Roberts was particularly upset which was a surprise to me. He failed to see the jurisdiction in what to me is CLEARLY a civil rights issue. Scalia saw it quite clearly as a constitutional issue both in his comments from the DOMA dissent and now, yet he disagreed with the interpretation of what rights the Constitution protects.
Kennedy was quite clear: how can a legally married gay couple move to a state with bans, thus losing tangible rights, and not have their equal protection rights violated? That's clearly a Constitutional issue.
In a broad sense, I actually agree with Roberts: the government should have NO marriage laws at all, outside of an age of consent. How can you have a government tell me who I can and cannot marry? That's a personal religious issue. Yet another example of conservatives not walking the walk as far as government not interfering in personal business. They want individual rights...except when they disagree with that right!
My mother passed away in 1996 at the age of 88. She lived her whole life in Massachusetts where gay marriage was legalized in 1993. Shortly before she died she was talking with me about gay marriage and observed , "Well, we haven't gone to hell in a handbasket, have we."
Rockstar.... You are 100% correct. "Marriage" is the act of religions. Where it gets a blurred is when Judges and court houses "marry" people. Or you apply for a Marriage License. This all could have been avoided if they just kept it a "civil union".... and let the churches and other religious places offer the "marriage" stuff.
This one the Supreme court nailed it right no the head.
"I don't see any investment angle to this decision.
Who appointed Justice Kennedy?.............with Kennedy's age I am guessing it was probably Reagan."
Yes, it was Reagan!
I'm trying to think of a brilliant investment tip for companies that would make something used at gay weddings! But I've got nothing but bad jokes that will seem pointlessly homophobic, so I shall keep my mouth shut! :)
"Rockstar.... You are 100% correct. "Marriage" is the act of religions. Where it gets a blurred is when Judges and court houses "marry" people. Or you apply for a Marriage License. This all could have been avoided if they just kept it a "civil union".... and let the churches and other religious places offer the "marriage" stuff.
This one the Supreme court nailed it right no the head."
rockstar666 is right and wrong. Marriage has long held legal status that confer specific rights. I see the argument that the government should only consider "civil unions", but that is de facto what they are doing. They are only concerned with the legal aspects of marriage here. If some person from a homophobic church wants to NOT believe two guys or two gals are married that's his or her right. As long as the gay couple gets their rights it's all fine.
Back to my happy go lucky self! I'm of a generation wher gay marriage isn't an issue! As long as nobody forces me to marry a guy all is just brilliant! ;)
The ruling doesn't affect me, but I'm pretty sure churches are not forced to perform gay marriage ceremonies. But I wouldn't doubt that issue will eventually come to the Supreme Court
@crsm27: The problem is there are certain rights the government and private businesses give to married people, such as insurance, power of attorney and tax ramifications. Plus a spouse cannot be compelled to testify against each other.
Roberts' opinion firmly places marriage rights outside the purview of the Constitution, but that's not possible when it's the government itself that requires a definition of "marriage" to convey these rights. Roberts was very short sighted claiming it's not a question of the Constitution when states are arbitrarily saying some couples can have them and some cannot, based only on gender. At some point there HAS to be an arbiter to rule who and who not is eligible, and the SC is it. Robert's opinion would have made more sense if he agreed with Scalia, that the Constitutionality of same sex marriage is indeed a proper role for the SC to decide on.
I suppose in a truly secular government, all this would be thrown out, but from a practical standpoint. the government MUST define what a marriage is. Hence todays ground breaking decision.
rockstar.... you are correct. What I am saying is the government should have never used the word "marriage" in the first place. "marriage" and what people think of it is all religious from the inception of the event. What do you think came first... US Government and Bill of Rights or the Sacrament of Marriage???
Then government started to require "marriage" licenses.... etc. Then they started to protect the rights for people "married". that is where everything gets muddy and why we get the big debate. Because CHURCH and STATE became intertwined. The government were licensing something that should be only with the church.... with one word... MARRIAGE.
I totally understand why in the Civil Rights issue. With benefits for housing, retirement, insurance, etc... that are given to Marriage.
Now instead of "rewriting" what marriage defines (which I don't know what is easier or not) they could have switched all the verbage in the laws to state "civil unions"... and also make it you purchase a "civil union" license.... and etc. Then it would have thrown out anyones argument with "marriage" and the religious freedom stuff. I also believe if they did this we wouldn't be discussing this right now and all of this would have been taken care of years ago.
Now I am not against gay marriage at all. Just saying you would take anybody's argument about religion right out of the water if all the laws/benefits were changed to civil unions and people purchase "civil union" licenses instead of marriage licenses.... that this would have never had to get to the supreme court.
I know I rambled on and went into tangents.... but if they did this it would have separated Church vs State. But now they said what a church needs to consider marriage and also the state. Now you will see fights going States rights vs Federal Marriage. Think about it... this decision opened up a can of worms for gay marriage needs to be legal in every state. Which will lead to more fights and legislation and wasted money. When if the government would just switch some wording around and it would take care of the whole issue... (like I was trying to say in my ramblings)
I forgot to add.... Then all the discounts and protection would be to "civil unions" not religion. They would be protected classes in all of the civil rights acts. Which would mean no more discounts on insurance for "marriage"....but the discounts would be for Civil Unions. I hope that makes it a little more clear.
What the F... is the government doing the marriage business ... to be able to tax it. If I were a state legislator or governor I would simply stop issuing "marriage" licenses. The next thing will be plural marriage being made legal. Make it a form to change your name and charge for that, take all marriage laws off the books. The main reason same sex marriage is an issue is inheritance taxes. Legal spouses don't have to pay them. Eliminate that uncivilized draconian oppression and marriage laws become meaningless.
Kennedy was appointed by Reagan, but he was also Plan B. He really wanted Robert Bork, who would have been another Scalia, but I believe Ted Kennedy didn't want him. Of course, I think Bork died already, so he would have been replaced by a mystery judge, so nothing different would have happened otherwise.
I personally say let them get married, it's not like they are honeymooning at the local titty bar.
Jester.... you summarized what I wanted to say......LOL.
All the rights, discounts, taxation, etc.... goes towards anyone with a civil union. So if you want to go get married... cool.... you are recognized by the church as married.... but for the government.... you need to purchase a "civil union" license.....and to get the breaks and be a protected class in the civil rights acts you need to get that license.
This past April, I walked my sister down the aisle. She finally could marry her partner of 30 years. I cried tears of happiness for her. It was truly a happy moment for my sister, her wife, and me. She lives in Indianapolis and Indiana finally became one of the states to legalize same-sex marriage. I supported that law.
Having said that, I think the Court got this one wrong. This matter is a states' rights issue clearly spelled out by the 10th Ammendment.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
So how is any Ammendment "more important" than any other Ammendment? How does the equal protection clause of the 14th Ammendment trump the 10th Ammendment?
I'm all for same-sex marriage but it needs to be legalized in the proper Constitutional framework -- not just because 5 justices are moved my popular opinion.
@motorhead - that's all well and good, but as someone who's tax returns were once completely fucked up due to my marriage being recognized by my state but not by the Feds, let me tell you - IT SUCKED. You have to get everyone on board or it becomes ridiculous for couples to be recognized by the feds but not by their own state. It's messy and a logistics nightmare....not to mention a paperwork nightmare when it comes to taxes, legal shit, insurance. You don't even know what a headache it can be. For that reason alone at least now everybody is on the same page when it comes to recognizing marriage.
Churches will not be forced to perform gay marriages. Churches are not even forced to perform heterosexual marriages. Churches already put restrictions on whom they marry. The Catholic Church, for example, strongly recommends that a non-Catholic converts before marrying a Catholic and insists that the children be brought up in the Catholic faith.
Churches, unlike the government, are voluntary associations. No one has a right to belong to a particular church or to be married in a particular church. The government, on the other hand, provides rules for everybody, and everybody should have the same rights.
My Protestant denomination voted last year to approve gay marriage.
"@Dougsta -- So BonesBrother and GoVikings can marry now?
Wait, wait...if I recall correctly that would be an interracial marriage. Wouldn't that make BonerBreath's head a-splode?
Well, I guess love is love!"
The last part is brilliant!
But I'm a bit shocked by the bonesbrother stuff! I don't know GoVikings but BonesBrother is the troll that calls Juice a ni***r despite the fact that Juice (aka just_the_nuts) is a chubby Irish-looking guy (no offense intended to Juice or other Irish guys)! Not brilliant! :(
Maybe we can return to discussing gay marriage and/or strip clubs! Brilliant! ;)
Another issue at hand is now gay couples have the ability to move wherever they want to and not have their marriage voided out. It is so bizarre to think that by moving to a different state it would nullify a marriage. As convenient as that is for shitty marriages to end (I would have loved it), it is kinda stupid.
A civil union is not a marriage. Why are some hetrosexuals so threatened to say if it looks like a marriage, and smells like a marriage, it's a marriage. You don't have power of attorney in a dire case when you have a "civil union". You don't have inheritance rights. You don't have the same tax breaks. If I were gay, I would demand the right to marry.
I agree, saying the government married you and your spouse is like building your house out of cow shit. The government should provide standard household contracts (many several versions) and keep its mediocrity out of the personal, emotional, ethical commitment between two people called marriage. Two single parents who are close friends (and aren't knocking boots) might want to form a household to be considered legally next of kin and so their kids would have two parents.
That is why the needed to change wording in existing tax codes and laws. That is my main point. Then the government wouldn't have to "define" what is a religious matter. Marriage is apart of religion. The government adopted marriage and its meanings to make laws, tax codes, etc. Change the word "marriage" in all of that to "civil union". Done deal... no need for all of this BS of people fighting over it or arguing about it. It takes the church and peoples religious beliefs right out of the argument. Because now look what is happening.... Texas AG already has stated that county clerks don't have to marry a gay couple. I am sure they will say it has something to do with their personal religious choice.... just like a church doesn't have to marry a gay couple because of religious freedom choices.
This battle is long from over and will be drawn out more and more.... at the state levels... Because this will become a "states rights" issue.
Like I mentioned before.... I am not against it at all. Everyone should have the same rights, tax breaks, etc. But what the SCOTUS did was cross the line of State vs Religion. Because they defined Marriage. Like I mentioned before.... The Sacrament of Marriage was apart of Religions way before the US government was even thought of.
If the government stopped conveying and rights to married people, gay marriage bans would stand Constitutional muster because you're not discriminating.
But, this means courts could compel spouses to testify against one another, married people would lose tax breaks, and in dire circumstances when minutes count, how is power of attorney determined, such as in an accident? Is America really ready for our government to have no reach into marriage? I think most would concede government recognized gay marriage is better than no recognition of any marriage at all.
I still don't think you are not getting my point. For the POA, Tax Breaks, etc.... this would be all recognized under the Civil Union. IE if you want that stuff you have to get a civil union license. Then people who are already married.... They don't have to go redo anything, they are grandfathered in.
Then with Gay marriage... it is up to each individual church, pastor, priest, etc... if they want to perform the ceremony or the sacrament of marriage on a gay couple.
All that the federal government would have to do in make an amendment or law stating.....
That in any law on the books where the word "marriage" is apart of now is changed to CIVIL UNION. Bang.... now all rights are passed onto people with civil unions. Done deal.... No crossing over the line of Church and State.
crsm: You're back to the duck argument: if a civil union quacks like a duck, it's a duck (marriage). If there's even the slightest distinction between a civil union and a marriage, it's unconstitutional. So what's the point of a civil union?
All married people share the same rights as other married people. Why would changing a word change anyone's mind of whether their deity condones gay marriage? If you call black people white, will racism end?
"You're back to the duck argument: if a civil union quacks like a duck, it's a duck (marriage). If there's even the slightest distinction between a civil union and a marriage, it's unconstitutional. So what's the point of a civil union?"
Nope it isn't a duck. More like a goose and duck.....
Look at what ilbbanci wrote: Two single parents who are close friends (and aren't knocking boots) might want to form a household to be considered legally next of kin and so their kids would have two parents.
So now they are getting discriminated against. This ruling does nothing to protect them.
If the government changed the wording like I have mentioned. These people could go to the court house and file for a civil union and have the same rights and protections that "married" couples have.
Then I don't think you are seeing the big picture on what I am talking about how this so called "fight" is far from over. Look at what I mentioned about the Texas AG.
Then it will get into States rights vs Federal government.
But in changing some wording that would stop all of this BS. Because it takes out religion and people hiding behind "religious freedoms". Because you take the word "Marriage" out of the equation.
It's a small distinction but a powerful one. If two people want the benefits and rights that the government offers only to two people, then go to the government and get it.
If two people want to get married because they love each other and want it recognized by their god or deity or etc. then go anywhere but the government and do it.
@rockstar.... you are correct but that is what this fight is about...and what people against gay marriage are using to fight their battle.
Like I mentioned.... There still is the First Amendment. So anyone can and will use that to not give someone a gay marriage license. Churches will still not do the ceremonies. All based on religion and the protection of the first amendment.
But this decision helps with what someone else mentioned above....
If they move they will still have the same benefits across state lines and all over the nation. It will mean that if a Justice of the peace doesn't have a "religious objection"... they will give out the license. It means that if someone wants to get "ordained" and perform the ceremony they can in every state. Which is a great thing. But to think the fight is over is far from the truth.
But doing what I mentioned would eliminate the "religious objection" and make everyone have the same rights with calling "marriage" in the eyes of a government a Civil Union. Like I have stated over and over.... you abolish marriage licenses.... everyone gets a civil union license. That is guy/girl.... guy/guy.... girl/girl.....etc. That is how the government will recognize tax breaks, discounts, POA, family formations, etc.
But then like what jester stated... if you want to be recognized by a religion of your union... you go to a church to get "married".
There is *no* marriage in the United States today without the approval and consent of the government. It's *entirely* a civil affair, and thus *entirely* within the jurisdiction of the court.
georg..... that is where the federal government has blurred the separation of Church and State.
This decision did nothing to aid in the discrimination that gay couples will face. People can still deny baking them a wedding cake, letting them use a facility for a reception, etc. Because people will use the religious freedom.
GMd... you are correct the supreme court justices should have heard and ruled on the case because it is a "civil" affair.
What I am still saying is that all of this could have been avoided if congress would have just changed wording.
Now we are going to have a blow back because of this decision and cost tax payers more and more money. When everything could have been avoided with a simple word change.
@jester: " And yet GMD we still equate the pen stroke of a Rabbi with that of a Judge or other government official."
No "we" don't. You might. Some reactionary "we want to live in the last millennium" types might, but "we" don't.
The priest or rabbi is an agent of the government wrt marriage in the U.S. Without the the "authority granted by" the State, no marriage they perform is legally binding here.
@crsm: I decline to accept that churches have the authority or right to co-opt the term "marriage" unto themselves, especially when the concept is part of law in all 50 states. Marriage, in many variations, has been around longer than any religion currently popular. With the possible exception of paganism. :)
Yes, we pagans are the oldest religion, but it's more like Buddhism in that it's not really a "religion" at all. I happen to have 2 deities but some are monotheistic or have no deity at all. There is still marriage though.
Unless the government has no stake in marriage such as tax breaks, power of attorney and the fact a spouse cannot be compelled to testify against their spouse, then equality is the correct and proper decision since some states already had same sex marriages.
Calling these "civil unions" is stupid. Either you get government benefits or not no matter what you call it. If you do get them, it's a marriage. If you don't, then you're being unconstitutionally discriminated against as per the Friday ruling. Frankly I doubt "religious freedom" is going to be a problem, although I think I'll stop doing business with evangelical Christians just out of spite. That's MY religious freedom.
Well FWIW I think Christians lost this one in the Victorian era. Up until the Victorian era marriage was still primarily about creating an unbreakable tie between a women's children and a man. Were marriage still that then one could argue that gays don't have natural products of marriage and thus... That would have been a non-disriminatory argument but it would have meant undoing the whole post Victorian Christian tie between sex & commitment and marriage. It was Victorian era there was a move towards a romantic ideal that women were what civilized men and thus it became primarily about the couple. What we have now is that this tie exists whether or not they marry (child support) and thus effectively we've removed consent from marriages with no distinction between a man's heirs and his bastard children. We don't have a legal regime at all that distinguishes between long term cohabiting couples (concubinage) and pairs of people having sex. We don't have a legal regime that distinguishes between a couple intermixing finances and not intermixing and so people have emulate this by writing weird prenups and having assets in their own but not in the couple's name. The whole thing is a mess. But it is a mess for heterosexuals.
Given that marriage since the 1880s is about living together and engaging in sex acts and gay people can clearly do that, there is a good case to be made that laws not extending marital privileges to gays were simple discrimination. Gays in our current regime just become effectively like an infertile couple they don't change the structure. The court rightfully can't see any structural changes that gay marriage presents.
As for states rights, states can discriminate but they need a compelling state interest to do so, and no one was able to come up with any compelling state interest. The best they could was fabricate a false history of marriage which made it an unchanging institution when the actual history is anything but. So the Christian lost. They should should lost. The states right defense doesn't work because they can't justify the discrimination. States could of course have refused to recognize one another's marriages and then this wouldn't be federal at all but then we'd have people who were:
a) religiously married, married in state X but not in other states and not federal
b) religiously married, married in state X, married federal but not in other states
c) not religiously married, married in states X and Y but not federal
....
Which the conservatives also didn't want. Given the choice between society creating that mess and gay people being able to marry conservatives took the (in their mind) lesser evil.
BTW FWIW there are religious communities that have religious weddings and don't get the state involved at all for example some very religious Jews don't register their marriages with the secular authorities. But that creates no end of problems for them. Ironically a legal a situation very similar to what most gays have been living with since the 1970s where they were effectively but not legally married.
@gmd...
"@crsm: I decline to accept that churches have the authority or right to co-opt the term "marriage" unto themselves, especially when the concept is part of law in all 50 states. Marriage, in many variations, has been around longer than any religion currently popular. With the possible exception of paganism. :)"
This is where things now can and will get sticky. A pastor or a religious figurehead wont have to sign the certificate if they don't want too. They don't have to perform a ceremony if they chose to. All under the protection of the first admendment. I hope u get what I am saying.
Now the decision does protect people like what someone stated that if they got married in a state that allowed it. They can move to a state that doesn't and still receive the state tax benefits of a "married" couple. That is what it is protecting. Which is a huge stride and a great win... IMHO.
@ rockstar.... you are still not fucking getting my point. You are like so many others hung up on the word or term "MARRIAGE".
Take that out of the equation. I used the term civil union because it already exists. But lets call it WIDGETS...... So in order to get the tax breaks, power of attorney, and what ever the fuck else you keep saying.....You go to the government and get a WIDGETS license. Then you and your partner are entitled to all of those breaks. If a man and a woman want to get those breaks/rights they need to get a WIDGETS license as well..... GET IT!!!!!
Because marriage is a religious act!!! And if you don't think that people will use the first admendment to still keep discriminating against gay couples you are totally wrong. The same reason why the KKK and others can use the first admendment to spout hate and discrimination.
All of this is over the word "Marriage" and the rights/breaks that are given to that word/title. Take that out of the equation..... no big fight to ensue. Because the words "civil union" are not used in any religion that I know of.
Again... I am not against the rule what so ever. But one thing this rule is doing is making blurred lines between CHURCH and STATE. Which they have been trying to separate that for years.
If you don't think churches will still decline to do ceremonies.... look at the health care law. They are exempt from that by toting religious freedom and what not.
I will state it again.... it is a big win so that people who got married in a state that allowed gay marriage now can jump from state to state or move and still receive the same benefits at the state level. It will also open it up for them to get married at court houses, churches who are OK with it in all 50 states. Which is great.
But the churches that still want to be against it.... this changes nothing IMO and will cause a big can of worms.
I think all of this could have been avoided if Congress would have just passed a law or something changing the benefits, breaks, responsibilities that they give or have for "MARRIAGE" to some other word like "CIVIL UNION" in all of the laws that it would make things clear and not blurr the line between CHURCH and STATE.
Then people can go get married in a church but that means nothing with the government. It is like someone getting baptized. It only matters to the church and the people involved because they want to be recognized in that particular religion as "married".
Problem with your analysis is that it is backwards. The church has always recognized the authority of the state (and the society in general) to marry. It may be sinful to marry outside the outside the supervision of the church but it doesn't invalidate the marriage. So calling marriage "civil union" or "widgets" doesn't cease to make it an issue, if it looks enough like marriage then the state is marrying people whom the church has declared can't be married.
Now that's fine. Our state violates church doctrines on many issues. This isn't the first, this isn't the last. But the core issue regarding the definition of marriage doesn't disappear just because the state calls it something else. Though I do agree with you this might help a lot to diminish the tension. Were the state to acknowledge that marriage was a purely religious (sacrament, ordinance). And instead assert that all it was doing were civil contracts, especially as those contracts are terminatable through divorce, it could argue from a religious standpoint all it was doing was regulating concubinage and that the state doesn't perform marriage in the classic sense at all.
a) A couple eligible to marry
b) They engage in a public rite
c) A public presentation of themselves as married (i.e. in a committed relationship)
d) They sexually consummated
A civil union or a widget is going to meet those criteria, its still a marriage. Unless you do a lot more to distinguish it from marriage it isn't going to solve the problem potentially. Still it could have helped. But that wasn't the way this worked out. There wasn't a desire to compromise so there wasn't one rather there was just a 180 degree shift over a decade. So let's just try and make equality work.
@GMD, "No "we" don't. You might. Some reactionary "we want to live in the last millennium" types might, but "we" don't."
Wrong. In the states I'm familiar with a marriage license must be signed by an officiant. In most states that officiant must be a member of clergy or a judge or court of clerk or similar.
Now while the government may be granting clergy that power, they aren't granting that power to any Tom, Dick or Harry.
Again it's a small distinction but an important one.
Get the government out of marriages. Let religious institutions handle marriage however they want. Give everybody the legal opportunities and benefits we choose to give two people. Of course people will bitch but if we're really talking about keeping the two separate then it doesn't matter.
I still can't tell if Rockstar understands what I'm saying or if he's just making the incorrect assumption that I'm opposed to gay people marrying and that what I'm proposing is somehow going to hurt them.
jester: I understand and agree that if government got out of the marriage business, religious idiots, or more often than not psudo religious pretenders would be placated. But for some reason our government feels like married people should get lovely parting gifts courtesy of Uncle Sam. Since this is the reality, the SC has to define who gets these benefits.
jester, Mississippi is threatening just that: no marriage license requirement. Strange how the most morally impaired state actually makes a truly moral proposal. It's sour grapes in their eyes but great wisdom in mine.
Yes...let the government do what it wants with the parting gifts for married people, but let citizens decide if they're married or not. Make it a civil contract that our government recognizes even if it's from the clergy of my personal religion of one. Well..more than one luckily...but you get my point. And let the fundies and Catholics make their own rules for their own sheep.
You called Clubber's statement "stupid shit"? Why? Because you say incest and bestiality are illegal? You do realize that before 1962 every state in the Union had laws against sodomy, in essence making homosexuality illegal?
When the sodomy laws began to be repealed in the 60's and 70's, don't you think people then were saying "what's next -- two men will be allowed to get married". They would have been laughed at and ridiculed exactly like you are doing regarding incest and bestiality.
knight... you are kind of getting what I am saying....but then you go to the Vatican to get a definition of marriage...... that is where you go away from what I am saying. I understand u are getting a "criteria"..... but again you went to a religion to find it. THROW RELIGION OUT THE WINDOW. you can use the criteria if you want as a basis. But that is exactly what a civil union did. But it threw out sexual orientation. So that is why I say civil union. So you use those criteria for making the benefits that rockstar keeps talking about.
Jester said it all right here..... I was just putting a name to it.
"Get the government out of marriages. Let religious institutions handle marriage however they want. Give everybody the legal opportunities and benefits we choose to give two people. Of course people will bitch but if we're really talking about keeping the two separate then it doesn't matter."
Like my "widgets" or "civil Unions".... keeps marriage and people perception of that word out of the argument. You can use what is defined by religion as marriage as a basis for the "widgets" or "Civil Unions" but tweak them a little.... like saying it can be of same sex and what not. But you see you won't be calling anything marriage. So religious definitions wont apply. So people cant use religion or first admendment as an argument.
Like I mentioned.... a pastor will still deny people the ceremony. You just wait and see. It will happen and people will cry discrimination because of this ruling.... but it will still be protected under the first admendment. That is why lawyers are waiting in the wings to take this on. Like the article I posted with Texas.
You can't "THROW RELIGION OUT THE WINDOW". Religious people aren't idiots. They aren't going to be like "oh they call that thing that the couples are doing 'civil unions' so marriage rules don't apply". The word marriage itself comes from a latin term for a sexual lover (maritus). Older literature has words which are variants on rulership. Christians were able to keep up with the change. Not calling something marriage doesn't cause religious definitions not to apply. It doesn't solve the argument, though I agree it might help a bit. Basically what I've asserted and tried to prove the vatican example is that any public rite involving a couple forming a longterm / lifetime sexual and financial bond is going to be a marriage and be governed as a marriage regardless of what you call it. You aren't able to duck the issue with just a simple word game.
________
-- Like I mentioned.... a pastor will still deny people the ceremony. You just wait and see. It will happen and people will cry discrimination because of this ruling
So what? Religious organizations aren't subject to non-dicrimation. Title VII of the Civil Rights act specifically permits religious organizations to discriminate. Strong rules protecting church discipline from the state is why the pilgrims came here, it quite literally predates the US government entirely. Pastors can do what they want. There are no lawyers waiting in the wings to do anything to pastors.
What you posted regarding Texas about is governmental employees refusing to issue licenses. Obviously this is going to need to go to court. But it appears many attorneys believes that if a state allows a clerk to refuse licenses for any religious reason (gay couple, interracial couple, one but not both Christian, been divorced...) then they are fine, that's not anti-gay discrimination. If they only allow this one type of discrimination on the part of the clerk, they will lose quickly.
Government officials are obligated to uphold the law. If they cannot do this because of personal religious convictions, that's their problem. They need to swallow their pride or quit their jobs. They will not win in court if they sue for 'religious freedom', and in fact may be sued themselves for denying services that tax payers have rights to.
No doubt government officials are obligated to uphold the law. But the law can be written to give them discretion which is what some of those states are doing. They are moving from licensing arrangements where the license is automatic to one where it isn't. This isn't about suing for religious freedom but whether the law can be constructed to allow for religious freedom exemptions. Most lawyers I've seen seem to believe they can be defending, providing the exemptions are wide open.
As I mentioned, eliminating the license eliminates the problem, as MS has proposed. But there has to be a requirement to record the marriage with the government so you can reap the government benefits. Could a clerk refuse to accept a statement/contract for a gay marriage? That's taking religion way too far IMHO.
In the end, the religious zealots and regular conservatives will conform, or at least their children will, just like white people did on race.
My great grandfather called black people 'niggers' as did lots of whites back then. My grandfather called them niggers as children but 'colored' as adults, as did many in the 1950's and 1960's. My father called them "negro" thinking that was acceptable, and now we call them 'black' or 'African American". Times change, and people's definition of morality changes. This is a good thing.
The next generation will accept gay marriage, even if they don't agree with it. Just like mixed race marriage is now normal, same sex marriage will be seen as normal. You'd be hard pressed to find a white man who says out loud that inter racial marriage is against his religion, and that's where gay marriage will be in 20 years.
"Was waiting for some old relic to toss that ridiculous stupid shit out there. Surprised it took so long."
Perhaps it takes an "old relic" to grasp how the left works. I recall the days when all they wanted was to take cigarette advertising out of print media and TV.
Fast forward to today and the left wingnuts in NYC want to ban you from smoking in your own home!
See, they just can't stand someone else having things their way. If someone doesn't like smoke somewhere, don't fucking go there, OR are the leftists to stupid to figure that out?
Anyway I agree this issue goes away fast. The approval rating is skyrocketing. The approval numbers for gay marriage today in 2015 are already at the level that mixed marriage was in 1996 and by 1996 no one talked about going back to not having it be the law of the land even if they personally objected.
As far as registering the marriage. Yes under this theory a clerk can refuse to issue a license for any marriage they disapprove of. I don't know that anyone wants clerks to not be able to record marriages since there is no sacrament / ordinance in recording a marriage after it has occurred. I don't know if states are going to want to open this can of worms, I think it is a bad idea. But its a bad idea and its not legally permissible are two different bars.
Clerks issuing marriage licenses are not being invited to gay weddings, nor asked for their personal approval. They are doing a job that taxpayers are paying for. Do gun shops participate in murder if a customer kills someone?
Speaking of "Clerks" did you see that Kevin Smith lost a whole bunch of weight. Apparently the incident a few years ago on a Southwest flight when they forced him to buy 2 seats motivated him.
^ Are you saying people shouldn't be allowed to have multiple wives? That might be considered racist against those from the middle east or whoever holds the same view.
Since we're getting so politically correct with our laws now.
No, just pointing out what I said above, "And next, someone wishes to marry his/her dog/cat/sister/brother/father/two best friends/house/car/who or what ever." and he seemed to think I was crazy, yet here it is already!
Animals are not capable of symbolic thought to the degree they would even understand the concept of a 'marriage', which is a funny straw man argument but patently absurd.. I don't consider bestiiality being politically correct,, although I also don't know why it's illegal.
I think polygamy should legal. Not sure why it's not. In fact, yeah, I'm sure the court would do some mental gymnastics to say why it's not legal but politics is the bottom line.
81 comments
Thank all the gods.
Who appointed Justice Kennedy?.............with Kennedy's age I am guessing it was probably Reagan.
Kennedy was quite clear: how can a legally married gay couple move to a state with bans, thus losing tangible rights, and not have their equal protection rights violated? That's clearly a Constitutional issue.
This one the Supreme court nailed it right no the head.
Who appointed Justice Kennedy?.............with Kennedy's age I am guessing it was probably Reagan."
Yes, it was Reagan!
I'm trying to think of a brilliant investment tip for companies that would make something used at gay weddings! But I've got nothing but bad jokes that will seem pointlessly homophobic, so I shall keep my mouth shut! :)
This one the Supreme court nailed it right no the head."
rockstar666 is right and wrong. Marriage has long held legal status that confer specific rights. I see the argument that the government should only consider "civil unions", but that is de facto what they are doing. They are only concerned with the legal aspects of marriage here. If some person from a homophobic church wants to NOT believe two guys or two gals are married that's his or her right. As long as the gay couple gets their rights it's all fine.
Back to my happy go lucky self! I'm of a generation wher gay marriage isn't an issue! As long as nobody forces me to marry a guy all is just brilliant! ;)
Brilliant!
Sorry, JK just to easy to pass up.
Roberts' opinion firmly places marriage rights outside the purview of the Constitution, but that's not possible when it's the government itself that requires a definition of "marriage" to convey these rights. Roberts was very short sighted claiming it's not a question of the Constitution when states are arbitrarily saying some couples can have them and some cannot, based only on gender. At some point there HAS to be an arbiter to rule who and who not is eligible, and the SC is it. Robert's opinion would have made more sense if he agreed with Scalia, that the Constitutionality of same sex marriage is indeed a proper role for the SC to decide on.
I suppose in a truly secular government, all this would be thrown out, but from a practical standpoint. the government MUST define what a marriage is. Hence todays ground breaking decision.
Then government started to require "marriage" licenses.... etc. Then they started to protect the rights for people "married". that is where everything gets muddy and why we get the big debate. Because CHURCH and STATE became intertwined. The government were licensing something that should be only with the church.... with one word... MARRIAGE.
I totally understand why in the Civil Rights issue. With benefits for housing, retirement, insurance, etc... that are given to Marriage.
Now instead of "rewriting" what marriage defines (which I don't know what is easier or not) they could have switched all the verbage in the laws to state "civil unions"... and also make it you purchase a "civil union" license.... and etc. Then it would have thrown out anyones argument with "marriage" and the religious freedom stuff. I also believe if they did this we wouldn't be discussing this right now and all of this would have been taken care of years ago.
Now I am not against gay marriage at all. Just saying you would take anybody's argument about religion right out of the water if all the laws/benefits were changed to civil unions and people purchase "civil union" licenses instead of marriage licenses.... that this would have never had to get to the supreme court.
I know I rambled on and went into tangents.... but if they did this it would have separated Church vs State. But now they said what a church needs to consider marriage and also the state. Now you will see fights going States rights vs Federal Marriage. Think about it... this decision opened up a can of worms for gay marriage needs to be legal in every state. Which will lead to more fights and legislation and wasted money. When if the government would just switch some wording around and it would take care of the whole issue... (like I was trying to say in my ramblings)
I meant.... Then all the discounts and protection would be to "Civil unions" not "marriage"
Fuck it has been a long day.... I need a beer and some titties in my face.....LOL
I personally say let them get married, it's not like they are honeymooning at the local titty bar.
A civil union should be recognized by the government.
All the rights, discounts, taxation, etc.... goes towards anyone with a civil union. So if you want to go get married... cool.... you are recognized by the church as married.... but for the government.... you need to purchase a "civil union" license.....and to get the breaks and be a protected class in the civil rights acts you need to get that license.
Having said that, I think the Court got this one wrong. This matter is a states' rights issue clearly spelled out by the 10th Ammendment.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
So how is any Ammendment "more important" than any other Ammendment? How does the equal protection clause of the 14th Ammendment trump the 10th Ammendment?
I'm all for same-sex marriage but it needs to be legalized in the proper Constitutional framework -- not just because 5 justices are moved my popular opinion.
Gotta find out where they are so I can crash them!
Woo hoo!!
Churches, unlike the government, are voluntary associations. No one has a right to belong to a particular church or to be married in a particular church. The government, on the other hand, provides rules for everybody, and everybody should have the same rights.
My Protestant denomination voted last year to approve gay marriage.
Wait, wait...if I recall correctly that would be an interracial marriage. Wouldn't that make BonerBreath's head a-splode?
Well, I guess love is love!
Wait, wait...if I recall correctly that would be an interracial marriage. Wouldn't that make BonerBreath's head a-splode?
Well, I guess love is love!"
The last part is brilliant!
But I'm a bit shocked by the bonesbrother stuff! I don't know GoVikings but BonesBrother is the troll that calls Juice a ni***r despite the fact that Juice (aka just_the_nuts) is a chubby Irish-looking guy (no offense intended to Juice or other Irish guys)! Not brilliant! :(
Maybe we can return to discussing gay marriage and/or strip clubs! Brilliant! ;)
That is why the needed to change wording in existing tax codes and laws. That is my main point. Then the government wouldn't have to "define" what is a religious matter. Marriage is apart of religion. The government adopted marriage and its meanings to make laws, tax codes, etc. Change the word "marriage" in all of that to "civil union". Done deal... no need for all of this BS of people fighting over it or arguing about it. It takes the church and peoples religious beliefs right out of the argument. Because now look what is happening.... Texas AG already has stated that county clerks don't have to marry a gay couple. I am sure they will say it has something to do with their personal religious choice.... just like a church doesn't have to marry a gay couple because of religious freedom choices.
This battle is long from over and will be drawn out more and more.... at the state levels... Because this will become a "states rights" issue.
Like I mentioned before.... I am not against it at all. Everyone should have the same rights, tax breaks, etc. But what the SCOTUS did was cross the line of State vs Religion. Because they defined Marriage. Like I mentioned before.... The Sacrament of Marriage was apart of Religions way before the US government was even thought of.
But, this means courts could compel spouses to testify against one another, married people would lose tax breaks, and in dire circumstances when minutes count, how is power of attorney determined, such as in an accident? Is America really ready for our government to have no reach into marriage? I think most would concede government recognized gay marriage is better than no recognition of any marriage at all.
I still don't think you are not getting my point. For the POA, Tax Breaks, etc.... this would be all recognized under the Civil Union. IE if you want that stuff you have to get a civil union license. Then people who are already married.... They don't have to go redo anything, they are grandfathered in.
Then with Gay marriage... it is up to each individual church, pastor, priest, etc... if they want to perform the ceremony or the sacrament of marriage on a gay couple.
That in any law on the books where the word "marriage" is apart of now is changed to CIVIL UNION. Bang.... now all rights are passed onto people with civil unions. Done deal.... No crossing over the line of Church and State.
Nope it isn't a duck. More like a goose and duck.....
Look at what ilbbanci wrote: Two single parents who are close friends (and aren't knocking boots) might want to form a household to be considered legally next of kin and so their kids would have two parents.
So now they are getting discriminated against. This ruling does nothing to protect them.
If the government changed the wording like I have mentioned. These people could go to the court house and file for a civil union and have the same rights and protections that "married" couples have.
Then I don't think you are seeing the big picture on what I am talking about how this so called "fight" is far from over. Look at what I mentioned about the Texas AG.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/texas-a…
Then it will get into States rights vs Federal government.
But in changing some wording that would stop all of this BS. Because it takes out religion and people hiding behind "religious freedoms". Because you take the word "Marriage" out of the equation.
If two people want to get married because they love each other and want it recognized by their god or deity or etc. then go anywhere but the government and do it.
The two need not and should not intermingle.
@rockstar.... you are correct but that is what this fight is about...and what people against gay marriage are using to fight their battle.
Like I mentioned.... There still is the First Amendment. So anyone can and will use that to not give someone a gay marriage license. Churches will still not do the ceremonies. All based on religion and the protection of the first amendment.
If they move they will still have the same benefits across state lines and all over the nation. It will mean that if a Justice of the peace doesn't have a "religious objection"... they will give out the license. It means that if someone wants to get "ordained" and perform the ceremony they can in every state. Which is a great thing. But to think the fight is over is far from the truth.
But doing what I mentioned would eliminate the "religious objection" and make everyone have the same rights with calling "marriage" in the eyes of a government a Civil Union. Like I have stated over and over.... you abolish marriage licenses.... everyone gets a civil union license. That is guy/girl.... guy/guy.... girl/girl.....etc. That is how the government will recognize tax breaks, discounts, POA, family formations, etc.
But then like what jester stated... if you want to be recognized by a religion of your union... you go to a church to get "married".
This decision did nothing to aid in the discrimination that gay couples will face. People can still deny baking them a wedding cake, letting them use a facility for a reception, etc. Because people will use the religious freedom.
What I am still saying is that all of this could have been avoided if congress would have just changed wording.
Now we are going to have a blow back because of this decision and cost tax payers more and more money. When everything could have been avoided with a simple word change.
No "we" don't. You might. Some reactionary "we want to live in the last millennium" types might, but "we" don't.
The priest or rabbi is an agent of the government wrt marriage in the U.S. Without the the "authority granted by" the State, no marriage they perform is legally binding here.
@crsm: I decline to accept that churches have the authority or right to co-opt the term "marriage" unto themselves, especially when the concept is part of law in all 50 states. Marriage, in many variations, has been around longer than any religion currently popular. With the possible exception of paganism. :)
Unless the government has no stake in marriage such as tax breaks, power of attorney and the fact a spouse cannot be compelled to testify against their spouse, then equality is the correct and proper decision since some states already had same sex marriages.
Calling these "civil unions" is stupid. Either you get government benefits or not no matter what you call it. If you do get them, it's a marriage. If you don't, then you're being unconstitutionally discriminated against as per the Friday ruling. Frankly I doubt "religious freedom" is going to be a problem, although I think I'll stop doing business with evangelical Christians just out of spite. That's MY religious freedom.
Given that marriage since the 1880s is about living together and engaging in sex acts and gay people can clearly do that, there is a good case to be made that laws not extending marital privileges to gays were simple discrimination. Gays in our current regime just become effectively like an infertile couple they don't change the structure. The court rightfully can't see any structural changes that gay marriage presents.
As for states rights, states can discriminate but they need a compelling state interest to do so, and no one was able to come up with any compelling state interest. The best they could was fabricate a false history of marriage which made it an unchanging institution when the actual history is anything but. So the Christian lost. They should should lost. The states right defense doesn't work because they can't justify the discrimination. States could of course have refused to recognize one another's marriages and then this wouldn't be federal at all but then we'd have people who were:
a) religiously married, married in state X but not in other states and not federal
b) religiously married, married in state X, married federal but not in other states
c) not religiously married, married in states X and Y but not federal
....
Which the conservatives also didn't want. Given the choice between society creating that mess and gay people being able to marry conservatives took the (in their mind) lesser evil.
BTW FWIW there are religious communities that have religious weddings and don't get the state involved at all for example some very religious Jews don't register their marriages with the secular authorities. But that creates no end of problems for them. Ironically a legal a situation very similar to what most gays have been living with since the 1970s where they were effectively but not legally married.
"@crsm: I decline to accept that churches have the authority or right to co-opt the term "marriage" unto themselves, especially when the concept is part of law in all 50 states. Marriage, in many variations, has been around longer than any religion currently popular. With the possible exception of paganism. :)"
This is where things now can and will get sticky. A pastor or a religious figurehead wont have to sign the certificate if they don't want too. They don't have to perform a ceremony if they chose to. All under the protection of the first admendment. I hope u get what I am saying.
Now the decision does protect people like what someone stated that if they got married in a state that allowed it. They can move to a state that doesn't and still receive the state tax benefits of a "married" couple. That is what it is protecting. Which is a huge stride and a great win... IMHO.
@ rockstar.... you are still not fucking getting my point. You are like so many others hung up on the word or term "MARRIAGE".
Take that out of the equation. I used the term civil union because it already exists. But lets call it WIDGETS...... So in order to get the tax breaks, power of attorney, and what ever the fuck else you keep saying.....You go to the government and get a WIDGETS license. Then you and your partner are entitled to all of those breaks. If a man and a woman want to get those breaks/rights they need to get a WIDGETS license as well..... GET IT!!!!!
Because marriage is a religious act!!! And if you don't think that people will use the first admendment to still keep discriminating against gay couples you are totally wrong. The same reason why the KKK and others can use the first admendment to spout hate and discrimination.
All of this is over the word "Marriage" and the rights/breaks that are given to that word/title. Take that out of the equation..... no big fight to ensue. Because the words "civil union" are not used in any religion that I know of.
Again... I am not against the rule what so ever. But one thing this rule is doing is making blurred lines between CHURCH and STATE. Which they have been trying to separate that for years.
If you don't think churches will still decline to do ceremonies.... look at the health care law. They are exempt from that by toting religious freedom and what not.
I will state it again.... it is a big win so that people who got married in a state that allowed gay marriage now can jump from state to state or move and still receive the same benefits at the state level. It will also open it up for them to get married at court houses, churches who are OK with it in all 50 states. Which is great.
But the churches that still want to be against it.... this changes nothing IMO and will cause a big can of worms.
I think all of this could have been avoided if Congress would have just passed a law or something changing the benefits, breaks, responsibilities that they give or have for "MARRIAGE" to some other word like "CIVIL UNION" in all of the laws that it would make things clear and not blurr the line between CHURCH and STATE.
Then people can go get married in a church but that means nothing with the government. It is like someone getting baptized. It only matters to the church and the people involved because they want to be recognized in that particular religion as "married".
Problem with your analysis is that it is backwards. The church has always recognized the authority of the state (and the society in general) to marry. It may be sinful to marry outside the outside the supervision of the church but it doesn't invalidate the marriage. So calling marriage "civil union" or "widgets" doesn't cease to make it an issue, if it looks enough like marriage then the state is marrying people whom the church has declared can't be married.
Now that's fine. Our state violates church doctrines on many issues. This isn't the first, this isn't the last. But the core issue regarding the definition of marriage doesn't disappear just because the state calls it something else. Though I do agree with you this might help a lot to diminish the tension. Were the state to acknowledge that marriage was a purely religious (sacrament, ordinance). And instead assert that all it was doing were civil contracts, especially as those contracts are terminatable through divorce, it could argue from a religious standpoint all it was doing was regulating concubinage and that the state doesn't perform marriage in the classic sense at all.
Here is a good summary of the classic definition: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__…
a) A couple eligible to marry
b) They engage in a public rite
c) A public presentation of themselves as married (i.e. in a committed relationship)
d) They sexually consummated
A civil union or a widget is going to meet those criteria, its still a marriage. Unless you do a lot more to distinguish it from marriage it isn't going to solve the problem potentially. Still it could have helped. But that wasn't the way this worked out. There wasn't a desire to compromise so there wasn't one rather there was just a 180 degree shift over a decade. So let's just try and make equality work.
Wrong. In the states I'm familiar with a marriage license must be signed by an officiant. In most states that officiant must be a member of clergy or a judge or court of clerk or similar.
Now while the government may be granting clergy that power, they aren't granting that power to any Tom, Dick or Harry.
Again it's a small distinction but an important one.
Get the government out of marriages. Let religious institutions handle marriage however they want. Give everybody the legal opportunities and benefits we choose to give two people. Of course people will bitch but if we're really talking about keeping the two separate then it doesn't matter.
I still can't tell if Rockstar understands what I'm saying or if he's just making the incorrect assumption that I'm opposed to gay people marrying and that what I'm proposing is somehow going to hurt them.
Again it's a simple distinction. But get rid of "marriage licenses" and remove the clergy from having any role in the the process.
People won't like it, but then people don't like anything.
Was waiting for some old relic to toss that ridiculous stupid shit out there. Surprised it took so long.
Yes...let the government do what it wants with the parting gifts for married people, but let citizens decide if they're married or not. Make it a civil contract that our government recognizes even if it's from the clergy of my personal religion of one. Well..more than one luckily...but you get my point. And let the fundies and Catholics make their own rules for their own sheep.
You called Clubber's statement "stupid shit"? Why? Because you say incest and bestiality are illegal? You do realize that before 1962 every state in the Union had laws against sodomy, in essence making homosexuality illegal?
When the sodomy laws began to be repealed in the 60's and 70's, don't you think people then were saying "what's next -- two men will be allowed to get married". They would have been laughed at and ridiculed exactly like you are doing regarding incest and bestiality.
Jester said it all right here..... I was just putting a name to it.
"Get the government out of marriages. Let religious institutions handle marriage however they want. Give everybody the legal opportunities and benefits we choose to give two people. Of course people will bitch but if we're really talking about keeping the two separate then it doesn't matter."
Like my "widgets" or "civil Unions".... keeps marriage and people perception of that word out of the argument. You can use what is defined by religion as marriage as a basis for the "widgets" or "Civil Unions" but tweak them a little.... like saying it can be of same sex and what not. But you see you won't be calling anything marriage. So religious definitions wont apply. So people cant use religion or first admendment as an argument.
Like I mentioned.... a pastor will still deny people the ceremony. You just wait and see. It will happen and people will cry discrimination because of this ruling.... but it will still be protected under the first admendment. That is why lawyers are waiting in the wings to take this on. Like the article I posted with Texas.
You can't "THROW RELIGION OUT THE WINDOW". Religious people aren't idiots. They aren't going to be like "oh they call that thing that the couples are doing 'civil unions' so marriage rules don't apply". The word marriage itself comes from a latin term for a sexual lover (maritus). Older literature has words which are variants on rulership. Christians were able to keep up with the change. Not calling something marriage doesn't cause religious definitions not to apply. It doesn't solve the argument, though I agree it might help a bit. Basically what I've asserted and tried to prove the vatican example is that any public rite involving a couple forming a longterm / lifetime sexual and financial bond is going to be a marriage and be governed as a marriage regardless of what you call it. You aren't able to duck the issue with just a simple word game.
________
-- Like I mentioned.... a pastor will still deny people the ceremony. You just wait and see. It will happen and people will cry discrimination because of this ruling
So what? Religious organizations aren't subject to non-dicrimation. Title VII of the Civil Rights act specifically permits religious organizations to discriminate. Strong rules protecting church discipline from the state is why the pilgrims came here, it quite literally predates the US government entirely. Pastors can do what they want. There are no lawyers waiting in the wings to do anything to pastors.
What you posted regarding Texas about is governmental employees refusing to issue licenses. Obviously this is going to need to go to court. But it appears many attorneys believes that if a state allows a clerk to refuse licenses for any religious reason (gay couple, interracial couple, one but not both Christian, been divorced...) then they are fine, that's not anti-gay discrimination. If they only allow this one type of discrimination on the part of the clerk, they will lose quickly.
No doubt government officials are obligated to uphold the law. But the law can be written to give them discretion which is what some of those states are doing. They are moving from licensing arrangements where the license is automatic to one where it isn't. This isn't about suing for religious freedom but whether the law can be constructed to allow for religious freedom exemptions. Most lawyers I've seen seem to believe they can be defending, providing the exemptions are wide open.
In the end, the religious zealots and regular conservatives will conform, or at least their children will, just like white people did on race.
My great grandfather called black people 'niggers' as did lots of whites back then. My grandfather called them niggers as children but 'colored' as adults, as did many in the 1950's and 1960's. My father called them "negro" thinking that was acceptable, and now we call them 'black' or 'African American". Times change, and people's definition of morality changes. This is a good thing.
The next generation will accept gay marriage, even if they don't agree with it. Just like mixed race marriage is now normal, same sex marriage will be seen as normal. You'd be hard pressed to find a white man who says out loud that inter racial marriage is against his religion, and that's where gay marriage will be in 20 years.
"Was waiting for some old relic to toss that ridiculous stupid shit out there. Surprised it took so long."
Perhaps it takes an "old relic" to grasp how the left works. I recall the days when all they wanted was to take cigarette advertising out of print media and TV.
Fast forward to today and the left wingnuts in NYC want to ban you from smoking in your own home!
http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/20…
See, they just can't stand someone else having things their way. If someone doesn't like smoke somewhere, don't fucking go there, OR are the leftists to stupid to figure that out?
You don't want salt, don't fucking use it. ..
And the list goes on into eternity!
Believe it or not still 13% don't approve of mix marriage, That's way down though from 96% in 1958: http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupi…
Anyway I agree this issue goes away fast. The approval rating is skyrocketing. The approval numbers for gay marriage today in 2015 are already at the level that mixed marriage was in 1996 and by 1996 no one talked about going back to not having it be the law of the land even if they personally objected.
As far as registering the marriage. Yes under this theory a clerk can refuse to issue a license for any marriage they disapprove of. I don't know that anyone wants clerks to not be able to record marriages since there is no sacrament / ordinance in recording a marriage after it has occurred. I don't know if states are going to want to open this can of worms, I think it is a bad idea. But its a bad idea and its not legally permissible are two different bars.
I fully support gay guys getting married.
They should be just as fucking miserable as us straight guys after we get married.... lol. ;)
I support plural, polyamorous marriage.
"Was waiting for some old relic to toss that ridiculous stupid shit out there. Surprised it took so long."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/…
I will accept your apology when given.
Since we're getting so politically correct with our laws now.
No, just pointing out what I said above, "And next, someone wishes to marry his/her dog/cat/sister/brother/father/two best friends/house/car/who or what ever." and he seemed to think I was crazy, yet here it is already!