[adam42381]

Congratulations, ATrain.

[Yacht Rock]

He's gay? Never would have known. He never brings it up.

[Purple Haize]

Which IMO is why 'Marriage' should not be the purview of the Government. It makes it a business transaction. Also, based on recent rulings words can mean whatever we want them too, so it does no good to define Marriage in a government sense at all. Let Mr and Mr ATrain be happy together and enjoy the government and legal benefits of marriage. I have 0 problem with that and wish them well and will hang out with them the next time I'm in Dallas. Or a Howard Jones concert

[jbock13]

Yep.

[ALUmnus]

Which IMO is why 'Marriage' should not be the purview of the Government. It makes it a business transaction. Also, based on recent rulings words can mean whatever we want them too, so it does no good to define Marriage in a government sense at all. Let Mr and Mr ATrain be happy together and enjoy the government and legal benefits of marriage. I have 0 problem with that and wish them well and will hang out with them the next time I'm in Dallas. Or a Howard Jones concert

"0 problem"? None whatsoever?

[Kiwon]

It's a sad day for liberty, and a dangerous one, when five unelected lawyers, appointed with administrative power, can invalidate the votes of millions of citizens by finding a new fundamental right that somehow was overlooked in the Constitution for 226 years.

It was not seen before because it's not there.

This controversy should have be solved through the democratic process by the people most affected, the country's citizens. The dissenting opinions of the other Supreme Court Justices remind us of a sobering reality: If rights can be given, they can be taken away as well.


Chief Justice John Roberts

"Just who do we think we are?"

"If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."

Justice Antonin Scalia

"It is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today's decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. … This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves."

Justice Clarence Thomas

"The majority invokes our Constitution in the name of a 'liberty' that the Framers would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect. Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government. This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it."

Justice Samuel Alito

"Most Americans — understandably — will cheer or lament today's decision because of their views on the issue of same-sex marriage. But all Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority's claim of power portends."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /29334121/

[Purple Haize]

Which IMO is why 'Marriage' should not be the purview of the Government. It makes it a business transaction. Also, based on recent rulings words can mean whatever we want them too, so it does no good to define Marriage in a government sense at all. Let Mr and Mr ATrain be happy together and enjoy the government and legal benefits of marriage. I have 0 problem with that and wish them well and will hang out with them the next time I'm in Dallas. Or a Howard Jones concert

"0 problem"? None whatsoever?

In the eyes of the law marriage is nothing more than a legal contract. Since we have no definition of 'marriage' than it should apply to people who are of legal age to enter into a contract. Where I would have a problem, would be 2 fold. First,mid there was an actual legal definition and it was ignored. That a State may have their own definition leads to my 2nd point. States rights, unfortunately, no longer matter. That has become abundantly clear this las USSC session. THAT bothers me

[ATrain]

Thank you Adam and PH. Next you're in Dallas PH, we do have a guest room if you'd like to stay here. That offer also applies to Adam, and JBock, and Alumnus and Kiwon, pretty much any member of Flamefans.com visiting Dallas.

[jbock13]

Thank you Adam and PH. Next you're in Dallas PH, we do have a guest room if you'd like to stay here. That offer also applies to Adam, and JBock, and Alumnus and Kiwon, pretty much any member of Flamefans.com visiting Dallas.

That could be the kindest thing anybody's said to me here

[SuperJon]

In the eyes of the law marriage is nothing more than a legal contract. Since we have no definition of 'marriage' than it should apply to people who are of legal age to enter into a contract.

This sums it up for me. What the Supreme Court just legalized is not the same thing the Bible called marriage. The Bible talked about a covenant between two people before God. The Supreme Court is talking about a legal agreement to protect legal rights that married heterosexual couples have.

What worries me is the precedent the Supreme Court set by overruling state decisions and establishing themselves as the end all be all authority in America.

The other thing that concerns me is the lack of protection for religious people (of any religion) to deny their services or building to a same sex couple because of religious differences. Tennessee is already working on a bill to protect clergy from lawsuits if they were to decline officiating or hosting a same sex marriage.

[ATrain]

In the eyes of the law marriage is nothing more than a legal contract. Since we have no definition of 'marriage' than it should apply to people who are of legal age to enter into a contract.

This sums it up for me. What the Supreme Court just legalized is not the same thing the Bible called marriage. The Bible talked about a covenant between two people before God. The Supreme Court is talking about a legal agreement to protect legal rights that married heterosexual couples have.

What worries me is the precedent the Supreme Court set by overruling state decisions and establishing themselves as the end all be all authority in America.

The other thing that concerns me is the lack of protection for religious people (of any religion) to deny their services or building to a same sex couple because of religious differences. Tennessee is already working on a bill to protect clergy from lawsuits if they were to decline officiating or hosting a same sex marriage.

In regards to the second paragraph, the same sentiments were expressed in Brown v. Board of Ed. and Loving v. Virginia.

In regards to the third, no one said a Christian pastor had to marry Jews, Muslims, etc...and not like their faiths would permit you to marry them, anyway :-p

[flamehunter]

The difference Atrain is that Jews and Muslims wouldn't go to a Christian pastor and ask them to marry them just to force the issue. Gays have already said they will - they see the snowball rolling downhill and are going to keep pushing as far as they can. They want gay rights to supercede religious liberty.

[ATrain]

The difference Atrain is that Jews and Muslims wouldn't go to a Christian pastor and ask them to marry them just to force the issue. Gays have already said they will - they see the snowball rolling downhill and are going to keep pushing as far as they can. They want gay rights to supercede religious liberty.

Christian pastors have always had the right to refuse to marry anyone, just as Jewish Rabbis and Muslim Clerics. Some pastors require counseling before they'll marry a couple, other do not...but they have the right to marry or not marry anyone.

[Yacht Rock]

The difference Atrain is that Jews and Muslims wouldn't go to a Christian pastor and ask them to marry them just to force the issue. Gays have already said they will - they see the snowball rolling downhill and are going to keep pushing as far as they can. They want gay rights to supercede religious liberty.

This.

Many aren't content saying "you go your way, I'll go mine."

There are still many who believe that agreeing with God's definition of marriage makes you a bigot and a homophobe and they will do everything in their power to punish you for those beliefs.

If you don't see that or haven't seen that, you're not looking very hard.

[Yacht Rock]

The difference Atrain is that Jews and Muslims wouldn't go to a Christian pastor and ask them to marry them just to force the issue. Gays have already said they will - they see the snowball rolling downhill and are going to keep pushing as far as they can. They want gay rights to supercede religious liberty.

Christian pastors have always had the right to refuse to marry anyone, just as Jewish Rabbis and Muslim Clerics. Some pastors require counseling before they'll marry a couple, other do not...but they have the right to marry or not marry anyone.

First, over the years the Supreme Court has conferred upon itself the ability to give new rights and take existing rights away. None of us know what the future might hold.

However even if you exclude pastors, don't be surprised when both non-profit and for-profit Christian owned businesses and organizations continue to be attacked. That has already happened and most definitely will continue to be amped up in all 50 states.

Is this scary? No. History has shown us that the nations of men make huge mistakes and bad decisions. Everyone talks about the Supreme Court and the "law of the land" but lets not pretend that the Supreme Court has been the paragon of virtue and good decision making over the years.

I know a God that is faithful and unchanging and a kingdom that He has established when everything else falls.

Russell Moore had a great response to the ruling. I know I'm not going to panic because I know precisely what I will do when confronted about the issue but I think it is wise to have a grown up discussion and not candy coat what will come next for everyone involved, if history has taught us anything.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts ... -marriage/

[jbock13]

First, they came for the bakers...

[SuperJon]

Christian pastors have always had the right to refuse to marry anyone, just as Jewish Rabbis and Muslim Clerics. Some pastors require counseling before they'll marry a couple, other do not...but they have the right to marry or not marry anyone.

That's how things have been in the past. The fear is that the same-sex marriage community will bully their way to forcing people to do things against their religious beliefs.

[Sly Fox]

I agree with SJ that this decision really doesn't impact the definition of marriage as far as the church sees it. But it certainly changes the lens through which those outside the church view how we should operate.

And now those with an axe to grind now have the billy club of an organization losing tax exempt status to punish those whom they feel have persecuted them. This won't take long to go down.

Am I the only one who reads the language of the decision and sees the court reviewing polygamy rather rapidly?

[Yacht Rock]

First, they came for the bakers... :I chortle audibly.:

It won't just be the bakers. It will be the butchers, the bakers, and the I would say the candlestick makers but I think Liberace went after them years ago.

[Purple Haize]

And now those with an axe to grind now have the billy club of an organization losing tax exempt status to punish those whom they feel have persecuted them. This won't take long to go down.

Am I the only one reads the language of the decision and sees the court reviewing polygamy rather rapidly?

No. It goes back to my earlier statement. The Government views marriage as a contract. Therefore, under the law, any people that are legally able to enter into a contract should be able to do so.

[TH Spangler]

Atrain when do you plan to wed?

A prenuptial would be wise!

Wow, the show Divorce Court is about to get even more interesting.

[ATrain]

Atrain when do you plan to wed?

A prenuptial would be wise!

Wow, the show Divorce Court is about to get even more interesting.

Been married over a year now actually. April 5, 2014 - got the license signed at a Starbucks in DC. Had a wedding/ceremony September 28 on the beach in VA Beach, shortly before it became legal in VA.

[Purple Haize]

Atrain when do you plan to wed?

A prenuptial would be wise!

Wow, the show Divorce Court is about to get even more FABULOUS

He already is.
And FIFY!

[Purple Haize]

The difference Atrain is that Jews and Muslims wouldn't go to a Christian pastor and ask them to marry them just to force the issue. Gays have already said they will - they see the snowball rolling downhill and are going to keep pushing as far as they can. They want gay rights to supercede religious liberty.

Christian pastors have always had the right to refuse to marry anyone, just as Jewish Rabbis and Muslim Clerics. Some pastors require counseling before they'll marry a couple, other do not...but they have the right to marry or not marry anyone.

It's already starting in England

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/milli ... d-wedding/

[01LUGrad]

Like several have stated above, I'm really not concerned about legalizing gay marriage in it of itself. That truly has no bearing on me (Divorce is a sin and is also legal in this country, but no one is out there trying to get it overturned because it is immoral). What does concern me is where this is going. Here's my prediction of how things will progress over the next 5-7 years (depending on when the next Justice steps down):
-"Equality" activists seek new executive orders that include expanding the definition of what is considered a hate crime to include religious organizations' public statements against homosexuality.
-These laws will be upheld by the Court that will be made up of at least 6 liberal judges who are sympathetic to the cause of "equality"
-This will cause any church who speaks out on this issue to lose their tax exempt status
-Pastors will then not be allowed to refuse to marry same-sex couples or face charges under the new hate crime executive orders

The legalization of same sex marriage is small potatoes for Satan. It is merely a means to an end. That end is the destruction of the American church. If you don't think this is possible, do some research on Denmark. It's already happening there.