#LoveWins

[VirginiaJim]

For this particular case at this particular time with this particular court...it's been decided.  States cannot ban gay marriage.  However, one can always bring a new case to the court or the legislative branch can enact a new law with or without the President's signature assuming they have the votes...which I don't think that they do.  So all the gnashing of teeth is not going to affect anything except wearing out your teeth.  It's over and done. 

[gPink]

It's not over until churches are forced to perform marriages contrary to church doctrine. 

[VirginiaJim]

Can you name a church that's been forced to do that?  I don't believe anything in this ruling was aimed at churches.

[gPink]

It is my belief that is the next battle.

[Rhino]

It is my belief that is the next battle.

I do not think that forcing churches to perform marriages contrary to church doctrine itself is the next battle. But what has already begun is the battle to remove their non-profit tax status unless they do.

[VirginiaJim]

It is my belief that is the next battle.

Gary, I just can't see that happening.  But if it does, I'll buy you lunch and a beer.

[voileauciel]

Gary, I just can't see that happening.  But if it does, I'll buy you lunch and a beer.

No church is required to do anything they don't want to do. Most GLBTQ folks (myself included) don't even want to get married in a church.

I find it interesting how so many angry white guys completely gloss over reality and ascribe their own beliefs on top of it. The world didn't end. Nothing has changed, except now we're all equal before the eyes of the law. Some just don't like the idea of us "non-traditional" folks sharing society with them. Thankfully, that generation is dying off now, so hopefully mine won't have to contend with this nastiness and cruelty for much longer.

[Stasch]

Can you name a church that's been forced to do that?  I don't believe anything in this ruling was aimed at churches.

This particular scenario couldn't have happened yet without this new ruling, so no.   But in 2010 a Catholic Adoption charity was forced out of operation in a similar scenario.

Agree with gPink, its coming.  Only a matter of time. 

This issue is / was not about rights.  Its about redefinition and legally forcing others to condone and approve or be punished. 

Here's what's coming:  Don't say something construed to be non PC, or there will be an outcry, your job is gone and fines levied.  (already happened to public figures, sports stars and entertainers, and attempted against privately held businesses).  If you are an activist on the correct side, no worries.  Say anything with impunity.

Vitriolic speech is / will be used to malign those accused of vitriolic speech. 

Labels are / will be attached to those accused of labeling.

Intolerance is / will be extended against those accused of being intolerant, all using definitions the accusers get to define.

Remember 'mean spirited' in the political realm a few elections ago?  Blatant attempt at a shut down of public discourse.  Its right out of the same playbook.

Witness Canada who ventured into this area with 'anti hate speech' laws.  Seems to have recently been ruled unconstitutional within their framework of law, but the attempt was there and in place for many years nonetheless.  It was designed to limit vitriolic speech, as defined by those who didn't want to hear any of it.  Do I want to hear vitriolic speech, even if its against something I don't believe in?  No.  However it is dangerous territory to legislate and penalize if 'free speech' is a tenent within your framework, particularly so when it is conditional.

All that is required here in the US is for a ruling.  Just 5 people out of 9 get to make the call. 

Other definitions will also be sought and probably granted.

[Stasch]

And right on queue is a label:    'angry white guys completely gloss over reality and ascribe their own beliefs on top of it.'

This ruling is not a surprise.  Its a logical natural progression of what's been underway for a long time in western culture.

Interesting read are the works of Francis Schaeffer.  In the early 50's he predicted every major social change within the cultural confusion that's occurred since the 60's including this latest ruling.  First God out of schools and public discourse.  Social unrest, military failures and moral laxness.  Abortion leading to talk of euthanasia.  Cities collapsing, economic faltering, fatherless children, poverty and urban decline.  He got it all right, including the order in which it would occur and the reasons why they occurred.  (disclaimer: I listed them in no particular order).

Its wasn't really hard for him to do.  The progression is predictable.  There is nothing new under the sun that hasn't happened before.  There are laws higher than man's, the violation of which can be clearly observed through history.  Many refer to this as Natural Law.  Others, me included, refer to it as God's law. 

What is remarkable about Schaeffer is how good he is at expressing things as an intellectual in a way we can all grasp.  He is not threatening, but welcoming.  While I can't guarantee you'll agree with his conclusions, you will find his logic intact and his premises crystal clear from which you can decide for yourself.  Be forewarned that it is not quick reading.

[MrPepsi]

Clearly this thread needs to be moved into the Arena now.

[Stasch]

Why, everyone appears to be very civil in the discourse.

[MrPepsi]

Civility is not the reason for the Arena.
Its the focus of the threads.

[Stasch]

Point taken.  Maybe should've gone there after first post?

[Stasch]

motonerd14,  I'm not angry with you or anyone else. 

Would gladly share a meal or sit around a campfire with you.

As far as I'm concerned, we're just sharing our thoughts on important yet differing ideas.

If you or anyone else sees it as beyond that, I apologize.

[wally_games]

Actually there is no protection of marriage at all, either gay or straight, written into the Constitution. And of course,  written into the Constitution is that rights not covered by the Constitution is to be covered by the states. So should this indeed be a state's rights issue as the Fed has no dog in this race?

I'm going to browse all over the place with my comments here for a second, so hang with me.

The statement above is true. Marriage is not an issue for the Federal government, but one that should have been decided in the individual states, per the COTUS. Personally, I believe that a marriage contract is a church issue and there should in turn be a government equivalent "legal partnership" that could be extended to every couple of any persuasion. The legal partnership would provide the legal status of the couple. The church contract would have no legal status, but only a moral one for those of that persuasion. Just my thoughts on the issue. Hope they make sense.

If it's all about being able to love the person you want to spend the rest of your life with, why can't I marry my sister if we want? Or, what if I fall in love with one half of a lesbian couple (assuming one of them is actually heterosexual)? Why can't all three of us get married?

On another note, I believe that the COTUS intent was a "freedom OF religion", not "freedom FROM religion". That's a "practice what you wish" concept, not the "you can't do that religious stuff here" concept that's been adopted. The COTUS states that the government cannot establish nor sponsor a specific religion. It also doesn't say that religious people should not be involved in government.

I have several close gay friends. I don't force my religious beliefs upon them. It's their life, they can do as they wish as long as that doesn't infringe upon mine. They don't force their gay beliefs upon me. That brings us to the whole "you have to bake me a gay wedding cake" issue. Where is the baker's right to refuse service?

But now that we're talking about each state now being required to recognize the laws and licenses of every other state, does a Concealed Carry Permit issued in Texas have legal standing in Washington DC, Chicago, or NYC?

I could probably drone on all day, but I've got work to do. Let the flaming begin!

[gPink]

No church is required to do anything they don't want to do. Most GLBTQ folks (myself included) don't even want to get married in a church.

I find it interesting how so many angry white guys completely gloss over reality and ascribe their own beliefs on top of it. The world didn't end. Nothing has changed, except now we're all equal before the eyes of the law. Some just don't like the idea of us "non-traditional" folks sharing society with them. Thankfully, that generation is dying off now, so hopefully mine won't have to contend with this nastiness and cruelty for much longer.

Now you'll maybe learn that you and others who truly wanted equality and to be left alone are pawns to be used and forgotten when your cause is used up.

[gPink]

Civility is not the reason for the Arena.
Its the focus of the threads.

Civility is the exact reason for the Arena. If the focus of the thread bothers you don't push the button.

[Deziner]

All of the "politically correct " nonsense is the cause of the downward spiral we see going on.

I think most folks are cool with the whole "Live and let live" thing but tend to recoil  when things are "stuffed down their throats". (No pun intended.) What happened to the rights those trampled by the "offended"? Let's take cigarette smoking as an example. People were "offended" by smokers in restaurants. Instead of not patronizing restaurants that allowed smoking the whined to politicians and now smoking isn't permitted in ANY restaurants. The owners can't even operate their businesses as they see fit because of the "offended". The same with bars. And airlines.

If someone refuses to serve me because I'm white, or have tattoos, or a beard, or whatever, I DON'T CARE. I will spend my money elsewhere. Simple solution. The "offended" ought to try it instead of calling the news station and a lawyer.

The world don't end because your feelings got hurt. The world ends when you die. Until then you've got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man and give some back. That goes for me as well. I'm sure I have more beat downs in store, but I assure you, I give as good as I get.

[B.D.F.]

"Angry white guys"..... interesting and quite telling. Why would you even mention skin color in this thread, and in that context? I believe it shows that you are, in fact, an angry guy yourself. You claim such behavior is based on your being homosexual, discrimination(s), past experience(s) and so forth but really, I think it is just you and your nature.

In a really odd way, what you have 'achieved', both through this court ruling as well as the general trend of much more exposure (Easy Boys- especially some of you boys!) of 'alternate lifestyles' is a fair degree of general annoyance and avoidance mixed in with what may be (and may not be) a general social acceptance. The more you (collectively, not you as an individual) rant, the more disdain you generate from the general population, at least a large segment of it IMO.

And now that you mention GLBTQ, I have to go look up what the 'Q' means. Makes me long for the olden' days when people were only came in two flavors- normal and..... not normal. 

And now for some levity: a good friend of my wife and mine has come out as transgendered; he is going down the path to become a woman. When he told us, I was so shocked I could not even make a joke and that is truly a rare happening. But fortunately I recovered quickly and a few days later, when he came to my house to help move a wood stove, I asked him if he took his pill that day (estrogen along with a testosterone inhibitor apparently- his claim is that he is losing muscle mass by the day). He said yes and I suggested he should have skipped it as the stove was quite heavy. :-)  But the really funny thing was when he told a married friend that he has known for 30 years. When he spilled the beans as it were, the friend responded by saying that actually, he was gay. When I heard the story, I pointed out that his friend had 'trumped' him and by quite a lot. 'G' comes first and 'T' comes last in GLBT so I suggested he try doing something to move 'up the ladder' so to speak and not get so badly pummelled in the future.... 

Brian

No church is required to do anything they don't want to do. Most GLBTQ folks (myself included) don't even want to get married in a church.

I find it interesting how so many angry white guys completely gloss over reality and ascribe their own beliefs on top of it. The world didn't end. Nothing has changed, except now we're all equal before the eyes of the law. Some just don't like the idea of us "non-traditional" folks sharing society with them. Thankfully, that generation is dying off now, so hopefully mine won't have to contend with this nastiness and cruelty for much longer.

[Jim M.]

Can you name a church that's been forced to do that?  I don't believe anything in this ruling was aimed at churches.

In England.    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/07/gay-couple-sue-church-of-england_n_3714609.html