There was a need to rule - not due to moral issue but purely legal.

 

What is a marriage - legally? A joint partnership? An LLC? The problem is that marriage - legally in state and federal laws - makes available things not available to non-marrieds, hence the laws do not treat all PERSONS equally. Thus, unless you eliminate laws that reference marriage you will have people denied access to legal functions - simply due to their lack of wanting or being able to participate in a 'long time institution'.

 

As usual, the court took the easy, but very heavy handed route - saying all states had to recognize...etc, etc. Regardless if you agree that fixing the difference in laws between married and non-married people should be done or not the way this came down will definitely cause some angst at the state level across most of the nation. This will get very strange in the near future.

Great day. This is a win for anyone who believes that everyone should be given the same basic rights.

We thought divorce rates were high before...

We thought divorce rates were high before...

 

The legacy of an equally if not more radical change in domestic relations law than this one: no-fault divorce. California did it first when Ronald Reagan signed in in 1970 and every single state except New York had it by 1985.

and Our Lord gives us every opportunity to praise Him.

 

Are we doing that with this ruling?

 

Is it the Supreme Court's job to praise the Lord?

Is it the Supreme Court's job to praise the Lord?

 

That's a bingo! I will always support the separation of church and state.

[ATTACH]51218[/ATTACH]

 

I guess you're implying that anyone who disagrees is homophobic? Not surprised.

I don't necessarily agree with this ruling but I'm not surprised either. Yesterday's surprised me.

 

I have no issues with gay marriage as long as those religious institutions that choose not to do them aren't forced into it and yes I believe that the LGBT community is militant enough to try to force churches to do gay marriages. If it happens I pray the the Catholic church at least starts only doing sacramental marriages while the couple would have to go through a civil proceeding to get a marriage license. Honestly I kind of wish the Catholic church would go ahead and get out of civil marriages all together anyway. My understanding is that some countries already have this.

I guess you're implying that anyone who disagrees is homophobic? Not surprised.

No, going on your comment below I don't think that you would be included, as you said that you were not surprised.

I can't wade through all of the legal jargon. So in short, with this ruling, when you go and file for your marriage license, there will now be a box a couple can check for homosexual? Does this law require anything else?

No, going on your comment below I don't think that you would be included, as you said that you were not surprised.

 

Then why post it? To fight the fire and brimstone hyperbole (that I don't agree with either especially since it looked in another thread like he agreed with Westboro Baptist) with more hyperbole? That's become the left's favorite tactic, disagree with them have a hateful label thrown at you. Disagree with Obama, you're a racist, disagree with Clinton, you're a sexist. Favor calling out radical Islamists for the religious zealots that they are and you're Islamophobic. And please don't try to insult my intelligence by saying it doesn't happen, it does happen. Heck it happens on these boards.

 

The decision didn't surprise me but I also don't agree with it. I'll ask again am I homophobic?

 

I got pretty well blasted in another thread for saying that I believed that people of the left are intolerant. Maybe I overstated it but this does nothing to make me re-think my position.

I don't necessarily agree with this ruling but I'm not surprised either. Yesterday's surprised me.

 

I have no issues with gay marriage as long as those religious institutions that choose not to do them aren't forced into it and yes I believe that the LGBT community is militant enough to try to force churches to do gay marriages. If it happens I pray the the Catholic church at least starts only doing sacramental marriages while the couple would have to go through a civil proceeding to get a marriage license. Honestly I kind of wish the Catholic church would go ahead and get out of civil marriages all together anyway. My understanding is that some countries already have this.

 

I will say that there is absolutely ZERO chance that the Court would stomp on the 1st Amendment in that manner. No church will be forced to recognize the marriages.

Then why post it? To fight the fire and brimstone hyperbole (that I don't agree with either especially since it looked in another thread like he agreed with Westboro Baptist) with more hyperbole? That's become the left's favorite tactic, disagree with them have a hateful label thrown at you. Disagree with Obama, you're a racist, disagree with Clinton, you're a sexist. Favor calling out radical Islamists for the religious zealots that they are and you're Islamophobic. And please don't try to insult my intelligence by saying it doesn't happen, it does happen. Heck it happens on these boards.

 

The decision didn't surprise me but I also don't agree with it. I'll ask again am I homophobic?

 

I got pretty well blasted in another thread for saying that I believed that people of the left are intolerant. Maybe I overstated it but this does nothing to make me re-think my position.

 

I'm pretty sure if you haven't seen or heard any homophobic statements today then you are in the minority. It also means his post wasn't meant for you so why would you take his post so personal?

How much did Obama influence this day?

I will say that there is absolutely ZERO chance that the Court would stomp on the 1st Amendment in that manner. No church will be forced to recognize the marriages.

 

I wish I felt that way but I don't. I can see the LGBT going after a churches tax exempt status if they refuse to perform gay marriages because they would be espousing a political viewpoint from the church.