Same Sex Marriage Now Legal Nationwide in USA

[Oscillation]

For the religious debate going on (if there is one):
A friend of mine just posted this video on facebook, and somehow I like it. You on the other hand perhaps might not.

Bishop TD Jakes Comments on Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Ruling (NM)

[video=youtube;3I7OO-aj4Ps]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I7OO-aj4Ps[/video]

 

[just me]

Although I am joining this conversation a little late I wanted to provide some input. First, I was very excited to hear the ruling! Friday will certainly go down in the history books as a great day for LGBT people and Straight Allies. As a gay man, and having come out of the closet about 7 years ago, I am in awe at how quickly the tide has turned to advance marriage equality. Seven years ago I remember thinking that it would be many decades before same-sex marriage was recognized by all 50 states of the United States of America. While it seems that the battle will drag on a little bit longer in my home state of Kansas (Texas and Kansas seem to have similar resistance at this point), I am sure that compliance will come fairly soon. However, like many other LGBT folk and Allies, I recognize that the battle is still not yet complete. There is currently discussion, as there always has been, by some about an amendment to the United States Constitution. Therefore, we must remain vigilant to defend the ruling.

Honestly, I have some mixed feelings on the ruling. Aside from the happiness I have on the ruling, I have enduring questions. As I am very familiar with the issue of marriage equality, and have been involved in some activism, I came to hold my own perspectives on the constitutionality of such a ruling. Apart from other people I know who are also passionate about this issue, I take a perspective of the federal government having somewhat of a limited role in the issue of marriage equality. To be specific, I interpreted the constitution as indicating, through the Full Faith and Credit clause, that only recognition could be required by the federal government. I was actually surprised when the Supreme Court went beyond this by ruling that all states must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. I therefore, am still having some difficulty determining the logic behind the requirement for all states to issue marriage licenses. This still persists despite reading all of the opinions issued by the Supreme Court. Additionally, this persists as the historical precedent has been that the states have regulated marriage, not the federal government.

Once again, while I am very happy that same-sex marriage is now recognized by all 50 states, I am still perplexed as to the constitutionality of the court going beyond simple recognition by all states.

What thoughts and arguments do you all have regarding this?

I'd like to compliment you on your intelligence and honesty. Your happiness is clouded by legalities and doubts of them, in a sense. While I am not gay and happen to be Christian, the ruling upsets me rather than makes me happy. It is because of a large compilation of things, though, and not just this. There is no finality in this. This takes away states' rights and subjugates them to the Supreme Court. As I stated before, the Equal Rights movement of 1972 never became part of the Constitution because there simply were not enough states to receive the quorum needed, so it timed out.

The 13th Amendment to the Constitution was the Abolition of Slavery. Read this carefully, please.
Passed by Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified on December 6, 1865, the 13th amendment abolished slavery in the United States and provides that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.".

Key words:
Passed by Congress....................
Ratified...........................................

It's called due process of law.

 

[just me]

Yeah, Fox news would go ballistic if a county clerk who believes in the flying spaghetti monster refused to issue marriage licences to Christians using the same religious liberty argument logic. Only Christians are allowed to discriminate in the name of religious freedom.

Christianity has so many offshoots I cannot begin to name them. Such is Islam. This means simply that people cannot agree, so they go their own way and make things the way they believe. They don't force their little quabbles on everyone else.

I do not expect 50 states to agree on everything. Not in every detail. This country has "religiously" been removing God from it since I can remember, and I looked for these days we are living in. Lot of folk decided to just get rid of God from our schools and government. What you are seeing is like to me the beginning of sorrows, and it's just the beginning.

 

[DonTaushMe]

[MENTION=680]just me[/MENTION] your lack of knowledge about history, the civil war, amendments and civil rights is baffling. You cannot exclude decades of history to attempt to make a piss poor point. I can't even.

 

[sprinkles]

Christians: "PLEASE STOP FEEDING US TO THE LIONS"
Pagans: "Now, now, let's not be hasty. Due process and all that, you know!"

 

[Skarekrow]

I'd like to compliment you on your intelligence and honesty. Your happiness is clouded by legalities and doubts of them, in a sense. While I am not gay and happen to be Christian, the ruling upsets me rather than makes me happy. It is because of a large compilation of things, though, and not just this. There is no finality in this. This takes away states' rights and subjugates them to the Supreme Court. As I stated before, the Equal Rights movement of 1972 never became part of the Constitution because there simply were not enough states to receive the quorum needed, so it timed out.

The 13th Amendment to the Constitution was the Abolition of Slavery. Read this carefully, please.
Passed by Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified on December 6, 1865, the 13th amendment abolished slavery in the United States and provides that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.".

Key words:
Passed by Congress....................
Ratified...........................................

It's called due process of law.

I didn’t see you up here posting and protesting the Holly Hobby decision (now overturned) when in was in your favor.
This is the kind of hypocritical crap that makes people roll their eyes.

 

[Skarekrow]

Christianity has so many offshoots I cannot begin to name them. Such is Islam. This means simply that people cannot agree, so they go their own way and make things the way they believe. They don't force their little quabbles on everyone else.

I do not expect 50 states to agree on everything. Not in every detail. This country has "religiously" been removing God from it since I can remember, and I looked for these days we are living in. Lot of folk decided to just get rid of God from our schools and government. What you are seeing is like to me the beginning of sorrows, and it's just the beginning.

It’s called ‘separation of church and state’.
Remember that?
It’s to protect YOUR religious freedoms.
But I guess it’s okay to trample on that so long as it’s your version of the Christian religion.
How skewed.

 

[sprinkles]

It’s called ‘separation of church and state’.
Remember that?
It’s to protect YOUR religious freedoms.
But I guess it’s okay to trample on that so long as it’s your version of the Christian religion.
How skewed.

People need to realize that every time the state adopts a religious stance, it becomes a little more like Saudi Arabia. Do we want that? People complain about how they treat Christians and women over there, but guess what? That's their law and it's based on religion.

 

[Skarekrow]

People need to realize that every time the state adopts a religious stance, it becomes a little more like Saudi Arabia. Do we want that? People complain about how they treat Christians and women over there, but guess what? That's their law and it's based on religion.

People just don’t even know their own religion in most cases…if they followed the Abrahamic teachings and rules in the Bible we would indeed HAVE our Christian version Sharia Law.
Women’s rights would be out the window…slavery could be reinstated (it’s perfectly fine in the Bible).

This is why I crack up when someone forces one of their religious laws on the rest of the people and it backfires on them…like the statue of Baphomet going up in the state capital.
Let people believe whatever they want to believe so long as it doesn’t harm another person in any way.
Why is that such a hard fucking concept?

 

[just me]

@just me your lack of knowledge about history, the civil war, amendments and civil rights is baffling. You cannot exclude decades of history to attempt to make a piss poor point. I can't even.

Someone else will make it. Sorry if I've been working my butt off for the last few decades and missed the party.

 

[just me]

I need to remember not to open a page before logging in. I'm glad you fun-loving law-hating people have someone to jump on now. See how useful I can be to take out your frustrations on. You will never be happy. Jump away. Your hatred for God and Christianity is duly noted. If it doesn't agree with your way of life, why not run it down.

Just remember: you speak against a power you know nothing about. You have no way of understanding the scriptures because of the disobedience in your lives.

Tell me: is this true?

 

[just me]

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=680]just me[/MENTION]
The resentment is not undeserved. It's provoked in fact. You're provoking it right now.

 

[Skarekrow]

[MENTION=680]just me[/MENTION]

I do not hate God, Christianity, or you.
What I hate are people who act in hypocritical ways…like the Liberal who drives a Hummer while whining about global warming…or a Christian who demonizes the poor while worshiping and emulating those who make loads of money…you are either one or the other, otherwise, you’re just full of shit.
I will point out the BS on both sides…like the TPP Obama is championing that will drain even more jobs out of the US and allow corporate entities even more power to gouge and destroy the world in the name of higher profits.
You really like to make assumptions about me…go look in the mirror.

 

[Skarekrow]

The flood gates have been opened...​

 

[Skarekrow]

 

[invisible]

not too sure about the legal side of things, but i think its more respectful and more functional for Religion to be separate from State. i mean unless its the Vatican. because there are too many ideas of what God is and what God wants, even in just one religious system, to take all of those things into equal consideration in the composition of law. and theres no reason why one idea of God should receive preferential legal treatment over others. at least so far as i can tell, this is pretty disrespectful to others ideas of who or what God is. other religions have their Holy books of Divine Voice too, just like you do. and believe it or not, there are even people practicing those belief systems who are more devoted to their God than you are to yours.

 

[CogentPursuit]

There is no marital equality until the US abolishes marriage as a legal definition. There are still a lot of people that cannot get married. It is also unequal to provide benefits to someone just because they are bound under this special title and have sex and 'claim' they will love each other for life. As far as the governments endorsement, that means little.

Shouldn't two single roommates who have no romantic relationship and don't have sex or love each other in that way get the same tax benefits as everyone else gets? If two best friends want to spend their life together as single people and have no romantic relationship, shouldn't they be able to automatically have shared ownership of the house and everything else just like a married couple does?

Also the judges comments about love are all sappy crap. They have no place in law. Gay people can get married they just cannot have the benefits of marriage so that is another misleading argument they judge led. The government isn't force separating them or telling them they cannot love each other.

I would rather the government get rid of all laws concerning marriage and enact equal benefits among all citizens. I am tired of all this equal rights between groups. We should have equal rights among all individuals and end discrimination and separation of any sort. No more us against them or them against us. It is just each of us and all of us together.

 

[invisible]

have never understood the whole thing about gay marriage changes equalling animal marriages or object marriages. the discussion about gay marriage and any related legal changes actually has no effect on the state of other things such as those. they are irrelevant to the discussion, they are entirely separate discussions. whether or not gay marriage is legal has no more effect on the legality of those other things than whether straight marriage is legal. its ridiculous and entirely spurious to even mention it. actually, its deeply insulting to mention it, but i guess that doesnt really matter.

 

[sprinkles]

have never understood the whole thing about gay marriage changes equalling animal marriages or object marriages. the discussion about gay marriage and any related legal changes actually has no effect on the state of other things such as those. they are irrelevant to the discussion, they are entirely separate discussions. whether or not gay marriage is legal has no more effect on the legality of those other things than whether straight marriage is legal. its ridiculous and entirely spurious to even mention it. actually, its deeply insulting to mention it, but i guess that doesnt really matter.

Saying that we will want to marry animals next is like saying that there's a danger of people who eat beef wanting to eat humans next. Or people who smoke cigarettes wanting to smoke crack next.