Finally: Supreme Court agrees to settle gay marriage dispute

[Christian Liberty]

Just kicking the can down the road anyways, the next legal hurdle is forcing churches to perform same sex marriages.

You'll see the first arrests for non compliance in the next couple of years.

This could easily be my father...

 

[Christian Liberty]

Although I don't personally care what someone does in the privacy of his or her home, the notion that gay "marriage" is somehow a healthy thing is laughable.
Men engaging in gay sex is the number way HIV is transmitted. For all intents and purposes, AIDS is a gay (and intravenous drug) disease.
Additionally, gays produce no offspring, so the whole "lifestyle" either through disease or lack of copulation eventually leads to one thing: death.
This isn't the sort of thing the state should be encouraging. If anything there should be laws against it like in Russia.

I would agree up to the "there should be laws against it" part. The Christian way to deal with these issues is through PERSUASION, not force.

 

[TaftFan]

Civil unions for all, civil marriage for none.
Adoption qualifications should include a myriad of aspects, and sexual orientation should be included as a factor. But I am afraid the federal courts will rule that homosexuals can adopt children.

 

[DamianTV]

Any predictions or bets?

Sure. Who I love or do not love is not subject to the approval of the ANY authority. I love my dogs, but not in a sexual way. I love my parents, but again, not in a sexual way. I have love for my male friends, and I should not even need to explain that it does not need to be sexual.

Problem is Entitlements.

When to people get married, a Marriage License is required by the State. That means the State is just as much a part of the relationship as both of the concenting parties. It isnt Man and Wife, it is Man, Wife, and STATE. And that just fucks up everything, just like it does with everything else. So here is the problem, when the State gets involved, it tries to take as much as it can get away with. Two people care for each other, even non sexual and non marriage, they will go out of their way to help each other. You got hurt, I'll pay for your medical bills. Introduce Insurance, product of the State. One individual is no longer the one paying for the bills of another, the responsibility has been hijacked by Insurance, and Insurance is a business that surives by being profitable, which means not paying. The Insurance will come along and claim "we are not going to pay for that because" and then come up with some sort of logic that sounds legitimate. But really, it is Property Rights. You own yourself and that which you have. If you want, you could write a Will for when you die to pass everything you had in life to a fucking Squirrel that lives in a Tree. You can do this because your Property Rights are not subject to the approval of anyone else, even if the benefactor is a Squirrel, a Friend, or even a Same Sex partner.

I dont think the outcome of the case matters. It will probably beat around the bush as much as can be done while maintaining the guise of being important and legitimate. Property Rights will still be ignored and responsibility will be deprived of people until both Rights and Self Authority are completely eliminated.

 

[RJB]

I live in NYC and work with the most liberal of the liberal. I don't know anyone who would be ok with that scenario. I think people are reading too deep into this gay marriage issue.

Less than a decade ago most high ranking democrats were against gay marriage, including Obama. When FOX or MSNBC tell their viewers to believe something, they will believe it.

 

[RJB]

BTW gay people do have a right to marry. What they want is the priviledge to get an expensive divorce. Heterosexuals should be fighting for what gays have.

(Written with somewhat of a sense of humor)

 

[surf]

Although I don't personally care what someone does in the privacy of his or her home, the notion that gay "marriage" is somehow a healthy thing is laughable.
Men engaging in gay sex is the number way HIV is transmitted. For all intents and purposes, AIDS is a gay (and intravenous drug) disease.
Additionally, gays produce no offspring, so the whole "lifestyle" either through disease or lack of copulation eventually leads to one thing: death.
This isn't the sort of thing the state should be encouraging. If anything there should be laws against it like in Russia.

LOOK - a squirrel!

personally I hope there is no more outlawing of marriage. I'd rather not be on the hook, though, for any (more) government workers "spousal" benefits.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

Remember that the Supreme Court has already settled that SSM is not like interracial marriage.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I live in NYC and work with the most liberal of the liberal. I don't know anyone who would be ok with that scenario. I think people are reading too deep into this gay marriage issue.

You don't think there will soon be arrests and seizures of church property and formal charges filed against churches and pastors that refuse to marry same sex couples?

I think you'll start seeing this in the next five years.

If we're both still around, we'll see who is right.

 

[Anti Federalist]

You don't think there will soon be arrests and seizures of church property and formal charges filed against churches and pastors that refuse to marry same sex couples?

I think you'll start seeing this in the next five years.

If we're both still around, we'll see who is right.

City threatens to arrest ministers who refuse to perform same-sex weddings

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014...ters-who-refuse-to-perform-same-sex-weddings/

Two Christian ministers who own an Idaho wedding chapel were told they had to either perform same-sex weddings or face jail time and up to a $1,000 fine, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in federal court.

Alliance Defending Freedom is representing Donald and Evelyn Knapp, ordained ministers who own the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel in Coeur d’Alene.

“Right now they are at risk of being prosecuted,” their ADF attorney, Jeremy Tedesco, told me. “The threat of enforcement is more than just credible.”

“The Knapps are in fear that if they exercise their First Amendment rights they will be cited, prosecuted and sent to jail.”

- Alliance Defending Freedom attorney, Jeremy Tedesco

According to the lawsuit, the wedding chapel is registered with the state as a “religious corporation” limited to performing “one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible.”

But the chapel is also registered as a for-profit business – not as a church or place of worship – and city officials said that means the owners must comply with a local nondiscrimination ordinance.

That ordinance, passed last year, prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, and it applies to housing, employment and public accommodation.

 

[Christian Liberty]

You don't think there will soon be arrests and seizures of church property and formal charges filed against churches and pastors that refuse to marry same sex couples?

I think you'll start seeing this in the next five years.

If we're both still around, we'll see who is right.

It'll happen, not sure if it will be common in five years but eventually it will be.

 

[Paulbot99]

As my college church's priest told me, we'd be forced to go underground for refusing to bend the knee to the knee morality.

He brought up the Christian masses in the catacombs in Early Christianity in order to avoid arrest. Unfortunately, unlike the Romans, the State does not recognize any place where they can't arrest you.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

City threatens to arrest ministers who refuse to perform same-sex weddings

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014...ters-who-refuse-to-perform-same-sex-weddings/

Two Christian ministers who own an Idaho wedding chapel were told they had to either perform same-sex weddings or face jail time and up to a $1,000 fine, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in federal court.

Alliance Defending Freedom is representing Donald and Evelyn Knapp, ordained ministers who own the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel in Coeur d’Alene.

“Right now they are at risk of being prosecuted,” their ADF attorney, Jeremy Tedesco, told me. “The threat of enforcement is more than just credible.”

“The Knapps are in fear that if they exercise their First Amendment rights they will be cited, prosecuted and sent to jail.”

- Alliance Defending Freedom attorney, Jeremy Tedesco

According to the lawsuit, the wedding chapel is registered with the state as a “religious corporation” limited to performing “one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible.”

But the chapel is also registered as a for-profit business – not as a church or place of worship – and city officials said that means the owners must comply with a local nondiscrimination ordinance.

That ordinance, passed last year, prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, and it applies to housing, employment and public accommodation.

I think there are two sides to this. You have those that are extreme, that want the government to dictate to private individuals what they can do with their private property in relation to some protected 'class' of people. But I think the real issue at hand, the issue that will be decided by the supreme court, is whether the state must recognize-- or maybe said more properly-- if the state may discriminate based on a descriptor (race, religion, sexual orientation, etc) as to whether it will recognize a contract between consenting individuals. In the grand scheme of things the government should be abolished and therefore I couldn't stomach calling equal treatment under the government a Right, but I think it is fair to say so long as there is a government we should seek to keep it from discriminating against different segments of the population no matter their descriptor.

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

History favors the latter, but we'll see...

.The only important question I have is, will the members of the Court decide the question based upon the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment as expressed by its framers [the 39th Congress] and those who ratified the amendment? Or, will a majority of the Court engage in judicial tyranny and render an opinion based upon their personal sense of justice and fairness?

 

[DamianTV]

You don't think there will soon be arrests and seizures of church property and formal charges filed against churches and pastors that refuse to marry same sex couples?

I think you'll start seeing this in the next five years.

If we're both still around, we'll see who is right.

Govt -> Church -> Mundane

That is the Chain of Obedience

 

[69360]

How "natural" for a child to grow up around two gay men...this explains why children raised in "gay" families have higher instances of suicide, drug abuse, and mental problems.

I do agree though the state should keep it's nose out of things.

I think it would be fine.

Children of single parents or abusive or neglectful parents probably have worse rates.

With how hard it is for gay people to get children, you have to figure they really want them and will do a good job with them.

 

[NativeOne]

9th Amendment

Marriage is a human right .. courts, states and feds need to keep their noses out of it and hands off .. why don't they just stick to whats real like child support .. KeepYourPoliticsInYourOwnPockets.Net

**Insurance company's shouldn't be able to define marriage either .. "A man's home is his castle" .. who you consider to be part of your house hold is all that is required, whether you are married to them doesn't hold water .. present insurance holder should be able to have ultimate decision, for the roof that you are presently under defines who has final call ..

As far as taxes: Head of house hold still holds up for one person filing. Two in same house hold, can still file jointly ..

So where's the problem?

 

[DamianTV]

9th Amendment

Marriage is a human right .. courts, states and feds need to keep their noses out of it and hands off .. why don't they just stick to whats real like child support .. KeepYourPoliticsInYourOwnPockets.Net
[FONT=&]
**Insurance company's shouldn't be able to define marriage either .. "A man's home is his castle" .. who you consider to be part of your house hold is all that is required, whether you are married to them doesn't hold water .. present insurance holder should be able to have ultimate decision, for the roof that you are presently under defines who has final call ..

As far as taxes: Head of house hold still holds up for one person filing. Two in same house hold, can still file jointly ..

So where's the problem?
[/FONT]

Problem is when people realize their own Soverignty, it becomes Unprofitable for Corporations. United States, Inc, Insurance Company, etc. Humans put family first. Corporations put Profits first, ahead of Rights, the Law, Safety, Respect, everything.

 

[RJB]

As far as taxes: Head of house hold still holds up for one person filing. Two in same house hold, can still file jointly .. End The Fed.

Fixed it for ya.