Defense of Marriage Act ruled Unconstitutional

[NOK222]

5-4 vote on it. ****'s about to get real. 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/supreme-court-doma-decision_n_3454811.html

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Despite the moral fabric of America having been destroyed, my life doesn't seem that different.

Edited June 26, 2013 by KaineParker

[Meshugger]

The gay-lobby celebrate by having a lavish, socialistic party where they quote Mao and Stalin. All while the rest of america burns from marriages revoked by the sudden gay.

[Guard Dog]

[Guard Dog]

Some of the responses I'm seeing make me wonder if the whole country has lost it's sanity. A noted congresswoman made a statement about the SCOTUS undermining Gods word and the bible teachings. Ok, I'll buy that but no church is going to be asked to perform or sanction any marriage it does not want to. This only applies to the definition of a marriage with respect to the government and property and children. Totally different animals.

 

If I've said it once I've said it a million times, if you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay person. What the hell do you care what two consenting adults who you probably don't even know do with their lives? What a wonderful world this would be if we all would just leave each other alone to live our lives in the way that seems best to each of us.

 

As to the specifics of the decision, from the summary I've seen it was a pretty cut and dry equal protection case. Even the dissent was not focused on the merits of DOMA so much as rather the review was properly handled or needed. I have not read it yet, I'll do that this afternoon.  

[NOK222]

But marriage was invented by God and sanctioned by God. 

 

And don't come at me with this "myth" of Sumerian people. Nice try liberals. 

[Guard Dog]

Sure there is a religious aspect to marriage IF the couple is religious. Once the state got into the business of sanctioning marriage however the legal and religious aspects became two different things. When you get right down to it, marriage is a contract in the legal sense. How can the government allow one group of consenting parties to enter into contract while at the same time bar another group of consenting parties from doing the same? It turns out, they can't. However, if individual religious denominations refuse to sanction or same sex weddings allow them on their property everyone has to understand they are free to do that!

 

I'm not talking directly to you NK. I know where you're coming from. 

[BruceVC]

5-4 vote on it. ****'s about to get real. 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/supreme-court-doma-decision_n_3454811.html

 

Damn you beat me to posting this progressive and long overdue development

 

All I can say is " well done USA Supreme Court"

 

Gay couples will now get the important benefits around tax and healthcare that straight couples get and cleared the way for gay couples to marry  in California.

 

This is great news and every American should be proud of this decision. The next move needs to be pass legislation so that gay marriage is legally allowed in every state. But lets take one step at a time

 

 

[BruceVC]

Sure there is a religious aspect to marriage IF the couple is religious. Once the state got into the business of sanctioning marriage however the legal and religious aspects became two different things. When you get right down to it, marriage is a contract in the legal sense. How can the government allow one group of consenting parties to enter into contract while at the same time bar another group of consenting parties from doing the same? It turns out, they can't. However, if individual religious denominations refuse to sanction or same sex weddings allow them on their property everyone has to understand they are free to do that!

 

I'm not talking directly to you NK. I know where you're coming from. 

 

I think NKKK is being sarcastic

[melkathi]

I think with NKKK's posts you need a disclaimer for the times when he isn't

[Gfted1]

Ok, I'll buy that but no church is going to be asked to perform or sanction any marriage it does not want to.

I think you're wrong about this. They will force it on the churches by revoking their tax exemption status if they say no.

[Amentep]

 

Ok, I'll buy that but no church is going to be asked to perform or sanction any marriage it does not want to.

I think you're wrong about this. They will force it on the churches by revoking their tax exemption status if they say no.

 

I can't say I agree.  I doubt any legislation to that effect would survive a legal challenge, and the politicians wouldn't survive their next election.

[Guard Dog]

I would have a BIG problem with that. Gay couples cannot demand their freedom then insist on robbing others of theirs! 

[Malcador]

I think you're wrong about this. They will force it on the churches by revoking their tax exemption status if they say no.

While you'd get athiests hard at that, that'd never fly, I'd imagine. Intimidating a religious organization that way is just as bad.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Malcador

[BruceVC]

 

Ok, I'll buy that but no church is going to be asked to perform or sanction any marriage it does not want to.

I think you're wrong about this. They will force it on the churches by revoking their tax exemption status if they say no.

 

 

Are you pleased with the Supreme Court decision Gfted? Its probably a stupid question as how can anyone not be pleased with the legal progression of equality in the greatest country of Western Democracy and ideology? I'm not even American and I'm ecstatic

[Raithe]

Isn't a chunk of the anti-gay bible aspect in Leviticus?  Which also has the big chunk of "tattoo's are bad, mmkay?",  "you should not cross-breed cattle" and the "you're going to hell if you wear clothes made out of more then one type of material" if I vaguely recall...

 

It does seem to me that if the various churches are okay dropping the latter bunch and not stressing over them, why are they getting so hooked on that part?

[Gfted1]

Are you pleased with the Supreme Court decision Gfted? Its probably a stupid question as how can anyone not be pleased with the legal progression of equality in the greatest country of Western Democracy and ideology? I'm not even American and I'm ecstatic

No Im not, but that's because I don't feel anyone's sexuality should be forced on another group and Im pretty sure someone somewhere is already drafting up a lawsuit against . Regarding homosexuality? I don't care who sticks which sexual organ into which orifice, as long as everyone is consenting.

[Gorgon]

Baby steps, but you guys still lag behind badly

[BruceVC]

 

Are you pleased with the Supreme Court decision Gfted? Its probably a stupid question as how can anyone not be pleased with the legal progression of equality in the greatest country of Western Democracy and ideology? I'm not even American and I'm ecstatic

No Im not, but that's because I don't feel anyone's sexuality should be forced on another group and Im pretty sure someone somewhere is already drafting up a lawsuit against <insert church that wont marry you>. Regarding homosexuality? I don't care who sticks which sexual organ into which orifice, as long as everyone is consenting.

 

 

Okay lets say hypothetically the Federal government doesn't pass any legislation to force any churches to marry gay people. Of course there will be certain churches that will perform the ceremony but that's optional. Would you be happy then?

[Malcador]

Baby steps, but you guys still lag behind badly

They'll catch up to you in Blessed Europe soon enough.

[Amentep]

 

 

Are you pleased with the Supreme Court decision Gfted? Its probably a stupid question as how can anyone not be pleased with the legal progression of equality in the greatest country of Western Democracy and ideology? I'm not even American and I'm ecstatic

No Im not, but that's because I don't feel anyone's sexuality should be forced on another group and Im pretty sure someone somewhere is already drafting up a lawsuit against . Regarding homosexuality? I don't care who sticks which sexual organ into which orifice, as long as everyone is consenting.

 

 

Okay lets say hypothetically the Federal government doesn't pass any legislation to force any churches to marry gay people. Of course there will be certain churches that will perform the ceremony but that's optional. Would you be happy then?

 

 

I imagine Gfted may be remembering the New Jersey church that was sued because space and a pavilion they owned was refused to be used for a same sex marriage.  They were, essentially, told they couldn't keep the tax exempt status on the land and pavilion if they refused to have it open to anyone.

 

The issue, in this case, was that the space and pavilion was tax exempt as a "Green Space" and not as part of a religious organization.  Its my understanding that while they did lose the tax exempt status for the Green Space Tax Exemption, they applied for - and received - a tax exemption for religious organizations and was able to continue to operate the pavilion and grounds as they saw fit.

[Gfted1]

Okay lets say hypothetically the Federal government doesn't pass any legislation to force any churches to marry gay people. Of course there will be certain churches that will perform the ceremony but that's optional. Would you be happy then?

That would make me happy. I don't have any problem with homosexuals getting married (those fools!) and partaking in the benefits of such a union. Maybe they should outlaw heterosexual marriages.

[Gorgon]

 

Baby steps, but you guys still lag behind badly

They'll catch up to you in Blessed Europe soon enough.

 

Actually I was thinking more like Thailand. With all the ladyboys they have become a testing ground for acceptance of sexuality and gender in society as a whole and they appear to have taken the lead in some areas despite having a very conservative establishment. 

 

Adoptions for gay couples is still a recurring debate here.

[Nepenthe]

Even without all the wrinkly people there, SCOTUS still makes me think of SCROTUM every single time.

[HoonDing]

Won't somebody please think about the children?