Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage bans

[Syriusly]

Lets just face reality, OK? There is a very strong disagreement on this issue in the USA. Maybe the SC will settle it, but I seriously doubt that it will be over no matter how they rule.

Just as Loving v. Virginia did not stop the disagreement, within 3 decades the issue essentially disappeared.

I suspect it will take even less time for same gender marriage.

I doubt it. Straight people don't see gender as ambiguous. A while man with a black/asian/hispanic wife doesn't change the birds and bees thing that floats 97% of the population. It will never be seen the same.

We all have our personal opinions and you have yours.

But I am old enough to remember when seeing a black man with a white woman was every bit as shocking as it was to see a man with a man.

And the polls show the same thing.

 

[Syriusly]

Beliefs are under the umbrella of the Constitution, Emily.

You have no say about that, other than to ask for a new convention.

In other words, your insistence that you beliefs have political validity after passage and opinion is flatly wrong.

????

Beliefs are enforced by people by nature.

So if the court and laws are wrong, such as with banning gay marriage which just as wrong as establishing it,
then by the democratic process, people will contest, petition and redress grievances and conflicts to correct the disparity!

I have faith that the human conscience will keep driving toward equal justice, inclusion and agreement in peace.
The TRUTH shall set us free from strife, error and conflict.

Anything less than truth is going to get contested, even if govt or courts make a ruling.
If it isn't Constitutionally inclusive, then whoever is left out is going to protest for change.

And we keep reforming the laws and govt until we iron out all these bugs and flaws. Thanks Jake! I know you are part of the process toward resolution, and I hope we can use our positions within our own parties to the fullest advantage in this! Peace.

What you want to do requires a convention.

an amendment to the constitution ratified by 38 states would do it. Why does the left oppose letting the people decide?

Nothing against a Constitutional Amendment- just doesn't look like it will be necessary.

The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws three times in the past, perfectly valid for them to do so again.

Not for a similar issue though. You lose sight of that.

The issue is the Constitutionality of state marriage laws- exact same issue.

 

[Syriusly]

LOL....what makes you think that homosexuals are?

Look no further than Memories Pizza, or Sweet Cakes. One was shut down temporarily for stating a religious opinion, the other was destroyed for religiously objecting to serve a gay couple. You know what that tells me? Homosexuals are setting the standard.

Oh cry me a river.

Conservative Christians have been trying to harm business's who are deemed to be too friendly to homosexuals for decades- from Disneyland(Southern Baptists) to Starbucks, to trying to Ellen Degeneres fired- for simply being gay.

We even have one Christian trying to pass a law making it legal to kill gays in Calfornia.

Conservative Christians set the standard a long time ago. If anything they should be flattered that homosexuals learned so well from them.

LOL. You are quite the drama queen!

Sorry I upstaged you by pointing out the truth.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I don't seek to legally redefine marriage- I look for gay couples to have the same access to legal marriage- and divorce- as my wife and I have.

You seek to force people to recognize it. Tell me, what if I forced you and your wife to marry the same sex?

I am not seeking to force you to marry anyone.

You seek to force people not to marry.

I think that they should have the freedom to marry.

Of course, so if you want them to freely marry, why must government be the one to grant such a freedom?

And why would I want to force people to stop marrying?

 

[Iceweasel]

Lets just face reality, OK? There is a very strong disagreement on this issue in the USA. Maybe the SC will settle it, but I seriously doubt that it will be over no matter how they rule.

Just as Loving v. Virginia did not stop the disagreement, within 3 decades the issue essentially disappeared.

I suspect it will take even less time for same gender marriage.

I doubt it. Straight people don't see gender as ambiguous. A while man with a black/asian/hispanic wife doesn't change the birds and bees thing that floats 97% of the population. It will never be seen the same.

We all have our personal opinions and you have yours.

But I am old enough to remember when seeing a black man with a white woman was every bit as shocking as it was to see a man with a man.

And the polls show the same thing.

Which poll says that?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Sorry I upstaged you by pointing out the truth.

Proclaiming victory, and taking a nullius in verba attitude is a pure sign of a losing argument.

 

[Iceweasel]

????

Beliefs are enforced by people by nature.

So if the court and laws are wrong, such as with banning gay marriage which just as wrong as establishing it,
then by the democratic process, people will contest, petition and redress grievances and conflicts to correct the disparity!

I have faith that the human conscience will keep driving toward equal justice, inclusion and agreement in peace.
The TRUTH shall set us free from strife, error and conflict.

Anything less than truth is going to get contested, even if govt or courts make a ruling.
If it isn't Constitutionally inclusive, then whoever is left out is going to protest for change.

And we keep reforming the laws and govt until we iron out all these bugs and flaws. Thanks Jake! I know you are part of the process toward resolution, and I hope we can use our positions within our own parties to the fullest advantage in this! Peace.

What you want to do requires a convention.

an amendment to the constitution ratified by 38 states would do it. Why does the left oppose letting the people decide?

Nothing against a Constitutional Amendment- just doesn't look like it will be necessary.

The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws three times in the past, perfectly valid for them to do so again.

Not for a similar issue though. You lose sight of that.

The issue is the Constitutionality of state marriage laws- exact same issue.

Wrong. States have the right to define marriage, they just weren't allowed to have government treat men differently based on race. Changing the definition of marriage is what the issue is now.

 

[Syriusly]

There is 'no risk' of churches being forced to marry anyone they don't want to- it has been 50 years since the Civil Rights Act was passed, and no churches in that time have been forced to marry blacks, or forced to marry Jews, nor been required to make women priests, or required to make African Americans full church members.

Then how else will gay couples get married? In some farcical chapel in Las Vegas? Who will marry them? The government?

You don't seem to get it. Since religion (not just Christianity) has been used to consummate marriage all throughout American history, it only serves that religion as a result of a positive ruling in favor of advocates would have to consummate a form of marriage they oppose.

'how else"

LOL- the same way as anyone else is married- you either go before the justice of the peace or you find a minister/rabbi/priest or whoever else is authorized to marry you and you get married.

You don't seem to get it- all legal marriages are legally secular- the States allow and authorize people to officiate marriages- and if you choose to have a marriage within your faith- you get married within your faith- but still get a marriage license.

 

[Syriusly]

Sorry I upstaged you by pointing out the truth.

Proclaiming victory, and taking a nullius in verba attitude is a pure sign of a losing argument.

Glad to repost what I did point out

Oh cry me a river.

Conservative Christians have been trying to harm business's who are deemed to be too friendly to homosexuals for decades- from Disneyland(Southern Baptists) to Starbucks, to trying to Ellen Degeneres fired- for simply being gay.

We even have one Christian trying to pass a law making it legal to kill gays in Calfornia.

Conservative Christians set the standard a long time ago. If anything they should be flattered that homosexuals learned so well from them

 

[TemplarKormac]

We even have one Christian trying to pass a law making it legal to kill gays in Calfornia.

And you think that is representative of all Christians. How intellectually lazy.

Conservative Christians have been trying to harm business's who are deemed to be too friendly to homosexuals for decades- from Disneyland(Southern Baptists) to Starbucks, to trying to Ellen Degeneres fired- for simply being gay.

And this justifies the treatment Christian businesses are receiving, how? The gays should stop playing the victims here, they do more of the victimizing. Sorry.

 

[Syriusly]

What you want to do requires a convention.

an amendment to the constitution ratified by 38 states would do it. Why does the left oppose letting the people decide?

Nothing against a Constitutional Amendment- just doesn't look like it will be necessary.

The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws three times in the past, perfectly valid for them to do so again.

Not for a similar issue though. You lose sight of that.

The issue is the Constitutionality of state marriage laws- exact same issue.

Wrong. States have the right to define marriage, they just weren't allowed to have government treat men differently based on race. Changing the definition of marriage is what the issue is now.

LOL- you sure are hung up on race!

The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws three times in the past, perfectly valid for them to do so again.(hint: race is not involved in all three)

 

[TemplarKormac]

all legal marriages are legally secular

"legal marriage"

Last time I checked, marriage isn't reliant on the law to be consummate. Check yourself.

 

[Syriusly]

We even have one Christian trying to pass a law making it legal to kill gays in Calfornia.

And you think that is representative of all Christians. How intellectually lazy.

Conservative Christians have been trying to harm business's who are deemed to be too friendly to homosexuals for decades- from Disneyland(Southern Baptists) to Starbucks, to trying to Ellen Degeneres fired- for simply being gay.

And this justifies the treatment Christian businesses are receiving, how? You gays should stop playing the victims here, they do more of the victimizing. Sorry.

LOL- first you complain about how a handful of business's are treated as being respresentative of 'homosexuals'

And then when I point out that Christians have done the exact same things for decades- you wave your hand dismissively.

The ones playing victims here are you and your ilk- who think that being told to follow the law makes you victims.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Conservative Christians set the standard a long time ago. If anything they should be flattered that homosexuals learned so well from them

Oh brother.

Like I said earlier, how does one bad act justify the other? This eye for an eye thing is getting pretty old.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The ones playing victims here are you and your ilk- who think that being told to follow the law makes you victims.

Isn't that what gays have been doing since Loving? Spare me your indignance.

 

[Syriusly]

all legal marriages are legally secular

"legal marriage"

Last time I checked, marriage isn't reliant on the law to be consummate. Check yourself.

Last time I checked any marriage other than 'legal marriage' is just a matter of faith.

 

[TemplarKormac]

all legal marriages are legally secular

"legal marriage"

Last time I checked, marriage isn't reliant on the law to be consummate. Check yourself.

Last time I checked any marriage other than 'legal marriage' is just a matter of faith.

My point exactly. Marriage has zero to do with the law. Thanks for making my point.

 

[Syriusly]

Conservative Christians set the standard a long time ago. If anything they should be flattered that homosexuals learned so well from them

Oh brother.

Like I said earlier, how does one bad act justify the other? This eye for an eye thing is getting pretty old.

Eye for an Eye is a very Christian thing.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And then when I point out that Christians have done the exact same things for decades- you wave your hand dismissively.

Always "Christians do this" or "Christians did that" yet you ignore the same type of behavior being enacted by the so called "victims" of this behavior.

Yes, your argument is worthy of dismissal. It's dishonest and stereotypical.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Conservative Christians set the standard a long time ago. If anything they should be flattered that homosexuals learned so well from them

Oh brother.

Like I said earlier, how does one bad act justify the other? This eye for an eye thing is getting pretty old.

Eye for an Eye is a very Christian thing.

Oh really? Prove it.