- Joined
- Sep 10, 2010
- Messages
- 38,198
- Reaction score
- 15,841
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Not surprising. It sets up the It Is Up To The States argument though MSNBC is full of crap trying to paint this as an Obama single-handed victory
:shrug: no, they are simply failing to extend its' validation to the federal level, but leaving it with the State.
Interesting. Worth another thread - but I would bet, when put to the test, you don't actually believe that.
God's are better than everyone else's.
Ah, but if a state recognizes a marriage as valid, that state has made it so that said marriage as equal to all other marriages recognized by that state.
If the federal government steps in and says, "No, that marriage is not equal to this marriage" they are invalidating that marriage in a de facto way.
God's are better than everyone else's.
Bring it, cp. You make the thread, I'll be there.
Hey maybe now a Soldier's husband or wife will get the same benefits as another Soldier's husband and wife.
My God has different morals than yours, so this is still wrong.
To the extent that the government insists on interfering with and regulating what was essentially a religious rite, this ruling is the correct one. All the more reason why the government should not be in the marriage business because this ruling does not just expand the right of gay to have their marriage recognized by the federal government, if a state so recognizes it, it also leaves open the possibility of other equal protections of other marriage "couplings" going forward.
As for the religious rite of marriage, it's likely that going forward churches will no longer participate in the civil aspect of marriage but only the religious aspect, retaining the rite as between a man and a woman and leaving no room for the civil equality to creep into their services. As such, those who wish to be marriage in the church of their faith will also have to be married in a civil ceremony recognized by the state in order to be "registered" with the state.
If a state recognizes SSM, and 11 do, I don't see how SCOTUS could have ruled other than it did in the Windsor case.
Which has the effect of invalidating the marriage by virtue of making it unequal. It undermines state's rights.
You don't (none of us do) get you're own "God". By definition this is impossible.
You don't (none of us do) get you're own "God". By definition this is impossible.
Those who claim to speak for God are doing just that.....
It boils down to the Feds cannot redefine something that is reserved to be defined by the individual States.
There are many Gods and Goddesses out there
THE PANTHEONS
AFRICAN GODS
AUSTRALIAN GODS
AZTEC GODS
BALTIC GODS
CARIBBEAN GODS
CELTIC GODS
CHINESE GODS
EGYPTIAN GODS
FINNISH GODS
GREEK GODS
INCAN GODS
INDIAN GODS
JAPANESE GODS
MAYAN GODS
MESOPOTAMIAN GODS
MIDDLE-EASTERN GODS
NATIVE AMERICAN GODS
NORSE GODS
OCEANIC GODS
ROMAN GODS
SLAVIC GODS
SOUTH AMERICAN GODS
SOUTH-EAST ASIAN
TIBETAN GODS
Godchecker.com - Your Guide To The Gods
If a state recognizes SSM, and 11 do, I don't see how SCOTUS could have ruled other than it did in the Windsor case.
You are wrong on one big level. There are many churches, including many Christian Churches who recognize gay marriages.
What about a states right to legalize marriage? Wasn't DOMA in opposition to states rights?
Two people married in Massachusetts weren't able to file federal taxes jointly because that marriage wasn't recognized at a federal level.
My God has different morals than yours, so this is still wrong.
There are always rebels in every faith - this is not the norm, by any stretch.
Your God wouldn't be God then.
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?