








If adults want to, fine but they are marrying off kids and that's not fine. I don't know about Hasidic Jews but I work with kids in thee local diocese and there are strict rules such as not being alone with one kids, heavy screening and making sure pedos get nowhere near the kids. That's not the point though.





The problem with some religions is that they do hurt and harm people. I fully support everyone's right to worship whichever god or gods they choose to, but when they start trying to force their views on others or harming their own members, then I have a big problem with that religion. Unfortunately, there are a number of religions where the followers feel that everyone must follow the laws of that religion, whether they want to or not. The Catholic Church is like that with contraception, abortion, and homosexuality. Hopefully things will get better with the new pope. He seems to be more open-minded than his predecessors. Also, members of the Catholic Church seem to be more open-minded than in the past. Who would have ever believed that Ireland would vote in favor of gay marriage?





No, I haven't been against gay marriage. In fact I haven't discussed it much except to say that if a church doesn't support it they dont have to marry someone.I have discussed my gay neighbors a few times. I think you're thinking of someone else. I also said that while I'm Catholic I don't agree with their view on this.





The local diocese posted a statement and it said while they disagree, it's not right to hate someone for being gay. Doesn't sound that terrific but it is much better than what they've done in the past. In fact he is loosening a few views. I teach religious education but how we teach marriage has changed this year because man kids are from divorced or never married families.
I'm reminding myself to call it "same-sex marriage," since not all who marry someone of the same sex are actually gay (think of the bisexuals, straight-identified trans people, asexuals, etc.).
(yeah, I popped into this thread just to mention that. I'm ECSTATIC about the ruling.)
1. The arguments against gay marriage were just as bankrupt as those raised against inter-racial marriage and gays in the military.
2. To hear some opponents talk children would be better off in a heterosexual home , ANY hetero home no matter how fucked up the parents are. As opposed to a stable , loving home with two gay parents.
3. No this will not lead to polygamy , child brides and marrying a poodle. Heterosexuals are not permitted to do those things so there is no reason to let gay people do them.
More importantly those are choice and behavior based while gays are gay because they were born that way.
4. To Huckabee , Scalia , Jindal , Christie and the other hysterics : I will fight to the death for your right NOT to marry another man ; for your right not to walk into a gay bar and your right not to march in a Gay Pride Parade. Most of Western Europe has gay marriage and NONE of the gloom and doom predictions have come true.
5. Most people are just like me - They don't care. It has zero effect on me ; on my marriage ( if my fiancé doesn't chicken out lol ) ; and how I raise my children ( right now they are of the canine and feline variety ).
Btw I re-read some of the dissents. Some really piss poor stuff. The gist is that this should have been left to state legislatures and or voters in each state. Really ?
Had that prescription been followed blacks STILL would not have the right to vote in many states ; women would be barred from many jobs ; speech could be curtailed by legislation or referendum. In short , no other fundamental right is left to the whims and vagaries of the majority. So why marriage ? Why only for gays ? Why not restrict marriage among the elderly since they can no longer procreate ?
I'd like to think that this country is finally starting to grow up.
As for the Catholic Church the less said the better.
"Let the states decide" is the last stand of the people who were perfectly happy to have the government force their view upon everyone when things were going in their favor.
"Well done. Here are the test results: You are a horrible person. I'm serious, that's what it says: 'A horrible person.' We weren't even testing for that."





The whole letting States decide is basically saying that those in backwards states won't have as many rights. You see this argument often in things like abortion. The reality is if one is in a note liberal state things will be about the same or close but backwards States like Mississippi people will be allowed to discriminate.




Roberts was a dissenting opinion, and as such, counts for nothing
All of his blather is just that and means nothing legally, just as dissenters in the past ranted about the evils of their fellow justices stupidity that never came to fruition
Aside from that, giving someone their rights is a stand alone decision, the difficulties encountered from that decision are irrelevant
When you give someone their rights, it strengthens your own, not theopposite
I'm glad this finally happened. Equal rights for everyone! I have gay friends who are very happy. I think it had to be at a federal level not states because some states would have never accepted it. Just like some states probably would still not accept interracial marriage. Hell I live in the state I'd probably be in jail for dating a black guy. Glad those days are behind us!!





Here's a good article that explains how the court's ruling on gay marriage affects you:
http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/a...g-affects-you/





... right on cue ....
(snip)Nathan Collier said he was inspired by the recent Supreme Court decision that made marriage equal. He said he was particularly struck by the words of dissenting Chief Justice John Roberts who claimed giving gay couples the right to marry, might inspire polygamy.
And so this week, Mr Collier and his two wives, Victoria and Christine, entered a courthouse in Billings, Montana, and sought an application to legalise the trio’s polygamous union,
“Right now we're waiting for an answer," Mr Collier told The Independent. “I have two wives because I love two women and I want my second wife to have the same legal rights and protection as my first.”
He added: "Most people are not us. I am not trying to define what marriage means for anybody else - I am trying to define what marriage means for us."
The practice of bigamy - holding multiple marriage licences - is outlawed in all 50 of the US states, Montana among them. But Mr Collier said he planned to sue if his application was denied.
Mr Collier said he was former Mormon who had been excommunicated for polygamy and now owned a refrigeration business in Billings.
He married his first wife, Victoria, 40, in 2000. The 46-year-old, who appeared in the reality TV show Sister Wives, held a religious ceremony to marry second wife, Christine, in 2007 but did not sign a marriage license to avoid bigamy charges.(snip)
(snip)Yellowstone County clerk officials initially denied Mr Collier's application, then said they would consult with the county legal officer before giving him a final answer.
Yellowstone County chief civil litigator Kevin Gillen, told the Associated Press that he was reviewing Montana's bigamy laws and expected to send a formal response to Mr Collier by next week.
Mr Gillen said: “I think he deserves an answer.”(snip)




Same sex marriage? Awesomesauce! Polygamy between consenting adults? Full of win!
This? http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoy...tha-story.html
Hell. No.




What they left out: I'd you're a wedding oriented business who does not agree with same sex marriage and wish to express this, it absolutely can affect you.
http://www.kgw.com/story/news/local/...uple/22760387/




There is nothing in the bible that I have ever seen that allows refusal of service to those you do not agree with
These are the spoiled children of moral majority
That said I am somewhat uneasy fining people over such things. there is a line, somewhere, between refusing someone service at a lunch counter and forcing, say , a Jewish baker to make a swastika emblazoned cake. No matter how wrong they are, they feel just as strongly about it as the Jewish baker would.
So, where is that line?
Dunno.
Gays have the right to be married, and ignorant bigots have the right to be ignorant bigots, and I guess i would like to know who the ignorant bigots are so I can shop elsewhere




Just another thought, I wonder who the florists are who did all these Fundy's weddings?
Obviously I am just kidding, but if one only does business with the pure of heart, there are a lot of things you will have a hard time getting done










The refusal of a baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding was not based on the bible or religious beliefs, but on bigotry. The same bakery that refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding was willing to provide baked goods for celebrations of divorces, unmarried parents, stem-cell research, non-kosher barbecues and pagan solstice parties.
http://www.wweek.com/portland/articl...cake_wars.html





There used to be a very 'bright' line ... in the form of the 1st amendment.So, where is that line? Dunno.
Apparently, the original verbage "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." now only applies to individuals. Apparently, if they are business owners, in exchange for the 'privilege' of being allowed to operate a business, it now requires that the business owner's individual religious convictions be disregarded during the operation of that business.
I'm not saying that this is a good thing or a bad thing, just that it's quite different.





The 1st Amendment doesn't give businesses the right to punish others for not following their religious beliefs.





^^^ apparently it now depends on who the business owners are and who the plaintiffs are ... see
I quit trying to make logical sense out of many of these rulings / changes a decade ago !!!
See, it seems that simple to us but it really isn't. There used to be whole towns in the south where blacks simply weren't welcomed. If we allow people to discriminate against anyone there will be areas of the country were they will not be allowed to exist at all. It isn't as simple as finding a different cake store, it is more like "move out of large swaths of rural areas throughout most of the south". Religious freedom is not an excuse to commit evil and illegal acts, and discriminating against people for any reason falls under that.
"Well done. Here are the test results: You are a horrible person. I'm serious, that's what it says: 'A horrible person.' We weren't even testing for that."
We can't make any discriminations now because there are many laws that protect diferent types of people. This can be a good thing!
Bookmarks