Senate Homosexuality: the Thread

Well I'm very happy to say that I have not seen a single negative comment about the marriage thing in my FB feed all weekend. Even the most religious person I know was quite respectful. She even posted link to an article denouncing the fire and brimstone, wrath of God warnings that have been going around. I love the good loving Christians!

I had debated going to the pride event in Minneapolis to feel the energy, but ultimately decided against it. I went when we legalized ssm a couple years and that one felt just the same as always so I guessed I wasn't missing much.

 

Folks are too busy trying to get marriage licenses denied right now to post on Facebook, I think.

 

To add to this, the verse in Romans that people use to justify their oddly irrational hate of the gay community is one that is still puzzled over by scholars trying to figure out what the hell it was even saying, since the word translated to mean same-sex sexual relations was translated from a term with a dubious meaning.

 

Yeah...probably not going to happen.

 

I strongly suspect that Alito and Scalia would fare no better, except maybe in a rhetorical sense, vs. Richard Posner than did Thomas Fisher last year:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...r_destroy_arguments_against_gay_marriage.html

Posner eviscerated the two of them in absentia over at Slate the other day as well.

Posner just demolished Fisher's nonsense, which isn't really any different than what the two justices were saying in their dissents.

 

Last I checked, it was Kansas, Alabama, and another state that are the most resistant to same-sex marriage licenses. Heads will explode. Heads will roll.

 

So, Texas A&M will begin extending health care benefits to employees' same-sex spouses beginning July 1st. Neat.

 

“We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone who would violate our rights of freedom of speech & freedom of religion."

. The government showed up and arrested him for something he said? Nope. Someone stopped him from going to church? Nope. Then his practice of keeping gays out of his store is discrimination.

 

*Sigh* I'm so tired of people citing freedom of speech and religion to support their bigotry.

Now that we're a few days out from the decision, I've noticed a lot more people on my Facebook getting 'brave' and posting things like that guy, or liking posts about how the fabric of our nation has been destroyed.


But I did love some of the reviews the store was getting. The saloon doors was my favorite.

 

There's something I've been wondering, after being bombarded with rainbows for a week.
If this Supreme Court of yours can make same-sex marriage legal in all of the US with one swift stroke, why have we been discussing separate states doing it separately for years? Couldn't they have done this sooner? Woulda saved a whole lot of people a whole lot of trouble.

 

1. Marriage is usually an issue handled at the state level.
2. States have been legalizing SSM for over a decade, because of state supreme courts, legislation, and voter referendum.
3. The recent rash of legalization was based on lower Federal courts striking down state SSM bans.
4. The U.S. Supreme Court is traditionally conservative regarding striking down laws or setting new precedents. AFAIK, even with this landmark ruling the Court avoided making any broader implications as to the rights of homosexuals or LGBTQ in general.

Yes.

 

Remember how I said the next step would be to take tax-exempt status away from religious institutions that don't perform gay marriage? Remember how everyone said I was wrong?

Well, turns out I was right (as usual). We are already seeing the whispers. The whispers will be shouts in no time, probably after November 2016 when it will do less damage politically.

 

We should take away tax exemption from churches.

 

Thanks. This was as hard to find an answer to as "What's Greece's referendum about, exactly?".
So does the Supreme Court set itself this task, or is it brought before it?

 

Did someone really just say this?

 

Both. Cases go up the chain of appeals courts and they can appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court chooses which cases to hear. I think they were pretty much forced to take Obergefell, however, because lower appeals courts had made contradictory rulings as to the legality of SSM bans. Someone with formal legal education can correct me.

 

beezer was right as usual guys. see the whispers!

 

I hear whispers all the time.

 

Those whispers must be pretty quiet, because I haven't heard them.


And even if so some are so whispering, I'm sure it's a very small, probably extreme, minority of folks. Like churches or not, like religion or not, I think most of us think churches are free to practice their religion (baptisms, marriages, etc.) however they see fit.

I'm sorry, though, I sure don't see how issuing a marriage license is "conducting" a marrage against one's religion or stifling one's right to religious liberty. I further don't see how the existence of gay marriage is stifling someone's right to free speech or religious liberty (the small shop owner). Selling items is the owner's business so what is the infringement on the owner's rights?

 

Beezer do these whispers have names? do these whispers ever tell you to do naughty things? how do these whispers feel about dylann roof?