Supreme Court Ruling on Same Sex Marriage

[TEPO]

I thought the president was supposed to be unbiased. Silly me.

What’s worse are judges practicing Judicial Activism according to their personal biases.

 

[Darryl_Revok]

I thought the president was supposed to be unbiased. Silly me.

So, after the Friday decision, same-sex marriage became a legal fact. It may be controversial among some segments of the population, but it is a fact.

If it is indeed a legal fact, then how is acknowledging its existence “bias”?

 

[EasterJoy]

But the right now exists, doesn’t it? You can say what you *believe *the Constitution says or does not say, but as of Friday, for all practical purposes, it exists, no?

But still, if people are offended, then how is that his problem? He can’t control the offense people take in him. People show offense over everything the President does and says; people show offense over his very legitimacy, which is how the whole birther insanity started up. Part of the reason he’s lasted so long is that he’s never shown any concern over this type of offense before; why would he start now?

How can homosexuals have the right to marry when they do not have the capacity to marry? The Obergefell v. Hodges verdict is unjust and immoral. It is not the first time the Supreme Court has handed down an unjust and immoral verdict that gives people the impression that their Creator gave them some right to do evil, but this is definitely one of them.

Did Roe v. Wade settle the question of abortion? Did Dred Scott v. Sandford settle the question of slavery? No, they didn’t. Those were unjust verdicts, and unjust verdicts do not settle questions of justice. People who know the difference between right and wrong are not going to just lie down because the Court hands down some plate of awfulness like Casey v. Planned Parenthood or Obergefell v. Hodges. Those who imagine they “won” yesterday may think this battle is over, but they are very much mistaken.

 

[Suudy]

But the right now exists, doesn’t it? You can say what you *believe *the Constitution says or does not say, but as of Friday, for all practical purposes, it exists, no?

So, prior to Friday the right did not exist. And suddenly, when 5 justices publish a piece of paper with their decision the right popped into existence? So, if the government can grant rights, can it not also take them away? If so, this is a recipe for tyranny.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Ya know, I was originally responding to someone else – so feel free to wrap it up whenever.

I have my doubts it will be wrapped up until the elected and reelected Obama is no longer living there. And even then maybe only if a Republican and not another Democrat follows him into the residency. And both the House and Senate remain in Republican control. But that’s just the sense I get on CAF sometimes.

 

[captainrick]

LGBT prode month is federally recognized? If not, then why would it be celebrated at the white house?

Yes, it’s recognized - the proclamation was made by Obama on May 29.

 

[Darryl_Revok]

How can homosexuals have the right to marry when they do not have the capacity to marry? The Obergefell v. Hodges verdict is unjust and immoral. It is not the first time the Supreme Court has handed down an unjust and immoral verdict that gives people the impression that their Creator gave them some right to do evil, but this is definitely one of them.

This is somewhat besides the point. It’s one thing to say that they should not have the capacity to marry. However, due to the Supreme Court ruling, they do now have the right to marry; the existence of this right, rather than the capacity, is a non-controversial fact.

To quote the Wire: “You want it to be one way…but it’s the *other *way.”

 

[CatholicFireman]

So, after the Friday decision, same-sex marriage became a legal fact. It may be controversial among some segments of the population, but it is a fact.

If it is indeed a legal fact, then how is acknowledging its existence “bias”?

In other words, keep your opinions to yourself until you’re out of office, FACT or NO FACT.

Leave it at that.

 

[Path_Finder]

This is somewhat besides the point. It’s one thing to say that they should not have the capacity to marry. However, due to the Supreme Court ruling, they do now have the right to marry; the existence of this right, rather than the capacity, is a non-controversial fact.

To quote the Wire: “You want it to be one way…but it’s the *other *way.”

See the title of this thread:

** Supreme Court Ruling on Same Sex Marriage**

They just opened this thread, I hope you are not suggesting we already close it.

I heartily disagree with you, this is a discussion thread. Opinions are welcome.

 

[Darryl_Revok]

In other words, keep your opinions to yourself until you’re out of office, FACT or NO FACT.

Leave it at that.

As I said, this has never been the reality for *any *president, since the beginning of the institution.

Should Teddy Roosevelt have inveighed against the trusts? Should Ike have opined about the military-industrial complex? Should Reagan have railed against the Evil Empire?

 

[Isca]

Not sure if it was discussed in the other thread (and don’t feel like reading all of it), but it should be noted how coordinated the response to this decision was. That same night, MULTIPLE locations were lit up in rainbow colors, including the White House, Cinderella’s castle at Disney, and others.

It is simply impossible at this is just coincidence. And it is also impossible for this to be done by all these places in one day. They had time to prepare and coordinate the response. Someone on the SC leaked the decision to them early for the propaganda benefits.

My nephew made the very same point to me at the weekend.

 

[Darryl_Revok]

See the title of this thread:

---

They just opened this thread, I hope you are not suggesting we already close it.

It’s one thing to debate the legitimacy of same-sex marriage. However, some people are pretending that it *legally *doesn’t exist.

 

[CatholicFireman]

As I said, this has never been the reality for *any *president, since the beginning of the institution.

Should Teddy Roosevelt have inveighed against the trusts? Should Ike have opined about the military-industrial complex? Should Reagan have railed against the Evil Empire?

I’ve been accused of baiting in the past, so I’m leaving it at that. I expressed my opinion on this thread as many (including you) have. You’re entitled to yours. Peace.

 

[GEddie]

consecrated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. I am not certain what year but I am certain it was done.

1984

 

[SwizzleStick]

The point (to me) is not how they did it so quickly but that they did it AT ALL. Especially Disney, that is extremely disappointing. All this “jumping on the band wagon” stuff (for a ruling that will affect maybe 5% of the population?) sickens me.

Also, is this a common thing? Does the WH often change the color of its lights? Just wondering.

Disney does not surprise me. Though it is not officially promoted by Disney (it used to not be anyway, who knows now with this ruling), “Gay Days Orlando” is an annual event held every June by the GLBT community and that has been the case for years. The first Saturday of June always includes “Gay Day in the Magic Kingdom,” which is why my family specifically avoided that week when we went to Orlando a few years ago. All the parks and the entire area are apparently jammed with homosexuals and I just didn’t want to have to explain that to my children, especially since we were supposed to be on a family-friendly vacation… Guess now parents will no longer have the choice or the ability to shield their children… :sad_yes:

Since finding out that Disney was actively homosexual friendly (like most big corporations), I try to make consumer choices accordingly. But, it is hard to avoid those who see things differently than I do. Now, with this ruling, it will be next to impossible…

 

[cjforJesus]

1984

No,I believe that was an entrustment to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. I think the Sacred Heart consecration was quite a while ago.

 

[truetofaith]

Disney does not surprise me. Gay Days Orlando is an annual event held every June as a vacation celebration for the GLBT community and that has been the case for years. The first Saturday of June always includes “Gay Day in the Magic Kingdom,” which is why my family specifically avoided that week when we went to Orlando a few years ago.

I celebrate BLT day…Bacon Lettuce & Tomato.

 

[CatholicFireman]

I celebrate BLT day…Bacon Lettuce & Tomato.

You can have my tomato (I’m a BL kinda guy), but I’m likn’ what your sayin’.

 

[DrTaffy]

DrTaffy said:
…or, of course, you could choose to only sell wedding cakes through your church, or other churches who shared your beliefs.

If I knew I was going to be hassled or put into an objectionable position, yes. Which is why I suggested, in another post, that such a business owner might want to work using a rented kitchen facility instead of a storefront and with a word-of-mouth clientele.

I am not a lawyer, and this probably varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but I believe the word of mouth thing would work in many places. It is only in offering services in a place of public accommodation that you become subject to anti-discrimination laws such as those used in these cases.

Whether you rent or own your kitchen seems irrelevant. Am I missing something?

Honestly, though this should not be an issue. I am sure if the White House can light up in a rainbow, Facebook and big business show support, there must be a zillion bakeries in this country who would bake a cake for a ssm. Why bother the ones that aren’t interested in doing gay weddings?

Bakeries don’t ‘do’ gay weddings. They just bake cakes.

Anti discrimination laws for homosexuals are important because they are not just being forced to do a job they willingly chose to offer to the public, they are facing genuine discrimination such as being forced to drink bleach and having “die f@g” carved into their arms. Worlds apart from being denied a wedding cake, you may think, but the extremists take aid and comfort from the slightly less extreme who likewise take aid and comfort, eventually, from those who do no more than say that they would no more bake a cake for a gay wedding than for a paedophile one.

I am not opposed to sane and sensible get out clauses for religious objectors, many such clauses already exist, but a blanket rule that anti-discrimination laws just do not apply to religious people is not sane or sensible, IMO.

To be clear, I don’t feel the same sex couples in many of these cases were acting reasonably in suing. But I do feel they were within the law, and the bakeries generally were not.

 

[DrTaffy]

PeterPlato wrote:

…or, of course, gay couples could choose to only buy wedding cakes from bakers who support gay weddings and leave those who don’t share their beliefs alone.

Or christians could choose not to offer services to the public that they are not willing to offer to protected minorities. Or they could use some of the pre-existing options for doing so. Or they could suggest a sane and sensible compromise.

Just demanding that anti-discrimination laws not apply to them is not reasonable.