Supreme Court - Same Sex Marriage & Kim Davis

ZenMode said:
I'm not saying any state HAS to do it or that the federal government force. I'm just saying it's the logical solution since the state part of things is just a legal thing. Taxes, estate, division of assets, financial responsibility for children, etc.

Really, why does the terminology of the start matter? I'm quite certain God doesn't care about state terminology.
Click to expand...
Marriage is not a religious concept. Stop with that dumb shit. The earliest examples of marriage were seen in Mesopotamia, and it was more a contractual obligation to bind families together than romantic love. So technically, the church co-opted the concept for their own design, therefore they don’t get a monopoly on participating in one.
 
WaynetheDrain said:
Marriage is not a religious concept. Stop with that dumb shit. The earliest examples of marriage were seen in Mesopotamia, and it was more a contractual obligation to bind families together than romantic love. So technically, the church co-opted the concept for their own design, therefore they don’t get a monopoly on participating in one.
Click to expand...
What parts of Christianity are truly original, one must ask.
 
Mulberry Heel said:
Now there's a true-blue social conservative and member of the Religious Right if I've ever heard of one! She's done more to mock the sanctity of marriage than a whole host of gay and lesbian couples.
Click to expand...
It's not a one to one ratio... but I've noticed a big percentage of people obsessed with the "sanctity of marriage" are people wrestling with their own personal demons at being at odds with the church's view of marriage/ sexuality.

My assumption has always been that it's guilt driven... but I think some believe it's not their fault, that if people were not normalizing these things, they themselves would somehow be released from temptation... which is absurd, but people often shift to absurdity when they refuse to accept who they are.
 
Above The Law has a pretty panicky piece out this morning about Obergefell being overturned. I think it’s difficult to overestimate the disruption and instability that would introduce, and I’m mildly hopeful that John Roberts isn’t that reckless. But if they only need 4 votes to take cert …
 
Geisterfahrer said:
Above The Law has a pretty panicky piece out this morning about Obergefell being overturned. I think it’s difficult to overestimate the disruption and instability that would introduce, and I’m mildly hopeful that John Roberts isn’t that reckless. But if they only need 4 votes to take cert …
Click to expand...
It's not a question of if; it's a question of when. They will probably do some sort of ad hoc thing like "this ruling doesn't affect existing marriages, which all remain valid; it 's just for going forward."

My opinion is that "when" is "not yet." Not from Kim Davis' petition. Might there be a test case coming through the pipeline that the justices will pick? Possibly there is; almost certainly there will be.
 
superrific said:
It's not a question of if; it's a question of when. They will probably do some sort of ad hoc thing like "this ruling doesn't affect existing marriages, which all remain valid; it 's just for going forward."

My opinion is that "when" is "not yet." Not from Kim Davis' petition. Might there be a test case coming through the pipeline that the justices will pick? Possibly there is; almost certainly there will be.
Click to expand...
Is this not the type of things that States can control-like if a married couple does not move to Alabama?
 
bridgetender said:
Here are the family values of the person hiding behind "religious freedom" to control other people.
Click to expand...
NYCBlueBlood said:
It's not a one to one ratio... but I've noticed a big percentage of people obsessed with the "sanctity of marriage" are people wrestling with their own personal demons at being at odds with the church's view of marriage/ sexuality.
Click to expand...
I will also offer that I've been in a lot of southern Baptist churches and met a lot people in those churches who were clearly battling some sexual preference wars of their own in their heads, if ya know what I mean. And they were usually the loudest "homophobes" in the room, if ya know what I mean.
 
mpaer said:
Is this not the type of things that States can control-like if a married couple does not move to Alabama?
Click to expand...
I mean back in the 2010-2014 period, it was kind of wild. I would travel for work and be in Iowa. During that time I was married to a single person, because he was back in NC where it wasn't legal. Then I would fly home and we were both single.
Heck in 2013 we filmed ourselves driving from Oregon to Washington where we went from being single to crossing the Columbia River and were married again. Turned around and back to Oregon to be single.

Of course, now the Respect for Marriage Act does make things way better if the SCOTUS goes crazy(ier). So states have to recognize marriages, even if they have awful things like Amendment One. They just dont have to perform any more marriages - but you can go to a legal state in that case. Makes it harder, but wont wipe away everything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top