Posted on Jun 26, 2015
SCOTUS ruled that states cannot ban same sex marriage?
27.6K
89
79
7
7
0
Marriage
LGBTQ+
Law
Supreme Court
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 18
Suspended Profile
I know many people in RPland will disagree with me, and that's fine...
Remember that the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing or prohibiting the practice of any religion.
Lev. 18:22 is a critical verse in the Torah, in that it prohibits male/male homosexual penetrative intercourse.
That being said, there is nothing outside of religious law that justifies defining marriage as ONLY between a man and a woman. Remember Gen 1:27 says that God created us male AND female. This means not all of us are cis-gendered, heterosexual people...
So, taking religion out of the picture, even though I've invoked it here, what sociological justification is there for banning gay marriage? I see none personally...
Remember that the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing or prohibiting the practice of any religion.
Lev. 18:22 is a critical verse in the Torah, in that it prohibits male/male homosexual penetrative intercourse.
That being said, there is nothing outside of religious law that justifies defining marriage as ONLY between a man and a woman. Remember Gen 1:27 says that God created us male AND female. This means not all of us are cis-gendered, heterosexual people...
So, taking religion out of the picture, even though I've invoked it here, what sociological justification is there for banning gay marriage? I see none personally...
4
4
0
To be honest, I've been wondering why the state is involved in marriage to begin with. Amusingly, when it became something to be licensed and controlled by the states, many religious leaders felt that was the end of the world. It is, by and large, a religious or social institution. It only exists at the state and federal level for tax and inheritance purposes.
Personally, I think we need to abandon the whole thing at a government level and issue "civil unions" to any two people who want to tie themselves together for tax, income, decision making and inheritance purposes. Purely contractual. If you want a ceremony, go hire a pastor.
Personally, I think we need to abandon the whole thing at a government level and issue "civil unions" to any two people who want to tie themselves together for tax, income, decision making and inheritance purposes. Purely contractual. If you want a ceremony, go hire a pastor.
(4)
(0)
TSgt Joshua Copeland
SGT Jeremiah B., I have been saying something similar for years. The caveat is any two or more mutually consenting adult.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
If they had denied it would have set back gay rights by a decade or more and thrown the states that legalized it into turmoil. I think they made the right call.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
I do not understand why we choose to limit some peoples rights based on their personal beliefs in the first place, so i support their decision.
(4)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
And do you very the same way with the Loving vs Virginia decision? The court made a marriage ruling in that case as well striking down states anti-miscegenation statutes
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
I'm pretty certain it hasn't had any impact on my marriage to my wife. Gay Veterans served and signed on the dotted line with the rest of us. Why should they have different rights?
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
Didn't get to finish typing. .. or religious then who are we to say people who love one another can't get married? Some may cook for you, some may protect you others ma7 serve our country and die for it. So let em love/marry who they want
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
They just plain need to stop defining what relationships mean. A ruling such as this does little more than give permission to same sex couples to marry. The government still must define your marriage as it sees fit, which gives it too much power.
The way things are going this states that a couple that meet and get married within a week are a more legitimate relationship that couples that have been together for decades and have kids together but never got officially married.
The more items we continue to allow our government to define, the less individuality and rights we have.
The way things are going this states that a couple that meet and get married within a week are a more legitimate relationship that couples that have been together for decades and have kids together but never got officially married.
The more items we continue to allow our government to define, the less individuality and rights we have.
(2)
(0)
SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S.
A contract? What do you think a marriage is? It is the default medical consent. child protection and property transfer contract. That is what it is so important!
(1)
(0)
CPT Zachary Brooks
It is a contact yes, but a limited one. This still states that one relationship is more legitimate than another and you have to pay to have it recognized. You essentially have to give the state more money for them to agree that your relationship is legitimate. You have to ask permission for and pay to be awarded the privilege to be married.
We get fired up about having to do the same to own a fire arm, how is this different? You have the men and women in power, who work for their own power, interest, and wealth that occasionally toss us a bone to keep us happy. A marriage or any relationship should be as easy as writing out a contract between two people and having it signed with a notary. That should be legal enough in any sense.
We get fired up about having to do the same to own a fire arm, how is this different? You have the men and women in power, who work for their own power, interest, and wealth that occasionally toss us a bone to keep us happy. A marriage or any relationship should be as easy as writing out a contract between two people and having it signed with a notary. That should be legal enough in any sense.
(1)
(0)
SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S.
CPT Zachary Brooks Marriage is in no possible definition of a "limited contract". Marriage conveys many, many rights and privileges no other contract could hope to enumerate. The marriage contract is underwritten by a couple thousand years of common law which fully establishes these rights and privileges. To enumerate all the implied and expressed rights and privileges would require a contract the size of the New York or LA phone book. If you think a marriage license is "expensive" try having a comparable contract drawn up! And when you are done, you still won't have the tax advantages that a simple marriage conveys. And if the government is not to be involved, who backs the faith and force of the ANY contract?
(1)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
Here's what Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia had to say about the ruling:
“Unlike criminal laws banning contraceptives and sodomy, the marriage laws at issue here involve no government intrusion. They create no crime and impose no punishment. Same-sex couples remain free to live together, to engage in intimate conduct, and to raise their families as they see fit. No one is ‘condemned to live in loneliness’ by the laws challenged in these cases—no one.” ... ... ... “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.”
— Chief Justice John Roberts, in his dissent
“Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie.” ... ... ... “ [T]o allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.”
— Justice Antonin Scalia, in his dissent
“Unlike criminal laws banning contraceptives and sodomy, the marriage laws at issue here involve no government intrusion. They create no crime and impose no punishment. Same-sex couples remain free to live together, to engage in intimate conduct, and to raise their families as they see fit. No one is ‘condemned to live in loneliness’ by the laws challenged in these cases—no one.” ... ... ... “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.”
— Chief Justice John Roberts, in his dissent
“Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie.” ... ... ... “ [T]o allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.”
— Justice Antonin Scalia, in his dissent
10 key quotes from the Supreme Court's gay marriage decision
Inside the high court, passions ran deep, as seen in the justices’ responses. POLITICO takes a look at 10 of the key quotes from the gay marriage decision.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google
There is much more to life than having children. We are also told in Genesis to rule the world. Ruling it doesn't mean destroying it, it means protecting and preserving it. Part of that is to control population growth to sustainable levels.
This is a very emotionally charged topic, and we are dealing with an issue where religious beliefs are informing state policy. The Founding Fathers wisely put the separation clause of the First Amendment in to try to avoid this...
For those who don't believe in God and are more spiritual in nature... Nature did not design humans to be homosexual. Homosexuality goes against our biology. The colon is an out hole... It was not designed to have things going into it. Period.
Man in his finite wisdom can't change nature's design simply by redefining marriage. But man, in his rebellion against God's supreme authority, feels he can do whatever he wants... and does, to his own detriment. God's laws are not burdensome; they are designed to help people live a happier, healthier, more abundant and fruitful life. When we go against God, we invariably make problems for ourselves. This decision is a ominous prelude to the destruction of our society and the loss of freedoms that we have today. How could we be so short-sighted?
The following link contains 10 key quotes, taken from what our Supreme Court justices wrote in regards to the ruling on gay marriage:
10 key quotes from the Supreme Court's gay marriage decision
Inside the high court, passions ran deep, as seen in the justices’ responses. POLITICO takes a look at 10 of the key quotes from the gay marriage decision.
While it is certainly true that Lev. 18:22 prohibits male male penetrative sex, consider how many other Commandments from Torah are violated by people on a daily basis. Do you keep strictly Kosher? Observe the Sabbath rigorously? Donate to the poor, visit the sick, work to free the captives, etc? The vast majority of people who decry homosexuality are in fact violating many commandments.
The rabbis in the Talmud outlawed or changed several Torah commandments because of the intense humanitarian harm that came from them. These include the death penalty, the rebellious son, and Eye for an Eye.
I disagree with your characterizations about nature. A number of animals in nature change genders with the proper stimulus, and there are gay animals in nature.