Supreme Court rules in spite of what the law says

[mojo84]

SCOTUS is full of disappointment this week, this and the other decision just now.

I personally have no problem with all Americans having equal protection under the law. Whether you agree with it or not, their right to have equal protection outweighs your right to perceived harm done to "the sanctity of marriage". I may get flamed on this, but it's the way our current society regards this no matter what the past has been. It's a freight train and it's not going to stop.

Additionally with this wedge issue off of the table, it will be easier for Republicans to compete with Dems in the minds of some independent voters.

Do you agree the same equal protections extend to religious liberties for those deciding not to participate in activities which go against their religious beliefs?

Absolutely. A Catholic church won't marry a Methodist and a Catholic, they shouldn't have to and won't have to marry two men or to two women either.

I promise you this will be the next step. If baking cakes or taking pictures is an issue, then conducting and officiating marriage ceremonies will be also.

[Beiruty]

SCOTUS is a political tool no more no less.

[TVGuy]

SCOTUS is full of disappointment this week, this and the other decision just now.

I personally have no problem with all Americans having equal protection under the law. Whether you agree with it or not, their right to have equal protection outweighs your right to perceived harm done to "the sanctity of marriage". I may get flamed on this, but it's the way our current society regards this no matter what the past has been. It's a freight train and it's not going to stop.

Additionally with this wedge issue off of the table, it will be easier for Republicans to compete with Dems in the minds of some independent voters.

Do you agree the same equal protections extend to religious liberties for those deciding not to participate in activities which go against their religious beliefs?

Absolutely. A Catholic church won't marry a Methodist and a Catholic, they shouldn't have to and won't have to marry two men or to two women either.

I promise you this will be the next step. If baking cakes or taking pictures is an issue, then conducting and officiating marriage ceremonies will be also.

Not a chance... Big difference between a private business open to the public and a religious institution.

[Middle Age Russ]

Redefining marriage is not necessary to achieve equal protections under the law for civil unions, but other changes to existing laws might be warranted. Redefining marriage is essential, though, for other more nefarious reasons that typically fall within the Progressive agenda, where appearance and public opinion are ultimately used to create a democratic tyranny where a federal republic once stood. The cornerstone of society has always been the nuclear family (with both male and female role models supporting wholistic development of the offspring), and this latest ruling is another slice in a strategy to kill the nuclear family via 1000 cuts. I am not surprised by this SCOTUS ruling, but I do believe that it does not serve all American's equally. America is being reshaped before our eyes for better (or much more likely) for worse.

[mojo84]

SCOTUS is full of disappointment this week, this and the other decision just now.

I personally have no problem with all Americans having equal protection under the law. Whether you agree with it or not, their right to have equal protection outweighs your right to perceived harm done to "the sanctity of marriage". I may get flamed on this, but it's the way our current society regards this no matter what the past has been. It's a freight train and it's not going to stop.

Additionally with this wedge issue off of the table, it will be easier for Republicans to compete with Dems in the minds of some independent voters.

Do you agree the same equal protections extend to religious liberties for those deciding not to participate in activities which go against their religious beliefs?

Absolutely. A Catholic church won't marry a Methodist and a Catholic, they shouldn't have to and won't have to marry two men or to two women either.

I promise you this will be the next step. If baking cakes or taking pictures is an issue, then conducting and officiating marriage ceremonies will be also.

Not a chance... Big difference between a private business open to the public and a religious institution.

Is that based on Justice Roberts' opinion on how they ruled yesterday or today? Do you not see the slippery slope that we have now? Your argument is based upon the rule of law prevailing. Yesterday and today have confirmed we no longer have rule of law.

[Beiruty]

Redefining marriage is not necessary to achieve equal protections under the law for civil unions, but other changes to existing laws might be warranted. Redefining marriage is essential, though, for other more nefarious reasons that typically fall within the Progressive agenda, where appearance and public opinion are ultimately used to create a democratic tyranny where a federal republic once stood. The cornerstone of society has always been the nuclear family (with both male and female role models supporting wholistic development of the offspring), and this latest ruling is another slice in a strategy to kill the nuclear family via 1000 cuts. I am not surprised by this SCOTUS ruling, but I do believe that it does not serve all American's equally. America is being reshaped before our eyes for better (or much more likely) for worse.

Next, incest-laws would be found unconstitutional.

[Middle Age Russ]

Yes. The slippery slope angle of inclination just increased significantly, though the ruling was not unexpected.

[mojo84]

Yes. The slippery slope angle of inclination just increased significantly, though the ruling was not unexpected.

I am much more disappointed than surprised. I am even more disappointed in how the court has come to their conclusions.

I am looking forward to hearing from those that have so much faith in the supreme court as the final arbiter and interpreter of LAW.

[Tracker]

what struck me when listening to Obama's gay marriage speech today is that it could be applied equally to the 2nd amendment with the "patchwork" of laws from one state to the next and where state who adopt "may-issue" infringe upon someone carrying. Before today one state didn't have to recognize the gay marriage from another state, is that any different then one state not recognizing the CHL holder from another state?

Plus, if marriage is a constitutional right why should there be a licensing system at all..............?

[TVGuy]

Plus, if marriage is a constitutional right why should there be a licensing system at all..............?

There isn't a requirement in many states... Common Law marriage. A license makes it easier for personal business reasons.

[Tracker]

Plus, if marriage is a constitutional right why should there be a licensing system at all..............?

There isn't a requirement in many states... Common Law marriage. A license makes it easier for personal business reasons.

right, and there isn't a chl requirement in states like AZ.

As for state's licensing gay marriage I'm thinking we'll see states follow suit and get out to that business.

[TXBO]

SCOTUS is full of disappointment this week, this and the other decision just now.

I personally have no problem with all Americans having equal protection under the law. Whether you agree with it or not, their right to have equal protection outweighs your right to perceived harm done to "the sanctity of marriage". I may get flamed on this, but it's the way our current society regards this no matter what the past has been. It's a freight train and it's not going to stop.

Additionally with this wedge issue off of the table, it will be easier for Republicans to compete with Dems in the minds of some independent voters.

Whatever this is, it is not a win for equality. 105 million adults in the US are unmarried. That's roughly 44% of the adult population. All this does is add a small percentage of our population to a privileged class sponsored by the state.

[mojo84]

AG Paxton calls it a flawed ruling, says next fight will be over religious liberty: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/oa ... hp?id=5142" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; #ssm

[mojo84]

The governor is also concerned about the SCOTUS ruling having a negative impact on religious liberty.

http://gov.texas.gov/news/press-release/21133" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[TXBO]

The governor is also concerned about the SCOUTS ruling having a negative impact on religious liberty.

http://gov.texas.gov/news/press-release/21133" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Quite proactive directive.