Supreme Court agrees to take on same-sex marriage issue

[ArcadiaGP]

Supreme Court agrees to take on same-sex marriage issue - CNN.com

 

[mrjarrell]

I think we can be fairly certain how they are going to rule on the issue given their previous "rulings" (or refusal to rule) on the matter. This will just be the final nail in the coffin and we can all move on.

 

[HoughMade]

I think we can be fairly certain how they are going to rule on the issue given their previous "rulings" (or refusal to rule) on the matter. This will just be the final nail in the coffin and we can all move on.

I think I can agree with that.

I just hope the next step is not a trampling on religious freedom with forced recognition...a bit of a vain hope in the long term.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I’m curious: How many of you are in favor of gay marriage but think the notion it’s a constitutional right is silly?

 

[mrjarrell]

I’m curious: How many of you are in favor of gay marriage but think the notion it’s a constitutional right is silly?

Doesn't describe me, at all.

 

[bradmedic04]

 

[Shiver]

I’m curious: How many of you are in favor of gay marriage but think the notion it’s a constitutional right is silly?

Personally I could maybe possibly care less what two consenting adults do, but I would have to try really, really hard. I believe they have just as much of a "right" to get married as I do. None. We have no "right" to marry because it shouldn't be a constitutional issue. Our government shouldn't care who has or doesn't have a "right" to marry because none of us do anyway. Like driving a car. If they fill out the paperwork and get the license and can find a preacher willing to marry them who really gives a ****?

 

[hornadylnl]

Marriage as its existed in the past is social engineering the right is in love with.

 

[bradmedic04]

Marriage as its existed in the past is social engineering the right is in love with.

Can you expand on that a bit? I think I see what you're saying, and it's an interesting point, but could be misunderstanding.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Also, possible outcomes of this:

The Left will lose a major wedge in their agenda. However, they will be able to make due with suing the various churches that refuse to hold gay weddings.

SCOTUS declaring there is a constitutional right to gay marriage is inevitable, though. Just a matter of time.

Marriage can survive the people changing the law. Bigger danger is when the courts declare the whole institution irrational

Hey, did Sen. Cruz ever get around to telling us the text of his proposed Right of the States to Define Marriage Amendment?

 

[hornadylnl]

Can you expand on that a bit? I think I see what you're saying, and it's an interesting point, but could be misunderstanding.

Opponents of gay marriage often argue here that marriage is about perpetuating the human race.

 

[bradmedic04]

Opponents of gay marriage often argue here that marriage is about perpetuating the human race.

Gotcha, thanks. I was missing the point after all. Probably just being dense again...

 

[Shiver]

Opponents of gay marriage often argue here that marriage is about perpetuating the human race.

Hell in all reality we could stand to lose a few billion. We certainly aren't getting more natural resources anytime soon.

 

[K_W]

I would have to say I am gay marriage neutral, I just don't care. I am still just as married today, with gay marriages recognized, as I was in 2010, when they were not.

I don't feel it's so much a constitutional "right" to marriage as it is a constitutional issue of equal protection under the law. Jack and Jill can Marry but not Jack and Bill? If the law is going to recognize marriage, it should recognize marriage, regardless of the genitals possessed (naturally or artificially) by the parties of which it's between.

These dooms-day warnings from anti same sex marriage people that the next step will be polygamy, child marriage, inter-species marriage, and the fall or Rome is the same kind of bunk the gun controllers tried.

Polygamists will try, and the MIGHT succeed as the only real arguments against that is the presumed correlation between violence against women and condemnation by major religions... which brings us to child marriage, which WON'T happen... unless Sharia or some other religion takes hold. Inter-species is just a ridiculous scare-tactic, marriage requires consent, an animal cannot give that.

Fall of Rome happened because of corruption, spending run amok, and the policies of Obam... I mean the policies of the Ceasers.

 

[Destro]

I've always viewed marriage in a religious, and spiritual context. I've never understood why government needs to involve itself in the institution to begin with.

 

[Destro]

I don't feel it's so much a constitutional "right" to marriage as it is a constitutional issue of equal protection under the law. Jack and Jill can Marry but not Jack and Bill? If the law is going to recognize marriage, it should recognize marriage, regardless of the genitals possessed (naturally or artificially) by the parties of which it's between.

should Jack be able to marry Jill and Jane both?

 

[gunowner930]

I’m curious: How many of you are in favor of gay marriage but think the notion it’s a constitutional right is silly?

I think gay marriage should be legal. However, I'm not sure where the legal justification is for courts to overturn laws against it. 14th Amendment?

 

[NyleRN]

I think I can agree with that.

I just hope the next step is not a trampling on religious freedom with forced recognition...a bit of a vain hope in the long term.

This right here^^^^. Government needs to stay out of marriage. While I don't agree with same sex marriage, I like the freedom to choose.

 

[gunowner930]

should Jack be able to marry Jill and Jane both?

As long as Jack, Jill, and Jane are all consenting adults I don't see an issue with it. However, I see the hypocrisy of the left in supporting gay marriage and not polygamy as well.

 

[K_W]

should Jack be able to marry Jill and Jane both?

Looking at it from it's simplest and a purely "legal" standpoint; marriage is a contract. Multiple party contracts are not illegal. That is the argument that will be used. I don't like the idea, but I can't think of a non-religiously based reason to forbid it, however Jack would have to convince Jill and Jane (or vice versa) without coercion or threat, same as in a current marriage. That is the problem with polygamy to date, it is usually formed under religious or cultural coercion.