Roy Moore suspended... again.

[Maren]

Skin pigmentation is not a moral issue. Sexual choices are.

Except you are moving the goal posts now. Your claim was that the federal government does not have the right to dictate marriage to the states -- despite the fact various people tried to tell you that isn't what is going on here. So, does the Federal Government have the right or not?

 

[MennoSota]

Except you are moving the goal posts now. Your claim was that the federal government does not have the right to dictate marriage to the states -- despite the fact various people tried to tell you that isn't what is going on here. So, does the Federal Government have the right or not?

The feds do not control or dictate marriage laws. The courts can declare laws that do not allow mixed marriages illegal. The states need to rewrite those laws so they are legal.
Pigmentation is not a moral issue.
Sexual behavior is a moral issue. The Supreme Court has zero jurisdiction over moral, religious issues, of which homosexual behavior falls into a moral category.
The SCOTUS has over stepped and blurred the lines of church and state, thus violating the 1st Amendment.

 

[Maren]

The feds do not control or dictate marriage laws. The courts can declare laws that do not allow mixed marriages illegal. The states need to rewrite those laws so they are legal.
Pigmentation is not a moral issue.
Sexual behavior is a moral issue. The Supreme Court has zero jurisdiction over moral, religious issues, of which homosexual behavior falls into a moral category.
The SCOTUS has over stepped and blurred the lines of church and state, thus violating the 1st Amendment.

Interesting that you claim pigmentation is not a moral issue, since the original court judge that ruled on Loving v Virginia claimed it was. He even used the Bible to "prove" that mixed race marriages were against the Bible and that the Virginia law banning them was Constitutional.

Regardless, courts are not ruling what is moral but what the law says. The law says that you cannot discriminate based on gender and found that is exactly what marriage law was doing -- the ruling was decided in a similar fashion to Loving v. Virginia. Your argument, legally, is not valid.

Also, I'm not sure how the Supreme Court blurred the line between church and state. Churches are not required to perform gay marriages, Christians are not required to have gay marriages. At the same time, churches that allow gay marriage are now allowed to legally marry same-sex couples -- if anything it was the old laws that violated the First Amendment since it denied churches the right to legally marry couples they believed could be married.

 

[smaneck]

The courts can declare laws that do not allow mixed marriages illegal.

And what the Court did was declare laws that do not allow gay marriages illegal.

The states need to rewrite those laws so they are legal.

In the meantime mixed race couples can legally get married in those states just as gay couples may. They do not have to wait until their state legislatures decide to obey the law. If they did then we would still be segregated here in the South, because it is not like state legislatures wanted to obey the courts.

Pigmentation is not a moral issue.
Sexual behavior is a moral issue. The Supreme Court has zero jurisdiction over moral, religious issues, of which homosexual behavior falls into a moral category.

In that case neither does the state have such jurisdiction and was wrong to prohibit gay marriages in the first place.

The SCOTUS has over stepped and blurred the lines of church and state, thus violating the 1st Amendment.

sorry, but you are the one who has the lines hopelessly blurred. SCOTUS ruled solely on the legal and constitutional issue. You're the one insisting on making it a moral issue. If it is simply a moral issue than neither the state or federal government has the right to prohibit gay marriage and to do so violates the 1st Amendment.

 

[MennoSota]

And what the Court did was declare laws that do not allow gay marriages illegal.



In the meantime mixed race couples can legally get married in those states just as gay couples may. They do not have to wait until their state legislatures decide to obey the law. If they did then we would still be segregated here in the South, because it is not like state legislatures wanted to obey the courts.



In that case neither does the state have such jurisdiction and was wrong to prohibit gay marriages in the first place.



sorry, but you are the one who has the lines hopelessly blurred. SCOTUS ruled solely on the legal and constitutional issue. You're the one insisting on making it a moral issue. If it is simply a moral issue than neither the state or federal government has the right to prohibit gay marriage and to do so violates the 1st Amendment.

There is no such thing as a same-sex "marriage." It is an oxymoron. Never in the history of mankind can we find such a thing, yet 5 judges deem to act as spiritual gurus to tell the world that such a union is morally upright.
Scalia was 100% correct in his scathing reprimand.

 

[Maren]

There is no such thing as a same-sex "marriage." It is an oxymoron. Never in the history of mankind can we find such a thing, yet 5 judges deem to act as spiritual gurus to tell the world that such a union is morally upright.
Scalia was 100% correct in his scathing reprimand.

Actually, history seems to disagree with you. There appear to have been same sex marriages in ancient China, Egypt, Rome, and other cultures.

 

[cow451]

, yet 5 judges deem to act as spiritual gurus to tell the world that such a union is morally upright.

No, they simply said it was legal. If you do not want to be married to someone of the same gender, you cannot be compelled to do so. However, should you and another party agree to marry, you may legally do so.

 

[MennoSota]

No, they simply said it was legal. If you do not want to be married to someone of the same gender, you cannot be compelled to do so. However, should you and another party agree to marry, you may legally do so.

They mandated morality. They overstepped their role and blurred the lines between church and state.

 

[MennoSota]

Actually, history seems to disagree with you. There appear to have been same sex marriages in ancient China, Egypt, Rome, and other cultures.

If you are correct, and at present you have zero documentation, you are teferring to three degenerate cultures. Do you wish to emulate them?

 

[Maren]

They mandated morality. They overstepped their role and blurred the lines between church and state.

No, they did not mandate morality nor did they blur the lines between church and state. As I stated previously, this opened up freedom of religion for churches that had no issue with same sex marriage and wanted to be able to legally marry same sex couples. Nor does this decision require churches to even change their position on homosexuality, much less marry same sex couples.

What you are actually complaining about is that the court did not honor "Christian Privilege," basically that Christians are losing the "special rights" they previously held. Or don't you feel those religions that don't agree with you deserve religious freedom, too?

 

[Maren]

If you are correct, and at present you have zero documentation, you are teferring to three degenerate cultures. Do you wish to emulate them?

I said nothing about emulating. You were trying to Appeal to Tradition -- funny how you now realize that it is a logical fallacy, since I've pointed out you were wrong about history.

 

[MennoSota]

I said nothing about emulating. You were trying to Appeal to Tradition -- funny how you now realize that it is a logical fallacy, since I've pointed out you were wrong about history.

I'm waiting for your documentation. I am not aware of either of those three cultures celebrating same sex ceremonial unions. Please show proof.

 

[TLK Valentine]

They mandated morality.

Says who?

They overstepped their role and blurred the lines between church and state.

False. One doesn't need a church to get married... in fact, these days, they only get in the way.

 

[Maren]

I'm waiting for your documentation. I am not aware of either of those three cultures celebrating same sex ceremonial unions. Please show proof.

The simplest evidence is that of Nero and (as I recall) a couple of other Roman Emperors whose same sex marriages are well documented. Beyond that, feel free to check the evidence: with ancient China it is well accepted that they had openly homosexual people and it appears homosexual marriage; in ancient Greece it is more contested. There is also evidence of homosexual marriages amount Native American tribes.

I don't feel like documenting these for you, though if you care it is easy to find the information, since -- as you pointed out -- this is a non issue since the Appeal to Tradition is a logical fallacy. This becomes far more obvious if we try to use history as an argument to promote slavery.

 

[smaneck]

There is no such thing as a same-sex "marriage."

Sure it is. Same-sex marriage is when a couple of the same sex makes a life-time commitment to one another.

Never in the history of mankind can we find such a thing

Never say never. It was common enough that emperors in the Byzantine Empire felt it necessary to outlaw same-sex marriages.
In any case, times change.

,

yet 5 judges deem to act as spiritual gurus to tell the world that such a union is morally upright.

They said nothing about its morality, they ruled on its legality.

 

[MennoSota]

Sure it is. Same-sex marriage is when a couple of the same sex makes a life-time commitment to one another.

Nope. That's just a union of the same gender. It's not marriage. Two brothers or two sisters that live together constitute the same union.

The issue we have today is entirely ideological and an issue of spiritual morality. The court has zero business legislating spirituality and morality from the bench. The Constitution has nothing to say on this matter, but 5 judges manufactured an argument from thin air to appease their ideological soul-mates.

 

[smaneck]

Nope. That's just a union of the same gender. It's not marriage.

It is marriage if we say it is. Words have no meaning, people have meanings.

The issue we have today is entirely ideological and an issue of spiritual morality. The court has zero business legislating spirituality and morality from the bench.

They didn't. You're the one fixated on spiritual morality, not them. Their job is to rule on the legal and constitutional issues and that is what they did.

The Constitution has nothing to say on this matter, but 5 judges manufactured an argument from thin air to appease their ideological soul-mates.

You realize that the Supreme Court can only rule on cases brought to them? They can't manufacture them out of thin air.

 

[lasthero]

If you are correct, and at present you have zero documentation, you are teferring to three degenerate cultures. Do you wish to emulate them?

Degenerate cultures? You're talking about three of the most advanced societies in ancient history.

 

[Paulos23]

Nope. That's just a union of the same gender. It's not marriage. Two brothers or two sisters that live together constitute the same union.

The issue we have today is entirely ideological and an issue of spiritual morality. The court has zero business legislating spirituality and morality from the bench. The Constitution has nothing to say on this matter, but 5 judges manufactured an argument from thin air to appease their ideological soul-mates.

The court is ruling on legal marriage, not religious marriage. There is a reason people who wanted to be marriage wanted legal recognition, there is a lot of rights and benefits under the law. That doesn't mean they have to get married under your religion, just under the eyes of the state.

There was a point where legal marriage and religious marriage could have been separated. But both sides did not want to let go of the word marriage. So now we are stuck with people claiming that some legal marriage is not moral because it is against their god. Well the SCOTUS doesn't care about that, they just care about what is legal under the Constitution.

Besides, how does SSM hurt you? You don't have to have one, nor does your church have to perform one.

You are trying to impose a religious morality without any evidence that it is harmful.

 

[USincognito]

I have, many times. If you think you know part of it
that I'm missing, feel free to show me up on here. I
can take it. What is the enumerated power of the
federal government to control marriage or the Supreme
Court to pass laws in place of the legislature?

1. Try rereading the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
2. States are not able to deny citizens the rights they are afforded in other states.
3. Obergefell was not a "passed law".