Supreme Court rejects appeals on gay marriage, effectively legalizing it in 30 states.

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 10:29:27 -0400

Although I wish they would finally just rule, it's essentially the right decision. The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment makes it pretty clear that if you give rights to some, you have to give the same rights to all.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2014 10:35 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 10:35:52 -0400

Although I am against the decision and do not believe in gay marriage. It is the decision and it is what we must live with. And since it doesn't affect me who am I to argue the decision.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2014 10:46 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 10:46:56 -0400

There are an entire list of things that happen in our country that I don't agree with. Gay marriage is not even on my radar. There are more important things to worry about than two individuals marrying and publicly proclaiming their love for each other. Making gay marriage illegal never stopped the people from living together and acting as couples in the first place.

We need to focus on getting our veterans made whole with good jobs. We need to focus on rebuilding our nation's infrastructure. We need to focus on our education systems so people don't owe 25 years of their working life to pay off the loans. The list is long and distinguished..... let's focus on the things that help people get to work.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2014 10:57 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 10:57:56 -0400

While it's true that gay marriage being illegal never stopped people from living together, it did deny them the legal and financial benefits of being married (taxes, inheritance, next-of-kin, etc). I believe the right decision was made: if we truly want a separation of church and state, then there is no basis for denying homosexual couples the legal benefits of marriage.

If the churches want to reserve marriage as being between a man and a woman, then the legal system needs to come up with something else for homosexual couples (a civil union, perhaps?) that has all of the same benefits in the eyes of the law, just not in the eyes of the church.

Response by SSG Trevor S. made Oct 6 at 2014 12:00 PM

SSG Trevor S. — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 12:00:13 -0400

I think the right thing to do would have been to hear the case, and present a verdict after a 20 min deliberation. I think people should be allowed to be married, get divorced, pay alimony, ect... as makes them happiest.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2014 1:34 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 13:34:27 -0400

Does this include all sexual orientations or is it still a select few?

Response by CW2 Jonathan Kantor made Oct 6 at 2014 1:33 PM

CW2 Jonathan Kantor — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 13:33:40 -0400

It's about damn time. For once, something good is coming out of a branch of our government-not-doing something.

Response by FN Mike McCormack made Oct 6 at 2014 1:52 PM

FN Mike McCormack — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 13:52:34 -0400

Thanks to my Catholic upbringing and some very religious friends/family...I tend to struggle with my morality on this subject. We have all heard many different sides to this discussion and have all formed our own opinions...

Unfortunately...there are American's (see what I did there)...who are still unable to receive the benefits that other married, tax-paying couples enjoy. So...do I personally condone same-sex marriage?...No - I don't...but that's just my personal preference and I won't stand in the way of one's right to the freedom-of-choice. Do I know or respect Gay people? Yes I do! A while back when I was homophobic...a friend told me something that made me think about it...he simply said..."they are not going away" - so in the meanwhile...do we deny every one of them their rights based on an old-fashioned sense of morality? I decided in the end that the answer was no...of course not.

Just my .3 cents (see what I did there :).

Response by SN Derrick Johnson made Oct 6 at 2014 2:07 PM

SN Derrick Johnson — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 14:07:13 -0400

There is a BIG difference between a Religious ceremony that joins two people in marriage and the LEGAL ceremony that joins two people in marriage.

The Church (pick your denomination and deity) can choose whom they do and do not service. There are some congregations that won't even marry members of their own sect for various reasons (Not ready, didn't go to the church, didn't do the proper pre-wedding stuff).

The State/Government should not be able to choose whom they do and do not service. If the individuals are of proper age of consent and can knowingly engage in a contractual relationship then this should be the measurement and they should be wed.

Any religious organization can and will govern themselves according to their own doctrine. The Government is here for the people and nothing more.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2014 2:09 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 14:09:07 -0400

I am in an interracial marriage. Not all that long ago, my marriage wouldn't have been allowed. I support the advancement of marriage equality for committed same-sex couples because love should not be denied state sanction on account of bigotry. As long as we are talking about consenting adults, there really isn't a rational governmental reason to prohibit it.

Full disclosure: In May of this year, I officiated a marriage for a same-sex couple. Both women are currently Active-Duty Navy who only had the ability to be free and open about who they were after DADT fell. I was happy to be given the opportunity to join them together in marriage.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2014 2:32 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 14:32:06 -0400

To clarify, there was not ruling, there was not decision. SCOTUS simply declined to see the cases brought before them.

While the overall impression is that this is a movement in the direction for equality, There are still decisions in the lower courts pending, which from what I read is what SCOTUS is waiting to see.

I do wish that SCOTUS had taken this on and settled the issue so that as PO1 Private RallyPoint Member stated we could move on with more important things.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2014 2:53 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 14:53:09 -0400

Sir, there's already a thread on this but I do agree with you. It's a very poor decision on their part.

Response by MSG Wade Huffman made Oct 6 at 2014 3:40 PM

MSG Wade Huffman — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 15:40:34 -0400

Duplicate...Here is the original thread...

https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/supreme-court-rejects-appeals-on-gay-marriage-effectively-legalizing-it-in-30-states

Supreme Court rejects appeals on gay marriage, effectively legalizing it in 30 states. |...

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2014 3:51 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 15:51:31 -0400

I don't know why we accept that it is the government's role to issue a license for a relationship (sacrament). If we let the government decide some people will always be unhappy.

I would recommend the government get out of the marriage business and let free people live their lives as they see fit.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2014 3:52 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 15:52:02 -0400

removed

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2014 5:19 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 17:19:04 -0400

I will just say that I'm sorry to hear the decision. And I'll add that anyone who thinks there won't be lawsuits forcing churches to perform same-sex marriages is naïve. That can't be very far off.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Oct 6 at 2014 5:41 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 17:41:31 -0400

4 guys said it best a while ago, "Let it Be". Now don't we have more pressing issues like congress having to fly coach to deal with now that ISIS and EBOLA aren't as newsworthy. Yes I am sailing the great sea of sarcasm.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2014 8:46 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 20:46:11 -0400

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member , while I do agree with your position and interpretation of the 14th amendment, I worry how much the 10th amendment is being undermined at so many turns. What do you think?

Response by MSG Wade Huffman made Oct 7 at 2014 7:26 AM

MSG Wade Huffman — Tue, 07 Oct 2014 07:26:00 -0400

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member , I wholeheartedly agree with you on the point that I wish the Supreme Court would have taken it up and given a ruling so the whole thing could be put to rest. As it stand I don't see them (SCOTUS) taking it up any time in the near future unless one of the Appellate Courts rules contrary. As it stands, the primary reason they declined to hear the case is that all of the lower courts that have made decisions are in agreement.

Response by SPC James Mcneil made Oct 7 at 2014 5:03 PM

SPC James Mcneil — Tue, 07 Oct 2014 17:03:22 -0400

I was always told that anything for which you had to apply for a license is not a right. It is a privilege. According to that logic, marriage is not a right for heterosexual couples either. It is a privilege.

The supreme court is wrong.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Oct 7 at 2014 11:27 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Tue, 07 Oct 2014 23:27:47 -0400

We will get drug into the 21st Century kicking and screaming. Folks really like to hold onto their Ancient Religious Dogma.

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Nov 21 at 2014 12:16 AM

Capt Jeff S. — Fri, 21 Nov 2014 00:16:37 -0500

What happened to State Sovereignty?

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Dec 5 at 2014 2:07 PM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 14:07:37 -0500

Just because something is deemed to be "legal", that does not make it right or moral.

What consenting adults legally do in private is no concern of mine, however, it is of concern when they try to push their beliefs that contradict with mine on me.

I have no issue with gays having a civil union, or even allowing them to call it a "marriage" if they want. I do have an issue when they or the government force people to violate their own religious beliefs to cater to the so-called "marriage" (such as requiring religious ceremonies be conducted if requested, cakes baked, photos taken, etc. by people who, based on their religious beliefs object to it).

Response by COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM made Dec 5 at 2014 2:53 PM

COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 14:53:38 -0500

Don't think this issue is as simple as the 14th Amendment for a few reasons.
- US Constitution. The US Constitution very clearly delineates between state and federal responsibilities. Federal responsibilities are very limited by the Constitution whereas state responsibilities are very broad. Marriage by the Constitution is at the state level not the federal level. What is the SCOTUS argument for federalizing what the Constitution delineates to the state level? If the 14th Amendemnt then so be it.
- Governmental vs Religious. There is an intersection with marriage between government and religious. There are already reports of governments shutting businesses/churches down for refusing to suppport/administer gay marriage. Is this a proper application of the separation of church and state?
- Right vs privilege. There is a difference between a right and a privilege. For example, driving is a privilege not a right that is justifiably controlled and restricted. Blind people do not have a right to drive. I am not arguing that marriage is a privilege but I am arguing that state government has a vested interest in the institution of marriage for the sake of the society.
- Right vs responsibility. To much discussion in the US focuses upon "rights" and not nearly enough discussion on "responsibilities". For example, we have the right to procreate but what about our responsibility to assume the financial obligations for the upbringing of our offspring? In this case, there is a lot of discussion on the right to marry but what about the responsibility to the spouse and society when married?

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 6 at 2014 9:11 AM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 06 Dec 2014 09:11:21 -0500

About time.

Response by SSG Charles Coats made Dec 7 at 2014 12:20 AM

SSG Charles Coats — Sun, 07 Dec 2014 00:20:48 -0500

I'm looking in the Constitution with regard to authority for judicial review of the SCOTUS; can't find it anywhere...

Response by COL Ted Mc made Dec 8 at 2014 12:29 PM

COL Ted Mc — Mon, 08 Dec 2014 12:29:03 -0500

Personally I am so opposed to "gay marriage" and "abortion" that there are no conceivable circumstances under which I would either marry another man or have an abortion.

On the other hand, since "God" gave us all free will, feel free to go to your own particular version of "Hell" (mentioned 54 times in that notoriously politically directed "King James Version" but not at all in the Latin Vulgate [which is much older and closer to the original sources]) in your own hand basket (not mentioned at all in either).

If I'm wrong, then "God" (or the designated OOD) will tell me. If YOU are wrong then "God" (or the designated OOD) will tell YOU.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Mar 19 at 2016 10:43 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Sat, 19 Mar 2016 10:43:03 -0400

Define rights and which ones are being denied. The issue is the term marriage, it has historically and legally a contract between and man and a woman, with a religious base. What rights would be lost if the term civil unions were used and treated in the same manner as a marriage between a man and a woman. Good article here:

http://www.livescience.com/37777-history-of-marriage.html

History of Marriage: 13 Surprising Facts

Far from being about love, mutual attraction, or even children, marriage has historically been about alliances between families