Supreme Court and Marriage equality/Obamacare ?

[KCFlyer]

Lie or Deny
 
The liberal credo.

 
They didn't legislate morality....they just said that gay people have the right to marry.  YOU still have the right to hold bigoted attitudes about what is moral and what isn't moral.  You know, the US government says it's okay to kill people who kill people.  It's called "the death penalty".  Some religions (hello Catholics) consider this to be immoral. Yet - it's been legislated...and SUPPORTED by groups that used to call themselves "the moral majority".  

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

They didn't legislate morality....they just said that gay people have the right to marry.

Exactly.
 
Marry.
 
Not a civil union.
 
They are trying to redefine marriage in this country.

 

[KCFlyer]

Exactly.
 
Marry.
 
Not a civil union.
 
They are trying to redefine marriage in this country.

 
Not "holy matrimony" either.  Where on a marriage license does it say that it must be witnessed by a member of the religious clergy?  It's a government issued LICENSE.....much like a drivers license says you can drive a car....it does't define "car" as a Chevrolet.  Nor does a marriage license define who you can marry.  Churches and religions do that.   
 
You know, marriage is not exclusive to men and women.  A few years ago, Reese's said that their cups were "the marriage of chocolate and peanut butter".  Some designs have been described as  a "marriage of form and function".   They didn't legislate holy matrimony,  and they didn't legislate that a church MUST perform a wedding that they cannot sanction.  YOU tossed the morality thing in there.  Marriage is just a word on a license.  

 

[SparrowHawk]

Sorry, But I don't want my guns or my marriage registered in Washington DC

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

Not "holy matrimony" either.  Where on a marriage license does it say that it must be witnessed by a member of the religious clergy?  It's a government issued LICENSE.....much like a drivers license says you can drive a car....it does't define "car" as a Chevrolet.  Nor does a marriage license define who you can marry.  Churches and religions do that.   
 
You know, marriage is not exclusive to men and women.  A few years ago, Reese's said that their cups were "the marriage of chocolate and peanut butter".  Some designs have been described as  a "marriage of form and function".   They didn't legislate holy matrimony,  and they didn't legislate that a church MUST perform a wedding that they cannot sanction.  YOU tossed the morality thing in there.  Marriage is just a word on a license.  

That is your opinion.
 
People that believe marriage has a spiritual component have an issue with the state redefining it as simply a contract.
 
That is about as accurately and bluntly as I can put it.

 

[delldude]

And 50 years ago, Ben Carson may not have even been able to cast a vote, much less run for any office. Do you think conservatives like you allowed that to happen?

There were many people who sounded just like you, who would have oppressed the man you now hold in high esteem.

That was "popular opinion" that you like to trot out as a reason why laws should be made or upheld.

Or why you say that the SCOTUS should rule one way or another.

Now you are quoting him to further your POV.

http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/voting-rights-act

 
Got a vote count from both sides of the aisle for passage?

 

[KCFlyer]

That is your opinion.
 
People that believe marriage has a spiritual component have an issue with the state redefining it as simply a contract.
 
That is about as accurately and bluntly as I can put it.

 
The state has only ever issued marriage licenses.  They never have told a church who or what to marry, they never have put any religious connotations at all on a marriage license.  A marriage license allows many things that are not religious...you can file as "married" on a tax form.  If you die without a will in most states, that 'marriage license' gives the estate to the spouse.  There is nothing sexual, religious, or moral on a marriage license....it is simply a piece of paper that conveys LEGAL rights on two people.  If a church says they cannot marry those two people - it's between that church and those people....not the government.  

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

 
The state has only ever issued marriage licenses.  They never have told a church who or what to marry, they never have put any religious connotations at all on a marriage license.  A marriage license allows many things that are not religious...you can file as "married" on a tax form.  If you die without a will in most states, that 'marriage license' gives the estate to the spouse.  There is nothing sexual, religious, or moral on a marriage license....it is simply a piece of paper that conveys LEGAL rights on two people.  If a church says they cannot marry those two people - it's between that church and those people....not the government.  

That is your version.
 
The correct version is liberals are trying to redefine marriage through social engineering.

 

[Ms Tree]

Exactly.
 
Marry.
 
Not a civil union.
 
They are trying to redefine marriage in this country.

What gave people the right to redefine marriage from a property exchange to what ever it is now?

The only thing the law addresses is civil marriage. The religious institutions can do what ever they want and are unaffected by the ruling.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

The religious institutions can do what ever they want and are unaffected by the ruling.

Today.

 

[Ms Tree]

That is your opinion.
 
People that believe marriage has a spiritual component have an issue with the state redefining it as simply a contract.
 
That is about as accurately and bluntly as I can put it.

"Till death do us part" does not equal divorce. No knew seems to have issues with that.

Bottom line is that government is in marriage. Religion did not have a problem with it till now. They should not have gotten in to bed with government if they did not want this to happen. They did not look at history to realize that moral standards change. Different races can marry now. So can same sexes. To late to unring the bell. The religious right should have focused on how to resolve the issue as opposed to fighting it tooth and nail.

 

[Ms Tree]

Today.

Same bull chit was worried about when Loving came down to. Never happened.... no indication it ever will.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

Same bull chit was worried about when Loving came down to. Never happened.... no indication it ever will.

The gays have already attempted to do so in the UK.
 
They WILL try it here. It is an inevitability. 

 

[KCFlyer]

The gays have already attempted to do so in the UK.
 
They WILL try it here. It is an inevitability. 

Gays make up a large part of the congregation at the church I attend.  My church accepts them.  My church doesn't condemn them to hellfire. My church marries them.  Now, I'm not gay, but if I was, why on earth would I really want to be married in a church that says I am damned for eternity and that I am an "abomination"?  You know, even if someone sues and succeeds (they've only "attempted" in the UK, and I think we have stricter laws about church and state here), there's one thing that congress and a flock of liberals can't change - church laws and church views.  In the very highly unlikely event a church was forced to conduct a gay marriage, they might have to use the BUILDING to conduct a marriage, but they don't have to BLESS the marriage, and the pastor doesn't even have to sign the marriage license to "legitimize" the marriage.    Let them find another witness.  The church doesn't even have to RECOGNIZE the marriage.  How many times have you heard in a sermon that "the  church is not the building"?     
 
I'm kind of glad that I'm not a conservative, since it seems that their lives are filled with fear.

 

[southwind]

Trust me, if they sued someone because they wouldn't bake them a cake, instead of going to another bakery, it won't be long before they sue a church!