don't will be sued for not allowing it and the courts will uphold the suits in the name of discrimination.
    pastors are technically officials of the state when they do weddings they would be forced to do so under discrimination laws if they refused.

    that is why this ruling is so bad.

    Why do you feel your right to your religious beliefs includes the right to silence my opinion of your belief?
    read alito's dissent I posted it. it says why.

  2. #832
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    45,975

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl View Post
    I've stated my case and I don't want to take the time to repeat myself. I have no problem with your brother or his partner any more than I have a problem with my associates, friends, neighbors, and family who are gay, many who are in long term committed relationships. But I can connect the dots sufficiently to believe the original definition and tradition of marriage was a good thing and that while the new thing will be welcomed and approved by many, I believe in the long run it will be very costly for all.
    This has been in the courts for years and not one single person on the conservative side has managed to provide any evidence of such a cost. All anyone on the conservative side had to do was demonstrate a legitimate state interest in stopping a man from signing a legal contract with another man.

  3. #833
    Magic!

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    24,427

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl View Post
    I've stated my case and I don't want to take the time to repeat myself. I have no problem with your brother or his partner any more than I have a problem with my associates, friends, neighbors, and family who are gay, many who are in long term committed relationships. But I can connect the dots sufficiently to believe the original definition and tradition of marriage was a good thing and that while the new thing will be welcomed and approved by many, I believe in the long run it will be very costly for all.
    Those opposed to ssm were unable to explain those costs before it was made legal in any state, they were unable to point to any costs after it was made legal in 36 states, and they are unable to define what the future costs will be. Just vague assertions of the downfall of civilization and "costs." That, in a nut shell, is why they lost.

  4. #834
    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 ludin View Post
    when those freedom trample on other peoples freedoms then it should bother you as well.
    can't wait to see pastors and church's sued for not allowing homosexuals to marry in their churchs.

    good luck finding a church to allow you to marry or even use their buildings.
    When that happens, start a thread and we'll talk about it. But churches are protected by other rights, and can marry or not for any reason as we speak.

    “It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy,” Alito writes. “In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.”

    alito got it right because this already goes on.
    Wow, that's an amazingly dumb comment from Alito. I hope there is more to it than that. "Vilifying" others with which we disagree is a cherished American right, and so is dissent. After all the church vilifies gays every day of every week of every year and has for centuries. That's not a problem with him and it's not a problem with me. I can disagree, and I can say they're bigots or idiots or worse (I don't believe that is necessarily true), and we are ALL exercising our rights as Americans.

  5. #835
    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 AlbqOwl View Post
    I've stated my case and I don't want to take the time to repeat myself. I have no problem with your brother or his partner any more than I have a problem with my associates, friends, neighbors, and family who are gay, many who are in long term committed relationships. But I can connect the dots sufficiently to believe the original definition and tradition of marriage was a good thing and that while the new thing will be welcomed and approved by many, I believe in the long run it will be very costly for all.
    OK, but I'm not trying to be argumentative or combative. I seriously don't understand how the dots connect and was hoping for an explanation. I'm not offended by your position, just trying to understand better. But if you don't care to explain that's fine of course.

  6. #836
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    22,683

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

    I only have a problem with this because the court has now opened itself up to having to defend its decision here by challenges from those being denied Plural marriages. The argument can now be made based on the wording of the Decision that Plural marriages are also constitutional.

  7. #837
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    45,975

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    they are not the same and shouldn't be treated as such.
    That's a cop out. I've never seen a report of any church being forced to perform any wedding ceremony against its will. (not including "churches" that are actually for-profit wedding venue businesses open to the public).


    The ones that don't will be sued for not allowing it and the courts will uphold the suits in the name of discrimination.
    pastors are technically officials of the state when they do weddings they would be forced to do so under discrimination laws if they refused.
    There aren't any laws against "discrimination" in such a broad sense. Cite your legal precedent. Which law do you think this will fall under? I want specific language from a specific statute.

    that is why this ruling is so bad.



    read alito's dissent I posted it. it says why.
    If you are unable to articulate your own opinion, it must be a weak argument.

  8. #838
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    45,975

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    I only have a problem with this because the court has now opened itself up to having to defend its decision here by challenges from those being denied Plural marriages. The argument can now be made based on the wording of the Decision that Plural marriages are also constitutional.
    What wording, specifically?

  9. #839
    Magic!

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    24,427

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    I only have a problem with this because the court has now opened itself up to having to defend its decision here by challenges from those being denied Plural marriages. The argument can now be made based on the wording of the Decision that Plural marriages are also constitutional.
    Just remember that a slippery slope starts at the top: "Once you give men and women the right to marry, next thing you know people of the same sex will start demanding the right to marry."

  10. #840
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    45,975

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    Just remember that a slippery slope starts at the top: "Once you give men and women the right to marry, next thing you know people of the same sex will start demanding the right to marry."
    If we let interracial couples marry, we have to let children marry verbs.

Posting Permissions

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