Never the less and even though this is a case of more intrusion into our daily lives by government, it is the right thing to do. Every human being should be able to share equally the matrimonial benefit of their love of another, no matter their sexual orientation. We're pretty sure God doesn't differentiate between a gay or heterosexual no matter what the right wing bible thumpers might think and preach.
Even with the SC decision you will still hear the paranoid ramblings from the right wing worried about infringements on religious rights and other nonsensical thoughts like this is a sign of the end of the world. But that's just the way they operate when progress interferes with their narrow minded view of things. Preach hate in the disguise of that's the way God wants it....
In the end though all that matters is a Congratulations to all the gay couples nationwide who if they choose can hopefully enjoy and prosper in a marriage with their loved ones,,,,their time was way overdue...
The reason the S.C. was brought in is that states were picking and choosing which couples marriage licences they were honoring. In other words, discriminating against some and not others.
ReplyDeleteSo please tell that idiot, paranoid woo, that as long as other states are consistent in their stance on conceal/carry licenses, this does not apply to him. It's actually very simple, but he doesn't seem to be able to comprehend.
Yeah I know Anon. some states including Indiana are still in the dark ages concerning gay and lesbian rights....and in the end I'm glad for the SC ruling, I just didn't think the SC was the place for this battle to be fought...
ReplyDeleteIt's ok by me to answer the question.
ReplyDeleteWoo needs to take his case to the supreme court until then he needs to stfu
ReplyDeleteActually Woo has a valid point, the SC in my opinion over stepped their bounds and likewise a concealed gun permit should be honored nationwide just like gay marriage. I would think if anyone pushed the permit issue all the way to the SC they would have a good chance of winning and rightfully so...
ReplyDeleteBut see your logic is flawed. The supreme court was viewing all marriage licenses as the same and states were not. Thus they were were treating two of the same thing differently. As long as states are consistent about all conceal, carrying licenses they should be fine.
ReplyDeleteAnd woo will just have to deal with the fact that the country is carrying on in a way he doesn't like.
I love it that posters with a different opinion just need to "stfu".
ReplyDeleteGreat display of tolerance and understanding.
Must be a gunophobe.
Better than a homophobe.
DeleteI am really not trying to be a smart ass, just asking a simple question. So does the ruling mean that polygamy is now legal. What about people who want to marry in large groups like two men and three woman, can they do that now. What about the age limit can a 13 year old get married. I guess what I am asking is what is the legal definition of marriage. If the answer to any of my above examples is no, then how long before they start suing for their rights.
ReplyDeleteThis issue will still be divisive going forward just like Roe vs. Wade. There are those even though it is law who will have a hard time accepting this, you can already see the divisiveness growing in different states and groups. Even the SC ruling was a split decision so this battle will continue on for years to come...but it was the right thing to do...
ReplyDeleteAnon,
ReplyDeleteThe answer your questions: NO. Polygamy and Pedophilia were not addressed by the SCOTA in this ruling.
One needs to remember SC ruling was due to a specific case of a gay man that filed suit that made it to the SC. The ruling does though encompasses all gay couples.
ReplyDeleteI know pedophilia which is usually not voluntary by the youth and if voluntary a youth doesn't have the maturity or the capability of rejecting would never even make it to the SC... hell it's a crime.
As for Polygamy maybe so ...not sure if it's legal anywhere but if it is I guess you could make the case of discrimination ....pretty sure the SC wouldn't even accept the case though, it was very controversial and still is that they even accepted the recent gay marriage case to rule on....
This judgment has nothing to do with polygamy. As long as states don't start accepting marriage licenses from 3 or more people from some and not others, this not an issue.
Delete
ReplyDeletewell, see... in Loving vs Virginia, had the Court not ruled like they did, most all of the southern states, to this day, would not allow interracial marriage. some people may think this is okay, but it's not. civil rights should not be left up to a vote by the citizens... these rights should be universally the same throughout the country, there's no other way really.
My official response:
ReplyDeleteLast Friday, our Republic did exactly what a Republic is supposed to do. You see, in a Republic, the rights of the minority are just as important as the rights of the majority. In a Republic, the majority does not have a right to violate the rights of the minority simply because they are the majority. Every individual has rights endowed to them by their creator and nobody has the right to violate them. Today, our Supreme Court ruled that people who are gay have the same right as every other person to enter into a legal and spiritual union, to be married. I applaud that. This was a legal question, and the Supreme Court issued the correct legal decision.
The moral question? Well, let's leave that to each individual and God. Everyone still has the right to their opinion about homosexuality and whether or not it is moral. That has not changed. Personally, my thoughts are simple. Everyone has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. We all deserve the wages of that sin. Our job, therefore, is not to concentrate on our sins, and the sins of others, but rather to demonstrate the love, grace and mercy of God to our fellow man. Let God worry about the sin. That's my opinion and I wholeheartedly support your right to a different one.
So, now for the bigger question. Why do two consenting adults need the permission of their servant, government, to pledge their love, life and fortunes to each other by entering into a legal and spiritual union? While todays victory was good, the better victory would be to get government out of the marriage business altogether. I believe that abolishing the marriage license altogether should be the next step in this fight for liberty.
Nice thoughtful post Russell...I agree with a lot you said but because of legal ramifications I think government has to be involved.. Divorces, child support, property division these things need to be protected and enforced and not sure they could without government intervention and licensed marriages....
ReplyDeleteYou don't need a licensed marriage in order to come to an agreement how to dissolve a union and define responsibilities. A simple contract will do that. The government would still operate courts that would be able to enforce the contracts. That's what a divorce is anyway. A legal agreement between two people who want to dissolve their union.
ReplyDelete