Why do so many Goppers oppose Gay Marriage ?

[BackAgain]

That’s already the case.

Which is why I answered accordingly.

 

[SmokeALib]

SCOTUS and same-sex marriage: What could be in store?

Now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade, sending abortion policy back to the states, could the court do th

www.politifact.com

This seems a very unconservative stance. It is more akin to an authoritariaan stance. I understan that 150 gops voted against protecting Gay marriage. The same number voted against rotecting inter racial marriage.

What sort of country would America become if these rights were over turned by your crazy Supreme Court.

Because it's sick sexual perversion being normalized by sick sexual perverts.

 

[BackAgain]

It is not irrelevant, why do churches require them if marriage is 100% religious?

Where did I say it is 100% religious? Hint. I didn’t. In fact, I noted that the government has some contractual relationships to the institution.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Which by its very definition is a violation of the first amendment. Marriage licenses are no more than the government saying OK we'll give you legal rights and advantages.

It is not the Govt making the churches require them, it is the churches that choose to require them. Thus there is no violation of the first amendment.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I noted that the government has some contractual relationships to the institution.

And that is the only part of the relationship that matters when we are talking about the laws of the land.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

There is ZERO federal jurisdiction over marriage which is a state law matter.

But there are Federal benefits tied to marriage. Thus it becomes a Federal matter

 

[BackAgain]

And that is the only part of the relationship that matters when we are talking about the laws of the land.

I’m not that far apart from you in that contention anything that goes much further and crosses into the less secular components of a marriage shouldn’t be part of the government’s job.

But it is complicated. It involves the legal relationship of the couple to children, it involves inheritance laws and tax laws and divorce laws and property rights and survivorship benefits and and and so forth and so on.

 

[BackAgain]

But there are Federal benefits tied to marriage. Thus it becomes a Federal matter

Not really. The Feds cannot obtain jurisdiction over state law matters merely because they offer some tax consequences or benefits to the status of a state law matter. No bootstrapping.

 

[initforme]

Getting hitched in Vegas vs a church wedding carries the same weight. As it should be.

 

[Flopper]

While doing the dishes a bit of irony struck me, these people are all claiming that marriage is religious institution yet the vast, vast majority of churches would not consider a couple married if they did not have that piece of paper from the Civil authorities.

Religious marriage dates by to a time when all legal aspect of marriage were covered by ecclesiastic law. That worked pretty well till, there was more than one religion so government began laying down laws that governed marriage. As the number religions increased and the number of people not affiliated with a church increased, governments developed civil marriages conducted by a government offical. Government, not churches became the institution that governed marriages. There was a time in England when religious marriages were outlawed.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Getting hitched in Vegas vs a church wedding carries the same weight. As it should be.

My wife and I sort of did both. We got married by a JP and then 4.5 months later had a wedding officiated by a pastor. Fun story....we used her sister's pastor as our wedding was where they lived. He required a session of "pre-marital" counseling and we were worried he would spill the beans as most people did not know we were already married.

When he told him he was like "great, glad you are not living in sin". He even devised a plan where he would pretend to sign the marriage license so nobody would catch on.

That was 29 years ago this month.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Live and let live.

Separate or Suppurate

Gayism is gangrene on body politic. Amputate it or we die.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

because we find it disgusting.

A Molested Generation Loses the Will to Grow Up

And that disgust is a natural part of society's Survival Instinct.

 

[BS Filter]

and then you prove you are just a hate-filled bigot.

Thanks, that was sweet of you.

Male and female is a mistake?

 

[BS Filter]

When you offer your services to the public, you can not discriminate based on race, religion, or sex (depending on state laws). If a Christian wants a man and woman and crosses on the wedding cake, you do it, and if a Jew wants a cake a with menorahs, you do it. And if a gay couple wants a cake with two men kissing, and a Buddha you do it.

Bullshit.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Male and female is a mistake?

Nope it is not.

Neither is male and male or female and female.

It is all about what gets your rocks off. Why do you care what does it for other people.

Also, if two people of the same sex having sex is such a gross thing why does 95% of straight porn have women going at it together?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Bullshit.

On this we agree

 

[BS Filter]

Nope it is not.

Neither is male and male or female and female.

It is all about what gets your rocks off. Why do you care what does it for other people.

Also, if two people of the same sex having sex is such a gross thing why does 95% of straight porn have women going at it together?

We disagree.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

We disagree.

Why do you care what other people do?

 

[Dayton3]

Nope it is not.

Neither is male and male or female and female.

It is all about what gets your rocks off. Why do you care what does it for other people.

Also, if two people of the same sex having sex is such a gross thing why does 95% of straight porn have women going at it together?

I'm disgusted by that as well