SCOTUS Gay Marriage Thread [Archive] - Front Office Football Central

Thomkal

06-25-2015, 11:38 AM

Looks like we'll get the gay marriage ruling tomorrow or Monday.

corbes

06-26-2015, 09:07 AM

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

corbes

06-26-2015, 09:13 AM

“The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them.”

cartman

06-26-2015, 09:18 AM

The majority opinion also said that religious institutions have a 1st amendment right to be against SSM, so that addresses the fear that some had that churches would be forced to perform SSM. Makes it clear this is a civil issue, not a religious one.

Kodos

06-26-2015, 09:18 AM

Awesome. You did good this week, Supremes. Happy 4th of July!

Logan

06-26-2015, 09:20 AM

Good day.

BillJasper

06-26-2015, 09:29 AM

Awesome. You did good this week, Supremes. Happy 4th of July!

+1

Thomkal

06-26-2015, 09:49 AM

Finally, Finally I can proudly call myself a gay American. Yes I was one of the two people (i think) marked that box we had in that poll here a while back. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled in our favor, I feel it was time to come out of the shadows. This issue has caused some strife in my own family, with the person I should be closest to-my twin brother. He is very much a conservative Christian Republican...while I'm not any of those. It's been hard for both of us to put our political/social beliefs behind us at times and remember we are our brothers first. I don't expect this decision to do much to change things between us, but it has and will help many of my gay brethren who have fought for this for so long, and for that I am happy for them.

NOTE: If today's results and my "coming out here" disgusts and angers you, then please block me-I don't want to hear your words anymore than you want to hear mine anymore I'm guessing.

BillJasper

06-26-2015, 09:52 AM

Finally, Finally I can proudly call myself a gay American. Yes I was one of the two people (i think) marked that box we had in that poll here a while back. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled in our favor, I feel it was time to come out of the shadows. This issue has caused some strife in my own family, with the person I should be closest to-my twin brother. He is very much a conservative Christian Republican...while I'm not any of those. It's been hard for both of us to put our political/social beliefs behind us at times and remember we are our brothers first. I don't expect this decision to do much to change things between us, but it has and will help many of my gay brethren who have fought for this for so long, and for that I am happy for them.

NOTE: If today's results and my "coming out here" disgusts and angers you, then please block me-I don't want to hear your words anymore than you want to hear mine anymore I'm guessing.

Congratulations on the victory.

Hate isn't having a good week. :thumbsup:

Kodos

06-26-2015, 09:59 AM

Finally, Finally I can proudly call myself a gay American. Yes I was one of the two people (i think) marked that box we had in that poll here a while back. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled in our favor, I feel it was time to come out of the shadows. This issue has caused some strife in my own family, with the person I should be closest to-my twin brother. He is very much a conservative Christian Republican...while I'm not any of those. It's been hard for both of us to put our political/social beliefs behind us at times and remember we are our brothers first. I don't expect this decision to do much to change things between us, but it has and will help many of my gay brethren who have fought for this for so long, and for that I am happy for them.

NOTE: If today's results and my "coming out here" disgusts and angers you, then please block me-I don't want to hear your words anymore than you want to hear mine anymore I'm guessing.

This day has been a long time coming. Happy for you and others who are now free to marry whoever (whomever?) they like. Anyone who would block you would not be a loss anyhow. :) Chalk up a win for love over hate.

NobodyHere

06-26-2015, 10:14 AM

Finally, Finally I can proudly call myself a gay American. Yes I was one of the two people (i think) marked that box we had in that poll here a while back. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled in our favor, I feel it was time to come out of the shadows. This issue has caused some strife in my own family, with the person I should be closest to-my twin brother. He is very much a conservative Christian Republican...while I'm not any of those. It's been hard for both of us to put our political/social beliefs behind us at times and remember we are our brothers first. I don't expect this decision to do much to change things between us, but it has and will help many of my gay brethren who have fought for this for so long, and for that I am happy for them.

NOTE: If today's results and my "coming out here" disgusts and angers you, then please block me-I don't want to hear your words anymore than you want to hear mine anymore I'm guessing.

So do you have an eye for a guy like me?

JPhillips

06-26-2015, 10:18 AM

Cheers to you, Thomkal. If you ever come around I'd be happy to buy you a drink in celebration!

Neuqua

06-26-2015, 10:19 AM

Cheers to Thomkal and SCOTUS. What a week!

JAG

06-26-2015, 10:34 AM

Finally, Finally I can proudly call myself a gay American. Yes I was one of the two people (i think) marked that box we had in that poll here a while back. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled in our favor, I feel it was time to come out of the shadows. This issue has caused some strife in my own family, with the person I should be closest to-my twin brother. He is very much a conservative Christian Republican...while I'm not any of those. It's been hard for both of us to put our political/social beliefs behind us at times and remember we are our brothers first. I don't expect this decision to do much to change things between us, but it has and will help many of my gay brethren who have fought for this for so long, and for that I am happy for them.

NOTE: If today's results and my "coming out here" disgusts and angers you, then please block me-I don't want to hear your words anymore than you want to hear mine anymore I'm guessing.

Glad you feel comfortable coming out now and congratulations on the victory. Sorry to hear about the strife with your brother, in some ways this might help since it will hopefully be less of a political matter now.

albionmoonlight

06-26-2015, 10:53 AM

I am glad that the decision got you to come out of the FOFC shadows, Thomkal. Glad to know a little bit more of the real you.

cuervo72

06-26-2015, 10:56 AM

Finally, Finally I can proudly call myself a gay American. Yes I was one of the two people (i think) marked that box we had in that poll here a while back. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled in our favor, I feel it was time to come out of the shadows. This issue has caused some strife in my own family, with the person I should be closest to-my twin brother. He is very much a conservative Christian Republican...while I'm not any of those. It's been hard for both of us to put our political/social beliefs behind us at times and remember we are our brothers first. I don't expect this decision to do much to change things between us, but it has and will help many of my gay brethren who have fought for this for so long, and for that I am happy for them.

NOTE: If today's results and my "coming out here" disgusts and angers you, then please block me-I don't want to hear your words anymore than you want to hear mine anymore I'm guessing.

Very happy for you Dan. Both for the decision and for you feeling comfortable to share this with us. I hope your brother someday opens his mind and softens his stance.

MrBug708

06-26-2015, 11:01 AM

So does this affect churches in the same way way it did that bakery that was sued? Half my Facebook thinks the end times is near and the other half is ready to party, so I can't quite tell

cartman

06-26-2015, 11:03 AM

So does this affect churches in the same way way it did that bakery that was sued? Half my Facebook thinks the end times is near and the other half is ready to party, so I can't quite tell

Nope.

The majority opinion also said that religious institutions have a 1st amendment right to be against SSM, so that addresses the fear that some had that churches would be forced to perform SSM. Makes it clear this is a civil issue, not a religious one.

Brian Swartz

06-26-2015, 11:17 AM

Though many of my Christian friends will not see it this way, this is what is on my Facebook and how I will endeavor to respond. I hope most of them will join me.

This is a day to mourn, but let us make it more prominently a day to love. A day to pray for, not prey on, those in authority. A day to emphasize and demonstrate ever more the glorious love and grace of Jesus Christ, which is and always has been our only hope and foundation.

It's been hard for both of us to put our political/social beliefs behind us at times and remember we are our brothers first.

I appreciate you sharing this. As a former conservative(still am on social issues such as this) and a believer I have a similar conflict with one of my younger brothers who is aggressively agnostic. I can identify with your statement here as we have had a similar struggle to what you describe and there is little we can talk about without him becoming upset so we just basically don't talk about things that we can't find common interest/ground in(which is most of them). It saddens me a lot but I do the best I can with it.

You get nothing but kudos so far as making this statement here is concerned. It is always best to be honest and straightforward, and I am glad you felt free to do so.

CraigSca

06-26-2015, 11:36 AM

Congrats, Thomkal. Conservative believer here - give it time (with your brother and others) as they will eventually come around.

Honolulu_Blue

06-26-2015, 11:41 AM

Finally, Finally I can proudly call myself a gay American. Yes I was one of the two people (i think) marked that box we had in that poll here a while back. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled in our favor, I feel it was time to come out of the shadows. This issue has caused some strife in my own family, with the person I should be closest to-my twin brother. He is very much a conservative Christian Republican...while I'm not any of those. It's been hard for both of us to put our political/social beliefs behind us at times and remember we are our brothers first. I don't expect this decision to do much to change things between us, but it has and will help many of my gay brethren who have fought for this for so long, and for that I am happy for them.

NOTE: If today's results and my "coming out here" disgusts and angers you, then please block me-I don't want to hear your words anymore than you want to hear mine anymore I'm guessing.

Congrats, Thomkal! I do hope your brother can find some peace with this at some point.

Now you can focus all of your attention back onto your beloved Cards!

Chief Rum

06-26-2015, 11:54 AM

Finally, Finally I can proudly call myself a gay American. Yes I was one of the two people (i think) marked that box we had in that poll here a while back. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled in our favor, I feel it was time to come out of the shadows. This issue has caused some strife in my own family, with the person I should be closest to-my twin brother. He is very much a conservative Christian Republican...while I'm not any of those. It's been hard for both of us to put our political/social beliefs behind us at times and remember we are our brothers first. I don't expect this decision to do much to change things between us, but it has and will help many of my gay brethren who have fought for this for so long, and for that I am happy for them.

NOTE: If today's results and my "coming out here" disgusts and angers you, then please block me-I don't want to hear your words anymore than you want to hear mine anymore I'm guessing.

Wow! That's awesome, Thomkal! Congrats on coming out here, and on the big win yesterday for the GBLT community.

As a fiscal conservative, I find myself more and more identifying with a more progressively social stance, and I see yesterday as a big win for my stance on that as well.

I have to admit, your situation with your twin brother is interesting to me, on the science side of things. Are you and your brother identical twins?

Logan

06-26-2015, 11:59 AM

Very happy for you Dan. Both for the decision and for you feeling comfortable to share this with us. I hope your brother someday opens his mind and softens his stance.

+1

Grover

06-26-2015, 12:03 PM

Finally, Finally I can proudly call myself a gay American. Yes I was one of the two people (i think) marked that box we had in that poll here a while back. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled in our favor, I feel it was time to come out of the shadows. This issue has caused some strife in my own family, with the person I should be closest to-my twin brother. He is very much a conservative Christian Republican...while I'm not any of those. It's been hard for both of us to put our political/social beliefs behind us at times and remember we are our brothers first. I don't expect this decision to do much to change things between us, but it has and will help many of my gay brethren who have fought for this for so long, and for that I am happy for them.

NOTE: If today's results and my "coming out here" disgusts and angers you, then please block me-I don't want to hear your words anymore than you want to hear mine anymore I'm guessing.

Whoo! Good for you. Very happy you felt like you could share this with us.

My biggest laugh about the entire thing is how the religious feel it is infringing on their personal beliefs. Nobody is forcing these churches to marry LGBTQ couples. They can go to city hall and get a certificate like anybody else could.

This is a fantastic day for equality and love. Hopefully we can continue to push forward as a nation and globally.

SirFozzie

06-26-2015, 12:09 PM

Great couple of days.

Brian Swartz

06-26-2015, 12:18 PM

Nobody is forcing these churches to marry LGBTQ couples. They can go to city hall and get a certificate like anybody else could.

Not yet, but I don't think all of those concerns are completely unreasonable. There are already the much-discussed instances of Christian businesses not being able to run their operations according to their beliefs, and the issue of tax-exempt status for those communities that don't marry LGBTQ couples is already rumbling out there in certain quarters. I don't view it as an imminent issue, but it does seem likely that society will continue to move further and further in that direction.

Edit: As the Chief Justice wrote:

The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses. Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples… Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.

As mentioned, I do believe these types of issues will continue to be litigated, and the pattern/trend is not one in favor of protecting religious liberty. I fully understand and respect the view that those liberties are worth sacrificing for the greater good and a view of equality that I do not share, but I profoundly differ with it.

Subby

06-26-2015, 12:44 PM

Finally, Finally I can proudly call myself a gay American. Yes I was one of the two people (i think) marked that box we had in that poll here a while back. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled in our favor, I feel it was time to come out of the shadows. This issue has caused some strife in my own family, with the person I should be closest to-my twin brother. He is very much a conservative Christian Republican...while I'm not any of those. It's been hard for both of us to put our political/social beliefs behind us at times and remember we are our brothers first. I don't expect this decision to do much to change things between us, but it has and will help many of my gay brethren who have fought for this for so long, and for that I am happy for them.

NOTE: If today's results and my "coming out here" disgusts and angers you, then please block me-I don't want to hear your words anymore than you want to hear mine anymore I'm guessing.
God bless you. I am so happy for you.

Subby

06-26-2015, 12:46 PM

This video captures how proud I am of my country right now. It brought tears to my eyes.

Gay Men's Chorus of Washington Sings National Anthem After Supreme Court Ruling - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYHuF9tIbpQ)

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VYHuF9tIbpQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Dr. Sak

06-26-2015, 01:03 PM

I don't like to talk politics or religion (except with my Father-in-law :devil: ) but if you are a true Christian you will remember the greatest commandment of them all:

Love your neighbor as yourself.

I'm happy that everyone has the right to marriage, I hope that those who are of Christian belief remember that commandment and the fact that God is Love. Be happy for those who now have the right to marry the one they Love, do not judge, and in return we just ask for those who don't agree with our beliefs to have the same tolerance that they expect from us. With all the hate going on in the world, having more love can't hurt.

I will get off my soap box now, I'm starting to sound like a 1960s hippy.

Kodos

06-26-2015, 01:14 PM

Get a haircut!

cuervo72

06-26-2015, 01:32 PM

Not yet, but I don't think all of those concerns are completely unreasonable.

I just can't see this. Catholic churches, for example - I don't believe they will marry someone who is not either a Catholic in good standing or someone who has made gestures to convert. I'm not sure if you're even allowed in Mormon temples if you're not Mormon. For many churches there are just qualifications that you have to meed in order for the church to agree to marry you. I don't think it will be any different in this case.

Brian Swartz

06-26-2015, 01:57 PM

I was referring to the broader religious liberty issue, which I tried(and apparently failed) to make clear by including the Roberts quote and the issues raised there.

Dutch

06-26-2015, 02:10 PM

I just can't see this. Catholic churches, for example - I don't believe they will marry someone who is not either a Catholic in good standing or someone who has made gestures to convert. I'm not sure if you're even allowed in Mormon temples if you're not Mormon. For many churches there are just qualifications that you have to meed in order for the church to agree to marry you. I don't think it will be any different in this case.

And I wouldn't go to a mosque just because they support marriage. Nor would I expect them to make room for me. Gay people will have to do what every other person through time as done when they feel shafted...find or build a church that will welcome you.

path12

06-26-2015, 02:10 PM

Man, the Pride parade on Sunday is gonna be just nuts. I think we'll have to get downtown for it.

Kodos

06-26-2015, 02:15 PM

And I wouldn't go to a mosque just because they support marriage. Nor would I expect them to make room for me. Gay people will have to do what every other person through time as done when they feel shafted...find or build a church that will welcome you.

And churches that don't support gay marriage will have to be willing to accept that some members will move to a different church that does support gay marriage.

bob

06-26-2015, 02:26 PM

A buddy of mine's wife is going to see the Indigo Girls tonight. Should be some good stories from that.

Dutch

06-26-2015, 02:37 PM

And churches that don't support gay marriage will have to be willing to accept that some members will move to a different church that does support gay marriage.

Nobody is locked in to a church, it's a free country...and when it comes to religion, a free world....mostly.

I fully support gay people modifying religion to meet their needs. We've all done it.

heybrad

06-26-2015, 03:30 PM

I'm not sure if you're even allowed in Mormon temples if you're not Mormon. For many churches there are just qualifications that you have to meet in order for the church to agree to marry you. I don't think it will be any different in this case.
Just as a pont of information, being Mormon on its own is not enough to enter the temple. You have to be considered worthy.

Dutch

06-26-2015, 03:41 PM

Just as a pont of information, being Mormon on its own is not enough to enter the temple. You have to be considered worthy.

Its a great example of why choices exist. :)

Kodos

06-26-2015, 03:42 PM

Great. I just know that I will never be temple-worthy.

Solecismic

06-26-2015, 03:43 PM

Finally, Finally I can proudly call myself a gay American. Yes I was one of the two people (i think) marked that box we had in that poll here a while back. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled in our favor, I feel it was time to come out of the shadows. This issue has caused some strife in my own family, with the person I should be closest to-my twin brother. He is very much a conservative Christian Republican...while I'm not any of those. It's been hard for both of us to put our political/social beliefs behind us at times and remember we are our brothers first. I don't expect this decision to do much to change things between us, but it has and will help many of my gay brethren who have fought for this for so long, and for that I am happy for them.

NOTE: If today's results and my "coming out here" disgusts and angers you, then please block me-I don't want to hear your words anymore than you want to hear mine anymore I'm guessing.

Congratulations. Today, you're one giant step closer to sharing everything that's positive about America.

We've all seen too many of the negatives lately. It's nice to have a day that's about inclusion and freedom.

corbes

06-26-2015, 04:21 PM

This video captures how proud I am of my country right now. It brought tears to my eyes.

Gay Men's Chorus of Washington Sings National Anthem After Supreme Court Ruling - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYHuF9tIbpQ)

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VYHuF9tIbpQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

+1

Finally I can proudly call myself a gay American

#lovewins

Edward64

06-26-2015, 05:41 PM

Finally, Finally I can proudly call myself a gay American. Yes I was one of the two people (i think) marked that box we had in that poll here a while back. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled in our favor, I feel it was time to come out of the shadows. This issue has caused some strife in my own family, with the person I should be closest to-my twin brother. He is very much a conservative Christian Republican...while I'm not any of those. It's been hard for both of us to put our political/social beliefs behind us at times and remember we are our brothers first. I don't expect this decision to do much to change things between us, but it has and will help many of my gay brethren who have fought for this for so long, and for that I am happy for them.

NOTE: If today's results and my "coming out here" disgusts and angers you, then please block me-I don't want to hear your words anymore than you want to hear mine anymore I'm guessing.

I can only imagine your sense of relief and how happy you feel. Congratulations.

Edward64

06-26-2015, 05:47 PM

Congratulations Obama .... hopefully with Obamacare no longer a distraction, you can refocus on foreign policy. I think your domestic policy is in the history books but your 2nd term foreign policy needs more work and could tarnish your overall rating.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/supreme-court-gay-rights-change/index.html
The times, they are a changing, suddenly at whiplash speed.

After a momentous week, same-sex couples can now marry in all 50 states, the Confederate flag's historic hold on the political institutions of the Deep South is fraying by the hour and Obamacare, after defying another attempt to dismantle it, is now reaffirmed as the law of the land.

And as a capstone to these seismic events, the first black president of the United States spent Friday afternoon singing "Amazing Grace" on live television in front of an African American congregation.

Political and social conventions on civil rights and race relations that for decades have seemed immovable are being swept away in a cascade of grass-roots change. Politicians have been left struggling to keep up

Dutch

06-26-2015, 05:50 PM

Finally, Finally I can proudly call myself a gay American. Yes I was one of the two people (i think) marked that box we had in that poll here a while back. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled in our favor, I feel it was time to come out of the shadows. This issue has caused some strife in my own family, with the person I should be closest to-my twin brother. He is very much a conservative Christian Republican...while I'm not any of those. It's been hard for both of us to put our political/social beliefs behind us at times and remember we are our brothers first. I don't expect this decision to do much to change things between us, but it has and will help many of my gay brethren who have fought for this for so long, and for that I am happy for them.

NOTE: If today's results and my "coming out here" disgusts and angers you, then please block me-I don't want to hear your words anymore than you want to hear mine anymore I'm guessing.

We talk a lot here at FOFC about how our back and forth bickering never changes minds. But I've changed my mind over the years on what homosexuality is, and a lot of that was from discussions a long time ago here on this message board. And basically, I just don't understand it, but its not something to be hateful about, its not something to be scared of. I dont make gay jokes anymore...I stopped saying, "That's gay" about anything I disapprove of. While I still struggle to equate it to our racial problems...I get that it was second class citizenship we were enforcing and I was part of the problem.

In a nutshell, I'm glad that you, a decent human being by all accounts, are happy and that America has taken a step to be more comfortable with you.

EagleFan

06-26-2015, 07:11 PM

Finally, Finally I can proudly call myself a gay American. Yes I was one of the two people (i think) marked that box we had in that poll here a while back. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled in our favor, I feel it was time to come out of the shadows. This issue has caused some strife in my own family, with the person I should be closest to-my twin brother. He is very much a conservative Christian Republican...while I'm not any of those. It's been hard for both of us to put our political/social beliefs behind us at times and remember we are our brothers first. I don't expect this decision to do much to change things between us, but it has and will help many of my gay brethren who have fought for this for so long, and for that I am happy for them.

NOTE: If today's results and my "coming out here" disgusts and angers you, then please block me-I don't want to hear your words anymore than you want to hear mine anymore I'm guessing.

A day that has been long overdue... sort of. The only thing that I am not a fan of is the supreme court taking away power from the state. I applaud the message, just not the messenger.

Oh well enough of the parade pissing. Great message, one that I fully support. As I have said. While I may not like seeing two men kissing that is my own problem, not theirs. Anyone that is against the idea of same sex marriage there is very good news for you; this doesn't affect you one bit. If you don't like the idea of same sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex.

EagleFan

06-26-2015, 07:12 PM

We talk a lot here at FOFC about how our back and forth bickering never changes minds. But I've changed my mind over the years on what homosexuality is, and a lot of that was from discussions a long time ago here on this message board. And basically, I just don't understand it, but its not something to be hateful about, its not something to be scared of. I dont make gay jokes anymore...I stopped saying, "That's gay" about anything I disapprove of. While I still struggle to equate it to our racial problems...I get that it was second class citizenship we were enforcing and I was part of the problem.

In a nutshell, I'm glad that you, a decent human being by all accounts, are happy and that America has taken a step to be more comfortable with you.

This, this, a million times this!!!

Edward64

06-26-2015, 07:55 PM

We talk a lot here at FOFC about how our back and forth bickering never changes minds. But I've changed my mind over the years on what homosexuality is, and a lot of that was from discussions a long time ago here on this message board. And basically, I just don't understand it, but its not something to be hateful about, its not something to be scared of. I dont make gay jokes anymore...I stopped saying, "That's gay" about anything I disapprove of. While I still struggle to equate it to our racial problems...I get that it was second class citizenship we were enforcing and I was part of the problem.

In a nutshell, I'm glad that you, a decent human being by all accounts, are happy and that America has taken a step to be more comfortable with you.

Pretty cool how you said this.

Kodos

06-26-2015, 09:02 PM

Nice, Dutch. :)

corbes

06-27-2015, 06:22 AM

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/WireAP_9673b3bba0d9471ab228d8fc95beac7b_16x9_992.jpg

bob

06-27-2015, 08:02 AM

Congratulations Obama .... hopefully with Obamacare no longer a distraction, you can refocus on foreign policy. I think your domestic policy is in the history books but your 2nd term foreign policy needs more work and could tarnish your overall rating.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/supreme-court-gay-rights-change/index.html

Why does Obama get credit for gay marriage rights? He didn't do anything to bring it about, and if I recall correctly, in 2008 candidate Obama was against gay marriage.

Edward64

06-27-2015, 08:05 AM

Why does Obama get credit for gay marriage rights? He didn't do anything to bring it about, and if I recall correctly, in 2008 candidate Obama was against gay marriage.

Two supreme court appointments. Maybe not direct credit but certainly some credit.

I think you are right though about him being against gay marriage. But I think it was one of those had-to-say political message to win the presidency.

panerd

06-27-2015, 08:37 AM

Two supreme court appointments. Maybe not direct credit but certainly some credit.

I think you are right though about him being against gay marriage. But I think it was one of those had-to-say political message to win the presidency.

Yes even less reason for him to be applauded. Huge win yesterday for gay rights in spite of politicians like Obama saying whatever it takes to be elected. (Believe me he is part of a HUGE group of politicians who deserve scorn for prolonging the opposition to this but I find that somehow he is being credited a lot of places by people whose memories can't even go back several years)

bob

06-27-2015, 09:00 AM

Yeah, it just bugs me for him to be getting credit or Hillary to be trying to use this in her campaign when they both were against it in 2008.

Hell, Cheney was for it back in 2004.

Kodos

06-27-2015, 09:04 AM

He did mention that his thoughts on gay marriage were evolving a number of years ago.

Edward64

06-27-2015, 09:06 AM

Yes even less reason for him to be applauded. Huge win yesterday for gay rights in spite of politicians like Obama saying whatever it takes to be elected. (Believe me he is part of a HUGE group of politicians who deserve scorn for prolonging the opposition to this but I find that somehow he is being credited a lot of places by people whose memories can't even go back several years)

I think it worked out for the cause that he said what he had to say to be elected. Although not as open or as fast as you may have liked, would the alternative have gotten the gay community here any quicker or at all?

I think likely not. So I'm willing to give Obama credit for this.

Edward64

06-27-2015, 09:13 AM

FWIW ... yup for political reasons

David Axelrod: Barack Obama Misled Nation On Gay Marriage In 2008 (http://time.com/3702584/gay-marriage-axelrod-obama/)
Barack Obama misled Americans for his own political benefit when he claimed in the 2008 election to oppose same sex marriage for religious reasons, his former political strategist David Axelrod writes in a new book, Believer: My Forty Years in Politics.

“I’m just not very good at bullshitting,” Obama told Axelrod, after an event where he stated his opposition to same-sex marriage, according to the book.

Axelrod writes that he knew Obama was in favor of same-sex marriages during the first presidential campaign, even as Obama publicly said he only supported civil unions, not full marriages. Axelrod also admits to counseling Obama to conceal that position for political reasons. “Opposition to gay marriage was particularly strong in the black church, and as he ran for higher office, he grudgingly accepted the counsel of more pragmatic folks like me, and modified his position to support civil unions rather than marriage, which he would term a ‘sacred union,’ ” Axelrod writes.

larrymcg421

06-27-2015, 09:40 AM

Well the congratulations are clearly in order considering Obama's administration took part in the case and their side won.

I said for a long time that Obama was lying about his opposition to gay marriage so he could get elected. There is evidence of this from position statements he filled out while in the Illinois legislature. And I have no problem with him doing that. Would the gay cause have been better served by him proclaiming support in 2008 and potentially losing the election? Today's decision almost certainly would've been different had that happened. Gays still wouldn't be serving in the military. DOMA would still be alive.

When Obama announced his support for gay marriage, 30 consecutive states had enacted bans without a single state either rejecting a ban or approving same sex marriage. His announcement had a strong effect on the African-American community. He was fought stringently on Don't Ask Don't Tell and DOMA. If you want to criticize him for playing politics or waiting too long, that's fine, but if you're arguing that Obama deserves no credit for where we are today, then you're making a ridiculous argument that has no basis in reality.

Brian Swartz

06-27-2015, 02:42 PM

A few things that are worth responding to here I think:

I said for a long time that Obama was lying about his opposition to gay marriage so he could get elected. There is evidence of this from position statements he filled out while in the Illinois legislature. And I have no problem with him doing that.

The truth is always better. Always. I don't think we could disagree more on this. I also think justifying the lies our politicians tell is a great way to ensure such things continue and multiply, something I will always oppose.

I fully support gay people modifying religion to meet their needs. We've all done it.

They should certainly express their religion with full authenticity and genuineness(is that even a word?) as should everyone. Having said that, people who modify their religion to meet their needs ought to reexamine the purpose of religion -- they're doing it wrong. To the degree that it is true that 'we've all done it' -- we ought to be ashamed of ourselves.

I hope that those who are of Christian belief remember that commandment and the fact that God is Love. Be happy for those who now have the right to marry the one they Love, do not judge, and in return we just ask for those who don't agree with our beliefs to have the same tolerance that they expect from us. With all the hate going on in the world, having more love can't hurt.

I must object partially to your definition of what it means to be a 'true Christian'. God is love, but as He defined it. We certainly ought to, and I intend to, spread that love as much as possible. Among the thing it includes is conflict where necessary, and love cannot be happy for destructive things.

"it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth"(I Corinthians 13:6).

As for me, there were casualties in some relationships yesterday. As a result of my previously posted facebook message, I am no longer on speaking terms with my brother's significant other, and he felt it necessary to publicly label me and all others who share my view as being without humanity or sympathy, pitiful, brainwashed/fear-driven, empty, and joyless. I hope these wounds will heal with time, and that other similar or more severe divides between people caused by this issue will eventually result in both sides being able to see that strongly held differing opinions are not necessarily the result of nefarious or evil motives: they are just that: differing opinions.

Solecismic

06-27-2015, 02:54 PM

I must object partially to your definition of what it means to be a 'true Christian'.

There are, what, about a billion Christians in the world. I see your objection, but I'd expect there are about a billion other objections and definitions. No one thinks of himself or herself as an untrue Christian. Faith is deeply personal and by definition impossible to define.

As for me, there were casualties in some relationships yesterday. As a result of my previously posted facebook message, I am no longer on speaking terms with my brother's significant other, and he felt it necessary to publicly label me and all others who share my view as being without humanity or sympathy, pitiful, brainwashed/fear-driven, empty, and joyless. I hope these wounds will heal with time, and that other similar or more severe divides between people caused by this issue will eventually result in both sides being able to see that strongly held differing opinions are not necessarily the result of nefarious or evil motives: they are just that: differing opinions.

If religion divides family in this manner, one should question religion, right? On one hand, you may have deeply insulted someone your own brother may make his spouse. On the other hand, he is taking this insult as a potentially permanent barrier between you, while it sounds like you aren't. Is faith worth this cost? Could you ask whether your God would create someone who felt a deep attraction to someone of the same sex if he felt homosexuality was so evil as to be worthy of damnation?

jeff061

06-27-2015, 03:09 PM

Publicly label me and all others who share my view as being without humanity or sympathy, pitiful, brainwashed/fear-driven, empty, and joyless.

+1.

Brian Swartz

06-27-2015, 03:14 PM

No one thinks of himself or herself as an untrue Christian. Faith is deeply personal and by definition impossible to define.

Faith might be difficult to define, but I don't agree that Christianity is. By basic logic and definition, it can be defined as those who follow the teachings of Christ. It can either be accepted or rejected that the Bible contains those teachings, but in the latter case the term loses all meanings.

Of course anyone can call themselves a Christian, but that's not the same thing. I can call myself a grapefruit too, but it will readily be apparent that I'm not one :).

As to family, yes my faith is worth that cost and far more. If you haven't read what I posted earlier in the thread, I think it's fair to say that it was gracious and not at all heavy-handed(all I stated was 'this is a day to mourn' before moving on to emphasize love and grace). There was no attack on anyone.

Could you ask whether your God would create someone who felt a deep attraction to someone of the same sex if he felt homosexuality was so evil as to be worthy of damnation?

I have heard this argument many times, and I respect where it comes from. I also think it simply isn't logical. As a society we know that people have deep desires for many things. We still pass laws against many of them when we believe it to be in the common interest. This isn't a concept unique to Christianity.

In previous conversations with my brother on the larger question of God in general, it eventually came down to the same thing it almost always does for people I discuss this stuff with who are atheist/agnostic. They are offended that we believe humans are guilty of anything to the degree that Jesus dying on the cross is required. At that point, their argument is not with me, it's with God.

JPhillips

06-27-2015, 03:42 PM

“The great leaders of God’s people, like Moses, always left room for doubt. We must always leave room for the Lord and not for our own certainties. We must be humble. Every true discernment includes an element of uncertainty open to receiving spiritual consolation.” -Pope Francis

I've always been suspicious of certainty in religion. God is bigger than me, and hence, I can't know with certainty what God wants.

JPhillips

06-27-2015, 03:47 PM

CNN freaks out over ISIS flag at gay pride parade.

The flag was a parody using dildo images instead of Arabic lettering.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5y6qTLf0AI4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Solecismic

06-27-2015, 03:55 PM

I have heard this argument many times, and I respect where it comes from. I also think it simply isn't logical. As a society we know that people have deep desires for many things. We still pass laws against many of them when we believe it to be in the common interest. This isn't a concept unique to Christianity.

In this case, though, you're asking for a law banning two consenting adults from sharing their love for each other. There is no victim of this proposed crime.

In previous conversations with my brother on the larger question of God in general, it eventually came down to the same thing it almost always does for people I discuss this stuff with who are atheist/agnostic. They are offended that we believe humans are guilty of anything to the degree that Jesus dying on the cross is required. At that point, their argument is not with me, it's with God.

Does your brother represent all agnostics and atheists? I've actually never heard this particular argument. I'm not offended by these beliefs, I just hope that those who have them recognize that they are borne of faith. You cannot expect everyone to share that faith.

Brian Swartz

06-27-2015, 04:05 PM

In this case, though, you're asking for a law banning two consenting adults from sharing their love for each other. There is no victim of this proposed crime.

I think we're all victims of it. I don't expect most to agree with that, but I do certainly reject the argument that there is any sort of category difference here. Every citizen worthy of the name supports those things they believe are in humanity's best interest.

Does your brother represent all agnostics and atheists? I've actually never heard this particular argument.

I've heard from around a dozen of them, virtually all of the agnostics/atheists that I've had occasion to have relatively deep discussions with about these things in recent years. My brother of course represents only himself, but he is typical in this respect.

BillJasper

06-27-2015, 04:07 PM

In this case, though, you're asking for a law banning two consenting adults from sharing their love for each other. There is no victim of this proposed crime.

From a government point-of-view marriage is a legal contract between two adults. I don't see a reason for the government to interfere in that transaction.

BillJasper

06-27-2015, 04:09 PM

I think we're all victims of it. I don't expect most to agree with that, but I do certainly reject the argument that there is any sort of category difference here. Every citizen worthy of the name supports those things they believe are in humanity's best interest.

How does allowing two people of the same gender to share their lives conflict with humanity's best interest?

cuervo72

06-27-2015, 04:19 PM

It doesn't. But it gets in the way of the thought that a religion's power is through its numbers.

Brian Swartz

06-27-2015, 04:49 PM

It doesn't. But it gets in the way of the thought that a religion's power is through its numbers.

To the contrary, I don't believe a religion's power is through its numbers. As a matter of fact, though this is not at all an original thought, I believe that the true church's power will increase through the loss of members as a result of this. I also believe that with this issue becoming less of a hot-button one politically over the next few years -- similar to what's happening with the ACA, it will simply be one on which the church has less need to respond and will eventually not be discussed as much. Historically, the most effective and powerful days for the church have been those in which it was most distinct and different from the surrounding culture(those who view it as a 'religious club' differing little from the Rotary Club or whatever will increasingly stop attending, a trend already in evidence) resulting in the purifying of both those who remain and the message.

I believe there are great days and opportunities ahead for the true church in America, but I certainly wouldn't wish on our nation the cause of it. Light shines more powerfully the darker things are.

How does allowing two people of the same gender to share their lives conflict with humanity's best interest?

It's an institutionalized normalization of a destructive lifestyle. Whenever a nation endorses something which goes directly against God's design, particularly in something this central, the consequences of that are drastic. Unfortunately we are mirroring the decline described by Paul in Romans 1. The offer of mercy, forgiveness, grace, and love is always there to anyone who will repent -- that never changes. The more we press the line in favor of the mirage of personal autonomy though, the more damage we do to ourselves.

digamma

06-27-2015, 04:56 PM

Finally, Finally I can proudly call myself a gay American. Yes I was one of the two people (i think) marked that box we had in that poll here a while back. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled in our favor, I feel it was time to come out of the shadows. This issue has caused some strife in my own family, with the person I should be closest to-my twin brother. He is very much a conservative Christian Republican...while I'm not any of those. It's been hard for both of us to put our political/social beliefs behind us at times and remember we are our brothers first. I don't expect this decision to do much to change things between us, but it has and will help many of my gay brethren who have fought for this for so long, and for that I am happy for them.

NOTE: If today's results and my "coming out here" disgusts and angers you, then please block me-I don't want to hear your words anymore than you want to hear mine anymore I'm guessing.

Love wins!

(Missed this post yesterday.)

Solecismic

06-27-2015, 04:58 PM

It's an institutionalized normalization of a destructive lifestyle. Whenever a nation endorses something which goes directly against God's design, particularly in something this central, the consequences of that are drastic. Unfortunately we are mirroring the decline described by Paul in Romans 1. The offer of mercy, forgiveness, grace, and love is always there to anyone who will repent -- that never changes. The more we press the line in favor of the mirage of personal autonomy though, the more damage we do to ourselves.

The burden of proof, however, is on you to show this. Faith in any God. Faith that scripture represents Truth. That's just not enough to force those who don't share your faith to embrace it as law.

Brian Swartz

06-27-2015, 05:21 PM

Absolutely true. I believe in the republican(small r) process. I think the decision over the weekend was horrid constitutional law, but that's another subject -- the fact of the matter is that it was going to happen anyway, SCOTUS just accelerated the process instead of letting the states eventually get there on their own. The momentum of history is in that direction.

In terms of forcing people to accept it as law, I view it the same as any other law that's passed. If it gets enough support to pass it, that's our process of government. Whether it does or not, citizens must accept the results -- or be willing to pay the price of civil disobedience. We aren't nearly there yet in most areas.

Kodos

06-27-2015, 07:47 PM

To the contrary, I don't believe a religion's power is through its numbers. As a matter of fact, though this is not at all an original thought, I believe that the true church's power will increase through the loss of members as a result of this. I also believe that with this issue becoming less of a hot-button one politically over the next few years -- similar to what's happening with the ACA, it will simply be one on which the church has less need to respond and will eventually not be discussed as much. Historically, the most effective and powerful days for the church have been those in which it was most distinct and different from the surrounding culture(those who view it as a 'religious club' differing little from the Rotary Club or whatever will increasingly stop attending, a trend already in evidence) resulting in the purifying of both those who remain and the message.

I believe there are great days and opportunities ahead for the true church in America, but I certainly wouldn't wish on our nation the cause of it. Light shines more powerfully the darker things are.

It's an institutionalized normalization of a destructive lifestyle. Whenever a nation endorses something which goes directly against God's design, particularly in something this central, the consequences of that are drastic. Unfortunately we are mirroring the decline described by Paul in Romans 1. The offer of mercy, forgiveness, grace, and love is always there to anyone who will repent -- that never changes. The more we press the line in favor of the mirage of personal autonomy though, the more damage we do to ourselves.

This post is disturbing to me. Purifying the church by removing those who don't agree with you on the definition of a Christian; drastic consequences for not living as "true Christians". It kinda sounds Pat Robertson-ish.

I could assert that organized religion is a destructive lifestyle. The world has endured countless wars because of it. There are plenty of religious people who do good things in the world, and work to spread love and help others who are in need. I have no issue with those people. The ones who want to force their views onto others I could do without.

BillJasper

06-27-2015, 08:28 PM

It's an institutionalized normalization of a destructive lifestyle. Whenever a nation endorses something which goes directly against God's design...

Prove that it is a destructive lifestyle.

If there is a God (I truly don't know, one way or the other), I wouldn't dare think to speak as to what his intentions are. Nor would I think myself smart enough to interpret and execute his design.

I find it humorous that religious people go on about how we're suppose to just have faith when bad things happen on one hand but then on the other act like they are on a first name basis with God and know exactly what he would want and what his intentions are.

How about treating gay marriage like a natural disaster and just have faith that God knows what he is doing?

EagleFan

06-27-2015, 08:54 PM

I think we're all victims of it.

That may be the single most ignorant remark I have read here. If you think there is a victim to allowing same sex marriage it is not even worth discussing with you because you seriously don't get it.

Brian Swartz

06-27-2015, 09:13 PM

it is not even worth discussing with you because you seriously don't get it.

It's not even possible that I get the other side of argument but simply disagree with it?

This post is disturbing to me.

I'm sorry that you think that.

Purifying the church by removing those who don't agree with you on the definition of a Christian

It's more those who will leave on their own as it becomes less and less popular to associate with those who follow Jesus.

drastic consequences for not living as "true Christians".

This is the 'your argument is with God' point. From a logical point of view though, a God who isn't holy wouldn't be able to be trusted: a God who is can't indefinitely fail to judge evil. So whatever objections there are to holy God, all other alternatives are far worse.

I find it humorous that religious people go on about how we're suppose to just have faith when bad things happen on one hand but then on the other act like they are on a first name basis with God and know exactly what he would want and what his intentions are.

I try to only be specific where God has been specific. There are many things we don't know. Ask me what heaven's going to be like and I can't tell you much. I don't think it's at all hypocritical to try to be clear where the Bible's clear and say I don't know where we just don't know.

How about treating gay marriage like a natural disaster and just have faith that God knows what he is doing?

When 'we the people' are the government, we have a responsibility, believers as much as unbelievers. Choosing not to be involved is still making a choice, a wrong one which abdicates responsibility.

RainMaker

06-27-2015, 09:18 PM

That may be the single most ignorant remark I have read here. If you think there is a victim to allowing same sex marriage it is not even worth discussing with you because you seriously don't get it.

When I hear people like Brian Swartz say stuff like that, it always makes me wonder what's really behind it. I've never cared who someone marries or loves or has sex with (as long as it's a consenting adult). What kind of person is that obsessed with a complete stranger's love life? On whether two people have some minor changes in their tax filing and some other fringe benefits?

On one hand it's ignorant, on the other I feel sort of bad for him. Sometimes this comes from self-hatred of their own sexuality. Maybe he's been repressing feelings himself for a long time and this is how he deals. It's an overcompensation.

Brian Swartz

06-27-2015, 09:22 PM

The amount of presumption here is saddening. I'm not obsessed with anyone's love life. That has nothing to do with this.

Coffee Warlord

06-27-2015, 09:23 PM

edit: Nope. It's not worth getting sucked into this.

SackAttack

06-27-2015, 09:32 PM

This post is disturbing to me. Purifying the church by removing those who don't agree with you on the definition of a Christian; drastic consequences for not living as "true Christians". It kinda sounds Pat Robertson-ish.

It's also a pattern that's been repeated for centuries within the Christian faith. Hell, there was an English sect that called themselves the "Puritans," remember. Nothing new under the sun and all that jazz. Religion in general is prone to schism, but we've seen that a fair bit more with Christianity than we have with Judaism or Islam (or, at least, the sub-schisms beyond Shi'ite/Sunni, as an example, just don't get much attention in the Western world and so I've not heard of them).

I could assert that organized religion is a destructive lifestyle. The world has endured countless wars because of it. There are plenty of religious people who do good things in the world, and work to spread love and help others who are in need. I have no issue with those people. The ones who want to force their views onto others I could do without.

I don't know that organized religion is a "destructive lifestyle" so much as that the gibe about being the "opiate of the masses" takes an ominous tinge in the context of politics. If religion is what grants comfort to and inspires obedience from the general population, then political power devolves to whomever has the ability to best direct that message. That's something else we've seen in Western politics for centuries. It's not religion that's destructive, but rather the attempt to use religion to accrue political power. That's the biggest mistake religious people make in looking for politicians to legislate their beliefs. A politician's first pursuit is power, and a politician will weaponize whatever they have at hand that will aid in that pursuit.

When I hear people like Brian Swartz say stuff like that, it always makes me wonder what's really behind it. I've never cared who someone marries or loves or has sex with (as long as it's a consenting adult). What kind of person is that obsessed with a complete stranger's love life? On whether two people have some minor changes in their tax filing and some other fringe benefits?

People who took the wrong lesson from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. They fear the wrath of God, but they completely missed the point when it comes to what inspired that wrath.

People who don't want to think for themselves, because it's easier to have someone else tell them "this is the Truth; follow this, and all will be well." That's why prosperity gospel is viable. It twists some parables and outright ignores other warnings, but it gives its adherents warm, fuzzy feelings and they don't have to think too hard.

On one hand it's ignorant, on the other I feel sort of bad for him. Sometimes this comes from self-hatred of their own sexuality.

And sometimes that. If you fear what you are, maybe you see being louder or more strident against that state as a shield that will prevent others from recognizing the monster you see yourself as.

AENeuman

06-27-2015, 09:39 PM

Having said that, people who modify their religion to meet their needs ought to reexamine the purpose of religion -- they're doing it wrong.

So your definition of faith would be belief regardless of fulfillment?

Also,, modify from whose definition of the Church? Was Martin Luther wrong in his modification of the religion? The history of Christianity (and America) is a history of modification to meet the needs of the people. For example, letters to the Hebrews or Corinthians or Romans, each modified to meet specific cultural needs/paradigms.

Through all of your comments I feel like you are arguing wrongness based on a deviation from a norm. A norm that has been modified to meet your needs.

Edward64

06-27-2015, 09:39 PM

When I hear people like Brian Swartz say stuff like that, it always makes me wonder what's really behind it. I've never cared who someone marries or loves or has sex with (as long as it's a consenting adult). What kind of person is that obsessed with a complete stranger's love life? On whether two people have some minor changes in their tax filing and some other fringe benefits?

I think its pretty clear what's behind it ... its his interpretation of the New Testament Bible regarding homosexuality.

I actually agree that if you were to accept the Bible as is, homosexuality is a sin.

I choose to interpret the Bible different from him.

RainMaker

06-27-2015, 09:40 PM

The amount of presumption here is saddening. I'm not obsessed with anyone's love life. That has nothing to do with this.

You seem really concerned whether two people you don't know have the right to file a joint tax return and collect each other's social security when the other dies. We're talking about a legal document after all, not a spiritual doctrine.

That's the part I don't get either. Don't like gay marriage? Don't participate in it. I think marrying before the age of 23 is dumb so I don't do it. I think marrying someone you've only known for a month is dumb so I don't do it either. If some complete strangers want to do that stuff, why should I care? The presumptions come because it's weird that someone would be that emotionally invested in another person's love life.

Brian Swartz

06-27-2015, 09:47 PM

We're talking about a legal document after all, not a spiritual doctrine.

That's the part I don't get either. Don't like gay marriage?

I appreciate the fact that this appears to be an earnest question. I'll try my best to answer it.

It's more than a legal document. It has an enormous impact on the culture because it normalizes and endorses those kinds of marriages. To go into a completely different type of arena, take the progression of income taxes, public assistance programs, etc. I'm not railing against these things, I actually favor them as a liberal on most economic issues. But if you go back to the Great Depression, a common saying was 'I'd rather be dead than take relief'. That stigma was in large part gone within a generation. Whether that is a good thing or bad thing is not my point -- the point is that these kinds of things have a profound effect not just on the letter of the law that is changed but on culture as a whole is well. That's why there are always victims or beneficiaries, depending on how you view the issue, as a result of any such change.

RainMaker

06-27-2015, 09:56 PM

I think its pretty clear what's behind it ... its his interpretation of the New Testament Bible regarding homosexuality.

I actually agree that if you were to accept the Bible as is, homosexuality is a sin.

I choose to interpret the Bible different from him.

People can interpret it however they want. If the Bible tells him that homosexuality is evil and all that stuff, I'm fine with it. There are Christians who are against entertainment, sex out of marriage, pornography, and the use of alcohol. We all have our own belief system. Live life how you want to.

My problem is when you force those beliefs on others.

Brian Swartz

06-27-2015, 09:56 PM

Through all of your comments I feel like you are arguing wrongness based on a deviation from a norm. A norm that has been modified to meet your needs.

Then I have failed horribly to communicate what I mean. I aspire to modify what I believe to meet the 'norm', i.e. the truth of the Bible.

your definition of faith would be belief regardless of fulfillment?

That's a fair reading if I understand you correctly. The value of the faith
depends on it's object.

The history of Christianity (and America) is a history of modification to meet the needs of the people. For example, letters to the Hebrews or Corinthians or Romans, each modified to meet specific cultural needs/paradigms.

I would argue there's a consistent message running through them. The specific points of emphasis change obviously with the needs of each audience, but there are certain points common to all and, more importantly, the core content of the gospel is not 'modified'.

Those humans within Christianity since who have led in various ways such as Luther have to various degrees been right/wrong. I don't think any one person since the writing of the Bible has 'had all the right answers'. Some have claimed to, but I think the hubris of that is immense. Anyone reasonably claiming Christianity has to source their beliefs in what Jesus said. There is room for disagreement on many issues within that, and as mentioned no one is 100% right on everything, but the core issues are things repeated multiple times to the point where willful ignorance is required to miss it. The only people whose 'true Christianity' I question are those who want to throw out/ignore certain aspects of what he taught because they aren't comfortable with them or don't want to believe them. At that point the goal has ceased to become following Christ, and become erecting a God in their own image with his name put on it to make themselves feel better(not at all accusing anyone here, just making a general statement about this very common practice).

Brian Swartz

06-27-2015, 09:57 PM

My problem is when you force those beliefs on others.

Isn't that an essential feature of our form of government?

RainMaker

06-27-2015, 10:04 PM

Isn't that an essential feature of our form of government?

Not in my opinion. Their job should be providing us with equal rights and protecting us from those in and out of the country that would do us harm.

Brian Swartz

06-27-2015, 10:08 PM

Let me be more clear. You oppose laws being enacted based upon a worldview you don't share. I can understand that. My point is though, that has to happen for any law to be enacted in a free country. Lots of laws are enacted based on worldviews I don't share as well. The best way I know of to deal with this reality is to 1) Contend for what I believe, 2) Accept that it will not always, or even often, prevail, and 3) Respect the choice of the people as much as possible.

It's imperfect of course, but I think far better than all other possible options. YMMV.

RainMaker

06-27-2015, 10:10 PM

I appreciate the fact that this appears to be an earnest question. I'll try my best to answer it.

It's more than a legal document. It has an enormous impact on the culture because it normalizes and endorses those kinds of marriages. To go into a completely different type of arena, take the progression of income taxes, public assistance programs, etc. I'm not railing against these things, I actually favor them as a liberal on most economic issues. But if you go back to the Great Depression, a common saying was 'I'd rather be dead than take relief'. That stigma was in large part gone within a generation. Whether that is a good thing or bad thing is not my point -- the point is that these kinds of things have a profound effect not just on the letter of the law that is changed but on culture as a whole is well. That's why there are always victims or beneficiaries, depending on how you view the issue, as a result of any such change.

Legal marriage has been normalized for a long time. It just wasn't allowed to a segment of the population. It doesn't change legal marriage anymore than Loving v Virginia changed it. Marriage is the same, just everyone is allowed to partake.

AENeuman

06-27-2015, 10:24 PM

I appreciate the fact that this appears to be an earnest question. I'll try my best to answer it.

It's more than a legal document. It has an enormous impact on the culture because it normalizes and endorses those kinds of marriages. To go into a completely different type of arena, take the progression of income taxes, public assistance programs, etc. I'm not railing against these things, I actually favor them as a liberal on most economic issues. But if you go back to the Great Depression, a common saying was 'I'd rather be dead than take relief'. That stigma was in large part gone within a generation. Whether that is a good thing or bad thing is not my point -- the point is that these kinds of things have a profound effect not just on the letter of the law that is changed but on culture as a whole is well. That's why there are always victims or beneficiaries, depending on how you view the issue, as a result of any such change.

For me, your fear of a new normal is closer to anti-suffrage rhetoric than a welfare one.

RainMaker

06-27-2015, 10:34 PM

Let me be more clear. You oppose laws being enacted based upon a worldview you don't share. I can understand that. My point is though, that has to happen for any law to be enacted in a free country. Lots of laws are enacted based on worldviews I don't share as well. The best way I know of to deal with this reality is to 1) Contend for what I believe, 2) Accept that it will not always, or even often, prevail, and 3) Respect the choice of the people as much as possible.

It's imperfect of course, but I think far better than all other possible options. YMMV.

There is nothing to "deal with" on changes like this. Nothing in this Supreme Court decision forces you to marry another male. Nothing in this decision forces you to attend weddings or even acknowledge their marriage. This will change nothing in your life. It will not change your beliefs. It will not change the lifestyle you choose to live. So why do you care?

Even if it "normalizes" something in culture you don't participate in, I don't get the concern. Vegans are becoming more normal in society, I don't declare their banishment because I prefer meat. The lottery is normalized in society and I find it an enormous waste of money but don't want it to be taken away from those who choose to spend their money in that fashion. Heck, reality TV is a normal part of today's culture despite my disdain but I'm not losing any sleep over it.

What's so terrible about believing what you want, living your life that way, and letting others do the same? Why so invested in what complete strangers do with their lives if it has no impact on yours?

AENeuman

06-27-2015, 10:35 PM

I would argue there's a consistent message running through them. The specific points of emphasis change obviously with the needs of each audience, but there are certain points common to all and, more importantly, the core content of the gospel is not 'modified'.

There is room for disagreement on many issues within that, and as mentioned no one is 100% right on everything, but the core issues are things repeated multiple times to the point where willful ignorance is required to miss it.

i agree. I just don't see that homosexuality is one of those core issues Jesus and the New Testament emphasized multiple times. If it is under a larger umbrella of lust or pride(common themes) then this particular manifestation should not be so obsessively singled out.

Brian Swartz

06-27-2015, 10:43 PM

Well, regarding the obsessively singled out point, that goes back to what I said about how things will change for the true church. There are, sadly, a significant number of people who have opposed homosexuality for all kinds of bad reasons(bigotry against it, wanting to preserve 'their territory' culturally, etc.). But within the group that I have tried my best to be part of, it's been more of a case of simply responding to what is happening in the culture. I.e., the reason it's been talked about so much to considerable degree is that this is the door the culture has been banging on. It was abortion in the 70s. Society will move on to other priorities, which may not but probably will run smack into what biblical Christianity is about and then we'll hear more about those. Homosexuality will still be around as an issue, but it's going to gradually fade away.

As far as it being a clear, repetitive teaching -- I don't know how else to read Romans 1 and the various lists in numerous epistles where various sins are contrasted with righteous behavior. Jesus addresses the created order pretty specifically, to the point of using it as an illustration of the central divine relationship of this age(i.e. the church is the bride of Christ, how the church is to function, etc). May God have the mercy to forgive me if I'm wrong, but I just can't honestly read it any other way.

Brian Swartz

06-27-2015, 10:47 PM

This will change nothing in your life.

In the sense you mean, that is absolutely correct. I don't believe it is right to approach governing that way. The question is what is the impact on humanity as a whole, not how it will impact me which I have always viewed, for my part, as being a selfish way to look at things.

I regret that I've been unable to make my perspective on this clear in a way that answers your questions.

EagleFan

06-27-2015, 10:56 PM

It's sad how close minded some sheep are. People like that show just how far from reality religious zealots are. It's the 21st century, time to give up what was created to control the uneducated masses.

rowech

06-27-2015, 11:10 PM

In the sense you mean, that is absolutely correct. I don't believe it is right to approach governing that way. The question is what is the impact on humanity as a whole, not how it will impact me which I have always viewed, for my part, as being a selfish way to look at things.

I regret that I've been unable to make my perspective on this clear in a way that answers your questions.

There are a lot of things that people who are governing with the idea of "what's best for humanity as a whole" would do that I'm pretty sure would make for some horrible historical events. I can think of several right off the top of my head.

I think Dutch's comment hit it for me. I don't know that there is a single thing that I have changed my mind on as much as gay marriage. WTF do I care? How does it ultimately affect me?

I also think the idea that more people are going to become gay that you are subtly hinting towards is combating basic biology. We're all programmed a certain way when it comes to our sexuality. We don't choose one way or another.

I'll also say if we're going to start picking and choosing things that are affecting humanity, there are a lot of things the Bible mentions that I would start with before homosexuality. It bothers me that people often miss the point of the New Testament. The New Testament is there to essentially stop the kind of thinking where we all go around pointing at each others sins and problems. We're all flawed, something you or I do is hated by others, but they should allow us to do it because it's our choices. God will judge how he wants to. Not us...it's not our job.

BillyNYC

06-27-2015, 11:10 PM

I regret that I've been unable to make my perspective on this clear in a way that answers your questions.

As a spectator in this thread, I appreciate how (generally) civil this thread has been about this all. I think the "wait, how do two gays doing anything even remotely affect you personally as a Christian such that you care?" is something that has confused me. Your explanations make some sense to me, even if I don't agree with them.

I think in society at large (and somewhat here), people take their opinions/ideologies as facts and those that have different opinions are some combination of stupid/morally corrupt/ignorant/racist/heathens. And yet each says "i'm right. you're wrong", instead of allowing that people have different upbringings and genetics and view things differently. And so we get ever more divisive and results in "See I'm right, you're wrong. I win, you lose" and even more division, instead of "we all live on this same land mass. How can we make it more livable and a better experience for all of us?"

Kumbaya and all.

Anyway, I appreciate you explaining your fairly unpopular point of view. Understanding where you come and why you believe what you believe is much more productive (and fair) than blindly dismissing it.

Subby

06-27-2015, 11:41 PM

Brian - good reading here about letting differences of opinion come between family:

Ask Andrew W.K.: My Dad Is a Right-Wing Asshole | Village Voice (http://www.villagevoice.com/music/ask-andrew-wk-my-dad-is-a-right-wing-asshole-6644226)

Brian Swartz

06-27-2015, 11:43 PM

BillyNYC, thank you for your extremely reasonable comments.

also think the idea that more people are going to become gay that you are subtly hinting towards

This isn't my point at all. It's not that more people are going to become gay, it's that when we as a nation normalize it we are completely changing what marriage is, in my opinion, intended and created to be. The proper view of heterosexual marriage can't survive it. Two becoming one and a legal document are not the same thing :).

I'll also say if we're going to start picking and choosing things that are affecting humanity, there are a lot of things the Bible mentions that I would start with before homosexuality.

I think what I said regarding this issue being the focus of the culture is on point here.

As regards the NT, you are certainly right in many ways. I don't go around telling the people I know who aren't believers how they should live their lives in general. I'm not interested in criminalizing things that the Bible says are sins, and I don't want a theocracy. What I see as the difference though is that this is a case where every American is part of the government. That's our system. There's a difference between what I might say to a colleague at work in a casual conversation about our lives(that would more be on the plane of, if I thought it was an appropriate time, sharing the gospel not why do you do this or that God says that's a sin) and the responsibility of every government to govern responsibly. I think that's totally different from taking God's place and judging. It's a case of saying, am I willing to approve of a social institution which I believe will cause great damage for generations, or is it more loving and responsible to say no to that?

I'm also curious what historical events you refer to, and what you think is the right approach to public policy if the best interests of humanity isn't that approach.

Brian Swartz

06-27-2015, 11:45 PM

Subby -- I've read it before but it's a great reminder. I hope I will live in a way that is worthy of that. Thanks.

rowech

06-27-2015, 11:48 PM

BillyNYC, thank you for your extremely reasonable comments.

This isn't my point at all. It's not that more people are going to become gay, it's that when we as a nation normalize it we are completely changing what marriage is, in my opinion, intended and created to be. The proper view of heterosexual marriage can't survive it. Two becoming one and a legal document are not the same thing :).

I think what I said regarding this issue being the focus of the culture is on point here.

As regards the NT, you are certainly right in many ways. I don't go around telling the people I know who aren't believers how they should live their lives in general. I'm not interested in criminalizing things that the Bible says are sins, and I don't want a theocracy. What I see as the difference though is that this is a case where every American is part of the government. That's our system. There's a difference between what I might say to a colleague at work in a casual conversation about our lives(that would more be on the plane of, if I thought it was an appropriate time, sharing the gospel not why do you do this or that God says that's a sin) and the responsibility of every government to govern responsibly. I think that's totally different from taking God's place and judging. It's a case of saying, am I willing to approve of a social institution which I believe will cause great damage for generations, or is it more loving and responsible to say no to that?

I'm also curious what historical events you refer to, and what you think is the right approach to public policy if the best interests of humanity isn't that approach.

Salem Witch Trials was the first one in my mind.

Solecismic

06-27-2015, 11:56 PM

How do you feel about an infertile man and a woman marrying? Or a married couple who uses birth control?

Should a gay couple have the legal right to adopt a child?

I'm also curious as to why this particular court case has any significance - it's just about whether the government cares about the gender of the members of a legal household, for the purposes of assigning taxes and property rights.

Really, I'd agree with you if the Court said a church had to perform a marriage ceremony for anyone who asked. Though I still applaud those churches who treat gay marriage as equivalent to any marriage.

I honestly think you, as a religious person, will fare better with a government that sets up a strict separation of church and state.

But I disagree with the notion that something should become law just because the majority approves. I get tired of politicians claiming there's some "mandate" for anything when one party wins, 50-47. When we govern with the idea of protecting everyone equally, we are stronger as a nation.

Subby

06-28-2015, 12:06 AM

Subby -- I've read it before but it's a great reminder. I hope I will live in a way that is worthy of that. Thanks.
Same here. I re-read it every few months as a reminder.

Brian Swartz

06-28-2015, 12:14 AM

How do you feel about an infertile man and a woman marrying? Or a married couple who uses birth control?

Nothing wrong with the first. On the second, it depends on what kind(I'm against abortifacients).

I believe a gay couple/single parent should be able to adopt. A child is better off with loving parents than in an orphanage. I think they're better off still with a mother and father, but perfect is the enemy of good and so on.

it's just about whether the government cares about the gender of the members of a legal household, for the purposes of assigning taxes and property rights.

I think it's about more than that. You may have missed it, but that question's come up a couple times in this thread. Re: separation of church and state, I'm assuming you mean this in the modern American sense. In that sense, it's a complete impossibility. Neutrality is impossible. It's like a 20-sided(or however many) die: no matter how many times you roll it, one side will come up each time. If God/religion is not allowed in the public sphere, well that's not neutrality or separation, it's an over anti-religious stance and a de facto endorsement of secularism. The only question is what philosophy wins.

I disagree with the notion that something should become law just because the majority approves.

So do I. I don't favor a pure majority. I'm glad some things are supposed to at least require constitutional amendment etc. and have a higher standard to change. The point I was trying to get at and didn't really succeed completely it appears is that the source of a law shouldn't matter. Religious, secular, some guy having a bong-induced vision on a mountaintop, I don't care. If it gets the required support, it shouldn't matter where the idea came from.

molson

06-28-2015, 12:15 AM

Kinda proud that my Lutheran ELCA church (my father and several of my friends are pastors) has allowed individual congregations to perform gay marriages since it was made first legal in MA, and has permitted gay pastors to be ordained since 2010. (And in reality, there were many gay pastors in decades before that that everyone was informally cool with).

I don't give credit to Obama for all this, I give credit to gay people who have come out over the years, particularly in times where it was more difficult to do so. That's what changed society. Not every gay person found acceptance, but for every 100 gay people who came out, there were dozens of uncles, friends, parents, etc, who eventually came around to realize that homosexuality really wasn't that scary. I saw it in my own family. Nobody around me really remembers why they opposed gay marriage. It took the courage of gay people to be themselves in various communities to normalize all this.

My pastor friend in Gardner, MA put this up yesterday. He and I would certainly disagree with any argument that we're not "real Christians"

https://scontent-lga1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtp1/v/t1.0-9/11350640_517961068352420_2596171063841189918_n.jpg?oh=6cb61f0bfee16c70384baa9b82d78830&oe=562F231F

Brian Swartz

06-28-2015, 12:20 AM

Salem Witch Trials was the first one in my mind.

Ok I think I understand. If I do, your objection is that a group of people could be considered a threat and wiped out etc. due to the greater good argument. I guess my question remains then: what is the alternative? I mean I think the 'how does it affect me' is worse and doesn't solve this dilemma. Having laws to protect individuals certainly helps but it doesn't solve it either because somebody has to decide what laws those will be, and on what basis?

It's sort of like the old phrase that essentially democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others. Maybe there's a solution that hasn't ever occurred to me. If so, I'm open to reconsidering my approach to citizenship, it's changed multiple times in the past decade already.

AENeuman

06-28-2015, 12:24 AM

BillyNYC, thank you for your extremely reasonable comments.

This isn't my point at all. It's not that more people are going to become gay, it's that when we as a nation normalize it we are completely changing what marriage is, in my opinion, intended and created to be. The proper view of heterosexual marriage can't survive it. Two becoming one and a legal document are not the same thing :).

I think what I said regarding this issue being the focus of the culture is on point here.

As regards the NT, you are certainly right in many ways. I don't go around telling the people I know who aren't believers how they should live their lives in general. I'm not interested in criminalizing things that the Bible says are sins, and I don't want a theocracy. What I see as the difference though is that this is a case where every American is part of the government. That's our system. There's a difference between what I might say to a colleague at work in a casual conversation about our lives(that would more be on the plane of, if I thought it was an appropriate time, sharing the gospel not why do you do this or that God says that's a sin) and the responsibility of every government to govern responsibly. I think that's totally different from taking God's place and judging. It's a case of saying, am I willing to approve of a social institution which I believe will cause great damage for generations, or is it more loving and responsible to say no to that?

Well there it is. I think our society is more moral and more "Christian" than any other society, ever. The rights of women and minorities, the education of the poor and preservation of our environment are all new concepts that have created a city on a hill that cannot be hidden.

RainMaker

06-28-2015, 12:31 AM

It's not that more people are going to become gay, it's that when we as a nation normalize it we are completely changing what marriage is, in my opinion, intended and created to be.

Marriage wasn't created by Christians. It's intentions have changed on a regular basis from generation to generation. In fact, marrying for love is a relatively new concept that is still not practiced in a large segment of the world. To argue that there is a definition of what marriage is ignores thousands of years of hsitory and about half the modern globe.

Ancient cultures created it so that it would bind a woman to a man and so that her children would be an heir to his property. The women were treated like property and could be returned in some cultures if they failed to create a child. It was a business contract.

In China you could marry off your dead relatives so they wouldn't be bored in the afterlife. For some (Egypt, Europe for instance) it was about keeping bloodlines pure and thus you married cousins or even siblings. Many cultures in the past and even some today have the parents arrange the marriage so that they don't marry outside their caste. In fact, being in love was considered a negative in many of these cultures until recently.

So the idea that this "changes" marriage doesn't exist. Marriage has changed dramatically over centuries. Heck, 50 years ago an interracial marriage was illegal in a chunk of this country.

Now I understand if you don't personally like it. But to argue that the current marriage laws are normal and what was intended is just not historically accurate.

The proper view of heterosexual marriage can't survive it. Two becoming one and a legal document are not the same thing :).

I can't speak to your situation but I think most people will be able to "survive" their marriage even if same-sex marriage is legal. It's been legal in some states for awhile now and heterosexual couples have not abandoned it.

bhlloy

06-28-2015, 12:43 AM

As much as I disagree with Brian I have to say I'm really impressed with the civility and the good discussion on his part around this topic, which is obviously very close to his heart.

I've said it before, I find it almost impossible to accept the church and "biblical" opinion on this one given that growing up I was a member of a church that had absolutely no problem welcoming and condoning adulterers and divorcees but would have chased an openly gay person out into the street with pitchforks. It's an impression I still get of churches today, and I may be wildly wrong but I would hazard a guess it would be the case in a lot of the churches that are railing against this ruling right now.

RainMaker

06-28-2015, 05:59 AM

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/WireAP_9673b3bba0d9471ab228d8fc95beac7b_16x9_992.jpg

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rJhQBZ1La0w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Edward64

06-28-2015, 06:46 AM

As much as I disagree with Brian I have to say I'm really impressed with the civility and the good discussion on his part around this topic, which is obviously very close to his heart.

Yup, appreciate the civility.

I do share Brian's concerns about how these societal changes may impact humanity. However, in the case of gay marriage, I'm okay with it.

I've interacted with gay people, have a couple gay friends that I know of, and there are plenty in-your-face gay people I don't want to associate with (just like in any other group) -- but for the most part, I find them like regular folks and I'm good with them getting married, having the same rights etc.

With that said, my caveat is that religious institutions opposed to them are not forced to perform gay marriages. From what I've been reading, there are still a lot of open questions as to what the ruling means for them (e.g. tax status).

I've said it before, I find it almost impossible to accept the church and "biblical" opinion on this one given that growing up I was a member of a church that had absolutely no problem welcoming and condoning adulterers and divorcees but would have chased an openly gay person out into the street with pitchforks. It's an impression I still get of churches today, and I may be wildly wrong but I would hazard a guess it would be the case in a lot of the churches that are railing against this ruling right now.

A little strong about chasing gay person out with a pitchfork but agree -- not all sins in the Bible are treated equally in religious organizations.

Edward64

06-28-2015, 06:55 AM

Marriage wasn't created by Christians. It's intentions have changed on a regular basis from generation to generation. In fact, marrying for love is a relatively new concept that is still not practiced in a large segment of the world. To argue that there is a definition of what marriage is ignores thousands of years of hsitory and about half the modern globe.
:
:
So the idea that this "changes" marriage doesn't exist. Marriage has changed dramatically over centuries. Heck, 50 years ago an interracial marriage was illegal in a chunk of this country.

Now I understand if you don't personally like it. But to argue that the current marriage laws are normal and what was intended is just not historically accurate.

Good point that reasons for marriage is varied and definition of marriage changes.

However, using the NT as the source, Christianity does say one man and one wife (but I do miss the polygamy days).

Brian - as I follow your arguments, you have referred to the Bible. I assume the Bible is NT and not really the OT?

rowech

06-28-2015, 08:45 AM

Ok I think I understand. If I do, your objection is that a group of people could be considered a threat and wiped out etc. due to the greater good argument. I guess my question remains then: what is the alternative? I mean I think the 'how does it affect me' is worse and doesn't solve this dilemma. Having laws to protect individuals certainly helps but it doesn't solve it either because somebody has to decide what laws those will be, and on what basis?

It's sort of like the old phrase that essentially democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others. Maybe there's a solution that hasn't ever occurred to me. If so, I'm open to reconsidering my approach to citizenship, it's changed multiple times in the past decade already.

For me, it's just about whether it affects me directly inside my house or at my place of work. Outside of those places, when I go out into public, my criteria is simply does it threaten my personal safety or my personal belongings. If not, then oh well.

Dutch

06-28-2015, 09:01 AM

Faith is not strengthened or weakened by government. Governments role is to stay as far away from my personal convictions as possible. Imagine being a Christian in the Middle East. The government policies there can not rattle your core beliefs. So I support gay marriage, not as a Christian, but as a citizen of a nation that has been designed, at least theoretically, to be all-inclusive.

Protestant is the split from Catholicism (I think that's right...not really sure). Its okay to deviate. God made us diverse, our mission has never been to fight for a lack of diversity.

That being said, to believe in God is to know Satan exists. We can fight evil...but I just don't see a child of God with no choice in the matter...who harms no one...as evil. It simply doesn't pass my logic tests...which is something else God gave us. Until He shows up and tells me I'm an idiot, I will have Faith that my thoughts are fair and good...no man's interpretation of the Bible can overrule my interpretation. I leave that to judgement day.

Edward64

06-28-2015, 09:25 AM

Protestant is the split from Catholicism (I think that's right...not really sure). Its okay to deviate. God made us diverse, our mission has never been to fight for a lack of diversity.

The King James is missing some books from the Catholic bible.

That being said, to believe in God is to know Satan exists. We can fight evil...but I just don't see a child of God with no choice in the matter...who harms no one...as evil. It simply doesn't pass my logic tests...which is something else God gave us. Until He shows up and tells me I'm an idiot, I will have Faith that my thoughts are fair and good...no man's interpretation of the Bible can overrule my interpretation. I leave that to judgement day.

Nature vs Nuture has been my argument also. Its pretty evident to me that gay people are born that way. Yes, there are exceptions where its probably more of a choice but there is a "gay gene (or whatever)" out there.

However, you can take this nature vs nurture argument to other areas/behaviors that I do not agree with.

Brian Swartz

06-28-2015, 02:24 PM

Brian - as I follow your arguments, you have referred to the Bible. I assume the Bible is NT and not really the OT?

It's both. There are many examples of polygamy in the OT, which seems by implication to be the point of the question, but none that are approved and Genesis lays out the plan pretty clearly ;).

Brian Swartz

06-28-2015, 02:38 PM

I was a member of a church that had absolutely no problem welcoming and condoning adulterers and divorcees but would have chased an openly gay person out into the street with pitchforks. It's an impression I still get of churches today, and I may be wildly wrong but I would hazard a guess it would be the case in a lot of the churches that are railing against this ruling right now.

I understand this very much, and I'm sorry that it has been your experience. Perhaps sharing the story of my church(good/bad/ugly) might shed some light here.

It was started a little over 50 years ago, and a couple decades in their was a public, ugly, unjustified split. It took another several years but eventually there was, for lack of a better word, a forgiveness service where both sides apologized. Just an ugly chapter, and indefensible.

The church has from the beginning though, which is before I was even born, stood for the concept that the Bible is the authority and it must be taught completely. Generally speaking it has also disciplined it's own, particularly in the areas of divorce and adultery. As it happened, both of those occurred in my own family and eventually resulted in both of my parents being removed from leadership positions.

At the same time, I think we are sadly a very materialistic church. We are much better about teaching than doing. I wish we followed more the model of Francis Chan's church in California, which gives away more than half it's income, increasing the amount each year at least up till that time, and a few years ago cancelled and then re-imagined a much smaller version believing they simply could not justify spending millions of dollars on an expansion given the needs of others.

To a person almost they would definitely disagree with same-sex marriage but it did not come up this morning. The message was about Abraham and faith as scheduled, and there wasn't even a passing comment from anyone during the service though in the small-group stuff the hour before it may well have been a topic of conversation. I had a gay coworker attend there with me a few years ago, he enjoyed it and nobody said a negative thing to him much less chased him with anything :). He knew going in what our doctrine was on the issue, it wasn't any kind of bait-and-switch.

I think our church is probably better than many but certainly some follow God more closely than we do. The main thing I would suggest here is that the church is always going to have the same flaws as everyone else: we have hypocrites, gossips, arrogant people, etc. We hope to and should put those things aside over time, but in any community of flawed people there is going to be ugliness. It's always been that way, and it always will be that way. God is not affected by that though. Even when a particular church or Christian betrays our trust or loses our respect, it doesn't mean that was God's way.

tarcone

06-28-2015, 02:55 PM

A couple things:

1) it's not for us to judge each other or how we choose to live in the larger sense. Sure we have trials for criminals and such, but God will sort it out in His time. So I have no problem with people doing what they will.

2) I do have an issue with the Supreme Court making laws. That is not their purpose. They shouldn't be able to overturn what the people of democratic states have chosen to allow or not. That's not how democracy works. The people choose, not 9 appointed judges.

I have no issue with people being in a legal contract that allows them health care or inheritance. I have issues with how it has been recognized.

Read Romans in the NT. esp. The 2nd chapter. Good stuff.

EagleFan

06-28-2015, 03:08 PM

I have no issue with people being in a legal contract that allows them health care or inheritance. I have issues with how it has been recognized.

Because marriage is a religious creation?

JAG

06-28-2015, 03:14 PM

2) I do have an issue with the Supreme Court making laws.

The Supreme Court did not make a law, they interpreted a law (which is their function) as unconstitutional.

tarcone

06-28-2015, 03:15 PM

Marriage IS a religious creation. But who am I to tell you or anyone else whom they can marry. In the end, it will all be sorted out.

tarcone

06-28-2015, 03:17 PM

The Supreme Court did not make a law, they interpreted a law (which is their function) as unconstitutional.

They overrode many states constitutional amendments. Thus, they made it the law of the land. Even though many states have outlawed it. Therefore, the Suprme Court made a law.

JPhillips

06-28-2015, 03:26 PM

They overrode many states constitutional amendments. Thus, they made it the law of the land. Even though many states have outlawed it. Therefore, the Suprme Court made a law.

No.

You're arguing for a country where a law is de facto constitutional because it was passed by a majority. That isn't our system.

murrayyyyy

06-28-2015, 03:33 PM

I do have an issue with the Supreme Court making laws. That is not their purpose. They shouldn't be able to overturn what the people of democratic states have chosen to allow or not. That's not how democracy works. The people choose, not 9 appointed judges.

Excluding that whole blacks are slaves, women can't vote, white only schools, womens work rights with regards to kids, equal pay for women, maternity benefits, allowing women on juries, adulthood starting at 21 (instead of 18 for women because they needed less education).

Let's remember that states were against those things being allowed also.

tarcone

06-28-2015, 03:33 PM

No.

You're arguing for a country where a law is de facto constitutional because it was passed by a majority. That isn't our system.

So, if a state has presented a piece of legislation to the people in the form of a constitutional amendment, it isn't the law of that state?

This is the new norm in Missouri. When the state won't pass a law, groups get enough signatures to put in a election as an constitutional amendment. Voted on by the people. But this isn't how it works?
What is our system?

Solecismic

06-28-2015, 03:49 PM

Marriage IS a religious creation. But who am I to tell you or anyone else whom they can marry. In the end, it will all be sorted out.

Humans are primarily monogamous. Crediting religion for marriage is similar to crediting religion for laws against murder.

We all die. Someone might have faith that there's another level of life after death.

AENeuman

06-28-2015, 03:53 PM

So, if a state has presented a piece of legislation to the people in the form of a constitutional amendment, it isn't the law of that state?

This is the new norm in Missouri. When the state won't pass a law, groups get enough signatures to put in a election as an constitutional amendment. Voted on by the people. But this isn't how it works?
What is our system?

"All . . . will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression. ". Thomas Jefferson, inaugural address

(FYI, this quote is the theme of my 12th grade civics class)

Is there an example of a SCOTUS decision that you agree with, think was good, useful?

Is your preference for democracy over judicial review only now relevant? Now that women and other adult citizens were allowed to vote?

tarcone

06-28-2015, 04:05 PM

Not at all only now relevant. This is the hot topic that I chose to comment on.
I don't care who marries who. But I do care about democracy. And it's funny Jefferson said that.
I think the term is the whole sticking point. Marriage. Would we be having this huge fight if the term was civil union?

And God did make the law against murder. While not a religion. So I guess my comment about religion creating marriage was misguided. It wasn't religion.

RainMaker

06-28-2015, 04:06 PM

Marriage IS a religious creation. But who am I to tell you or anyone else whom they can marry. In the end, it will all be sorted out.

No it isn't. Can't change history.

AENeuman

06-28-2015, 04:20 PM

Not at all only now relevant. This is the hot topic that I chose to comment on.
I don't care who marries who. But I do care about democracy. And it's funny Jefferson said that.
I think the term is the whole sticking point. Marriage. Would we be having this huge fight if the term was civil union?

And God did make the law against murder. While not a religion. So I guess my comment about religion creating marriage was misguided. It wasn't religion.

Well, my point was how can you declare all laws democratic decisions when so many were excluded from participating in the democratic process?

Also, your God-murder-law thing is interesting. If a God/gods tells a father he needs to kill his son atop a mountain or burn his daughter at the stake, is it murder?

tarcone

06-28-2015, 04:54 PM

This was obedience to God. Trusting that God's plan is best. In this, Abraham was exalting His attributes and praising Him. No, not murder.
I'm not sure about the daughter burning at the stake.

And, again, we will all be judged by God. It's not our place to judge others. And who knows what the judgement will be? Certainly not me.

RainMaker

06-28-2015, 04:54 PM

It's both. There are many examples of polygamy in the OT, which seems by implication to be the point of the question, but none that are approved and Genesis lays out the plan pretty clearly ;).

Genesis sure does lay out a plan. Husbands rule over their wives. If the wife can't get pregnant you can dismiss her and bang your maid. And it sure seemed to be a fan of marrying close relatives.

Not seeing a lot of push for the government to endorse that stuff for some reason.

JPhillips

06-28-2015, 05:16 PM

So, if a state has presented a piece of legislation to the people in the form of a constitutional amendment, it isn't the law of that state?

This is the new norm in Missouri. When the state won't pass a law, groups get enough signatures to put in a election as an constitutional amendment. Voted on by the people. But this isn't how it works?
What is our system?

Come on, you know how this works. A state law is primary only when it doesn't conflict with federal law. So a state constitutional amendment is only law if it doesn't conflict with federal law. In this case SCOTUS ruled that laws against gay marriage are in conflict with the 14th amendment and the federal law wins.

Tekneek

06-28-2015, 05:18 PM

The Supreme Court never makes laws. That is a story that people unhappy with the result like to spin. Concepts like "Judicial tyranny" and "activist Judges" are sour grapes from people who either do not understand the rule of law or are intentionally firing up their base with misinformation. They interpret the law and, as the highest court in the land (and the only one established in the Constitution), get the final say on what is Constitutional and what is not.

If you spend time reading a lot of SCOTUS decisions, it will open your mind about what they do and why they do it. There are all kinds of disputes they handle, most of which the masses would probably find boring and you never hear about them on the news. Bad law does not suddenly become good just because the majority of people somewhere voted for it.

As far as marriage being a religious thing, that ship sailed a long time ago. The government regulates marriage and it is intertwined in our code of laws and regulations. You can be married without having any religion at all. For all legal purposes, this is not a religious matter and has not been for quite a while. It was inevitable that this ruling would come down. The decision in Loving v Virginia basically sealed the deal. It was only a matter of when, not if.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

Brian Swartz

06-28-2015, 05:31 PM

If the wife can't get pregnant you can dismiss her and bang your maid. And it sure seemed to be a fan of marrying close relatives.

You're better than this, but in case someone else reads it and isn't up on what all is written:

** The first part was a direct contradiction of what God had instructed. Bad things happened as a result. Nowhere was it said this was what God had told them to do: in fact it was the opposite. Just as in real life, the Bible has real people. Not perfect ones.

** When there's not many people around because, you know, human population is low, it's pretty much marry relatives or don't propagate the species. Again, nowhere is it stated that this is the idea that should prevail for all time as normative human conduct.

Etc.

Dr. Sak

06-28-2015, 05:52 PM

I must object partially to your definition of what it means to be a 'true Christian'. God is love, but as He defined it. We certainly ought to, and I intend to, spread that love as much as possible. Among the thing it includes is conflict where necessary, and love cannot be happy for destructive things.

"it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth"(I Corinthians 13:6).

As for me, there were casualties in some relationships yesterday. As a result of my previously posted facebook message, I am no longer on speaking terms with my brother's significant other, and he felt it necessary to publicly label me and all others who share my view as being without humanity or sympathy, pitiful, brainwashed/fear-driven, empty, and joyless. I hope these wounds will heal with time, and that other similar or more severe divides between people caused by this issue will eventually result in both sides being able to see that strongly held differing opinions are not necessarily the result of nefarious or evil motives: they are just that: differing opinions.

I'm sorry to hear about your relationship with your brothers significant other. I hope that people on both sides of this topic can respect each other's opinion even if they don't agree, granted it is a civil conversation.

Jesus taught us many things...look at the adulterer who was to be stoned to death, he stepped in and saved her life. He forgave those who had Him killed. So when people throw the word "truth" around, how do we know what Gods truth really is? The NT is written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit, but not written by God Himself. We're all sinners and please be careful about pulling quotes out because there are numerous instances of contraction and pulling quotes can mean different things when taken out of context.

We can look at what Jesus said and emulate it. Love your neighbors. Pray for them. If you believe they are on the wrong track, pray and ask God to put them on the right track.

My interpretation of my tiny existence on this rock is to do my best to live my life as Christ would, that's what I mean by a true Christian. What I don't understand or know how to handle I put on God's shoulders cause He can handle it in due time.

Edward64

06-28-2015, 06:13 PM

Humans are primarily monogamous.

TBH, I'm not sure the science is definitive on this. I think there is a fair % of people that are not or have tendency not to be monogamous.

RainMaker

06-28-2015, 06:15 PM

You're better than this, but in case someone else reads it and isn't up on what all is written:

** The first part was a direct contradiction of what God had instructed. Bad things happened as a result. Nowhere was it said this was what God had told them to do: in fact it was the opposite. Just as in real life, the Bible has real people. Not perfect ones.

** When there's not many people around because, you know, human population is low, it's pretty much marry relatives or don't propagate the species. Again, nowhere is it stated that this is the idea that should prevail for all time as normative human conduct.

Etc.

Didn't God demand that the maid go back after she tried to run away and submit to her master?

There also seems to be enough people around to avoid the constant incest in Genesis. And if population was the concern here, God could have cut back on the killing just a little bit.

Almost forgot that part of that clear plan in Genesis that mentions how you need to impregnate your brother's wife if he dies. That's a major one and death is the punishment for defying it. No real push to get that on the books here in the United States though for some reason.

Edward64

06-28-2015, 06:29 PM

It's both. There are many examples of polygamy in the OT, which seems by implication to be the point of the question, but none that are approved and Genesis lays out the plan pretty clearly ;).

Per some above comments, I think your point is that some of the "bad stuff" may have happened in the OT as a historical record but its not approved by God.

The OT is problematic for me. I always had an issue with the Book of Job and cannot reconcile my belief in a God that encouraged and allowed those things to happen to Job.

Thomkal

06-28-2015, 08:24 PM

Well just wanted to say thank you to all of you that commented on my post. I expected FOFC to treat me nicely, but I was blown away by your response. It made this weekend extra special for me-I'd hug each and every one of you if I could. :) I'm going to respond to some posts here that especially touched me, or made me want to respond, but you should you all consider your posts responded to by me with a lot of love.

(Hey mods, it might be a good idea if one of you have the time, to create a new thread just called Gay Marriage or whatever, move our posts there and let the President have his thread back) :)

Thomkal

06-28-2015, 08:28 PM

So do you have an eye for a guy like me?

Well you play video games right? That's a good start. :)

Thomkal

06-28-2015, 08:30 PM

Cheers to you, Thomkal. If you ever come around I'd be happy to buy you a drink in celebration!

I still have relatives living in your area :)

Thomkal

06-28-2015, 08:33 PM

Glad you feel comfortable coming out now and congratulations on the victory. Sorry to hear about the strife with your brother, in some ways this might help since it will hopefully be less of a political matter now.

Yeah he called me earlier in the week and wants to help me with some medical issues I'm having, so who knows maybe we can talk about it like brothers. Thanks :)

Thomkal

06-28-2015, 08:36 PM

I am glad that the decision got you to come out of the FOFC shadows, Thomkal. Glad to know a little bit more of the real you.

Thanks Albion. :) Yean I'm a pretty private guy over personal issues generally-so I generally comment on someone elses issues if I feel like I can add something useful to the discussion.

Thomkal

06-28-2015, 08:39 PM

Very happy for you Dan. Both for the decision and for you feeling comfortable to share this with us. I hope your brother someday opens his mind and softens his stance.

Thanks so much George. Feel like you are a good friend over at FOBL, and I'm really happy to have your support on this. And about my brother, I hope so too, but this will be a pretty big blow to him, and I'm not sure how he will react to it.

Thomkal

06-28-2015, 08:47 PM

Though many of my Christian friends will not see it this way, this is what is on my Facebook and how I will endeavor to respond. I hope most of them will join me.

I appreciate you sharing this. As a former conservative(still am on social issues such as this) and a believer I have a similar conflict with one of my younger brothers who is aggressively agnostic. I can identify with your statement here as we have had a similar struggle to what you describe and there is little we can talk about without him becoming upset so we just basically don't talk about things that we can't find common interest/ground in(which is most of them). It saddens me a lot but I do the best I can with it.

You get nothing but kudos so far as making this statement here is concerned. It is always best to be honest and straightforward, and I am glad you felt free to do so.

Thanks Brian, your words meant a lot to me, coming from the "other side" so to speak. 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.

Thomkal

06-28-2015, 08:48 PM

Congrats, Thomkal! I do hope your brother can find some peace with this at some point.

Now you can focus all of your attention back onto your beloved Cards!

Palmer's back so its Super Bowl Bound baby! (at least until all three starters are knocked out for the season that is :)

Draft Dodger

06-28-2015, 08:51 PM

congrats Dan!

Thomkal

06-28-2015, 08:53 PM

Wow! That's awesome, Thomkal! Congrats on coming out here, and on the big win yesterday for the GBLT community.

As a fiscal conservative, I find myself more and more identifying with a more progressively social stance, and I see yesterday as a big win for my stance on that as well.

I have to admit, your situation with your twin brother is interesting to me, on the science side of things. Are you and your brother identical twins?

Thanks Chief. :) Yes we are identical-he's about 3 mins older than me, and I was a surprise to my doctor and parents. "oh my god, there's another one in there!" or something similar was his response when he saw me. :) Born a month premature (remember this was back in the 60's), and I was baptized in the hospital because they were not sure I would survive. Fooled them all I guess. :)

JPhillips

06-28-2015, 08:57 PM

I still have relatives living in your area :)

Yeah, I remember. If you're around let me know.

Thomkal

06-28-2015, 09:02 PM

Whoo! Good for you. Very happy you felt like you could share this with us.

My biggest laugh about the entire thing is how the religious feel it is infringing on their personal beliefs. Nobody is forcing these churches to marry LGBTQ couples. They can go to city hall and get a certificate like anybody else could.

This is a fantastic day for equality and love. Hopefully we can continue to push forward as a nation and globally.

Yeah the republican response to the decision was sad but predictable. All it is doing is pushing away a lot of people from voting for them in the future. I can understand it more from a professional religious man (or woman)-they are being told to accept something that is very core to their beliefs and are wondering what's next), but all these people going over the top (Huckabee and Cruz I'm looking at you.) saying that the end days are now here and that "the gays" have destroyed America just make me shake my head.

Edit: I'm very glad that the Justice put in his decision that no one is forcing a church to marry same sex couples if their faith does not call for it. That's the way it should be. Makes it hard on the couple though, as they may be forced from their denomination of choice if they want to be married in a church. The pastor at my mom's church, recently had to tell a couple (not in the church), because of his beliefs, could not come to the ceremony.

Thomkal

06-28-2015, 09:11 PM

God bless you. I am so happy for you.

Thanks Chris! Means a lot to hear from another of my FOBL brethren on this. I'm kinda happy for myself too :)

claphamsa

06-28-2015, 09:15 PM

Finally, Finally I can proudly call myself a gay American. Yes I was one of the two people (i think) marked that box we had in that poll here a while back. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled in our favor, I feel it was time to come out of the shadows. This issue has caused some strife in my own family, with the person I should be closest to-my twin brother. He is very much a conservative Christian Republican...while I'm not any of those. It's been hard for both of us to put our political/social beliefs behind us at times and remember we are our brothers first. I don't expect this decision to do much to change things between us, but it has and will help many of my gay brethren who have fought for this for so long, and for that I am happy for them.

NOTE: If today's results and my "coming out here" disgusts and angers you, then please block me-I don't want to hear your words anymore than you want to hear mine anymore I'm guessing.
hoowa! rarely come into this thread...but glad i saw this. be yourself and no one else

Thomkal

06-28-2015, 09:15 PM

This video captures how proud I am of my country right now. It brought tears to my eyes.

Gay Men's Chorus of Washington Sings National Anthem After Supreme Court Ruling - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYHuF9tIbpQ)

<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VYHuF9tIbpQ" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

mine too. :) I've seen one video taken by a You Tuber right there in the crowd, right when the decision was announced-the noise and emotion of that moment is something I will always remember.

Thomkal

06-28-2015, 09:18 PM

Congratulations. Today, you're one giant step closer to sharing everything that's positive about America.

We've all seen too many of the negatives lately. It's nice to have a day that's about inclusion and freedom.

Thanks Jim! It sure was nice to have a day like that. Not sure how many more of them we will have sadly :(

tarcone

06-28-2015, 09:29 PM

Dissenting opinion from Justice Roberts

"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," he wrote.

And continues

"Stripped of its shiny rhetorical gloss, the majority's argument is that the Due Process Clause gives same-sex couples a fundamental right to marry because it will be good for them and for society," Roberts wrote. "If I were a legislator, I would certainly consider that view as a matter of social policy. But as a judge, I find the majority's position indefensible as a matter of constitutional law."

Scalia wrote:

"Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best," Scalia wrote. "But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law."

I'm going with the dissenting judges on this one. It should not be decided in the SCOTUS. Change should have come from the legislators. Elected by the people.

Thomkal

06-28-2015, 09:34 PM

We talk a lot here at FOFC about how our back and forth bickering never changes minds. But I've changed my mind over the years on what homosexuality is, and a lot of that was from discussions a long time ago here on this message board. And basically, I just don't understand it, but its not something to be hateful about, its not something to be scared of. I dont make gay jokes anymore...I stopped saying, "That's gay" about anything I disapprove of. While I still struggle to equate it to our racial problems...I get that it was second class citizenship we were enforcing and I was part of the problem.

In a nutshell, I'm glad that you, a decent human being by all accounts, are happy and that America has taken a step to be more comfortable with you.

Dutch,

what a classy response, thank you for it. I'm glad you were able to open your mind and understand what homosexuality is and what you were doing was harmful to many others around you. Unfortunately too many have not learned this yet. My mother (in her 70's, very religious) goes to a card crafting party at her friends house every other week or so. At the party this time were two women-who could have gone by the same description as her. When she came home from the party, I went to her car to help her bring stuff into the house...and she was literally shaking and crying and apologizing to me. I held her close and tried to figure out what was wrong.

The two woman, thinking they were amongst people of their same beliefs, had gotten on to the topic of homosexuals for some reason, and started spouting a lot of nasty stuff about us, not knowing she was the mother of one. Stuff that was bred from pure ignorance and from the pulpit. My mother was flabbergasted as she had never experienced such talk and outright hatred before, and she was so sorry that I had to ever experience that. It was not a fun day.

Thomkal

06-28-2015, 09:45 PM

A day that has been long overdue... sort of. The only thing that I am not a fan of is the supreme court taking away power from the state. I applaud the message, just not the messenger.

Oh well enough of the parade pissing. Great message, one that I fully support. As I have said. While I may not like seeing two men kissing that is my own problem, not theirs. Anyone that is against the idea of same sex marriage there is very good news for you; this doesn't affect you one bit. If you don't like the idea of same sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex.

Hey EF,

Thanks for the support, I don't like to see two woman kissing, and I'm gay :) So I can understand your point of view here. In fact the thought of having sex with a woman makes me ill . :)

Have to disagree with you a bit on your other point. This clearly has become a national issue rather than a state one-because now laws would have to be written in each state over the status of a same-sex marriage. Some would deny they had any status at all, which only would create more lawsuits and angst. This way the SC had made the status the same for everyone-crystal clear and hopefully not up for interpretation.

Thomkal

06-28-2015, 09:49 PM

CNN freaks out over ISIS flag at gay pride parade.

The flag was a parody using dildo images instead of Arabic lettering.

<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5y6qTLf0AI4" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

I had seen this in passing, but had not heard what they found out. Oh those wacky gay people. :) On the other hand, isis would no doubt love to cut up a bunch of gays than even a bunch of Americans, so glad there was no one there to act on this.

Thomkal

06-28-2015, 09:58 PM

congrats Dan!

a late response :) Thanks DD!

Thomkal

06-28-2015, 10:03 PM

hoowa! rarely come into this thread...but glad i saw this. be yourself and no one else

Thanks clap! That was a tough lesson to learn-was in the closet for a long time.

claphamsa

06-28-2015, 10:13 PM

Some States Are Still Trying To Resist Gay Marriage (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/28/states-gay-marriage_n_7683480.html)
LOL

Dutch

06-28-2015, 10:27 PM

My guess is Thomkal never forgets to send thank you cards either. :)

Thomkal

06-28-2015, 11:02 PM

My guess is Thomkal never forgets to send thank you cards either. :)

What's your address, I'll send you one ;) I just felt it was important to thank the people who supported my decision, or gave me support. And I had/have a lot of free time tonight :)

AENeuman

06-28-2015, 11:02 PM

I'm going with the dissenting judges on this one. It should not be decided in the SCOTUS. Change should have come from the legislators. Elected by the people.

The fed/anti-fed debate is a brilliant pain in the ass.

It gets icky pretty quick. Such as, do you think marriages and their rights should be revoked once across a border?

Also, is this only a state issue? Can a county have a law different from the state?

tarcone

06-28-2015, 11:03 PM

How many years is the over/under on when polygamy becomes a right?

bhlloy

06-28-2015, 11:15 PM

How many years is the over/under on when polygamy becomes a right?

Congratulations, you win the strawman cup. Thanks for playing.

RainMaker

06-28-2015, 11:18 PM

Polygamy is a bit different.

I could care less how many wives someone has though.

tarcone

06-28-2015, 11:39 PM

Congratulations, you win the strawman cup. Thanks for playing.

I'm being serious. The rights of people to marry whomever they choose is the heart of this decision, correct?
There are people out there who believe in this. Why is it a straw man arguement?
I haven't been discussing who should get married. I've been against the method in which it has been adopted.
Using the fact that the Supreme Court has decided to jump into this. Shouldn't polygamists, which is practiced by Mormon fundamentalists, be given their day in court? This could hit both the 14th amendment and the 1st amendment.

You can be closed minded about it. But sticking your head in the sand, doesn't mean it won't happen.

tarcone

06-28-2015, 11:40 PM

Polygamy is a bit different.

I could care less how many wives someone has though.

And same sex marriage wasn't a bit different a decade ago?

AENeuman

06-28-2015, 11:55 PM

I'm being serious. The rights of people to marry whomever they choose is the heart of this decision, correct?
There are people out there who believe in this. Why is it a straw man arguement?
I haven't been discussing who should get married. I've been against the method in which it has been adopted.
Using the fact that the Supreme Court has decided to jump into this. Shouldn't polygamists, which is practiced by Mormon fundamentalists, be given their day in court? This could hit both the 14th amendment and the 1st amendment.

You can be closed minded about it. But sticking your head in the sand, doesn't mean it won't happen.

Your question is only serious if you see the choice to want multiple spouses the same as being homosexual. Even if you think homosexuality is a choice, one can be homosexual without ever having a sexual relationahip, however, one cannot be an unmarried polygamist.

You are mixing your philosophies, just pick one:

"To be is to do”—Socrates.
“To do is to be”—Jean-Paul Sartre.
“Do be do be do”—Frank Sinatra.

tarcone

06-29-2015, 12:00 AM

Is monogamy a scientific fact? If it isn't, shouldn't one who has the urge to have multiple partners and be allowed to have them covered by their health insurance and be able to give them all the benefits of marriage, be allowed to marry them?

Shkspr

06-29-2015, 12:22 AM

First of all, stop it. There is no organized group seeking plural marriage in any serious fashion, so it's a silly question.

Second, nothing changed this week about how the United States as a government treats marriages; the only thing that altered is the requirements for starting one. So the arguments about gay marriage were social in nature.

That's not the case with plural marriages. Tax burdens, power of attorney, inheritance, child custody, asset and liability assignment - none of these are insurmountable problems, but there is enough legal burden on changing the system to allow group or plural marriage that it'll be a while before any group is large enough or determined enough to make a competent case to force the government to make those changes.

Finally, my suspicion is that while it was blatantly discriminatory to claim that two people couldn't enter into a legal covenant together because of their gender, the practice of enforcing exclusivity in partnerships is quite settled as a legal matter.

tarcone

06-29-2015, 12:29 AM

It's social policy.

I'm surprised so many are willing to throw away the tenets of our great democratic republic.
There was no reason for the court to step in. Laws would have been changed the way our country was set up. It may have taken a little longer, but it would have happened. And there would have been a lot less turmoil.

RainMaker

06-29-2015, 12:39 AM

Is monogamy a scientific fact? If it isn't, shouldn't one who has the urge to have multiple partners and be allowed to have them covered by their health insurance and be able to give them all the benefits of marriage, be allowed to marry them?

Perhaps. And as long as everyone is eligible for it it would be fine.

The issue with gay marriage was that not all citizens were eligible for this right.

stevew

06-29-2015, 03:36 AM

Once Obummer secretly implements sharia law we can get polygamy ok'd

Edward64

06-29-2015, 04:11 AM

How many years is the over/under on when polygamy becomes a right?

I do think there will be challenges in the court for polygamy. However, I just don't see it being made legal anytime soon.

Edward64

06-29-2015, 04:13 AM

Once Obummer secretly implements sharia law we can get polygamy ok'd

I had a relative that believed he was a secret Muslim. I wonder what she thinks of his rendition of Amazing Grace.

Edward64

06-29-2015, 04:25 AM

It's social policy.

I'm surprised so many are willing to throw away the tenets of our great democratic republic.
There was no reason for the court to step in. Laws would have been changed the way our country was set up. It may have taken a little longer, but it would have happened. And there would have been a lot less turmoil.

So I am clear, what tenet are you referring to?

Its interpretation of the law that impacts social policy. It wasn't the justices just making their own "social program".

And no, I actually don't believe it would have happened but just "a little longer". Do you believe blacks and women would have progressed this far since the 50's and 60's without being made to do so?

Dutch

06-29-2015, 04:59 AM

What's your address, I'll send you one ;) I just felt it was important to thank the people who supported my decision, or gave me support. And I had/have a lot of free time tonight :)

See, I knew it!

Tekneek

06-29-2015, 05:00 AM

Polygamy is a bit different.

I could care less how many wives someone has though.

As long as all those involved consent to the arrangement, I'm not concerned.

Tekneek

06-29-2015, 06:11 AM

I'm surprised so many are willing to throw away the tenets of our great democratic republic.
There was no reason for the court to step in. Laws would have been changed the way our country was set up. It may have taken a little longer, but it would have happened. And there would have been a lot less turmoil.

Once upon a time people felt that way about segregation and miscegenation. Were they wrong in Loving v Virginia? Should it have continued to be state's rights? That couple was married in DC, where it was legal, but lived in Virginia where it was a crime. I think they were right to put an end to that and they were right to put an end to marriages only being allowed between consenting adults of opposite gender.

As far as laws being changed and it simply taking time, how long should people have to wait? Would segregation have been eliminated if not done by the hands of SCOTUS? When? It had already been 100 years since the Civil War. How long should people have to wait for equal access and due process? To make it even worse, SCOTUS had even once said "separate but equal" was just fine, but it no longer flies.

NobodyHere

06-29-2015, 06:41 AM

As long as all those involved consent to the arrangement, I'm not concerned.

But can you imagine the divorce cases?

Tekneek

06-29-2015, 06:59 AM

But can you imagine the divorce cases?

An administrative nightmare. Good for the lawyers, bad for everybody else.

murrayyyyy

06-29-2015, 07:58 AM

It's social policy.

Laws would have been changed the way our country was set up. It may have taken a little longer, but it would have happened. And there would have been a lot less turmoil.

I'll take guess who is a white male for 200 Alex.

Subby

06-29-2015, 08:50 AM

OMG HOW LONG UNTIL SCHMIDTY IS ALLOPWED TO MARRIE HIS DOOOOG???

god O'BUMMMER!

#handbasket

larrymcg421

06-29-2015, 08:58 AM

corbes

06-29-2015, 09:02 AM

So, here's the thing about "letting the democratic process play out" and "state's rights":

We don't get to vote on whether people can exercise their fundamental constitutional rights. Nor do states get to abridge those rights.

digamma

06-29-2015, 09:35 AM

new thread created.

digamma

06-29-2015, 09:50 AM

It's funny, I think you could cut excerpts of the Amazing Grace eulogy and apply them into this thread.

-“We don’t earn grace. We're all sinners. We don't deserve it. But God gives it to us anyway.”

-"For too long we've been blind...we see that now."

Amazing grace, indeed. And love wins.

molson

06-29-2015, 10:03 AM

But can you imagine the divorce cases?

And tax and financial implications. A group of married people could set up tax shelters, avoid estate taxes, pick out the best work benefit package among the group and then share that one among everyone.

Logan

06-29-2015, 10:21 AM

Perhaps. And as long as everyone is eligible for it it would be fine.

The issue with gay marriage was that not all citizens were eligible for this right.

Exactly. It's nice to see that such an obvious hole was left in whatever talking points memo was circulated to these people.

ISiddiqui

06-29-2015, 10:23 AM

I am super happy about the SCOTUS ruling! When I read the news on Friday, I was just insanely giddy and kept singing "Now is the Feast and Celebration" (it's a Church hymn). My pastor went down to the Courthouse and started marrying couples almost immediately - I think she married the first gay couples in Dekalb County, GA. I'm sure it was a party atmosphere at Church on Sunday. I'm sad I missed it as I was out of town, but it was a great message - for those who are Christian and are affirming (even if you aren't, I guess), here is a link to it:

Fifth Sunday after Pentecost | 28 June 2015 on Vimeo (https://vimeo.com/132032415)

tarcone

06-29-2015, 10:26 AM

So, here's the thing about "letting the democratic process play out" and "state's rights":

We don't get to vote on whether people can exercise their fundamental constitutional rights. Nor do states get to abridge those rights.

Marriage isn't a fundamental constitional right. its defined by states.

Tekneek

06-29-2015, 10:27 AM

And tax and financial implications. A group of married people could set up tax shelters, avoid estate taxes, pick out the best work benefit package among the group and then share that one among everyone.

There are some things to consider. It is an interesting thought exercise.

digamma

06-29-2015, 10:28 AM

You should re-read the Court's opinion.

edit: directed at tarcone's post.

larrymcg421

06-29-2015, 10:31 AM

Marriage isn't a fundamental constitional right. its defined by states.

Loving v. Virginia.

rowech

06-29-2015, 10:32 AM

Marriage isn't a fundamental constitional right. its defined by states.

So what happens when one state allows gay marriage, one doesn't, and somebody has to move from one state to another. Do they become unmarried?

digamma

06-29-2015, 10:45 AM

And the Republican presidential candidates keep on effing that chicken.

Huckabee expects civil disobedience in response to SCOTUS gay marriage ruling (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/huckabee-on-gay-marriage-ruling-122684558341.html)

I'll say this for Walker. At least he understands the Constitutional issue and framework.

RainMaker

06-29-2015, 10:57 AM

Marriage isn't a fundamental constitional right. its defined by states.

Actually it is. There's countless Supreme Court rulings going back to the 1800's that establish that.

Toddzilla

06-29-2015, 11:02 AM

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

tarcone

06-29-2015, 11:07 AM

The couple doesn't move to that state. That's pretty simple. And I don't want to hear the "what-ifs", and a law was passed by their duly elected officials defining marriage to incorporate them into it, then why move?
It's not the courts place in this instance to create a law.

The majority of Americans are in favor of same sex marriage. Laws in states would have redefined marriage and our democratic republic would remain as it was intended.

Loving v. Virginia was a different issue. They were sentenced to jail for their marriage, thus making it unconstitutional. No one gay couple has Ben sentenced to jail.

ISiddiqui

06-29-2015, 11:09 AM

Loving v. Virginia was a different issue. They were sentenced to jail for their marriage, thus making it unconstitutional. No one gay couple has Ben sentenced to jail.

The holding in the case applies to all marriages, not just that specific one.

tarcone

06-29-2015, 11:09 AM

Actually it is. There's countless Supreme Court rulings going back to the 1800's that establish that.

show me in the constitution it says marriage is a right.

digamma

06-29-2015, 11:15 AM

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?

tarcone

06-29-2015, 11:19 AM

The holding in the case applies to all marriages, not just that specific one.

Loving v. Virginia is aboUt equal application of the law. The 2 parties were sentenced to the term in jail so Virginia argued it was legal. This case was solely about race and not the right to marry whomever you want.

tarcone

06-29-2015, 11:22 AM

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?

So I'm wrong that the United States has 3 branches of government that are charged with specific duties?
And I'm wrong that one of the duties of the legislative branch is to make laws?

I want to get this right. I sure dont want to make your condescending rhetoric to come across as wrong.

AENeuman

06-29-2015, 11:22 AM

show me in the constitution it says marriage is a right.

I feel like you are you trying to use reasoning (and failing) to argue a topic that is obviously an emotional one for you. I'm sure there is no amount of legal "gotcha" rebuttals that will change your mind, or even enlighten you.

If you feel you need to share your thoughts, like so many here have done well on both sides, speak from the heart. Just my 2 cents...

molson

06-29-2015, 11:27 AM

I think if you want to argue against gay marriage you should rely on Roberts' dissent rather than disclaim 100+ years of Supreme Court precedent.

digamma

06-29-2015, 11:27 AM

So I'm wrong that the United States has 3 branches of government that are charged with specific duties?
And I'm wrong that one of the duties of the legislative branch is to make laws?

I want to get this right. I sure dont want to make your condescending rhetoric to come across as wrong.

What law was made here?

By my read, existing laws were ruled to be unconstitutional.

tarcone

06-29-2015, 11:28 AM

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.

tarcone

06-29-2015, 11:29 AM

What law was made here?

By my read, existing laws were ruled to be unconstitutional.

And same sex marriage legalized. Thus, a law.

tarcone

06-29-2015, 11:32 AM

I think if you want to argue against gay marriage you should rely on Roberts' dissent rather than disclaim 100+ years of Supreme Court precedent.

I have been. And Scalia and Alito and Thomas.

lighthousekeeper

06-29-2015, 11:40 AM

This will cause more problems long term.

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

RainMaker

06-29-2015, 11:42 AM

Loving v. Virginia is aboUt equal application of the law.

So was this. Heck, they quoted Loving v Virginia in the actual majority opinion.

RainMaker

06-29-2015, 11:43 AM

And same sex marriage legalized. Thus, a law.

No. Marriage was already a law. This ruling just says that everyone has a right to it.

larrymcg421

06-29-2015, 11:44 AM

From Loving v. Virginia:

"These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. "

digamma

06-29-2015, 11:49 AM

And same sex marriage legalized. Thus, a law.

OK, I can play your game too. Show me in the codified laws of the US or in the states where gay marriage bans were struck down where there is a new statute in the books.

Of course the headline says, legalizes gay marriage. It's easy to write that. But if you read the opinion, you'll see the issue here was existing gay marriage bans which were struck down.

tarcone

06-29-2015, 11:50 AM

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

If you are a church which declines to perform same-sex marriages, will your property taxes remain exempt? Will the contributions on which you depend diminish because they are no longer deemed charitable contributions?

But after today’s ruling, if you don’t approve of same-sex marriage and you are a legislator, your voice has been silenced. If you don’t accept it and you’re a court clerk, you must perform the ceremony or resign your position. If you don’t like it and you’re a public schoolteacher, must you promote it or be fired?

Just a couple things

JPhillips

06-29-2015, 11:55 AM

If you are a church which declines to perform same-sex marriages, will your property taxes remain exempt? Will the contributions on which you depend diminish because they are no longer deemed charitable contributions?

But after today’s ruling, if you don’t approve of same-sex marriage and you are a legislator, your voice has been silenced. If you don’t accept it and you’re a court clerk, you must perform the ceremony or resign your position. If you don’t like it and you’re a public schoolteacher, must you promote it or be fired?

Just a couple things

Why stop there? What if Christianity is outlawed!!!

tarcone

06-29-2015, 12:00 PM

From Judge Thomas

Kennedy and the Court's liberal wing are invoking a definition of "liberty" that the Constitution's framers "would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect."

"Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government," Thomas said. "This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it"

Loving was about liberty. Not marriage.

tarcone

06-29-2015, 12:01 PM

Why stop there? What if Christianity is outlawed!!!

And I think that's the type of reaction some people are afraid of. That this is the first step on that journey.

Logan

06-29-2015, 12:01 PM

This entire debate can be boiled down to the simple rule that Ben established for this board:

Originally Posted by SkyDog

RULE 1: Don't act like an asshat.

When you are coming up with some of these ridiculous scenarios to spell inevitable doom for the country, all because we as a country are now allowing two people of the same sex to be treated the same as two people of the opposite sex, you are failing to uphold that rule.

Subby

06-29-2015, 12:01 PM

If you are a church which declines to perform same-sex marriages, will your property taxes remain exempt?
Yes.
Will the contributions on which you depend diminish because they are no longer deemed charitable contributions?
See above.
But after today’s ruling, if you don’t approve of same-sex marriage and you are a legislator, your voice has been silenced.
No.
If you don’t accept it and you’re a court clerk, you must perform the ceremony or resign your position.
Yes.
If you don’t like it and you’re a public schoolteacher, must you promote it or be fired?
No.

BillJasper

06-29-2015, 12:06 PM

From Judge Thomas

Kennedy and the Court's liberal wing are invoking a definition of "liberty" that the Constitution's framers "would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect."

"Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government," Thomas said. "This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it"

Loving was about liberty. Not marriage.

There are lots of things that our founding fathers wouldn't recognize. Should we not have laws governing telecommunications because of it?

This is about equal application of standing laws. Essentially, you can't create a subclass of citizen with legislation.

But, buck up young camper, in thirty or forty years, none of this will matter to you at all.

RainMaker

06-29-2015, 12:07 PM

And I think that's the type of reaction some people are afraid of. That this is the first step on that journey.

You really can't believe this.

molson

06-29-2015, 12:07 PM

Why stop there? What if Christianity is outlawed!!!

I was in Louisville for a wedding this weekend. I had some free time so I traveled around more rural Kentucky, did some hiking, and came across a huge flea market. It was a fun little sampling of the area, I bought some local jam. 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 belief 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. At least the wedding crowd - the bride was the founder of Louisville's Fair Vendor Alliance, a group that organizes and promotes "gay-friendly" local businesses who are open to providing services for gay weddings and events, which can be a great thing to know if you're trying to plan something like that in an area that isn't fully tolerant.

So I really saw both worlds and kind of felt the disdain they have for each other. But I wish there was a way to bring down those walls some and address the sincere concerns both sides have rather than have this environment of broad mutual hostility. You can't hate people into accepting something. I always thought that real social progress comes from the individual level, from people who are able to reach across those divides. Like the Kentucky Christian redneck who supports gay marriage and convinces a few of his old friends and it's not a threat to them, or the gay kid from the rural christian family who comes out and helps gradually gets his community to evolve their views not by labeling them all as bigots, but just by being himself. You know, if Jimmy the former high school football star from the great family is gay, then maybe it's not such a big deal. Not everybody came around that simply but I think those little battles is how progress comes.

tarcone

06-29-2015, 12:08 PM

Yes.

See above.

No.

Yes.

No.

Wow. You have an amazing crystal ball. I didn't realize you could see into the future.

I want to place a bet on next years Super Bowl. Who will win?

BillJasper

06-29-2015, 12:08 PM

And I think that's the type of reaction some people are afraid of. That this is the first step on that journey.

This is where I quit taking you seriously. :lol:

BillJasper

06-29-2015, 12:13 PM

On a serious note, 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.

tarcone

06-29-2015, 12:15 PM

You really can't believe this.

It doesn't matter what I believe or don't.
There are already articles out there comparing this to Dred Scott and roe v wade in its social implication.
I'm far from a far right wing religious zealot. But, as you know, they are out there. And this will, most likely, be their war cry.
You know as well as I do that people are not happy with this decision. And you know that people do crazy things.
And those that believe this will use the evidence produced and will be firing on all cylinders.

I hope this goes down as a great social decision. I don't like the legalities of it. I don't like how it was done. And I have no fear my life will change because of it.
But I'm only one.

cuervo72

06-29-2015, 12:17 PM

In other words, just like how the Feds forced desegregation down the throats of the southern states.

RainMaker

06-29-2015, 12:18 PM

It doesn't matter what I believe or don't.
There are already articles out there comparing this to Dred Scott and roe v wade in its social implication.
I'm far from a far right wing religious zealot. But, as you know, they are out there. And this will, most likely, be their war cry.
You know as well as I do that people are not happy with this decision. And you know that people do crazy things.
And those that believe this will use the evidence produced and will be firing on all cylinders.

I hope this goes down as a great social decision. I don't like the legalities of it. I don't like how it was done. And I have no fear my life will change because of it.
But I'm only one.

Who cares what their war cry is? We don't make decisions in this country to appease crazy zealots.

I really don't think this will be a big deal. Bunch of states had already made the switch. Bunch more were on their way. Other countries have done it for years. Nothing big came out of it.

JPhillips

06-29-2015, 12:18 PM

I was in Louisville for a wedding this weekend. I had some free time so I traveled around more rural Kentucky, did some hiking, and came across a huge flea market. It was a fun little sampling of the area, I bought some local jam. 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 belief 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. At least the wedding crowd - the bride was the founder of Louisville's Fair Vendor Alliance, a group that organizes and promotes "gay-friendly" local businesses who are open to providing services for gay weddings and events, which can be a great thing to know if you're trying to plan something like that in an area that isn't fully tolerant.

So I really saw both worlds and kind of felt the disdain they have for each other. But I wish there was a way to bring down those walls some and address the sincere concerns both sides have rather than have this environment of broad mutual hostility. You can't hate people into accepting something. I always thought that real social progress comes from the individual level, from people who are able to reach across those divides. Like the Kentucky Christian redneck who supports gay marriage and convinces a few of his old friends and it's not a threat to them, or the gay kid from the rural christian family who comes out and helps gradually gets his community to evolve their views not by labeling them all as bigots, but just by being himself. You know, if Jimmy the former high school football star from the great family is gay, then maybe it's not such a big deal. Not everybody came around that simply but I think those little battles is how progress comes.

I agree, with the caveat that some people aren't willing to change(at least at this point in their life.)

I'm generally suspicious of slippery slope arguments like Tarcone's. We make lines all the time. Yes, we allow the lines to move from time to time, but we can and have been more than capable of saying here's where the line is and then holding to that. Slippery slope arguments tend to just be lazy arguments against the original proposition.

path12

06-29-2015, 12:34 PM

I have been. And Scalia and Alito and Thomas.

And that side was overruled by a majority. That doesn't seem like a hard concept to grasp, though you are proving me wrong there.

Toddzilla

06-29-2015, 12:44 PM

There are lots of things that our founding fathers wouldn't recognize.HOLY SHIT that's a 2nd amendment arguement - wrong thread, sir.

ISiddiqui

06-29-2015, 12:53 PM

Loving was about liberty. Not marriage.

The liberty to marry?

ISiddiqui

06-29-2015, 12:56 PM

On a serious note, 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.

Especially since my church (ELCA) was praying for this ruling! ;)

Subby

06-29-2015, 01:05 PM

Republicans better get with the times. At this rate, they are never going to win another presidential election and in turn are never going to appoint another supreme court justice.

Subby

06-29-2015, 01:19 PM

It is not the judicial branches job to make law. And that's what they did.
Actually they struck down law that was in violation of the equal protection clause. Which is what they are supposed to do.

Tekneek

06-29-2015, 01:26 PM

If you are a church which declines to perform same-sex marriages, will your property taxes remain exempt? Will the contributions on which you depend diminish because they are no longer deemed charitable contributions?

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?

But after today’s ruling, if you don’t approve of same-sex marriage and you are a legislator, your voice has been silenced. If you don’t accept it and you’re a court clerk, you must perform the ceremony or resign your position. If you don’t like it and you’re a public schoolteacher, must you promote it or be fired?

Just a couple things

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.

Solecismic

06-29-2015, 01:26 PM

Of all the objections, I think I understand the polygamy one the most. And maybe that will be challenged at some point in our lives. If so, it wouldn't be about social acceptance, it would be about whether the government is discriminating against a group of people based on their family structure.

If you have faith that something two (or more) consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home disqualifies them for membership in your preferred version of the afterlife, you also have faith that you version of a god will mete out some appropriate punishment. And that has to be enough for you in a free country.

Now if someone else is being harmed by these consenting adults, by all means, make your case.

For similar reasons, I kind of hope Obama would consider drawing a cartoon Muhammad himself. Nothing mean, of course. But I don't think we do enough to stand up for freedom from those who want to monitor our thoughts and our bedrooms.

Tekneek

06-29-2015, 01:28 PM

From Judge Thomas

Kennedy and the Court's liberal wing are invoking a definition of "liberty" that the Constitution's framers "would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect."

"Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government," Thomas said. "This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it"

Loving was about liberty. Not marriage.

You may not know this, but there are dissenting opinions given in a lot of cases before SCOTUS. It is interesting to read their opinion, but their take on the matter is not law.

tarcone

06-29-2015, 01:33 PM

Actually they struck down law that was in violation of the equal protection clause. Which is what they are supposed to do.

Or they infringed upon states rights.

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

That was a slippery slope arguement and I got side tracked from what my issue is. And it is an issue I've had problems with before. The Feds forcing the states what to do when that is not the Feds job.

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.

Same sex marriage would have been legal in all states sooner rather then later.

Tekneek

06-29-2015, 01:35 PM

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

ISiddiqui

06-29-2015, 01:35 PM

The Feds forcing the states what to do when that is not the Feds job.

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.

Or, you know, under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, the Constitution trumps state law. Therefore the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment overrules any contrary state rules. Constitution always wins. That's why the feds had to step in.

Logan

06-29-2015, 01:37 PM

Or they infringed upon states rights.

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

That was a slippery slope arguement and I got side tracked from what my issue is. And it is an issue I've had problems with before. The Feds forcing the states what to do when that is not the Feds job.

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.

Same sex marriage would have been legal in all states sooner rather then later.

Just a little thing called federal preemption which I believe is spelled out in the Constitution.

Subby

06-29-2015, 01:39 PM

Same sex marriage would have been legal in all states sooner rather then later.
Yeah they said the same about Jim Crow, too. Somehow I think that wouldn't have happened. Just a hunch.