Federal Judge Strikes Down Arizona's Ban on Gay Marriage (credit, schools)

[DetroitN8V]

Originally Posted by LordBalfor

It's not just government-related issues either. Things like car insurance rates are calculated based on marital status.

There are many implications.

Ken

True, good point.

[observer53]

Originally Posted by DetroitN8V

Religion is not an excuse to break the law.

It's been made very clear that individual pastors retain the right to decline to marry any couple. They always had that. This decision does NOT change that.

Good friends of mine were among the plaintiffs. I am so proud of them for stepping forward, and so happy for them, and everyone else affected as well.

[DetroitN8V]

Originally Posted by observer53

It's been made very clear that individual pastors retain the right to decline to marry any couple. They always had that. This decision does NOT change that.

Exactly. Religion is completely irrelevant in civil marriage. Not sure why it was brought up to begin with.

[okie1962]

Originally Posted by observer53

It's been made very clear that individual pastors retain the right to decline to marry any couple. They always had that. This decision does NOT change that.

Good friends of mine were among the plaintiffs. I am so proud of them for stepping forward, and so happy for them, and everyone else affected as well.

That is so cool! If you think about it, you got to witness first hand history being made, and your friends played a very important part in that history. Great day for Arizona, great day for USA!

[jamies]

Thanks again for the positive comments. Regarding the religious angle, speaking for myself I see no reason to force gay marriage on churches who don't support it. I am not a believer in diety, but there are legal and personal commitment aspects to marriage beyond the church ceremony.

HOWEVER, I do have problems with any business open to the public that discriminates against any group. There is NO difference from a civil rights stand point between saying, "No Colored Allowed," "No Guns," or "No cakes for gays."

It is all discrimination. Plain and simple. If you are open for business you need to be open for everyone.

[observer53]

Let's keep this thread on t he marriage issue, and keep the business discrimination issue for another thread- thanks.

[TheDragonslayer]

Originally Posted by DetroitN8V

Aside from the tax implication, you could argue that all other items could be handled by an attorney. I'm all for marriage equality while the government is in the marriage business, however, I would like to see them get out of it altogether.

You could argue it, but you would be wrong, barely more than 400 of those 1049 rights granted by the Federal government can be wrought through legal means and at a significantly higher cost then that of a marriage license. As is marriage works as well as those rights.

[KurtAZ]

Originally Posted by new2colo

People have a right to sue. Leave it up to the court to decide whether the lawsuit has merit. If some local business need to be forced to comply with anti discrimination laws, so be it. The days of quietly accepting discrimination are over.

Sexual Orientation is still not a protected class YET. I am sure that will change soon on the Federal Level but right now there are a patchwork of local ordinances dealing with it. Of course anyone has the right to sue...I was just trying to point out that actively pursuing a particular business that is owned by a bigot does nothing more than fire up the rest of them. We have enough problems in this country without creating more.

Again....congratulations to the couples that were finally able to legally seal their commitment to each other yesterday and in the future. Hopefully now we can all see people as just people and love them for who they are. Time to take off those Rainbow Shades, Arizona.

[swbrotha100]

Arizona is becoming more tolerant every day.

[Valley Native]

I've always said that if gays want to get married, they should be able to. Doesn't affect my life one way or the other, and really doesn't affect anybody else's for that matter. Here's my concern about this ruling: it goes against the will of the voters. Granted, there never really should have been propositions like these on the ballots stating what defines marriage and what doesn't. But hindsight is always 20/20 ... and the fact is that majority of the voters did pass the ban on same sex marriage in 2008 after defeating a similar measure in 2006 that went way too far.

For the record: I voted against the ban on same sex marriage in both '06 & '08 because I don't think the gov't has any business in marriage, and I don't care for laws that discriminate against certain groups of people. What I have a problem with is a judicial or legislative body overriding what the voters decided (even as wrong as the marriage ban was). If it was decided by the voters, then it should have been left up to the voters to overturn it.