US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage

Subject: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 10:15 AM

From the Washington Post.

The Supreme Court on Friday delivered an historic victory for gay rights, ruling 5-4 that the Constitution requires that same-sex couples be allowed to marry no matter where they live and that states may no longer reserve the right only for heterosexual couples.

The court's action marks the culmination of an unprecedented upheaval in public opinion and the nation's jurisprudence. Advocates called it the most pressing civil rights issue of modern times, while critics said the courts had sent the country into uncharted territory by changing the traditional definition of marriage.

The country's first legally recognized same-sex marriages took place just 11 years ago, the result of a Massachusetts state supreme court decision. Now, more than 70 percent of Americans live in states where same-sex couples are allowed to marry, according to estimates.

---

This thread is about the U.S. Supreme Court decision affirming that marriage should be available to straight and gay alike in all 50 US states (and probably the territories as well). Please keep to the topic - posts bashing others are unacceptable. --mudelf

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 10:19 AM

Good to see the US catching up with the civilized world, now they need only to do the same with guns and health care.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Deckman
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 10:25 AM

WOW ... this is sure going to irritate a bunch of christians! bob(deckman)nelson

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,#
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 10:37 AM

Joe, wherever you are, your marriage is now legal all over the USA. It's too late for you now, but I hope you know it finally happened.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Stu
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 10:48 AM

Love wins, the haters lose.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 10:52 AM

...this is sure going to irritate a bunch of christians!

Surely not true Christians, perhaps the extremists amongst them, who are an abomination anyway and well deserving of irritation.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Deckman
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 10:56 AM

I believe you miss-spelled "christians" .

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,Mark
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 11:39 AM

Also some very encouraging news for some folks in southern Utah!

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,McMusket
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 11:40 AM

My husband and I are married (in The Netherlands many years ago) and don't see this as some victory for a viewpoint but a victory for decency, morality and civilisation.

Of course, when ancient wrongs are righted, it invariably becomes an excuse for the newspapers to dig out a few old bigots and give them the oxygen of publicity, so our celebrations of this landmark for our friend over there will begin once the hatred, scorn and stupidity that will now follow, dies.

We joined civilisation here in Scotland a while ago, and whilst I didn't vote for them, SNP introduced equality in marriage and every one of their members should be proud of themselves. People who voted SNP believe in their mantra, prosperity through equality. (It's alright, this paragraph is aimed in a particular direction.)

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 11:55 AM

Vive la civilisation! Loving Liberty, Marriage Equality, Freaky Fraternity! Well, the first 2, anyway. Kinda like sex, drugs & rock'n'roll (I know, I know, blasphemy).

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 12:19 PM

In a blistering dissenting opinion, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia said the decision shows the court is a "threat to American democracy." The ruling "says that my ruler and the ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court," Scalia added.

It didn't bother him at all to define corporations as people.

The conservatives don't want to see the basic premises they are using.... that somehow their belief in fundamentalist Bible interpretation should be imposed on everyone... and that somehow centuries of repression and practice count as binding 'definition'.
   For many years, certain groups of people were 'defined' as inferior and treated as slaves.

Now, we have some court decisions that implicitly correct those rationalized premises. I think the fact that 37 states already agree will prevent backsliding.

Congratulations to all in the LGBT community, and may happiness be yours as you exercise these new rights.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 12:45 PM

My first thoughts are of joy for all my gay friends who may now "enjoy" all the thrills, spills, and chills that comprise marital, um, "bliss." (Do I sound bitter? Nah. I'll just keep marrying until I get it right. Probly cheaper on the heart and the wallet to just find a woman that I don't like and give her 1/2 my money and a house.) But seriously, I am thrilled. I am eager to see all the marriages of the homophobes disintegrate before our very eyes.

But, ALSO...this will really play in the election, dontcha think? I wouldn't even bet on how. But undoubtedly a gamechanger. It should be very interesting, for sure.

Saul

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,#
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 12:54 PM

It won't change Bernie's stance at all.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 12:55 PM

" Advocates called it the most pressing civil rights issue of modern times,"
They must be joking, this travesty affects a tiny portion of the population h

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 01:01 PM

Thankfully it seems that Christian ministers cannot be forced to conduct same sex marriage ceremonies.

Another wedge is being hammered into society.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 01:05 PM

"....haters...." ".......irritate a bunch of Christians.."      I don't know if Christians can be more extremist over the pond, but they are not my feelings. And no other Christian I know. I am however ,saddened and disappointed by the redefinition of marriage and the further move away from Christian and biblical roots.       It will now be even more than ever the new law "imposed on everyone" and cases like the Belfast baker, and the US florist will increase, as Christians wishing not to compromise will be targeted .....or Muslims or Jews etc.      but if this was the will of the American majority in a free society, then there it stands for the foreseeable future.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 01:11 PM

"Another wedge is being hammered into society."
The old usual homophobia.
Thankfully, each refusal will been another nail in the coffin of the Church - R.I.P.
"They must be joking, this travesty affects a tiny portion of the population"
As bigotry has prevented us from knowing how many homosexuals there are, we have no idea how many will take advantage of the dropping of repressive laws.
Even if your claim were true - doesn't the persecution of "a tiny portion of the population" matter to you?
I'd have thought the rights of every human being on the planet were a matter of concern to those who care.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 01:12 PM

Great day I think. I like Bill's take on this, that beliefs that are only beliefs must not be imposed on everyone by their adherents. Gay marriage is one such area where that applies. The right to abortion is another. Yet another is the right to not be an Islamist, even if you live in an IS-controlled area. Or the right not to be force-fed Christian doctrine in a faith school as though that doctrine was unalloyed truth.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 01:18 PM

This new law will not be "imposed on everyone", pete old bean. You will be free not to be gaily married if you don't wish it. As for Christian roots, etc., I am not aware of any biblical condemnation of the concept of gay marriage. Perhaps you could provide chapter and verse.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: LilyFestre
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 01:20 PM

It's about time! HOORAY!

Michelle

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,Olddude
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 01:26 PM

About time we follow the constitution as we should have. And as a personof faith God made all people and if you have faith your know better than to show bigotry against others who were born different from others.

Besides, they have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us straight people. :)

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 01:34 PM

I am happy about it for not just my gay friends but for society itself. I've been reading some tripe about how damaging this new ruling is and will be but I think that's absurd. Surely- surely!- a society that accepts and welcomes love in its so many incarnations is a stronger, more vibrant community.

I'd like to remind some of the 'tripe-ists' that in the Bible they ostensibly follow, marriage was a loose concept at best. "And he brought her into his tent and he knew her." Seven Hundred times. :)

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 01:37 PM

Not all Christians, by any means.

The church my wife attends and that I also attend when I can (Central Lutheran Church in Seattle) has married several same sex couples. Whether the law recognized the marriages or not. Married, in the church, by the pastor. Last I heard, one man who was married to his partner in the church (another man) is now on the church council.

This is the church where the pastor once held up a copy of the Bible and said, "This is not the Boy Scout manual. It is a book of questions, not answers!!"

So the consensus in this church about the Supreme Court decision is "Bloody well about time!!"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,#
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 01:38 PM

Well, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks, pro, con or undecided. The SCOTUS has ruled and it is now law in the whole USofA; it is now, as of this very day, right this second, a moot point. BTW, if the usuals want to squabble, please start a separate thread for it. Just from the kindness of your hearts. Howzat?

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 01:44 PM

If you listen to the pronouncements from Republicans from Jindal to Huckabee to Santorum to Tom DeLay (remember him?)to Rev.
Franklin Graham (billy's kid) the SCOTUS decision is just another another example of "Persecution of Christians" and the "War on Christianity".

These clowns should be institutionalized to protect themselves and others.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 01:50 PM

The New York Times had a great article on the ruling. Here's an excerpt:

WASHINGTON — In a long-sought victory for the gay rights movement, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in the 5 to 4 decision. He was joined by the court's four more liberal justices.

The decision, the culmination of decades of litigation and activism, came against the backdrop of fast-moving changes in public opinion, with polls indicating that most Americans now approve of same-sex marriage.

Justice Kennedy said gay and lesbian couples had a fundamental right to marry.

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family," he wrote. "In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were."

Some of you may be surprised to know that many Christians will rejoice in this decision. Not all Christians think the same. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the Supreme Court decision, is an active Catholic who enjoys a good reputation here in his home diocese of Sacramento.

The denial of the right to marriage was an offense against Christian charity.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,#
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 01:53 PM

Greg, I'm thankful you can listen to Republicans enough to keep me informed :-) Frankly, they make me want to take a s##t. I can't believe anyone anywhere can be so stupid without benefit of a lobotomy. Seriously.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 01:55 PM

Oh, and the president of the Boy Scouts has come out in favor of eliminating restrictions against gay Scout leaders.

A friend of mine is a judge and a Scoutmaster. The State of California is requiring him to leave the Scouts within the year because of the Boy Scout policy against gay leaders. Maybe the Scouts can change their regulations, and not lose this terrific Scoutmaster.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Lighter
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 02:32 PM

> "says that my ruler and the ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court."

Even Scalia has mellowed. Some years he wrote that people should be allowed to discriminate against gays to "protect" themselves.

As reported today, his dissent was based on the very different principle that marriage equality should be left to the individual states or to Congress. Allegedly he also wrote that he did not have strong feelings about the issue.

That would put him slightly to the left of some of the Republican presidential contenders, who want to ban gay marriages entirely.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 02:44 PM

As I understand it, gay marriage is already legal in 36 states. That leaves 14 states, and maybe some territories and Washington, DC. When does this decision take effect, making gay marriage legal throughout the U.S.?

And since we now have universal legal gay marriage, can we start throwing criticism back at the troglodytes in the UK for still outlawing gay marriage in Northern Ireland? It seemed unfair to me that in many posts, UK Mudcatters have condemned the US as "backward" since only 36 states allowed gay marriage.

The fact of the matter is that gay marriage was illegal throughout the world in 2000. The fact that it has become accepted so quickly is a real sign of hope, not cause for condemnation that it hadn't happened already.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 03:16 PM

It's a disgrace that gay marriage is still not legal in Northern Ireland. I applaud today's decision. US politics does seem to be infantile at times, more so than ours, which is no shining example. But that's because you have built-in democratic deficits, such as the undue influence of religious lunatics and backwoodsmen, extreme right-wing media with little counterbalance and the sinister impact of wealthy lobby groups such as AIPAC and the NRA. You do share a similar extra democratic deficit with us, which is the severe lack of balanced political education of our young people. We don't mind indoctrinating our kids with religious jumbo-jumbo but we're scared stiff, by the political right, of giving them the critical means to judge politicians on their true merits or otherwise. Hence Raygun, Dubya and the hockey mom.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,Olddude
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 03:30 PM

Religious nuts steve are not religious. They are political like the pharacees of Christ's time. Obama said it best when he said the way to grace in the Lord is with an open mind and open heart. This is what I say to them.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,McMusket
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 03:40 PM

Northern Ireland is an issue Joe. Although there is a case being drafted in European Court of Human Rights that should put the bigoted bastards in their place.

Mind you, before you start having a pop at the civilised region of the planet, just remember it is your Vatican combined with their "enemies" in the U.S. Christian wrong who exacerbate, fund and Stoke up attitudes in the pigshit thick idiots who throw their weight around in NI.

Akenaton. - Keep it up. Your credibility is at the point of comedy.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Janie
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 05:04 PM

Hi Deckman. Prejudice and stereotyping is not limited to conservatives, nor to Christians.

Presiding Bishop on Supreme Court's ruling for marriage equality
| June 26, 2015 2 Comments |

[Episcopal Church Office of Public Affairs press release] Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has issued this statement following today's Supreme Court ruling:

Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. [1Corinthians 13:4-8]

I rejoice that the Supreme Court has opened the way for the love of two people to be recognized by all the states of this Union, and that the Court has recognized that it is this enduring, humble love that extends beyond the grave that is to be treasured by society wherever it exists. Our society will be enriched by the public recognition of such enduring faithful love in families headed by two men or two women as well as by a woman and a man. The children of this land will be stronger when they grow up in families that cannot be unmade by prejudice or discrimination. May love endure and flourish wherever it is to be found.

The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori
Presiding Bishop and Primate
The Episcopal Church


link here

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,J. T.
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 05:31 PM

"For every form of evil which exists in thinly populated locales will also be found, but in greater degree, where men have multiplied; where there are countless vices peculiar to crowded districts. Consequently, if they are numerous, men support each other in rebellion, and are prone to become far more daring and defiant of God."


J. Timothy Unruh
idolphin.org

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 06:01 PM

the designation " Christian " in todays culture has wide ranging meanings, that stretch from the question everything in the bible of don firth, through to extremists that might bomb abortionist places of business. but if you are willing to give any credence to a Christian who endeavours to be faithful to the teaching of scripture, you cannot conclude that this is bigoted and homophobic, when he can quote the definition of marriage, and the disapproval of same sex unions. having a biblical conviction does not mean that ill feeling and antagonism follow. however, since the homosexual activists have already taken Christians to law for following their biblical convictions, this law will only increase this. at present Christian ministers are not obliged to marry same sex couples, but I wont hold my breath that it will stay that way indefinitely. I hope I am proved wrong , but the instances of Christians already being taken to law over conscience decisions does not induce confidence for the future.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: gnu
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 06:08 PM

Anybody post this yet?

I ask because I didn't read the thread. Makes no never mind to me what other folks do 'cept them what wants to make war, keep the poor poor, fuck over our environment and so on for $$$... ya know, real shit that actually affects other people and the EARTH.

Rant over. Carry on. Smoke em if ya got em. I gotta go mow the lawn and that's far more important now that the Baptists are gonna light themselves on fire over gay marriage. Hmmm... I wonder if my Baptist neighbours will light themselves on fire... it would sure shut them the fuck up about my dandelions, the chemical sprayin twits.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Jeri
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 06:14 PM

I think the main thing with this is that marriage must be recognized in all states. If a couple is married in Vermont and go to a state that previously didn't allow same sex marriage, that state can't refuse to see that couple as married.

They can bitch about it, much like some people will in this thread, until Hell freezes over... because that's all they CAN do at this point. Bitch, troll, and try to get everyone else's panties in a bunch because theirs are.

The only thing I have to say is "YES! ABOUT TIME!"

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Jeri
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 06:23 PM

Gnu, I got on Facebook on break at work and heard about the decision, came back in and told a couple friends, who then told me about the wannabe flamer (haha).

Stores around where that guy lives are, so I'm told, expecting a massive run on marshmallows.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 06:51 PM

yes 

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 07:02 PM

Always glad to help a man of the cloth, Reverend Scarborough. Need a light?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 07:05 PM

Greg, I'm thankful you can listen to Republicans enough to keep me informed :-) Frankly, they make me want to take a s##t.

You & me both, Bruce. And they breed like crazy. I can only listen to them for a short time - but fortunately, due to their limited intelligence, that'sds all I need. Know thy enemy & all that.

I can't believe anyone anywhere can be so stupid without benefit of a lobotomy. Seriously.

Believe it. The whole Republican Party is now made up of complete fucking idiots.

Any idea who holds the rights to Sontag's music these days? The Republican campaign song for 2016 should be "Send In The Clowns".

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: michaelr
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 07:12 PM

Good on SCOTUS for the majority decision, despite troglodytes like Scalia.

Not so good yesterday, when they upheld the extortionary travesty Obama has the gall to call "health care reform".

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 07:16 PM

I think the main thing with this is that marriage must be recognized in all states. If a couple is married in Vermont and go to a state that previously didn't allow same sex marriage, that state can't refuse to see that couple as married.

Well I don't think that's the main thing at all. The main thing is that you should have the right to get married in whatever state you happen to want to get married in.

The can bitch about it, much like some people will in this thread, until Hell freezes over... because that's all they CAN do at this point. Bitch, troll, and try to get everyone else's panties in a bunch because theirs are.

The sooner you realise that your coming here to moan that people who are expressing their opinions are "bitching" and "trolling", rather than expressing your own constructive opinion (or simply staying quiet if you can't be nice), the sooner your dyspepsia will settle down and the better this place will be. You really do need to calm down.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Janie
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 07:37 PM

Very well said, Bill D.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Jeri
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 07:40 PM

You're trying too hard, Steve.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 07:52 PM

You're just very trying. You have nothing to contribute. Go on, do your deleting. You know you want to.


Michaelr, would you care to explain to us ignorant Brits, who enjoy universal healthcare free at the point of delivery, why so many of you yanks oppose moves to improve your health service, in which 44 million of your poorest people have no health insurance, no automatic right to healthcare, and who live in a country in which six out of ten bankruptcies happen through ill-health and its costs? Just curious...

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 08:00 PM

Don't waste your time, Steve - the anti-healthcare troglodites don't need a reason. Probably part of the current U.S. Republican "War Against Poor People". Them poor folks should just get up off their asses and get a job, ya know....

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 08:16 PM

The ruling extends a legal status for same-sex couples that was previously only granted to male/female couples. Same-sex married couples can now be considered a single "entity" by the IRS for purposes of tax deductions; a same-sex spouse can now be considered a "dependent" for purposes of health care coverage offered by the employer of the working spouse; and the ruling should clear up any objections regarding who is the rightful beneficiary of the estate in the event of death of one of the spouses, etc. All good things in the eyes of equality. The fact that it compels all fifty states to recognize a same-sex marriage as "legitimate" is the foundation of this legal status.

For those who argue that this is a slippery slope leading to marriage being defined so liberally that a human could marry a toaster, for example -- consider how impossible it would be to extend the benefits of a recognized legal status to an inanimate object.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 08:35 PM

I repeat, possibly in different terms. Fifty states "recognising" gay marriage is not the issue. Fifty states celebrating the joy of gay marriage is what we strive for.

As for toasters, I'm married to my Le Creuset large lidded casserole pan. Me and my Le Creuset, let no man put asunder.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 08:46 PM

Well, between same-sex marriage and universal health care, if we keep working at it, the U.S. might just catch up with more advanced and enlightened countries--like Denmark, Norway, Sweden....

Don Firth

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,ups
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 08:58 PM

Jeri - move from state to state and granted the rights?


So.....you propose....those who follow Islam....
And move to a "western Christian country" should be permitted to bring with them the four wives...they lawfully married within their culture.

And, if they take up citizenship....and fall upon "hard times" WHICH of the four four wives is most entitled to government subsidy.....the first, or the forth, or ALL.

Not that this would ever happen.(a Muslem is only allowed to take each newer wife based upon proof of economic, income support)

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 09:11 PM

Muslims need be treated no differently to anyone else. Were I to live in the States, the welfare system would not permit me to claim benefits for four women as though they were my wives. I can't think that very many right-minded Muslims would expect such advantageous discrimination along those lines. When in Rome, etc., within reason, and according to Old Mother Common Sense (in the words of the mighty John Seymour).

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: michaelr
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 09:13 PM

Steve Shaw and Greg F -- I can't speak for Yanks who "oppose moves to improve your health service", nor am I "part of the current U.S. Republican 'War Against Poor People'".

I (as a transplanted German who grew up with universal health care) am and have been a champion of Single Payer. I continue to oppose the Affordable Care Act because it's an egregious giveaway to giant insurance corporations that forces Americans to enroll in their programs with no way to opt out. Costs for millions, including me and my family, continue to go up, while services have not improved in any noticeable way.

We are hit with punitive tax penalties if we don't enroll. It's extortion, pure and simple, and does way too little in the way of actual "reform" (such as removing the profit motive from the health care field, which would be the right thing to do).

I hope that answers your question.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 09:31 PM

I hope that answers your question.

Sure does, Michael- its all about YOU and never mind the millions who now have access to health care that didn't before.

Better to have no loaf at all rather than a half a loaf.

Gotcha. You bet.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 09:46 PM

Pet from Seven Stars link says: however, since the homosexual activists have already taken Christians to law for following their biblical convictions, this law will only increase this. at present Christian ministers are not obliged to marry same sex couples, but I wont hold my breath that it will stay that way indefinitely. I hope I am proved wrong , but the instances of Christians already being taken to law over conscience decisions does not induce confidence for the future.

If religious ministers are required to preside against their will at gay weddings, then you have a point. But that hasn't happened, and hasn't been seriously proposed. So, for now, it's not an issue.
But I cannot see how gay marriage is offensive to anyone, or a violation of anyone's beliefs. If you believe that people of the same sex should not marry one another, you are completely free to refuse to marry somebody of your sex - and that will never change. But why do you think that what other people do with each other, is a violation of your beliefs?

Homosexual activists have "already taken Christians to law," not for following their biblical convictions, but for attempting to legally coerce others to follow their interpretation of biblical morality.

Now, there are some extremists here who think you should not have the right to consider homosexuality immoral, but I think those extremists are the minority. But most people think you should not have the right to stop homosexuals from getting married.

---

McMusket says: Mind you, before you start having a pop at the civilised region of the planet, just remember it is your Vatican combined with their "enemies" in the U.S. Christian wrong who exacerbate, fund and Stoke up attitudes in the pigshit thick idiots who throw their weight around in NI.

My point was that it's not quite right for people from the UK to snipe at the US for being slow to approve gay marriage. Both the US and the UK have factions who oppose gay marriage. That's what they think - it's not necessarily a reason to condemn them. It takes time for people to change their minds, and some never do.

Such is life.

But when Christians like The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori applaud the decision allowing gay marriage, she speaks for me. She's my kind of Christian.,

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Jeri
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 10:52 PM

Ups, huh? Who you talkin' to?

As for religious organizations not wanting to marry same sex couples, I don't see why those individuals would want to be in that sort of religious institution. In any case, church & state are still mostly separate.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: PHJim
Date: 27 Jun 15 - 12:19 AM

From: GUEST,Mark - PM
Date: 26 Jun 15 - 11:39 AM

"Also some very encouraging news for some folks in southern Utah!"


Mark, this will not have a huge effect on citizens of Utah since same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in Utah since December 20, 2013. It will be more encouraging to the citizens of those states who, up until today, have banned same-sex marriage.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jun 15 - 12:27 AM

Pete is ",....saddened and disappointed by the redefinition of marriage and the further move away from Christian and biblical roots.   "

Pete... marriage was never *defined* by anyone. And the majority of the world doesn't have "Christian and biblical roots".

The important thing is, no one will have gayness imposed on them or be required to perform or attend a same-sex marriage. For hundreds of years, 'straight' people tried to impose straightness on everyone else, and because they were generally a majority with church backing, they generally succeeded.... thus, most same-sex couples seldom admitted they WERE gay, much less tried to get married. The concept of 'defined' marriage was just a matter of assuming that 'what is common is what is right'... and anyone should be able to think of a dozen examples to disprove that notion.

Overcoming 'traditional' rules and cultural practices that were basically unfair takes a lot of work, help, publicity, legal battles and even just plain luck. This case before SCOTUS was made easier BECAUSE 36 states had already made a statement. Wouldn't it have been interesting if SCOTUS had dis-allowed all those precedents?

Those who are straight will get up tomorrow and go on being straight, with no interference by the government, and despite there being one heck of a lot of happier gay people smiling and walking a bit taller.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Jun 15 - 01:31 AM

Oh, I found out that the Supreme Court decision apparently takes effect immediately. Several new states were issuing marriage licenses today.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,No it's gone again
Date: 27 Jun 15 - 03:02 AM

I had the ruddy cookie for a short while too...

It is interesting that there was a thread about SCOTUS and the implications of someone using his superstition as a yardstick. Yet in a couple of days, The USA has seen this function be used to strive for equality in two areas. Marriage and access to decent healthcare.

See? I told you if you kept banging the rocks together....

Meanwhile here in confusionville, pete rattles on about two thousand years of traditional marriage. Would that be the Christian ceremony that up till a few years ago required the woman to love honour and obey? Or the pre c20 model where women were seen as goods and chattel.

I was wrong to call pete a homophobe. I should have said misogynist homophobe. His universal love knows no bounds....

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Jun 15 - 03:52 AM

This issue, in Western countries, has nothing to do with "equality", but is politically motivated and homosexuals cynically used.
The object is the removal of social conservatism from society, beginning with the undermining of family values and the established Christian Church.

Close family relations are universally banned from marriage, due to their sexual behaviour, which is deemed to be dangerous, unhealthy and socially unacceptable. The health issues could be overcome by close relatives agreeing to be sterilised, yet this piece of equality is never discussed.   The ban is quite rightly in place for social and legal reasons.

Given the horrific MSM health figures, and the practical redefinition of monogamy and traditional marriage......the equality argument just does not stack up.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jun 15 - 04:10 AM

"beginning with the undermining of family values "
This nonsense was used by the church and the homophobes during the Irish referendum on Gay marriage and firmly kicked into touch by the the Irish voters.
Even the church hierarchy has now realised it was a mistake and has described the result as "a wake-up call for the Catholic Church" - it is the death throes of religious fundamentalism in Ireland and, along with the child abuse scandal (still jogging on its merry way with the enquiry into the church's collusion in Brendan Smyth's rape of up to 200 children), it has brought the Catholic church to its knees (not in prayer).
The Smyth affair is representative of the same "family values" as those which led to centuries of persecution of homosexuals, promoted by a overwhelmingly elderly, all-male, celibate hierarchy attempting to tell its flock how to behave in their bedrooms.
Done and dusted here, at least
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jun 15 - 04:52 AM

Steve Shaw: As for Christian roots, etc., I am not aware of any biblical condemnation of the concept of gay marriage. Perhaps you could provide chapter and verse.

Leviticus 20:13
Romans 1:27
1 Corinthians 6:9
1 Timothy 1:10

Only because you asked, though perhaps what you really meant is that you don't know or care what the bible says about it.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jun 15 - 05:01 AM

What you really meant is that you don't know or care what the bible says about it"
Basically, I think that's what we are all saying, though some of us are more than aware of the mythical excuses used by unelected body's efforts to control our lives down the centuries.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Jun 15 - 05:08 AM

Well, Guest, at least you were honest enough to refrain from weeding out the call for gay people to be put to death. As Jesus preached mercy and forgiveness, I assume that at least you don't think that the Leviticus one is the word of God. :-) You have neatly demonstrated that the good book is infested with homophobes. But none of your quotes actually mentions gay marriage or defines marriage at all. Do you agree with all four of your quotes, including the putting gays to death one? Answers on a postcard, please! :-)

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST, ^*^
Date: 27 Jun 15 - 10:24 AM

People need to get over the idea that marriage is only about sex. And if gay relationships bother them, they need to stop trying to visualize what a gay sexual relationship looks like. Instead, visualize the partnership that is legalized, in which the couple may share in benefit packages from the workplace or elsewhere, equally own real estate, have no confusion as to who is a legal heir or who is "family" who may visit in the hospital and make final decisions. A stable partnership in which to raise children - however conceived - and not have to explain the compromise legal agreement they have reached regarding adoptive and custodial parents.

Close family relations are universally banned from marriage, due to their sexual behaviour, which is deemed to be dangerous, unhealthy and socially unacceptable. The health issues could be overcome by close relatives agreeing to be sterilised, yet this piece of equality is never discussed.   The ban is quite rightly in place for social and legal reasons.

Comparing gay sex to sex between siblings or first cousins is so flawed an argument it doesn't bear dignifying it with a response. Apples and oranges would be outraged to be markers for such a debate.

It's time to let go of that health and welfare syllogism, it is a specious argument flogged to death through dozens of threads and proven to be inaccurate on many occasions.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Stu
Date: 27 Jun 15 - 10:57 AM

".the equality argument just does not stack up"

It stacks up better than the inequality and oppression argument. It's about love Ake, nothing more. It's good news in a world full neck deep in gore, filth and greed. It gives people the same rights the rest of us enjoy and is long overdue, it reduces suffering and the ability to discriminate against people for their way of life.

The haters who would see this decision reversed, who condemn it because it doesn't fit in with their religious or political beliefs should practice tolerance and understanding of those who don't. They should try to understand compassion is the only way forward for us all and this includes for those they disagree with.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Jun 15 - 11:04 AM

Sorry Stu...cross posted, I understand and appreciate your point of view, you are a decent man.
I simply think you are wrong on this one, the epidemic which now affects hundreds of thousands of homosexuals is too important to be obscured for political reasons....and the societal damage of the break up of "the family"....for that is what will ensue, is too dangerous to contemplate.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Jun 15 - 11:10 AM

I would just add Stu, that there is no inequality and oppression of homosexuals in the UK where we both live, in fact homosexuals have more civil rights under present legislation than heterosexuals.

They have three choices, Single, "married", or Civil Union.

Heteros have two... Single or married.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Jun 15 - 11:17 AM

Not "married." Married. The quotation application illustrates a losing argument and it hampers all other discussions. Now is the time to agree to disagree and move along. There is nothing to see here any more, the Court has spoken. "They" are us - we all have the right to marry and to stay committed or to stray. It's that simple.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,#
Date: 27 Jun 15 - 11:33 AM

Well, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks, pro, con or undecided. The SCOTUS has ruled and it is now law in the whole USofA; it is now, as of this very day, right this second, a moot point.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Jun 15 - 11:49 AM

People need to get over the idea that marriage is only about sex.

Supposedly "Christian"[sic] people especially need to get over themselves.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jun 15 - 11:51 AM

Leviticus: from here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Leviticus

"The traditional view is that Leviticus was compiled by Moses, or that the material in it goes back to his time, but internal clues suggest that the book developed much later in Israel's history and was completed either near the end of the Judean monarchy in the late seventh century BCE or in the exilic and post-exilic period of the sixth and fifth centuries BCE. Scholars debate whether it was written primarily for Jewish worship in exile that centered on reading or preaching,[2][3] or was aimed instead at worshipers at temples in Jerusalem and Samaria.[4] Scholars are practically unanimous that the book had a long period of growth, that it includes some material of considerable antiquity, and that it reached its present form in the Persian period (538–332 BCE).[5]"

compare Paul's Epistle to the Romans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles

So... similar ideas on male homosexuality (little or nothing is said about female practices) are traced thru 6-7 hundred years and written by different 'scholars' with different agendas and very different social settings. The similarity is that both claim to be directly inspired and given to specific individuals by God to instruct people about morality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Romans#Purposes_of_writing

It all boils down to claims made by various mortals asserting that they were *chosen* to receive the Word. You may notice that this still happens today as zealots decide that their strong feelings MUST be the correct ones, and then find some way to attribute them to God. It is not always easy to know if these people are seriously convinced, or are just using impossible-to-check assertions to bolster their claims.

Because those who are not homosexual often find it hard to comprehend why anyone would BE homosexual, and are personally put off by the idea, belief about the commands of some Immortal Entity provides an easy way to justify the persecution of those they dislike.
Although it is regularly shown that there are serious contradictions and awkward assertions in religious texts, it is still common to pick & choose which Holy Commands they will follow and which they will ignore.

Slowly, parts of the world are deciding to just let others determine their own path about who they love and allow decisions such as SCOTUS just made to ease the way. Abraham Lincoln was supposed to have said "God must have loved the common people; he made so many of them." No one can document that he ever said that, but the idea is still popular. Perhaps bible believers should replace 'common people' with 'gays & lesbians'......

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Jun 15 - 12:33 PM

Acme, I don't agree, I opposed the law criminalising homosexuals in the UK, I did not say "well that's it, nothing to see here , time to move on," I opposed what I saw as a bad law, and I shall continue to give my view on the issue, whenever it comes up....civilly and without abuse.

Unless of course it becomes against the rules of the forum, in which case I will gladly move on.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jun 15 - 12:41 PM

Beside which, the Mosaic diatribes which make up the Old Testament are a mishmash of stories which go back to Babylon, Egypt, and the early Mesopotamian civilizations. They are posed as revealed wisdom from the Christian tradition, but for the most part they were created by pagans and so-called barbarians of other persuasions, often polytheistic, or sun-worshippers, or some such.

In any case the issue at hand is simply a matter of civil rights being extended uniformly. No-one is arguing the religious aspects of marriage, which are purely a matter of the individual church to bless or withold blessing. Conflating the civil and spiritual codes is not only dangerous and foolish, it is somewhat idiotic. Marriage in the eyes of the law is an entirely different thing than marriage in the eyes of Yahweh, Zoroaster, or Juno.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Jeri
Date: 27 Jun 15 - 12:51 PM

I said "They can bitch about it, much like some people will in this thread, until Hell freezes over... because that's all they CAN do at this point. Bitch, troll, and try to get everyone else's panties in a bunch because theirs are." This pretty much was referring to-- the impending repetition of the "homosexuals shouldn't be able to call it 'marriage' because...anal sex" thing.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Jun 15 - 01:02 PM

Has anyone said that?

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Jun 15 - 01:11 PM

Statistically, that jury is still out.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Jun 15 - 01:47 PM

It is a source of constant entertainment to me (I don't get out much!) that when you ask Christians what Christ said about gay relationships they immediately quote pre-Christian documents, i.e. not things that Christ is reported to have said. And as far as those earlier teachings are concerned, Christ's support for them is nothing like as absolute as you might imagine. For example, when asked about the teaching about marrying your brother's widow, he pretty much said 'That was then, this is now; stop being literal and think about what the actual point of that was."

And he was highly critical of those who tried to reduce the teachings to a formal set of rules, saying they had made a right hash of it (I have a rather colloquial Christ in mind.) I see Christ as someone who placed the individual and their circumstances first, second and third, and any rulebook as an also-ran.

So as far as Timothy, Romans and Corinthians are concerned, for me they have great teaching but "Christians" must always be asking are they Christians, or are the Timothians?

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jun 15 - 02:01 PM

Does this ruling mean that age discrimination is also unconstitutional? My ten-year-old girlfriend and I would like to get married, but we too have been victimized by the moral views of the majority.

My other wife suffers, too, because she's lonely and wishes she could have a co-wife, especially one so young and sweet. Isn't she entitled to equal protection under the law?

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Jun 15 - 02:12 PM

Well, gueat

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Janie
Date: 27 Jun 15 - 02:42 PM

The story of the couple at the center of the Supreme Court case.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Jun 15 - 02:55 PM

I've studied scripture all my life, and Theology was my major in college. It's often said that "Evangelical" (born-again) Christians take the Bible literally, and others don't. The implication is that non-Evangelicals take the Bible as some kind of code, or that it doesn't mean what it says, or something like that - and based on that, Evangelicals condemn others for "not really believing the Bible."

But that's not the case, I think. In varying degrees, Evangelicals deny the context of the Bible. They fail to consider the historical and cultural context, linguistic and literary structures, and the intent and limitations of the authors - all things we should consider when we closely study any book, but especially when we study a book that is considered sacred.

Evangelicals will tell me that I don't consider the Bible to be "true" if I condone homosexuality when it is condemned in Leviticus and in Paul's letter to Timothy, and in other places. Of course it's true - there's no attempt at deception in the Bible that I've been able to find. Leviticus contains several moral codes, and some of those codes don't agree with each other on every point. But it's clearly stated that at the time Leviticus was written, Jewish leaders considered homosexuality to be immoral. And Timothy shows clearly that Paul considered homosexuality to be immoral. Those condemnations were written with a cultural and historical context that existed 2,000 years ago or more.

But culture and morality have evolved through the centuries, and what society considered immoral then, may not apply to the present time. Conservative Christians were slow to accept the fact that while Paul and Leviticus considered slavery to be moral, Christians can no longer use the Bible to defend slavery or racial prejudice. Were Paul and Leviticus "wrong" about slavery? No, I don't think so. They simply reported the moral standards of their times, a context completely different from ours. Same goes for homosexuality and gay marriage - times have changed, and so must religion.

The basic moral principle of most religions is the Golden Rule, the requirement to love your neighbor, and that doesn't change. Individual rules like marriage and sex and diet and such have changed, but the underlying principle remains. When people focus on the legalities and forget the underlying principle, that's where religion gets into trouble.

As DMcG pointed out, Jesus focused on the principles, not the rules - and the Buddha and Mohammed and the Jewish Patriarchs and Moses and all the other founders of great religions were the same - they focused on principles, not legalities.

As time goes on, I hope that the fundamentalists will be able to figure this out: homosexual marriage is not going to bring about the condemnation of the world. It's our failure to love our neighbor that will bring about our destruction. And that destruction will most probably be a natural consequence of our hatred, not some sort of punishment from Above.

How look will it take the fundamentalists to wake up and accept gay marriage? It may take a good, long time. I'm not sure all of them are quite ready to accept the end of slavery.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Jeri
Date: 27 Jun 15 - 03:29 PM

Thanks, Joe--I hadn't seen that before. (The video)

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 28 Jun 15 - 12:30 AM

I'm interested in hearing how states handle it now. For example, on Friday, Mississippi's Attorney General sent out a missive that no more same-sex couples were to receive marriage licenses after only three had been issues. People there are waiting to see what issue he feels needs to be "resolved" before they are allowed to proceed. I'm waiting to hear about licenses being issued in Texas. The urban county clerks are ready and willing. Out in the boonies, that may be a different story.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Jun 15 - 01:32 AM

As a non-battling Brit, that would interest me as well, Acme. I really have little idea how extensive the state powers to delay the ruling are. Nor do I know if it a feasible strategy for those who want to block things to stall until the next President turns up in the hope they are less supportive to the idea and can assist getting it reversed.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Thompson
Date: 28 Jun 15 - 02:39 AM

Now let those troglodytes stop gay marchers being part of the St Patrick's Day parade in New York!

---

You're out of date - the NYC St. Patrick's Day parade allowed the gay pride participation this year. 2015. --mudelf

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 28 Jun 15 - 03:53 AM

Whatever the Bible says on the issue is irrelevant as it only pertains to people who believe anyway! It certainly should not be allowed as an excuse for discrimination. And let's get clear the same book that denounces homosexuality suggests that a son who is accused of being a drunkard and of being rebellious to his parents should be taken to the gates of the city and stoned to death by all the men of the city! It then also states that when at war you can take a female of the beaten population and bring her home where she should shave her hair; then she can mourn for her parents for a month; and after that you can go into her but if she doesn't please you then she can be let go as long as you don't sell her! (Deuteromony 21) Let's get clear this is all very interesting in seeing how ancient peoples thought but has no relevance to human rights and equality in the 21stC

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Jun 15 - 04:30 AM

Whatever the Bible says on the issue is irrelevant as it only pertains to people who believe anyway!

For good or ill, that's not so, Allan. Remember we are talking about the US here, where there is a strong religious element and that that element can be in positions of power enabling them to affect non-believers as well as believers. So what the Bible says can be of life-altering importance to non-believers. Now, I personally agree that "it certainly should not be allowed as an excuse for discrimination" but that's a lot more subtle than it sounds, especially if you happen to believe the Bible is unerringly true and that you understand it perfectly, as some of these people do. If that is your mindset then preventing gay marriage is no more discriminatory than preventing murder. I don't agree, of course, but that's how the thinking goes.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Thompson
Date: 28 Jun 15 - 05:21 AM

Odd! A post I made seems to have disappeared. I was saying that "ancient peoples" didn't all think alike, and the Bible isn't really a guide to ancient thought. And that fighting over this kind of thing is like the people in Europe fighting over their dinner tables about Greece - people who've never been to Greece in their lives, but freely give of their inexpert opinions.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 28 Jun 15 - 06:08 AM

Keith
www.avert.org/hiv-aids-uk.htm

Of the total HIV diagnoses reported in 2012, 51 percent resulted from sex between men, 45 percent from heterosexual sex, 2 percent from injecting drug use, and less than 2 percent combined from mother-to-child transmission, blood/tissue transfer, and other or undetermined routes. 23 Transmission from sex between men became the largest transmission route in 2011, when it overtook heterosexual sex. -

In Scotland, sex between men has accounted for 71 percent of all new HIV diagnoses since 2004.


- See more at:    www.avert.org/hiv-aids-uk.htm#footnote28_6hm0ska

See more at:      www.avert.org/hiv-aids-uk.htm#sthash.eEEftPfh.dpuf.



MEN WHO HAVE SEX WITH MEN (MSM) (July 2014)

Substantial proportion of male HIV infections labelled as 'heterosexual exposure' in UK probably due to sex with other men

HIV prevalence in the UK is higher in MSM than any other group.

See more at:      www.aidsmap.com/Substantial-proportion-of-HIV-infections-involving-heterosexual-men-in-UK-probably-due-to-sex-with-other-men/page/2867845/   


Terrance Higgins Trust

Historically, HIV hit the gay community in the UK first and hardest. For the first 17 years of the epidemic, the highest number of new diagnoses of HIV were among gay men and men who have sex with men (MSM).

That changed in 1999 when the number of heterosexually acquired diagnoses overtook those among MSM. In 2011 the situation reversed again with MSM having the highest number of new infections.

See more at:      www.tht.org.uk/our-charity/Facts-and-statistics-about-HIV/Men-who-have-sex-with-men.


Sincerely,
Gargoyle

For some ignorance is.......

---

Gargoyle has the last word on this topic RE: the UK and HIV discussions. This thread is about the US Supreme Court decision and will look at how the resistant states respond to the opening up of marriage to previously excluded same-sex couples. Fighting posts will be deleted. ---mudelf

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 28 Jun 15 - 11:35 AM

Chronic presidential candidate Mike Huckabee (R, Arkansas) is calling for MLK-like Passive Resistance to the Marriage decision by the Supreme Court. Will they lock arms and block bridges, to face the fire hoses and police dogs of the pro-marriage proponents? No. I imagine there will be outward signs that some shops won't serve same-sex couples, at which point I will boycott those shops. They will shoot themselves collectively in the foot if they sign on to this strategy.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST, ^*^
Date: 28 Jun 15 - 11:48 AM

From the Texas Tribune Texas Counties' Responses to Marriage Ruling Vary

https://www.texastribune.org/2015/06/26/counties-plan-varied-responses-marriage-ruling/

Elated couples across Texas hurried into county clerks' offices Friday to apply for marriage licenses following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.

Some offices quickly began issuing licenses, including those in Travis, Harris, Tarrant, Bexar, Dallas, El Paso, Hidalgo and Midland counties. Other counties — including Maverick, Ector, Victoria, Potter and Bastrop — were waiting to hear from State Attorney General Ken Paxton on how to proceed.

Late Friday afternoon, the state registrar released to county clerks a revised marriage application form with spaces for "applicant 1" and "applicant 2" in place of "man" and "woman."

In Travis County, more than 25 same-sex couples lined up at the clerk's office Friday morning. Less than two hours after the high court announced its decision, the first couples received their licenses, smiling and waving as they filed out of the office.

Jacque Roberts and Carmelita Cabello were among the first couples to receive a license.

"I'm still shaking," said Roberts, 60. "I've been shaking since the order came down."

Roberts and Cabello, who have been together 31 years, said they were grateful same-sex marriage was legalized in Texas in their lifetime.

"It was important for us to do this in Texas because Texas is our birth state," said Cabello, 68. "We wanted Texas to recognize us."

In Harris County, the clerk's office started issuing licenses Friday afternoon. Earlier in the day, Harris County Clerk Stan Stanart said his office would not begin granting same-sex marriage licenses until it received new marriage forms from Paxton's office because the current ones list "man" and "woman" as applicants.

Counties that have already begun issuing licenses said they will use the old forms until until Paxton's office releases a new version.

Bexar County Clerk Gerry Rickhoff said last week he expects his office to stay open for additional hours to handle demand.

"We're going to embrace it and stay open late until everybody who desires processing is processed," Rickhoff said last week. "I think it's very hard to predict what the demand might be. There are some counties I think are going to resist the change. The message is that everybody is welcome to Bexar County."

Paxton's office said he would issue guidance to county clerks on Friday afternoon.

"To be clear — the law in the state of Texas is that marriage is one man and one woman, and the position of this office is that the United States Constitution clearly does not speak to any right to marriage other than one man and one woman and that the First Amendment clearly protects religious liberty and the right to believe in traditional marriage without facing discrimination," Paxton wrote.

In Austin Friday morning, Victor Ayers, 47, fought back tears as he described his plans to marry his partner, Caleb Nelson, 41, after they obtained their license.

"I didn't think this would happen in this state," the Austin resident said, explaining he and Nelson were previously planning to marry in Chicago.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jun 15 - 12:19 PM

Thanks gargoyle.
I was not aware of that July 2014 study on the aidsmap link.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Jeri
Date: 28 Jun 15 - 01:17 PM

Acme, I hear Huckabee's passive resistance will involve a million-heterosexual-person march on Washington,cuminating on the mall, where they will definitively in not marry someone of the same sex.

From what I understand (check it yourself if you're interested because I don't have sources) some states have halted the marriages. I don't see that they'll be able to keep that up.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST, ^*^
Date: 28 Jun 15 - 04:03 PM

Deseret News in Salt Lake City, Utah, offers an overview but doesn't say if anyone actually attempted to marry since the decision came down. A glance at the online papers front page holds clues to this reticence - the top stories right now are:

Landscaping goats delivering vegetation makeover

Four-year high school seen as 'a better pedagogical model'

In our opinion: Looking at revised U.S. history curriculum for AP students

Harmon: Former BYU AD Glen Tuckett opines on state of college athletics

30 memorable sermons from LDS leaders in fewer than 10 words

Getting serious about water safety saves lives, experts say

13 little-known facts about LDS Church founder and prophet Joseph Smith

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Thompson
Date: 28 Jun 15 - 04:39 PM

Well, Dublin yesterday and today is full of rainbow banners in shopfronts and on people for the Gay Pride march. Lovely feeling of warmth and friendship in my home town.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Jun 15 - 06:36 PM

This is about as many issues as you can attribute directly or indirectly to societal growth and maturity. There are behaviors that are harmless or simple safe biological expressions that led to murder or assault by homophobes or followers of dogma. The more we rid society of man made evils and prejudice, the better.

Think of all the times when you were a boy and you heard or saw some kid getting beaten or called a faggot when he probably didn't even know what it meant. The fewer ways we have to arbitrarily hate other people the better.

This decision is another small step for man.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Jun 15 - 06:56 PM

Huckabee has always been a findagelical ass, whatever else he may be.

Bring on the lawsuits -and hjeavy penalties - for those who "resist" and they'll be talking out of the other side of their mouths.

Lotta prople from Huckabee's part of the world have historically resisted, and still resist, the 13th, 14th & 15th Ammendments.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jun 15 - 07:53 PM

This decision is another small step for man.

Just to point out that the ruling applies to lesbians too.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: michaelr
Date: 29 Jun 15 - 01:55 AM

Steve Shaw, did I answer your question?

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jun 15 - 07:19 AM

Dunno, Michael. Complicated innit. I hear your side.

To the substantive. I shall try for a third time to make my very reasonable point, in the hope that a moderator who clearly doesn't think that people outside the US should be heard on this issue will be satisfied at last. A court ruling cannot be the end of the matter. Court rulings do not change hearts and minds. Continuing open debate may help in that. That should include everyone with an interest in the topic, not just US citizens, until equality for gay people is achieved everywhere in the world. Good work, USA, but there's a big other world out there. Including a few backwoodsmen in Northern Ireland.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 29 Jun 15 - 09:33 AM

This article from the NY Times shows that even amongst the evangelical wings, things are not as clear cut as we'd maybe like to paint them. The fact that there is a little bit of doubt and dissent is encouraging.

http://nytimes.com/2015/06/29/us/with-same-sex-decision-evangelical-churches-address-new-reality.html?_r=0

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Jun 15 - 09:42 AM

I don't think that "evangelicals" and "reality" can be used in the same sentance.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: frogprince
Date: 29 Jun 15 - 10:42 AM

"Evangelical" and "fundamentalist" are effectively synonymous for a large segment of American Christianity, but by no means universally so. At least a few million Americans identify as evangelical, believe in the divinity of Jesus and his role in salvation, but do not subscribe to the blanket literalism of fundamentalism with it's inevitable disparagement of science and history. The realism of the whole concept of salvation by blood sacrifice is questionable to say the least, but it isn't belief content held in the face of overwhelming objective physical evidence to the contrary. I guess my point is that a substantial number of avowed evangelicals share a measure of ability, with the Joe Offers, to see the Bible in cultural context, and let some of it be a background to their thinking rather than rules carved in stone.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Jun 15 - 10:46 AM

my point is that a substantial number of avowed evangelicals share a measure of ability, with the Joe Offers, to see the Bible in cultural context


'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST, ^*^
Date: 29 Jun 15 - 10:56 AM

According to the Texas Tribune Attorney General Ken Paxton says county clerks can deny licenses but if they do, they should expect to be sued over it.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Jun 15 - 12:21 PM

Good- then sue the livin' crap outa them! Where do I contribute to the fund to prosecute these idiots.

Those same county clerks can also rob banks if choose to......

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Jun 15 - 12:51 PM

Now, here's another profeessional idiot holding forth. 320 million, Jackass? Over 60% of that 320 million SUPPORT gay marriage, and close to 60% support "Obamacare".

He also neatly skipped around the fact that for 150 years (still??), Southern churches & clergy promoted a Biblical justification for Slavery and Negro inferiority.

Monday, Jun 29, 2015 09:22 AM EST
Ted Cruz insists "religious liberty" is different from bigotry — but refuses to say how

"Bigotry is wrong," he said, before telling NBC he'd dismantle the Supreme Court over same-sex marriage decision.

Monday on NBC's "Today," Texas senator and GOP presidential hopeful Ted Cruz stood by his remarks that last Thursday and Friday represented "some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation's histoy," telling Savannah Guthrie the Supreme Court's decisions on Obamacare and same-sex marriage amount to "five unelected lawyers saying the views of 320 million Americans don't matter."

Cruz argued that the Court's decisions were on par with 9/11 and Dred Scott, saying that on "two days, back to back, the majority of Supreme Court justices violated their judicial oath" by "forcing millions of people into this failed law" — the Affordable Care Act — on Thursday and "throwing out the marriage laws of all fifty states" on Friday.

uthrie noted that Cruz said he would support Texas clerks who would refuse to issue marriage licenses on religious grounds, then asked him if he would support a clerk who refused to issue a license to an interracial couple on similar grounds.

"There's no religious backing on that," Cruz said, ignoring the fact that religious objections played a critical role in Loving v. Virginia.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST, ^*^
Date: 29 Jun 15 - 06:47 PM

Another story from Texas:

Hood County Clerk still won't issue same-sex marriage licenses

Katie Lang won't be issuing same-sex marriage licenses in Hood County.

Lang, the county clerk there, said she won't issue the documents — despite last week's Supreme Court landmark ruling that the U.S. Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry in all 50 states — because it goes against her religious beliefs.

Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued an opinion Sunday that officials can deny marriage licenses if they have religious objections. But he did warn in his non-binding opinion that those who refuse to issue licenses could face fines or lawsuits.

"It's my religious liberty, my belief in traditional marriage," she said Monday. "Nobody has tried to get one, nobody has called about them ... other than reporters."

Lang's decision came as Denton County's clerk began to issue the licenses in spite of her belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. And Collin County began to issue the licenses as well, following the lead set last week by Tarrant and Dallas counties — and other counties across the state.

Officials in a few other local counties, including Wise and Johnson, said Monday they are still waiting on software companies to update the forms. Statewide, Bastrop, Buleson, Jackson and Ector counties also were still declining to issue licenses.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/article25777396.html

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Jun 15 - 07:05 PM

Well, then, let's get Katy in jail for violating the law of the land, and not before time.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: michaelr
Date: 30 Jun 15 - 02:56 AM

Tonight's Daily Show with Jon Stewart isn't up on Youtube just yet, but it will be. Check it out as he skewers Scalia by showing him to be a complete hypocrite.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 30 Jun 15 - 11:32 AM

Not sure if she should go to jail (though it would be nice), But if you refuse to do their job, for what ever reason, you shouldn't have the job.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jun 15 - 10:53 PM

Try not to upset Scalia. He's very fragile right now.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST, ^*^
Date: 01 Jul 15 - 08:15 AM

Slate.com's The Gay Marriage Map: Each state's legal status on gay marriage.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 01 Jul 15 - 09:54 PM

An overview of how states are responding from CNN. If you let the video run the second one (as of now) is Jeffrey Toobin explaining how it works in counties - individuals might not have to perform marriages for gay couples, but all counties have to make it available to gay couples.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,The good looking Musket
Date: 02 Jul 15 - 04:03 AM

Over here in Blighty, we did have a case where a registrar refused to carry out their duty and I don't recall the details but like individual pharmacists who don't like dispensing morning after pills, it is the organisation who has to provide, not the individual. If an organisation (local government for registrars etc) allows their staff to embarrass the people they serve by refusing service for discriminatory reasons it is the local government (council over here) breaking the law. They can terminate employment but a compromise is usually available where workload is shared out.

Someone else steps in and life goes on. Easy. Given time for creationists to evolve, such matters will be irrelevant soon. The so called "Christian" marriage has altered far more over the years anyway as the inbuilt misogyny has been quietly dropped. Obeying, dowry & chattel are as much a traditional Christian interpretation as any, but don't let hypocrisy get in the way of bigotry eh?

If nothing else, this whole debate merely reinforces the idea that if your faith precludes decency, respect and consideration for others, it is your faith that needs reviewing, not members of your community wishing the same services and rights we can all expect.

The indignation many here have shown towards those who oppose the rights of others is heartening to read. Fair play to you.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST, ^*^
Date: 02 Jul 15 - 08:56 AM

I heard this last week but this is the first detailed description of the *OTHER* Supreme Court marriage decision: Kerry v. Din, to do with Americans wanting to marry non-citizens and bring them to the U.S. This is the heart-crushing decision that didn't have much light shone on it.

The case, Kerry v. Din, involves an American citizen, Fauzia Din, who married an Afghani man, Kanishka Berashk. Din petitioned for a visa for Berashk, but the consular officer in Pakistan denied it, citing supposed "terrorist activities." However, the officer provided no proof or other explanation. (Berashk was a payroll clerk in the Afghan government before the U.S. invasion, but even this wasn't cited.)

Without question, the government can deny an American the right to be with his or her spouse if the spouse is a criminal, American or not. But the questions here are 1) whether the government should have to provide proof, or at least state the specific reason, for denying an American the right to be with his or her spouse; and 2) whether a denial without explanation is subject to judicial review.

Din appealed the consular decision, arguing she was denied her rights without the due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The U.S. district court threw out her claim, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found she "has a protected liberty interest in marriage that entitled her to review of the denial of her spouse's visa."

Before the Supreme Court, the Obama administration argued that the U.S. government has absolute power to exclude spouses of American citizens for any reason and that no judicial review or due process should be available to those affected by even erroneous decisions of consular officers.

Shocked by this argument, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer asked Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler to imagine that Din had "undeniable proof" that the consular officer rejected the application for racial reasons or to suppress free speech: "Is your position that it doesn't matter?"
Kneedler responded only by repeating, "There is no judicial review."

The court's ruling, delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia and joined by four other justices, is nothing less than an overview of the ways in which immigration restrictions have been used to trample on the rights of married couples. "As soon as Congress began legislating in this area, it enacted a complicated web of regulations that enacted serious impediments to a person's ability to bring a spouse to the United States," Scalia wrote.

read the rest on the site.

This story has a libertarian spin, so there may be other versions interpreting the decision out there, but the bottom line is that there is still no recourse for spouses if the consular staff says "no."

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 02 Jul 15 - 11:57 AM

the mod got me yet again. the thought police are out again. creation believer denied right of reply,

[note- the last few deleted posts were for going totally off-topic and for complaining about those deletions-not for being a creation believer---mudelf]

---

And this mudelf just deleted the next nine posts. All of you, you know who you are. Take it out in the alley, we don't want your bickering here. Consider this a carefully moderated thread and off-topic posts will be deleted.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST, ^*^
Date: 02 Jul 15 - 11:03 PM

A couple of tidbits:

✔Entire County Clerk's Office resigns in Decatur, Tennessee.

✔The ACLU in Kentucky is filing a lawsuit on behalf of four couples (two of them same-sex) because the County Clerk has refused to issue ANY licenses.

In a statement, ACLU Cooperating Attorney Laura Landenwich said, "Ms. Davis has the absolute right to believe whatever she wants about God, father and religion, but as a government official who swore an oath to uphold the law, she cannot pick and choose who she is going to serve or which duties her office will perform based on her religious beliefs."

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST, ^*^
Date: 02 Jul 15 - 11:23 PM

All things considered, though, there aren't many of these stories, though two more come to light:

A Mississippi Circuit County Clerk sent out an all-cap letter of resignation to the County Supervisors.

"The Supreme Court's decision violates my core values as a Christian," Barnette wrote to the county's Board of Supervisors. "My final authority is the Bible. I cannot in all good conscience issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples under my name because the Bible clearly teaches that homosexuality is contrary to God's plan and purpose for marriage and family."

The Clarion-Ledger spoke to a voter who questioned why she would isolate gay and lesbian people seeking to marry, but not others.

"She's given marriage licenses to people who have committed adultery and stolen and lied, and when their parents haven't approved," Grenada County resident Lue Harbin told the Ledger, speaking of Barnette. "It's just crazy the way she's thinking. That's her job, and she's not there to judge people."

Her replacement was swiftly chosen and is issuing licenses.

In Arkansas, the Cleburne County Clerk resigned:

"It is definitely a moral conviction for me," Guffey said. "I didn't announce anything publicly or on social media or anything because I didn't want my decision to be seen as hateful. I know some people will look at it like that, but this wasn't easy. It wasn't a decision I made lightly. And I do not hate anybody."

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,And I am sure this is on topic..
Date: 03 Jul 15 - 11:29 AM

The examples cited by symbol above, demonstrate that Christians are being driven out of their jobs, not for a hate crime, but for biblical convictions. So much for same sex"marriage" only effecting those who want to avail themselves of it.   Their job description has effectively been altered to facilitate the violation of conscience.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jul 15 - 12:13 PM

Not in my view. If I had a job to uphold the law, and the law changed in a way I didn't agree with, it seems perfectly fair that I might choose to leave the job for my own piece of mind. But that is not "being driven out off office for my beliefs". And it has happened many times in the past, such as pacifists or others objecting to specific wars/actions. No one claimed the governments acted the way they did to drive pacifists from their jobs. It is also not unknown for ministers to leave governments because they disagree with proposed policy, but it rarely regarded as the minister being driven out of office for their beliefs.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Jul 15 - 12:16 PM

Me, above. Damn these disappearing cookies!

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 03 Jul 15 - 12:30 PM

I have respect for anybody who walks away from a job because they feel that they cannot longer do it, for whatever reason. I don't think much of anybody that feels they're entitled to hold onto a job even after they've decided they no longer want to do what it requires.
"The Bible made me do it" is not an excuse that works for me.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 03 Jul 15 - 12:44 PM

Considering that separation of church and state is a basic tenet of our nation it should follow that people who elevate what they perceive to be their religion's laws above the law of the land be disqualified from being employed in our government.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jul 15 - 12:47 PM

Christians are being driven out of their jobs

Absolute BS.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jul 15 - 05:37 PM

This does not only apply to Christians, or people of faith, there are millions of people who oppose this legislation and have never been consulted on the issue.
The legislation has been rushed through in the UK, without being properly debated.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Paul Burke
Date: 03 Jul 15 - 05:44 PM

In the UK, a fair majority support equality for same-sex marriage. Discussion of attitudes from three years ago shows that how the question is framed is crucial- UK people in general choose the most "generous" interpretation, which is why some leading questions have led to the limited answer desired. In Britain (mostly) the Gay question is dead. They are people, that's all.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Vashta Nerada
Date: 03 Jul 15 - 05:49 PM

Those millions need to get over themselves and move forward. This is now settled law in the United States of America. Happy Fourth of July to all.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: PHJim
Date: 03 Jul 15 - 07:35 PM

akenation - If you are heterosexual, this does not concern you and you should have no say since it's none of your business. It has no effect on your life. If it offends you, then that's your hang up. . . Get over it.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jul 15 - 08:12 PM

Never been consulted? Why, in that case, we should have a referendum on the ingredients of Cumberland sausages, on the rights and wrongs of penalty shoot-outs, on whether Alex Salmond should grow a beard, etc. You really don't understand democracy, do you? As for the millions who you say "oppose" the legislation, well I haven't heard much from them. A couple of dozen vociferous types at best. As for rushing it through, gay people have existed since Adam were a lad. It's taken us a paltry couple of million years to get gay marriage. Blimey, that's way too bloody fast for me.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Jul 15 - 12:46 AM

It seems that young Catholic priests in the U.S. are capitalizing on the Supreme Court decision. I learned long ago never to trust a priest under the age of 40. Since John Paul II came along in 1978, the majority of young priests have been horribly conservative.
My Boss the Nun said she almost walked out of Mass last weekend because the young priest's sermon was so anti-gay.

We've had a very young (age 26) Filipino priest in our parish, ordained just two years. I've noticed some harshness in his sermons occasionally over the last two years, but he went overboard last weekend. He posted on Facebook that the decision was a "dark day for America," and I hear that's what he preached and the first Mass he celebrated last weekend. Of course, I challenged his Facebook posts. I said that sexual conduct should be an individual moral decision determined by conscience, not governed by a court of law. I said that although his approach may be well-intentioned, his statements would serve only to encourage the anger of those who hate homosexuals. I told him that if his campaign motivated a father to beat or disown a homosexual child, or if it drove a homosexual teenage to suicide, the guilt would be on the conscience of the priest.

He did not like what I had to say, and eventually blocked me from his Facebook page. He's going to a new assignment, working with college students and at a Catholic girls' high school, and I'm tempted to write to the bishop and I see potential problems with his rigid moral stance and his immature ideas about sexuality. The priest insists that he must uphold Church teaching against all those who would question or distort it, but I think there are ways to present Church teachings in a more positive and rational manner. I sure hope he learns his lesson before he does any serious harm.

Our pastor, an Irish-born priest about my age, is on vacation in Ireland. I don't think our young priest would have gotten away with his campaign if the pastor had been around.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Jul 15 - 02:16 AM

One of the complications of discussions like this is that marriage is not one single thing. There are at least three quite separable aspects: the relationship between the partners, one to another; the relationship of the partnership to the social context and the relationship of the partnership to the national bureaucratic system of taxation, inheritance and all that.

It is often said Christ said nothing about homosexuality but to my mind he did comment on that last aspect of gay marriage, albeit in a wider context. That is often translated as "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's". How relationships interact with tax law and the rest seems to me to be very much 'of Caesar'.

But more generally this third aspect is both crucial and deadly dull. Gay or straight, friends would normally rejoice on hearing news of a marriage; they could be forgiven if they glazed over to hear announcements about changes of taxation status and inheritance mechanisms.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Jul 15 - 02:28 AM

Let me slightly rephrase that: What relationships the law chooses to recognise for tax purposes is very much "of Caesar". I want to phrase it that way round because it better reflects that it is not really the law 'authorising' these relationships; they exist and get their authority from the couple themselves. Instead, it is the law recognising what is already there.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Jul 15 - 07:30 AM

To PH Jim...and others, I am not a homosexual, but I am a member of society and this legislation impacts severely upon society, with moral decisions to be made in the workplace, the redefinition of traditional marriage, the redefinition of monogamy, the "open" relationship question, health issues.....etc etc.
The vast majority of the population don't have a clue about the negative sides of homosexuality, being fed a diet of happy clappy...its all about love nonsense by the media.

This issue is certainly not "all about love" and as someone who has been married for 50 years, I can tell you that no marriage is "all about love"........it's about a thousand and one things all equally important.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 04 Jul 15 - 09:10 AM

Nonsense about this thread being of no concern to straight people - we all have loved ones who are gay who are now being treated fairly in this arena. But this thread is not about bashing out old arguments, so please refrain from deflecting this conversation from the topic - the nationwide legalization of marriage between same-sex couples in the US. With all respect to Joe - who is reporting only about a church, not pounding the thread with doctrine - I don't give a rat's ass what your church says - no one's church is in any way threatened or impacted - it is the state, via county clerks, that issues the marriage licences that we are discussing here. They are elected officials who are responsible for carrying out the tasks of the office.

---

A few posts in opposition to the Supreme Court decision remain in the thread (as incorrect as they are), but most were deleted. Those who support the decision but troll through the thread to attack other participants have been removed. It is dismaying to see those who support this mudelf's political beliefs behaving so badly - and thus illustrating Grouch Marx' remark that he didn't want to belong to any club that would have him.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Lighter
Date: 04 Jul 15 - 10:20 AM

> They are elected officials who are responsible for carrying out the tasks of the office.

Which is why resignation, rather than defiance of the law, is the honorable and difficult course for them.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 05:06 AM

D.MG...would Civil Union not have been a better way out of the taxation and inheritance issue.....In the UK all these problems were neatly tidied up by Civil Union, which is still in place for homosexuals, but not for heterosexuals.

Of course, to have real equality, Civil Union would have to be extended to heterosexual couples who did not want traditional marriage.
So at the moment in the UK homosexuals have more civil rights than heterosexuals.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Lighter
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 07:36 AM

They would be expressing far more bigotry by self-righteously refusing to comply with the law.

Even bigots can behave honorably in certain circumstances.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST, ^*^
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 09:35 AM

Suggesting civil union AND marriage provide more rights to gay than straight couples is simply word play. Civil union (and Domestic Partnership, another marriage-lite sop offered in a few states) was a poor compromise and probably still exists for business purposes for whoever chooses to use it, gay or straight. Marriage is marriage. And as of now, one size fits all.

Suggesting health issues should be a consideration in marriage between gay partners is also a specious argument, in the face of the history of most of the U.S. states that back in the day required both partners to pass a blood test before applying for a marriage license, but almost all of those requirements have been dropped by the states. Few have such a tests now but when they were in place they were in place to reveal STDs. Why? Were tests required to alert an innocent partner to the misbehavior of an intended mate? Were they there to protect the progeny of such a marriage, to avoid infecting a child at birth? Were health departments requiring them simply to track sexual activity? It seems most likely they were in place for convoluted reasons - because sanctimonious individuals wanted to pry into the private lives of strangers. That is why "health" and "marriage" were uncoupled. And is why such a false equivalence argument is, as I say, specious.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST, ^*^
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 12:47 PM

Big Gay Wedding held on Capitol steps celebrates marriage equality

Austin American Statesman:

For native Texans Kaye Draper and Abigail McNeely, being married on the south steps of the Texas State Capitol on the Fourth of July was something they never thought would occur.

"It's something we didn't know was ever gonna happen in our lifetime," Draper said.

Draper said she and her wife had a commitment ceremony 26 years ago and have been together for 29 years.

"So I say, we married before God 26 years ago and we married, finally, with the validation of the United States and State of Texas today," McNeely said with tears in her eyes.

The couple was wed at the Big Gay Wedding celebration held at the Capitol on Saturday afternoon.

"We now pronounce you married. Please kiss," said Lenore Shefman, event organizer and an Austin attorney, to the applauding crowd.

About 50 couples took part in the wedding ceremony as friends, families and supporters watched. Bubbles and confetti filled the air as the crowd of about 300 cheered and clapped, taking pictures of the happy couples kissing.

People passed out flowers to the couples as they waited after the ceremony to have their marriage licenses signed by Shefman and Jodi Flint who both officiated.

"It doesn't matter, they can go. We waited a long time," said Rob Bennet, letting another couple go before him and his husband to have their marriage license signed.

This was a sentiment shared by many during the day's festivities. People were patient, smiling and overjoyed to finally be joined in matrimony after years of waiting.

[snip]

☛ The event meant "legal recognition that we matter like anybody else," Bennet said. He never thought this day would come to Texas.

Follow the link to read the entire article.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 03:36 PM

Seems mud elf having admitted his bias deletes opposing posts, even though not off topic!.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 03:53 PM

Pete, these reluctant clerks are fighting for discrimination, Rosa Parks was fighting against it. Big difference.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 07:51 PM

Even bigots can behave honorably in certain circumstances.

Thank God for honorable bigots.

Ya know, it might be a better deal if they weren't fusking bigots in the first instance.

Why apologize for them in their bigiotry?

Jaysus.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 01:45 AM

Would civil union not be a better way out of the inheritance issues ...(and elsewhere) suggesting marriage and civil rights give more rights is wordplay

In a way, yes, but it would need a much bigger shift of attitude than we have seen so far. There are a lot of people whose choose not to marry because of its historical associations or because of the huge costs that weddings now incur. In many cases the couple do not consider the inheritance implications of that. So I would like to see a civil union for anybody - gay, straight, siblings who share houses, good friends with a flat in common and so on - that is entirely about taxation and inheritance arrangements and could be altered several times a year if appropriate with no massive costs and be sufficiently mundane that it never reaches the level of a social event. Simultaneously, I would like to see a marriage that is much more permanent social arrangement and broadly what we regard, socially speaking, as a marriage now. And we can keep all that separate from the hoo-hah of a wedding as well.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST, ^*^
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 04:25 PM

Hood County, Texas, couple received marriage license after suing county clerk.

DALLAS A gay couple has received a marriage license after filing a federal lawsuit against a North Texas county clerk who previously cited her religious opposition to gay marriage in denying the license.

Jim Cato and Joe Stapleton filed the lawsuit Monday against Hood County Clerk Katie Lang, saying they repeatedly had been turned away when trying to obtain a license last week.

The couple was quickly granted a license later in the morning in Granbury, the county seat. The city is southwest of Fort Worth.

The couple's attorney, Jan Soifer, released a statement saying they haven't withdrawn the lawsuit and are seeking an agreement from Lang that her office will issue licenses to same-sex couples without delay. They're also seeking attorney fees.

Lang was not immediately available for comment Monday.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 04:36 PM

Good! Lets keep them lawsuits a-comin' y'all!

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 08:28 PM

So far there have mostly been short blurbs about the county clerks clogging the marriage license system. This one has more meat to it:

Marriage Comes to Hood County, Texas

"Which one of you is going to be the husband?" the assistant Hood County clerk asked the two men standing before her last Thursday afternoon.

"Both of us," said one of the men.

"You can't both be the husband," the assistant clerk said, confused or disdainful, depending on varying accounts. The men had shown the clerk their IDs, social security numbers, dates and places of birth, and were waiting to give her their $83.00 for their marriage license, and now the husband conundrum. Never mind that the new forms issued from Austin didn't include the words "husband" or "wife," nor were they gender-specific in any way. The men, a couple of ranchers from down the road, had waited 27 years for this day, and the government of Hood County, Texas, was determined to make them keep waiting.

Today's constitutional crisis takes us to the Hood County clerk, Katie Lang, whose office as of this morning seemed to be holding out for a higher civil authority than the United States Supreme Court, and for her troubles she got herself sued in federal court in the Northern District of Texas in Fort Worth, in papers filed before dawn today. The suit was filed on behalf of two lifelong Texans, Jim Cato and Joe Stapleton, who had been hoping to obtain a marriage license without force or drama, only to have clerk Lang instruct her staff shortly after the Obergefell decision on June 26, "We are not issuing them because I am instilling my religious liberty in this office."

I spoke at length to Cato and Stapleton yesterday afternoon, along with their attorneys, Jan Soifer and Austin Kaplan, about the saga of Jim and Joe, the historic fight that was brewing in Hood County, and the lawsuit that will at last bring the rebel counties of Texas into compliance with the U.S. Constitution.

Cato and Stapleton have been together for 27 years and live on a ranch in Granbury, population 7,978, the Hood County seat. Last Thursday afternoon, at about 3:45, they put on their cowboy hats and made their way to the courthouse. In the past week it has been common for recalcitrant county clerks in Texas to claim that they simply didn't yet have the proper paperwork for a same-sex marriage license, even the though the Texas Bureau of Vital Statistics had in fact updated the marriage license form the very afternoon that the Supreme Court made its landmark ruling. The Hood County clerk's office has been a roiling mess of shifting excuses since then, none based in law or reality—first, Lang's "religious liberty" declaration, followed two days later by an announcement that her office would indeed follow the law and issue licenses, once she received new forms (Lang herself wouldn't issue licenses based on her moral objections, but, in the words of Austin activist Glen Maxey, "she would find a heathen in her office who would"), to telling Cato and Stapleton on Thursday afternoon that there would be an indefinite delay in their ability to get a license in Hood County. After the couple produced the updated form that they had brought with them, they were told again that they would not be getting a license that day in Hood County. They were then ordered to leave the premises by Lang, who, according to Cato, said she felt threatened by all this marriage business, and by the local media that had come along to watch. To make sure she was safe, she called in a phalanx of sheriff's deputies to keep Cato and Stapleton out of the public building.

Read the rest at the link. Jim and Joe have lived in Texas as a couple for 27 years. In North Texas, but in a rural part of North Texas. It can't have been easy, so more power to them for doing this now.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 08:37 PM

Among Quakers, who require unity of the their meeting in order to proceed on all matters(and who often do not move forward on contested matters for years) their is a saying to the effect that "We are a memorial service away from consensus".

This rather dark reflection seems to mirror this situation today. The younger generations, whose numbers increase every day, tend to accept and embrace gay lifestyles and gay rights, while the virulent opponents tend to be among the older generations, and dwindling in number.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 08:50 PM

Uh, Stim, are you trying to endict the Society of Friends for something specific, or is this just a genralized slur on Quakers?

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 09:21 PM

His point is clear, Greg - the old folks who can't tolerate the change will be gone sooner than those who accept the change. Assuming no one is casting votes for them from the graveyard (known to happen here in Texas and elsewhere in the South), their opposition will be moot and mute.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 03:59 AM

Don't you lot over there love to make heavy weather of things! When, here in UK, the Civil Partnership Act of 2004 was passed, three longstanding pairs of my friends, John-Stuart & Ricky, Mandy & Nicola, David & Brian, all invited us to their Civil Unions and receptions. A few years later, when the status was emended to be called 'marriage', they all proceeded to go back to the registrar's office and get married, and gave us another lovely lot of canapés and drinkies. I can't recall any of them suffering the remotest degree of obstruction or inconvenience from the officials concerned or anybody else.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Will Fly
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 08:22 AM

Glad to hear that, Michael. My next-door neighbours had a civil partnership ceremony about 3 years ago, to which we, other friends from the village and family were invited. Most of the guests in the town hall chamber were locals from the village.

There was a great bash in our local pub afterwards - I played guitar in a jazz trio for the occasion (and donated my services free as their partnership present from me).

Two good blokes - good neighbours - good friends. No fuss, no bother. What's all the fuss about. eh?

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 04:44 PM

not as simple as that, gillymoor. for a start, opposition to redefining marriage is not discrimination. discrimination, for example would be refusing to serve homosexuals even when it involved no moral compromise [ as serving a marriage license might be seen to be ].      secondly it is now Christians [ or any others with faith related objections ] who are now discriminated against because of their religious convictions.
I expect the usual posters will call me a bigot, and I can live with that.       except for not doing anything that might seem that I endorse what is against my biblical convictions, I have perfectly fine social interaction with anyone, whatever their sexuality.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 05:23 PM

Just a quick (and genuine question), Pete. How does gay marriage discriminate against Christians?

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 05:42 PM

Oh, shit, Spleen - now you & the rest of us are all in for it......

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 05:43 PM

Pete, It is that simple. These clerks who are denying gay people their civil rights are unlawfully discriminating against them regardless of their stated reason for doing so. To draw an analogy between their actions ,or inactions, and Rosa Parks defiance of Jim Crow laws is ludicrous. Again, she was fighting to expand civil rights and the people you champion are fighting to curb them. I'll also remind you that "traditional" marriage has been redefined many times over thousands of years. Look it up.
On a happier note I witnessed the wedding of our two closest friends, they happen to be gay, at the county courthouse last week and all the government folks shared in the joy of the occasion.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,LynnH
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 04:01 AM

Uh-oh....does this mean Janis Ian will have to drop "Married in London" from her set-list?

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 04:58 AM

Sorry, Greg! I do think when someone comes out with a weird and meaningless suggestion implying gay marriage discriminates against Christians, though, the least they can do is enlighten us as to what on earth they're on about... I suspect he means that if people in positions of trust - like registrars - refuse a service to customers because of their sexuality, and in doing so put themeslves in breach of their employment responsibilities, then it's somehow discrimination if they are held to account for their actions.

When you have a job, you can't pick and choose according to your personal political or religious opinions (and I'm of the view that a lot of these so-called religious objections are entirely politically motivated). I'm a social worker. A proportion of my service users have quite virulently racist and homophobic views. I'd rather not hear them, but I'm there to work with people on their mental health and social care needs, not to police the shit they come out with. They get the same level of service, therefore, as anyone else. I'd suggest that regardless of their remarkably unchristian 'Christian' views, these registrars need to show a bit of professionalism in the workplace. If they are unable to do this, its probably time to start looking around for another job. Preferably one where the general public don't have to deal with them. Drainage clerk, or something.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST, ^*^
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 09:31 AM

Coupled with the right to marry is now the right to discriminate against those with the legal right to marry, whether it be a county clerk issuing a license or a private business offering a service. The second part of this is more dicey.

Let them eat cake

DENVER — The case before the court on Tuesday grappled with issues of equal rights, religious objections to same-sex marriage and wedding cake.

At issue was whether Jack Phillips, a Colorado bakery owner, had broken state antidiscrimination laws when he refused to make a cake for a gay couple's wedding reception, citing his religious beliefs. With same-sex marriage now legal everywhere nationally in the wake of the United States Supreme Court ruling in June, his case is being closely watched as a test of the boundary between personal religious objections and legal discrimination.

A lawyer for Mr. Phillips, who is an evangelical Protestant, argued before the Colorado Court of Appeals that his refusal to make the cake was no different from a baker's rejecting a customer's request for a cake frosted with an image of the Confederate flag. But lawyers for the gay couple said the refusal was more akin to a bus company turning away a female passenger, or a hospital refusing to treat a gay couple's child.

"This case is simply not about cake," said Ria Mar, a staff lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented the couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins. "Businesses open to the public must be open to all, on the same terms."

Similar debates are echoing across the country as legal skirmishes over same-sex marriage shift to county clerks who refuse to perform same-sex vows and other instances of resistance. States are wrestling with whether they can or should grant legal protections to business owners, religious groups or others who object to same-sex weddings.

read the rest at the link

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 11:56 AM

I think you got my drift, spleen, though of course emphasising your own perspective. You seem to be arguing that since it is now law to require employees to either go against their conscience or leave their employment , that they are not discriminated against. IMO, it just amounts to legalised discrimination against them.   And the tolerance the homosexual lobby and and it's allies demand , is denied to those of an opposing view. As noted above, there will be an increase of religious conscience versus "gay rights" . And it seems to me, that being as a judge can change existing law, or interpret it according to his fancy, that each case will be at the mercy of the individual judges bias. One thing for sure though.....it won't go away in a hurry ...

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 12:56 PM

Pete, how many times must you be told that marriage is a social/legal contract that has nothing to do with your religion? In the U.S. it is a right that has been restored to fulfill the full meaning of the Constitution in that the legal protection of marriage has now been extended to all. Period.

Those who oppose it for all of the flawed reasons I've read from you and others here are responsible for the choices they make. They can follow the law, or they can oppose it and be sued or fired. If they choose to quit, that is their decision. You can plead religion or AIDS or STDs or any such nonsense all day long, but those have NOTHING to do with this legal interpretation of the right to marry. Your arguments are the window dressing to conceal a small, closed mind that apparently thinks only a portion of the population should be able to marry their loved ones. This is not an invitation to debate the topic.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 03:54 PM

the homosexual lobby

pete, for Christ's sake, enough eithj the BS already.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 04:46 PM

Acme....."In the U.S. it is a right that has been restored to fulfill the full meaning of the Constitution in that the legal protection of marriage has now been extended to all. Period."

Please excuse me as I am not familiar with US law, but you say "restored", do you mean that this legislation was in force at an earlier time?
In the UK marriage between two people of the same sex has never been legal until now. in fact it is only legal in three of the four countries which make up the UK.

Additionally, marriage has NOT been extended to all. Period.
It has been extended to a small sexual minority.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 04:59 PM

You're quibbling, Ake. There is no there there.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST, ^*^
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 10:13 PM

Morehead, Kentucky, this time. Rowan County Clerk calls police after denying couple a license. She may have felt set up since their friends were taping, but what did she expect?

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 11:20 PM

You seem to be arguing that since it is now law to require employees to either go against their conscience or leave their employment , that they are not discriminated against. IMO, it just amounts to legalised discrimination against them

We might actually be able to get a quick answer to this one, Pete. Do you think that situation is unique to Christianity? Are there not for example people who think the gun laws are insane who issue gun licences because that's what the role calls on them to do?

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 11:23 PM

Sorry, a cultural mismatch there. Make it people who work on tills in supermarkets which sell guns.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 02:23 AM

It never ceases to surprise me how much quibble, random stum und drang and sheer babble can be generated by the moronic conflation of things that are different. Without this single element of identifying things that are actually different, I suspect ninety percent of Mudcat's BS section wouldn't exist. The differences, for example, among the following:

# The cloud of various moral judgements about same-sex relations, both positive and negative

# The various religious assertions about same

# The assorted emotional reactions to all the above

# The policy stances of religious organizations with regard to such relationships

#The civil requirements of law under the U.S. constitution requiring equal opportunity under the law

Each of these sets of noise has their own gradations of heat and light. And they are entirely different sets of things.

The Supreme Court took the correct step with regard to the last set, but it has no *or very little) bearing on any of the others.

A

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 03:58 AM

If you have a negative view on the happiness and equality of others, I fail to see why your opinion is worth repeating in polite company.

The idea that you can restrict rights to people purely because they are a "sexual minority" is the sort of language my father's generation fought to remove from the western world.

Luckily, we live where the law has caught up with the needs of the people. It seems to have done so in The USA too. Here in Scotland, we pride ourselves in our multicultural society and despite the strong influence of sectarian religions over the years, we have largely thrown their ideas aside.

The motto of The Scottish National Party is "prosperity through equality." All real Scottish people are proud to be associated with that sentiment.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 08:36 AM

"The idea that you can restrict rights to people purely because they are a "sexual minority"......This is a straw man argument, no one thinks that rights can be restricted purely because homosexuals are a sexual minority.   There are many sexual minorities.

It is the behaviour of any sexual minority which is important.
In this case, rights are not being restricted, but are being made up especially for this particular tiny sexual minority....regardless of the effect of redefinition on society.

To restrict rights, the rights must have been in existence to begin with. Homosexuals have never had the right to marry in any civilisation that I have read of.......am I wrong in that?

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Monique
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 09:05 AM

History of same-sex unions

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 12:06 PM

Wel. I didn't wade through it all but, "Emperor Nero married an unwilling boy" just about sums it up......"Emporer Nero" was as mad as a fucking hatter.....Yes I know history repeats itself!!

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 02:24 PM

"Wel. I didn't wade through it all but...."

Ake, if you were not so prejudiced and unwilling to confront a little reality, you wouldn't be so much of a dinosaur.

The world left you behind a few thousand years ago. Same sex relationships, especially between men, was considered the "purest" form of love in ancient Greece. Read a little Plato.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST, ^*^
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 02:28 PM

Cherry-picking facts, that is the problem here. Letting Nero stand for all gay men. Now THAT is a strawman argument.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 03:28 PM

Not being cognisant of your gun laws , dmcg, I am hesitant. However, suppose guns were never sold in supermarkets (I hope they aren't ! ) but then five judges against four said they must be sold in said shops.   Let us suppose that some till clerks refused to sell them due to religious or other moral reasons and were threatened with unemployment.......then, yes, I think that would ALSO be legalised descrimination. This seems some sort of comparison, and I hope it answers your question........

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 03:39 PM

I hear that a former Mormon is already applying to marry two wives on the strength of the redefinition of marriage law. As I understand it, the same arguments apply. I would suppose that what he and two women do is their business, but is it not a further factor in redefining marriage to add legality to it.      And why stop at two, or why even stop at Homo sapiens , after all according to many of you we are related to the animal world. I might be missing something, but seems a reasonable argument to me.....so it will probably get deleted !.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 03:51 PM

That's a damned silly argument, pete!

----

The Judeo-Christian prejudice against homosexuality has less to do with "inherent immorality" than it does with procreation. The big mantra in Biblical times was to increase the tribe, and it wasn't just same sex relationships that were declared a "sin."   One incident in the Bible was warped way to hell-and-gone out of its original meaning to include masturbation.

When Onan's brother died, according to tribal custom, Onan was supposed to father children with his dead brother's widow. He tried, then had second thoughts at the last minute, withdrew, and "spilt it upon the ground." God slew him, because he had disobeyed tribal custom.

Subsequently, the term "Onanism" has been used as a synonym for masturbation—when in actuality, it should refer to "coitus interruptus"—and has been used to wag a finger at young teenage boys and tell them that if they masturbate they will go to Hell.

The main injunctions against non-procreative sex in Biblical times was that it didn't increase the tribe.

Considering the current general overpopulation of the world and its concomitant problems, I'd think that anything that allowed sexual expression without increasing the size of the "tribe" would be a good thing. And legalizing same-sex marriage certainly isn't going to do the job, considering the small percentage of the population who are same-sex oriented. Fears of severely reduced future populations as a result of the legalization of same-sex marriage are just plain silly!

Lest anybody draw any inferences about me from my position on this matter, I am heterosexual and have been married—to a woman—for nearly forty years.

Friends Paul and Phil got married a couple of years ago, but what they get up to in the privacy of their own apartment is nobody's business but their own. Not ours, nor anybody else's.   

Don Firth

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 04:11 PM

This thread is not about what half-baked ideas Ake and Pete have about who should get married, or why they shouldn't, or why they are inferior beings who will rot in their particular hell. It is about the process of marriage being acknowledged as a right for all Americans by the US Supreme Court.

If people will stop responding to their trolling, it would be much appreciated.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 10:36 PM

With respect, don, why are you addressing an argument I am not using. Not only that, but I think that argument is flawed anyway, since the biblical texts on same sex activity do not make procreation the point at all.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 11:30 PM

there is also always a danger responding to Pete and co sends the threads off in the same old, same old. But in a way Pete can demonstrate how the Kansas clerks approach the law that could only really be better represented if they were posting themselves. So to my mind it is relevant as long as it stays on topic. The real risk is that people respond in a way sends us all down that same old well worn path. Now Pete has shown us some of the things that he claims feed his sense of injustice , such as the narrowness of the vote. I question that: I believe his objections would be voiced every bit as strongly if the vote been unanimous. But I can also see how the closeness of the decision can be used to feed the sense of injustice. And it is clear that he does not appreciate that any sackings that might occur - have any actually taken place? - are to do with failing to do the job they have agreed to do and are being paid to do.

The law is the law: my view is that clerks and whoever are at liberty to break it as long as they are prepared to pay the price. I don't know what that is: if it is purely a fine then I think we can expect to see lots of law-breaking because there are plenty who are opposed who would cover the fines. On the other hand, if it involves leaving the job or imprisonment I think we will see many fewer cases.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 02:35 AM

I am curious, petefromsevenstars. You say: "...according to many of you we are related to the animal world."

Would you agree that mankind is a mammal?

When I see and watch the great apes, I cannot escape the notion that we are related to them. Look at a gorilla's hands, for instance. Or watch the behaviour of a chimpanzee. Or the relationships of the oranguatan. Look up the DNA sequences of both. Relatedness seems more clearly evident than that of many a parent and child.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 02:40 AM

Yeah but God was made in pete's image.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Monique
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 05:13 AM

From There

-Snip-
...Conservative infidelity statistics estimate that "60 percent of men and 40 percent of women will have an extramarital affair. These figures are even more significant when we consider the total number of marriages involved, since it's unlikely that all the men and women having affairs happen to be married to each other. If even half of the women having affairs (or 20 percent) are married to men not included in the 60 percent having affairs, then at least one partner will have an affair in approximately 80 percent of all marriages. With this many marriages affected, it's unreasonable to think affairs are due only to the failures and shortcomings of individual husbands or wives."

Note that the above adultry statistics of the prevalence of affairs were made more than a decade ago; so based on changes in society during the intervening years, the current percentage of the population who have had affairs is probably somewhat HIGHER. For instance, the continuing increase of women in the workplace and the increase of women having affairs on the Internet means that the numbers for women having affairs is probably similar to those for men—about 60%.
-Snip-

No further comment needed.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: frogprince
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 10:59 AM

I just tried looking up the percentage of childless marriages. I got a lot of inconsistent figures, but nothing higher than a figure of 20%, which would include all voluntarily or involuntarily childless.
Compare that with the percentages of marriages with instances of infidelity, and it appears inescapable that a majority of those who have extramarital affairs have children at home. I suspect that parenthood does in fact reduce the likelihood of infidelity and promiscuity within marriage, but if it "puts the brakes on", those are some very faulty brakes.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 11:05 AM

Ake, Muskets, and Pete. Those who aren't familiar with the arguments of these three/five, go research the threads they have shut down over the years, don't start asking them what their positions are here. [edited by request]

Meanwhile, here is a map of states still fighting gay marriage.

Opt-outs, adoption bans, and religious exemptions are popping up across the country despite the Supreme Court's historic ruling for equality. . .

At last count, officials in seven states have opted out of marriage recognition since the landmark ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, while those in a total of 20 probably have the right to do so. Yet given the trend lines in public approval of marriage equality—now upwards of 60 percent, with a strong demographic tilt—the backlash, itself, is likely to backfire, alienating young voters and associating the Republican Party with prejudice.

States with officials opting out of marriage recognition

North Carolina. The nation's most comprehensive opt-out provisions are in North Carolina, which passed a law last month (over the governor's veto) to allow magistrates to opt out of performing same-sex marriages for religious reasons. So far, the Associated Press has reported, 14 have done so—2 percent of the state total. The North Carolina law requires officials to declare a "sincerely held religious objection" and withdraw from all civil marriages for six months.

Texas. Showboating Attorney General Ken Paxton issued an unprecedented condemnation of Obergefell, calling it "lawless." But Texas's only formal action, so far, is to offer to defend clerks, judges, and justices of the peace who opt out. Texas already has a Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), like Indiana's controversial one, which protects individuals seeking to discriminate against gays for religious reasons.

Alabama. Eight counties are refusing to issue any marriage licenses—until July 21, anyway, after a bizarre statement by Chief Judge Roy Moore that they can wait 25 days after the Obergefell decision before doing so.

Arkansas. In Arkansas, a battle has erupted between Gov. Asa Hutchinson on the moderate-right and state House Republicans on the farther-right. Gov. Hutchinson says Arkansas' RFRA already protects clerks and other officials who wish to opt out. But others say additional protection is needed. Hutchinson has so far refused to call a special legislative session, as requested by conservatives.

Kentucky. At least two county clerks have refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples—one has stopped issuing licenses entirely, and the other has already been sued by the ACLU for discrimination. However, Kentucky's Democratic governor has rebuffed calls for a special legislative session to address the matter, saying "It's time for everyone to take a deep breath."

Ohio. A Toledo, Ohio, judge refused to marry a same-sex couple due to "personal and Christian beliefs." Another judge was procured, and the recusing judge is attempting to "opt out of the rotation" for performing civil marriages.

Tennessee. Three employees of the Decatur County Clerk's Office have resigned rather than have to issue licenses for same-sex marriages. (In Tennessee, they are already exempt from having to perform them.)

In addition to the seven states where officials have already refused to license same-sex marriages, a total of 20 states probably allow them to do so already.

It's a long article, read the rest at the link.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: frogprince
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 01:25 PM

"why even stop at Homo sapiens"

Why, indeed? Pete, if you find a cow, or bull, or chicken, or rooster, who expresses love for you and a desire to share marital bliss with you, please send me an invitation to the wedding.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 03:40 PM

dmcg, of course I know the law is the law. that is the point of the disagreement, ie that we differ strongly as to the validity of that law. I would presume that it is even now possible for that law to be found unlawful. and just because something is lawful , it don't make it moral. ww2 Germany had even worse laws....would you defend them because the law is the law ?
as to the marriage clerks risking dismissal for not doing what they are paid to do, I would argue that they took the job expecting to marry one man to one woman, which I expect has been the understanding of the american constitution from the beginning.
yes, I would be opposed even if the vote was unanimous, but on the thread on the Ireland vote, I acknowledged that it was at least not imposed against the will of the majority.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 05:33 PM

Accusations of hate speech by our friend Pete on another thread, but comparing homosexuality to bestiality is hatred at its most noxious.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 05:47 PM

Well you people say "its not all about sex", and lots of people love their pets.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST, ^*^
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 06:26 PM

8 Stupid Arguments that Internet Debates Always Devolve Into

The Internet is full of debates about important subjects like abortion, censorship and religion, and even more important subjects like what is wrong with music these days and who is the most victimized group on earth, child soldiers or gamers. . .

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 06:31 PM

well I hope others read the post instead of just taking jacks distortion of it. disagreement does not equal hatred....bless you .

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 12:37 AM

Indeed Pete, and that is why I said I think people are free to break it provided they accept the consequences. There is no necessary link between law and morality: again, I would recommend reading some of the philosophers over the years trying to tease out the connections. But it is clearly wrong to claim the clerks took the job expecting to implement the laws as they stood, unless they had a very odd view indeed. It was recognised on the day they signed that the state would continue to pass laws on subjects they had never considered, or amend ones that now existed, and it would be part of their role to help implement those changes. More bluntly, the role anticipates changes of the forty-odd years they miight be in the job and they signed up to that.

Now in this case we have a law which they personally object to. I see three honourable courses. They implement the law without raising objections because they perceive the state rules as more important than their opinion. Alternatively, they can resign because they find the law objectionable, and they can do so quietly or vocally. It is also acceptable for them to refuse to obey the law PROVIDING they simultaneously say they think it is a bad law and are willing to accept the penalty. All three of those I can live with. What I cannot accept is a skulking refusal to obey the law with nonsense about forms being unavailable. Or such stuff.

Compare this with Rosa Parkes. She thought the laws were wrong , openly broke them and openly accepted whatever the consequences might be. Totally Honourable. And none of this flummery about being prepared to obey the law but third parties stopping her.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 12:46 AM

Rosa Parks spoke truth to power. Those few county clerks hoped they had the power to bluff their way through the same thing happening to them - but when the truth presented itself and they tried repel the customers, they lost. How they deal with that loss is entirely up to each one of them. No one need lose a job, so they weren't discriminated against. They just got busted in their discrimination practices, and all of them knew it was coming. It should be no surprise that the woman in Hood County, Texas, has a husband who is running for an elected office this fall. I'm sure the publicity did him some good with a certain set of voters.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 01:28 AM

My only quibble with the "speaking truth to power" line is that I have little doubt there were many other Rosas who did similar things beforehand, got badly beaten up or worse, and we have never heard of. A huge part of the bravery of such acts is that you cannot know the consequences and are prepared to do them anyway.

---

Several posts deleted. --mudelf

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 09:23 AM

You have never heard any reasoned argument in favour of colour prejudice? There were plenty. That is, I must emphasise, "reasoned" as opposed to "right". So much depends on what your starting axioms are.

Morality is tricky: you cannot rely on what is obvious, or how many agree with you, and whether those affected by discrimination is a small minority or not is of no consequence, unless you want to get onto the unsteady ground of arguing that it is ok to discriminate against a group providing there are not very many of them.

Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 13 Jul 15 - 12:06 PM

Discrimination pays for bakers

More than two years ago Sweet Cakes By Melissa owners Aaron and Melissa Klein refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The couple, Laurel Bowman and Rachel Cryer, filed a complaint with the State of Oregon, expressing the emotional upset that illegal refusal cost them. Later, they would also be forced to detail the death threats and other negative attention visited upon them by the Kleins' anonymous supporters who believe they were following the edicts of their Christian faith.

Late last month, after a lengthy legal battle – which at one point included the Kleins' lawyer asking for the proceedings to be stopped and the same-sex couple to be presented with a $200,000 bill for damages, and attorney and court fees, which was rightly denied – the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industry (BOLI) decided in favor of the Bowman-Cryers, fining the Kleins $135,000.

But the lengthy, drawn out case gave plenty of time and opportunity for conservatives and the religious right to paint the Bowman-Cryers and the LGBT community as "fascists" and to generate a great deal of public sympathy for the Kleins, mostly via false statements, hyperbole, truth-twisting, and just straight-up lying.

That sympathy has turned into big bucks for the Kleins.

[snip]

"We've been mischaracterized," Aaron Klein adds. "We've served gays on many occasions." In court documents he admitted to also quoting Leviticus 18:22 to Rachel Bowman-Cryer's mother after declining to bake the wedding cake.

"We're not those type of people." "We've been mischaracterized." Leviticus quotation notwithstanding.

The Kleins, via their Facebook page, are promoting other fundraisers too, like one by the Lynchwood Church of God, and their P.O. box address for please who wish to send them cash or checks directly.

So, $345,000, plus let's call it $60,000, and not counting any other cash from fundraising efforts like Graham's Samaritan's Purse and others, gives the Kleins $405,000. That's exactly three times the amount of the fine the people of Oregon imposed on them after discriminating against the Bowman-Cryers.

It's actually surprising how un-generous the Kleins' supporters have been. After all, to the far Christian right, they are heroes and martyrs who are standing up against the long arm of the law and gay "fascism."

By contrast, the owners of Indiana's Memories Pizza earlier this year merely told a reporter they couldn't, if asked, cater a wedding of a same-sex couple. A hypothetical that never came to pass. In return, conservatives and the religious right threw more than twice as much cash at the pizza purveyors – nearly $850,000.

The entire story is at the link.