U.S. Supreme Court upholds right to Marry in all 50 States

[Danmark]

The United States Supreme Court today held: same-sex couples
may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all 50 States.
".... No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies
the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice,
and family. In forming a marital union, two people become
something greater than once they were. As some of
the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage
embodies a love that may endure even past death. It
would misunderstand these men and women to say they
disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do
respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its
fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned
to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s
oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the
eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."

Question for debate: Is this decision, and its rationale, consistent with the teachings of Jesus to be loving, faithful, understanding, and tolerant?

[lastcallhall]

I think the church (by this, I assume you mean the evangelical church) would attract more people if it would lay off the anti-gay, anti-trans, and anti-woman bigotry and discrimination, as well as get rid of the absurd science denialism and blatant irrationalism (like proclaiming the Earth to be 6,000 years old, when it clearly is not).

I did mean the evangelical church and we are anti sin. I hope the church is always anti sin. If we lose our saltiness we are not good for anything

[lastcallhall]

This is what it will come down too and good for her

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/07/ ... latestnews

[DanieltheDragon]

This is what it will come down too and good for her

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/07/ ... latestnews

If you are unable to perform the tasks requisite of the job, that is a responsible action.

[sf]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

This ruling has already inspired others to assert their right to "marriage equality"

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — A Montana man said Wednesday that he was inspired by last week's U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage to apply for a marriage license so that he can legally wed his second wife.

Nathan Collier and his wives Victoria and Christine applied at the Yellowstone County Courthouse in Billings on Tuesday in an attempt to legitimize their polygamous marriage. Montana, like all 50 states, outlaws bigamy — holding multiple marriage licenses — but Collier said he plans to sue if the application is denied.

"It's about marriage equality," Collier told The Associated Press Wednesday. "You can't have this without polygamy."

Continued at: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/6f9f9ca1 ... ng-license

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to sf]

This is an issue why? The only legal reason against polygamy is that it dramatically increases the complexity of things like child custody social security benefits tax dependence etc. morally there is no reason.

[sf]

[Replying to sf]

This is an issue why? The only legal reason against polygamy is that it dramatically increases the complexity of things like child custody social security benefits tax dependence etc. morally there is no reason.

That's the question. It is outlawed in all 50 states currently. Should it not be anymore? What else should be allowed? Is there anything morally wrong with marrying close relatives?

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 46 by sf]

Why is this considered a gateway problem?

Was it a gateway to armegeddon when women were given the right to vote?

Blacks allowed to vote?

Slavery ended?

Inter-racial marriages allowed?

Please explain to me why this is even a blip on your radar? No priest/rabbi/minister/reverend etc will be forced to marry anyone. Nor will any holy grounds be used without permission.

So, why the panic? Why is this simply not a civil rights issue?

all the best,

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 46 by sf]

Why is this considered a gateway problem?

Was it a gateway to armegeddon when women were given the right to vote?

Blacks allowed to vote?

Slavery ended?

Inter-racial marriages allowed?

Please explain to me why this is even a blip on your radar? No priest/rabbi/minister/reverend etc will be forced to marry anyone. Nor will any holy grounds be used without permission.

So, why the panic? Why is this simply not a civil rights issue?

all the best,

If the slippery slope argument is consider uncivil, why is the comparison of governmental definition of marriage to slavery and voting not considered uncivil? Their are many black people and heterosexual women who find these comparisons offensive. Such is the problem with the use of the umbrella term "civil rights", rather than referring specifically to voting rights, marital rights, etc.. All one needs to do to make something a "civil rights", and thus beyond question, is redefine what is "civil". In a society where public image can be easily manipulated, ie. where rare events, like shark attacks, can be made to look like every day occurrences, isn't that the very definition of a slippery slope?

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 48 by bluethread]

Ok, in order to avoid the "Definitions" game, remove my sentence asking why it isn't a civil rights issue. Can you address my point then? i'll repeat:

What makes anyone think this is a gateway problem?

[sf]

[Replying to post 48 by bluethread]

Ok, in order to avoid the "Definitions" game, remove my sentence asking why it isn't a civil rights issue. Can you address my point then? i'll repeat:

What makes anyone think this is a gateway problem?

It is, at a minimum, a gateway to even more new definitions of marriage.