SCOTUS legalizes Gay Marriage - 10th Amendment Obliterated

[Christian Liberty]

Our country is gone. I mean that seriously.

Yep... And frankly, its a theology of indifference to it that's contributing to it.

I am a little surprised by the responses here.

I guess the issue here is that some of us see people as people with rights based on us being 'men' or 'women'.
As humanity moves forward, the trend is to see gender definitions as outdated and rooted in a tradition that current generations don't belong to.
So really this is just about equality of access to institutions for two consenting adult individuals.

Sorry social conservatives, but the country is moving forward. There will be no civil war. There will be no secession.
The vast majority of the country, especially millennials, is okay with this. It sucks to be a minority, but that's just the way it is from here on out.

And for what it's worth, I don't understand the obsession with people thinking that homosexual couples are suddenly going to demand that cake makers start make penis cakes. It's like saying, "If those darn heteros get to marry, they are going to start getting all the cake makers to have vagina cakes!" That just doesn't happen.

Civil war won't start over just this. But it may well start when gays start pushing Christians to comply with what they want.

And, the reason homos will start demanding "penis cakes" is because every single one of them is a pervert.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

This is going to get interesting here in the Bible belt.......

Indeed, I do not know what Utah/Idaho/Arizona's response will be either. It could well be very good and heartening. They will not, not, not be happy about this. For instance, Utah could just stop issuing marriage licenses altogether, in concordance with a change in LDS policy allowing temple marriage without state licensing. Now that would be a gutsy pro-freedom move. Roll on, nullification movement! Roll on.

 

[jllundqu]

Yep... And frankly, its a theology of indifference to it that's contributing to it.



Civil war won't start over just this. But it may well start when gays start pushing Christians to comply with what they want.

And, the reason homos will start demanding "penis cakes" is because every single one of them is a pervert.

That's some love and tolerance you've got there lol...

 

[helmuth_hubener]

If so... you've explained EXACTLY why there can be no peace between Christian libertarians and secular libertarians.

No, FF. You just think that's true. Actually, people of all faiths and belief systems coexist quite happily in the libertarian movement, and indeed, right here on RPF. And that's a wonderful thing. Can I get an Amen?

 

[Sola_Fide]

Sorry social conservatives, but the country is moving forward. There will be no civil war. There will be no secession.
The vast majority of the country, especially millennials, is okay with this. It sucks to be a minority, but that's just the way it is from here on out.

The problem with your progressive dream is that we all get to be judged for the wickedness of it.

 

[dannno]

And for what it's worth, I don't understand the obsession with people thinking that homosexual couples are suddenly going to demand that cake makers start churning penis cakes. It's like saying, "If those darn heteros get to marry, they are going to start getting all the cake makers to have vagina cakes!" That just doesn't happen.

They will do it for money, just like anybody else. They will find a cake maker who won't make their penis cake and they will sue them. Not because they are gay, but because they are human.

Admittedly I'm having a hard time finding a picture of a lesbian wedding cake in the shape of a vagina, but there are a lot of vagina cupcakes and even some areola cupcakes.

 

[Christian Liberty]

That's some love and tolerance you've got there lol...

I never claimed to be tolerant.

But, much like there are no good cops because all of them enforce unjust laws, there are no "good gays" because they all engage in perverted behavior.

However, I want them, like anyone else, to be redeeemd by Christ.

No, FF. You just think that's true. Actually, people of all faiths and belief systems coexist quite happily in the libertarian movement, and indeed, right here on RPF. And that's a wonderful thing. Can I get an Amen?

No.

 

[Wilf]

No.

Yes

 

[Anti Federalist]

Who will the politicians export and exploit now?

I'm guessing S&M folks will rally next, demand marriage with handcuffs be legal NOW!

Pologamy.

There is utterly no legal basis with which to ban this practice anymore.

 

[Christian Liberty]

The problem with your progressive dream is that we all get to be judged for the wickedness of it.

Hence why theonomy is better than libertarianism.

 

[tod evans]

Indeed, I do not know what Utah/Idaho/Arizona's response will be either. It could well be very good and heartening. They will not, not, not be happy about this. For instance, Utah could just stop issuing marriage licenses altogether, in concordance with a change in LDS policy allowing temple marriage without state licensing. Now that would be a gutsy pro-freedom move. Roll on, nullification movement! Roll on.

This might bring fed-gov's power and authority into question.......

And that would be a good thing!

 

[Sola_Fide]

Hence why theonomy is better than libertarianism.

This assumes that coercion and force changes the heart or controls the conscience. That's Romanism, not Christianity.

By the way, what happened today has NOTHING to do with libertarianism.

 

[jllundqu]

Pologamy.

There is utterly no legal basis with which to ban this practice anymore.

Like I said, Roberts already alluded to it. Paperwork already being filed, I'm sure

 

[Anti Federalist]

Indeed, I do not know what Utah/Idaho/Arizona's response will be either. It could well be very good and heartening. They will not, not, not be happy about this. For instance, Utah could just stop issuing marriage licenses altogether, in concordance with a change in LDS policy allowing temple marriage without state licensing. Now that would be a gutsy pro-freedom move. Roll on, nullification movement! Roll on.

Now we're talking!

 

[Danke]

Now we're talking!

So finally all those ceremonies you preformed on the boats are legal.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Pologamy.

There is utterly no legal basis with which to ban this practice anymore.

Not just that. Let your imagination go wild.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

TheCount's remarks, me in bold:

What a horrendous mismash of garbage.

Stop talking about yourself.

If the Rainbow Church of Fabulous Jesus gives someone a gay marriage license, is that license more or less legitimate than a marriage license from a Baptist Church? Which should the government accept?

Churches don't issue marriage licenses. The point is it's a private institution, throughout civilzation was not subject to government acceptance or jurisdiction..

Newsflash: There are churches that do gay baptisms, gay communions, and gay marriages.

As long as I'm not forced to accept them as legit, I have no issue with them other than disagreement. A federal decree forcing the entire population to accept it is another matter.


Why is it the government's marriage license at all? You need to decide if you think that this is a private institution, or a government institution. It cannot be both.

It's a private institution. We need to separate government from marriage, period. The issue is governemnt conferring false legitimacy, and gays forcing all state governments AND churches to comply.

Recognized by history? Does a marriage certificate travel back in time for approval?

Misdirection. What marriage has been understood to be as a private institution is what is recognized, not the certificate.

That was before certain religious conservatives forced a government takeover of the private institution of marriage in order to outlaw interracial marriages. They made it a government institution so that they could decide which private institutions were approved and which were not.

False, the goverment licensing happened all over the country, in liberal and conservative state. It was a statist power grab over the private sector, same as always.

That's what you are trying to uphold here: You want public enforcement of one particular flavor of private institution which just so happens to coincide with your preferences.

I'm opposed to the efforts by the cultural left to impose presumptions about the private institution on the country, by public enforcement of its particular flavor of the concept over the preponderant history of civilization.

 

[Christian Liberty]

This assumes that coercion and force changes the heart or controls the conscience.

I don't believe that it does. It can sometimes change externals though

That's Romanism, not Christianity.

That's also not what I believe

By the way, what happened today has NOTHING to do with libertarianism.

I'll grant this. This is fair. However, most forms of libertarianism wrongly teach that homosexual contact shouldn't be criminalized.

 

[Wilf]

I'll grant this. This is fair. However, most forms of libertarianism wrongly teach that homosexual contact shouldn't be criminalized.

Really, that us wrong

 

[helmuth_hubener]

No.

No on which part? Are you claiming that no, people of all kinds of belief systems do not coexist quite happily in the libertarian movement and RPF? Or no, that is not a wonderful thing?