SCOTUS rules states must allow same-sex marriage
- Thread starter KnighttimeJoe
- Start date
What if you weren't born gay, but choose to identify as gay later in life?
I just feel bad that our poor friend the Constitution had to be pulled into this argument. That dude was like "No, the electoral process is my friend. I don't want to circumvent him. Also, I never said sh!t about marriage. I just want to hang out in this air conditioned vault and die in peace. And keep Nicholas Cage away from me."
Depends, would you be identifying yourself as black and gay or white and gay?
Sounds like a perfect reason to bring the constitution into this. And good thing a basic right wasn't left up to the electorate.Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution said:
Marriage isn't a basic right. It's debatable whether or not it's a right at all ( I don't think it is), but it surely isn't a basic one. I get that the 14th amendment was used. If it applies as all, it is a spurious association and not a clear or convincing argument.
As an American, gay marriage doesn't particularly bother me. What bothers me is crappy arguments to push through new legislation by a court that is not supposed to do that. It's a bad precedent.
I agree. Is marriage a basic human right? No. Is it a civil right? Should be determined by the individual states. I am convinced, that in time, there will be law suits against religious organizations that will ultimately force them to do things that are in direct violation of their beliefs. Oh yeah, it's coming and if you disagree, you're a moron.
Tonight I fear that Jesus shall begin to fan the fames of fury for the next fifty thousand years on America
Now we have you fuks to define what are or aren't rights. How about if it doesn't infringe upon your stupid ass it's a right. Goddamn.
I agree. Horrible decision like Brown v. Board of Education. Goddamn court.
God bless the 101st Airborne.
BTW, its the courts job to interpret law. And they have interpreted that it's unconstitutional for states to recognize marriage from one set of two consenting adults but ignore another. Equal protection or something.
Well, that is an original way to spin things. Gotta give that to you.
Original... but completely stupid.
When you truly separate church and state, there's no reason this shouldn't have been passed many moons ago.
Thanks for the definition. I have to admit I Never thought of it like that before.
you are afraid that a gay couple will demand to be married in a catholic church or threaten a lawsuit?
It's already happening in most everywhere that has passed gay marriage legalization. The ink was barely dry on the UK legalization before a wealthy gay couple decided to sue the Church of England to force them to perform a gay marriage, despite the law being passed specifically stating they wouldn't be compelled to.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/07/gay-couple-sue-church-of-england_n_3714609.html
Same thing happened in Canada.
It will happen in the US, without a doubt. They may not win but it will happen. Because to many on the left wing, gay rights is not what they're actually after. They want to go far and beyond that, and now that gay marriage is settled and legal, they won't just throw up their arms and stop.
Does anyone know how marriage in a church works from a legal basis? You get a marriage certificate, which is the legal binding document and I thought the priest pretty much acted as a notary. The actual ceremony has nothing to do with government or legality. So I would think, at most, the court could force a priest to not be discriminatory about who he oversees the handling of the marriage certificate for. I don't think they could possibly force him to hold the ceremony.
I could be totally wrong on the my assumptions of how it all works though.
I could be totally wrong on the my assumptions of how it all works though.
My first marriage was through the Catholic church and it ended up like Forrest Gump: I was an idiot and she was a whore.
Are you saying whores shouldn't have the right to be married? That's how she "defines and expresses" her identity. Certainly the 14th amendment allows whores the right to be married. Bigot.
The church and/or priest don't charge to perform wedding ceremonies. The govt can't force them to do anything.
Mot familiar with the catholic angle but other churches and preachers absolutely charge money
the us federal government doesnt want the church more involved in politics than it already is...they wouldnt force the church to hold a protestant wedding in a catholic church let alone a gay wedding...i wouldnt doubt the suit comes but i dont see it getting anywhere...
Please provide your reasoning. Show me the group which is granted the right to polygamous marriage and the group and the group which is denied it. I await your well annotated and thorough response.
You do not need a priest or a church to get married in FL. A notary public could do it, as could a captain of a ship, and a great number of people get married at the courthouse where a judge performs the ceremony. The law only requires the state to recognize same-sex marriages. It does not require a private citizen to perform them.
The answer is no. People have no sense of humor nor can they understand sarcasm.
But love should win... so...
![[devil]](https://ct.yimg.com/mr/uploads/891/1681918.png "Devil [devil]")
What about these two...
Obv smokers with the two big burn holes. Who'd want to marry them?
