Did the LGBT community pick the wrong fight.

If we're talking about religious morality and law, I'm just going to leave a little George Carlin right here.

Datsun1500 wrote:

jj wrote: People have the ability to choose what they want to believe in. The laws usually reflect the majority since this is a free country with elected officials.

So the majority has spoken and decided that they don't believe what you believe. They have not "attacked" Christianity, or told you what to believe in. The majority believes different from you, they have not changed the law so you can't practice your belief, they changed it so they can practice theirs.

The "majority" didn't speak in this case. The courts did. The votes in the states rather plainly show that the majority still do not agree with gay marriage. That is why the LGBT took it to court, they could not win in the legislature because they didn't have the votes.

Which was again the entire point of this thread. Why does the government have any say in who a person can or can not marry? Why did we not fight to take that power away from them all together?

The first time gay marriage will come up against the 1st amendment will not be a couple seeking to get married in the church.

It will be an existing employee of the church coming out of the closet (because marriage is legal now and he/she wants it).

The church will be stuck with the decision of whether or not to maintain their employment.

If they keep them, they are violating their conscious, and religious rights. If they let them go, they will be discriminating.

Off they go to SCOTUS.

alfadriver wrote: As far as I can tell, Duke asked why polygamy is not legal- that I don't know. What more do you want? It's not related to gay marriage in that someone who wants to enter into polygamy can't use the 14th amendment that the law is unequally applied to them.

Well, apparently, you disagree with Chief Justice John Roberts.

Plural marriage is related to the gay marriage ruling because Roberts specifically wrote it into the dissent.

John Roberts said: Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one. It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.

The majority did not speak.

5 lawyers did.

In fact, it could easily be argued that only 1 lawyer did, since it was a 5-4 decision. If 1 lawyer had said otherwise, the ruling would have gone the other way.

The Supreme Court stepped in and PREVENTED both the legislators and the voters to speak.

In reply to Datsun1500:

Business as usual. Except light bulbs and pictures have a prism light all over them all of a sudden.

In reply to SVreX:

Our system of government requires those five lawyers to determine the constitutionality of laws applied in these lands. It sounds dramatic to say five lawyers but it has always been the way.

The majority stated that this was an issue of equal protection and it is their job to determine that. The whole plural marriage, beastiLity slippery slop arguments are baffling. Is there any state that allows you to have 2 or more wives or husbands? Any that allow you to marry your dog? No? When such laws are inacted we can have a different argument. This case was about the inability of gays to marry based upon which state they were in, thus a very simple example of unequal protection provided to the group.

SVreX wrote: The majority did not speak. 5 lawyers did. In fact, it could easily be argued that only 1 lawyer did, since it was a 5-4 decision. If 1 lawyer had said otherwise, the ruling would have gone the other way. The Supreme Court stepped in and PREVENTED both the legislators and the voters to speak.

I just saw an interview where this guy disagrees with you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Olson

His explanation covered the court's role when deciding on a Constitutional issue and a legislative issue. His opinion is that SCOTUS got it right on same-sex marriage and didn't on the PPACA and that the Chief Justice made the wrong ruling on both issues.

mattm wrote: ...Is there any state that allows you to have 2 or more wives or husbands? Any that allow you to marry your dog? No? When such laws are inacted we can have a different argument...

Again, remember, this is a LEGAL issue not an emotional or sexual one. It's government given rights, and rights involving the other person issue.

Is it such a huge deal if someone want multiple people have access to their SS benefits when they die (etc.)? Maybe it is. Maybe it would cause a huge CF of paperwork / conflicts. Then it would be reasonable to restrict it. Does it make sense to give your dog access?

Marriage, in a legal / government sense, does not really have anything to do with peoples naughty bits. In any case, when dogs etc are mentioned, most states have pretty clear laws about them and your naughty bits if that is what is worried about!

You can make marriage about whatever you want in your head, but for the government it's just a list of rights.

Datsun1500 wrote: Those 5 lawyers said our laws are not based on the rules that one certain "man in the sky" says is right or wrong. How is this an "attack on Christianity" when it's basically saying the laws should not be based on any religion? When the laws follow your belief system, they're good laws, but when they don't, they're not? I'm not actually in the U.S. at the moment, has it collapsed because of all the gays getting their way, or is it business as usual?

No, all is good here. A certain group of people now have equal rights under the law. Regardless of what religion you chose to believe in, your neighbors have equal rights as every human should.

I haven't heard any sane people say it's an attack on Christianity. Only old narrow-minded folks who can't deal with any change.

Toyman01 wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote:

jj wrote: People have the ability to choose what they want to believe in. The laws usually reflect the majority since this is a free country with elected officials.

So the majority has spoken and decided that they don't believe what you believe. They have not "attacked" Christianity, or told you what to believe in. The majority believes different from you, they have not changed the law so you can't practice your belief, they changed it so they can practice theirs.

The "majority" didn't speak in this case. The courts did. The votes in the states rather plainly show that the majority still do not agree with gay marriage. That is why the LGBT took it to court, they could not win in the legislature because they didn't have the votes. Which was again the entire point of this thread. Why does the government have any say in who a person can or can not marry? Why did we not fight to take that power away from them all together?

While I know that Wikipedia is never the best bastion of facts.. this correlates with a lot I have read elsewhere.

Polls in 2015[edit]

A February 12–15, 2015 CNN/ORC poll found that 63% of Americans believe same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, while 36% oppose.[16]

In reply to mad_machine:

Media poll results are suspect at best. I could skew the results in my area just by asking the same question in different parts of town.

Just about every state that put it to a vote, denied same sex marriage.

Here is a list of 31 states that instituted constitutional amendments against gay marriage and the percentages of voters that supported it. It also lists the case that ruled them unconstitutional. Several of the states were over 80% against gay marriage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_constitutional_amendments_banning_same-sex_unions_by_type

yes and no.. look at the states that voted yes to Gay Marriage.. they are some of the most heavily populated states. Just like in voting for president, the North East, which is predominantly for Gay Marriage, also is a big deciding factor in nationwide voting while the vastly empty states in the middle do not count as much

In reply to mad_machine:

Yes and no. That's not the way it works.

Every state has 2 Senators, regardless of population. It's a check and balance designed to prevent people in small populous areas from imposing their will on other less populous states.

That is, of course, assuming we USE the legislative process.

Wally wrote: In reply to Mitchell: There are also quite a few who will take a church to court because they found a beautiful little church that would be perfect for their pictures but the bigoted pastor wouldn't marry them. I have a relative that wanted to get married in a particular church years ago and the pastor at first denied them because they were not members of the church or the religion. Then when she sued they performed the service because they feared they didn't have much money for court.

Proof positive that douchebags existed long before the ruling.

Toyman01 wrote: In reply to Datsun1500: If you aren't a Christian, he doesn't. Kind of like if Russia tells its citizens to paint their faces purple, we don't have to. But, when this country was founded, it was a Christian country...

Absolutely, positively, unequivocally NOT.

Chris_V wrote: Just like the "under God" part of the Pledge Of Allegiance was added in the 1920s, modern Christians in American have forgotten what this country was really about and have tried to take it over as their own.

It was actually added during the McCarthy-era 1950s in order to flush out more of them Godless commies. But the point stands.

SVreX wrote: The majority did not speak. 5 lawyers did. In fact, it could easily be argued that only 1 lawyer did, since it was a 5-4 decision. If 1 lawyer had said otherwise, the ruling would have gone the other way. The Supreme Court stepped in and PREVENTED both the legislators and the voters to speak.

The majority cannot vote away the rights of the minority.

Duke wrote:

SVreX wrote: The majority did not speak. 5 lawyers did. In fact, it could easily be argued that only 1 lawyer did, since it was a 5-4 decision. If 1 lawyer had said otherwise, the ruling would have gone the other way. The Supreme Court stepped in and PREVENTED both the legislators and the voters to speak.

The majority *cannot* vote away the rights of the minority.

Yeah, it's almost like a system of checks and balances. The minority is supposed to be protected from the tyranny of the majority.

alfadriver wrote:

Fletch1 wrote: It's not about service. Any one should be served and treated with repect. It is more to do with a marriage ceremony for religous people I think. And no, it's not just fear, but really happening. The SC will have to rule on the 1st Amendment to make it fair for all people.

Examples? Churches can already deny a couple to get married in their church. Heck, for ME to get married in a Catholic Church, I was forced to take classes. If I didn't do that, they would say no, because I'm not Catholic. That doesn't change today, and probably never will. While it's possible that a Presbyterian to a Baptist could get married in a Muslim Mosque, I doubt the mosque would let it happen. Just like atheists have no church to get married in.

A friend, whose parents were Catholic , married a protestant woman in her church. His mother threatened to disown him unless he got married in her church. He gave in, went through all the necc. stuff. Even had to pay "costs".

I am agnostic. I personally do not like same sex coupling, marriage etc.

However, it is their personal decision and I have no say .

When the Pledge of allegiance comes up, I just don't say the "under god" part.

Live and let live is my motto

http://m.snopes.com/rainbow-registry/

This prank snopes references actually almost made up for the massive amount of LGBT supporters/haters that caused me to really dislike social media over the weekend.

Well played pranksters, well played.

Senate Bill 377 from Sen. Greg Albritton, R-Range, would end the requirement that couples obtain marriage licenses from probate judges. Instead, marriages would be a legal contract, witnessed by a clergy member, attorney or notary public, and filed with the state through the probate office.

Not sure I follow the intent here. Are they saying they want to remove / avoid all marriage rights that could not be written into a normal contract? That might cause some backlash.

Why would a clergy member be considered a witness on the level of a lawyer or notary? That's just weird. Can you have a trusted friend (which is where a clergy would fall legally) witness a legal contract and make it legal? Nothing against clergy, but their standing as legal representatives should not be any different then anyone else.

the key point to all this.. Nobody's rights were taken away.. but some people legally got theirs back. What is the big deal?

i believe the intent is to remove the authority of the government to dictate to a religious body what constitutes a marriage.

that removes the 14th amendment's application if its purely a private party arrangement that everyone already has access to.

in essence; civil unions. its just that ones done by clergy would more qualifyingly be titled marriage to go with the spiritual implications of the institution, i'm guessing is the intent...