SCOTUS makes a good call for once!

45 Fan said:

The Government needs to leave 'Marriage' behind. It is a Religious ceremony and has no place for any government involvement or special treatment.

So, if you want the current gov benefits currently attached to 'Marriage' via the gov system, you should have them change the name and let anyone do it. See, it can all be happy.

Click to expand...

This is the very thing many people against gay marriage has said they do NOT want… and they are afraid will happen as we continue to go down the road of making marriage meaningless.

Define "meaningless." I think the first gay couple married in Dallas would disagree that this is a step toward meaninglessness. They were both in their 80's.

The baptist deacon who has his model family and an array of mistresses is what devalues the traditional model.
The married preacher who has sex with his meth dealer cheapens it, too.
It's a big tent, why not welcome everyone who values the institution. Those who want to commit and will follow through, whatever their preference and gender identity, should be encouraged. All this assume the lifelong pair bond is still the right model for us. We may instead be watching societal evolution. Time will tell.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

cjohnson44546 said:

This is the very thing many people against gay marriage has said they do NOT want… and they are afraid will happen as we continue to go down the road of making marriage meaningless.

Click to expand...

Wahhhh them getting liberty to do something you can do someone makes yours meaningless.....

Wow. Is marriage a Constitutional matter? Perhaps. Is Open carry a Constitutional matter? Perhaps.
With marriage, one could say it's religious. Or they could say it's a government action. While that may not be covered by the 26 amendments, it could very well be that. But moreso than any of those, it is the one freedom that is covered in both the Holy Bible and the US Constiotution, and it has yet to be named specifically in the latter- the freedom of choice.

I am not gay. But no matter. What I do in my bedroom is my business, not yours. What you do in the privacy of your home is your business, not mine. I don't care if you enjoy foreplay while dressed like Hillary Clinton. It's none of my business.

Open Carry is a right that you have because of it's relationship to the Second Amendment. But it is not spoken outright ANYWHERE in the US Constitution.

If two men wish to marry and spend the rest of their lives together, that is their right. If anything I feel that a formal change in terminology is in place. "Marry" and "marriage" as general terms, and "civil union" & "matrimony" as more specific & descriptive terms.

If you feel that two men or two women do not have the right to live together married as they wish, then the right to Open Carry is also questioned.
Marriage, without regards to gender, is not a gay right, straight right, or any of that- it is a human right. Freedom of choice, if anything.

I see no mention of marriage at all in the constitution.

I see no mention of abortion in the constitution

IMHO both made up rights by the supreme court.

The right to bear arms is very clear in the constitution as put forth by the 2nd amendment, the supreme court has refused to up hold the 2nd many times.

They have refused to mention the shall not infringe portion of it.

Why that's a good question most likely because they are more interested in increasing government power and control than reducing it.

Firearms Iinstuctor said:

I see no mention of marriage at all in the constitution.I see no mention of abortion in the constitution IMHO both made up rights by the supreme court.The right to bear arms is very clear in the constitution as put forth by the 2nd amendment, the supreme court has refused to up hold the 2nd many times. They have refused to mention the shall not infringe portion of it.Why that's a good question most likely because they are more interested in increasing government power and control than reducing it.

Click to expand...

I see no right to wear a blue shirt in the constitution.Have you read the ninth?

sudden valley gunner said:

I see no right to wear a blue shirt in the constitution.Have you read the ninth?

Click to expand...

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

One has to decide what a right is, calling any thing you want to do a right.

IMHO waters down the meaning of rights.

What are they in yours?

I am more of the mind set what isn't prohibited is allowed.

Then what isn't allowed is prohibited.

Man is free from restriction or prohibition EXCEPT where s/he or the society (I.e., the People) have given authority to restrict (that is, as where powers are granted to the federal government or the states.)

The remaining power lies with the People, and we then in turn have given certain authority to our respective states. Anything we haven't given our state to regulate or restrict (or more properly in most cases, anything our state government hasn't taken from us with our inaction) remains our right.

In this ruling, the Court took the view that a minority needed to be relieved of rules created to single them out. The federal government was not given new domain, the states were told that they were not allowed to take this specific power. As far as the People having done this as a cede of power through referendum, the Court effectively told the People that they were being discriminatory, that the minority citizens were aggrieved, and that the relief was to allow same sex marriage.
The Court ruling imposes less restriction on the individual. It imposes a restriction upon the states and binds the people from creating these kinds of discriminatory laws. It's a win for individual rights and a warning for majorities (that they are not allowed to do anything they want.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Firearms Iinstuctor said:

Amendment IXThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.One has to decide what a right is, calling any thing you want to do a right. IMHO waters down the meaning of rights.

Click to expand...

Firearms Iinstuctor said:

What are they in yours?I am more of the mind set what isn't prohibited is allowed. Then what isn't allowed is prohibited.

Click to expand...

These two posts seem to contradict.And no it doesn't water down a right by recognizing anything you want to do as a right (as long as its not infringing on others). That's what rights are. Unless one believes rights are handed to the citizens from the state.But to get back to the main point. Which you seem to sort of agree with in your second post marriage, does not have to be enumerated to be a right.

Firearms Iinstuctor said:

One has to decide what a right is, calling any thing you want to do a right.

IMHO waters down the meaning of rights.

Click to expand...

IDK man. Saying "I have a Right to do ANYTHING that doesn't harm another person or other people's property" makes almost anything a Right, and doesn't seem to water anything down.

I have a Right to Vanilla ice cream*

*provided I acquire it justly, and don't murder anyone with it.

I'm always amazed by those who seek to redefine words in their favor. It isn't socialism, it's being progressive. It isn't fascism, it's federalism. It isn't a right, it's a privilege. It isn't a firearm, it's a weapon.

Shame is now pride. Perversion is now enlightenment. Immorality is now a lifestyle choice. And marriage is now a committed meaningful relationship between two (or more) adults.

Up is down, out is in, and evil is good.

Amazing.

Liberty-or-Death said:

I'm always amazed by those who seek to redefine words in their favor. It isn't socialism, it's being progressive. It isn't fascism, it's federalism. It isn't a right, it's a privilege. It isn't a firearm, it's a weapon.

Shame is now pride. Perversion is now enlightenment. Immorality is now a lifestyle choice. And marriage is now a committed meaningful relationship between two (or more) adults.

Up is down, out is in, and evil is good.

Amazing.

Click to expand...

Exactly. I've continually said that much of this debate (in general, not simply here) seems to boil down to a battle over a word.

The word (which is essentially a symbol) is devalued when it's taken over, institutionalised, and then completely redefined by government. Generally the people that are opposing so-called "gay marriage" are not calling for prohibiting homosexual relationships, of any type even. And I think unless one completely misunderstand marriage to actually be a government institution rather than a covenant, then they'd know if they can ever have the right or ability then they had it prior to this ruling. I suspect this wouldn't even be an issue if the government hadn't hijacked yet another private institution.

Nightmare said:

Freshman philosophy Phil-101 teaches, or should, that The symbol is not the thing. There is also the dictionary fallacy, now made worse by mere virtual dictionaries re-written at the stroke of a not-so smartphone.

Click to expand...

The conclusion here eludes me.

stealthyeliminator said:

The conclusion here eludes me.

Click to expand...

Just ignore Doug Hoffman's ramblings. He's about as delusional as they come.

Dave_pro2a said:

They have representation, so tax the hell out of them.

Religious freedom, doesn't literally mean "FREE." And it doesn't mean "FREE LOADERS." So yeah, they can pay to play like the rest of us. TANSTAAFL! Unless you say you're a church, and don't feel like paying taxes -- for now, hopefully.

Click to expand...

"The power to tax is the power to destroy."

It is clear the real desire and intent of some is to destroy churches and the influence of religion and religious values in society.

What a shame that those so dedicated to protected the rights enumerated in the 2nd amendment, can be so hostile to some of the rights protected by the 1st amendment.

Charles

The question is why should a church be treated differently than any other business? The tax exemption is particularly disturbing when the church essentially levies taxes of its own on parishioners. (Such as when a church demands to see your W-2 to make sure you are tithing properly.)
Too many churches have taken to dictating which candidates are acceptable (a violation of the tax exemption rules for religious organizations), but the moment the IRS tries to enforce the rules, there are cries about an attack on religion. You can't have it both ways.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

nonameisgood said:

The question is why should a church be treated differently than any other business? The tax exemption is particularly disturbing when the church essentially levies taxes of its own on parishioners. (Such as when a church demands to see your W-2 to make sure you are tithing properly.)
Too many churches have taken to dictating which candidates are acceptable (a violation of the tax exemption rules for religious organizations), but the moment the IRS tries to enforce the rules, there are cries about an attack on religion. You can't have it both ways.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Never heard of either of these things, although I've heard of churches declining to get tax exemption so that the government doesn't impose censorship on them. And you're right that the government does impose rules on tax exempt organizations that they shouldn't, but then that makes the complaints about them getting a tax exemption seem pretty misguided (even more so than they'd be otherwise).

Additionally, again, evenness isn't equality, so to act like it is fair or preferable for churches to be taxed just because "other businesses" (nice that you decide not to distinguish between businesses and organizations, especially those that are not for profit) are taxed is also incredibly misguided.

stealthyeliminator said:

Additionally, again, evenness isn't equality, so to act like it is fair or preferable for churches to be taxed just because "other businesses" (nice that you decide not to distinguish between businesses and organizations, especially those that are not for profit) are taxed is also incredibly misguided.

Click to expand...

Of course it is. How can stealing the income from some but not other organizations possibly be just? Tax exemptions of any kind should eliminated. Who could possibly say that the scum who rule our land can be trusted to make such decisions? We like your product we will steal less from you. We don't like your product we will steal more from you. ugh.

utbagpiper said:

"The power to tax is the power to destroy."

It is clear the real desire and intent of some is to destroy churches and the influence of religion and religious values in society.

What a shame that those so dedicated to protected the rights enumerated in the 2nd amendment, can be so hostile to some of the rights protected by the 1st amendment.

Charles

Click to expand...

I dunno about others in the LGBT community, but I for one am all for the destruction of religion, and the tennents thereof. #Banreligion.