SUPREME COURT EXTENDS GAY MARRIAGE NATIONWIDE

[jeffblue101]

The bleak future for Christian organizations according to Roberts

Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1, at 36–38. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.

 

[Granite]

Scalia and Roberts (and all those they speak for) seem unnerved by the possibility that people have been consistently and sincerely wrong for quite a long time. Isn't the Court's role, in part, to ask and answer hard questions? And I'm not familiar with their role in necessarily providing comfort to anyone.

 

[drbrumley]

Justin Raimondo via twitter.

Friday, gay marriage imposed on the 50 states.
Monday, they start throwing the Christians to the lions.
Funny thing is, you'd think gay people would sympathize with a marginalized group like Christians. That's why I identify with their plight.
It's horrible how "liberals" are so unconcerned about the threat 2 freedom of religion posed by today's court decision. Disgusting, actually
Just as they didn't react to the Snowden revelations, so liberals are blind to the civil liberties implications of today's ruling.

 

[Granite]

Monday, they start throwing the Christians to the lions.

Give. Me. A. Break.

Funny thing is, you'd think gay people would sympathize with a marginalized group like Christians.

Christians aren't marginalized. Although they do love them a good persecution/martyr complex.

It's horrible how "liberals" are so unconcerned about the threat 2 freedom of religion posed by today's court decision. Disgusting, actually
Just as they didn't react to the Snowden revelations, so liberals are blind to the civil liberties implications of today's ruling.

Uh...liberals rallied in large part to Snowden's defense. It was and remains conservatives who screeched he was a traitor to his country and who want him back here to be either executed or thrown in a cell for the rest of his life.

What's this guy smoking?

 

[jeffblue101]

Roberts

Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for religious practice. The majority’s decision imposing same sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations.
The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. Ante, at 27. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses

I came to similar conclusion in a previous thread, that by making it a civil right it would be extremely, if not impossible for congress to legislate a "compromise" for christian organizations for employment, housing or family related services

 

[Jonahdog]

from: Scalia
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Well, it took 48 years for Brown to overturn Plessy. Sometimes things take time.
Perhaps the basic issue is whether or not marriage between two people is a "right". If it is, then it would seem the 14th Amendment would require it to be so throughout the country no matter what your sexual orientation.

 

[jeffblue101]

Kennedy

Only in more recent years have psychiatrists and others recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable

Rebutal based on the amicus brief of the APA
http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/symposium-oh-well-we-know-better/

One of the Court’s few specific scientific claims is particularly striking: “Only in more recent years have psychiatrists and others recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable.” The Court then cites pages 7 to 17 of the American Psychological Association’s amicus brief. Digging into these pages is quite instructive. The APA itself notes at page 7 that “sexual orientation ranges along a continuum,” and claims only that it is “highly resistant to change.” The Court upgrades this to “immutable,” a word the APA itself never uses. The brief reports at page 8 that “only 5% of gay men and 16% of lesbians reported feeling they had ‘a fair amount’ or ‘a great deal’ of choice about their sexual orientation.” That’s a lot more fluidity than the Court acknowledges. At pages 8-9, the amicus brief notes, “Fully 88% of gay men and 68% of lesbians reported that they had ‘no choice at all.’”

The Court’s immutability claim, then, disagrees with thirty-two percent of lesbians’ self-reports, according to the very source on which the Court relies.

Apparently, it's now okay to lie as long as it supports the new postmodern civic religion right of gay marriage.

 

[Town Heretic]

Your efforts will always self serving.

Most actions are. Even accepting grace is self serving as it serves the good. We profit by it.

Men under a proper authority. When they pretend they are the ultimate determinant of right and wrong, we go downhill.

And yet, Christians would agree that most of history is comprised of men outside of the faith doing a variation of that while general conditions in compacts continue to improve. Slavery, by way of, is now mostly eliminated in the world where it once was largely the rule.

The nation that calls homos married

And atheists. And Hindus. Marriage isn't and hasn't been a singularly or even necessarily religious institution for a very long time where the law is concerned.

and murders children by the millions?

The country actually doesn't do that, though a sliver of its population does and the law that allows it is a deeply mistaken one, as both a moral and rational proposition, as were the laws that allowed slavery. I suspect the end of abortion will resemble the end of slavery, at least in terms of the Constitutional address.

Ultimately we're a country that grants greater freedom of conscience and action than any that existed before us in the history of man.

 

[rocketman]

Not one hair on the head of religious liberty is out of place as a result of this ruling, though more than a few noses might be.

Yet...if you think that this ruling will not be used as a stepping stone to step on the neck of religious liberty and the holding of a doctrine that opposes this law than I say you are naive. I will be curious what tripe you will offer up when churches are being sued or having their 501c status pulled because of this law.

No one altered a single church's stance on the morality of homosexuality with this ruling. No one required anyone so offended by the state's sanction to seek that sanction for their own union or to consider their union lessened because of the ruling if they do.

Again, Yet...this decision has the potential far reaching effects that nobody...even you see at this point. I do think it is rather funny that you think that the small minority that practice this filthy behavior will stop short of forced social acceptance of the majority that oppose them. You can be sure that the depraved will not stop with this decision because without the social acceptance, voluntary or by force it is meaningless, and that acceptance is what they have been after all along. When churches continue to stand in the way of, even openly preach against that acceptance you don't think they will become a target? You are crazy or naive if you think this thing is now over with this decision, it has just begun.

 

[Nick M]

Aww, where's the Christian love, Nick?

Jesus loves you, but he is sending you to lake of fire to be tormented day and night forever.

 

[Sherman]

We have all heard the news plastered in every corner of every aspect of social media, television, and radio. The Supreme Court declared Friday that same-sex couples have a right to marry anywhere in the United States.

Those in favor of such a ruling are running their parade lap while those opposed are recoiling.

But what does it all really mean? What will this mean for religious liberty in this country? Is that officially dead now?

One of the more interesting facts I read today is that there are only 390,000 married same-sex couples in the United States and another 70,000 couples living in states that do not currently permit them to wed. That's an incredibly small number when you think about it. Yet that tiny fraction of the population has just slew religious liberty which was one of the pillars of this nation's heritage.

This is one day where I am still a proud American, but I am ashamed of my government. The worry about the 'liberty' to have a mock marriage while terrorists are running rampant in Europe. Our priorities have become seriously skewed.

 

[Nick M]

Monumental rulings often are wrong by the court. This is not really surprising. Some have said it, and it is so.

Blacks are not people. (confirmed many times)
Babies are not people.
Men marry each other (makes no sense, I know)
Homos with their AIDS is considered a disability
Socialized medicine, and confirmed subsidies which are against the law written into the illegal socialized medicine

 

[Shasta]

Here? It would run afoul of a great deal of precedent. I think it would take a lot of legislation and I'm not sure that any of it would fly.


Too muddled. There are all sorts of legitimate state interests tied to maintaining the ban on incestuous relationships being embraced. Animals can't give consent, a cornerstone of contract in any form. Polygamy? That may be a tougher one to forestall, though given the complications arising in the involvement of state in division of kids and property and the historic problems relating to coercion and other concerns it's far from a sure thing, even in the long view.

Who are you to make people's decisions for them about whether they will be polygamous. Are you denying them their liberty on the basis that it might be a bureaucratic nightmare? Besides the Men in Black need not consult you or anyone about the decisions they make. The problem is there is no check and balance to their power. The limits of the Constitution and federalism served that purpose once but no longer. Make the left-leaning court left wing dominated and all your reasoning and mine will make no difference in deciding anything. History and precedent does not sway liberals. They have relative values rooted in sentiment not in history and they cannot be removed.

 

[Buzzword]

And now for some of my favorite responses to the ruling:

Spoiler

 

[Jose Fly]

I wonder, though. If marriage for gay couples is now a civil right, wouldn't the refusal to marry a gay couple be seen as violating their civil rights - much like the refusal to marry a bi-racial couple would be?

Not by a church. A church was in the news a few years ago for refusing to marry a black couple. Despite the publicity and public outcry, no one was fined or arrested.

Churches and purely religious institutions are exempt from anti-discrimination laws.

 

[bybee]

Not by a church. A church was in the news a few years ago for refusing to marry a black couple. Despite the publicity and public outcry, no one was fined or arrested.

Churches and purely religious institutions are exempt from anti-discrimination laws.

For now....

 

[chrysostom]

many so called right winger christians here at tol have mocked others for voting republican
so
where are they now?

 

[rocketman]

many so called right winger christians here at tol have mocked others for voting republican
so
where are they now?

Bemoaning the decisions made by two activist jurists/politicians appointed by republicans...so much for voting republican = Good jurists. How does it make you feel Chrys that two republican appointees are such activists? Please do tell....

 

[chrysostom]

Bemoaning the decisions made by two activist jurists/politicians appointed by republicans...so much for voting republican = Good jurists. How does it make you feel Chrys that two republican appointees are such activists? Please do tell....

so you are still saying there is no difference?

everyone else can tell
so
you do need help

 

[rocketman]

so you are still saying there is no difference?

everyone else can tell
so
you do need help

What is the difference? Tell us what that difference is. Roberts & Kennedy are both republican appointees...What is the difference Chrys?