Supreme Court strikes down same-sex marriage bans

[Thumb]

Clearly we are not looking at this ruling in the same way. The Court has forced me to accept the false concept that two people of the same sex can be married.

It's only false to some. And you can still pretend they're not really married in the eyes of god, blah, blah, blah, all you want. The only difference now is your religion(s) don't get to dictate the terms to everyone else.

Also a big part of Christianity is love and compassion for all of mankind. Perhaps you should pray for wisdom and forgiveness and put the hatred aside.

 

[byco42]

It's only false to some. And you can still pretend they're not really married in the eyes of god, blah, blah, blah, all you want. The only difference now is your religion(s) don't get to dictate the terms to everyone else.

I dictated no terms to anybody. My religion has not either. It, and I, have only expressed opposition. But those days are over now.

Also a big part of Christianity is love and compassion for all of mankind. Perhaps you should pray for wisdom and forgiveness and put the hatred aside.

I harbor no "hatred" for anyone. Being opposed to this does not translate to "hatred" toward gays any more than does my opposition to abortion translate to "hatred" toward women.

Buzzwords like "hatred" are a distraction.

 

[Monster]

You can't get married but that doesn't mean I hate you. I have this book here that contains dozens of commands that I ignore...except for the one that says "Adam and Eve - not Adam and Steve." But I don't hate you. I just choose to not ignore that part of my book.

 

[turok]

The White House is all gaily lit up in the colors of the rainbow tonight to celebrate the SCOTUS ruling...whoa...talk about rubbing salt into the rightwing's wounds....lol.

 

[Thumb]

http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/a-30-second-guide-to-how-gay-marriage-ruling-affects-you/

 

[Monster]

The White House is all gaily lit up in the colors of the rainbow tonight to celebrate the SCOTUS ruling...whoa...talk about rubbing salt into the rightwing's wounds....lol.

have you read any right wing news outlets comment sections today? WOW. I don't think I've ever seen them so angry. I would be shocked if we don't have more right wing terrorism soon.

 

[evolutionkb]

I dictated no terms to anybody. My religion has not either. It, and I, have only expressed opposition.

Opposition(and maybe not by you personally) that in fact had made it into law by supporting the politicians that want to keep marriage between one man and one woman. The ability for gay people to get married affects you ZERO. If you use your constitutionally granted right of freedom of speech, the public at large can shun or support you as they see fit. The public would have the same reaction to your opposition before or after the supreme court decision.

 

[turok]

have you read any right wing news outlets comment sections today? WOW. I don't think I've ever seen them so angry. I would be shocked if we don't have more right wing terrorism soon.

Your Satan .gif that I "borrowed" came in very handy as troll spray on some sites that I frequent...

But yeah, I peeked @ Breitbart & World Nut Daily. The posters there were foaming @ the mouth. Didn't try to stir them up very much, b/c I prefer to have an open Disqus profile, and didn't want to attract a stalker.

Some state and federal Republicans are looking into ways that they can subvert the decision, such as Mississippi getting out of issuing marriage licenses altogether, and RNC presidential primary candidates such as Ted Crudz vowing to establish a new US Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage. Good luck with getting enough popular votes nationwide, idiot!!

Crudz also proposed a Constitutional amendment that would subject SC Justices to retention elections every eight years.

 

[zyxt9]

8 years would be way too short, but something like a 20 year max or upon reaching 85 years, whichever cones first would be something to consider. When initially conceived as a life-long appointmentm not many people considered we could have a SC populated by all 90+ year old members, but it is becoming more possible all the time. It takes long enough for them to hear cases and pass rulings, can you imagine how long it would take such a group?

 

[turok]

8 years would be way too short, but something like a 20 year max or upon reaching 85 years, whichever cones first would be something to consider. When initially conceived as a life-long appointmentm not many people considered we could have a SC populated by all 90+ year old members, but it is becoming more possible all the time. It takes long enough for them to hear cases and pass rulings, can you imagine how long it would take such a group?

I agree that a SCOTUS Justice should be subject to age and sitting limits, but I would set the max age @ 80 and the time to 25 and 30 years, the latter for whoever is the Chief Justice.

Of course this wannabe Napoleon megalomaniac is proposing this with the idea of an entirely rightwing-biased and conservative SCOTUS, but he apparently doesn't realize or understand that his plot could mostly or completely result in having the directly opposite effect as well.

 

[food4thought]

I'm with Tinsel... government should not be regulating a religious institution. Marriage originated as a religious ritual to grant God's recognition and blessing on the union of a man and a woman. By regulating what a marriage is and is not over the last decade or so, our government has been trampling all over their cherished wall of separation between church and state.

Since marriage has been corrupted from it's original religious form, and the courts are unlikely to overturn this ruling anytime soon, I suggest that those of us who think America just flipped God the bird should encourage our churches to cease doing marriage ceremonies entirely. Let people who want the tax benefits of marriage go to the justice of the peace. Instead, the church can do strictly religious ceremonies to join people together before God... we could call them gamizo (greek word translated marriage in Bible) celebrations or something.

No tangible benefit from the government, so it is no longer a civil liberties issue, only a religious ceremony that is protected from government regulation/control. Everybody wins... except for the fact that this brings America one step closer to being judged by God, but most people don't believe that, which is why we're going down this road to begin with. America is only as Christian as it voters are, and popular opinion has been leaning more and more towards support of same sex marriage for some time now, so this court decision only sped things up a bit.

 

[Thumb]

I'm with Tinsel... government should not be regulating a religious institution. Marriage originated as a religious ritual to grant God's recognition and blessing on the union of a man and a woman. By regulating what a marriage is and is not over the last decade or so, our government has been trampling all over their cherished wall of separation between church and state.

Since marriage has been corrupted from it's original religious form, and the courts are unlikely to overturn this ruling anytime soon, I suggest that those of us who think America just flipped God the bird should encourage our churches to cease doing marriage ceremonies entirely. Let people who want the tax benefits of marriage go to the justice of the peace. Instead, the church can do strictly religious ceremonies to join people together before God... we could call them gamizo (greek word translated marriage in Bible) celebrations or something.

No tangible benefit from the government, so it is no longer a civil liberties issue, only a religious ceremony that is protected from government regulation/control. Everybody wins... except for the fact that this brings America one step closer to being judged by God, but most people don't believe that, which is why we're going down this road to begin with. America is only as Christian as it voters are, and popular opinion has been leaning more and more towards support of same sex marriage for some time now, so this court decision only sped things up a bit.

What horseshit.

Maybe 6000 years ago when people still lived with the dinosaurs marriage was a religious thing, but for the last couple of hundred it's definitely a legal thing. what you bible-thumping slappies need to get through your heads is the same sex community did not want this law passed so they could be viewed as married in the eyes of god, they wanted the benefits everyone else gets like insurance, death benefits, next of kin qualification, and pension benefits, and rightly so.

 

[grandy]

Marriage was originally about strategic alliances and preserving power, it didn't become a religious thing until later. It was also usually one man and multiple women, which is not acceptable in many modern societies. Marriage has changed throughout the centuries, the religious institution of one man and one woman was simply part of this evolution of marriage.

http://www.livescience.com/37777-history-of-marriage.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17351133
http://theweek.com/articles/475141/how-marriage-changed-over-centuries
http://origins.osu.edu/article/real-marriage-revolution

 

[tigersofjustice]

Time for polygamy equality now!!! Not that I want multiple wives. One wife and a few girlfriends will do fine.

 

[Monster]

ahhh the old gay marriage = polygamy argument. I have a better argument.

My neighbor can own and carry his AR-15, so I must have a fully equipped tank and some nukes. False equivalence.

Do I think a man should be able to marry as many women as he wants? Or a woman marry however many men she wants? Or a group of people marry each other? I don't know. As long as it's consensual and doesn't do harm to anyone else, why not? I truly don't care, but it's obviously a much more complex issue than two men who live together and want to have all the legal protections and recognition of being a lawful union that straight people do.

Two people should be able to be married as long as 1.) It is consensual and both parties are able to make a decision about sex and marriage. That rules out animals, mentally handicapped adults, and children and 2.) The individuals are not related closely enough to be considered incest.

 

[turok]

Time for polygamy equality now!!! Not that I want multiple wives. One wife and a few girlfriends will do fine.

Having more than one gf never worked for me, I always wound up favoring one over the others, plus the time and costs involved maintaining multiple relationships.

Most girls weren't exactly too keen on my having other gfs, once ours became sexually active as well.

 

[byco42]

Opposition(and maybe not by you personally) that in fact had made it into law by supporting the politicians that want to keep marriage between one man and one woman. The ability for gay people to get married affects you ZERO. If you use your constitutionally granted right of freedom of speech, the public at large can shun or support you as they see fit. The public would have the same reaction to your opposition before or after the supreme court decision.

In my opinion this issue will mushroom into one that affects far more than whether or not two people of the same sex are allowed to marry. You, if you do, and I, will not be allowed, in time, to oppose this. The argument that "it does not affect me" is one of deliberate abdication of my morality. And the difference between my neighbor opposing my viewpoint and the government opposing it should be obvious. My responsibility is to inform that to change the definition of marriage is an offense to God and His will. Those who disagree do so out of either their ignorance, defiance or confusion over this truth.

 

[tinselwolverine]

In my opinion this issue will mushroom into one that affects far more than whether or not two people of the same sex are allowed to marry. You, if you do, and I, will not be allowed, in time, to oppose this.

We live in a country where a person can openly display the swastika, or the stars and bars, or both, symbols of ideologies that this country directly went to war with, based on one's first amendment rights.

We live in a country where a person has the first amendment right to burn the very flag of.

You claim that all these rights will continue, but the government will somehow craft a first amendment encroachment on your right to simply claim that same-sex marriage goes against your religious beliefs?

 

[byco42]

We live in a country where a person can openly display the swastika, or the stars and bars, or both, symbols of ideologies that this country directly went to war with, based on one's first amendment rights.

We live in a country where a person has the first amendment right to burn the very flag of.

You claim that all these rights will continue, but the government will somehow craft a first amendment encroachment on your right to simply claim that same-sex marriage goes against your religious beliefs?

Have you not been following the news? It's already happening.

 

[turok]

Have you not been following the news? It's already happening.

I have, and have heard or read nothing that has been much worse than the outright and blatantly obvious bigoted discrimination and public/private scorn that most LBGTs have suffered through much of their entire lives.

You post as if every single one of those who feel that their sexual preferences are a personal affront to their pious beliefs, and that is how all of them live their lives, virtually absent any sinning themselves. Nothing could be further from the truth.