SCOTUS ruled that states cannot ban same sex marriage?

No sir...simply stating that no matter what your beliefs or your feeling pro or con on this topic marriage has been reduced to a political and tax status and nothing more.....nothing less. The ruling does not change anything on a personal or religious level.....all it does is change your status at a government level....its that simple.

But always do love how if anyone speaks up with anything other than a "hot damn" or "that's awesome" the insinuation is made that they are against it. I , and a lot of other people, simply do not care who, or what, anyone marries......it's NOT MY BUSINESS....nor do I give a crap......again just a simple statement that being Married has been reduced to simply a block you check on your tax form or job application.

You can try and rationalize it mean more....but it does not.

The state of Alabama may have to let people get married but the New Hope Christian Fellowship , Zionist Church of God, Baron Hirsch Synagogue, or Lakewood Church are not going be hosting ceremonies anytime soon.......again it's a political status and nothing more.

Marriage has always been a "political and tax status" in the United States in regards to the law. You are making the mistake of conflating holy matrimony and legal marriage.

SPC (Join to see) - you know that is fine distinguishment but i'm not the one making the mistake......as you noted that's what I keep saying......despite being baited into making into something bigger.....thank you for the vote of support and probably expressing the distinction better than I was.

It always was, from a government perspective. Any other significance you want to give it, feel free...but no one religion gets to impose their ideas about marriage on any group outside of the religion.

Huh? It's as if you either are unaware of the language of Art I Section 8 (often called the Enumerated Powers clause), or just ignored my point. I DO NOT CARE about gay marriage. I do care about the gradual and relentless decay of State powers (ie, Federalism) supported by the 10th Amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.") that this decision and the recent ACA decision violates. When lack of commerce (my decision to NOT buy health care insurance) equals Interstate Commerce under the Commerce Clause, and the word "State" (with a capital S)means Executive Branch of the Federal Government, we know SCOTUS has gone a long way toward removing any last vestige of strength from the 10th Amendment. Freedom of Religion has nothing to do with either gay marriage or federalism. And be careful. A man and his daughter (or granddaughter) are two people.

Interesting points Col Lenertz. Makes one think about where we are headed as a nation and the 50 states therein.

No State power ... except to write the criminal code, state tax code, estate law, elder law, evidence and procedural law, and any number of other civil provisions. Your assertion is simply false, sir.

This discussion of the 10th amendment has been beaten to death already, but here's the rebuttal. Sec. 1 of the 14th amendment reads, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

SSG Ralph Innes, you forget Sears.

No self respecting gay person shops at Sears.

Lt Col (Join to see), I big burly biker types. They love craftsman tools.

Lt Col (Join to see) - How do you know?

Thank You

MSgt Joshua Copeland, stop putting words in my mouth. I did not state that. I just stated my view. You can take it, or leave it. Last time I checked, the constitution gave me the right to express my opinion.

PO3 David Miller, down vote me all you want. You specifically state "with my beliefs, I don't support the SCOTUS decision." That means that you value your beliefs more than the rule of law. A reasonable person can separate their personal beliefs and legal concepts.

MSgt Joshua Copeland, Congrats on being able to read my post correctly. I'm sure you feel special now. Yes, my beliefs are very important to me as would anyone's belief system. I hold my religious beliefs very high. If civil law goes against my religious beliefs, yes, I will follow my beliefs even if that means going against the flow. You may not understand, but for me, I have to answer to my Lord. Each person is free to choose as they wish, I choose to disagree with the decision.

PO3 David Miller Interesting statement there, "Each person is free to choose as they wish[...]" as it sounds like, had your beliefs held sway, gay people wouldn't have been free to choose as they wished. They'd be relegated to having no choice and therefore denied a freedom.

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. Lt Col (Join to see) It seems the argument is whether money is more important than morality. That should be an easy answer.

Lt Col (Join to see) You seem to love putting words in peoples' mouth! Is that the way you command? The statement was, the South went to war because the North declared economic war on it. That's it. Period. No hidden agenda.

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. - So, in your opinion, was the south justified? I guess what I'm trying to get a handle on is what SSG (Join to see) said...was the economic prosperity worth continuing to enslave people?

I guess it depends on who is being attacked now doesn't it?
Was the South justified? Is any nation justified in protecting its economic base?
Was the South on moral high-ground? I think no, but a lot of people in the South have never forgiven the North for its "act of aggression".