U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas signals that gay marriage will be law of the land

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Yes, that is what I meant, thanks.

a reply to: Aleister

That same morning I won a staring contest with Justice Kennedy, driven by my memory of his vote in Bush v. Gore. It went on for at least two minutes (so it must have lasted for at least a minute, taking time-memory into consideration), and, with Bush v. Gore standing solidly with me, he didn't have a chance.

:-)

Since I wasn't there, in my fantasy you set his robe on fire with the power of that stare...

Yesterday I was thinking that this was really a day for champagne. But maybe not quite yet...because of things just like Bush v. Gore

It ain't over til it's over...but, still, we can indulge in an early group: yay!

a reply to: darkbake

The "marriage" a church performs isn't legally binding, anyway, without the state license, so if they wanted to "marry" a gay couple, they could, it just wouldn't be a legal marriage. I don't think it's illegal to have the ceremony, though. It would just be a ceremony, the same as gay people have gotten for years before marriage was an option for them.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Thanks, but no, it wasn't a mean staring contest. I guess we caught each others eyes and both kept staring so I just kept it up until he looked away. It was quite awhile, and was at least a minute. That's my top-level staring contest, most others have been with dogs and cats.

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: sdubya

I think as it stands right now, a church can't perform a gay marriage ceremony even if it wants to in some states. I think my thoughts on the issue are that churches should be able to perform gay marriage ceremonies if they want.

In the USA?

It's the choice and belief of the church. But, they don't issue legal marriage licenses (some exceptions).

Churches that support gays marrying have performed marriage ceremonies for years. Now the ones that choose to can have legal weddings, if they are in a legal marriage equality state.

You grow up with a religious belief, you find out you are gay, you stop believing in God. NO!

Many LGBT want the religious wedding.

First of all there is too much reading into this. All this is stating, is that there was not enough justices to concur with granting a stay.

We will not know how the justices will rule in the upcoming case, and unfortunately, they are caught between the proverbial rock and a hard spot. If they make any statement about same sex marriage, it will cause questions in the validity of the upcoming case. The best example of that would be justice Gingsburg, when she was asked about same sex marriage and she did not answer the question. This was before it was announced about them taking on the case that is pending. The same thing can be stated here as well, none of the justices can afford to say anything about the upcoming cases and ultimately show what they are thinking.
There is one sure thing and that is that the justices are already looking and reviewing all of the laws, and court decisions from the prior cases and verifying that the laws were indeed upheld and the decisions are within the bounds. That the decisions show good legal precedents that make for wise decisions, and that there can be no question about if it was the correct or the incorrect decision. In their chambers, one can imagine that all of their clerks are busy looking up the laws, and statutes that were used, reviewing and getting a good run down on such.

But beyond that, if one looks at the past cases, the justices were not going to get involved in any same sex marriage cases, where it was ruled that it was legal for 2 people to have wed. They have been declining to take such cases, as the majority of the districts have been ruling in favor of same sex marriage.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
First of all there is too much reading into this. All this is stating, is that there was not enough justices to concur with granting a stay.

That's the same thought I had when this was posted. I thought I must be missing something. I'm not celebrating just yet.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
First of all there is too much reading into this. All this is stating, is that there was not enough justices to concur with granting a stay.

That's the same thought I had when this was posted. I thought I must be missing something. I'm not celebrating just yet.

No, me either.

While it seems it may be going in the direction of a Federal Act of Marriage Equality ----- too many times these things take an unexpected Left Turn.

Not holding my breath.

I'll be glad when we stop talking about GAY marriage, and just talk about marriage.

There's no distinction and no need.

Marriage is a joining of two adults able to give legal consent before the law to enter into a particular legal covenant with benefits and consequences.

That's the beginning and ending of why there's no:

1. Incest: The State has a compelling reason (high incidence of birth defects) not to allow close genetic relatives to marry.
2. Bestiality: No State creates any sort of contract between humans and animals.
3. Pedophilia: No State creates any sort of contract between children and adults.

4. Polygamy: No State creates any sort of marriage contract between more than two adults. (This, to my mind, is also unnecessary. Why do we care if more than 2 adults enter into a marriage contract?)

That's the rational answer to all the typical "so why don't we just allow __________________" questions.

a reply to: Annee

Not holding my breath.

I wonder if they won't give this to us if only so we'll think they're on the side of the people (or - some people) after things like Citizens United and Hobby Lobby

It won't cost Money America anything - and that's what's really important - isn't it?

But, I'm really tired - and leaning towards cynical. This would be a good thing no matter what

Nothing left now but more waiting :-)

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Annee

Not holding my breath.

I wonder if they won't give this to us if only so we'll think they're on the side of the people (or - some people) after things like Citizens United and Hobby Lobby

It won't cost Money America anything - and that's what's really important - isn't it?

But, I'm really tired - and leaning towards cynical. This would be a good thing no matter what

Nothing left now but more waiting :-)

Hobby Lobby was a huge mistake. An intentional "mistake" IMO.

Honestly, I think Hobby Lobby was a "bone" to appease the Religious Right.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I think the biggest problem with the polygamy issue is that many times it ISN'T consenting adults that are doing it. It's more a man choosing a bunch of women without their say-so. This, I believe, gives it the bad stigma that it has. Though if it was TRULY a case of consenting adults wishing to get married, I also have nothing against polygamy.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Gryphon66

I think the biggest problem with the polygamy issue is that many times it ISN'T consenting adults that are doing it. It's more a man choosing a bunch of women without their say-so. This, I believe, gives it the bad stigma that it has. Though if it was TRULY a case of consenting adults wishing to get married, I also have nothing against polygamy.

But, forced marriage is illegal whether monogamous or plural.

The biggest problem I see is most polygamous marriages, that we know about, are religious based and they believe God wants them to procreate ----- in numbers.

a reply to: Gryphon66
The Polygamy question was answered along time ago, the court already looked at it. If you look back at the US Supreme court cases, the one in the late 1800, Reynolds v. United States, that issue was already addressed by the court. This was to test the validity of the Morrill Anti-Bigamy act of 1862, signed into lay by Abraham Lincoln. The act was to limit the amount of territory the Mormon church could aquire and to stop the act of plural marriage. But as the act provided no funds to enforce it, Lincoln, being involved with the civil war, chose to ignore it for the time being, even giving the aspect of making an exception to J. Smiths group to keep them out of the Civil war. After the war was over, then attentions once again turned back to them and this was the case that was brought up to the US Supreme court. In a decision of 8 to 1, it was declared not valid in the USA.

The act was further amended twice later on, in 1882 in the Edmunds act, and again in Edmunds-Tucker act of 1887. Though the Edmunds-Tucker act was repealed in 1987.

So the problem with the entire Polygamy argument is that one it has been discussed, debated and ultimately alot of laws come from the 1800's. And for it to be legal, one would have to first get the state laws removed, then the federal law, and then get the court to overturn the prior descision.

a reply to: Annee

But that's the thing. I know it is illegal, but it still happens. How can you know for sure when the marriage is finalized that all the parties are consenting other than their word? And yes, much of the time these ARE religious marriages. But it's not so much the multiply in numbers part, it is also a status symbol in those religious communities. The more wives you have, the better your status is.

a reply to: Annee

The problem with polygamous marriages is that they would be a cluster# nightmare from a legal standpoint.

As it is now, I am pretty sure Hugh Hefner did not break any laws when he had several girlfriends. The only thing currently lacking is a legal backing, which I don't see happening because of how difficult such an arrangement would be legally.

originally posted by: OrphanApology
a reply to: Annee

The problem with polygamous marriages is that they would be a cluster# nightmare from a legal standpoint.

As it is now, I am pretty sure Hugh Hefner did not break any laws when he had several girlfriends. The only thing currently lacking is a legal backing, which I don't see happening because of how difficult such an arrangement would be legally.

Oh, for sure.

Marriage equality changes no legal structure.

All the "poly" marriages would require specific legal structure we do not yet have.

a reply to: Annee

Honestly, I think Hobby Lobby was a "bone" to appease the Religious Right.

A gift that might soften the blow of letting gays get married - but maybe I'm over-thinkng :-)

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Annee

But that's the thing. I know it is illegal, but it still happens. How can you know for sure when the marriage is finalized that all the parties are consenting other than their word? And yes, much of the time these ARE religious marriages. But it's not so much the multiply in numbers part, it is also a status symbol in those religious communities. The more wives you have, the better your status is.

I don't support that non-religious who wish a "poly" marriage should be punished because of what a religious sect does.

I am major supporter of separation of church and state. I personally am against religion in politics, other then their own rights.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Annee

Honestly, I think Hobby Lobby was a "bone" to appease the Religious Right.

A gift that might soften the blow of letting gays get married - but maybe I'm over-thinkng :-)

Yes. The religious have lost most of their cases.

I really think Hobby Lobby was a "gift".