Religion isn't a Sunday morning from 9-10 kind of thing. If I believe participating in a ceremony will send my soul to hell, do you think it is ok for the government to force me to do it?
No, there won't. This ruling does not rewrite anti-discrimination statutes of the states or the federal government.This isn't the end of it. There will be lawsuit after lawsuit against churches who refuse to marry same-sex couples. Religious freedoms are now being violated.
Does today's future have any direct impact or permit any of those types of non-traditional marriage? No.
Will future attorneys try and use today's ruling to make the argument for those types of marriages in the future? Probably.
But when they do, they will have to overcome the Government's argument that the prohibition helps to prevent fraud and tax evasion (for polygamy) and that the situation will not lead to abuse (in the case of underage marriage) and that the marriage will not likely be the result of undue influence (very close familial marriage).
No, I just recognize true expertise and authority where it exists and you, my "libertarian" friend, have none.Clearly not. You either think it takes magical robes to read the holy text, or you dishonestly pretend this is the case for what could be a variety of reasons, all of which involve negative character traits.
You call yourself a libertarian while having no respect for the rule of law and supporting judicial fiat bypassing the amendment process.
Because you stole marriage from me and made it something dirty
Oh...so you mean it's empty, angry ranting because you didn't get your way, but you're not going to do anything about it. Got it.
Well have fun in your impotent rage.
Their legal justification was a bastardized interpretation of an amendment that was decided on multiple times in the past. This isnt the first time this issue has come up, nor is it the first time the 14th was considered. They used personal opinion and emotional appeal to force it to fit where Supreme Court justices on several occasions in the past said they did not fit.
It is what it is. An opinion based on feelings, not law. And so be it. This is the system we have.
If the objection is a sincere, established religious belief, any attempt to force someone to participate violates the first amendment.
Yes, I have read the plain English of the United States Constitution as written and as amended and I expect it to be upheld and followed by the government that would have no authority to exist or to do anything whatsoever without it.
When they grievously break this contract, there is no reason for anyone else to follow it.
No, I just recognize true expertise and authority where it exists and you, my "libertarian" friend, have none.
Actually, if Roe v. Wade and the commerce clause aren't overturned / restrained, respectively, it is the end of any sort of United States worth having, living in, or fighting for.
The court needs to swing back to limiting the expansion of federal power, which is the purpose of the entire philosophy of limited government and negative liberty that this nation is built upon. If it can't or won't do its job, then stick a fork in it.
Doubling down on the nonsense of Roe is not a good sign.
Nope. Either you just worship authority and can't think for yourself, or you're pretending this is the case because its convenient.
Yeah the tax breaks are appealing, but the risk of paying alimony to an adult human being outweighs that, logically
Pre-nuptial agreements. I was already wealthy and my wife was very well off when we got ours.
No, it doesn't. It didn't work for the Piggy Park guy, it won't work here. And the SCOTUS has already refused to uphold this as any sort of reality by refusing to hear the argument with the photographer.
Dood..did you just read what you said?Of course you're right, but this is just one more knock against marriage. Marriage favors the woman anyway, the justice system has already taken divorce law to where your wife can cheat on you, if you divorce her, she gets HALF.
I don't really want to get saddled with that level of financial risk. This decision today just zaps whatever there was about marriage that was pure or worth pursuing anyway....because there is no logical reason for a well off man to marry, the only reason would have been emotional or traditional. Well, now those reasons are finito as well
Tell me, why is it that when a conservative hears facts they don't like, reads an academic study by trained researchers whose conclusions disagree with their dogma, it is instantly because it's a "left wing organization?" Are you really that incapable of thinking that people who don't share your narrow view of the world are incapable of research?!
Not if you aren't taking care of her. Alimony is not common unless there is a difference in the amount of support one adult human has been providing to another, and that is due mainly to their roles in the marriage.
I have no particular interest in this subject other than I don't believe that government should be in the business of sanctioning or banning individual, legally contracted, relationships and they shouldn't be in the business of picking winners and losers based on their piece of paper. I believe every individual, for purposes of love or security or whatever other reason, should be able to enter into a contracted relationship that is honoured and respected by government and the courts. If you can enter into a contract to have your lawn mowed, and that contract can be adjudicated in court based on the terms of the contract, there's zero reason why only a government issued piece of paper validates a relationship contract.
That said, the issue here in Canada has been a non-issue for the most part. No churches have been mandated to marry anyone and never will. It's possible, in the US, where the left takes everything to extremes and goes way overboard that there will be a push to punish the religious right by trying to force them into performing same sex marriages, but I would hope they wouldn't.
The next move, if the right is serious about the so called damage this will cause society, will be for them to push to have government eliminate all benefits that accrue to those who hold paper. Tax and other law should be based on individuals and the rights of individuals. To do otherwise will open up the courts to the next wave of social, sexual, rights seekers.
No, personal opinion and emotion is what you are using to decide that the state has a legitimate interest in denying same-sex couples a marriage license.
Yes it does.
You call yourself a libertarian while suggesting that Americans should be able to vote away the freedom of other Americans.
The vast majority of Colleges and Universities lean left...some far left. Fact. Therefore, not a valid source of information. Not because I'm to the right, but because they're biased. The left is well-known to twist and distort information to further their agenda. Are you really incapable of forming your opinions on facts rather than what the left tells you is the right thing to believe?
Are you really incapable of forming your opinions on facts rather than what the left tells you is the right thing to believe?
Nope. Either you just worship authority and can't think for yourself, or you're pretending this is the case because its convenient.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?