Breaking: Per SCOTUS, Same-Sex Marriage is now law of the land.

[ArcadiaGP]

More links to follow. Giving this it's own thread because of how big it is.

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/614433879517233152
https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/614433900270592000
https://twitter.com/BreakingNews/status/614433884919480320
https://twitter.com/AP/status/614433508161921024
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/614435292532113408

Here is the decision:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

I have no dog in the fight when it comes to gay marriage. I just want government to stay out of it

 

[chezuki]

Good.

 

[mrjarrell]

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Same-Sex Marriage - WSJ

About time. Of course now certain would be presidential candidates will need something else to rail on. Maybe they'll actually talk about the economy.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I'd like to see some sort of protection for churches here. Allow them to maintain the right to deny a same-sex marriage. Surely, they will be targeted soon.

 

[JollyMon]

.... does this mean we can have an end to all same sex marriage threads

 

[bwframe]

...I have no dog in the fight when it comes to gay marriage. I just want government to stay out of it...

This ^^^

The government needs to be out of the marriage business altogether.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

So the gay marriage ruling means there's now case precedent to force states to recognize CCW permits from other states, right?

 

[KG1]

Carry on. Lets get on to the 2nd Amendment now.

 

[mrjarrell]

I'd like to see some sort of protection for churches here. Allow them to maintain the right to deny a same-sex marriage. Surely, they will be targeted soon.

Churches already have the capability to deny non-congregants their services. It's always been that way. Now you want extra special privileges for them? They are already covered well enough.

 

[Alpo]

I'd like to see some sort of protection for churches here. Allow them to maintain the right to deny a same-sex marriage. Surely, they will be targeted soon.

You mean "perform" same sex marriages, don't you? A church now has no legal basis for denying other services to same sex couples.

I didn't agree with the decision, but it's now the law of the land and perhaps the vitriol will fade in time. Time to move on to other issues (for me).

 

[sbu sailor]

I'd like to see some sort of protection for churches here. Allow them to maintain the right to deny a same-sex marriage. Surely, they will be targeted soon.

As non-profits, churches already have that protection. A for-profit "chapel" a la Vegas, does not. I believe if a church has a "profit" building like a meeting hall, they can be sued for denying the venue. Not truly sure of that, but I think they can. They cannot be sued for the pastor refuses to perform the service, or denied use of the church building itself.

 

[bwframe]

So the gay marriage ruling means there's now case precedent to force states to recognize CCW permits from other states, right?

Be careful what you wish for. Recognizing is the first step to controlling.

 

[JTScribe]

You Will Be Made to Care | RedState

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Churches already have the capability to deny non-congregates their services. It's always been that way. Now you want extra special privileges for them? They are already covered well enough.

I don't think so. The lawsuits will come.

No church should be forced to do anything they don't want to do. I'm willing to put a lot of money on a bet that people will try. We'll see.

They cannot be sued for the pastor refuses to perform the service, or denied use of the church building itself.

I'm not confident that people will care. This will be the next big issue.

 

[sbu sailor]

So the gay marriage ruling means there's now case precedent to force states to recognize CCW permits from other states, right?

While people are jumping up and done clamoring for this and that, remember that every time something like this happens it degrades the states rights to govern themselves. This type of all encompassing "federal gubment reach" is what sparked the first civil war.

 

[Woobie]

Churches already have the capability to deny non-congregates their services. It's always been that way. Now you want extra special privileges for them? They are already covered well enough.

Privileges? You mean the right to worship and practice your faith is a privilege? Your attitude in this is quite mainstream. And what you consider privileges will soon be gone. Pastors will be performing marriages or suffering the consequences. I support government staying out of marriage altogether. No licensing, no complicated tax code, no government definitions. But government is involved, and they will enforce this civil right over human right. Mark my words.

 

[steveh_131]

I especially want the federal government to stay out of it.

 

[sbu sailor]

I'm not confident that people will care. This will be the next big issue.

Can a Baptist sue a Catholic Church for not holding/performing a ceremony? Nope. Cases may be filed my good man, but they won't see the inside of a court.

 

[KG1]

Churches should get out of the marriage business. Let Justices of the Peace conduct them.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Can a Baptist sue a Catholic Church for not holding/performing a ceremony? Nope. Cases may be filed my good man, but they won't see the inside of a court.

You underestimate the power of the screaming masses. Media will latch onto those cases and make them an issue.

We will see. That's just where I see it going.