Where in the WORLD did you come up with that?
You mentioned something about churches being required to be married, that simply is not true, churches can refuse to marry for any reason.
I, for one, have indicated my religious and legal opinion on the subject. The religious aspect trumps man's law though.
the idea of gay marriage wasn't conceived or thought of till the 90's. if you can show me one gay group in the 80's who demanded to get married I would love to see it. but since no evidence exists maybe you can see my point(who am I kidding. of course you don't)
Fun schmun. Look I understand what you are saying but you cant combat that mindset,so dont try. Frankly...its not even worth the battle. They arent interested in it so why should you be?it's not just this issue
if you don't agree with the liberal agenda you are not only wrong, you are evil. that is their mindset. it also happens to be the mindset of a small child. and we have to deal with these people and these situations. its.......not fun
5 lawyers just changes the definition of marriage. you can dodge that obvious fact all you want. It happened. That does not mean it is right, it's just what happened. and the liberals vote in a sheep-like block on all this issues anyway. \
they ignored the words in the constitution in the Obamacare ruling, yet today they are defend it, is that your warped theory?
Apparently my earlier questions about multiple marriage restrictions were answered as Roberts said the majority opinion opens the door for legal multiple marriages
I could start my own wine company with the collective amount of sour grapes being expressed over this decision...
Just out: U S S.Ct. rules that there is a constitutional right to same sex marriage, going further than just ruling that states have to recognize it, if performed in a state where it's legal.
This has an impact on the 14 states that have passed laws banning it.
NOTE: The ruling was NOT just that states have to recognize it. The ruling is that it is now LEGAL, being constitutionally protected. It COULD HAVE made the ruling more narrow, but it did not. It went all the way. The matter is now settled. Gay marriage is legal, like interracial marriage is.
NBC
The definition of marriage was changed by people, a lot of people, using it to describe same sex couples in the same type of relationship as married opposite sex couples.
They've always been a crap shoot. This isn't the first time they've ruled on something controversial, or that pissed people off or even with a split court. We wouldn't need 9 Justices if the decisions were all or even mostly straight forward, or if no personal bias were involved on either or both sides.
What I find interesting is they somehow found a right for gays to marry in the constitution, but can't seem to find the right to keep and bear arms.....
You are correct as far as the college goes. But that isn't a church so :shrug:. As for pastors being sued for not performing SSM. Guess what? Pastors in churches have always been able to deny performing a marriage. Or to be more specific, pastors dedicated to specific religious marriages have been able to deny performing a marriage. I know this because my mother in law's pastor refused to perform my wife and I's marriage on the grounds that we 1: were not Christian and 2: We did not attend their church. This ability will not change.
But if it somehow does end up being as you imagine then I will fight just as strongly for religious freedom as I did for SSM.
Ask your question using understandable english - all people have distinguishing features.
Because marriage causes societal benefits that the govt has a legitimate interest in promoting
I said this earlier in the thread, but I suspect old polygamy challenges can be dusted off and made more compelling by adding most of the majority opinion. Roberts' decent made this exact point.
That would be a pretty crappy wine company, since you would have no wine. In other words, you are applying that old saying incorrectly.
Unless, of course, your premise is that anyone that disagrees with the ruling really agrees with it but are saying it is no good because they won't ever be able to be in a gay marriage. Is that what you mean? Because that's what you are saying.
the idea of gay marriage wasn't conceived or thought of till the 90's. if you can show me one gay group in the 80's who demanded to get married I would love to see it. but since no evidence exists maybe you can see my point(who am I kidding. of course you don't)
In the early 1970s, amid a burst of gay activism unleashed by the Stonewall riots in Greenwich Village, several same-sex couples filed lawsuits demanding marriage licenses. Courts did not take their arguments very seriously. A trial judge in Kentucky instructed one lesbian plaintiff that she would not be permitted into the courtroom unless she exchanged her pantsuit for a dress. Minnesota Supreme Court justices would not dignify the gay-marriage claim by asking even a single question at oral argument.
Once the court announced it would hear this, the decision was a foregone conclusion.
We are in an age where any decision can be justified broadly. I'm not gay and none of my family (that I know of) is gay or wants to have a gay marriage so this affects me personally not at all. I'm however glad that people can gain benefits, visiting rights in hospitals, etc....
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?