Supreme Court extends same-sex marriage nationwide

a reply to: xuenchen

Thanks Dear xuenchen,

I just only want to add that about a month a go, in another thread in the religion forum, while analizing the reaction of the American Catholic Cardinal , Raymond Leo Burke, about the referendum in Ireland legalizing the same gender unions, I recalled my original prediction of 2008, but moreover also I pointed that he might be possibly well intended by dramatically wrong in some of his extremely judgmental statements and that the Holy see will not back up him in all of them.

You can read it at:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

States no longer issue marriage licenses. There done.

Done by religious organizations.

Taxation is for individuals only, no married exemption.

originally posted by: JohnFisher
Interracial marriage is not against biblical principles, and the churches largely fixed the apostisy within the church thereby mitigating any infringements that might have otherwise come to pass. There is however clear and concise teachings about homosexuality and what marriage is.

Biblical teachings don't matter in the rule of law. You are free to have your beliefs, but the LAW does not follow them. The law follows the Constitution.

Loving v. Virginia ruled the same as today's ruling - that a ban on interracial or same-sex marriage violated the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of 14th amendment.

Gay marriage is now legal, nationwide... Nope, I still don't care. I'm trying not to be apathetic, but I can't get myself to give a rat's hairy ass.

Though I will never agree with the lifestyle choice, letting them get married didn't bother me at all. In today's society, marriage is just another thing you do if you feel like it, and get rid of, when you're done with it (though you get to lose half your stuff in the process, usually).

Congratulations, gay folks. Welcome to the supposed to be permanent, but usually temporary, completely breakable contractual arrangement sometimes called marital bliss.

a reply to: ProfessorChaos

That's awesome!

Please consider - if I had a choice, I would have chosen to have the acceptance of my mom than to have been born gay and losing out on that acceptance. I really do not have a choice as to whether or not I'm gay. Mom and I have made progress, but I think she, like you, seem to think it's a "lifestyle choice", when it is not.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: JohnFisher
Interracial marriage is not against biblical principles, and the churches largely fixed the apostisy within the church thereby mitigating any infringements that might have otherwise come to pass. There is however clear and concise teachings about homosexuality and what marriage is.

Biblical teachings don't matter in the rule of law. You are free to have your beliefs, but the LAW does not follow them. The law follows the Constitution.

Loving v. Virginia ruled the same as today's ruling - that a ban on interracial or same-sex marriage violated the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of 14th amendment.

I think you're missing the point of our back-n-forth, but yes, laws are not to support or infringe upon religious doctrines. You are correct.

a reply to: JohnFisher

The point is that the Constitution protects churches ( with the 1st amendment), just like it protects minorities (with the 14th amendment). Your fears, therefore, are ungrounded.

a reply to: raedar

Well, you and I will have to agree to disagree regarding the choice vs. no choice argument (I don't want to derail the thread), but I think it's a shame that your mother wouldn't accept you because of your lifestyle.

I have 3 sons, and if one (or all 3) of them came out to me, I would not hide my disagreement with their orientation, nor would I ever consider it natural, but I would never disown them, or cut them out of my life as my son. Most likely, it would just become something we didn't discuss with each other.

With one of my sons, the 21 year old, I tend to disapprove of his girlfriends (he has pretty poor taste in the fairer sex, in my opinion), as well as several other life choices he's made, but he's still my son, and that will never change.

With my 16 year old, there's a sticking point between he and I regarding his desire to sign up for the Marines when he's 17. His mother is going to sign off on it, but I refused to, and that upset him, but I feel that he hasn't explored any other paths, and is taking the one in which someone else (of questionable scruples, no doubt) will make the decisions for him. I love him, but I won't make it easier for him to do something I disagree with; he can let his mother (my ex-wife) do that for him. No matter what he chooses to do, he'll always be my son, and I will always love him.

You can call it love but it is nothing more than a superficial physical attraction. True love grows past that. There is no gay love greater than the sacred love between a man and woman. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah.

a reply to: HAZE3

Bollocks.

The divorce rates proves that a load of poppycock right off the bat.
True love ha.
Also that's low fecking real low attempting to say someone elses love isn't as good as yours?.
Disgusting.

a reply to: HAZE3

You mean like these two?

Two men who have been together more than five decades were the first to get a license and be married in Dallas County Friday following a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling on equality that allows same-sex couples in all states to get married.

Jack Evans, 85, and George Harris, 82, who have been together for 54 years, received their license Friday and were married by a member of their church, Judge Dennise Garcia.

www.nbcdfw.com...

Yeah right, it's just physical attraction. No true love there.

originally posted by: tkwasny
States no longer issue marriage licenses. There done.

Done by religious organizations.

Taxation is for individuals only, no married exemption.

Ergo, religious officials officiating only? Pfft. Kindly bite my ass. I don't need clergy to tell me my marriage is valid. Please, keep the bible amongst thumpers, would ya?

So Bobby Jindal Louisiana is refusing the USSC decision.

originally posted by: Annee
So Bobby Jindal Louisiana is refusing the USSC decision.

No surprise there.

originally posted by: tkwasny
States no longer issue marriage licenses. There done.

Done by religious organizations.

Taxation is for individuals only, no married exemption.

So you're SO opposed to gay people being happy, that you'll remove the benefits of marriage from hundreds of millions of people?

Yep, I'd say your priorities are in order.

I had to step out to walk around WeHo.. i'm Back!

originally posted by: Annee
So Bobby Jindal Louisiana is refusing the USSC decision.

Send in the Gay army!!

a reply to: Darth_Prime

Bet you are well chuffed dude
I bet your posts and many other gay folks on ATS have changed many minds

Good on you!.

The only problem is that hetero-marriage has never been a right covered by the constitution

But today gay-marriage is now a right coveredby the constitution. While hetro-marriage is still not a right covered by the constitution

a reply to: boymonkey74

I always approach it with showing Humility, not to try and "force" someone to change their mind, but to show them another way, that we are still Human and Bigotry is ignorance.... hopefully i've helped somewhat!

Thank you and everyone who has supported Freedom and Equality!