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

[ArcadiaGP]

You do have a point. Hopefully the first failed attempts will slow the litigation before it gets nuts.

2005: Our marriage won't affect your rights.
2014: Bake a cake or be destroyed.
2015: We won't touch your church. Promise. Tee hee.

 

[Woobie]

A choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich isn't really a choice, is it.

Well, I was thinking about going out for some lunch. Now I don't need to, lol. Yeah, you're right, that isn't much of a choice.

 

[phylodog]

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

Yet

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Yet

That's a real nice tax exempt status you have there. Shame if something were to happen to it.

 

[HoughMade]

There is no such thing as "can't be sued for..."

 

[tatic05]

You have a valid point about screwing masses! Let me rephrase... The cases SHOULD NOT see the inside of a court.

This whole thing could've been avoided by creating "civil unions" for the LGBT community, that allowed them the same rights as married couples. Redefining marriage as "not" only between a man and woman just sucks. I firmly believe that gays who commit to each other as lifelong couples deserve to file joint taxes, have the same insurance abilities et al, I just don't believe it's a "marriage."

I agree with you 100%.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Scalia: "I write to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy."

I can't disagree with him there.

 

[rw02kr43]

The great irony here is of course, no gay couple will demand to be married in an Islamic church.

Sure they will. They changed a country. Now it's time to change the world

 

[rw02kr43]

2005: Our marriage won't affect your rights.
2014: Bake a cake or be destroyed.
2015: We won't touch your church. Promise. Tee hee.

You forgot refuse to cater a hypothetical pizza party and receive death threats

 

[seedubs1]

It's the beauty of a 2 party system with career politicians and the plethora of other issues our system has. Would be nice if it changed, but I don't see that happening anytime in the near future.

Well, I was thinking about going out for some lunch. Now I don't need to, lol. Yeah, you're right, that isn't much of a choice.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Roberts: "striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage"

Also, not wrong. Polygamy in 5 years, tops. I know slippery-slope is a silly thing to do... but in this case, it's probably pretty accurate.

 

[foszoe]

Roberts: "striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage"

Also, not wrong. Polygamy in 5 years, tops. I know slippery-slope is a silly thing to do... but in this case, it's probably pretty accurate.

One day you COULD have a dog in this fight!

 

[Woobie]

Scalia: "I write to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy."

I can't disagree with him there.

It is funny how today's decisionand yesterday's contrast. Yesterday, they did some pretty impressive mental gymnastics to uphold the ACA, because "who are we to disagree with the will of the people through their elected representatives." But today they strike down another law, presumably because the will of the people through their elected representatives is misguided. This is not to take a position on either decision, it just seems like the court is being a touch schizophrenic.

 

[PaulF]

Just checked...my marriage doesn't seem affected in the least. What am I missing?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

One day you COULD have a dog in this fight!

My current wife does not necessarily approve of my waifu. I don't think a law would change her mind.

 

[Woobie]

Roberts: "striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage"

Also, not wrong. Polygamy in 5 years, tops. I know slippery-slope is a silly thing to do... but in this case, it's probably pretty accurate.

I don't care how legal it is, one wife is enough, lol.

 

[Woobie]

One day you COULD have a dog in this fight!

Lol

 

[MisterChester]

Scalia: "I write to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy."

I can't disagree with him there.

I thought we were a constitutional republic with checks and balances.

 

[sbu sailor]

There is no such thing as "can't be sued for..."

That, I am most definitely not saying.

In the State Supreme Court's, 2003 Massachusetts ruling, 2008 Conneticut ruling, 2008 Iowa ruling, two main principles stand out:

1: No church will be required to perform same-sex marriages.
2: No minister will be required to perform same-sex marriages.

If the church's official written doctrine conveys their opinion that same-sex marriage is against their religious beliefs, how can these be more than open and shut cases? Hough, is it really that naive for me to see the protection of the churches this simply?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I think this is sort of spot-on. Gay acceptance was growing year-over-year. Rather than allow it to happen naturally... getting it via the SCOTUS is a loss, says Roberts

From Roberts: