US Supreme Court to Take on Gay Marriage

a reply to: Edumakated
Who cares if polygamy is legalized? If some guy is insane enough to take on 10 wives, what do you care? And why should I care? I don't see why that would bother anyone that thinks gays should be able to marry....

Having followed this issue with interest the following thing can be stated:

The US Supreme court was going to take up this case, the signs were there. Even confirmed when Justice Ginsburg was asked about it she did not answer stating she could not give an answer, that was a clear indication that the justices had already decided to take up the case.

Now having read the posting and the arguments tend to run the same here is how to set those arguments straight.

The issue of Polygamy, that is not at stake, and this case will not grant it being legal at this time frame. The reason why is that the issue of polygamy was asked, debated on and went through the courts already. In the 1850’s there was a Supreme court case where that very issue was discussed and the court at the time decided it was not permissible or allowable under the laws of the United States, further to complicate the matter, is the number of criminal laws in the United States and the individual states, that make such acts a crime. Thus that the polygamy issue is far more complicated and will take more work for it to be accepted.

The current case, the one that the US Supreme court, is taking up, has more on the constitutional issue. There are 2 questions that it will seek to answer. The first question: Whether states must recognize same sex marriages that take place out of state. This would be a constitutional issue, as a marriage, but all accounts in this day and age, is a legal contract between 2 consenting adults. If a state does not recognize such, then they could use said justification to deny the recognition of marriages from other states, or even looking at where there is interstate contracts, and say what is and is not going to be acceptable.
The second question is: How much will the government be involved in marriages. This too will have far reaching implications for the country. If the government can deny marriage to one group, as it is what would be abhorrent or not considered valid to the majority, could it then be followed that marriages from other countries, could those be denied, or say those that are not done with the mainstream religions, could the government deny those or not recognize such?

The court is going to want to look at legal justifications for all of its rulings, not those based on religious or moral arguments. They do not hold much weight, and often those cases where such have been used, have gone against those making the arguments. Ultimately the question that is on every ones mind, that has not been answered is this: How can 2 men getting married affect the marriage of their neighbor that is an opposite sex marriage, if they do not inhabit the same house, and have no effect on what all goes on in the others house?

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: Edumakated
Who cares if polygamy is legalized? If some guy is insane enough to take on 10 wives, what do you care? And why should I care? I don't see why that would bother anyone that thinks gays should be able to marry....

Yes!!!

Support it. I'm so going to turn it into a cash cow with potential green card seekers. But what polygamy has to do with gay marriage is beyond me. I'll marry men and women both for right price with the polygamy thing, though.

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: Edumakated
Who cares if polygamy is legalized? If some guy is insane enough to take on 10 wives, what do you care? And why should I care? I don't see why that would bot her anyone that thinks gays should be able to marry....

Polygamy wouldn't bother me one bit. I don't think I'd want another wife though. One is a big enough challenge as it is....

My only concern, If they rule in favor of it, does this mean that churches will be forced to perform these weddings just as the government has forced the baker and florist or will they still have their choice to not perform them?

a reply to: mugger
Churches will not be forced to perform any ceremony that they choose not to. The courts have ruled time and time again, that if it is a for-profit business it can not legally discriminate at any time for any reason. If it is a non profit organization and classified as a church, then the minister is in charge and is covered by federal law. In the federal laws of the United states, is what they call the Ministerial exception. In that, the minister can discriminate and be protected legally. So that means a minister can choose not to hire a person of someone of a particular skin color, or refuse to hold services for any reason. Or say a church not having a female minister, or in a position of authority.

Ultimately, the way it will work, is that a church minister will have to decide if he or she is going to perform a marriage or not, or any ceremony at all, and there is no legal justification to force them to do such.

originally posted by: mugger
My only concern, If they rule in favor of it, does this mean that churches will be forced to perform these weddings just as the government has forced the baker and florist or will they still have their choice to not perform them?

No. Churches are private organizations, they are not public accommodations. The discrimination laws don't apply to them. They can legally turn away anyone they want.

This will go 5 to 4 and the Key is one of the most powerful person in the country Justice Kennedy.

He will vote for the legalization of gay marriage and it will win 5 to 4

You could bet on it

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: TheArrow

Yep, they are pretty much using the same playbook here.

So I've been following this for years, as most know.

There is something I believe is called "social majority". That the majority of people must be supportive of a change in society before it will be made law of the land.

I know I've read about this. I think it was in regards to the Civil Rights Act.

Is there someone here more knowledgeable about this?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
As far as I'm concerned people have the right to choose who their life partner will be. A woman can marry a woman and a man can marry a man, it's none of my business. The government need to pack up, shut up, and move on from this.

We give governments far too much power within our community.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Excellent post! Everyone should read it.

originally posted by: mugger
My only concern, If they rule in favor of it, does this mean that churches will be forced to perform these weddings just as the government has forced the baker and florist or will they still have their choice to not perform them?

This has nothing to do with church weddings or religion. So, no. There's no indication that any church will have to perform ANY weddings they disapprove of. The government is not in the habit of telling churches what to do. And that's how it should be. No church should ever have to perform a wedding that they disagree with.

I'm glad that THIS FOOLISHNESS is coming to an end. God created the ORDINANCE OF MARRIAGE (Between one man and one woman) and he is going to have the LAST WORD concerning it. Read Isaiah 24 if you dare. All I see there is burnt to a crisp...

a reply to: Yule C Mann

Marriage has existed in countless cultures with no connection to or relation to Christianity. So do everyone's culture and people who've existed anywhere that has and had marriage a favor and come down to the real world with the rest of us. So sick of marriage is a religious institution of God crap when that's is completely, totally, and blatantly bullcrap, with the entire world and peoples as evidence of such.

Since marriage has and always has existed in other cultural beliefs besides Christianity, and we exist in a country with separation of church and state, I still do not fathom how the religion and marriage argument can gain any traction what so ever.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: TheArrow

Yep, they are pretty much using the same playbook here.

So I've been following this for years, as most know.

There is something I believe is called "social majority". That the majority of people must be supportive of a change in society before it will be made law of the land.

I know I've read about this. I think it was in regards to the Civil Rights Act.

Is there someone here more knowledgeable about this?

I think you're right. I remember reading about the Supreme Court ruling on interracial marriage. Something about how the S.C. waits to see what the general trend is regarding the population's attitude before they rule.

If the Supreme Court Legalized Gay Marriage, How will Evangelicals Respond?

It will be 36 states on Tuesday that have marriage equality.

Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, has this to say.

If the court were to “redefine marriage,” Moore said Christians should “be ready to offer an alternative vision of marriage and family” that doesn’t include same-sex unions. Interestingly, his vision would be promoted primarily within the church rather than changing laws through political action.

I think that's the next step and I support it 100%. Legal marriage is a secular institution and if religions want something separate from that, they definitely should develop it, define it and own it. But legal marriage does not belong to the church.

“Christians are increasingly saying that they need to stand up for LGBT equality no matter what they believe theologically,” he said, “and they are doing this not because they are American, but because they are followers of Christ.”

I find that very hopeful.

“There is a distinction between Christian marriage in the eyes of God and civil marriage in the eyes of the state,” Lee said. “My hope is that Christians will continue to see that what the state says marriage is may not line up with what the church or God says.”

And that's the crux of it, IMO. I don't think it's necessary for the church to come up with a new word, but if everyone could realize that we live in a nation of secular law, and that NO ONE owns the word marriage, we can each have our marriages and let them represent us as individual couples. My marriage is very different from many people's, but I am still legally married. We can all be legally married and all use whatever criteria we want to define our marriages. There's no reason to be selfish or possessive about it.

While there is hope, there is also discouragement, as some lawmakers are deciding to try to push the limits and boundaries of their authority and seek to do what the Nazi’s and soviets did so long ago. News that I am reading, is both good and bad, they are crafting and creating laws, to both suppress and in short discriminate against those in the LGBT communities, all in different states, to prevent same sex marriages, to the point where it will soon be that a person who is a member of the LGBT community will have to choose between living where they want and having very little rights, or living where they do not want, and having rights. What is even further and more sad is that the citizens of those states will ultimately pay the final price from all court costs and decisions that come against them.

The saddest testament to this day and age, with all of the history that has gone on before, with all of the rhetoric and ultimately the fighting, and the people who use religion, is that they are not only ignoring history, but also using religion as a weapon, picking and choosing the passages that they would use to justify their belief, that something is abhorrent is evil and wrong, all cause some old dusty tome that they place their belief in says so. They use fear and ignorance to guide them, and split families and divide society. I have read where at least 4 to 5 different lawmakers are trying to pass laws where it may be legal, but the state will in short forbid those employees from doing such, even to the point of firing them from their jobs, or not allowing people the means to challenge in a court of law. And they do such all in fear. I don’t know what is worse, those who do such, or those who would vote for said persons, knowing that the very laws that they pass today can be used against them tomorrow.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Will be interesting to see the outcome.

I was so happy when I first read this yesterday - was reading some amazing comments on a news site out there...was a very genuine buzz going on

But, then I realized - what if?

Happy - nervous - afraid. This SCOTUS has broke my heart before

But, I want to believe :-)

Seems like an obvious decision should be made. So, like you said - will be interesting. And then some

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

There is Covenant Marriage: covenantmarriage.com...

Covenant marriage is all about offering my best to God in my marriage for His glory. God is calling those of us who call ourselves “Believers” to a higher standard of living for Him in our marriages. If I am not giving my best to God first, I cannot give my best to my wife or husband. To give our best for His glory requires unrelenting determination. Such determination is a matter of the will, not one of debate or reasoning but absolute and irrevocable surrender of my will to God.

Mike Huckabee: States Can Ignore Supreme Court on Gay Marriage

Huckabee, a conservative evangelical and potential 2016 presidential candidate, said a Supreme Court ruling, expected this year, would ultimately be moot because "one branch of government does not overrule the other two."
...
A ruling from the high court, however, would not "make law," but rather would invalidate existing bans on gay marriage as unconstitutional.

Technically, he's correct. A SC ruling doesn't "make law", but sets precedence for future cases. So. what's the difference? What's Mike trying to say? If the ruling invalidates states bans on gay marriage, then states can't ban gay marriage. Therefore, gay marriage would be legal. How can states ignore the SC? How does that make the ruling "moot"???

What am I missing here?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I'm not sure how that works, but I just read that someone in Texas proposed a bill that would withhold salaries for any govt employee who issued a same-sex marriage license (even if SC did end up overruling the ban on gay marriage). The bill is set up to stop anyone from challenging it.

The bill also requires state courts to dismiss legal actions that challenge a provision of the bill and award legal costs and attorney fees to the defendants. Citing the 11th Amendment, which gives states sovereign immunity, the bill also says the state isn’t subject to a lawsuit for complying with the act — regardless of a contradictory federal ruling.

www.governing.com...

Unbelievable. I just don't see how a bill like that could actually pass.