Gay marriage (1 Viewer)

[rockaction]

You know why you're worried? Because when societal norms were different decades ago, the people in the majority always brought the hammer down on the minority. It's the mindset of the prohibitionist culture.

Wow. These assurances. I'll bank them. Good. As. Gold.

Why don't you go back to losing legal arguments?

Wow. This is the thread.

Didn't lose one, and they know it.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

My biggest concern now is what happens to people or groups who don't wish to recognize same-sex marriages.

They become even more irrelevant?

What about churches and other places of worship that don't want to perform them? What happens to them?

Absolutely nothing. I believe Kennedy even referenced this in his opinion.

Somehow I'm not convinced this will stay the case.

CURRENTLY, they can't FORCE a church to perform a marriage under any laws.

I'm sure it will be similar to the pizza place that refused to cater a gay wedding (or whatever the story was). There will be a gay couple that will try to get married in a church, they will get denied, and there will be a social media outrage against that church. That's one prediction you can see coming from a mile away.

So whats your point?

 

[roadkill1292]

My biggest concern now is what happens to people or groups who don't wish to recognize same-sex marriages.

They become even more irrelevant?

What about churches and other places of worship that don't want to perform them? What happens to them?

Absolutely nothing. I believe Kennedy even referenced this in his opinion.

Somehow I'm not convinced this will stay the case.

CURRENTLY, they can't FORCE a church to perform a marriage under any laws.

I'm sure it will be similar to the pizza place that refused to cater a gay wedding (or whatever the story was). There will be a gay couple that will try to get married in a church, they will get denied, and there will be a social media outrage against that church. That's one prediction you can see coming from a mile away.

You might be surprised at the people who will defend the church's position when that happens.

 

[Henry Ford]

You know why you're worried? Because when societal norms were different decades ago, the people in the majority always brought the hammer down on the minority. It's the mindset of the prohibitionist culture.

Wow. These assurances. I'll bank them. Good. As. Gold.

Go look for a case where a church was forced to marry an interracial couple. I'll wait here.

Will it simply be the calls for quid pro quo on tax-exempt status, or what will the carrot and stick be?

Oh, so some people will complain and ask for something they won't get? Yeah, that's a serious problem for those churches.

 

[rockaction]

You might be surprised at the people who will defend the church's position when that happens.

Some of us will be colored stunned.

 

[Henry Ford]

You know why you're worried? Because when societal norms were different decades ago, the people in the majority always brought the hammer down on the minority. It's the mindset of the prohibitionist culture.

Wow. These assurances. I'll bank them. Good. As. Gold.

Why don't you go back to losing legal arguments?

Wow. This is the thread.

Didn't lose one, and they know it.

I don't know who "they" are, but you got your metaphorical ### handed to you by RHE in this thread.

 

[shader]

My biggest concern now is what happens to people or groups who don't wish to recognize same-sex marriages.

They become even more irrelevant?

What about churches and other places of worship that don't want to perform them? What happens to them?

Absolutely nothing. I believe Kennedy even referenced this in his opinion.

Somehow I'm not convinced this will stay the case.

CURRENTLY, they can't FORCE a church to perform a marriage under any laws.

I'm sure it will be similar to the pizza place that refused to cater a gay wedding (or whatever the story was). There will be a gay couple that will try to get married in a church, they will get denied, and there will be a social media outrage against that church. That's one prediction you can see coming from a mile away.

You might be surprised at the people who will defend the church's position when that happens.

Why would I be surprised? I would assume most members of a church that taught that homosexuality is wrong, would defend the position of their church in that scenario.

 

[rockaction]

You know why you're worried? Because when societal norms were different decades ago, the people in the majority always brought the hammer down on the minority. It's the mindset of the prohibitionist culture.

Wow. These assurances. I'll bank them. Good. As. Gold.

Go look for a case where a church was forced to marry an interracial couple. I'll wait here.

Will it simply be the calls for quid pro quo on tax-exempt status, or what will the carrot and stick be?

Oh, so some people will complain and ask for something they won't get? Yeah, that's a serious problem for those churches.

And in fifty years, we'll see a host of arguments for non-exempt status, and this will clearly be among the advocate's concerns.

 

[njherdfan]

My biggest concern now is what happens to people or groups who don't wish to recognize same-sex marriages.

They become even more irrelevant?

What about churches and other places of worship that don't want to perform them? What happens to them?

Absolutely nothing. I believe Kennedy even referenced this in his opinion.

Somehow I'm not convinced this will stay the case.

CURRENTLY, they can't FORCE a church to perform a marriage under any laws.

I'm sure it will be similar to the pizza place that refused to cater a gay wedding (or whatever the story was). There will be a gay couple that will try to get married in a church, they will get denied, and there will be a social media outrage against that church. That's one prediction you can see coming from a mile away.

You might be surprised at the people who will defend the church's position when that happens.

Or to learn about the Ministerial Exception, which allows religious institutions to be immune from generally applicable federal employment laws when hiring or firing clergy. Contrary to the assertion of the current field competing for the GOP nomination (not directed at you Rockaction, unless you're also running and I don't know it) we really do have incredibly strong freedom of religion here.

 

[rockaction]

I don't know who "they" are, but you got your metaphorical ### handed to you by RHE in this thread.

No. Not really. Sorry, man. You can like his posts all you want; the hostility betrays it.

 

[roadkill1292]

You might be surprised at the people who will defend the church's position when that happens.

Some of us will be colored stunned.

Of course you will. Because if the shoe were on the other foot you wouldn't do it.

 

[roadkill1292]

My biggest concern now is what happens to people or groups who don't wish to recognize same-sex marriages.

They become even more irrelevant?

What about churches and other places of worship that don't want to perform them? What happens to them?

Absolutely nothing. I believe Kennedy even referenced this in his opinion.

Somehow I'm not convinced this will stay the case.

CURRENTLY, they can't FORCE a church to perform a marriage under any laws.

I'm sure it will be similar to the pizza place that refused to cater a gay wedding (or whatever the story was). There will be a gay couple that will try to get married in a church, they will get denied, and there will be a social media outrage against that church. That's one prediction you can see coming from a mile away.

You might be surprised at the people who will defend the church's position when that happens.

Why would I be surprised? I would assume most members of a church that taught that homosexuality is wrong, would defend the position of their church in that scenario.

The point is that plenty of secularists will defend the church's position in that instance, too. I'm one of them.

 

[shader]

My biggest concern now is what happens to people or groups who don't wish to recognize same-sex marriages.

They become even more irrelevant?

What about churches and other places of worship that don't want to perform them? What happens to them?

Absolutely nothing. I believe Kennedy even referenced this in his opinion.

Somehow I'm not convinced this will stay the case.

CURRENTLY, they can't FORCE a church to perform a marriage under any laws.

I'm sure it will be similar to the pizza place that refused to cater a gay wedding (or whatever the story was). There will be a gay couple that will try to get married in a church, they will get denied, and there will be a social media outrage against that church. That's one prediction you can see coming from a mile away.

You might be surprised at the people who will defend the church's position when that happens.

Why would I be surprised? I would assume most members of a church that taught that homosexuality is wrong, would defend the position of their church in that scenario.

The point is that plenty of secularists will defend the church's position in that instance, too. I'm one of them.

The "defense" will be a further demonization of the attitudes, much like it was in the pizza place.

"Let those BIGOTS do what they want, it's a free country".

So yes, the legal position of the church will be defended by many secularists, but in turn they will continue to use it to gain support for their moral arguments.

 

[TobiasFunke]

My biggest concern now is what happens to people or groups who don't wish to recognize same-sex marriages.

They become even more irrelevant?

What about churches and other places of worship that don't want to perform them? What happens to them?

Absolutely nothing. I believe Kennedy even referenced this in his opinion.

Somehow I'm not convinced this will stay the case.

CURRENTLY, they can't FORCE a church to perform a marriage under any laws.

I'm sure it will be similar to the pizza place that refused to cater a gay wedding (or whatever the story was). There will be a gay couple that will try to get married in a church, they will get denied, and there will be a social media outrage against that church. That's one prediction you can see coming from a mile away.

You might be surprised at the people who will defend the church's position when that happens.

Why would I be surprised? I would assume most members of a church that taught that homosexuality is wrong, would defend the position of their church in that scenario.

The point is that plenty of secularists will defend the church's position in that instance, too. I'm one of them.

Almost all of us would. In fact don't know a single person who thinks churches should be forced to perform gay marriages. And I have some friends who are so far left they make me look like TPW. This bizarre scare tactic is both hilarious and pathetic.

 

[Tom Hagen]

You know why you're worried? Because when societal norms were different decades ago, the people in the majority always brought the hammer down on the minority. It's the mindset of the prohibitionist culture.

Wow. These assurances. I'll bank them. Good. As. Gold.

Go look for a case where a church was forced to marry an interracial couple. I'll wait here.

Will it simply be the calls for quid pro quo on tax-exempt status, or what will the carrot and stick be?

IRC 7611 would make this difficult

 

[TobiasFunke]

The "defense" will be a further demonization of the attitudes, much like it was in the pizza place.

"Let those BIGOTS do what they want, it's a free country".

So yes, the legal position of the church will be defended by many secularists, but in turn they will continue to use it to gain support for their moral arguments.

And?

 

[CBusAlex]

The problem is that you can't just have a "political philosophy" regarding deference to legislatures that applies to both federal statutory interpretation and Constitutional challenges to state laws. It doesn't make any sense and leads to preposterous conclusions.

What if a state legislature passed a law forbidding the publication of articles critical of President Obama? Does a justice who deferred to Congress on interpreting federal law in some other case just throw up his hands and say "well, if a legislative body of some kind passed the law I guess I'm in no position to argue?"

You're looking at the wrong legislature. The legislature Rockaction is saying the justices should be deferential to in constitutional challenges isn't the one that passed the potentially unconstitutional law, but the one who ratified the constitutional amendment in the first place.

In the Obamacare case, the SC interpreted the law to mean what the legislature obviously intended it to mean, even if the plain text said something else. In the gay marriage case, the SC interpreted the constitution to mean something that the legislatures that passed it obviously didn't intend, even if the plain text said it did.

 

[njherdfan]

My biggest concern now is what happens to people or groups who don't wish to recognize same-sex marriages.

They become even more irrelevant?

What about churches and other places of worship that don't want to perform them? What happens to them?

Absolutely nothing. I believe Kennedy even referenced this in his opinion.

Somehow I'm not convinced this will stay the case.

CURRENTLY, they can't FORCE a church to perform a marriage under any laws.

I'm sure it will be similar to the pizza place that refused to cater a gay wedding (or whatever the story was). There will be a gay couple that will try to get married in a church, they will get denied, and there will be a social media outrage against that church. That's one prediction you can see coming from a mile away.

You might be surprised at the people who will defend the church's position when that happens.

Why would I be surprised? I would assume most members of a church that taught that homosexuality is wrong, would defend the position of their church in that scenario.

The point is that plenty of secularists will defend the church's position in that instance, too. I'm one of them.

The "defense" will be a further demonization of the attitudes, much like it was in the pizza place.

"Let those BIGOTS do what they want, it's a free country".

So yes, the legal position of the church will be defended by many secularists, but in turn they will continue to use it to gain support for their moral arguments.

So what's the problem? Should there be a right for organizations to be free from any sort of criticism?

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Informative gif http://i.imgur.com/0jpgH3d.gif

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Scott Walker the fist GOP candidate to jump in! Calls the decision "a grave mistake" and demands a Constitutional Amendment to "give states the right to decide the issue".

My earlier point, predictably, coming to fruition.

I have not followed Walker, but I find myself surprised nonetheless that he would jump on that bandwagon. My uninformed opinion of him would not have lead me to believe he would go there.

 

[shader]

The "defense" will be a further demonization of the attitudes, much like it was in the pizza place.

"Let those BIGOTS do what they want, it's a free country".

So yes, the legal position of the church will be defended by many secularists, but in turn they will continue to use it to gain support for their moral arguments.

And?

There is no and. I'm just stating what I think will happen.

 

[rockaction]

Informative gif http://i.imgur.com/0jpgH3d.gif

Would love to see how many of those state flips were court-ordered by the States. Just interesting.

 

[jon_mx]

My biggest concern now is what happens to people or groups who don't wish to recognize same-sex marriages.

They become even more irrelevant?

What about churches and other places of worship that don't want to perform them? What happens to them?

Absolutely nothing. I believe Kennedy even referenced this in his opinion.

Somehow I'm not convinced this will stay the case.

CURRENTLY, they can't FORCE a church to perform a marriage under any laws.

I'm sure it will be similar to the pizza place that refused to cater a gay wedding (or whatever the story was). There will be a gay couple that will try to get married in a church, they will get denied, and there will be a social media outrage against that church. That's one prediction you can see coming from a mile away.

I don't see there being any social outrage against a church for not marrying gays. I think most people who even support gay marriage, do not support the idea of forcing churches to accept gay marriage. Churches and religious people have rights which the vast majority will respect considering there is legitimate Bilical basis for unlike things like racism which has none.

 

[Henry Ford]

You know why you're worried? Because when societal norms were different decades ago, the people in the majority always brought the hammer down on the minority. It's the mindset of the prohibitionist culture.

Wow. These assurances. I'll bank them. Good. As. Gold.

Go look for a case where a church was forced to marry an interracial couple. I'll wait here.

Will it simply be the calls for quid pro quo on tax-exempt status, or what will the carrot and stick be?

Oh, so some people will complain and ask for something they won't get? Yeah, that's a serious problem for those churches.

And in fifty years, we'll see a host of arguments for non-exempt status, and this will clearly be among the advocate's concerns.

In fifty years this will be one of the "host" of arguments that people use to try to take away tax exempt status? That's the concern? If you take away this argument, will there still be a bunch of arguments? Because that sounds like people have a problem with tax exempt status for churches, not that churches have a good reason to oppose this ruling.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

http://i.imgur.com/XSOa75K.jpg

Kinky. blindfold, scales, a sword. That Justice, she's a tramp for certain. I like it. As for lady Liberty, being French I always presumed she was susceptible of swinging both ways.

 

[shader]

My biggest concern now is what happens to people or groups who don't wish to recognize same-sex marriages.

They become even more irrelevant?

What about churches and other places of worship that don't want to perform them? What happens to them?

Absolutely nothing. I believe Kennedy even referenced this in his opinion.

Somehow I'm not convinced this will stay the case.

CURRENTLY, they can't FORCE a church to perform a marriage under any laws.

I'm sure it will be similar to the pizza place that refused to cater a gay wedding (or whatever the story was). There will be a gay couple that will try to get married in a church, they will get denied, and there will be a social media outrage against that church. That's one prediction you can see coming from a mile away.

I don't see there being any social outrage against a church for not marrying gays. I think most people who even support gay marriage, do not support the idea of forcing churches to accept gay marriage. Churches and religious people have rights which the vast majority will respect considering there is legitimate Bilical basis for unlike things like racism which has none.

Of course there will be social outrage.

 

[rockaction]

In fifty years this will be one of the "host" of arguments that people use to try to take away tax exempt status? That's the concern? If you take away this argument, will there still be a bunch of arguments? Because that sounds like people have a problem with tax exempt status for churches, not that churches have a good reason to oppose this ruling.

What's funny -- and you likely don't and can't know this -- is that I'm just against claiming that slippery slope arguments are fallacious. I don't think, that given modern political advocacy and pressure groups, that the fallacy exists anymore. Whether we have enough in the way of protections to protect churches from marrying gay people is a legal issue. But things bleed, as a professor of mine used to say (in that sense, he was talking about, ahem, judicial philosophy...say, Cardozo, if you want) and I'd be hard-pressed not to see an advocate citing that reason for the removal of tax-exempt status. Do you? And if so, shouldn't this decision be concerning?

eta* Fifty years is a long time. Did we ever think about incorporation? Or the removal of school prayer from the public school sphere? Or the removal of nativity scenes? The innocuous decisions of one day are the benchmarks of our civilization, and I think it's time, instead of ridicule, that we recognize precedent and logical extension of precedent (as did Cardozo, to quite nicely name someone who had just been named).

 

[squistion]

San Francisco 49ers ‏@49ers ·

#LoveWins

https://twitter.com/49ers/status/614521470518104064

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

My biggest concern now is what happens to people or groups who don't wish to recognize same-sex marriages.

They become even more irrelevant?

What about churches and other places of worship that don't want to perform them? What happens to them?

Absolutely nothing. I believe Kennedy even referenced this in his opinion.

Churches are membership institutions rather than places of public accommodation, or at least that would be my belief. there would be a different analysis as opposed to the bakery and photographer cases. Now marriage factories, like Vegas "churches", probably not. I would guess they could be forced to perform such marriages, but not for instance a catholic or Episcopalian church, though for all I know the Episcopalians already perform them.

 

[Henry Ford]

In fifty years this will be one of the "host" of arguments that people use to try to take away tax exempt status? That's the concern? If you take away this argument, will there still be a bunch of arguments? Because that sounds like people have a problem with tax exempt status for churches, not that churches have a good reason to oppose this ruling.

What's funny -- and you likely don't and can't know this -- is that I'm just against claiming that slippery slope arguments are fallacious. I don't think, that given modern political advocacy and pressure groups, that the fallacy exists anymore. Whether we have enough in the way of protections to protect churches from marrying gay people is a legal issue. But things bleed, as a professor of mine used to say (in that sense, he was talking about, ahem, judicial philosophy...say, Cardozo, if you want) and I'd be hard-pressed not to see an advocate citing that reason for the removal of tax-exempt status. Do you? And if so, shouldn't this decision be concerning?

eta* Fifty years is a long time. Did we ever think about incorporation? Or the removal of school prayer from the public school sphere? Or the removal of nativity scenes? The innocuous decisions of one day are the benchmarks of our civilization, and I think it's time, instead of ridicule, that we recognize precedent and logical extension of precedent (as did Cardozo, to quite nicely name someone who had just been named).

I don't worry so much about what advocates will cite in fifty years as a reason for doing something else. Mostly because "fifty years is a long time" and trying to predict political climates in fifty years is an exercise in futility. And when the hypothetical tax-related concern is tangentially related to the actual rights of a current group of people, I worry about it significantly less.

Whether we have enough in the way of protections to protect churches from marrying gay people isn't really a legal issue. I mean, I guess anything that exists can be "an issue." But this is an issue like "whether the personal income tax is unconstitutional so I can just refuse to pay my taxes and there's nothing the government can do to me" is a legal issue.

 

[mrip541]

Everybody who voted against will be embarrassed of that vote 20 years from now. Welcome to the future.

 

[Henry Ford]

Facebook is pretty great right now. "IT'S ADAM AND EVE, NOT ADAM AND STEVE."

You should get new friends.

 

[Scoresman]

Facebook is pretty great right now. "IT'S ADAM AND EVE, NOT ADAM AND STEVE."

It's such a slippery slope after all. Pretty soon I'll be able to marry my ficus tree.

 

[rockaction]

In fifty years this will be one of the "host" of arguments that people use to try to take away tax exempt status? That's the concern? If you take away this argument, will there still be a bunch of arguments? Because that sounds like people have a problem with tax exempt status for churches, not that churches have a good reason to oppose this ruling.

What's funny -- and you likely don't and can't know this -- is that I'm just against claiming that slippery slope arguments are fallacious. I don't think, that given modern political advocacy and pressure groups, that the fallacy exists anymore. Whether we have enough in the way of protections to protect churches from marrying gay people is a legal issue. But things bleed, as a professor of mine used to say (in that sense, he was talking about, ahem, judicial philosophy...say, Cardozo, if you want) and I'd be hard-pressed not to see an advocate citing that reason for the removal of tax-exempt status. Do you? And if so, shouldn't this decision be concerning?

eta* Fifty years is a long time. Did we ever think about incorporation? Or the removal of school prayer from the public school sphere? Or the removal of nativity scenes? The innocuous decisions of one day are the benchmarks of our civilization, and I think it's time, instead of ridicule, that we recognize precedent and logical extension of precedent (as did Cardozo, to quite nicely name someone who had just been named).

I don't worry so much about what advocates will cite in fifty years as a reason for doing something else. Mostly because "fifty years is a long time" and trying to predict political climates in fifty years is an exercise in futility. And when the hypothetical tax-related concern is tangentially related to the actual rights of a current group of people, I worry about it significantly less.

Whether we have enough in the way of protections to protect churches from marrying gay people isn't really a legal issue. I mean, I guess anything that exists can be "an issue." But this is an issue like "whether the personal income tax is unconstitutional so I can just refuse to pay my taxes and there's nothing the government can do to me" is a legal issue.

I understand your first paragraph. Maurile had expressed similar concerns in the transgender thread a while a back and I thought about that. I've decided I disagree, and that the advocates of far-out positions will be keenly aware of and ready to pounce on the reasoning behind the extension of rights. We are lousy line-drawers, in my opinion and others' (both right and left) which is why logical extensions of precedent are so attractive and ripe for those arguing positions that are further from the mainstream than those supporting the initial human rights step would accept or understand.

The bolded is my concern about whether the First Amendment can withstand this, and whether it will be judicially altered -- or whether there will be other methods used -- to compel churches to marry. I would disagree with both hypothetical eventualities, and I hope I'm not breathing through my mouth when I do so.

 

[squistion]

God ‏@TheTweetOfGod ·

I now pronounce you bigot and Bible.

 

[RCon]

No matter what happens, God still defines marriage between as man and a woman.

I would like to hear that directly from God. I don't trust those that claim to speak for God.

Go ahead and ask Him. I did, and that's the answer I got.

Did the answer come as a text, e-mail, or voice mail? Just need to know if I should keep my iPhone handy. I imagine it wasn't snail mail, since the decision was only released today, but I guess he could have sent it earlier in the week, just in case.

 

[njherdfan]

Ted Cruz just said that between the Obamacare and gay marriage decisions, the past 24 hours have been "some of the darkest in our nation's history." LET THE HOT TAKES COMMENCE!!!

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Death throes can be ugly, and dangerous. Standing back a ways may be well advised.

 

[roadkill1292]

My biggest concern now is what happens to people or groups who don't wish to recognize same-sex marriages.

They become even more irrelevant?

What about churches and other places of worship that don't want to perform them? What happens to them?

Absolutely nothing. I believe Kennedy even referenced this in his opinion.

Somehow I'm not convinced this will stay the case.

CURRENTLY, they can't FORCE a church to perform a marriage under any laws.

I'm sure it will be similar to the pizza place that refused to cater a gay wedding (or whatever the story was). There will be a gay couple that will try to get married in a church, they will get denied, and there will be a social media outrage against that church. That's one prediction you can see coming from a mile away.

You might be surprised at the people who will defend the church's position when that happens.

Why would I be surprised? I would assume most members of a church that taught that homosexuality is wrong, would defend the position of their church in that scenario.

The point is that plenty of secularists will defend the church's position in that instance, too. I'm one of them.

The "defense" will be a further demonization of the attitudes, much like it was in the pizza place.

"Let those BIGOTS do what they want, it's a free country".

So yes, the legal position of the church will be defended by many secularists, but in turn they will continue to use it to gain support for their moral arguments.

The arguments in this issue are inherently biased against churches. You can't have it all. You can have your freedom of belief and you can have me defending your freedom of belief, but you don't get me saying that your belief structure is anything but stupid.

 

[timschochet]

Listening to conservative talk radio (in Southern California at the moment, there is no other kind) and the same complaint is being repeated over and over: this was an undemocratic decision, made by the courts. The states should decide this on their own.

Take away the issue involved, and how is this argument any different from the ones segregationists made about Brown vs. Board of Education?

 

[Henry Ford]

In fifty years this will be one of the "host" of arguments that people use to try to take away tax exempt status? That's the concern? If you take away this argument, will there still be a bunch of arguments? Because that sounds like people have a problem with tax exempt status for churches, not that churches have a good reason to oppose this ruling.

What's funny -- and you likely don't and can't know this -- is that I'm just against claiming that slippery slope arguments are fallacious. I don't think, that given modern political advocacy and pressure groups, that the fallacy exists anymore. Whether we have enough in the way of protections to protect churches from marrying gay people is a legal issue. But things bleed, as a professor of mine used to say (in that sense, he was talking about, ahem, judicial philosophy...say, Cardozo, if you want) and I'd be hard-pressed not to see an advocate citing that reason for the removal of tax-exempt status. Do you? And if so, shouldn't this decision be concerning?

eta* Fifty years is a long time. Did we ever think about incorporation? Or the removal of school prayer from the public school sphere? Or the removal of nativity scenes? The innocuous decisions of one day are the benchmarks of our civilization, and I think it's time, instead of ridicule, that we recognize precedent and logical extension of precedent (as did Cardozo, to quite nicely name someone who had just been named).

I don't worry so much about what advocates will cite in fifty years as a reason for doing something else. Mostly because "fifty years is a long time" and trying to predict political climates in fifty years is an exercise in futility. And when the hypothetical tax-related concern is tangentially related to the actual rights of a current group of people, I worry about it significantly less.

Whether we have enough in the way of protections to protect churches from marrying gay people isn't really a legal issue. I mean, I guess anything that exists can be "an issue." But this is an issue like "whether the personal income tax is unconstitutional so I can just refuse to pay my taxes and there's nothing the government can do to me" is a legal issue.

I understand your first paragraph. Maurile had expressed similar concerns in the transgender thread a while a back and I thought about that. I've decided I disagree, and that the advocates of far-out positions will be keenly aware of and ready to pounce on the reasoning behind the extension of rights. We are lousy line-drawers, in my opinion and others' (both right and left) which is why logical extensions of precedent are so attractive and ripe for those arguing positions that are further from the mainstream than those supporting the initial human rights step would accept or understand.

The bolded is my concern about whether the First Amendment can withstand this, and whether it will be judicially altered -- or whether there will be other methods used -- to compel churches to marry. I would disagree with both hypothetical eventualities, and I hope I'm not breathing through my mouth when I do so.

And as I've repeatedly pointed out - The right to interracial marriage, or black church members, or interfaith marriage, or virtually anything a church doesn't want in its house of worship or to let its pastors/preachers/etc. do is pretty close to the most protected right that exists in this country. It's been essentially bulletproof through the biggest civil rights movements in this country over and over and over again. I understand you're concerned about it. Worrying about this is pretty much like worrying about an alien race landing on our planet and enslaving the entire human population - the things that would need to happen for that to occur are so completely beyond our control and fundamentally incompatible with anything we can do to stop them, that worrying about it is useless. And if either of those things were to happen, it won't be because gay people are allowed to get married now. It will be because the Bill of Rights has been stripped from the Constitution by legislation or because Xenu wants his flock back, respectively.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

.... I think they realize that unless they alter our constitution it is only matter of time before they are on the losing side of history. I'm not saying they think their positions are wrong, but that the US is spinning out of control so fast that they cannot ultimately win. Sooner or later the Supreme Court is going to strike down all of these laws that protect marriage....

I'm kind of ashamed that I didn't put "protect" in quotes.

 

[Henry Ford]

Listening to conservative talk radio (in Southern California at the moment, there is no other kind) and the same complaint is being repeated over and over: this was an undemocratic decision, made by the courts. The states should decide this on their own.

Take away the issue involved, and how is this argument any different from the ones segregationists made about Brown vs. Board of Education?

The right to education is significantly less ingrained in our culture than the right to marriage.

 

[Henry Ford]

.... I think they realize that unless they alter our constitution it is only matter of time before they are on the losing side of history. I'm not saying they think their positions are wrong, but that the US is spinning out of control so fast that they cannot ultimately win. Sooner or later the Supreme Court is going to strike down all of these laws that protect marriage....

I'm kind of ashamed that I didn't put "protect" in quotes.

I think you're one of the last people in this thread who should be ashamed.

 

[The General]

Ted Cruz just said that between the Obamacare and gay marriage decisions, the past 24 hours have been "some of the darkest in our nation's history." LET THE HOT TAKES COMMENCE!!!

Typical coming from superdooch Cruz. Will be doing reverse mortgage and survival equipment ads in a few years.

 

[rockaction]

And as I've repeatedly pointed out - The right to interracial marriage, or black church members, or interfaith marriage, or virtually anything a church doesn't want in its house of worship or to let its pastors/preachers/etc. do is pretty close to the most protected right that exists in this country. It's been essentially bulletproof through the biggest civil rights movements in this country over and over and over again. I understand you're concerned about it. Worrying about this is pretty much like worrying about an alien race landing on our planet and enslaving the entire human population - the things that would need to happen for that to occur are so completely beyond our control and fundamentally incompatible with anything we can do to stop them, that worrying about it is useless. And if either of those things were to happen, it won't be because gay people are allowed to get married now. It will be because the Bill of Rights has been stripped from the Constitution by legislation or because Xenu wants his flock back, respectively.

And yet weirdly, and not out of fear, I don't feel so assuaged. Color me afraid of aliens, I guess.

As for the bolded: People probably thought it unfathomable that (a) The Bill Of Rights would apply to the states and that (b) it would mean no state-sanctioned prayer in mandatory public schools

 

[gianmarco]

Texas pastor says he'll set himself on fire in protest over gay marriage

Will it be on pay-per-view?

 

[SWC]

whole lotta people in here trying to show off how smart they are with here a legal word there a legal word look i said cardozo yoda posts when maybe they should just say hey today was a good day that meant a lot to a lot of people and shows that america does indeed get better as it gets older just my two cents here brochachos but sometimes it is good to know when to just walk away and let people feel good about something take that to the bank

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Texas pastor says he'll set himself on fire

Will it be on pay-per-view?

Read http://i.imgur.com/yBUTLzs.jpg

 

[rockaction]

This all secondhand, but I don't think anybody is doing a Rage cover right now.

"We are not going to bow. We are not going to bend, and if necessary we will burn," Scarborough said during the podcast, though he did not explicitly state that he would self-immolate in protest of gay marriage, the Independent UK reported.