re: SCOTUS says "No Thanks" to Kim Davis and "Yes" to same sex marriage.

Maybe she should consider the lesbian lifestyle.....apparently she is bad in her choice of men?

Conservatives: Government needs to stay out of our lives!
Also Conservatives: Government should be in our bedrooms!

quote:

---

There's cause-and-effect of sins. Mary and Clare's sins are affecting who?
John and Brooke decide to screw and she ends up pregnant. She either gets an abortion or has the baby and raises it as a single mom. Either way, the kid is affected by their actions. Society could be affected by an unstable kid being raised by a single parent.
It amazes me at the villification of homosexuality by straight people, while 99% of them are having unmarried sex. And bringing human beings into the world in unstable environments.
But please, continue to tell me how horrible it is to be Mary and Clare.

---

Again, my moral compass is not based on pragmatism, as it seems yours is, since you keep pushing the "how does it affect me" angle.

If you want a pragmatic response, I'll give you this: all sin will be judged, either in Jesus Christ on the cross, or in the sinner in Hell for eternity. For the unrepentant homosexual who is not trusting in Christ, they are heaping up judgement for themselves for eternity with every sexual act they perform. Legitimizing homosexuality in society only makes homosexuals feel more safe in their sin, and adds judgement to themselves in eternity. It not only affects those who are currently involved in homosexual relationships, but it affects those who would contemplate acting on their desires. Seeing homosexuality supported by society will encourage homosexual actions rather than limit them.

quote:

---

All marriage needs to be removed from the gov't. Marriage is a religious things and the gov't should not be involved in religious sacraments.

---

This is the truth the Gays can get what they want through government civil unions

But lets be real. This is not about marriage and never has been. It's about forcing a lifestyle on people who know that lifestyle is sinful and against Gods design.

It's about making those that disagree with it bend the knee to their unnatural view points.

It's about forcing those that know the truth to deny the truth. Which they should never do.

"Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him I will confess also before my Father who is in heaven."

quote:

---

is the idea that the government should not recognize marriages?

---

The idea is that government should allow any adult to enter into a willing financial partnership. Any other aspect of it falls under religious doctrine, which should be left to religious institutions.

quote:

---

The idea is that government should allow any adult to enter into a willing financial partnership. Any other aspect of it falls under religious doctrine, which should be left to religious institutions.

---

Under this view, if I get married the State would not recognize it? So marriage would have no effect in my dealings with the State?

quote:

---

The idea is that government should allow any adult to enter into a willing financial partnership. Any other aspect of it falls under religious doctrine, which should be left to religious institutions.

---

Your world would ultimately require MORE government red tape. Likely much more.

Wrong decision.

Scalia would agree with me. And this underscores the need to R&R some of the idiots currently on the SCOTUS.

quote:

---

I'm fine with letting the heauxmeaux move to blue states that let them stay married

---

Move outside of the gay marriage issue and think about how this would obliterate the full faith and credit clause of the constitution. I am sure you considered this angle.

quote:

---

Retarded comparison.

---

They're based in the same legal argument. Obergefell relied on Loving which relied on Griswold.

Hence why Thomas brought them up (well not Loving, but we all know why) in his concurrence in the Roe reversal

quote:

---

In Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion released with the ruling, he writes in part that “we should reconsider all of this court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous.” Going on to say that the court has “a duty to correct the error established in those precedents.”

---

To quote Loving

quote:

---

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

---

quote:

---

The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

---

quote:

---

Appellants point out that the State's concern in these statutes, as expressed in the words of the 1924 Act's title, "An Act to Preserve Racial Integrity," extends only to the integrity of the white race. While Virginia prohibits whites from marrying any nonwhite (subject to the exception for the descendants of Pocahontas), Negroes, Orientals, and any other racial class may intermarry without statutory interference. Appellants contend that this distinction renders Virginia's miscegenation statutes arbitrary and unreasonable even assuming the constitutional validity of an official purpose to preserve "racial integrity." We need not reach this contention, because we find the racial classifications in these statutes repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment, even assuming an even-handed state purpose to protect the "integrity" of all races.

---