TOTALLY GEEKED!

Southern_Belle · Nothing's Impossible

RE: Law of the Land has changed.

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

lilyofcourse wrote:
No. Because it isn't illegal to refuse because you are not catholic.

See the difference?

Lily they refuse people who ARE Catholic too. If you are divorced, which is legal, they refuse you because it's against their religion. Just like gay marriage is against their religion. Same thing.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

It's different now. They are a protected class now.

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Pikachu wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Now I wonder how long till churches are forced to preform these abominations.

I don't think that will happen. When my state legalized same-sex marriage, it was very clearly laid out that religious institutions would not be forced to perform such marriages if it went against their tenets and so far, that is exactly how it's been. In fact, I can't think of any cases so far where a Church or Mosque or Synagogue was forced to perform a same-sex ceremony in those states where it has been legal for some time. To do so would be a clear violation of established First Amendment rights.
A Priest or Rabbi or Imam or whatever is not required for a marriage to be considered valid by a state. A JoP or other authorized person can perform the legally binding civil ceremony. A religious ceremony is not required if one is not desired. For those that do want one, it's pretty easy to find a minister or other religious person to oversee the proceedings and sign the license. The fact that a Catholic priest can sign a marriage license and perform both the function of the state (the civil/legal part) and of the religion (religious marriage ceremony) is a convenience only. In many other nations, the civil aspect and the religious aspect are separate and it's the civil part that makes the marriage legally binding.
So, to whit, I don't think you'll have to worry about seeing any "abominations" at your church, only the one in your mirror. And as long as you're not planning on marrying someone of the same gender, this ruling has no bearing on you or your marriage, if you are married.
Feel free to continue to hate away, but I think Jesus would be ashamed of you.

AMEN!

flan

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

lilyofcourse wrote:
msrock wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
This will lead to the churches being forced to comply.

It will happen.
You really need to get out more.
I'm seeing the big picture.
The ripple effects of this is going to immense.

You ALWAYS see "the big picture"...and the sky is always falling, Chicken Little.

flan

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

I would just like my FB news feed to stop blowing up with it. We all know now. I get it. You don't have to post a hundred gay rights photo's to prove how happy you are.

Vette · Owl drink to that!

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
I would just like my FB news feed to stop blowing up with it. We all know now. I get it. You don't have to post a hundred gay rights photo's to prove how happy you are.

Exactly.

WYSIWYG · Guru

I applaud and agree with this ruling. This brings governmental acknowledgement of marriage more into line with both the First Amendment and the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution.

If anyone tries to use this as justification to force churches or other places of worship into providing them, I will object strongly because that would actually be in violation of the First Amendment.

This ruling had to come down as it did.

chillepeppa · Regular

burns07 wrote:

You are the one that claims same-sex marriage will somehow interfere in your marriage.
_______________________________________________________________________

um, no--didn't make that claim--homosexuality is offensive / repugnant to me physically, personally and morally--and the idea that ANYONE should be FORCED to accept something like homosexuality is anathema to personal freedom ( religious or otherwise ) and the liberties and principles this country was founded upon

There was a time in the not so distant past I felt about religion the same way you feel about homosexuality. I can tell you that it does get better, you know, the control of your gag reflex. You eventually learn to tune it out. Well, most of it. Direct attempts still sometimes get a reaction, but luckily those are very rare now.

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

And as much as I am for marriage equality, I do NOT think any church should be forced to marry a couple they don't want to marry. People always have the option to go to the courthouse and get married there, or find a JP to do it at a private ceremony. A church does not have to get involved - just like it's always been. I know several people who are married who didn't get married in any church.

chillepeppa · Regular

Mellow Momma wrote:
And as much as I am for marriage equality, I do NOT think any church should be forced to marry a couple they don't want to marry. People always have the option to go to the courthouse and get married there, or find a JP to do it at a private ceremony. A church does not have to get involved - just like it's always been. I know several people who are married who didn't get married in any church.

I agree

chef · Guru

This is where I stand. It will not change.

11666040_864660196952650_9168377511630485783_n.jpg?oh=2596d0b1a2e7cc988094d61b53c6c1c9&oe=562672A9

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

So someone just posted on my FB page: I am so happy that in the same week we are now able to destroy the confederate flag. We can now get rid of that part of our history and will no longer see that flag flying on our government buildings. Instead, with pride, we can now fly the gay pride flag. We have made wonderful advances today.

Okay, so rewriting history and deny it is okay but you're not okay with your rights being denied. Yeah, don't bother me with your conversation.

chef · Guru

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
So someone just posted on my FB page: I am so happy that in the same week we are now able to destroy the confederate flag. We can now get rid of that part of our history and will no longer see that flag flying on our government buildings. Instead, with pride, we can now fly the gay pride flag. We have made wonderful advances today.

Okay, so rewriting history and deny it is okay but you're not okay with your rights being denied. Yeah, don't bother me with your conversation.

Get rid of that part of history? Ignorance. Banning the Confederate flag won't make it so that part of history never happened.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

chef wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
So someone just posted on my FB page: I am so happy that in the same week we are now able to destroy the confederate flag. We can now get rid of that part of our history and will no longer see that flag flying on our government buildings. Instead, with pride, we can now fly the gay pride flag. We have made wonderful advances today.

Okay, so rewriting history and deny it is okay but you're not okay with your rights being denied. Yeah, don't bother me with your conversation.
Get rid of that part of history? Ignorance. Banning the Confederate flag won't make it so that part of history never happened.

My point is I just can't deal with the total ignorance and hypocrisy of these types of people. All they see is themselves and they truly don't care about "right" and "wrong". They care about bullying their way into getting what they want.

burns07 · Guru

[There was a time in the not so distant past I felt about religion the same way you feel about homosexuality. I can tell you that it does get better, you know, the control of your gag reflex. You eventually learn to tune it out. Well, most of it. Direct attempts still sometimes get a reaction, but luckily those are very rare now.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

my feelings on homosexuality will never change--it is viscerally repugnant to me as a normal male of our species, personally offensive to me as a civilized human being and morally offensive to me as a man of faith--these things will never change, will never " get better "

to force me and the overwhelming number of human beings like me on this planet to accept as " normal " something that is unnatural and deviant and has been held to be so for at least the last 10,000 years, is to ask the earth to stop turning, the stars to go out, for time to stop--it is simply not in our species' nature--and it never will be

chef · Guru

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
chef wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
So someone just posted on my FB page: I am so happy that in the same week we are now able to destroy the confederate flag. We can now get rid of that part of our history and will no longer see that flag flying on our government buildings. Instead, with pride, we can now fly the gay pride flag. We have made wonderful advances today.

Okay, so rewriting history and deny it is okay but you're not okay with your rights being denied. Yeah, don't bother me with your conversation.
Get rid of that part of history? Ignorance. Banning the Confederate flag won't make it so that part of history never happened.
My point is I just can't deal with the total ignorance and hypocrisy of these types of people. All they see is themselves and they truly don't care about "right" and "wrong". They care about bullying their way into getting what they want.

Exactly. I agree.

chillepeppa · Regular

burns07 wrote:
[There was a time in the not so distant past I felt about religion the same way you feel about homosexuality. I can tell you that it does get better, you know, the control of your gag reflex. You eventually learn to tune it out. Well, most of it. Direct attempts still sometimes get a reaction, but luckily those are very rare now.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

my feelings on homosexuality will never change--it is viscerally repugnant to me as a normal male of our species, personally offensive to me as a civilized human being and morally offensive to me as a man of faith--these things will never change, will never " get better "

to force me and the overwhelming number of human beings like me on this planet to accept as " normal " something that is unnatural and deviant and has been held to be so for at least the last 10,000 years, is to ask the earth to stop turning, the stars to go out, for time to stop--it is simply not in our species' nature--and it never will be

You seem to misunderstand me. My feelings towards religions are still the same, I've just come to the point where for my own sanity, I had to accept, not so much the idea itself, which I don't, but others right to believe the idea. No amount of my dislike of what I find so completely illogical should ever interfere with your right to believe and practice it.

Renegade Time Lord · Am I A Good Man?

A good day indeed! Very glad that gay marriage has been legalized nationwide. It was already legal in my state before this ruling. My god-nephew is a gay rights activist in his city, and he has been working towards this for several years. He and his partner have been together for over 3 years and I am not sure if they have discussed marriage, but just the fact that they can get married is just wonderful. My god-nephew is a very caring, awesome and community-minded person who volunteers to help homeless teens get off the streets. He has been volunteering by cooking meals and serving them at homeless shelters ever since he graduated from university. I am very happy for him and everyone in the LBGT community. I am also not a religious person, but flame away if you must. biggrin

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

What about ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood? Remember when Obama was lecturing all of us about offending them with our Western ways? Funny, but I don't think they will look too favorably on America with this will they?

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

msrock wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
This will lead to the churches being forced to comply.

It will happen.
You really need to get out more.

Naw, she thrives on "gloom and doom."

flan

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Well, she's in good company. The dissenting judges on the Supreme Court thought VERY little of the majority opinion.

Justice Anthony Kennedy almost always votes alongside his four conservative colleagues on the Supreme Court. But when he doesn’t, it’s often in big, transformative cases, like Friday’s gay marriage decision. His defection clearly has made his conservative peers hopping mad.

Each of the four conservative justices in the minority wrote his own dissent, a sign that their disappointment and anger at the decision striking down gay marriage bans could not be combined into one response. Separately, their writings bordered on the caustic, sometimes even making personal attacks on Kennedy’s jurisprudence and writing style.

Kennedy, who is known for rhetorical flourishes and sweeping legal writing, begins his opinion with a broad statement: “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity.” He concludes that the 14th Amendment guarantees the right to marriage to same-sex couples, and that denying them marriage robs them of liberty entitled to them by law. And on his way, Kennedy colorfully explains that marriage is an ennobling institution that bestows dignity upon those who enter it. (“Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there,” Kennedy writes.)

The opening seemed to enrage Justice Antonin Scalia, who went even further than usual in his criticism of Kennedy’s signature flowery language. He wrote in a footnote that he would “hide his head in a bag” if he ever signed onto an opinion containing this first sentence, which he said contained “the mystical aphorisms of a fortune cookie.”
Bitter dissents in gay marriage case lay bare deep divide in high court

Justices Kennedy (left) and Scalia. (Photos: U.S. Supreme Court via Wiki Commons)

Chief Justice John Roberts, who read much of his dissent aloud from the bench, a sign of his deep displeasure, called the opinion’s reasoning “unprincipled.” He even compared it to the infamous Dred Scott case from the 19th century, when the Supreme Court held that no one of African descent could be an American citizen.

Conservative judges also lambasted Kennedy for skipping some key legal details in his opinion, such as what level of scrutiny the high court used to examine gay couples’ claims.

Doug NeJaime, a professor of law at UCLA, says that conservative justices have long criticized Kennedy’s opinions for this sort of gloss-over when he writes with the liberals. “This is classic Justice Kennedy,” he said. “It’s not the kind of mechanical, constitutional analysis that some of the other justices might want.”

Complaints about Kennedy’s writing style pepper the dissents. Roberts mocks its “shiny rhetorical gloss,” Scalia calls the opinion’s style “pretentious” and full of “silly extravagances.” Justice Clarence Thomas objects to the majority’s characterization of marriage as ennobling. “I am unsure what that means,” he wrote. “People may choose to marry or not to marry. The decision to do so does not make one person more ‘noble’ than another.”

At one point, Scalia even goes line by line through parts of the opinion, adding critiques in parentheses, such as, “Huh?” and “What say?” He ends by declaring that the opinion will “diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.”

Perhaps most striking was when Roberts went so far as to tell gay people in his dissent that they should not celebrate the Constitution today, because that document had nothing to do with their legal victory.

The statement gets to the heart of the conflict between the majority and the minority in today’s decision: Whether the Constitution is a living document that evolves with the times or whether it is frozen in the 18th century. Though Kennedy generally sides with his conservative colleagues who more strictly interpret the Constitution, he has argued for a more expansive interpretation of the document in this case as well as in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down state laws that criminalized sodomy.

“The nature of injustice is that we might not always see it in our own times,” Kennedy wrote in Friday’s opinion. “The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.”

Kennedy thinks we are still learning this meaning. His colleagues do not.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Change is hard for some.

I can't imagine being gay & dealing with everything associated with it.

flan

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

flan327 wrote:
Change is hard for some.

I can't imagine being gay & dealing with everything associated with it.

flan

Not sure what there is to "deal" with if you aren't running around shoving your sexual life in someone else's face?

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Change is hard for some.

I can't imagine being gay & dealing with everything associated with it.

flan
Not sure what there is to "deal" with if you aren't running around shoving your sexual life in someone else's face?

Facing possible rejection from family & friends, for starters. Or do you just never bring your partner to any family function? And then there's that little pesky matter of being not able to get married...

Oh, wait!

flan

-- Edited by flan327 on Saturday 27th of June 2015 10:53:09 AM

JPT · Senior Member

Churches can limit which marriages they solemnize, by declaring they only perform for church members. No problem. Public non denominal wedding chapel (business), then they can't discriminate. If a clergy member objects and won't do it, then the chapel must hire someone who will for that ceremony. Honestly, it can't be that hard. Seems like you all are worried more about what you perceive as "sin", without considering that you are probably in the same congregation as adulterers, fornicators...and so on.

Really, this isn't about forcing someone to perform a wedding. It's about granting civil rights. Back when I got married, there were many states in the south that wouldn't have recognized my marriage because interracial marriage was illegal in those states. It will take a while, but it will soon be as unremarkable as a mixed race couple....

just Czech · Give Me Grand's!

Our church will probably stop performing weddings for church members as well. You know, one couple might be gay, therefore the minister would HAVE to marry them. So, I see no weddings at all in our churches future.
For fundamental churches, that would be the best course. I am okay with that. I do not want to belong to a church that marries gays, ever.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

JPT wrote:
Churches can limit which marriages they solemnize, by declaring they only perform for church members. No problem. Public non denominal wedding chapel (business), then they can't discriminate. If a clergy member objects and won't do it, then the chapel must hire someone who will for that ceremony. Honestly, it can't be that hard. Seems like you all are worried more about what you perceive as "sin", without considering that you are probably in the same congregation as adulterers, fornicators...and so on.

Really, this isn't about forcing someone to perform a wedding. It's about granting civil rights. Back when I got married, there were many states in the south that wouldn't have recognized my marriage because interracial marriage was illegal in those states. It will take a while, but it will soon be as unremarkable as a mixed race couple....

Exactly!!!

flan

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

JPT wrote:
Churches can limit which marriages they solemnize, by declaring they only perform for church members. No problem. Public non denominal wedding chapel (business), then they can't discriminate. If a clergy member objects and won't do it, then the chapel must hire someone who will for that ceremony. Honestly, it can't be that hard. Seems like you all are worried more about what you perceive as "sin", without considering that you are probably in the same congregation as adulterers, fornicators...and so on.

Really, this isn't about forcing someone to perform a wedding. It's about granting civil rights. Back when I got married, there were many states in the south that wouldn't have recognized my marriage because interracial marriage was illegal in those states. It will take a while, but it will soon be as unremarkable as a mixed race couple....

That does not solve the problem. Every church I know allows gays as members. You actually WANT churches to refuse gays as members???? That's wrong.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

flan327 wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Change is hard for some.

I can't imagine being gay & dealing with everything associated with it.

flan
Not sure what there is to "deal" with if you aren't running around shoving your sexual life in someone else's face?
Facing possible rejection from family & friends, for starters. Or do you just never bring your partner to any family function? And then there's that little pesky matter of being not able to get married...
Oh, wait!
flan

-- Edited by flan327 on Saturday 27th of June 2015 10:53:09 AM

And everyones family has approved of all hetero relationships? Yeah sure. Nobody had drama about that.

Blankie · Guru

I'm fine with it. In fact, I'm happy about it.

Now my gay couple friends can live in any state and won't have the legal hassles they had before.

Two gays marrying does not diminish my marriage.

If it diminishes anyone else's, I'd say you don't have a very strong marriage.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Where did I say that?

flan

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Blankie wrote:
I'm fine with it. In fact, I'm happy about it.
Now my gay couple friends can live in any state and won't have the legal hassles they had before.
Two gays marrying does not diminish my marriage.
If it diminishes anyone else's, I'd say you don't have a very strong marriage.

Love is precious and rare.

flan

Blankie · Guru

flan327 wrote:
Blankie wrote:
I'm fine with it. In fact, I'm happy about it.
Now my gay couple friends can live in any state and won't have the legal hassles they had before.
Two gays marrying does not diminish my marriage.
If it diminishes anyone else's, I'd say you don't have a very strong marriage.
Love is precious and rare.
flan

Yes. I would think folks would be celebrating the love of two individuals, not condemning it. Lord knows we have enough hate in the world. Why not celebrate the love?

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Blankie wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Blankie wrote:
I'm fine with it. In fact, I'm happy about it.
Now my gay couple friends can live in any state and won't have the legal hassles they had before.
Two gays marrying does not diminish my marriage.
If it diminishes anyone else's, I'd say you don't have a very strong marriage.
Love is precious and rare.
flan
Yes. I would think folks would be celebrating the love of two individuals, not condemning it. Lord knows we have enough hate in the world. Why not celebrate the love?

I have NO idea.

What I believe:

A person does NOT choose to be homosexual.

So, a god creates a person who is attracted to members of the same sex, then says, "HAHA! You're condemned."

flan

huskerbb · Guru

JPT wrote:
Churches can limit which marriages they solemnize, by declaring they only perform for church members. No problem. Public non denominal wedding chapel (business), then they can't discriminate. If a clergy member objects and won't do it, then the chapel must hire someone who will for that ceremony. Honestly, it can't be that hard. Seems like you all are worried more about what you perceive as "sin", without considering that you are probably in the same congregation as adulterers, fornicators...and so on.

Really, this isn't about forcing someone to perform a wedding. It's about granting civil rights. Back when I got married, there were many states in the south that wouldn't have recognized my marriage because interracial marriage was illegal in those states. It will take a while, but it will soon be as unremarkable as a mixed race couple....

BS. This has NOTHING to do with "rights". It has to do with the ultimate goal of the supporters of this--namely to end freedom of religion in this nation.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

It has nothing to do with diminishing anyones marriage.

It has everything to do with blasphemy.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

huskerbb wrote:
JPT wrote:
Churches can limit which marriages they solemnize, by declaring they only perform for church members. No problem. Public non denominal wedding chapel (business), then they can't discriminate. If a clergy member objects and won't do it, then the chapel must hire someone who will for that ceremony. Honestly, it can't be that hard. Seems like you all are worried more about what you perceive as "sin", without considering that you are probably in the same congregation as adulterers, fornicators...and so on.

Really, this isn't about forcing someone to perform a wedding. It's about granting civil rights. Back when I got married, there were many states in the south that wouldn't have recognized my marriage because interracial marriage was illegal in those states. It will take a while, but it will soon be as unremarkable as a mixed race couple....
BS. This has NOTHING to do with "rights". It has to do with the ultimate goal of the supporters of this--namely to end freedom of religion in this nation.

I WANT YOU TO BE ABLE TO PRACTICE YOUR RELIGION.

I also want homosexuals to marry.

flan

huskerbb · Guru

flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
JPT wrote:
Churches can limit which marriages they solemnize, by declaring they only perform for church members. No problem. Public non denominal wedding chapel (business), then they can't discriminate. If a clergy member objects and won't do it, then the chapel must hire someone who will for that ceremony. Honestly, it can't be that hard. Seems like you all are worried more about what you perceive as "sin", without considering that you are probably in the same congregation as adulterers, fornicators...and so on.

Really, this isn't about forcing someone to perform a wedding. It's about granting civil rights. Back when I got married, there were many states in the south that wouldn't have recognized my marriage because interracial marriage was illegal in those states. It will take a while, but it will soon be as unremarkable as a mixed race couple....
BS. This has NOTHING to do with "rights". It has to do with the ultimate goal of the supporters of this--namely to end freedom of religion in this nation.
I WANT YOU TO BE ABLE TO PRACTICE YOUR RELIGION.
I also want homosexuals to marry.
flan

No, you don't. You have even stated that you are in favor of lawsuits in which bakers have been fined or forced to act against their beliefs.

Ohfour · Hooker

I'm just glad that its settled. And as I said before, because of the tax and benefit laws, this was the decision that had to be made. I wish the government would get out of marriage all together...

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

11695505_985350384850246_2129408621701993701_n.jpg?oh=ea90e648556a1f0db6ce3f2962630413&oe=5634B955

Ohfour · Hooker

Lol NJN! Its the truth!

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Can't wait to hear the whinning come tax season.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Ohfour wrote:
Lol NJN! Its the truth!

I just started deleting people. I get it. You're happy. If you flood my page with chit you're getting deleted.

huskerbb · Guru

I got unfriended by someone. It's just proof that it's not about rights--it's just about them not wanting anyone else to have different beliefs.

I'm not going to unfriend someone based on their political beliefs. I try to believe that friendship can extend beyond politics--but other people can't seem to be friends with those they disagree on some issue with.

FNW · Guru

I've been unfriended by many for the same reason, husker. When I posted my opposition to gay marriage a year or two ago, I lost many friends. Was even blocked by a couple. Not friends anyway apparently.

huskerbb · Guru

FNW wrote:
I've been unfriended by many for the same reason, husker. When I posted my opposition to gay marriage a year or two ago, I lost many friends. Was even blocked by a couple. Not friends anyway apparently.

Meh. I got in a spat with one of her friends and, of course, it was on her wall.

It's not like we were/are close.

I find it a bit ridiculous when they post stuff to the PUBLIC, and then expect people to not comment on it when it shows up on my wall. If it's public, and it's on my wall, I am going to comment on it if I want to. Don't like my comments, don't make it public--or unfriend me. I have plenty of friends. If I lose one or ten it won't make much of a difference.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

lilyofcourse wrote:
Can't wait to hear the whinning come tax season.

Do you mean "whining?"

flan

burns07 · Guru

This has NOTHING to do with "rights". It has to do with the ultimate goal of the supporters of this--namely to end freedom of religion in this nation.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

precisely--and when it comes to that, people are going to die--lots of them