True morality, I fear, involves respecting the wishes of same sex couples who desire to marry.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"US Supreme Court in historic rulings on gay marriage"
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
They sure seem to believe that it is, for fairly obvious reasons.
Some of the many reasons to permit gay marriage are to reduce one's tax burden & to simplify one's affairs......
Gay Man Adopts His Partner to Avoid Inheritance Tax - ABC News
Gay Man Adopts His Partner to Avoid Inheritance Tax - ABC News
methylatedghosts
Can't brain. Has dumb.
Saw this one today, and this was the first appropriate thread I could find...
AdityaMookerjee
Member
Actually, marriage doesn't mean, that a man and woman can get along, or not, are committed, or otherwise, to each other, or not, either. What does marriage between man and man signify? I hope the Supreme Court doesn't anticipate, indiscriminate sex between people, one party to it, who might feel coerced, or forced. I mean, perhaps men will consider that.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
........... in California? So, in fact, there is still no clear and concise legislation which covers the whole country, coast to coast, North to South?
So what happens if a Gay married couple moves to...... Texas? ......or Wisconsin??
I noticed that a member in a later post mentioned that this all smacks of Federalism, so Americans still contend against coast to coast 'cover every State' uniform legislation?
I'm glad to read that there is some progression, but it still looks like a legal mess to me. Your lawyers just don't deserve to have such fat lives, getting rich off such a legal mish-mash....... but I bet they do!!
It will be somewhat messy until the SCOTUS sorts it out later....as Scalia predicts:
Scalia might disagree with gay marriage proponents, but 10 years ago he correctly divined the direction we just headed.
Under our 14th Amendment, the states will (IMO) be forced to fall in line by recognizing gay marriage.
We're always arguing about the extent to which federalism should trump states' rights. Ideally, the Constitution is our rule book for when this is permissible.
Ours is a country run by lawyers for lawyers.
horizon_mj1
Well-Known Member
Why does there always have to be blame? Is that not one of the biggest problems is that everyone is looking for someone else to blame, due to not wanting to take responsibilities of their own actions; either it be intentional or accidental?
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Although it's good they done that, I am flabbergasted they didn't take the next step and strike down all anti-gay marriage laws. It almost seems like the decision is the new DADT, where you can get the benefits, so long as your state allows you to get married.
Thats why "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (freedom from religion), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (freedom of religion)." It's so that the government couldn't be ran a relgion, because a religious-based government can easily and often does infringe on the religious and civil rights of others. In this case a religious-based dogma is infringing on the first amendment which prohibits religious-based morality as law, and on the fifth amendment which ensures equal application of the law. Which means that because "marriage" is the term our society uses to recognize a special bond between two people, and because our government got involved with marriage it is granting status, title, and benefits to hetersexual couples, and for nothing more than the complaints of religious groups are denying the same status, title, and benefits to homosexual couples.
Why should those outside of your religious morality be forced into subservience of it's ways, even though there own religious ways (even other Christians) are different?
Thats why "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (freedom from religion), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (freedom of religion)." It's so that the government couldn't be ran a relgion, because a religious-based government can easily and often does infringe on the religious and civil rights of others. In this case a religious-based dogma is infringing on the first amendment which prohibits religious-based morality as law, and on the fifth amendment which ensures equal application of the law. Which means that because "marriage" is the term our society uses to recognize a special bond between two people, and because our government got involved with marriage it is granting status, title, and benefits to hetersexual couples, and for nothing more than the complaints of religious groups are denying the same status, title, and benefits to homosexual couples.
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
It's pretty simple why they didnt make a nation wide ruling; it would have to be against the anti-gay marriage movement, however the supreme court has routinely demonstrated a reluctance to actually tackle the issue instead preferring to defer and softball as much as possible because they do not really want to apply the law - which is quite clear cut on the issue regardless of what social conservatives might like to claim.
They can only rule on the case before them.
Though I predict that as Scalia predicts, they will.
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
Thats true Rev, but their choice of language can effect the scope of the applicability of their decision to other cases as much as they possibly can they continue to attempt to dismiss on technical grounds or attempt to set limits on the potential for precedent. It cannot be accidental given the depth of legal experience on the bench; it would have to be intentional. And the truth is if they actually applied the laws that do exist properly (which would be a resounding affirmation of gay rights to marriage) then they would be accused of making law from the bench, something they are keen to avoid not just the reality of but the accusation of. Thus they cower.
Mercy Not Sacrifice
Well-Known Member
Ohhhh, I see. You feel that you have the right to force your views on others, while not giving others the same power over you.
If you can't see how that kind of intolerance offends people, you should probably just stop posting. And I'm saying this in the nicest way I know how.
Now you're getting into speculation which is above my pay grade.
I'm not familiar enuf with their thoughts to comment.
Man...I'd hate to hear your meanest way of saying that.
Btw, ZooGirl pays attention to heathen posts, which grants us some power.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
True as that is, they still based their decision on the fifth, which logically follows that if federally not recognizing same-sex marriage creates a second-class marriage (or however they worded it, I really don't remember), then allowing heterosexual marriage but not homosexual marriage in any state is also denying the fifth amendment right. Not too mention it is also the federal government granting rights, which under the supremacy clause if the federal says it's a go then all the states should also have to follow this decision.
Unfortunately though, here in Indiana they were waiting for the SCOTUS decision before proceeding with a state constitional ammendment to define marriage as one man/one woman. My eyes and ears, as are all Hoosiers, are likely to be poisoned with anti-gay nonsence next year when the election season kicks in, and if not then than in two years it will most likely probably be on the ballot. Hopefully when it happens the mid-30's and younger will turn out in force to defeat such blatant unconstitutional discrimination.
And hopefully Scalia's prediction will happen very soon to spare us all of such nasty hatred filling the air waves more than it does, and this issue can be done and over with and all the freedom deniers can go home crying because of the perceived infringement of the first.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Intolerance being met with intolerance only breeds more intolerance. Personally I would rather people like Zoogirl have the full freedom for their church and religion to decide who can and can't get married, so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. And over such an issue, it isn't so dire as to be like some churches that refuse to take their children to a doctor over medical issues only for the child to die from a lack of medical care. The issue really harms no one, so long as everyone is polite, respectful, and gives everyone their due respect and dignity that any human being deserves. If a church refuses to even allow gay people in the door, it sucks and is incredible short-sighted, bigoted, and not at all something Jesus would endorse, but that's what makes religious freedom great is one church can preach all the hellfire-and-brimstone they want towards homosexuals while others can welcome them with open arms.