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.
Reading some of the Scotus articles, sounds like it's not clear if they will legalize SSM. Sounds like Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Thomas are going to vote against it, and Kennedy isn't sure he wants to be the tie breaker to make such a monumental decision.
lol! You act as if same sex marriage doesn't exist today. I'm a man, married to a man - and no married couple living in the heterosexual lifestyle was forced to get a divorce So... what? You don't think gay people have suffered enough yet?
There is no such thing as homosexual "marriage". There never has been and there never will be, regardless of any law that may be passed saying otherwise. Likewise, if a law is passed stating that the moon is made of green cheese, that will not make that so either.
Reading some of the Scotus articles, sounds like it's not clear if they will legalize SSM. Sounds like Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Thomas are going to vote against it, and Kennedy isn't sure he wants to be the tie breaker to make such a monumental decision.
Not to create confusion but SSM has already been made legal at the Federal level. The upcoming ruling will be if it becomes legal at the state level in all 50 states. Most Federal marriage benefits are based and awarded on state of celebration regardless as to what state one resides in.
Also do not count out Roberts yet, some legal experts believe he may rule in favor based on sexual discrimination, which he raised at the hearing.
Actually there is in 37 States and numerous countries. Your disapproval of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Quote:
There never has been and there never will be, regardless of any law that may be passed saying otherwise. Likewise, if a law is passed stating that the moon is made of green cheese, that will not make that so either.
Same-sex marriage has existed in various cultures throughout history. It's not a new fad. You don't own an English word and have no right to tell other people how to live their lives.
How would regulate it? I have no clue. What I'm suggesting is one possible direction that the Supreme Court might go with things. They could choose to rule that States have the right to withhold the word "marriage" from official documentation of same-sex unions.
As to telling a gay couple that they cannot call their ceremony "a wedding" or their union "a marriage," I don't think any sane person thinks that's even remotely possible.
I don't think that the Supreme Court can do any better than that for religions. They can let states withhold the word "marriage" from official legal documents as long as gay couples gain all the same legal rights. It seems like a pointless victory for those wishing to defend the definition of marriage, but it is one direction I can see the Supreme Court ruling.
The issue if what gays call it outside of the law is basically the pc police argument that some people say we have. We can only control the language off the law. Traditional marriage is civil union under the law but yet we call it marriage based on religious significance over the years.
I think the courts will on fact rule in favor, it is 14th amendment issue that allows people to have equal protection under the law.
There is no such thing as homosexual "marriage". There never has been and there never will be, regardless of any law that may be passed saying otherwise. Likewise, if a law is passed stating that the moon is made of green cheese, that will not make that so either.
Correct . There is marriage, and same sex couples happen to take part in it.
Reading some of the Scotus articles, sounds like it's not clear if they will legalize SSM. Sounds like Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Thomas are going to vote against it, and Kennedy isn't sure he wants to be the tie breaker to make such a monumental decision.
I would say Roberts will likely vote for it. He left himself an out when he said that it might simple be a case of sex discrimination.
I disagree. The Federal Supreme Court has no business in this area. It is up to States. And...marriage is for man and woman. Same sex want to form a civil union...fine.
Ah yes, another right winger with the fantasy of the civil union. You do realize that only a small portion of states ever had them and several states banned gay couples from entering them correct? And yes it is for the SC to say because they decide on the constitutionality of issues.
Correct . There is marriage, and same sex couples happen to take part in it.
You're close. There is "marriage" and in some states, there is "gay marriage". That should satisfy everyone. I am anxious for the ruling and I still say they kick it back to the states based on what I have read about the history of decisions.
There are no "anti-gay" marriage laws. Marriage is between one man and one woman, gay marriage is between whatever else.
Nope. In my state, and 36 other states, and DC, and about 22 Native American Tribal Reservations Marriage is legal between same sex couples.
I agree. We don't need to redefine "marriage" since that is set in stone over the years, a union of one man and one woman.
You can "define" marriage any way you like. I "define" marriage differently than you. I cannot force you to accept my beliefs and you cannot force me to accept yours. However all that matters to these couples is if the US government recognizes their relationship. That's all.
No, the agenda (The homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media) will continue by trying to force Christians to participate in any way they can. It is a given. Homosexuals want to drag others into their web of sin in order to feel better about the choices they are making.
"Mass Resistance" - an extremist right wing guy with maybe 5 followers and a web site ... that's who you reference? Sheesh! Pathetic!
Sensationalism. No minister was EVER arrested for refusing to marry a same sex couple.
Totally different. No one was trying to redefine what marriage was. And interracial couple, one man and one woman.
When women were enfranchised in 1920, the words "vote" and "voter" were not "redefined." To right to vote was given to more people. Thats all.
Trying to force Christian ministers to perform their ceremonies? Yes. Attend their "gay" marriage and take photos, set up flowers and bake a an anatomically incorrect couple on the top.
Many Christian churches are okay will same sex marriage. Jewish synagogues too.
Equal rights? Marriage is open to every couple that meets the age requirement and are comprised of one man and one woman. That is equal as that is what marriage is. Equal rights? When you look at what other individuals and groups went through this "gay" thing is a joke!
Gay and Lesbian couples can legally marry in 37 states and DC already. You know that, right???
...
... Just my two cents.
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.
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.
So... what? You don't think gay people have suffered enough yet?
