Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Tony Perkins is an incredibly influential character on the religious right. He speaks at many conservative events and is a heavy opponent of LGBTQ rights in all areas (not just marriage) and proponent of conversion therapy. His "Family Research Council" is an offshot of James Dobson's "Focus on the Family."
While I agree that not everyone who voted for Trump is anti-gay, most GOP politicians won't think twice about pandering to their virulently homophobic base.
Dark times are coming in this country for those who aren't white, straight, male, and fundamentalist Christian.
The ruling was fundamentally flawed and must be overturned. Same with Roe. Both of these issues should be legislated by the states, which is what will happen when they are overturned.
The ruling was fundamentally flawed and must be overturned. Same with Roe. Both of these issues should be legislated by the states, which is what will happen when they are overturned.
Why, just because the Baptists are offended by it? Why should the Baptist definition of marriage be imposed on everyone? That's what will happen in most Southern states. Without Obergefell, Oklahoma for instance would probably never have legal gay marriage. There's also the issue of whether or not marriages performed in states that allow same-sex marriage should be recognized in those that don't.
I really don't think the republicans will go after this anytime soon. There are plenty of other issues that need to be address and there is no reason to move this to the front of the line.
The ruling was fundamentally flawed and must be overturned. Same with Roe. Both of these issues should be legislated by the states, which is what will happen when they are overturned.
Why?
If marriage was what it was back in the 1800s, I would agree with you, but it is a complex intermingling of taxable assets and it needed to be decided at the federal level.
I guess you could say that each state could have the choice to issue licenses that referred to marriages or civil unions if their religious citizens wanted to get technical about it, but denying the rights of homosexuals to enter unions that have tax, healthcare, and rights of survivors/estates implications is problematic.
You would also have to have states agreeing to recognize marriages from other states (again, due to taxes and financial/estate reasons, as well as guardianship of minor children and the infirm) and then, people who lived in judgmental states that wanted to call them civil unions instead of marriages would see their residents marrying in states that aren't all in everyone's business and returning home to their state that wants to call it a civil union to avoid riling the Bible thumpers and find out that they have to call those marriages marriages anyway.
So, why even mess with it? They are two adults, consenting, entering a partnership based (presumably) on love, attraction, and the mingling of assets... possibly the raising of children.
And, with all the other problems in the world, why try to create new ones over something that is intended to be loving and caring?
It just makes opponents look like hateful people.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Same-sex marriage affects such a tiny percentage of Americans that most people are simply not concerned with the issue.
The ruling should be left as is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.