Supreme Court extends same-sex marriage nationwide

I just got off the Supreme Court site and read the decision. At the bottom of the decision I found this;

"Finally, the First Amendment ensures that religions, those who adhere to religious doctrines, and others have protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths." (US Supreme Court Opinion)


So, while the homosexual community may have thought to have won a battle, it was noted by the Court that the 1st amendment still stands. Meaning, that if I object to it on religious grounds, I cannot be forced to accept it.

Texas has already been instructed by it AG to refuse to grant marriage licenses to homosexuals based on religious grounds. In other words, it disenfranchises all the Christians living in the State forcing them to accept a law that abridges their religious conscience.

We will see where this goes. One state has even said they will ban all marriage licenses altogether rather than be forced to issue to homosexuals.

originally posted by: KyoZero

I mean seriously...someone help me out. Am I missing something?

You're not missing anything, except that you're yelling reason and logic into an empty bucket.

/cheers

I have to admit, looks like one positive unintended consequence coming out of the SCOTUS decision.

truthinmedia.com...
(see the new thread)

At least one state will stop issuing marriage licenses altogether, to anyone.

Instead, people can have contracts signed by a notary, or a lawyer, or clergy,
with the state having no say in who marries whom at all.

The good part of this is that the government is getting out
of at least one part of people's lives.

Anything that leads to a smaller role of government in people's lives is a vast improvement over what has been going on the past 8 years.

originally posted by: KyoZero
a reply to: Fromabove

Ok fair. And I do thank you for your reply

The problem I have is that at that point, it would have been an allowance to discriminate. If you allow a section of people to do something (marry) and then tell another section of people not to (LGBT,etc) then it is discrimination.

Despite what some fools like to think, we didn't make it so pedophiles could marry, etc. This was an allowance for two consenting people to do something that two other consenting people could already do.

I mean I know it gets parroted a lot but I have to bring it right back to black or white. We allowed white males to vote but not black males/females. Then at another point we allowed all males to vote but not females. It's what I call discrimination. So I think that SCOTUS found these bans unconstitutional...which is their purpose

Not all discrimination is illegal, only that prohibited by law. There was no federal law prohibiting discrimination based on same sex. So the Court acted on it's own and overstepped.

originally posted by: Fromabove

Meaning, that if I object to it on religious grounds, I cannot be forced to accept it.

Why do you think it matters if you accept my marriage to my husband?

Seriously, let's have a conversation with each other as human beings.

Why do you care who I am married to, and why do you think I would care about what you think about it?

Secondly, how does my marriage and my life affect your religious beliefs?

a reply to: Fromabove

The Court applied the Constitution and precedent case law to a matter justly brought before it.

Anything else would have been against the American way and against the Constitution, pure and simple.

originally posted by: grandmakdw
I have to admit, looks like one positive unintended consequence coming out of the SCOTUS decision.

truthinmedia.com...
(see the new thread)

At least one state will stop issuing marriage licenses altogether, to anyone.

Instead, people can have contracts signed by a notary, or a lawyer, or clergy,
with the state having no say in who marries whom at all.

The good part of this is that the government is getting out
of at least one part of people's lives.

Anything that leads to a smaller role of government in people's lives is a vast improvement over what has been going on the past 8 years.

A lot of states are going to do this, and since religious people cannot be forced to marry homosexuals, Christians will remain unscathed from oppression and be allowed to do as they always have, marry straight and teach it straight. Romans 1:18-32

Why aren't you all out protesting non-Christian marriages? Why aren't you kicking up a fuss about Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs or even Atheists getting married?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Fromabove

The Court applied the Constitution and precedent case law to a matter justly brought before it.

Anything else would have been against the American way and against the Constitution, pure and simple.

There were four dissenting votes. This should have been a unanimous vote (pure and simple).

a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog

Because gays are Icky and unnatural and uncomfortable

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Fromabove

Meaning, that if I object to it on religious grounds, I cannot be forced to accept it.

Why do you think it matters if you accept my marriage to my husband?

Seriously, let's have a conversation with each other as human beings.

Why do you care who I am married to, and why do you think I would care about what you think about it?

Secondly, how does my marriage and my life affect your religious beliefs?

I care on a humanity basis because I believe in God and what he said about the matter. Personally, do as you please, but don't call it marriage. Homosexuals cannot be married even if you have papers to prove and have a ceremony and all the pomp. It simply is not marriage. You have to be a man and a woman to be married. This is why Iran is forcing homosexuals to have transsexual surgery.

It only affects my religion when you demand I bake you a cake or take your picture.

The first injunction to Christians is to love their god with all their heart, soul and mind.

The second injunction to Christians is to love other people the same way they love themselves.

These are the two directives that Jesus Christ actually gave to his followers, and he stated, directly that within these two commandments was all the law, the prophets, etc. (the Jewish Torah, et. al.).

That is what the bible tells Christians to do. It does not say word one about telling others how to live their lives, or to judge them as being less than good, or to refuse to do business with others because you think they may commit "sin."

That was the Good News that I was taught. That we are all god's children, and that we are brought together, all of us, in a family by his love.

I can't tell you the last time I heard any of that message from a "Christian."

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: Dfairlite

Animals =Human=Logic?

Ok, who defined it as One man one women.. the Bible? God Him/Herself? you? the Church..

www.huffingtonpost.com...

You have a reading comprehension problem. There's Nothing I can do about that. Good night.

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
Why aren't you all out protesting non-Christian marriages? Why aren't you kicking up a fuss about Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs or even Atheists from getting married?

Who is "YOU ALL"? What about non-Christian marriages and what universe are you from that says Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs and Atheists cannot be married (TO EACH OTHER).

a reply to: Fromabove

But religion doesn't make Laws for everybody. the states that don't allow discrimination it's against the law to deny public services to someone

a reply to: Dfairlite

Ok, thanks

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog

Because gays are Icky and unnatural and uncomfortable

Oh noes, they didn't warn me about cooties when I was given my gay agenda and sparkle communicator.

a reply to: Fromabove

Your god didn't say anything on the matter of same-sex marriage. If he did, please quote that for me.

Your god did say that divorce was wrong. I can quote that for you. Are you against divorce?

Who has demanded that you bake a cake or take a picture? Are you a baker? Are you a photographer?

Again, is there a place in the bible that forbids a baker from baking a cake for a sinner? Is there a place that forbids a photographer from taking a picture?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Two things:

1. We are not all of God's children, only those who turn from sin and have dedicated their lives to Jesus Christ as Lord. The Bible is clear on that.

2. I would never make love to a man nor approve of it. So it stand to reason that if I care that much about myself I would discourage anyone else from such behavior. Loving your neighbor means to care about their life as I would my own. I do, and that;s why I am writing on the thread.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
Why aren't you all out protesting non-Christian marriages? Why aren't you kicking up a fuss about Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs or even Atheists from getting married?

Who is "YOU ALL"? What about non-Christian marriages and what universe are you from that says Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs and Atheists cannot be married (TO EACH OTHER).

I'm addressing in particular the people who have a Christian based objection to the SCOTUS ruling. Only 60% of all marriages that occur in the US of A - currently - are religious so that must be broken down into the several different major religions while 40% of all marriages are civil (non-religious). I'm just wondering where the sense of entitlement and territoriality comes from with this group and why it is that it is only same-sex marriages they visibly and vocally protest.