SCOTUS Rules Same Sex Marriage is legal

[GhostTX]

So it's perfectly ok for Christians to do that exact thing for centuries, but you can't give the gay crowd one win?





It's a good thing churches don't define what marriage is for the rest of the logical world.

One win that puts all those that disagree with it on the precipice of being now against the state.

[bcoop]

Or lack thereof?

Absolutely not. Can't have any of that nonsense.

[bcoop]

You're right. IMO, it's the gays forcing their version of belief down Christian throats.

So it's perfectly ok for Christians to do that exact thing for centuries, but you can't give the gay crowd one win?

Marriage has been defined as man & woman in whatever church you go to. If "civil union" contracts were made for gays, I'd have no issue. Fine. Now, to redefine the traditional role of marriage and force it as federal, that is an issue for me.

It's a good thing churches don't define what marriage is for the rest of the logical world.

[slow99]

Different deal. and NO. The bible is clear on the marriage thing. I respect someones religion. I don't respect a racist.

Or lack thereof?

[GhostTX]

Right, so lets just compound screws ups by allowing more. What a win!

[GhostTX]

Scalia:

Justice Antonin Scalia is chastising the Supreme Court’s landmark decision legalizing same-sex marriage on Friday as an affront to the principle of democratic rule.

Scalia argues in his opinion that the court is increasingly creating policy rather than serving as a neutral arbiter.

“Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court,” he writes.

“This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”

Scalia blasts the majority opinion as “couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic.”

“The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie,” he writes in a footnote needling the majority for its bombastic language.

It’s the second day in a row that Scalia has blasted the majority’s opinion. On Thursday, he accused the court of creating “SCOTUScare” with a ruling that said the federal government could provide ObamaCare subsidies to consumers on a federal exchange.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that decision and was at the end of Scalia’s criticism, but on Friday they were on the same side.

Scalia wrote his own dissent even though he wrote that he agrees with everything that Roberts wrote in his own dissenting opinion, in order to “call attention to this court’s threat to American democracy.”

Scalia admits that the societal outcome of the decision isn’t particularly important to him.

“The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can afford them favorable civil consequences,” he writes.

But he wrote that he views the opinion as an overreach by the court, and chides the justices as “hardly a cross-section of America.”

He notes that all the justices graduated from Harvard or Yale Law School, eight grew up on the coasts, and that not one is an evangelical Christian or a Protestant, religions that make up significant chunks of the American population.

“To allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation,” he writes.

[Baron Von Crowder]

You're right. IMO, it's the gays forcing their version of belief down Christian throats.


Marriage has been defined as man & woman in whatever church you go to. If "civil union" contracts were made for gays, I'd have no issue. Fine. Now, to redefine the traditional role of marriage and force it as federal, that is an issue for me.

[GhostTX]

Peoples religious beliefs should not be force on other people.

You're right. IMO, it's the gays forcing their version of belief down Christian throats.

You know that getting married in a church is just ceremonial right? You actually don't get married in a church. You get married when you get the marriage license signed in a government building. It hasn't changed what is being allowed in whatever church you go to.

Marriage has been defined as man & woman in whatever church you go to. If "civil union" contracts were made for gays, I'd have no issue. Fine. Now, to redefine the traditional role of marriage and force it as federal, that is an issue for me.

[bcoop]

Man, banning of the confederate flag, upholding of obamacare and legal gay marriage in the same week.

It must be hard on the NASCAR fans.

Fuck Obamacare, and the flag debate is fucking retarded.

[jasone]

Does the bible ever speak about gay marriage?

I thought it was all about them banging each other.

They are already doing that, so the marriage thing should be a non issue, right?

And, doesn't the bible only talk about guys getting married, does it ever mention lesbians?

[Baron Von Crowder]

Man, banning of the confederate flag, upholding of obamacare and legal gay marriage in the same week.

It must be hard on the NASCAR fans.

[Baron Von Crowder]

If only church and state were, I dunno, seperate.

[bcoop]

Peoples religious beliefs should not be force on other people.

Ding ding ding!

[Moose242]

Different deal. and NO. The bible is clear on the marriage thing. I respect someones religion. I don't respect a racist.

If only church and state were, I dunno, seperate.

[Craizie]

One thing to sin. Another to condone it and allow it to be repeatable. If you're Christian, the Bible is very clear on it stance with homosexuality. To ignore that and say let's let them be married is hypocritical.

Peoples religious beliefs should not be force on other people.