U.S. Supreme Court Considers Gay Marriage

rushfan4 wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: The Doctor wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: rushfan4 wrote: Drew wrote: rushfan4 wrote: Nothing.  Other than the church getting bad publicity. I think it will be a mess... I don't.  I assume that there was once a time when churches wouldn't perform interracial marriages or for that matter African American marriages but that came to an end.  At least mostly, although I think I did see a recent case where a pastor refused to perform an interracial marriage. I don't believe that they will have any legal ground to force a church to marry them.  What will eventually happen though is the churches will be branded as bigots and those who continue to attend those churches will be branded as bigots and people will have to decide whether or not they like that branding.  If enough people don't they will either leave the church or force the church to change.  Otherwise, it will be business as usual.  If the church won't marry you, then you will have to find a church or government official that will. I wouldn't be so sure that churches aren't going to get federal pressure to perform gay marriages; there have already been instances in the US where the government tries to force churches and religious groups into acting contrarily to their beliefs.  Personally, I would have to think twice about voting for any gay marriage legalization act that didn't include legal protections for institutions that elected not to perform gay marriages.   Give me one instance where the government has tried to force churches and religious groups to do something in the performance of their religious duties that runs contrary to their religious beliefs.  Yes, the government has made religions adhere to generally applicable laws in the performance of things like their duties as employers, but not in the performance of actual religious duties. Point taken.  I can't think of any examples off the top of my head. Mormons and multiple wives would be an example.

Hadn't thought of that one.  I'm sure there are some out there, but I think Chester is right that it's uncommon.  The way the government likes to trample on freedoms, though, I'm not sure that it will remain uncommon for long.

Ah, but Mormons and multiple wives is a prohibition (not necessarily one I agree with as long as all parties involved go into it knowingly and consensually), but a prohibition is not the same as forcing a religion to do something.  If I start the Prog Rock Church and part of my religious tenant is that we must perform human sacrifices on Justin Bieber fans, and the government says I can't (generally applicable law against murder), that is not the same as telling me I must do something, like accept Justin Bieber fans into my church or yikes, marry them where they might procreate and create little Justin Bieber fans. 

The T wrote: The US Supreme Court should not allow Justin Bieber to be married at least.

Triceratopsoil wrote: I thought in the case of those polygamists they had determined that whatever weird cult it was, they were lying in calling it mornonism

It seems to me that everyone is arguing about this, yet nobody has an opinion.

Nah, we need a eugenics program just for him

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: rushfan4 wrote: At least they always trample on our freedoms for our own good. "Those who know what's best for us must rise and save us from ourselves."

 Exactly!

Militarism is the belief that a group should maintain strong military capabilities and be prepared to use them aggressively to promote their interests, and it may imply the justification of conflict to administer a group’s policy on its enemies. Over the course of the past few years, conservatives have threatened various levels of conflict to impose their particular agenda on the government and American people whether it was opposition to healthcare reform when teabaggers attended protests claiming “we came unarmed this time,” or threats of race, civil, or revolutionary war over gun safety laws and the election of an African American president. Whatever various conservative groups’ causes, their reason for threatening conflict is always their opposition to the government’s right to enact laws within the tenets of the U.S. Constitution. During the Supreme Court hearings on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Prop 8 that banned same-sex marriage, conservative Christians became the latest group to use marshal language to express their outrage at the prospect the Constitution forbids them from imposing their religious morality on the entire nation.

A little reported exchange during arguments in favor of perpetuating inequality in America was Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan’s reading a line from the House Report justifying DOMA’s passage in 1996 that defined the law’s entire legal underpinning. It said, “Congress decided to reflect and honor a moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality.” That one line is all the reason the High Court needs to strike down the law on two counts; it is rank, government-sanctioned discrimination, and it is straight out of the Christian bible making it a direct violation of the 1^st Amendment’s prohibition on establishment of a state religion. Conservative Christians, meanwhile, fearing the prospect the Court may strike down the law, immediately took up a militaristic posture leading one influential conservative Iowa talk radio host to say, “It’s going to raise the issue to Orange Threat Level, it’ll be DEFCON 6,” and his warning was repeated across the country. http://www.politicususa.com/ive-christians-lose-threaten-president-obama-gop-supreme-court.html

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: ^Everyone else who has come here has respectfully stated their opinion.  You're the first to try and demonize your opponents.  Please do not continue to do so.

BEGONE, FOUL DEMON

Makes them kind of sound like kin of a certain North Korean.