SCOTUS Gay Marriage Thread

[tarcone]

I don't know why you think this has anything to do with churches. Churches already had the ability to deny to perform weddings. What makes you think they've lost that?



There are lots of things a legislator might be in favor of that are unconstitutional or may become unconstitutional in the future. That's the way it works. What does a court clerk do? I'm sure they are against many things that come before the court. There is a compelling government interest in offering access to this. The remedy will be to replace you if your religious beliefs prevent you from fulfilling the duties of the job.

There are lots of things that are legal that schoolteachers are not required to promote. What makes you think they have to promote it?

There is so much FUD in your post that I cannot believe you really think all of that is true.

Lack of quotations on my part. I pulled this for an article. Sorry about that. Not my thoughts. I don't know if this will happen. And I hope not. I was just illustrating some of the thought process that is starting to percolate out there.

[Subby]

Was it a bad law in the books of many states? Sure.
But it was voted on by the people of the states. And most states were changing those laws. So, why did the feds have to step in? They didn't. But an overzealous group of judges felt they needed to legislate.
Checks and balances. If states don't like it, then amend the constitution. Otherwise, the Supreme Court has done their job and invalidated a law or set of laws which violates the equal protection clause.

[tarcone]

Yeah they said the same about Jim Crow, too. Somehow I think that wouldn't have happened. Just a hunch.

Considering it was being legalized in most states already, you are not correct. Only 13 states are left with the law on the books. And those were falling by the wayside this year. Only 3 are standing up against the SCOTUS ruling today.
In 2004, Missouri passed an amendment banning same sex marriage. This year St. Louis allowed same sex people to marry. Change was happening fast. And at the right level.

Time to get your head out of the sand.

[digamma]

So, we'll put you in the Huckabee camp of either needing a refresh on basic U.S. Civics or being willfully ignorant about how judicial review works? Fair?

As my 2 year old says, "So, ummm...."

[Tekneek]

Referring back to Loving v Virginia, I always found this quote that was taken from the original trial judge's decision quite disturbing:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

A Judge invoked religion to justify an anti-miscegenation law.

[Subby]

Considering it was being legalized in most states already, you are not correct. Only 13 states are left with the law on the books. And those were falling by the wayside this year. Only 3 are standing up against the SCOTUS ruling today.
In 2004, Missouri passed an amendment banning same sex marriage. This year St. Louis allowed same sex people to marry. Change was happening fast. And at the right level.

Time to get your head out of the sand.
Fast for you maybe. Not fast enough for people in the states where they were being denied equal protection under the law.

[tarcone]

States were doing their jobs. Laws were being changed at the state level. Where they were passed. With the support of the people of those states.

The due process of law was being followed. States were changing the laws about same sex marriage.

Change was here. The Supreme Court should not have gotten involved.

[tarcone]

I having a hard time with the protection statement. What needed to be protected? How is marrying someone protecting you Under the law?
No one was going to jail for marrying a person of the same sex. Is this based solely on child custody and inheritance? And we're those things being trampled by states?

What exactly is not being protected equally? Or did I answer my own questions?

[corbes]

I having a hard time with the protection statement. What needed to be protected? How is marrying someone protecting you Under the law?
No one was going to jail for marrying a person of the same sex. Is this based solely on child custody and inheritance? And we're those things being trampled by states?

What exactly is not being protected equally? Or did I answer my own questions?

Try the first 33 pages or so of this document (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf).

[molson]

States were doing their jobs. Laws were being changed at the state level. Where they were passed. With the support of the people of those states.

.

Only about 13 states actually passed legislation legalizing gay marriage. The rest got there through the courts, either state or federal. My state banned gay marriage, but the ban was overturned by the 9th circuit. If the supreme court went the other way, the state ban would have been back in effect.

[JPhillips]

I having a hard time with the protection statement. What needed to be protected? How is marrying someone protecting you Under the law?
No one was going to jail for marrying a person of the same sex. Is this based solely on child custody and inheritance? And we're those things being trampled by states?

What exactly is not being protected equally? Or did I answer my own questions?

Just stop before you further embarrass yourself. Either you're being willfully obtuse or you aren't clever enough to understand the meaning of the term.

[Solecismic]

I have a hard time going with the "wait until my state does the right thing" argument. It would be a long wait in many places.

Two counties out of marriage business for good after Supreme Court ruling | AL.com (http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/06/alabama_probate_office_closes.html)

Included are many quotes from state officials indicating that their personal religious beliefs are more important than the rights of the people in their state.

This may be comforting to you, but to those who don't share their personal faith, it's horrifying. As it should be to anyone. Imagine if someone from a religion entirely different from yours had the power. Our Founding Fathers - both those who were religious and those who weren't - had no trouble imagining that horror.

[Subby]

Seriously man - you are embarrassing yourself. You are basically arguing for the dissolution of the Supreme Court because they handed down a decision with which you do not agree.

[ISiddiqui]

States were doing their jobs. Laws were being changed at the state level. Where they were passed. With the support of the people of those states.

The due process of law was being followed. States were changing the laws about same sex marriage.

Change was here. The Supreme Court should not have gotten involved.

Fuck the Constitution because ... uh... states were doing their jobs?

[AENeuman]

I have no issue with who marries who. I have an issue when the Feds start impinging on the states right to govern.
This is an emotional issue. But it was forced upon the land in the wrong way. This will cause more problems long term. It should have been done the right way. And had it, I imagine within a couple years you would have seen 90% of states legalizing it and within a couple years after that, every state.

It is not the judicial branches job to make law. And that's what they did.

Seriously, what do you think is the function of the Supreme Court? And have they ever made a decision/"law" that you thought was right or Consitutional?


BTW, you would have failed my Civics class... It is essential to understand majority rules vs minority rights and the role the Supreme Court.

[digamma]

States were doing their jobs. Laws were being changed at the state level. Where they were passed. With the support of the people of those states.

The due process of law was being followed. States were changing the laws about same sex marriage.

Change was here. The Supreme Court should not have gotten involved.

My other quips aside, you understand how cases get to the Supreme Court, right? They first get brought at the trial court level and then are appealed either to the highest state court or federal circuit court of appeals. The case is then appealed to the USSC, which can accept or deny hearing the case. The USSC doesn't just decide to get involved.

On your second question, corbes link provides all the details, but one of the cases before the court involved being recognized as a surviving spouse for a host of reasons, one involved a recognition of a two parent adoption (again important for a number of reasons and one involved overall recognition of the marriage within the new state.

[Brian Swartz]

So much going on here :).

Brian - do you have any issues with the sexual nerves involved?

I do not know what you mean, and the way it's phrased I'm afraid to guess :). Could you be more specific please?

On polygamy -- whether there is a serious group going in that direction is irrelevant, equal rights are equal rights. American opinion is sliding in the direction of it as well, though still with low approval but again, that shouldn't matter as a matter of law. Any and all marriages involving any number of people who are of legal standing to consent would be the logical outcome.

The objection has been raised that the issue here was a segment of the population was not allowed to marry. This is not true. The issue was, they were only allowed to marry those of the other gender. In other words, they could marry but were limited in who they could marry. If anyone can marry anyone -- well, that means exactly what it says. In my opinion, this would not significantly change things from where we are now.

If SCOTUS finds a law to be unconstitutional, it does not matter what any state thinks about it. The U.S. Constitution supersedes all.

This is sadly true, in contrast to the intent of the founders. Hamilton would be disgusted as with many others. Of course they were wrong about many things. Regardless, those who are suggesting an organized resistance to the ruling are dead wrong IMO. It must be given the same respect as any other SCOTUS finding. Civil disobedience should be done the right way and only if absolutely necessary, with respect and openly, expecting to humbly pay the penalty of law for such action.

I just can't believe that people think the government is going to outlaw their religion because they've ruled that the government has to treat people equally.

As stated, I agree with you. I think it's ridiculous. But there are significant concerns that are not so ridiculous. Here's how it's progressed, in stages:

** Stage 1: With the modern understanding of separation of church and state, secular views are inherently superior to those of religious views as a matter of constitutional law. Ergo, the person of faith can exercise their religion anywhere they see fit, but they'd better keep it out of politics.

** Stage 2: This is where we are now. From politics to the professional. We know for example now that anywhere there are public accommodation laws on the books, a person of religious convictions that objects cannot be involved in any business involved in catering to weddings in any fashion. Photographers, bakers, wedding chapels, those who might operate venues used for weddings, etc. As Roberts mentioned in his dissent, this type of thing will almost certainly continue. He mentioned private adoption agencies and religious colleges, there are many other places where this will come in. At least at this point, the conscientious person of faith who won't participate in or support same-sex marriages will continue to be pushed out of a number of important avenues of business.

** Stage 3 would be the personal level. We aren't there yet, and at this point I'd agree with you I think it very unlikely to happen. The question is, does it really matter? If a religious person does not have free expression in the political arena and they don't have it the business arena, how can they truly be considered free to exercise their religion? This is what is gradually coming, and I don't think it's unreasonable at all.

This is not a woe-is-me, persecution-based pity party. As mentioned I believe this is going to be a great time of opportunity. But when equal protection under the law(government not discriminating) is expanded to mean equal protection by everyone(businesses/citizens can't discriminate either), then by nature those who object are going to be gradually pushed out of more and more areas if they can't or won't bow to the new orthodoxy. It's simply inevitable and things cannot be otherwhise.

[Thomkal]

I have a hard time going with the "wait until my state does the right thing" argument. It would be a long wait in many places.

Two counties out of marriage business for good after Supreme Court ruling | AL.com (http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/06/alabama_probate_office_closes.html)

Included are many quotes from state officials indicating that their personal religious beliefs are more important than the rights of the people in their state.

This may be comforting to you, but to those who don't share their personal faith, it's horrifying. As it should be to anyone. Imagine if someone from a religion entirely different from yours had the power. Our Founding Fathers - both those who were religious and those who weren't - had no trouble imagining that horror.

Seriously the answer to gay marriage is to stop issuing Marriage licenses, for both same sex and traditional couples? I hope they enjoy looking for new jobs then. If you don't like/personally against your new job responsibilties, you quit rather than stop everybody from getting married. :banghead:

[molson]

Hamilton would be disgusted as with many others.

With what, the concept of the constitution as the supreme law of the land or the concept of judicial review? Hamilton was on board with both, even before Marbury v. Madison.

[Brian Swartz]

The second part. As originally instituted, SCOTUS was not considered the final arbiter of the Constitution. They did have the power of judicial review but it was not an absolute power(for example, Jefferson's refusal to enforce the Alien & Sedition Acts because he didn't believe they were constitutional).

[BigPapi]

I have a hard time going with the "wait until my state does the right thing" argument. It would be a long wait in many places.

Two counties out of marriage business for good after Supreme Court ruling | AL.com (http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/06/alabama_probate_office_closes.html)

Included are many quotes from state officials indicating that their personal religious beliefs are more important than the rights of the people in their state.

This may be comforting to you, but to those who don't share their personal faith, it's horrifying. As it should be to anyone. Imagine if someone from a religion entirely different from yours had the power. Our Founding Fathers - both those who were religious and those who weren't - had no trouble imagining that horror.

Maybe you can elucidate on this further; I'm having trouble parsing the difference of having another's religious beliefs transferred unwillingly to oneself and having an unelected and unaccountable 9 person panel transfer their personal beliefs on another? That's why the Founding Father's intended for the people to vote on these matters. And please don't twist this into my disparaging the intent of the Supreme Court; this is about 5 individuals operating wholly outside the bounds of their authority.

The very scary truth here has nothing to do with Gay Marriage. It's a disturbing precedent that the Supreme Court is solidifying it's role from constitutional enforcer to groundbreaking activist.

I find it mildly amusing- and slightly ironic, reading the accusations of some on this board that dissenters of this ruling can only be so
because of clear personal bias against the gay community. As judge Roberts put it:

"Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law,"

I concur further with his sentiments that this robs the states of the satisfaction of passing these laws of their own volition:

"Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today," Roberts wrote. "Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept."

I'm almost afraid to ask: How may among us would still see justice in this law passing even if 60% of eligible voters in their state would vote against it? There's a word for that type of government folks.

[ISiddiqui]

Nope. It's about the interpretation of the Due Process Clause (Substantive Due Process doctrine in this case - the same doctrine used in Loving v. Virginia) and the Equal Protection clause as it applies to homosexuals wishing to get married. Not personal, Constitutional.

[Thomkal]

Seriously man - you are embarrassing yourself. You are basically arguing for the dissolution of the Supreme Court because they handed down a decision with which you do not agree.

Speaking of that....


Bobby Jindal wants to get rid of US Supreme Court - The Economic Times (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/bobby-jindal-wants-to-get-rid-of-us-supreme-court/articleshow/47840663.cms)

Even Republican talking heads are shaking their heads at this one. He's pissed off at the Obamacare ruling too. He still thinks they can repeal Obamacare too. The Supreme Court is right there in the Constitution that Republicans keep waving in our faces-so your answer is to remove them from it? Seriously? I didn't think there was anybody crazier than Ted Cruz running for President. I stand corrected.

[molson]

I know the Supreme Court applied a higher level of equal protection scrutiny, but just applying classic rational basis scrutiny, the pro gay-marriage ban arguments always seemed to have some holes. What is the legitimate government interest in excluding gay people from marriage, and how is any legitimate interest related to these bans? The ones usually set forth in briefs before these courts - "The protection of marriage" and "the need to encourage responsible procreation" always seemed like a stretch.

Of course, in this thread, people seem to be arguing against the entire concept of judicial review and the rational basis test, which is why I posted that I thought it would be a better argument to stick to what Roberts wrote, but some are going WAY beyond that here.

I think the judicial branch in the U.S. is disproportionally powerful, and tend to be conservative on separation of powers issues, but I'm not sure what the the appellate courts are supposed to be doing at all if not interpreting statutes and evaluating their constitutionality.

[ISiddiqui]

The second part. As originally instituted, SCOTUS was not considered the final arbiter of the Constitution. They did have the power of judicial review but it was not an absolute power(for example, Jefferson's refusal to enforce the Alien & Sedition Acts because he didn't believe they were constitutional).

What makes you think this? Jefferson was, after all, against judicial review entirely. That's why Marbury v. Madison was decided in the way it was - Chief Justice John Marshall declared the act unconstitutional, but in doing so ruled for Madison (ie, Jefferson's Secretary of State).

Most of the Constitution writers believed in judicial review (most of them were Federalists - Jefferson was off in France at the time, remember). Statements were made by 15 delegates at the Constitutional Convention that the federal courts should have the power to review the constitutionality of laws, with only 2 delegates speaking opposed. And in Federalist #78, there is a reference to it as well:

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."
- Alexander Hamilton

In fact the opponents of ratification were the ones who objected to giving the Supreme Court such power...

"The supreme court then have a right, independent of the legislature, to give a construction to the constitution and every part of it, and there is no power provided in this system to correct their construction or do it away. If, therefore, the legislature pass any laws, inconsistent with the sense the judges put upon the constitution, they will declare it void."
- Robert Yates (Anti-Federalist politician and judge from the State of NY)

Indicating that everyone was aware of the power being giving to the courts over Constitutional interpretation.

So, I think you are quite mistaken here.

[digamma]

I'd argue this kind of review by the Supreme Court is exactly what our Constitution intended. We're protecting against tyranny of the majority, or stripping rights just because a majority of people want a desired outcome.

The interesting thing is there are provisions in the Constitution that allow for a sort of tyranny of the super-majority. This is in effect what Walker is talking about with a Constitutional amendment. But, absent that, it's the Supreme Court's job to judge whether laws violate the Constitution.

[Draft Dodger]

if our founding fathers had been told that 250 years later we would still be using their 18th century rules to apply to 21st century society...they would probably laugh so hard that their wigs would fall off.

[JPhillips]

Brian: How can you say religion is not allowed in politics? It's a major discussion in every campaign.

[CU Tiger]

what long term problems do you think this will create? i am having problems imagining any.

The only thing Ive read that even made sense is: (Though I wouldnt call this a problem :D )

Bearing ArmsSCOTUS Ruling On Same-Sex Marriage Mandates Nationwide Concealed Carry Reciprocity - Bearing Arms (http://bearingarms.com/scotus-ruling-sex-marriage-mandates-nationwide-concealed-carry-reciprocity/?utm_source=bafbp&utm_medium=fbpage&utm_campaign=baupdate)



I do think there will eventually be a "protected class discrimination" challenge against Religions who refuse to marry same sex couples. A Catholic Priest can choose not to marry a non Catholic, without violating protected class (freedom of religion) because the specific nature of the protected class is the basis of the affiliation's existence. However if the right of refusal is a protected class other than religious affiliation , I.E. sexual orientation, I think in time it will be challenged in the courts. I'm not sure how I feel that will or should be resolved I just think it will be challenged eventually.

[AENeuman]

And please don't twist this into my disaparaging the purpose of Supreme Court; this is about 5 individuals operating wholly outside the bounds of their authority.


This is getting silly, come on people! I have power points if needed!

Outside the bounds? So your problem is with Roberts taking up this (non) case?

Is it possible for 100% of voters to pass a state constitutional amendment and yet be dismissed by the Supreme Court? (Hint: segregation) And why just states? Why can't a county pass laws that are outside the bounds of the Judical Branch?

So, the problem can't be the Supreme Court can declare voter driven legislation unconstitutional, right? So what is it?

Where you could be arguing this is on the "new" interpretation and excessive use of the equal protection clause. It would at least a nuanced argument.

[RainMaker]

So much going on here :).
** Stage 2: This is where we are now. From politics to the professional. We know for example now that anywhere there are public accommodation laws on the books, a person of religious convictions that objects cannot be involved in any business involved in catering to weddings in any fashion. Photographers, bakers, wedding chapels, those who might operate venues used for weddings, etc. As Roberts mentioned in his dissent, this type of thing will almost certainly continue. He mentioned private adoption agencies and religious colleges, there are many other places where this will come in. At least at this point, the conscientious person of faith who won't participate in or support same-sex marriages will continue to be pushed out of a number of important avenues of business.


So now we care about freedom to operate a business how we want. Last I checked Christians were behind a lot of the Blue Laws. I can't buy a car on Sunday in Illinois. When I lived in Minnesota I couldn't buy booze on Sundays either. Every state has their share of these laws which were motivated by religion.

There are laws that ban adult establishments from being operated near a place of worship (strip clubs, porn stores, etc). These businesses are constantly being targeted by religious groups. Christians pushed hard for obscenity prosecutions when Bush was in power and we saw a huge rise in that. Medical centers are fought tooth and nail if they provide legal abortions. Pharmaceutical companies are hindered in putting contraceptives on the market. I could go on and on and not even touch on the tax exempt status and other financial benefits that give distinct business advantages.

So drop the "pushed out of a number of business avenues" bullshit. It makes you guys look like massive hypocrites.

[AENeuman]

What makes you think this? Jefferson was, after all, against judicial review entirely. That's why Marbury v. Madison was decided in the way it was - Chief Justice John Marshall declared the act unconstitutional, but in doing so ruled for Madison (ie, Jefferson's Secretary of State).

Most of the Constitution writers believed in judicial review (most of them were Federalists - Jefferson was off in France at the time, remember). Statements were made by 15 delegates at the Constitutional Convention that the federal courts should have the power to review the constitutionality of laws, with only 2 delegates speaking opposed. And in Federalist #78, there is a reference to it as well:

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."
- Alexander Hamilton

In fact the opponents of ratification were the ones who objected to giving the Supreme Court such power...

"The supreme court then have a right, independent of the legislature, to give a construction to the constitution and every part of it, and there is no power provided in this system to correct their construction or do it away. If, therefore, the legislature pass any laws, inconsistent with the sense the judges put upon the constitution, they will declare it void."
- Robert Yates (Anti-Federalist politician and judge from the State of NY)

Indicating that everyone was aware of the power being giving to the courts over Constitutional interpretation.

So, I think you are quite mistaken here.

+1

Thank you. A+ :D

[Brian Swartz]

I hope someday you will repair things with your brother too. It is very hard to find common grounds or "safe" topics we can talk about more so now that the ruling has gone into effect.

I'm very pleased that we have been able to reach some kind of common ground here between the two of us, along with a number of others. I hope that spirit continues, and spreads as the furor from these events dies down, though I'm sure it won't ever completely go away.

I'm sorry to hear about your relationship with your brothers significant other

Thank you much sir.

how do we know what Gods truth really is?

We can look at what Jesus said and emulate it. Love your neighbors. Pray for them.

The above crystallize the core of what you said I think. It requires a somewhat lengthy response but I'll try to keep it reasonable :). Elsewhere you referred to 'contractions' meaning contradictions I'll assume. I do not believe there are any of significance. Context is of course important. I'll get to these points.

To begin with, let me note respectfully that your two statements above, while expressing a commonly held view, contradict each other. If we can't know what God's truth really is, then loving neighbors and praying for others is included in that. On the other hand, if we can know, then the many other statements of Jesus also have to be included in that. The first option available to use in assessing Christianity is simply to reject it. If the Bible is not reliable, we simply throw it out.

If we don't choose that option, the second choice is whether or not it is relevant. I might believe that a dictionary or a cookbook is reliable, for example, but I'm not likely to find theological truth there and I'd be a fool to try :). Does the Bible claim that it is relevant in terms of knowing the truth about Jesus and how God wants to relate to mankind, if He does? Indeed it does. We are told that it is God-breathed and profitable, that it can't be broken, Peter affirms that some writings of Paul are Scripture, we are told it came by God's will not the will of man, the various writers are constantly quoting each other, the phrases 'the Word of the Lord' and 'the Word of God' are constantly used to describe it, etc.

Some years ago, during the Rob Bell flare-up if you are at all familiar with it, I began to question many things. Mr. Bell was an evangelical hero of sorts in my neck of the woods. I had always been taught the historical-grammatical method of interpreting the Bible but I had never really questioned it, even during my decade in 'the wilderness' when I rejected God completely. I went back and looked at how Jesus treated the Bible. After all he could have easily just said 'this was a bunch of nonsense' or 'stop taking it too seriously' or 'it's just there to make this or that point'. The account of his temptation by Satan is extremely striking and really illustrates the key points here.

Jesus is alone in the wilderness and hungry when Satan comes to him. The first test it to command stones to becomes loaves of bread, and relieve his hunger. Jesus can respond any way he wants here. There is nothing for him to illustrate to anyone, because there is isn't anyone around. Jesus often used Scripture to demonstrate to Jews who thought themselves experts in it, using the parts which a particular sect found the most valuable, meeting them on their own ground so to speak. But there's none of that here, there's no audience and therefore no reason at all for him to use it -- unless he viewed it as an authority. Yet his answer is striking in it's simplicity. 'It is written'. Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Consider that after eating nothing for 40 days, Jesus considers the words of God, which he quotes, as more import than bodily sustenance.

Satan definitely gets the point, because he tries the trick that worked with Eve next. He accurately quotes two different verses, telling Jesus to throw himself down from the temple, because 'He will command his angels concerning you', and 'On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone'. Satan does not mis-state these verses. That is exactly what they say. Furthermore, based on them Satan is absolutely right. They do say that Jesus won't come to harm, as he is under God's protection and that of the angels. Jesus here demonstrates the importance of context, another point you were quite right to bring up. He models here the principle of interpreting Scripture with Scripture, which by the way is usually what is gotten wrong when people go for simplistic, apparent contradictions in attacking the coherency of the Bible. He says simply, 'Again it is written, 'you shall not put the Lord your God to the test'". Oftentimes a general principle must be clarified by other verses on the subject. We interpret Scripture with Scripture to obtain clarity, another reason why it is important to be familiar with the whole counsel of God.

Statements like these by Jesus assume that it can be known what the Bible means. That is a teaching that is simply inescapable throughout the New Testament especially. Jesus says to Nicodemus, 'are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?'. He says to the Pharisees, 'go and learn what this means' pointing them back to what they should have already known. He warns against false teachers, as does Paul in the book of Acts. And in Galatians. And in his instructions to Timothy. And multiple other places. Jesus again does so in Revelation. Jude refers to the need to 'contend for the faith delivered once for all to the saints'. You can't contend for something that cannot be known. Paul's striking warning in Galatians 1 that anyone who teaches another Christ 'let him be eternally condemned' is echoed in the epistles by John. Peter also gives similar warnings in 2 Peter 2. It is just a constant drumbeat, and one that makes absolutely no sense apart from the implication that the Bible indeed can be understood.

We always must be careful only to be sure where the Bible is clearly so as well. As I mentioned before, I don't know what heaven's like. If someone has a different view of end times, or worship style, or mode of baptism, or what a church structure should look like, or whether they believe in observing the Sabbath, etc. I definitely encourage everyone and aim myself to follow the concept of 'not wrong, just different'. I hope to only be dogmatic in areas where the Bible is clearly and unmistakably so. Even within that, I would only wish to be contentious on those matters which affect the core of the gospel, again based on the example and instruction of the New Testament writers. Paul confronted Peter publicly in front of the Galatians for muddying such waters, but that kind of thing just doesn't happen apart from a gospel issue. Wherever there is room to disagree, I aim to respectfully and graciously do so and not be an unnecessary obstacle to anyone.

That's how I see the Bible.

[bob]

The only thing Ive read that even made sense is: (Though I wouldnt call this a problem :D )

Bearing ArmsSCOTUS Ruling On Same-Sex Marriage Mandates Nationwide Concealed Carry Reciprocity - Bearing Arms (http://bearingarms.com/scotus-ruling-sex-marriage-mandates-nationwide-concealed-carry-reciprocity/?utm_source=bafbp&utm_medium=fbpage&utm_campaign=baupdate)



I do think there will eventually be a "protected class discrimination" challenge against Religions who refuse to marry same sex couples. A Catholic Priest can choose not to marry a non Catholic, without violating protected class (freedom of religion) because the specific nature of the protected class is the basis of the affiliation's existence. However if the right of refusal is a protected class other than religious affiliation , I.E. sexual orientation, I think in time it will be challenged in the courts. I'm not sure how I feel that will or should be resolved I just think it will be challenged eventually.

Couldn't you argue that by wanting a gay marriage you aren't religion x and therefore not eligible for a wedding by religion x's officiants and using their facilities?

[RainMaker]

"Stop restricting our avenues of business" says the group that mails in thousands of letters to the government demanding CBS be fined for making a sex joke on Two and a Half Men.

[cuervo72]

Or they infringed upon states rights.

And you really can't compare this to slavery can you, Cuervo?

I'm not in this case, actually. More the integration of southern colleges and schools.

American Experience.Eyes on the Prize.The Story of the Movement | PBS (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/eyesontheprize/story/03_schools.html)

"Supreme Court or no Supreme Court, we are going to maintain segregated schools down in Dixie."

—U. S. Senator James Eastland, Democrat from Mississippi

[lighthousekeeper]

Try the first 33 pages or so of this document (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf).

i wish life was like school where everyone had to read the source material before you discussed it in class. would save a lot of time dealing with ignorance.

[Dutch]

I'm not in this case, actually. More the integration of southern colleges and schools.

American Experience.Eyes on the Prize.The Story of the Movement | PBS (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/eyesontheprize/story/03_schools.html)



—U. S. Senator James Eastland, Democrat from Mississippi

He was saying that around the same time the Red Menace was threatening Europe with hostile takeover so more people could enjoy slave labor under the Soviets.

[Toddzilla]

Damn "sexual nerves (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=51722&highlight=sexual+nerves)" reference went right out the window :(

[BigPapi]

This is getting silly, come on people! I have power points if needed!

Outside the bounds? So your problem is with Roberts taking up this (non) case?

Is it possible for 100% of voters to pass a state constitutional amendment and yet be dismissed by the Supreme Court? (Hint: segregation) And why just states? Why can't a county pass laws that are outside the bounds of the Judical Branch?

So, the problem can't be the Supreme Court can declare voter driven legislation unconstitutional, right? So what is it?

Where you could be arguing this is on the "new" interpretation and excessive use of the equal protection clause. It would at least a nuanced argument.


Where's the "voter driven legislation that's unconstitutional" here; Cart before the horse and all that....To be clear: for all the states that had yet to weigh in, Roberts (and myself) are saying there is no longer an option....But, hey- since they are all idiots anyway- let's go ahead and skip that bothersome process.

[BillJasper]

"Stop restricting our avenues of business" says the group that mails in thousands of letters to the government demanding CBS be fined for making a sex joke on Two and a Half Men.

:lol:

[bronconick]

if our founding fathers had been told that 250 years later we would still be using their 18th century rules to apply to 21st century society...they would probably laugh so hard that their wigs would fall off.


Considering that there is an option for the creation of a Constitutional Convention next to the Amendments, they probably figured we'd have rewritten the whole thing by now, not enshrined it.

[Brian Swartz]

Brian: How can you say religion is not allowed in politics? It's a major discussion in every campaign

It is a major discussion in every campaign. That isn't what I meant. Separation of church and state has been taken to mean that a law can have a secular purpose but it cannot have a religious purpose(Lemon v. Kurtzman, etc.). If so, then by definition politics is an arena which is pro-secular and anti-religion. It does not mean that religion can't be discussed, but that secular reasoning is given prominence over it as a matter of constitutional law.

What makes you think this?

I stand corrected on this point. There are other of Hamilton's statement that seem to conflict with this, but regardless after considering it I think you are right. Thank you for this, it's always good to learn something new :).

Last I checked Christians were behind a lot of the Blue Laws. I can't buy a car on Sunday in Illinois. When I lived in Minnesota I couldn't buy booze on Sundays either. Every state has their share of these laws which were motivated by religion.

This is a good point, but there is a fundamental difference you are missing here. Blue Laws and similar restrictions lay out limitations on how a business can operate. They tell a business what they can't do. In the situation I'm talking about, a business is told what they must do. There have always been laws requiring businesses to operate within certain parameters, but telling businesses they have to do something even when it violates their religious beliefs is a much newer and different thing.

[BillJasper]

I can't win in court, I can't win a Constitutional convention, so my obvious recourse is to tear down the court as much as possible. I wonder how some of these people actually get elected?

[BillJasper]

It does not mean that religion can't be discussed, but that secular reasoning is given prominence over it as a matter of constitutional law.



Makes sense, since we are a nation of many different religions. I bet you'd be highly pissed if some obscure piece of the Quran was made law.

[ISiddiqui]

Considering that there is an option for the creation of a Constitutional Convention next to the Amendments, they probably figured we'd have rewritten the whole thing by now, not enshrined it.

Speaking of Thomas Jefferson, he would have been fine with a new Constitution every 20 years (well, that's probably because he wasn't there for the writing of the original one and he wanted a few things changed).

[Brian Swartz]

"Stop restricting our avenues of business" says the group that mails in thousands of letters to the government demanding CBS be fined for making a sex joke on Two and a Half Men.

The thing here is, the 'group' to which you refer share some aspects in common with all groups. Namely, that it isn't some monolithic entity in which all people ask reasonably and agree in lock-step groupthink.

Perhaps this isn't the case, but I bet I could find some members of a group that you identify with, if I knew you well enough of course, whose actions and sayings you might not want to completely own. That wouldn't in any way make you a hypocrite.

[Brian Swartz]

Makes sense, since we are a nation of many different religions. I bet you'd be highly pissed if some obscure piece of the Quran was made law.

Not if it had the required support. Even if I was upset, I sure wouldn't call it unfair. I say it makes a lot more sense to have an even playing field. All the current system does is make secularism the dominant force. It doesn't, and couldn't ever possible, maintain the impossible goal of neutrality.

[JPhillips]

This is a good point, but there is a fundamental difference you are missing here. Blue Laws and similar restrictions lay out limitations on how a business can operate. They tell a business what they can't do. In the situation I'm talking about, a business is told what they must do. There have always been laws requiring businesses to operate within certain parameters, but telling businesses they have to do something even when it violates their religious beliefs is a much newer and different thing.

See Brown v Board of Education.

[JPhillips]

Not if it had the required support. Even if I was upset, I sure wouldn't call it unfair. I say it makes a lot more sense to have an even playing field. All the current system does is make secularism the dominant force. It doesn't, and couldn't ever possible, maintain the impossible goal of neutrality.

Nonsense. Laws all over the country are essentially Christian in nature, even when they put a non-religious varnish on them.

[BillJasper]

Not if it had the required support. Even if I was upset, I sure wouldn't call it unfair. I say it makes a lot more sense to have an even playing field. All the current system does is make secularism the dominant force. It doesn't, and couldn't ever possible, maintain the impossible goal of neutrality.

Secular is as neutral as you're going to get. This nation is getting more and more diverse, might as well get used to it.

[Brian Swartz]

I don't see the relevance. Would you like to enlighten me?

[Brian Swartz]

Secular is as neutral as you're going to get. This nation is getting more and more diverse, might as well get used to it.

I embrace diversity. No problem getting used to it. But secular isn't neutral at all. It's simply putting a different theos at the top of the food chain and pretending neutrality. That's not good for anyone.

[BillJasper]

I don't see the relevance. Would you like to enlighten me?

The relevance is that there is a whole slew of people that don't want to live in your Christian Kingdom. But still want to be treated equally.

[RainMaker]

This is a good point, but there is a fundamental difference you are missing here. Blue Laws and similar restrictions lay out limitations on how a business can operate. They tell a business what they can't do. In the situation I'm talking about, a business is told what they must do. There have always been laws requiring businesses to operate within certain parameters, but telling businesses they have to do something even when it violates their religious beliefs is a much newer and different thing.

It's the same thing. You're arguing the syntax here. Car dealership must not be open on Sundays. Convenient stores must ban liquor sales on Sundays. Businesses must not discriminate based on these factors.

None of this has anything to do with gay marriage though. A gay couple could buy a cake and have an elaborate wedding before the Supreme Court decision. They just didn't have access to the rights married couples have from a legal standpoint.

[Brian Swartz]

The relevance is that there is a whole slew of people that don't want to live in your Christian Kingdom. But still want to be treated equally.

I've never advocated for, nor do I want a theocracy. I think I've been clear on that.

[Solecismic]

I see the secular versus religious argument as about as relevant as the vertebrate/invertebrate argument when it comes to chair design. Secular only means a law that doesn't have its basis in religion.

I wasn't aware I could pick a faith and have laws applied to everyone else based solely on my personal faith.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

FWIW......I'm obviously in the wedding business. I've already done 4 'same sex unions' over the past calendar year. They obviously went to other states to get married and then came to our place to have the wedding/reception with family and friends.

We have made it clear that we are open to all marriages for business. We expect a big uptick in business after this ruling. We also plan to have a booth at the gay pride celebration in KC to increase awareness as an option for weddings. As a business, this ruling (and the reactions of some other event spaces) are nothing but a huge positive for us moving forward.

[Schmidty]

I'm confused.

[Schmidty]

Why aren't we talk about video games?

[BillJasper]

I've never advocated for, nor do I want a theocracy. I think I've been clear on that.

So be happy that these folks are going to be able to live this life in a way that is appropriate for them. You can privately fantasize about them burning in Hell in the afterlife all you want.

[cuervo72]

He was saying that around the same time the Red Menace was threatening Europe with hostile takeover so more people could enjoy slave labor under the Soviets.

Funny story about that. When IHOF came about, my son was going on four. Like his mother, he has red hair. And like other 3 1/2 year-olds, he could sometimes be a bit of a handful.

Now, I wasn't about to have a redheaded toddler as a logo, so I tried to think of something else. I thought of another menace - the Phantom Menace. So I did up a helmet with ol' Darth Maul on it (which was just a photoshop taken from an existing image, as at the time I wasn't good enough with Illustrator to make one myself).

Fritz took a look at it and suggested another direction I might consider following. The rest is fake sports history.

[Drake]

Wait...wait...wait...

THOMKAL HAS A TWIN BROTHER?!

When the fuck did that happen?








(Congrats, man.)

[Thomkal]

Why aren't we talk about video games?

Who plays video games anymore? ;)

[Thomkal]

Why aren't we talk about video games?

Wait...wait...wait...

THOMKAL HAS A TWIN BROTHER?!

When the fuck did that happen?


)







(Congrats, man.)



You see drake, let me explain to you about the birds and bees.....
:smacks you upside the head:

I knew you couldn't resist commenting, And thanks buddy :)

[Thomkal]

And Rand Paul finally speaks up about the issue in his own libertarian way:

Rand Paul calls for government to get out of marriage altogether | Rare (http://rare.us/story/rand-paul-calls-for-government-to-get-out-of-marriage-altogether/)

god help us

[Schmidty]

Well, I consider myself a libertarian. There are a million different types though. It's not so easy to say - "Hey you!! Libertarian!!" and have everyone look.

I would turn and look though.

[Dutch]

Funny story about that. When IHOF came about, my son was going on four. Like his mother, he has red hair. And like other 3 1/2 year-olds, he could sometimes be a bit of a handful.

Now, I wasn't about to have a redheaded toddler as a logo, so I tried to think of something else. I thought of another menace - the Phantom Menace. So I did up a helmet with ol' Darth Maul on it (which was just a photoshop taken from an existing image, as at the time I wasn't good enough with Illustrator to make one myself).

Fritz took a look at it and suggested another direction I might consider following. The rest is fake sports history.

Ha! I thought you had a soft spot in your heart for cold-blooded communism this whole time. :D

[bronconick]

And Rand Paul finally speaks up about the issue in his own libertarian way:

Rand Paul calls for government to get out of marriage altogether | Rare (http://rare.us/story/rand-paul-calls-for-government-to-get-out-of-marriage-altogether/)

god help us

Sure, let's take out the 1,138 things involved with civil marriage (filing jointly, health benefits and decision making in hospitals, etc.) because a few religious people are uncomfortable.

I had to be reminded that is Rand is a dolt. Occasionally he blunders into a good idea. This is not one of them.

[EagleFan]

Life isn't as hard as people make it. Stop trying to force beliefs on others. If no one is getting hurt by someone's beliefs or actions then let it be. If they want to force their beliefs or worse yet, threaten death, then they are the people that we can live without.

[EagleFan]

Sorry, getting tired of all the BS rhetoric the so called "religious" nut jobs are spreading.

[Dutch]

Yep, go see the world and then come back and tell me how God gives a shit about your tiny little congregation's interpretations more than others.

[Schmidty]

Sorry, getting tired of all the BS rhetoric the so called "religious" nut jobs are spreading.

What does that mean? Can you please be specific about these nut jobs?

[MrBug708]

I think he meant anyone who is religious is a nutjob.

[Subby]

There are plenty of Christians that don't rely on a literal interpretation of The Bible and welcome this ruling.

Christian Leaders in U.S. Voice Support for #SCOTUSmarriage | Sojourners (https://sojo.net/articles/christian-leaders-us-voice-support-scotusmarriage)

[Schmidty]

I think he meant anyone who is religious is a nutjob.

Interesting. I guess it's ok to be a bigot in the US after all.

[jeff061]

I think he meant anyone who is religious is a nutjob.

I would say anyone who opposes gay marriage is a religious nut job.
Does not mean all religious people are nut jobs.

[Schmidty]

I would say anyone who opposes gay marriage is a religious nut job.
Does not mean all religious people are nut jobs.

Wow.

I'm just going to say it: I voted for gay marriage in Washington state and I don't feel politically bad about it. I am, however, getting fucking tired of fucking intolerant idiots who want me to accept their beliefs, but want to me a "nut job" because of some of mine.

Fuck you. Thanks for fucking it up America.

[jeff061]

Guess you didn't read my post.

[Schmidty]

Guess you didn't read my post.

No. I did. You're still a bigot.

[jeff061]

I'm not going to break out a venn diagram for you.

[Schmidty]

I'm not going to break out a venn diagram for you.

Ok.

I'm tired of playing nice with everyone.

[NobodyHere]

And Rand Paul finally speaks up about the issue in his own libertarian way:

Rand Paul calls for government to get out of marriage altogether | Rare (http://rare.us/story/rand-paul-calls-for-government-to-get-out-of-marriage-altogether/)

god help us

Rand has held this position for a long time and personally I agree with him.

[Tekneek]

Seriously the answer to gay marriage is to stop issuing Marriage licenses, for both same sex and traditional couples? I hope they enjoy looking for new jobs then. If you don't like/personally against your new job responsibilties, you quit rather than stop everybody from getting married. :banghead:

This is going to fail. If there is a requirement that marriage licenses be acquired from county clerks, per state law, and a county decides they simply won't do it, then everyone is being denied due process. They will learn shortly that this is not going to fly.

[Tekneek]

I embrace diversity. No problem getting used to it. But secular isn't neutral at all. It's simply putting a different theos at the top of the food chain and pretending neutrality. That's not good for anyone.

Secular means nonreligious.

[Tekneek]

I would love to see Rand Paul propose the repealing of every reference to marriage in any piece of the US legal code and regulations. I'm thinking it is an impossible task at this point. To simply up and take away the legal concept (which does not exist if the government does not recognize marriages) overnight would cause significantly more harm than we'd gain in supposed freedom and liberty.

[EagleFan]

Maybe read both my posts together. Have any belief you want but the moment you try to force your beliefs on others that makes you a nut job that I refer to. I put religious in quotes because I don't consider intolerant douchebagery to be religion.

There is a good litmus test, does anyone or anything get hurt or become a victim. There is one answer in this issue...NO.

[JPhillips]

I would love to see Rand Paul propose the repealing of every reference to marriage in any piece of the US legal code and regulations. I'm thinking it is an impossible task at this point. To simply up and take away the legal concept (which does not exist if the government does not recognize marriages) overnight would cause significantly more harm than we'd gain in supposed freedom and liberty.

Not to mention a significant tax increase.

[EagleFan]

Sorry if I seem pissy but a little background...

I went to a Christian school my entire life (K-12; same school). Graduated in a class of 29. Have developed some great friends from that class (5 of us play poker) but also some people that I could care less about. I have kept in touch with some on facebook but since the ruling I have been flooded with "end of the world" type sentiment from many. I am so over that narrow minded thinking.

Easy way to live one's life: Is what I am about to do going to directly harm someone? If yes, stop it.

Easy way to cope with others: Is what they are doing going to directly harm me or someone that I know? If yes, stop them. If no, STFU.

[ISiddiqui]

I would love to see Rand Paul propose the repealing of every reference to marriage in any piece of the US legal code and regulations. I'm thinking it is an impossible task at this point. To simply up and take away the legal concept (which does not exist if the government does not recognize marriages) overnight would cause significantly more harm than we'd gain in supposed freedom and liberty.

Indeed. There are a lot of legal rights incorporated in the civil contract of marriage. And basically what it amounts to in the end - it's a bevy of things that are received or granted based on signing a contract. Rand's suggestion wouldn't do terribly much except on taxation - which would result in an increase for most people - lawyers would come up with comprehensive contracts with all the rights folks have in marriage (hospital visitation, power of attorney, etc) which will be signed instead (with vastly more 'initial here' stuff ;)).

[bob]

but also some people that I could care less about.

I think you mean "could not care less about."



Yes, I am an ass.

[EagleFan]

I think you mean "could not care less about."



Yes, I am an ass.

Saw that after I posted, meant to fix it. Hoped I would beat the grammar police. :)

[Dutch]

I just wish the grammar police would stop profiling.

[Subby]

Hey Schmidty is back!

[Schmidty]

Hey Schmidty is back!

I don't understand that.

Niceness matters.

[tarcone]

Man applies to marry 2nd woman. Threatens to sue if denied.
That didn't take long.

Montana man seeks license for second wife - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/polygamous-montana-trio-applies-for-wedding-license/)

[Subby]

The Episcopal Church approves religious weddings for gay couples after controversial debate - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/07/01/why-the-episcopal-church-is-still-debating-gay-marriage/?tid=sm_fb)

[cuervo72]

Some people - men and women - are polyamorous.* I know these laws serve to protect women especially in religious/cult situations where they may be marrying against their will, but there are some legitimate relationships that work this way. This could be interesting.


* I don't think this is for me - and I know my wife doesn't think this is for me - but in some regards I think we may have been a bit judgemental with the whole Fucky McP thing. Though damned if I'm not still proud of coming up with that moniker.

[tarcone]

The Episcopal Church approves religious weddings for gay couples after controversial debate - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/07/01/why-the-episcopal-church-is-still-debating-gay-marriage/?tid=sm_fb)

My uncle was an episcolian priest. This has always been a very progressive church. I believe it was the 1st church to allow women as priests.
And it has always been very open to the gay community.

[Dutch]

It always works itself out.

[Thomkal]

yay Episcopalians!

[ColtCrazy]

I basically use twitter as a way to keep up with sports, politics, etc. I follow people from both parties. A conservative podcast host from Indy I follow posted a pic of some rather frisky looking guys from a gay pride parade with the caption along the lines of the fact that they don't look like marriage material with the tag traditionalmarriage. I responded with a pic of partiers from spring break and asked how this was different, that his post implied that the GLBT community was nothing but lewd. I got called a jackass and the tone was very defensive. Some random group responded and immediately blocked me. Never even heard of them.

Ahhh, the internet.

[lighthousekeeper]

If you don’t accept it and you’re a court clerk, you must perform the ceremony or resign your position.

holy jeebus. it actually happened.

Entire Tenn. county clerk’s office resigns over same-sex marriage licenses | WKRN News 2 (http://wkrn.com/2015/07/02/entire-tenn-county-clerks-office-resigns-over-same-sex-marriage-licenses/)

[Tekneek]

holy jeebus. it actually happened.

Entire Tenn. county clerk’s office resigns over same-sex marriage licenses | WKRN News 2 (http://wkrn.com/2015/07/02/entire-tenn-county-clerks-office-resigns-over-same-sex-marriage-licenses/)

Change doesn't come easy. A full 10 years after the Brown v Board of Education decision, only about 8% of schools in the South had actually been integrated. People in the South hate having to change their ways. Thankfully, overall most people aren't having a problem with this. In Georgia, even in rural communities, licenses were being issued and marriages conducted on the day of the decision with positive articles written about that in local papers.

I don't agree with Nathan Deal (Georgia Governor) very often, but right from the start he said that Georgia would uphold the Constitution and be ready to follow the decision from SCOTUS. For once, Georgia doesn't join some of the other wing nuts:

Quoted from: http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2015/04/23/nathan-deal-georgia-will-follow-u-s-supreme-court-ruling-on-gay-marriage/

O’Hayer: “Attorney General Sam Olens recently told the Atlanta Press Club that however the U.S. Supreme Court rules on gay marriage, the state should follow that ruling – whatever it is, even if it means Georgia’s constitutional ban on gay marriage might be affected. Do you agree with him?”

Deal: “Yes, I do. The attorney general – just as I [have] – has taken an oath of office. And that oath includes that we will uphold the constitution of the state of Georgia, and that we will support and uphold the constitution of the United States.

“I think we understand that in our republican form of government, that federal, constitutional issues trump state constitutional issues. So we will abide by whatever the Supreme Court rules as an interpretation of the United States Constitution.”

One thing interesting about some of the words being used by folks like Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, and others in the GOP is that they sound very similar to statements in, and related to, The Southern Manifesto. A document written by some "Southern Democrats" after the 1954 SCOTUS Brown v Board of Education decision.

[Dutch]

How is Brown vs the Board of Education working out in those northern inner cities. Fully integrated?

[EagleFan]

holy jeebus. it actually happened.

Entire Tenn. county clerk’s office resigns over same-sex marriage licenses | WKRN News 2 (http://wkrn.com/2015/07/02/entire-tenn-county-clerks-office-resigns-over-same-sex-marriage-licenses/)

Stupid is as stupid does.

[BillJasper]

holy jeebus. it actually happened.

Entire Tenn. county clerk’s office resigns over same-sex marriage licenses | WKRN News 2 (http://wkrn.com/2015/07/02/entire-tenn-county-clerks-office-resigns-over-same-sex-marriage-licenses/)

Stupid is as stupid does.

While I disagree with them, at least they had the balls to do it. My hats off to them. They could've made it ugly by trying to go to court. But they simply followed their conscious.

It sure beats all the jackasses that are moving to Canada if 'X' happens. Then never actually do it.

[Subby]

Kentucky Clerk Still Denying Gay Marriage Licenses, Says God Overrules Supreme Court (http://gawker.com/kentucky-clerk-still-denying-gay-marriage-licenses-say-1727939740)

[jeff061]

Throw the twat in prison.

Against your religion? Fine then quit your job. Oh, don't want to do that because your beliefs are less important than your paychek, but more important than equal rights? Fuck her.

[NobodyHere]

She should just use the Obama defense in that she doesn't have enough resources to issue gay marriage certificates.

[Dutch]

I can agree its against her religion, but you gotta follow the rules if government...or leave. It's like those knuckleheads that join the military and then wont perform their duties because they are pacifists. Show her the door.

[Subby]

Who wore it better?

[Ryche]

She's being awfully selective about which religious tenets she's choosing to support and which she ignores considering her personal life.

[digamma]

She should just use the Obama defense in that she doesn't have enough resources to issue gay marriage certificates.

They're just called marriage licenses, brother.

[albionmoonlight]

While I disagree with them, at least they had the balls to do it. My hats off to them. They could've made it ugly by trying to go to court. But they simply followed their conscious.

I don't agree with their stance. But I give all the credit to them for following their faith into personal sacrifice.

[bhlloy]

I don't agree with their stance. But I give all the credit to them for following their faith into personal sacrifice.

What does that faith say about sex outside of marriage and divorce again?

[Thomkal]

I find it very convenient she would have supported the Supreme Court decision had it ruled in her favor, but its God's law when they didn't. You can't have it both ways. She did not run on a platform of no gay marriage when she got the job-so she has to do the job she was elected to do or find another job.

And don't get me started on the hypocrisy of divorcing three times, have a kid out of wedlock, etc. She's no saint as far as her own background goes, and if she can't follow "God's laws" in her own life, she shouldn't be dictating in an official position at least how others (who probably aren't of her faith anyway)

[stevew]

Hey, she loves traditional marriage so much she did it 4 times.

[Solecismic]

Someone should bring his German Shepherd to the courthouse and ask her for a marriage license, just to mess with her.

[stevew]

I don't agree with their stance. But I give all the credit to them for following their faith into personal sacrifice.

It's not really sacrifice when this is just a long con for her to collect massive GoFundMe dollars and her legal team to solicit a ton of donations.

[TroyF]

It's not really sacrifice when this is just a long con for her to collect massive GoFundMe dollars and her legal team to solicit a ton of donations.

Two events got mixed up. The Tennessee all quit their jobs because of their beliefs. I do not agree with their views, but they are willing to do what they feel is right. Good for them.

This idiot is doing nothing worthy of a news story. She needs to resign or be thrown in jail.

[JPhillips]

Someone should bring his German Shepherd to the courthouse and ask her for a marriage license, just to mess with her.

Her office apparently already issued a license to a woman and transgender man because they didn't realize what they were doing.

This is in my wife's home town. The clerk position is apparently a family job as her mother held it for years before passing it to her daughter.

[RainMaker]

I wonder what the reaction to this would be if she was a Muslim and refused to give out marriage certificates to non-Muslims because Allah overrules the Supreme Court.

[TroyF]

I wonder what the reaction to this would be if she was a Muslim and refused to give out marriage certificates to non-Muslims because Allah overrules the Supreme Court.

I think we all know what it would be. . . but honestly, the reaction to this has been what I would expect. A majority of people are pissed. They should be pissed.


The problem is that she's an elected official and so it has to go through stages. She will lose her job over this and she should lose her job over it.

[Subby]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Kentucky clerk who refuses to issue gay marriage licenses ordered to jail for contempt of court <a href="http://t.co/HDssHNUZ5x">http://t.co/HDssHNUZ5x</a></p>&mdash; Washington Post (@washingtonpost) <a href="https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/639484350053117952">September 3, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[RainMaker]

She got what she wanted in the end. This will be big money for her.

[jeff061]

How?

[JPhillips]

I think she's almost certainly caught up in being famous for the first time in her life, but I'm not sure she's going to make a lot of money. She's not being lauded by the big boys in conservative media. She'll be able to go to all sorts of churches and speak, but they won't pay much.

Her attorneys have really screwed her. They and their organization will make money off of this the longer she's in jail, but urging your client to ignore judicial rulings isn't good advice.

[miami_fan]

Has a gofundme account been started for her defense fund?

[RainMaker]

A pizza place in Indiana that didn't even turn down a gay couple (who orders pizzas for a wedding anyway?) got over half a million dollars. This lady is actually going to go to jail. I'd be shocked if she doesn't double that.

She's looking at speaking gigs and probably a book in the near future.

[stevew]

Will be interesting to see if the rest of the office joins her in jail.

[Subby]

She wasn't fined because the judge knew she would just get crowdfunded or Koched or whatever.

[ISiddiqui]

Also, I think there may be a possibility of issuing the marriage licenses she is refusing to grant by the court itself since the magistrate is incarcerated.

[Ryche]

She wasn't fined because the judge knew she would just get crowdfunded or Koched or whatever.

To be fair to the Koch brothers, I think they're pretty supportive of gay marriage.

[albionmoonlight]

Will be interesting to see if the rest of the office joins her in jail.

I heard that the judge had the clerks meet with the Federal Public Defenders's office before he heard their cases. To the extent that Ms. Davis may have been being mislead by attorneys who cared more about fundraising on her name than on her best interest, the deputy clerks will hopefully not have that conflict of interest by their counsel.

[Subby]

They might support it in their heads, but most of their funding goes to candidates who are opposed to marriage equality.

[AENeuman]

"I promised to love Him with all my heart, mind and soul because I wanted to make heaven my home."

IMO, people saying they believe just so they can get the eternal reward is like someone joining AA for the free coffee.

[heybrad]

"I promised to love Him with all my heart, mind and soul because I wanted to make heaven my home."

IMO, people saying they believe just so they can get the eternal reward is like someone joining AA for the free coffee.
She would read the part that clearly states she ain't Him.

[stevew]

Isn't there a compromise solution where she simply delegates all of the marriage paperwork to another member of her staff?

[Thomkal]

Isn't there a compromise solution where she simply delegates all of the marriage paperwork to another member of her staff?

I think she refused them and/or the courts could not agree on one/ruled against such compromises.

[cartman]

Evidently 5 of the 6 other members of the staff have agreed to issue licenses. The lone holdout is her son.

[SirFozzie]

2 for 1 special when he refuses?

[molson]

Isn't there a compromise solution where she simply delegates all of the marriage paperwork to another member of her staff?

One of her arguments in her response to the court's contempt order was that other people in the office, and even other departments, could issue the licenses. That wasn't a good legal argument because it didn't speak at all to the contempt thing.

So I haven't figured out how much this is just her not wanting to personally do this, or to what extent she's actually stopping this necessary government function from happening. Of course, one argument that its the latter is that people WERE turned away. If they had setup some kind of arrangement beforehand where she just calls in someone else in, nobody would have been denied and this never would have become news, even if the order directed "the clerk" to issue the licenses.

I keep hearing so much about "this is your job and you have to do it" which does have a potential to create a witch-hunt if there ARE other options to get the licenses processed. I worked in a corrections agency that did executions. Before I started doing work that supported that process, a supervisor pulled me aside and asked me if I was comfortable doing that work. If I wasn't, I wasn't going to get fired, they'd just have someone else do it. If NO ONE else was willing to do it, it'd be a problem because the executive branch is supposed to carry out policy, not make up their own, but must organizations have flexibility to accommodate different individual beliefs. But it seems like this lady wasn't really interested in being flexible and finding solutions - at least until the contempt order came.

[RainMaker]

I keep hearing so much about "this is your job and you have to do it" which does have a potential to create a witch-hunt if there ARE other options to get the licenses processed. I worked in a corrections agency that did executions. Before I started doing work that supported that process, a supervisor pulled me aside and asked me if I was comfortable doing that work. If I wasn't, I wasn't going to get fired, they'd just have someone else do it. If NO ONE else was willing to do it, it'd be a problem because the executive branch is supposed to carry out policy, not make up their own, but must organizations have flexibility to accommodate different individual beliefs. But it seems like this lady wasn't really interested in being flexible and finding solutions - at least until the contempt order came.

I think it's a bit different because she's an elected official and no one can come in and fire her for refusing to do her job. The prison would have had every right to fire you for not wanting to be part of the execution process (even if that would be a bad move on their part).

I'm sure she could have worked out a system where the other people in the office handled those duties. Instead she restricted the constitutional rights of other citizens.

[cartman]

SheWired - 17 Genius Tweets from the Person who Allegedly 'Sits Next to Kim Davis' (http://www.shewired.com/entertainment/2015/09/03/17-genius-tweets-person-who-allegedly-sits-next-kim-davis)

[Izulde]

I worked in a corrections agency that did executions. Before I started doing work that supported that process, a supervisor pulled me aside and asked me if I was comfortable doing that work. If I wasn't, I wasn't going to get fired, they'd just have someone else do it. If NO ONE else was willing to do it, it'd be a problem because the executive branch is supposed to carry out policy, not make up their own, but must organizations have flexibility to accommodate different individual beliefs. But it seems like this lady wasn't really interested in being flexible and finding solutions - at least until the contempt order came.

I want to give serious props to your supervisor here for letting you know that and giving you the option. As someone who is vehemently against the death penalty, I would have opted out and been very grateful to the supervisor for letting me know opt out was a possibility.

[Subby]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="und" dir="ltr"><a href="http://t.co/KnvHviZ2jz">pic.twitter.com/KnvHviZ2jz</a></p>&mdash; Who is Jose Rivera? (@whoisjoserivera) <a href="https://twitter.com/whoisjoserivera/status/641480043991056384">September 9, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[Thomkal]

very funny. Also very funny (and sad) is that Fox's Shep Smith spoke out against Kim Davis and christians when they were showing her being released. He's been crucified by Fox lovers and conservatives. He may have the last laugh-I don't think he's come out yet, but the rumor is that's he's gay and has had a boyfriend for a long time.

Boy if he hasn't come out, I can just imagine how he will be vilified, and probably won't be able to keep his job.

Shep Smith Rails Against Anti-Gay ‘Haters’ During Kim Davis Presser - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PshtdJ59umY)

[BillJasper]

very funny. Also very funny (and sad) is that Fox's Shep Smith spoke out against Kim Davis and christians when they were showing her being released. He's been crucified by Fox lovers and conservatives. He may have the last laugh-I don't think he's come out yet, but the rumor is that's he's gay and has had a boyfriend for a long time.

Boy if he hasn't come out, I can just imagine how he will be vilified, and probably won't be able to keep his job.

Shep Smith Rails Against Anti-Gay ‘Haters’ During Kim Davis Presser - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PshtdJ59umY)

I thought he was already "out".

[cuervo72]

I thought it was more of an open secret that for Fox purposes was just never addressed.

[BillJasper]

I thought it was more of an open secret that for Fox purposes was just never addressed.

Seems you're right:

How Fox News Shoved Shepard Smith Back Into The Closet (http://gawker.com/how-fox-news-shoved-shepard-smith-back-into-the-closet-1569504867)

[RainMaker]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="und" dir="ltr"><a href="http://t.co/KnvHviZ2jz">pic.twitter.com/KnvHviZ2jz</a></p>&mdash; Who is Jose Rivera? (@whoisjoserivera) <a href="https://twitter.com/whoisjoserivera/status/641480043991056384">September 9, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

LOL

Gov. Mike Huckabee on Twitter: "We must uphold the Constitution. Retweet if you agree. #ImwithMike #WethePeople http://t.co/O0PRKBWbYr" (https://twitter.com/govmikehuckabee/status/588727299211669504)

[Thomkal]

Excepting of course that the guys whose role it is to interpret the Constitution did so this summer and by a 5-4 vote found it unconstitutional that gay marriage was not allowed in several places. I once thought Huckabee was a Candidate that could be someone Democrats could support and vote for. Glad I was wrong. He and Cruz have no chance at being nominated let alone win a general election.

[stevew]

I'm glad that Survivor is suing them.

[Dutch]

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4KKXektRX3Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I found this funny...and Shepard happened to be involved, so I figured I'd post it here. :)

[SackAttack]

Excepting of course that the guys whose role it is to interpret the Constitution did so this summer and by a 5-4 vote found it unconstitutional that gay marriage was not allowed in several places. I once thought Huckabee was a Candidate that could be someone Democrats could support and vote for. Glad I was wrong. He and Cruz have no chance at being nominated let alone win a general election.

Huckabee has always scared me, but for different reasons from Scott Walker.

Walker's a snake. Huckabee's just flat kooky.

[albionmoonlight]

So Kim Davis didn't want marriage licenses going out with her name on them. The county found a way to accommodate that.

So it's a win-win, right? She got just what she wanted. And the county is no longer unconstitutionally restricting marriage.

This all goes away now, right?

[Thomkal]

this really isn't about gay marriage, but just shows the Huckabee lunacy:

Mike Huckabee: Dred Scott decision ‘is still the law of the land’ regardless of 14th Amendment (http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/mike-huckabee-dred-scott-decision-is-still-the-law-of-the-land-regardless-of-14th-amendment/)

[Thomkal]

So Kim Davis didn't want marriage licenses going out with her name on them. The county found a way to accommodate that.

So it's a win-win, right? She got just what she wanted. And the county is no longer unconstitutionally restricting marriage.

This all goes away now, right?

Nope:

Anti-Government Group Threatens To Step In To Keep Kim Davis Out Of Jail (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/anti-government-group-vows-to-keep-kim-davis-out-of-jail_55f1d06be4b03784e2786c51?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000050)

[digamma]

this really isn't about gay marriage, but just shows the Huckabee lunacy:

Mike Huckabee: Dred Scott decision ‘is still the law of the land’ regardless of 14th Amendment (http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/mike-huckabee-dred-scott-decision-is-still-the-law-of-the-land-regardless-of-14th-amendment/)

Forget citizenship applicants, shouldn't we require presidential candidates to pass a basic civics course?

[albionmoonlight]

Nope:

Anti-Government Group Threatens To Step In To Keep Kim Davis Out Of Jail (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/anti-government-group-vows-to-keep-kim-davis-out-of-jail_55f1d06be4b03784e2786c51?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000050)

Hey, media? Armed guys threatening to kill a federal judge in order to intimidate? Can we please just call them terrorists and not "anti-government groups?"

[RainMaker]

this really isn't about gay marriage, but just shows the Huckabee lunacy:

Mike Huckabee: Dred Scott decision ‘is still the law of the land’ regardless of 14th Amendment (http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/mike-huckabee-dred-scott-decision-is-still-the-law-of-the-land-regardless-of-14th-amendment/)

Is there a local HS civics class he could attend to learn how this stuff works?

[RainMaker]

Nope:

Anti-Government Group Threatens To Step In To Keep Kim Davis Out Of Jail (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/anti-government-group-vows-to-keep-kim-davis-out-of-jail_55f1d06be4b03784e2786c51?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000050)

I thought their oath was to uphold the constitution? They need a new name.

[QuikSand]

Hey, media? Armed guys threatening to kill a federal judge in order to intimidate? Can we please just call them terrorists and not "anti-government groups?"

Terrorists have beards and random apostrophes in their names.

[Thomkal]

Hey, media? Armed guys threatening to kill a federal judge in order to intimidate? Can we please just call them terrorists and not "anti-government groups?"

No American would ever be a terrorist according to the media I guess

[lighthousekeeper]

Terrorists have beards and random apostrophes in their names.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/nba/nba/.element/img/1.0/sect/allstar/profiles/shaquille_oneal.jpg

checks out

[BillJasper]

Terrorists have beards and random apostrophes in their names.

And are primarily brown.

[Thomkal]

Best response to Kim Davis I've seen :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqAWL85kkmc

And Conservatives calling for a ban on Tide in 5.4.3...

[digamma]

Love that commercial.

[Thomkal]

So Kim Davis didn't want marriage licenses going out with her name on them. The county found a way to accommodate that.

So it's a win-win, right? She got just what she wanted. And the county is no longer unconstitutionally restricting marriage.

This all goes away now, right?

Nope:

Kim Davis inspires NC mayoral candidate to jail gays: ‘What’s wrong with eradicating homosexuals?’ (http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/kim-davis-inspires-nc-mayoral-candidate-to-jail-gays-whats-wrong-with-eradicating-homosexuals/)

[Thomkal]

I guess this is our everything gay thread right? I wonder if Repubs/Conservatives will try to block it?

Obama nominates openly gay man to lead Army - CNNPolitics.com (http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/18/politics/eric-fanning-secretary-of-the-army/index.html)

[miami_fan]

Secretary Fanning was confirmed as the undersecretary of the Air Force and the Army in the past so I would assume he will be confirmed once again.

[Thomkal]

Secretary Fanning was confirmed as the undersecretary of the Air Force and the Army in the past so I would assume he will be confirmed once again.

But then gay marriage wasn't allowed and it was for undersecretary not secretary. Given how the republican candidates for President have all come out against gay marriage and many of them are senators/representatives, don't you think some of them will try to block it because he's gay?

[cuervo72]

I guess this is our everything gay thread right?

This...this made me chuckle.

[miami_fan]

But then gay marriage wasn't allowed and it was for undersecretary not secretary. Given how the republican candidates for President have all come out against gay marriage and many of them are senators/representatives, don't you think some of them will try to block it because he's gay?

I would never put it past politicians to oppose someone for the sake of opposition. I just think that he is too much of an insider and a known commodity to not be confirmed. I fully expect a bit of grandstanding during his confirmation hearings.

[Thomkal]

I would never put it past politicians to oppose someone for the sake of opposition. I just think that he is too much of an insider and a known commodity to not be confirmed. I fully expect a bit of grandstanding during his confirmation hearings.

Probably by Cruz if he gets a chance.

[Thomkal]

Just when you thought it was over:

Kentucky clerk Kim Davis appeals order that put her in jail - AOL (http://www.aol.com/article/2015/11/03/kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-appeals-order-that-put-her-in-jail/21258412/)

[tarcone]

And then this happens. So many things not thought about.

Couple seeks right to marry. The hitch? They’re legally father and son | FOX2now.com (http://fox2now.com/2015/11/03/couple-seeks-right-to-marry-the-hitch-theyre-legally-father-and-son/)

[BillJasper]

And then this happens. So many things not thought about.

Couple seeks right to marry. The hitch? They’re legally father and son | FOX2now.com (http://fox2now.com/2015/11/03/couple-seeks-right-to-marry-the-hitch-theyre-legally-father-and-son/)

What wasn't thought of? Legally, they can't get married until the adoption is annulled.

[Thomkal]

Let's hope now that marriage is legal, this loophole can be closed and couples who went through this can get married. Of course, this being the US legal system, they will probably lose on appeal.

[larrymcg421]

And then this happens. So many things not thought about.

Couple seeks right to marry. The hitch? They’re legally father and son | FOX2now.com (http://fox2now.com/2015/11/03/couple-seeks-right-to-marry-the-hitch-theyre-legally-father-and-son/)

It was definitely thought of and rightfully dismissed as an idiotic reason to oppose same sex marriage.

[tarcone]

My point being is this type of thing will continue to come up. Like with anything there are unforeseen things that pop up. Who thought that there would have to be rulings on getting adoptions annulled? And then what consequences arise out of that. There are bound to be more unforeseen things that pop up. Some of which no one will see coming.

[miked]

What exactly are the far-reaching consequences of getting fake adoptions annulled? Will cows want to marry pigs while adopting a horse??

[BillJasper]

My point being is this type of thing will continue to come up. Like with anything there are unforeseen things that pop up. Who thought that there would have to be rulings on getting adoptions annulled? And then what consequences arise out of that. There are bound to be more unforeseen things that pop up. Some of which no one will see coming.

Just working out the kinks of a new legal day.

[tarcone]

What exactly are the far-reaching consequences of getting fake adoptions annulled? Will cows want to marry pigs while adopting a horse??

If I could predict the future I would be a wealthy man.

[RedKingGold]

My point being is this type of thing will continue to come up. Like with anything there are unforeseen things that pop up. Who thought that there would have to be rulings on getting adoptions annulled? And then what consequences arise out of that. There are bound to be more unforeseen things that pop up. Some of which no one will see coming.

Blacks and whites might start living together! Women may have the right to vote! Who else knows what ills will befall us!

This kind of fear is just a shroud for bigotry.

[tarcone]

Wow. Fear? Bigotry? Not even close. You don't know me. You don't know my experiences.
Sad commentary by you. Toss your stones somewhere else.

[NobodyHere]

Blacks and whites might start living together! Women may have the right to vote! Who else knows what ills will befall us!

This kind of fear is just a shroud for bigotry.

Cats and Dogs living together, MASS HYSTERIA!

[RedKingGold]

Wow. Fear? Bigotry? Not even close. You don't know me. You don't know my experiences.
Sad commentary by you. Toss your stones somewhere else.

Throw stones? Never. I just want to rub your back and whisper sweet nothings in your ear. Be careful though, homosexuality is a fever and you just might catch it!

[cuervo72]

Something something Woody Allen...

[tarcone]

Man, this is truly a hate filled thread. Those of you that are championing equal rights sure are fast to attack anyone who you feel has an opposing view. Yeah, you guys are truly progressive and enlightened individuals. Keep up the good fight.

[RedKingGold]

Man, this is truly a hate filled thread. Those of you that are championing equal rights sure are fast to attack anyone who you feel has an opposing view. Yeah, you guys are truly progressive and enlightened individuals. Keep up the good fight.

I wish I knew how to quit you!?!

[RedKingGold]

In all seriousness, it's hard to have an intelligent debate about future concerns or fears which may never come to fruition. There's a chance I could get hit by a car tomorrow, so I should just stay home and not drive to work. Changes always creates unintended circumstances, some good and some bad. You can't use that as an excuse not to change.

Now, I'm going to get out of here before JonIMGA drops an anvil on my head.

[NobodyHere]

In all seriousness, it's hard to have an intelligent debate about future concerns or fears which may never come to fruition. There's a chance I could get hit by a car tomorrow, so I should just stay home and not drive to work. Changes always creates unintended circumstances, some good and some bad. You can't use that as an excuse not to change.

Now, I'm going to get out of here before JonIMGA drops an anvil on my head.

It's actually quite easy in some circumstances.

I could change my life and start doing heroin. Now there's a chance I could get addicted and ruin my health and my life. But I probably shouldn't use that as an excuse not to change.

[RainMaker]

And then this happens. So many things not thought about.

Couple seeks right to marry. The hitch? They’re legally father and son | FOX2now.com (http://fox2now.com/2015/11/03/couple-seeks-right-to-marry-the-hitch-theyre-legally-father-and-son/)

This could happen with a father and daughter too. What the hell does this have to do with same sex marriage?

[BillJasper]

Man, this is truly a hate filled thread. Those of you that are championing equal rights sure are fast to attack anyone who you feel has an opposing view. Yeah, you guys are truly progressive and enlightened individuals. Keep up the good fight.

"How dare someone not treat my bigotry as equally valid!"

[EagleFan]

How is this even an issue any more? Law abiding individuals who are consenting adults should have the right to marry. There are no laws being broken by their union.

There is only thing that bugs me and that is the SCOTUS taking away state rights. Sadly there are enough backwards neanderthals that would prevent this from being legal in their states so this will have to work for now.

Life is not as hard as many make it. Keep your religion to yourself, don't use it to run a country.

[EagleFan]

This could happen with a father and daughter too. What the hell does this have to do with same sex marriage?

But that breaks the straw man...

[BillJasper]

How is this even an issue any more? Law abiding individuals who are consenting adults should have the right to marry. There are no laws being broken by their union.



More importantly, no one's rights are being infringed by two guys or two girls marrying. They're two consenting adults entering into a contract.

If you don't want it in your house, great. But don't try to tell the rest of us how to live.

[EagleFan]

More importantly, no one's rights are being infringed by two guys or two girls marrying. They're two consenting adults entering into a contract.

If you don't want it in your house, great. But don't try to tell the rest of us how to live.

This, a thousand times this!

[nol]

Man, this is truly a hate filled thread. Those of you that are championing equal rights sure are fast to attack anyone who you feel has an opposing view. Yeah, you guys are truly progressive and enlightened individuals. Keep up the good fight.

This is what always makes me laugh about people who like to crack on "the PC police." A few people just called you dumb and bigoted, that's all. That has no bearing on your health, your ability to make a living, get married, raise children, etc. If you want to keep saying dumb stuff, by all means go ahead!

[AENeuman]

There are bound to be more unforeseen things that pop up. Some of which no one will see coming.

Are there unforeseen things people will see coming?

[Marc Vaughan]

Man, this is truly a hate filled thread. Those of you that are championing equal rights sure are fast to attack anyone who you feel has an opposing view. Yeah, you guys are truly progressive and enlightened individuals. Keep up the good fight.

Out of interest if you are against it (which seems to be the case) - then why do you feel the way you do regarding Gay marriage? - if you could explain your stance then I think it might help people understand your perspective better ... and obviously doing so would give people respect for your position or at least a way to debate things with you constructively.

[jeff061]

Cuz religion.

How dare I. I don't know him!

[Dutch]

Out of interest if you are against it (which seems to be the case) - then why do you feel the way you do regarding Gay marriage? - if you could explain your stance then I think it might help people understand your perspective better ... and obviously doing so would give people respect for your position or at least a way to debate things with you constructively.

Hehe, ain't nobody gonna say, "You fair, tarcone...let me scrape the tar and feathers off ya." :)

[Radii]

Man, this is truly a hate filled thread. Those of you that are championing equal rights sure are fast to attack anyone who you feel has an opposing view. Yeah, you guys are truly progressive and enlightened individuals. Keep up the good fight.

To be fair to some of those people, there are a solid 150 posts of arguing earlier in this thread where you did lay out pretty darn well how you feel about this. So when you post the adoption/marriage story with the commentary "So many things not thought about." on top of all of your previous positions on this (and there were many), its pretty easy to see exactly what your intent is and to respond as such.

[digamma]

I'm trying to understand what the issue or future fear is here. We had a sort of sham adoption take place to allow people to pass on benefits, hospital visitations, and other rights because they couldn't do so through marriage.

Now that they can get married, they are undoing the adoption.

Is the fear that real adoptions are going to get undone? Or is it that people are going to spend more money to first have adoptions and then undo them and then spend money on weddings? What are we afraid of? Fear itself?

[Kodos]

What are we afraid of? Fear itself?

I hear that's the only thing to fear.

[molson]

I'm trying to understand what the issue or future fear is here. We had a sort of sham adoption take place to allow people to pass on benefits, hospital visitations, and other rights because they couldn't do so through marriage.

Now that they can get married, they are undoing the adoption.

Is the fear that real adoptions are going to get undone? Or is it that people are going to spend more money to first have adoptions and then undo them and then spend money on weddings? What are we afraid of? Fear itself?

I was in Louisville for a wedding when the gay marriage ruling came down. While I was there I traveled around and went to a very rural Kentucky flea market, and I think I got a little insight in to this. I posted this earlier in this thread about the flea market:

There was a couple of people wearing confederate T-shirts and talking politics with some of the vendors. One expressed a concern that before long, they'd only be allowed to go to church in their own garages. I believe he was being sincere because he was talking only to other like-minded individuals, they were sympathizing with each other. These are very poor people (one of the poorest parts of America in fact), very uneducated.

I kind of felt bad for them - if you sincerely belive that's a real concern, I can see how that would be scary and how it could fuel your hate. And you can see these huge dividing lines between these people at the flea market and the liberal downtown Louisville crowd

It's a weird dichotomy. In other contexts we have compassion for the poor and uneducated - see the concern about Kentucky healthcare with the new governor. But we're very fast to call those same people hateful bigots if we're talking about a different issue. Is there any surprise we have these lines between people? Or backlash in the form of more Republican voters coming out when they perceive they're being attacked from all sides? Or how the ignorance can persist in these communities - if the rest of the community calls them stupid bigots, is it any wonder they're closed off and reinforce their views with peers?

You can't hate people into accepting something or changing their views. The way we've made progress in this area isn't by hating and shaming people, it's been done at a community level by people becoming more open with their lifestyles and good people around them eventually getting past their ignorance and adapting. I think those two groups of people are the key to all social progress past and present - the liberals that are able to push forward their ideals in a non-hateful way (either because they're really smart or they just obliviously live their lives in such a way), and the conservatives that are willing to gradually change their views when given that respect.

[tarcone]

Out of interest if you are against it (which seems to be the case) - then why do you feel the way you do regarding Gay marriage? - if you could explain your stance then I think it might help people understand your perspective better ... and obviously doing so would give people respect for your position or at least a way to debate things with you constructively.

I'm not against it. I could care less who marries who. I'm not one to judge anyone's decisions.

Maybe my typing skills are not conveying what im asking. Maybe the people in here are just quick to judge others.

The whole thread, all I was trying to state is my wish for small government and the right for states to make their own decisions.

The lastest entry was truly just some things that I found interesting. I had no idea people were adopting their partners to ensure legal protection of their estates. And this being new to me, I was wondering what others things would pop up.

Never have I said I'm against gay marriage. Never have I made a bigoted comment. Never have I stated I am afraid of gay people getting married.

Again, I'm not the one to judge anyone. And the tone of some of the people in here is pretty sad.

I thought this would be the thread to find out more about what goes on with this decision and the possible outcomes. I guess it's the tread to come to if you want a bunch of judge mental people who think their view, being validated, allows them to be hyperactive with name calling.

[BillJasper]

The whole thread, all I was trying to state is my wish for small government and the right for states to make their own decisions.



I just don't think states should have any say when it comes to marriage. I'd imagine you'd be pretty pissed if you were married in Missouri, went to Iowa for some reason and your significant other got hurt in a major way and they told you that you had no rights as far as seeing her or making care decisions in their state.

Or you were driving in Tennessee, got pulled over and went to jail because Tennessee doesn't recognize a Missouri drivers license as valid.

There are certain things that are simply bigger than states rights. In my opinion.

[Marc Vaughan]

I'm not against it. I could care less who marries who. I'm not one to judge anyone's decisions.

Thanks for explaining - I think its just an emotive topic and sometimes people can react badly in such circumstances when they might consider first checking their presumptions ...

[Thomkal]

the more things stay the same...

New Mormon Church Policy Making Same-Sex Married Couples Apostates « CBS DC (http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/11/06/mormon-church-gay-couples/)

[miked]

Well, since we've said we don't want marriage being defined by the churches, why do we care if some churches choose to ban gay people who are married?

[Thomkal]

Well, since we've said we don't want marriage being defined by the churches, why do we care if some churches choose to ban gay people who are married?

I actually don't care-:) churches are free to accept us (gay people) or not. Just thought it was interesting that they won't accept any of their children either,

[BillJasper]

I actually don't care-:) churches are free to accept us (gay people) or not. Just thought it was interesting that they won't accept any of their children either,

Because if the gay couples kids are normal, they can't go screaming about it corrupting people.

[RainMaker]

The whole thread, all I was trying to state is my wish for small government and the right for states to make their own decisions.

That's fine but States have never been able to make decisions that infringe on the constitutional rights of others. If your stance is consistent, you should support states rights to ban guns.

[nol]

I don't want to say anything that offends anyone. But is marriage in the constitution? I don't remember seeing it there. But maybe it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

[Dutch]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

This. And it's pretty unfair to go back to the 18th century wondering why homosexuality isn't specifically mentioned.

[Thomkal]

Lesbian Foster Parents: Order to Take Baby Under Review (http://time.com/4109646/lesbian-foster-parents-child-court/?xid=time_socialflow_facebook)

I hope this was done because the parents, two lesbians, were shown not to be fit parents in some way, not because the judge followed his own religious beliefs (aka research that he says shows children do better with a man and a woman for parents)

[jeff061]

Well, if this couple is throwing the religion card out there to deflect from them endangering their child I wish you could throw them in jail for an extended period of time.

Likely a woman lying and falsely crying rape. It takes away from people who are legitimately having these issues. Lock them up.

[EagleFan]

Will wait to hear if more comes out before judging this one. Just one side so far. Sounds bad so far but I hope it is a case where the word lesbian in the headline is meaningless. Would rather it be a case of bad parenting than it being abuse of power.

[Thomkal]

the more things stay the same...

New Mormon Church Policy Making Same-Sex Married Couples Apostates « CBS DC (http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/11/06/mormon-church-gay-couples/)

Apparently a lot of Mormons are not happy about this-many are trying to leave the church over it. The Mormon leadership issued a letter trying to soften the restrictions towards children-they can still participate in church activities, etc.

Log In - The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/14/us/mormons-set-to-quit-church-over-policy-on-gay-couples-and-their-children.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0)

[Thomkal]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-alabama-gaymarriage-idUSKBN0UK2AR20160106?utm_source=Facebook

[SirFozzie]

Or short version.

Roy Moore decides he hasn't been in the news enough lately, and tries to command the sea not to roll in.

[jeff061]

"Roy Moore has advised the probate judges to do something that would be in contempt of court," said Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center. "It's going to be ignored."

One probate judge, Steven Reed in Montgomery, Alabama, said he would not heed the administrative order.
"Judge Moore's latest charade is just sad & pathetic," Reed posted on Twitter.

Done and done.

[Thomkal]

Kim Davis is going to attend Obama's last State of the Union:

War over gay marriage to play out at SOTU | Washington Examiner (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/kim-davis-attending-state-of-the-union-jailed-for-fighting-gay-marriage/article/2580155?custom_click=rss)

I hope Obama looks right at her and tells her how wrong she was/is.

[flere-imsaho]

He might. He does appear to be The President Without Fucks To Give.

[Thomkal]

Love Wins?

https://news.vice.com/article/kentucky-senate-votes-to-create-separate-gay-marriage-license?utm_source=vicenewsfb

[QuikSand]

separate but equal, great

[Thomkal]

Love wins?

Glad the judges accepted that the Supreme Court ruling is the law of the land even if I didn't like their responses to the ruling:

Alabama Supreme Court Refuses Challenge to Gay Marriage - NBC News (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/alabama-supreme-court-refuses-challenge-gay-marriage-n532171)

[claphamsa]

sad that a lower court following the law qualifies as a mention.....

[Thomkal]

Come to Mississipi! (or not)

Scroll down to see the ad that mocks the state's recent "religious freedom" law:

Funny or Die Releases Mock Mississippi Tourism Ad in Response to State's Anti-LGBT Law | MissOpen (http://www.missopen.com/random/funny-or-die-releases-mock-mississippi-tourism-ad-in-response-to-states-anti-lgbt-law/)

[BillJasper]

Come to Mississipi! (or not)

Scroll down to see the ad that mocks the state's recent "religious freedom" law:

Funny or Die Releases Mock Mississippi Tourism Ad in Response to State's Anti-LGBT Law | MissOpen (http://www.missopen.com/random/funny-or-die-releases-mock-mississippi-tourism-ad-in-response-to-states-anti-lgbt-law/)

:lol:

[EagleFan]

Here I thought it was going to be parody but it turned out to be pretty accurate.

[Thomkal]

Here I thought it was going to be parody but it turned out to be pretty accurate.

yeah that's the most ironic/funny part about it

[Thomkal]

#LoveWins Justice Moore

Log In - The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/07/us/judge-roy-moore-alabama-same-sex-marriage.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0)

[flere-imsaho]

It is the second complaint lodged by the state’s Judicial Inquiry Commission against the judge. In 2003, he was ousted by the same body from his position as chief justice after disobeying a federal court order to remove a two-ton monument of the Ten Commandments that he had installed in the rotunda of the state judicial building.

He was elected to that office again nine years later.

So...................

[bronconick]

He'll be back on the Alabama Supreme Court by 2018?

[miami_fan]

I guess this is our everything gay thread right? I wonder if Repubs/Conservatives will try to block it?

Obama nominates openly gay man to lead Army - CNNPolitics.com (http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/18/politics/eric-fanning-secretary-of-the-army/index.html)

An update to complete this story.

Eric Fanning, First Openly Gay Army Secretary, Confirmed by U.S. Senate - NBC News (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/first-openly-gay-army-secretary-confirmed-n575661)

[Thomkal]

An update to complete this story.

Eric Fanning, First Openly Gay Army Secretary, Confirmed by U.S. Senate - NBC News (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/first-openly-gay-army-secretary-confirmed-n575661)

Yeah I saw that. Happy for him. Looks like one of the Repubs did block it for awhile over a battle with Pres. Obama over Guantamino(sp?) inmates not being moved to Leavenworth. Mike Huckabee was not pleased he was even nominated because he's gay. Good thing he had no power to do anything about it.

[Thomkal]

the more things change...the more they stay the same...

Amid shouts of 'shame,' House GOP defeats gay rights measure | PBS NewsHour (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/amid-shouts-of-shame-house-gop-defeats-gay-rights-measure/)

[Thomkal]

man I sure hope he's out of office when the meteor hits :) Thanks for wasting the House's time Rep. Gohmert.

Texas Congressman Says US Should Not Make Gay Space Colonies | Motherboard (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/texas-congressman-louie-gohmert-says-us-should-not-make-gay-space-colonies?utm_source=mbfb)

[cuervo72]

Were we...making gay space colonies?

[SackAttack]

man I sure hope he's out of office when the meteor hits :) Thanks for wasting the House's time Rep. Gohmert.

Texas Congressman Says US Should Not Make Gay Space Colonies | Motherboard (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/texas-congressman-louie-gohmert-says-us-should-not-make-gay-space-colonies?utm_source=mbfb)

Like, on the one hand, the rational response is that this isn't worth responding to.

On the other hand, there are some legitimate reasons to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in a colonization effort. If it's emergency colonization (the Kal-El Scenario, we'll call that), the survival of the species is paramount. If doom is imminent, there probably isn't time to worry about egalitarian niceties.

If it's "normal" colonization, you're still talking about slow boats and orders of magnitude more time for a second wave of colonists to reach the colony/-ies than was the case when Europe started carving up the New World. The trip itself is likely to take long enough that the colonial effort would have to rely on its colonists to be self-sufficient on a new planet without expecting fresh arrivals to inject new blood into the local gene pool. If there's no form of suspended animation (or travel at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light) to ensure that the colonists who sign up are the ones who eventually arrive, the effort is reliant on those colonists to engage in self-replacement during the voyage.

Yeah, we have the technology right now to enable same-sex couples to have biologically-theirs children, but that's unlikely to be a priority in terms either of scientific expertise or equipment in the mass budget for a colony.

Space colonization isn't the same thing as moving house. Once you have colonies established, there's no rational reason to restrict gay people from moving to those colonies, but at least initially, if you want the colonial effort to be successful, some decisions are going to be necessary that may come across as dickish.

All of that said, we aren't really remotely close either to being able to build a Space Ark, or to being able to detect a planet-killer of an asteroid in time to either BUILD a Space Ark or deflect/destroy the asteroid, and we haven't got the political will right now to spend the money necessary to do either or both of those things. Whatever the merits (accidental or otherwise) of Gohmert's rant, it's utterly pointless at this moment in time.

Were we...making gay space colonies?

Unfortunately not (since that would imply that all of those OTHER issues above had already been sorted and humanity had started putting its eggs in more than just the one basket). But, y'know, maybe Civ:BE has a mod for that.

[jeff061]

So are you positing that gays are sterile or something? Or that gays are so gay they wouldn't have sex with a woman(or man) even if it meant saving the species?

I'd say other experiences and skill sets are significantly more valuable than sexual orientation.

[flere-imsaho]

Yeah, we have the technology right now to enable same-sex couples to have biologically-theirs children, but that's unlikely to be a priority in terms either of scientific expertise or equipment in the mass budget for a colony.

???

Option 1: Gay man and woman who aren't too squeamish about the opposite sex do the horizontal shuffle for the good of humanity. Maybe with their partners participating because space orgies are fun.

Option 2: Gay man deposits sperm into sterile cup. Gay woman takes sperm out of cup with the equivalent of a turkey baster (i.e. needleless syringe) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_insemination#Intracervical_insemination) and deposits it where it needs to be. At the following Thanksgiving the turkey basters are inadvertently switched, leading to much hilarity when the story is retold years later.

[Thomkal]

I think technology would be so advanced at this point that the equivalent of Option 2 would be possible and not cost-prohibited. If it meant the survival of the human race, I suppose I would be willing to do the "horizontal shuffle" with a woman. I must ask though how you know space orgies are fun? :)

My reason for posting it was more to point out the absurdity and homophobia around his comment-God forbid our "perverseness" spread out amongst the Stars. That he used his time to even talk about the issue at all just sickened me no end.

[Thomkal]

I suppose I should point out here a good example of "gayness" in Congress right now. The Democratic Representative from my home district in New York is the first gay member to be elected from that state. He has not been shy about fighting against discrimination and for gay rights. Which lead to this incident in the House the other day:

House breaks into fight over LGBT rights | MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.com/jose-diaz-balart/watch/house-breaks-into-fight-over-lgbt-rights-694219843561)

[SackAttack]

So are you positing that gays are sterile or something? Or that gays are so gay they wouldn't have sex with a woman(or man) even if it meant saving the species?

No, but I do think that if a Kal-El Scenario arises, you can call me an asshole, but I would absolutely be focused on maximizing the colony's chance of survival. You don't get do-overs on that scale.

???

Option 2: Gay man deposits sperm into sterile cup. Gay woman takes sperm out of cup with the equivalent of a turkey baster (i.e. needleless syringe) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_insemination#Intracervical_insemination) and deposits it where it needs to be. At the following Thanksgiving the turkey basters are inadvertently switched, leading to much hilarity when the story is retold years later.

Honestly, during the voyage this is probably what would have to happen regardless of the colonists' orientation. Something about null-G being rough on the dude's vascular system.

But once on the ground the potential for social issues arises. And maybe I'm being overly cynical about humanity's ability to handle stress with maturity.

Don't get me wrong - if we WERE building a Space Ark and gay colonists were being accepted, I'm okay with that. If the mission planners say "here's the group that gives us the best chance for survival," at that point you have to trust that they know what they're talking about.

I'm just saying that in a Kal-El Scenario where a very few live and the majority perish, if I'm putting that mission together I'm probably more ruthless about it. And maybe that means I wouldn't be the best person to put that mission together. :-)

But given the distance and time scales involved even if it's elective colonization, I do think that first effort would have to be more stringent.