Supreme Court to decide if states can ban gay marriage

[carlfense]

On a more serious note, I thought Republicans were all for less government involvement. So what's the ideology behind passing a law that essentially involves the government in marriage? If a party stands for freedom, why the restrictions on freedom?

Why, indeed?

[tschu]

Let's wait for DBQ to answer.

[Abdullah the Butcher]

I just don't get why they care so much. I really don't. If someone who is anti-gay marriage could help me out here, I would appreciate it. I know it's a sin, but you aren't doing it so how is it different than allowing divorce? Or swearing? Or looking lustfully at women who aren't your wife?

 

[T_O_Bull]

Any tie spent on this matter by any governmental group is a waste of time and tax payer money. Any elected official who spend any time on this matter should be immediately fired.

T_O_B

[Moiraine]

Any tie spent on this matter by any governmental group is a waste of time and tax payer money. Any elected official who spend any time on this matter should be immediately fired.

T_O_B

 

Thanks for saying exactly what you've already said. It added a lot to the conversation.

[Guy Chamberlin]

According to Citizens United, corporations are now people.

 

So I am going to marry Chevron and f#*k her silly.

[zoogs]

I cannot understand looking at a fellow human being and saying, "I don't know anything about you, but I would not want you to be able to experience the love and family that I get to enjoy."

 

I guess it's easier when you don't know anyone who would be affected by it.

[BigRedBuster]

According to Citizens United, corporations are now people.

 

So I am going to marry Chevron and f#*k her silly.

[sd'sker]

first, what makes this court supreme? does it have sour cream and nacho cheese or something?

 

second, have they decided yet if i have to get gay married?

[Moiraine]

first, what makes this court supreme? does it have sour cream and nacho cheese or something?

 

second, have they decided yet if i have to get gay married?

 

gay-married*

[Abdullah the Butcher]

 

first, what makes this court supreme? does it have sour cream and nacho cheese or something?

 

second, have they decided yet if i have to get gay married?

 

gay-married*

You can have a gay partner and straight partner, all counts as one marriage. A transgender partner might count as both slots, I'd have to get clarification from the judges.

[Moiraine]

 

 

first, what makes this court supreme? does it have sour cream and nacho cheese or something?

 

second, have they decided yet if i have to get gay married?

gay-married*

You can have a gay partner and straight partner, all counts as one marriage.

 

 

So a 3-way?

[Abdullah the Butcher]

 

 

 

first, what makes this court supreme? does it have sour cream and nacho cheese or something?

 

second, have they decided yet if i have to get gay married?

 

gay-married*

You can have a gay partner and straight partner, all counts as one marriage.

So a 3-way?

With tax benefits.

[strigori]

 

 

Is that somehow remotely constitutional?

 

No. It's not.

 

 

But hey, when has that ever stopped Congress from passing ridiculous, overbearing bills?

 

 

On a more serious note, I thought Republicans were all for less government involvement. So what's the ideology behind passing a law that essentially involves the government in marriage? If a party stands for freedom, why the restrictions on freedom?

 

They are only for less government when it comes to guns and business. They never really talk about personal freedoms, unless it is tied to religion restricting someone else's personal freedom.

[Dbqgolfer]

Let's wait for DBQ to answer.

The big picture answer is that the government is already involved in marriage. That's who provides the licenses. This is about people wanting to change the definition of marriage that exists, and one that I believe to be best for a society, to a different one, that I believe isn't good for society. Junior asked why anti-gay marriage people think homosexuality is different than other sins. My answer is, I don't. Although I think the Lawrence decision (supreme court bestowing constitutional protection on gay sex) was wrong, I don't think the government should be knocking on doors to see who's having sex with who (assuming consenting adults), just like I don't think that the government should spend time seeing what people are reading or looking at (once again, consenting adults, no child porn etc). That of course doesn't mean that people can't speak out against such things. Christians have as much right to try to affect the culture as anyone else, even on public university campuses.

 

As for the Okla bill submitted by Rep Todd Russ. All I can say is, I don't find things like that particularly helpful to my side. Or course that would be unconstitutional.

 

As far as the other listed Oklahoma bills above. I don't really know much about "gay conversion therapy". Perhaps I'm making this too simple but, homosexuality is a sin, the only cure for sin is Christ (not that one doesn't sin once they are Christian.) I don't go to "lust conversion therapy". That's not to say that support groups for people struggling with particular sins aren't helpful.

 

As far as allowing business to not provide services to gays, I know its not going to be popular, but I agree with this one. I don't believe a business should be forced to participate, or provide services for, an event that the owners disagree with. I don't think that "dbqgolfer bakery" should have to provide a cake for a gay wedding anymore than I think "carlfense bakery" should have to provide a cake for a party celebrating "Fox News: providing fair and balanced news for 10 years."

 

And in response to BigRedBuster's photo of "Chevron", thanks, now I have to go to confession. (Just kidding, I'm not even Catholic, I'm LCMS Lutheran)