SCOTUS affirms right to Gay Marriage

[CaseHardened]

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/644/

I disagree, but for a reason you may not expect.

I define MARRIAGE as a Union before God. A religious event.

No government has the authority to declare a Marriage of any kind. Man/Woman, Woman/Woman, Man/Dog. Man/Dog/Cat ... NONE.

This business of "Gay Marriage" was initiated simply as a slap in the face to Christians. So end it.

The government DOES have authority to declare Civil Unions of any sort. Anyone to anyone. That they can do, and should do.

But not Marriages.

 

[Defilade]

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/644/

I disagree, but for a reason you may not expect.

I define MARRIAGE as a Union before God. A religious event.

No government has the authority to declare a Marriage of any kind. Man/Woman, Woman/Woman, Man/Dog. Man/Dog/Cat ... NONE.

This business of "Gay Marriage" was initiated simply as a slap in the face to Christians. So end it.

The government DOES have authority to declare Civil Unions of any sort. Anyone to anyone. That they can do, and should do.

But not Marriages.

Man/Dog
^^^^ Because that will be next in this modern day insanity! Where does one draw the line?

 

[Beerman]

Man/Dog
^^^^ Because that will be next in this modern day insanity! Where does one draw the line?

Look around next time you’re out in a public place. There are a lot of two-legged critters running around whose humanity is suspect.

 

[Saltwater60]

I’m not shocked at all. IMO to make it ok on both sides a marriage should be between a man and a women, but a civil union should be between gays if that’s what they want.
I’m a Christian but this nation is not and we cannot hold others to that if they chose not to. We have freedom of religion and that means you can practice a religion or not, or chose to ignore parts of the Bible that says homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of the lord. I’m not the one that’s responsible for their actions and neither is the government.

 

[repete]

I do like women and am married to one, but in all honesty, I have never had a dog talk back or argue with me.

 

[pshift]

The world will burn and is already on fire ...

 

[dsdmmat]

Well one positive thing about gay men is they free up more females for us straight men. However, the lesbian population cuts into those numbers, so it is probably a wash. Lol

 

[Saltwater60]

Well one positive thing about gay men is they free up more females for us straight men. However, the lesbian population cuts into those numbers, so it is probably a wash. Lol

I didn’t get lesbians. One is a girl looking person and many times the other is manly looking. Never made sense to me. If I was a lesbian I’d want to have a hot chick.

 

[Celt]

I dont care what someone wants to do with their life as long as its not imposed on me. If two people of the same sex want to get married to make that commitment, and get the tax benefits of it then good for them.

Im more worried about the rights that the govt is taking AWAY from me, like the 2a, the 1a, and taxing me into slavery.

 

[Darth]

Why is the government involved in any of this?

So they are. On what planet does "your definition of a marriage" based on one fictional story overrule another?

My definition is bunnies only, just to throw my hat into the ring, with equal validity.

 

[FP1201]

Look around next time you’re out in a public place. There are a lot of two-legged critters running around whose humanity is suspect.

Lot of those same critters are calling for "civil war" without realizing they're signing their own death warrant...LOTS of folks have had more than their fill of the bullshit.

 

[FP1201]

I dont care what someone wants to do with their life as long as its not imposed on me. If two people of the same sex want to get married to make that commitment, and get the tax benefits of it then good for them.

Im more worried about the rights that the govt is taking AWAY from me, like the 2a, the 1a, and taxing me into slavery.

Generally I'm of the same opinion, however long ago when this became the subject of the day it won't stop at homosexual marriage/union and it didn't...Americans set social standards for good reason, now anything that doesn't go along with "what I want" then it's just not right....I disdain the satanic religion of Islam, they won't put up with that shit either, now if they'd take the same approach to butt-fucking little boys and goats, as well as wedding little girls then perhaps they'd be onto something.

 

[Bigfoot]

If I was a lesbian I’d want to have a hot chick.

 

[GOPerfect]

I find their chosen way of life to be rather gross, disgusting and vile.

Whatever, they wanna get married, I do not care in the least.

 

[stokes]

All this squawk about lesbians....when you all know its the best part of the movie.

 

[OwnTheRide]

I agree that the government should not be in the business of marriage, that their authority should end at civil unions.

But let's be realistic here: we're playing semantics. Civil unions would bestow all of the same legal benefits, and plenty of religions support gay marriage, plus anyone can start a religion.

So, effectively, were we to change it so that the government handled civil unions and churches handled marriages, nothing would change.

So, really, what's the point?

 

[spat]

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/644/

I disagree, but for a reason you may not expect.

I define MARRIAGE as a Union before God. A religious event.

No government has the authority to declare a Marriage of any kind. Man/Woman, Woman/Woman, Man/Dog. Man/Dog/Cat ... NONE.

This business of "Gay Marriage" was initiated simply as a slap in the face to Christians. So end it.

The government DOES have authority to declare Civil Unions of any sort. Anyone to anyone. That they can do, and should do.

But not Marriages.

Everyone fighting about gay marriage is completely missing the point.

Government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all.

Once you fix that, then it's just between you and your clergy, whatever their opinion might be.

As for civil unions, a partnership has been a recognized way to organize a business since long before the country existed. That's good enough.

 

[MikeM]

Why is the government involved in any of this?

So they are. On what planet does "your definition of a marriage" based on one fictional story overrule another?

My definition is bunnies only, just to throw my hat into the ring, with equal validity.

Its about tax money, Mount is cheaper. Estate taxes,the spouse gets every thing tax free etc. Always follow the money.

 

[Grimscale]

But let's be realistic here: we're playing semantics. Civil unions would bestow all of the same legal benefits, and plenty of religions support gay marriage, plus anyone can start a religion.

for the purposes of the .gov "marriage" and "civil union" are the same thing.
People arguing about "marriage" are really just arguing against other people using "their word". It's childish.

As long as people can get tax credit, ease of assigning heirs and next-of-kin, etc., from "marriage" then the .gov is involved. If people want to argue about this then separate the two once again. So religious people have to jump through hoops TWICE to officially be "married" in the eyes of the church and .gov, with all the attendant extra expenses.

 

[CaseHardened]

Why is the government involved in any of this?

So they are. On what planet does "your definition of a marriage" based on one fictional story overrule another?

My definition is bunnies only, just to throw my hat into the ring, with equal validity.

The Goverment is involved because they choose to be. Taxation and Welfare (and many laws) are administered differently to married couples.

Yet any Church (or Temple or Mosque) can "Marry" anyone they wish to. There are no rules nor limits. But only marriages that fit a strict legal definition that the goverment defines are actually recognized as legal.

Religions can "marry" one man to two women, three women to one man, etc. And a religion may want to marry animals, even bunnies, can as well. In this respect Religion is far more liberal than Government. That these marriages can be easily and erroneously confused with "Official Marriage" as recognized by the govenment is confusing.

As religious marriages are legally meaningless, I can imagine a scenario where an official Civil Union would be more respected than a Marriage.

A Religious Marriage can be meaningless under the law. It's time for the Government to use a different term for its very different purpose.

 

[CaseHardened]

Coversely, perhaps some Religions should abandon the term "Marriage". To them the traditional definition of a Marriage has been entirely corrupted.

And since "Marriage" is, in my case, an English Word never found in the ancient Bible, that word which once defined a religious union can be seamlessly replaced by another word that would now reflect only that traditional meaning.

But don't hold your breath for any Modern Pope to take any action not approved by the Globalists.

 

[Zerex]

SCOTUS just declined to hear this appeal. It made no decision.

 

[CaseHardened]

Ironically, the Jewish Religion lacks a "Pope". No Rabbi can be "excommunicated".

Many Rabbis will marry Jew with Gentile, yet that "Marriage" will be entirely denied by another, more traditional Temple.

When even Religions differ on what Marriage is, and which are valid, that only cements my belief that the Government should use a different term for what is, in fact, often a different human union.

 

[CaseHardened]

SCOTUS just declined to hear this appeal. It made no decision.

Which simply left the Government Definition of Marriage in place.

Proving Government Marriage is different than Religious Marriage.

With that in mind, no Government Clerk should be interfering with any document dealing with "Gay Marriage". Because it's not religious at all.

It's Civil Union by another name.

 

[GOPerfect]

Not you @CaseHardened ...

To use religion/faith as a reason to define what Marriage is in the US is a loser type argument.

If the courts rule on religion reasons, it is a lost and Un-Constitutional ruling/.

 

[CaseHardened]

Not you @CaseHardened ...

To use religion/faith as a reason to define what Marriage is in the US is a loser type argument.

If the courts rule on religion reasons, it is a lost and Un-Constitutional ruling/.

This is exactly my point.

As religions use the term "Marriage" on a wide variety of human arrangements, and the Government has a strict definition, they are clearly not the same.

Goverment "Marriage" is a Legal Civil Union.

 

[spat]

for the purposes of the .gov "marriage" and "civil union" are the same thing.
People arguing about "marriage" are really just arguing against other people using "their word". It's childish.

As long as people can get tax credit, ease of assigning heirs and next-of-kin, etc., from "marriage" then the .gov is involved. If people want to argue about this then separate the two once again. So religious people have to jump through hoops TWICE to officially be "married" in the eyes of the church and .gov, with all the attendant extra expenses.

It should just be treated like a business partnership as far as the government is concerned.

I wouldn't even be opposed to the standard being to basically form a corporation that holds all marital assets.

Streamline that process, and tell everyone to just use it.

Makes divorce real easy too, then you're just dissolving the business.

 

[GOPerfect]

Here is a great example, @spat

Ancient Mesopotamia: The earliest recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies dates to around 2350 BCE in Sumeria. Here, marriage was fundamentally a business and social arrangement to secure property rights, establish alliances between families, and ensure legitimate heirs.