Posted on Jun 26, 2015
What are the implications now that the Supreme Court ruled same sex couples can marry in all all 50 states?
7K
120
83
12
12
0
What implications do you expect for businesses, churches, and freedom of speech now that SCOTUS has ruled in favor of same sex marriage and invalidated all state constitutional amendments against it.
I hope that people will still be able to speak freely about the issues surrounding same sex marriage including adoption, therapy, counseling, etc.
I also hope that businesses and pastors or priests who shepherd churches, imams and other leaders of mosques, rabbis of synagogues, priest who lead temples, etc. will be able to decline hosting or participating in same sex marriages.
Update 6/27/2015] Today I read that the pedophiles are intending to follow on the heels of the same sex court success. Included in Justice Kennedy's opinion was "the required minimum age is 16 in Vermont, but only 13 in New Hampshire." Based on this logic NAMBLA ( North American Man/Boy Love Association) should be able to press their arguments. If they are successful this may drive more reasonable people to get angry - very angry.
GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad, CH (MAJ) William Beaver, SSG Roger Ayscue, SGT (Join to see), LTC (Join to see), SSG Lawrence Crow, CH (MAJ) (Join to see), SGT Robert Hawks, SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA, SPC (Join to see), COL Charles Williams, MAJ (Join to see), MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca ), LTC Stephen C.
I hope that people will still be able to speak freely about the issues surrounding same sex marriage including adoption, therapy, counseling, etc.
I also hope that businesses and pastors or priests who shepherd churches, imams and other leaders of mosques, rabbis of synagogues, priest who lead temples, etc. will be able to decline hosting or participating in same sex marriages.
Update 6/27/2015] Today I read that the pedophiles are intending to follow on the heels of the same sex court success. Included in Justice Kennedy's opinion was "the required minimum age is 16 in Vermont, but only 13 in New Hampshire." Based on this logic NAMBLA ( North American Man/Boy Love Association) should be able to press their arguments. If they are successful this may drive more reasonable people to get angry - very angry.
GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad, CH (MAJ) William Beaver, SSG Roger Ayscue, SGT (Join to see), LTC (Join to see), SSG Lawrence Crow, CH (MAJ) (Join to see), SGT Robert Hawks, SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA, SPC (Join to see), COL Charles Williams, MAJ (Join to see), MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca ), LTC Stephen C.
Freedom
Family
Politics
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 20
7
7
0
I find it funny actually. Liberals want separation of Church and State unless it concerns gay marriage. Then they feel that a church should be forced to marry a gay couple. Kind of ironic don't you think?
With that said, if gays want to marry, why do you really care? how does it in any way affect you personally?
I am also a Christian, and I believe in the scripture that goes like this: "Judge not, that ye be not judged."
With that said, if gays want to marry, why do you really care? how does it in any way affect you personally?
I am also a Christian, and I believe in the scripture that goes like this: "Judge not, that ye be not judged."
(7)
(0)
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca
Churches don't have to marry same-sex couples. A justice of the peace can officiate a wedding. There is the separation of church and state. If the Catholic church refuses to marry a same-sex couple based on religious beliefs that is their prerogative to do so but the federal and state governments (now) don't have the power to refuse, either to officiate or recognize, a same-sex marriage
(1)
(0)
PO1 John Miller
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca, I agree but that's not the point I was trying to make. I was simply stating that some Liberals will now feel that they can sue a church who refuses to marry a same sex couple despite the fact that Separation of Church and State is in the Constitution.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
PO1 John Miller - PO; You appear to have missed the bigger point.
SOME people believe that they have a "Constitutional Right" to sue other people over anything no matter how trivial. (Which isn't the real problem because we've always had jerks amongst us.)
BUT the entirety of the Judicial system (except fr the Supreme Court [which doesn't actually have to hear any specific case and doesn't actually have to say why it isn't hearing any particular case]) has abandoned the time honoured right of the court to say "Counsellor, Do you honestly believe that anyone with more intelligence than six day old roadkill would believe that crap or are you just saying it in the hopes that I will become totally senile while you are speaking?".
SOME people believe that they have a "Constitutional Right" to sue other people over anything no matter how trivial. (Which isn't the real problem because we've always had jerks amongst us.)
BUT the entirety of the Judicial system (except fr the Supreme Court [which doesn't actually have to hear any specific case and doesn't actually have to say why it isn't hearing any particular case]) has abandoned the time honoured right of the court to say "Counsellor, Do you honestly believe that anyone with more intelligence than six day old roadkill would believe that crap or are you just saying it in the hopes that I will become totally senile while you are speaking?".
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
5
5
0
I just don't see how this is in any way, legal. To tell my State that we HAVE to do this. I don't get it. LTC Stephen F.
(5)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
SGT (Join to see), the case focused on overturning DOMA so I think, after the 3 week waiting period, clerks will have to issue marriage licenses to any couple that shows up. I hope that the Court will not use this decision as precedent to overturn its freedom of religion rulings. I also hope it will clarify its rulings on the freedom of businesses to conduct business.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google