Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Same-Sex Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That was interesting.As usual people on both sides have declared victory. Wonder which one will be disappointed.
 
Quite the heckler there screaming about burning in Hell.

I just finished listening to the first 30 minutes. Seems to me that the justices have them on the ropes regarding “why should we do this now, when no society did it for millennia?” and the like.
 
May the Lord have mercy on our nation if the Supreme Court forces “gay marriage” on us.
 
Elizium23 said:
Quite the heckler there screaming about burning in Hell.

I just finished listening to the first 30 minutes. Seems to me that the justices have them on the ropes regarding “why should we do this now, when no society did it for millennia?” and the like.
Click to expand...
Don’t get too excited. They hit the State’s attorney pretty hard as well with the opposite question.
 
I keep thinking, lately, that we are living in the Day of Divine Mercy, which will at some point turned into the Day of Justice.
 
Listened to both cases. It certainly doesn’t sound like either side could confidently claim victory prematurely. That said, I don’t see the court upholding bans. I would cautiously predict a win for gay rights.
 
No one is having gay marriage forced on them. If you don’t want to be involved in a gay marriage, don’t get gay married.
 
lemongrass80 said:
No one is having gay marriage forced on them. If you don’t want to be involved in a gay marriage, don’t get gay married.
Click to expand...
And don’t run a business that bakes cakes, takes photographs, caters food, provides clothes, performs marriages, provides hotel rooms, etc.
 
Dawnia said:
That was interesting.As usual people on both sides have declared victory. Wonder which one will be disappointed.
Click to expand...
My only hope is that ALL the justices, regardless of their personal beliefs and whatever they do in their private lives, can faithfully interpret the constitution and come to their opinions based on what they determine to be in line with what is contained in the constitution.

What has always worried me about SCOTUS is how the members are never purist. They are appointed based on what the POTUS knows of their person beliefs (I know its supposedly based on their rulings in court cases but often times those rulings aren’t just or unbiased). Why are they allowed to sit on the bench ,
making opinions knowing that they will never be forced to look at a case based soley on whether it is or is not constitutionally valid?

Its simple: “Does the constitution leave the definition of marriage to individual states or should it ever have been (hetero marriage) recognized as a federally protected institution in any situation?” But I can tell just from today that all the justices are coming into it with their personal beliefs and emotions. What proof does either side have that these opinions will not be the result of just personal bias and emotion?

I don’t trust the process at all. I want a SCOTUS free of emotion, whose only regard is upholding what is in the constitution and who are not only interested in making history-securing ones legacy has no place in this debate.
 
Scears said:
If they rule for gay marriage i might move…
Click to expand...
A lot of other countries have SSM so even if a person could choose to move out of the country there are no countries to move to-aside from muslim countries but that might be problematic from a christian perspective.

America is still the greatest country on earth and I can never imagine not living here or no longer being an american.
 
Elizium23 said:
And don’t run a business that bakes cakes, takes photographs, caters food, provides clothes, performs marriages, provides hotel rooms, etc.
Click to expand...
Agree! We can still choose what businesses to run as small business owners.This does limit what we can do but maybe the answer is for catholics who want to live their conscience to not own their own businesses at all! I can live with that. We can’t always have (or bake) our cake and sell it too.
 
elsker said:
Agree! We can still choose what businesses to run as small business owners.This does limit what we can do but maybe the answer is for catholics who want to live their conscience to not own their own businesses at all! I can live with that. We can’t always have (or bake) our cake and sell it too.
Click to expand...
The same could apply to gay couples. If they don’t want to follow the law, then they are choosing to forgo all the “cushy” benefits of marriage. 🤷

edit: And by cushy I mean the government sticking their nose in a couple’s relationship. Forcing one person to take on the debts of the other, to have the courts divide up their stuff when they get divorced, etc. 😃
 
elsker said:
Agree! We can still choose what businesses to run as small business owners.This does limit what we can do but maybe the answer is for catholics who want to live their conscience to not own their own businesses at all! I can live with that. We can’t always have (or bake) our cake and sell it too.
Click to expand...
It’s not just about owning a small business. Even ordinary employees will be forced to violate their consciences, just as abortion and contraception has caused many hard cases of conscience protection. It won’t be safe for Catholics to do anything but work for the Church, and even then, it will be a dicey proposition.
 
Elizium23 said:
It’s not just about owning a small business. Even ordinary employees will be forced to violate their consciences, just as abortion and contraception has caused many hard cases of conscience protection. It won’t be safe for Catholics to do anything but work for the Church, and even then, it will be a dicey proposition.
Click to expand...
Exactly! 👍 The fact is that Christians are facing some persecution in this nation. It’s been going on for quite some time and frankly, I think it’s only going to get worse.
 
Elizium23 said:
It’s not just about owning a small business. Even ordinary employees will be forced to violate their consciences, just as abortion and contraception has caused many hard cases of conscience protection. It won’t be safe for Catholics to do anything but work for the Church, and even then, it will be a dicey proposition.
Click to expand...
Working for the church isn’t an option now that the issue in San Francisco catholic schools might change how they are run.

Its not easy and effects many people not just customers. I am starting to understand that in order to extend or protect the rights of “some” ultimately the rights of “others” will be limited or taken away. There are no solutions that will allow for all of us to enjoy what we feel our rights are. There has to be losers in order for there to be winners.

At the end of the day its a war and in war there are the victors and the defeated. There’s no other way to see this if you want to see it honestly.
 
Finite said:
Listened to both cases. It certainly doesn’t sound like either side could confidently claim victory prematurely. That said, I don’t see the court upholding bans. I would cautiously predict a win for gay rights.
Click to expand...
As reported in the Washington Post:
Roberts dominated the second argument, about whether states could be forced to recognize marriages performed in states where they were legal.
Click to expand...
The question would be moot if the court declares a constitutional right, but the second argument lent force to the idea that it might be the chief justice’s preferred path, and could perhaps win a wider majority.
Click to expand...
If states are forced to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, Roberts suggested, it would be “only a matter of time” before same-sex marriage settled in as a national norm. It would effectively allow “one state” or a minority of states to “set policy for the nation.”
Click to expand...
At the same time, the Roberts line of questioning suggested he did not view that possibility with great alarm, at least as an alternative to a court decision holding that all states must permit same-sex marriages within their borders.
Click to expand...
Isn’t it “quite rare for a state not to recognize” a marriage performed elsewhere? he asked.
Click to expand...
He pointed out that recognizing a marriage performed elsewhere is “pretty straightforward” compared to a state allowing such marriages under its own law, suggesting it was not as much of an imposition.
Click to expand...
Getting married “is one thing,” he said. But wasn’t allowing a marriage to exist that has been performed elsewhere just a matter of “applying domestic relations law,” he asked.
Click to expand...
washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-will-hear-historic-arguments-in-gay-marriage-cases/2015/04/27/083d9302-ed24-11e4-8666-a1d756d0218e_story.html?hpid=z1

So I could see a Supreme Court decision that would not force a state to issue licenses to same-sex couples itself but would force them to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. So same-sex couples from Alabama might not be able to marry in their own state, for example, but could just go get married in New York and Alabama would have to recognize that marriage.

A trickier issue in this scenario of an Alabama couple getting married in New York would be what would happen if they wanted to get divorced. They would probably have to get divorced in their own state of Alabama which might be difficult or impossible for a same-sex couple. Going back to New York to get divorced might not be possible since most states require residency to get divorced but not to get married.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top