541–550 of 1001 posts
Can we finally stop calling it "gay marriage" and "traditional marriage" and just call it "marriage" now? good job USA I'm glad you are finally catching up to the rest of the developed world.
No, because there is an objective difference. One pairing tends to procreate, the other cannot. The state has an objective interest in facilitating one over the other.
A sad day for our country, our highest court and much of our culture has succumbed to social insanity. For my part, I will never under any circumstances recognize by word or deed that any so-called marriage can be or has been established between two persons of the same sex. No government on earth has the power or authority to do that, anymore than a legislature could repeal the law of gravity or a judge could declare…
Well, I know I'm probably a minority in saying this, but I'm disappointed - not because I don't think everyone should have access to the government rights attached to marriage, but because it seems our country doesn't actually want to fix problems at the root. What is the root problem? People on both sides of the debate agree (if given the option) that the government probably never should have messed with marriage, a…
If we want government out of marriage, it'd have to be done through Congress and a reformed tax code.
Well, I know I'm probably a minority in saying this, but I'm disappointed - not because I don't think everyone should have access to the government rights attached to marriage, but because it seems our country doesn't actually want to fix problems at the root. What is the root problem? People on both sides of the debate agree (if given the option) that the government probably never should have messed with marriage, a…
I have a question about this. I'm not saying I feel this way, but does this mean that religions that are opposed to gay marriage have to perform marriages for people who are gay? I.E. Catholics? The only reason I ask is because many Catholics I know say this is basically her argument against gay marriage. They don't always care about civil unions (some do) as long as it doesn't affect their church.
The Catholic Church can already deny anyone a church/religious ceremony. Suppose I'm a Catholic and was married within the Church and later divorced. If I don't receive an annulment, the Church will not allow me to remarry within the Church. I can still go elsewhere, but the Church will not perform the marriage or acknowledge it as valid (a later annulment can get the Church to change its stance on this marriage).
Similarly, the Church (in the US) typically requires 6 months of marriage preparation. If you refuse to go through it, they will deny you a marriage within the Church (a friend of mine went through this last year, they were impatient and couldn't wait the extra 4 months apparently).
With regards to same-sex marriage, the Church's stance will not change (certainly not in our lifetimes), they'll continue to view same-sex relationships as sinful. Consequently they cannot, from their perspective, sanctify a marriage of that sort. This is not, fundamentally, different from the other reasons they use to deny people a Church marriage.
Edit: Regarding your second paragraph, yeah, I hear that a lot. But they're ignoring the cases where the Church already denies marriages. I already had this discussion with a coworker who happens to be a Catholic deacon this morning. It's frustrating that so many Catholics (and others) don't realize that they've already got the freedom to deny anyone access to the sacraments. I can be refused communion by a priest if he knows that I'm an (unrepentant) philanderer or drug dealer or murderer or that I've been excommunicated by a bishop. They are not obligated to perform baptisms just because someone asks if those asking aren't willing to go through the steps and agree to the things the Church requires. They won't ordain me just because I walk up to a bishop in a cathedral and ask to be ordained. A church marriage is a similar sacrament that the Church has laid out requirements for, and refusing to comply with those means you won't get married in the Church.
Well, I know I'm probably a minority in saying this, but I'm disappointed - not because I don't think everyone should have access to the government rights attached to marriage, but because it seems our country doesn't actually want to fix problems at the root. What is the root problem? People on both sides of the debate agree (if given the option) that the government probably never should have messed with marriage, a…
I have a question about this. I'm not saying I feel this way, but does this mean that religions that are opposed to gay marriage have to perform marriages for people who are gay? I.E. Catholics? The only reason I ask is because many Catholics I know say this is basically her argument against gay marriage. They don't always care about civil unions (some do) as long as it doesn't affect their church.
Well, I know I'm probably a minority in saying this, but I'm disappointed - not because I don't think everyone should have access to the government rights attached to marriage, but because it seems our country doesn't actually want to fix problems at the root. What is the root problem? People on both sides of the debate agree (if given the option) that the government probably never should have messed with marriage, a…
I have a question about this. I'm not saying I feel this way, but does this mean that religions that are opposed to gay marriage have to perform marriages for people who are gay? I.E. Catholics? The only reason I ask is because many Catholics I know say this is basically her argument against gay marriage. They don't always care about civil unions (some do) as long as it doesn't affect their church.
But just in case, the majority did insert language making clear that this is about what the government can and can't do, not about what religions can and can't do:
Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing samesex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, but as a lawyer totally in favor of gay marriage, Roberts, at least, is completely right on the legal theory. There has been basically nothing, in the history of our country, considered more of a state right than defining marriage. The supreme court is not a ruling council. Our constitution is about freedom from government intervention, not guaranteed government benefits. The debates over everything in the pas…
As a lawyer, could you explain how denying over 1,000 federal marriage benefits to same-sex couples would be offering them equal protection under the law?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are quite a lot of people who argued that changing the definition of marriage was an infringement of their religious rights. I've never been clear on how that was supposed to happen but maybe you can dig it out of the oral arguments.
I am one of those religious types - if I may give you me reasoning or at least my ideas: The immediate difficulty comes when we as religious citizens have trouble with separating what is civilly permissible with what is a religious ideal. Long term, religious people are worried that our institution and faith will not be allowed to continue if a super-majority deems us unworthy - as we have seen through history. As fo…
> Long term, religious people are worried that our institution and faith will not be allowed to continue if a super-majority deems us unworthy - as we have seen through history.
A sincere question: I can see that risk for small religious minorities facing a history of discrimtination (e.g., Jews and Muslims). But most people talking about this are white-skinned Protestants and Catholics. Have they ever been subject to discrimination in the U.S.? And aren't they the most powerful political grouping in the country?
There was discrimination against Catholics in prior generations, but I don't see that now (just look at the Supreme Court!).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm glad you are finally catching up to the rest of the developed world. Call us when one of you elects a black head of state.
To be fair, the response you're going to get there is: how about when the US elects a woman as head of state.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm glad that my LBG friends can now marry anywhere. But damn, Scalia's counter opinion (and Roberts' opinion) strike me as well-considered and well-argued in the 2nd half of http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf . In brief, their view was that resolving this issue in the courts erodes the democratic process. Can anybody counter Scalia, and say why the issue of gay marriage couldn't wait to be re…
Scalia's argument isn't that marriage equality is an issue for the states. It that it's an issue for the legislature ; that is, that the people should decide on it, rather than an interpretation of our secular scripture. It's helpful to remember that the balance of powers were carefully designed, with an overarching purpose of not centralizing power into a monarchy or aristocracy. We are by design not a nation govern…
So, I think it is incorrect to say that today's decision takes the matter of same-sex marriage out of the hands of the people, or the hands of the states. Rather, it raises the bar that a government process must meet in order to discrimate by gender when recognizing a marriage.