If the SCOTUS decides to legalize gay marriage, will the states secede?

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: grandmakdw
Personally I think we should do away with the government being involved at all in marriage.

*snip*

The government should be out of marriage altogether.

The Churches are then free to perform religious ceremonies as they wish that have no legal binding, and therefore be able to choose freely what ceremonies they will or won't perform.

Well that's one way to separate the church from the state.

I noticed though that "The Churches are then free...." Another way to bring an outdated tenet into 21st century society?

No a way for Churches to get back some of their freedom from state interference;
and vice versa to make you happy.

What? Freedom for Churches? I'm pretty sure that isn't in the Constitution.... no matter how many wish it was.

Ever heard the phrase
Freedom OF religion
I believe that is in the constitution, meaning churches and people of faith are to be free to practice their faith, their religion without state interference.

You've got to be kidding. Look at the Constitution. It's built to disallow interference. That would include religious institutions. They were saying, "All your religions are OK, not to be used as a means to govern though."

Look, marriage was never supposed to be a state institution, it was always a religious one. Up until recently when the governments felt compelled to make it a state matter.

I am simply suggesting we go back to, let the Church define marriage the way they want.

Take the state equation out of it altogether, and make unions strictly contractual arrangements, which is how the state should operate.

Then anyone, can have any type of ceremony they want to, gay, with their dog, with 5 people, whatever, and call the ceremony marriage if they want to.

The church can also be free to define their ceremony the way they want to, be it between man and woman only, or if the church chooses between gays or whatever. But the church should be allowed without compunction to define marriage the way they want to for their church without state interference.

If Scotus votes to redefine marriage then churches can be sued and forced to close for not performing gay marriages, because the state would deem it discrimination.

So why not take the drama out of it, there is no reason for the state to endorse marriage of any kind, the state should only care about contracts between whomever and for whatever reason.

Once SCOTUS says marriage is defined as people who decide to marry, regardless of who the people are, then churches can and will be sued by the LGBT for not allowing gay weddings in their sanctuaries; and pastors can and will be sued by LGBT for refusing to perform them.

There is no need for that to happen, SCOTUS should actually rule that the government should have zero say in what is or is not a marriage and rule that all future unions can be contractual unions, but will no longer be defined as marriage by the state. With all previous marriages grandfathered since the state did contract those unions and called them marriage.

originally posted by: intrepid


You've got to be kidding. Look at the Constitution. It's built to disallow interference. That would include religious institutions. They were saying, "All your religions are OK, not to be used as a means to govern though."

1st Amendment to the Constitution;

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Pretty clear to me.

Thanks Answer, beat me to it!

originally posted by: retiredTxn

originally posted by: intrepid


You've got to be kidding. Look at the Constitution. It's built to disallow interference. That would include religious institutions. They were saying, "All your religions are OK, not to be used as a means to govern though."

1st Amendment to the Constitution;

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Pretty clear to me.

Exactly. That applies to ALL American citizens.

originally posted by: grandmakdw

If Scotus votes to redefine marriage then churches can be sued and forced to close for not performing gay marriages, because the state would deem it discrimination.

This just isn't true. Churches are private organizations, and they can discriminate all they want. They can legally kick blacks out of their church if they want. They can keep women from being priests. They can legally do all sorts of discriminatory things. If SCOTUS rules against gay marriage bans, it will only affect the states' ability to ban handing out marriage licenses to gay couples. It won't affect private organizations like churches. People may try to sue a church, but I can guarantee you the case will be thrown out.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: grandmakdw

If Scotus votes to redefine marriage then churches can be sued and forced to close for not performing gay marriages, because the state would deem it discrimination.

This just isn't true. Churches are private organizations, and they can discriminate all they want. They can legally kick blacks out of their church if they want. They can keep women from being priests. They can legally do all sorts of discriminatory things. If SCOTUS rules against gay marriage bans, it will only affect the states' ability to ban handing out marriage licenses to gay couples. It won't affect private organizations like churches. People may try to sue a church, but I can guarantee you the case will be thrown out.

The way decisions and actual actions have been going, I do think the LGBT will sue churches and ministers and win.

Churches can not legally kick someone of a different race out of their church.
Since when were churches just white? There are lots of black churches and I don't seen them kicking out the entire congregation.

The LGBT will sue churches because they rent out their chapels to non-members for use for weddings and pay ministers to perform the marriages.

The only way a church can not be sued is to refuse to allow any and all non-members from using the church for a wedding and forbidding all ministers from performing ceremonies for non-members.
That is actually circulating among churches now and you will begin to see it as hard and fast rules very soon.
Churches are already discussing stopping rental of sanctuaries for non-members and forbidding ministers to perform weddings for non-members to prevent just such legal actions that the LGBT community will challenge.

So that will put an end and very very soon to people looking for a pretty church to get married in, that will soon be a thing of the past. I have seen the discussions regarding this in denominational magazines and online discussion boards.

a reply to: stellawayten

Well if this is the cause for the last straw and for states to secede, then it goes to show how worthless and idiotic those states and people are that support it.

Not intended to the OP, but Of all the freaking things wrong in this country this is what people get all fired over? Lets forget the wars and soldiers who have died in the pursuit of corporate profits, bailouts , loss of personal rights and freedom, but under no circumstances should we treat a fellow human as an equal.

Look I'm not gay and I'm pretty darn tired of Hollywood pushing the gay agenda down our throats, but for your Gods sake there are far worse things in this country than gay marriages.

Let it go, your Church is going to have to accept it anyhow sooner or later, because if it doesn't adjust with the times they will loose members. Mark my words it will come a time when most religions will fully accept and embrace gay marriage any how. I give it another 20 years top.

a reply to: stellawayten

Two things may happen,
one, the supreme court will throw the decision of legalizing gay marriage to the states.
Second, the supreme court push for the rights of gay to marriage and the states just will follow with not challenges.

Plain and simple, religion have nothing to do with it, this is about a legal issue and rights.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: WarminIndy
You can't change a 10,000 year old definition to accommodate a current popular culture idea that might change in 100 years.

This is an appeal to tradition fallacy.

It's also entirely inaccurate and misleading, possibly just ignorant.
This person is of the mistaken belief that Christianity "owns" marriage, it doesn't and it never has.

Marriage has existed throughout Human civilization long before the advent of Christianity. Different societies have different traditions, different religions have different forms, the right wing Christians in the US want to pretend that marriage has always been the same, according to their notions, when that's absolutely not the case.

They use the term "traditional marriage" when their imagined version is not traditional at all. The Catholic church recognized same sex marriage, as did the Pagans, as did the Native Americans - and thousands of other cultures throughout recorded Human history.

When a Christian tries to tell you "traditional marriage" is between a man and a woman, they are either just ignorant or willfully lying.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: retiredTxn

originally posted by: intrepid


You've got to be kidding. Look at the Constitution. It's built to disallow interference. That would include religious institutions. They were saying, "All your religions are OK, not to be used as a means to govern though."

1st Amendment to the Constitution;

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Pretty clear to me.

Exactly. That applies to ALL American citizens.

It's clear what this states and the government is about to make this clearer for the right wingers who want to try to "translate" it.

The state will not enforce a religious doctrine on anyone, and shall not prohibit people from practicing their religion.
Same sex marriage is not imposing religion on anyone, and same sex marriage is not preventing anyone from practicing their religion.

No religious person is being prevented from practicing their religion. Allowing others to marry has absolutely no bearing on another persons beliefs. The same will soon apply to those pesky "religious restoration" laws too - again, serving someone is NOT impinging on your rights to practice your faith, which is why that nonsense and bs will end up being made criminal nationally too.
Case closed.

people really need to read this link before spitting thier dummy and ranting about states claiming independance from the union

the TL;DR synopsis - it shows the paths of social change in key issues :

womens sufferage
prohibition
same sex marriage
abortion
recreational marajuana
inter-racial marriage

same sex mariage is going to be a universal right - get over it

ETA :

the key issue that applies here is of course inter-racial marriage - it got lots of people in a tizy during the 19th and early 20th centuries - but unless you are a knuckle dragging retard - you should have gotten over it by now

its time to get over the idiotic opposition to same sex marriage too

originally posted by: grandmakdw



Churches can not legally kick someone of a different race out of their church.

Churches have no legal obligation to accept anyone as a member. So yes, they can refuse membership for any reason, including race. Churches can tell non-members that they must leave, so yes, a church can legally kick someone of a different race out of their church and not be breaking any laws.

And yes, churches can legally refuse marriage ceremonies to non-members. There was a recent story in the news about how a black couple was refused a marriage ceremony in a church in Mississippi. They weren't members but they had been attending the church. It was totally racist, but completely legal.

Private organizations can legally discriminate. There were still some private golf clubs that banned blacks from joining until a few years ago. The only reason they stopped that was because of the outrage by existing members - not from any government intervention. The Boy Scouts were allowed to keep gay scouts out according to a court ruling - the only reason they started allowing it was because of outrage by existing members - not from any government intervention.

If any state want's to leave because of gays, they aren't stable enough to keep around. I'll help them pack on the way out.

I really don't think states are going to secede over gay rights. You are HEAVILY over-stating the power of the gay equality movement.

Gay rights are nowhere near the top of the list of things that worry me. At this point, though I'm all for gay marriage personally, I want to just say legalize it federally so I can stop hearing about it. It's getting exhausting.


Edit:

Gay rights are at the top of the list of petty bull# our country needs to take care of to shut the LGBTQCISXYZABC+ community up, not a reason for the states to secede.

originally posted by: grandmakdw
The way decisions and actual actions have been going, I do think the LGBT will sue churches and ministers and win.

Churches can not legally kick someone of a different race out of their church.
Since when were churches just white? There are lots of black churches and I don't seen them kicking out the entire congregation.

The LGBT will sue churches because they rent out their chapels to non-members for use for weddings and pay ministers to perform the marriages.

The only way a church can not be sued is to refuse to allow any and all non-members from using the church for a wedding and forbidding all ministers from performing ceremonies for non-members.
That is actually circulating among churches now and you will begin to see it as hard and fast rules very soon.
Churches are already discussing stopping rental of sanctuaries for non-members and forbidding ministers to perform weddings for non-members to prevent just such legal actions that the LGBT community will challenge.

So that will put an end and very very soon to people looking for a pretty church to get married in, that will soon be a thing of the past. I have seen the discussions regarding this in denominational magazines and online discussion boards.

They might sue (they probably will) but they won't win. Same sex marriage is all about federal recognition, mostly so that same sex couples get the same legal and financial benefits as straight couples. It's not about forcing the neighborhood Christian Church to marry you. Oddly enough, the gays are trying to use the First Amendment to state private ceremony should have no basis on their obtaining marriage certificate, yet at the same time the law they're using says government can't force the Church to recognize it or perform the ceremony.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
the key issue that applies here is of course inter-racial marriage - it got lots of people in a tizy during the 19th and early 20th centuries - but unless you are a knuckle dragging retard - you should have gotten over it by now

its time to get over the idiotic opposition to same sex marriage too

While legal and not really persecuted by people, this is still somewhat taboo. Marriages are disproportionately with the same race, and if you turn on the TV (from what I've seen, I watch very little) it's a real rarity to see interracial marriage.

originally posted by: stellawayten
a reply to: amazing

It's not about gay marriage. It's about state rights. Just like the civil war.

The argument for gay marriage being a states rights issue will not hold weight. For all intents and purposes, marriage is a contract between two consenting individuals. The contract needs to be upheld regardless of changes in residency. That makes it a federal issues opposed to a states right issue.

I don't know about entire states but what may happen is even if the SCOTUS is in favor of Marriage Equality there are going to be many people who simply won't comply with it.

This includes Alabama Judge Roy Moore who has already defied the law in his state about Gay Marriage even telling those who give out the certificate not to sign or give them to gay couples and has open said that he will ignore the SCOTUS ruling if they vote in favor for it.

Then you have Both Presidential Hopefuls Santorum and Huckabee who have signed a pledge to resist the ruling if SCOTUS votes it in.

There are also others in different positions of Political power and private business as well as Religious institutions who are also going to try and defy the SCOTUS as well. Just look at the other signers of that petition for some examples.

How long they will defy the SCOTUS I don't know and in what way they think it's going to help I can't imagine but it's very likely we will see resistance to the SCOTUS and the Law if it's passed. I think we're in for a ride.

a reply to: mOjOm

Finally someone that gets it.

a reply to: stellawayten

I think pretty much everybody who commented "gets it" when it comes to there being a number of people who are going to piss and moan about it. Just like there was a fair number of people who pissed and moaned about desegregation.

You asked "will states secede" over it, not "will people piss and moan."

So all of you people that mocked me....

Looks like I was right. I think you all owe me an apology.
www.abovetopsecret.com...