The cases are consolidated and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted limited to the following questions: 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage
between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

A total of ninety minutes is allotted for oral argument on Question 1. A total of one hour is allotted for oral argument on Question 2. The parties are limited to filing briefs on the merits and presenting
oral argument on the questions presented in their respective petitions. The briefs of petitioners are to be filed on or before 2 p.m., Friday, February 27, 2015. The briefs of respondents are to be filed on or before 2 p.m., Friday, March 27, 2015. The reply briefs are to be filed on or before 2 p.m., Friday, April 17, 2015.

 Torga_DW wrote:
My problem always come with the particulars of the word marriage.

 Desubot wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
My problem always come with the particulars of the word marriage.

Well they can (hopefully) be as miserable as any other married folks now

 Torga_DW wrote:
The same way the word 'christian' can or can't be owned i guess. All i know is that when i see the usual arguments about marriage on tv, the religious guy says "marriage is a union between a man and a woman (in the sight of god)". Everyone then goes on to focus on the 'man and woman' part of it, and ignores the 'union' part of it. But as i said, the word seems to have changed (or at least for some people and not others) so it ends up being a ****fight when discussed.

It always seemed to me that marriage was a particular type of union, one related to the christian religion. Thats why the origin of the word is important, before the ~1300s there were no marriages if you were english because the word didn't exist.

edit: typo

 d-usa wrote:
Here is my usual and often repeated reply regarding the whole "why call it marriage" bit, and keep in mind that this comes from a very devout Christian:

1) We have separation of church and state, so "whatever the church calls" it has never been a determining factor for naming anything that the state sanctions.
2) Churches/Synagogues/Mosques/Whatever have administered their versions of the covenant of marriage for many many years, and nobody is saying that they have to change their definition. My marriage is a covenant we made between me, my wife, and our God. Whatever the state definition of marriage is doesn't change the religions definitions.
3) The States have been granting and recognizing non-religious marriages since the first day of our existance. These state marriages have never legally been bound by any religious definitions and many of them were officiated by non-religious people and are between people who have zero interest in religion. By very nature of our separation of church and state these marriages have NEVER had basis on the religious definition and the Wiccans that were married down the street don't really care about whatever definition my God gave regarding marriage. State sanctioned marriage recognizes that me and my wife life together after signing what amounts to a legally binding contract witnessed by said state and now they give us monetary compensation for putting up with each other and gives us legal protections regarding each other and our child. That's really all "marriage" is as far as the state is concerned.

To change the word marriage because of some religious folks, when the word marriage has never had a religious significance and has been a non-religious legal term as far as the state is concerned, is just stupid and achives nothing more than giving in to the kid that is refusing to throw his ball over the fence instead of letting you play with it even though it was never his ball to begin with.

 Torga_DW wrote:

This is where it gets interesting, as the reformation was basically about taking the church out of certain loops and leaving them in the hands of the secular authorities. So while the word may not currently have religious significance (depending on who you ask), it almost certainly did when it came into being. If find your last sentence highly ironic.

 Stonebeard wrote:
That's nice, I suppose. Don't see much of the point, though. Seems like it would be just as easy (probably easier, actually) to make one blanket category with all the same rights and benefits, shove it under the 'civil union' designation and call it a day. Religious folks (myself included, I suppose) get to keep 'their' word and everyone gets the same rights and protections. No muss, no fuss.

 Torga_DW wrote:
Look at the timeline: when was america founded? When did the reformation happen?

What is one of the original items as founded in the bill of rights?

Modern 'happenings' are important, but they're usually based on previous happenings, and the reformation was a pretty big one as far as religion goes.

 Torga_DW wrote:
If it's a different word, how can you be so certain it meant the same thing?

 Hordini wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
If it's a different word, how can you be so certain it meant the same thing?

Well, the Bible mentions marriage and wives and husbands plenty of times. When the Bible was written, it wasn't in English and English as we know it didn't even exist.

 Hordini wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
If it's a different word, how can you be so certain it meant the same thing?

Well, the Bible mentions marriage and wives and husbands plenty of times. When the Bible was written, it wasn't in English and English as we know it didn't even exist.

Verviedi wrote:
God dammit.

Verviedi wrote:
God dammit.

 d-usa wrote:
Of course the Bible is also very specific about divorce, but nobody has ever argued that we should call non-biblical divorces something else...

 dementedwombat wrote:
This is very true. I took a couple of years of Biblical Greek in high school (it was that or Latin and I needed a language requirement. Gotta love classical education...) A lot of how people argue about Christian scripture is solved when you just look at the original document. It's kind of funny really. Nobody can translate the Bible without pushing their personal opinions on what it was saying. Translation is a [female dog] like that.

 Torga_DW wrote:
Look at the timeline:

 d-usa wrote:
Here is my usual and often repeated reply regarding the whole "why call it marriage" bit, and keep in mind that this comes from a very devout Christian:

1) We have separation of church and state, so "whatever the church calls" it has never been a determining factor for naming anything that the state sanctions.
2) Churches/Synagogues/Mosques/Whatever have administered their versions of the covenant of marriage for many many years, and nobody is saying that they have to change their definition. My marriage is a covenant we made between me, my wife, and our God. Whatever the state definition of marriage is doesn't change the religions definitions.
3) The States have been granting and recognizing non-religious marriages since the first day of our existance. These state marriages have never legally been bound by any religious definitions and many of them were officiated by non-religious people and are between people who have zero interest in religion. By very nature of our separation of church and state these marriages have NEVER had basis on the religious definition and the Wiccans that were married down the street don't really care about whatever definition my God gave regarding marriage. State sanctioned marriage recognizes that me and my wife life together after signing what amounts to a legally binding contract witnessed by said state and now they give us monetary compensation for putting up with each other and gives us legal protections regarding each other and our child. That's really all "marriage" is as far as the state is concerned.

To change the word marriage because of some religious folks, when the word marriage has never had a religious significance and has been a non-religious legal term as far as the state is concerned, is just stupid and achives nothing more than giving in to the kid that is refusing to throw his ball over the fence instead of letting you play with it even though it was never his ball to begin with.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 dementedwombat wrote:
This is very true. I took a couple of years of Biblical Greek in high school (it was that or Latin and I needed a language requirement. Gotta love classical education...) A lot of how people argue about Christian scripture is solved when you just look at the original document. It's kind of funny really. Nobody can translate the Bible without pushing their personal opinions on what it was saying. Translation is a [female dog] like that.

Except there are some religious groups that follow the belief that God would not allow a "bad" translation of the Bible, therefore the currently accepted English translations are still the literal word of God, despite any differences with the original texts.

 Orlanth wrote:
I think the rational approach to marriage law is to allow marriage between any couples so long as they are mentally aware enough to understand the vows and are above a minimum age as decided by law.

Then at the same time make it a right for religious institutions to refuse to marry any couple that doesn't fit their ethos, and to enforce a ban on their employees officiating ceremony, without legal consequence.

If gays want to marry so be it. If gays want to marry in a place of worship and will sue the religious group concerned for discrimination unless they get their way, that's going too far. Also denominations should also be allowed to enforce no gay weddings at their places of worship as a condition of continued employment to its religious staff.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
I think the rational approach to marriage law is to allow marriage between any couples so long as they are mentally aware enough to understand the vows and are above a minimum age as decided by law.

Then at the same time make it a right for religious institutions to refuse to marry any couple that doesn't fit their ethos, and to enforce a ban on their employees officiating ceremony, without legal consequence.

If gays want to marry so be it. If gays want to marry in a place of worship and will sue the religious group concerned for discrimination unless they get their way, that's going too far. Also denominations should also be allowed to enforce no gay weddings at their places of worship as a condition of continued employment to its religious staff.

So, are we going to bring back the "whites only" marriages too? Damn those pesky other races wanting to get married in our places of worship! Not to mention when they defile our pure white women!

 Orlanth wrote:
If you had a whites only denomination yes, or black only, or asian only for that matter.

We already have this, without complaint: Judaism is a racial group as well as a religious ones, and some types of orthodox Jew insist on only marrying pure blood Jews. Most forms of Sikhism also has bloodline requirements for marriage.

However you aren't trying to make a rational comment just some anti-religion trolling.

So the answer to you is no, because the KKK mentality you are suggesting is not supported by any denomination, and if any denomination did it wouldn't last long.

: 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage
between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which included former slaves recently freed. In addition, it forbids states from denying any person "life, liberty or property, without due process of law" or to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

 Jihadin wrote:

Either way a decision go there's going to dismay and out cry from either side. I've a feeling SCOTUS is going to go with a neutral position saying its not the government role in defining the word "Marriage". Maybe citing something like 1st Amendment shenanigans

 Orlanth wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
I think the rational approach to marriage law is to allow marriage between any couples so long as they are mentally aware enough to understand the vows and are above a minimum age as decided by law.

Then at the same time make it a right for religious institutions to refuse to marry any couple that doesn't fit their ethos, and to enforce a ban on their employees officiating ceremony, without legal consequence.

If gays want to marry so be it. If gays want to marry in a place of worship and will sue the religious group concerned for discrimination unless they get their way, that's going too far. Also denominations should also be allowed to enforce no gay weddings at their places of worship as a condition of continued employment to its religious staff.

So, are we going to bring back the "whites only" marriages too? Damn those pesky other races wanting to get married in our places of worship! Not to mention when they defile our pure white women!

If you had a whites only denomination yes, or black only, or asian only for that matter.
We already have this, without complaint: Judaism is a racial group as well as a religious ones, and some types of orthodox Jew insist on only marrying pure blood Jews. Most forms of Sikhism also has bloodline requirements for marriage.

However you aren't trying to make a rational comment just some anti-religion trolling. So the answer to you is no, because the KKK mentality you are suggesting is not supported by any denomination, and if any denomination did it wouldn't last long.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

What I am attempting to do is highlight just how absurd your viewpoint is. And I feel doing it quite sucecssfully.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Someone tell me when they do. I need to make popcorn and put my facebook feed and my twitter feed up

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
a place that clearly preaches against them, and does not want them.

The Church isn't a "business" in the same sense as a bakery, or a car dealership

in order to "protect" their 1st Amendment rights, we would necessarily need to maintain that protection of not "forcing" them to perform ceremonies which go against their belief systems.

 Torga_DW wrote:
The same way the word 'christian' can or can't be owned i guess. All i know is that when i see the usual arguments about marriage on tv, the religious guy says "marriage is a union between a man and a woman (in the sight of god)". Everyone then goes on to focus on the 'man and woman' part of it, and ignores the 'union' part of it. But as i said, the word seems to have changed (or at least for some people and not others) so it ends up being a ****fight when discussed.

It always seemed to me that marriage was a particular type of union, one related to the christian religion. Thats why the origin of the word is important, before the ~1300s there were no marriages if you were english because the word didn't exist.

edit: typo

 Stonebeard wrote:
That's nice, I suppose. Don't see much of the point, though. Seems like it would be just as easy (probably easier, actually) to make one blanket category with all the same rights and benefits, shove it under the 'civil union' designation and call it a day. Religious folks (myself included, I suppose) get to keep 'their' word and everyone gets the same rights and protections. No muss, no fuss.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Someone tell me when they do. I need to make popcorn and put my facebook feed and my twitter feed up

Lol, I've read your comment here 3 times, and I'm still no closer to figuring out what you're on about.... Could you elaborate for dumb guys like me?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Glad this is finally going to end and we can move on. This is pretty open shut, especially with the huge pile of legal wins the gay marriage types have been winning the last few years.

d-usa wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
Look at the timeline: when was america founded? When did the reformation happen?

Irrelevant, but to humor you:

The United States of America was founded in 1787/88, which places the creation of our secular laws a solid 139 years after the end of the reformation.

d-usa wrote:The separation of Church and State, meaning that marriage under the law has had zero relationship to marriage under God since 1787.

d-usa wrote:Which has nothing to do with secular laws based by a secular nation and enforced by a secular nation that has a constitutional separation between the secular nation and religions.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:You should do the same, keeping in mind how/when the Church really started "Forcing" people to get married within the church AND paying for the "privilege" of doing so..... Most of what I've read points to around your timeline, so the 1300s (really, I've read from around the end of the Crusades to about Bosworth... so 1450s-1480s, depending on locale) is approximately when the common person was beginning to follow the Nobility's "example" and get married by the priest in the church. For the Nobility before then, this was nothing more than a political stunt.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:While I am glad this is being looked at in the SC, and I do sincerely hope this goes the right way.... I know in my head that this ain't over. Even once the SC makes this constitutionally legal, there'll be backwards groups out there still fighting and railing against this "evil"

But, frankly, I wish it were over already... Frankly, I'm as tired of hearing about people coming out as gay as I am "straight" people annoucing they're getting married.

agnosto wrote:Words have meaning or they don't. Language changes over time or it doesn't. If you're using words from a living language, you have to accept the modern usage and definition, not to mention local usage to an extent (insert UK word for flashlight). If you want word to be inviolate and "holy", use the original word in your religious document of choice. Hey, many Catholics learn a fair bit of Latin and/or Greek, why can't those Baptists learn some Greek and Aramaic? Nobody's abusing a holy language here so if you want the word used for your particular civil arrangement to mean something, in a religious context, use the Aramaic word provided in the Bible.

Personally, I think that if people want to try and live literally by an ancient document, they should actually read it. I mean, I don't see too many people advocating for forcing a raped person to marry their attacker (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) or forcing someone to marry his brother's widow, or passing laws making interracial marriages illegal (Ezra 10:2-11)....but I'm all for fundamentalists following Jesus' recommendations in Mathew 19:12 and castrating themselves to live a life of celibacy....or was he not being literal there?

SilverMK2 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
a place that clearly preaches against them, and does not want them.

I think that is the problem right here - I am not sure why such a place should be able to exist. A person or group inciting hatred, regardless who against, should not be protected by the law because they claim that they are getting a big thumbs up from their deity of choice.

SilverMK2 wrote:

The Church isn't a "business" in the same sense as a bakery, or a car dealership

Why noy? They provide a service, and nominally are able to provide that service to anyone. A car dealership cannot refuse to sell you a car because you are gay, or black, or support the Yankees. A church that X years ago would not marry a white and a black person cannot today refuse to perform the same service, even if it was the same priest doing the officiating and they held the same viewpoint they did X years ago.

SilverMK2 wrote:

in order to "protect" their 1st Amendment rights, we would necessarily need to maintain that protection of not "forcing" them to perform ceremonies which go against their belief systems.

Churches perform a legal service when they marry two people; as a functionary of the state in this activity they should be bound by the same rules as any other person working on behalf of the state. Ie they should not be able to refuse their services because of their own personal beliefs.

If however certain curches/priests want to hand back their state-granted powers to perform marriages and instead perform only non-legally valid "Religious Unions" instead, with a seperate legal marriage having to be conducted by a representative of the state, then I think that would allow them to descriminate against people they don't want to serve as much as they want within the law. This of course may also impact upon their ability to remain tax free institutions, but I am sure that is a case for another topic.

 Torga_DW wrote:
The problem here is that their religion says differently, and freedom to practice their religion is built into the constitution, just like the right to bear arms.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
The problem here is that their religion says differently, and freedom to practice their religion is built into the constitution, just like the right to bear arms.

The problem here is that apparently their religion also says quite a few things which are against the law to put into practice, such as apparently having quite strong views about interracial marriage at one point. And yet now, strangely, the vast majority of religious groups now think their god(s) are fine with it. Kind of like how Mormans had a "revelation" when they were going to get into trouble with the government over the whole race issue... strange how deities work!

I don't see human sacrifice coming back and being protected by the 1st amendment any time soon either, despite being quite a big part of a number of religions over the years...

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
The problem here is that their religion says differently, and freedom to practice their religion is built into the constitution, just like the right to bear arms.

The problem here is that apparently their religion also says quite a few things which are against the law to put into practice, such as apparently having quite strong views about interracial marriage at one point. And yet now, strangely, the vast majority of religious groups now think their god(s) are fine with it. Kind of like how Mormans had a "revelation" when they were going to get into trouble with the government over the whole race issue... strange how deities work!

I don't see human sacrifice coming back and being protected by the 1st amendment any time soon either, despite being quite a big part of a number of religions over the years...

Hey... you stole my Mormon example!!! (seriously... if you look at most religion threads on Dakka... I usually trot out the LDS nut jobs as Exhibit 1)


But... More to what you're talking about.... MOST religious organizations, especially those that profess to be Christian in nature can skirt, or get around the interracial issue in a couple ways. The first, and usually most successful one, is they have a "class" that you MUST attend, and complete and be certified by the church minister who gives the classes before you can use the church and it's official to get married. Often times, these classes are 6 months to a year long, and quite a few people get a month or two in and say, "feth it" we're going to the courthouse or something similar.... Really, from the notes/handouts I've cleaned up after those classes, it's "religious doctrination 101" and so most inter-racial couples would feel extremely uncomfortable in there.

The second way, is usually they make people who appear to be an inter-racial couple/family very uncomfortable and unwelcome until they finally leave the church.

Also, just as hate speech is perfectly legal in the US, using your religion as a platform for "hate" (whether it's actually hate or not) is protected as well.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Glad this is finally going to end and we can move on. This is pretty open shut, especially with the huge pile of legal wins the gay marriage types have been winning the last few years.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Glad this is finally going to end and we can move on. This is pretty open shut, especially with the huge pile of legal wins the gay marriage types have been winning the last few years.

You would think so. but look at how we are dismantling Roe V. Wade, the fight is far from over.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
It won't end here. Whatever the SCOTUS decides, lawmakers will simply try to find new ways to get around the decision in order to appease their voters. Gotta keep that campaign money rolling in by appealing to the fears of your more extreme voters. Gotta keep the talking heads on TV and radio something to rail against in order to motivate the party's base. And on and on it will go.

 Hordini wrote:
How are we dismantling Roe v. Wade? I'm pretty sure abortion is still legal and probably always will be.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
It won't end here. Whatever the SCOTUS decides, lawmakers will simply try to find new ways to get around the decision in order to appease their voters. Gotta keep that campaign money rolling in by appealing to the fears of your more extreme voters. Gotta keep the talking heads on TV and radio something to rail against in order to motivate the party's base. And on and on it will go.

They don't even have to get around the decision successfully, they just have to make a big show of fighting back and convince their supporters that they hate all the same people Jesus hates. In fact, somehow winning the fight would be the worst possible outcome, since they would lose this easy source of votes and have to come up with another way to get the bigots to vote against their own best economic interests.

 Hordini wrote:
There are a lot of reasons other than bigotry for people to vote against their own best economic interest.

 d-usa wrote:
2) Churches are basically private clubs. They are not open and public buildings, they are not businesses, in respect to the law I would think that they are similar to the Boy Scout case. Non-members don't really have any rights to have access or events hosted at a private club. A business that serves everyone is different than a private club that only serves private members. So I still think that a church shouldn't be required to host a civil ceremony for non-members.

3.1) Religious clergy: I think from a religious standpoint a religious authority figure shouldn't have to preside over anything that goes against his/her religion. A pastor wanting to hold a religious ceremony at the church should not be required to open that building or hold that ceremony for people who are not adhering to the beliefs of that religion.

 SilverMK2 wrote:


So you are happy for places of worship to descriminate based on colour/race? How about shops and other services? Or is it only the religiously owned businesses which get to practice intolerance?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Being Jewish has historically been tied to being born of a Jewish mother. I would not suddenly become black just because I joined an African tribal religion; that does not however mean I could not call myself whatever the name of the religious group I joined. Similarly with being a practicing Jew and being of the Jewish race.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

I will not comment particularly on orthodox Jews and Sikhism other than to say that Sikhism particularly is tied to significantly different cultural norms than those in Western society....

 SilverMK2 wrote:

....To expect a radically different culture to conform to our own is pretty silly.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

However you aren't trying to make a rational comment just some anti-religion trolling.

What I am attempting to do is highlight just how absurd your viewpoint is. And I feel doing it quite sucecssfully.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

So the answer to you is no, because the KKK mentality you are suggesting [ethnic discrimination in churches] is not supported by any denomination, and if any denomination did it wouldn't last long.

And yet it was highly prevelent within the lifetime of not a few parishioners currently attending churches all over the US, and indeed can still be found in plenty of places of worship even now...

 Orlanth wrote:

I mentioned orthodox Judaism. With some orthodox Jews, especially Hassids you need to have a Jewish geneology to be accepted at all, and marriage outside ther sect is not acceptable. This happens, its isnt 'discriminatiojn' and nobody complains. Also for reformed Judaism you don't even need a Jewish mother, you can convert.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
a place that clearly preaches against them, and does not want them.

I think that is the problem right here - I am not sure why such a place should be able to exist. A person or group inciting hatred, regardless who against, should not be protected by the law because they claim that they are getting a big thumbs up from their deity of choice.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

The Church isn't a "business" in the same sense as a bakery, or a car dealership

Why noy? They provide a service, and nominally are able to provide that service to anyone.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

A car dealership cannot refuse to sell you a car because you are gay, or black, or support the Yankees.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

A church that X years ago would not marry a white and a black person cannot today refuse to perform the same service, even if it was the same priest doing the officiating and they held the same viewpoint they did X years ago.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Churches perform a legal service when they marry two people; as a functionary of the state in this activity they should be bound by the same rules as any other person working on behalf of the state. Ie they should not be able to refuse their services because of their own personal beliefs.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

If however certain curches/priests want to hand back their state-granted powers to perform marriages and instead perform only non-legally valid "Religious Unions" instead, with a seperate legal marriage having to be conducted by a representative of the state,

 SilverMK2 wrote:

then I think that would allow them to descriminate against people they don't want to serve as much as they want within the law. This of course may also impact upon their ability to remain tax free institutions, but I am sure that is a case for another topic.

Baxx wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

I mentioned orthodox Judaism. With some orthodox Jews, especially Hassids you need to have a Jewish geneology to be accepted at all, and marriage outside ther sect is not acceptable. This happens, its isnt 'discriminatiojn' and nobody complains. Also for reformed Judaism you don't even need a Jewish mother, you can convert.

I think it would be improbable that nobody would complain for such a practice. That nobody would be be quited about their disbelief because of the social consequences of being shut out. Of having to not marrying someone because of these ideas. They are highly discriminatory to me.

Imagine a child of such a family going to school, not being able to fall in love with whomever because of traditions denying it. This is the essence of segregation.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Yeah, on the one hand, it seems pretty open and shut. On the other hand; SCOTUS declared corporations were people, so we're evidently dealing with people who're somewhat detached from reality.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Your courts have decided the same, the doctrine of corporate personhood has been global legal reality for a very long time. It's quite useful too, and not just for the corps.

 dogma wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Your courts have decided the same, the doctrine of corporate personhood has been global legal reality for a very long time. It's quite useful too, and not just for the corps.

Right, but most places distinguish between natural and legal persons when rights are concerned.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Yeah, on the one hand, it seems pretty open and shut. On the other hand; SCOTUS declared corporations were people, so we're evidently dealing with people who're somewhat detached from reality.

 whembly wrote:

Read up more on why SCOTUS declared corporations "people". Because otherwise, among other things, you couldn't sue companies.

 whembly wrote:

In any event, I'm changing my prediction a bit. It's either going to be unanimous favoring SSM, or they'll kick it to a "states right" with the caveat that states must recognize out of state marriages.

 whembly wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Yeah, on the one hand, it seems pretty open and shut. On the other hand; SCOTUS declared corporations were people, so we're evidently dealing with people who're somewhat detached from reality.

Read up more on why SCOTUS declared corporations "people". Because otherwise, among other things, you couldn't sue companies.

In any event, I'm changing my prediction a bit. It's either going to be unanimous favoring SSM, or they'll kick it to a "states right" with the caveat that states must recognize out of state marriages.

 Orlanth wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
a place that clearly preaches against them, and does not want them.

I think that is the problem right here - I am not sure why such a place should be able to exist. A person or group inciting hatred, regardless who against, should not be protected by the law because they claim that they are getting a big thumbs up from their deity of choice.

Relgious freedom remains in seperation to wisdom. Were I a pastor I would not officiate gay weddings, because the Bible tells me not to, hate doesn't come into it. Gays can get married elsewhere.
Also hate is not exclusive to any group.
Want to close down places of worship because they don't fit your world view, that's hate right there. Hate involves an action to be actionable, if a place of worship doesn't want to proliferate gay marriage so be it. It it riles up members to attack gays with sticks, then you have a case.

 Easy E wrote:
Nothing like stepping in on a Fait Accompli before the final curtain to try and take some sort of legacy credits, amirite Judges?

 MrDwhitey wrote:
That or more than one matter can be addressed at a time.

Maybe if some dumb bigots would stop being dumb bigots the matter would be resolved...

 Medium of Death wrote:
I have no idea why you'd still want to take part in religion if you were gay. It makes little sense to me.

 Hordini wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
I have no idea why you'd still want to take part in religion if you were gay. It makes little sense to me.

Some churches are very welcoming to the LGBTQ community.

 Medium of Death wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
I have no idea why you'd still want to take part in religion if you were gay. It makes little sense to me.

Some churches are very welcoming to the LGBTQ community.

They must be sinful, wicked, things.

It just feels very tacked on to me.

 Medium of Death wrote:

It's still a no go for Catholics IIRC, but they "hate the sin, love the sinner". Can't remember where I heard that.

 Medium of Death wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
That or more than one matter can be addressed at a time.

Maybe if some dumb bigots would stop being dumb bigots the matter would be resolved...

How ironic.

What is exactly "dumb" about not agreeing with Homosexual marriage?

I think the fear from those "bigots" is that it would somehow pervert their faith, with it being mandatory that they be allowed to marry in a church.

I'm not religious and I don't particularly hold "gay marriage" as on my top priority lists but the term is free range as far as I'm concerned. Religions need not be co-opted by this however.

I have no idea why you'd still want to take part in religion if you were gay. It makes little sense to me.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Maybe being too skeptical...

I know there's a lot of things that haven't been practiced in Christianity for a while but I thought Homosexuality has pretty much been a no go up until extremely recently.

It's still a no go for Catholics IIRC, but they "hate the sin, love the sinner". Can't remember where I heard that. There's a lot of other denominations that it' a no go for too.

I assume it's not the case in an LGBT (What's the Q for?) churches?

 skyth wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
That or more than one matter can be addressed at a time.

Maybe if some dumb bigots would stop being dumb bigots the matter would be resolved...

How ironic.

What is exactly "dumb" about not agreeing with Homosexual marriage?

I think the fear from those "bigots" is that it would somehow pervert their faith, with it being mandatory that they be allowed to marry in a church.

I'm not religious and I don't particularly hold "gay marriage" as on my top priority lists but the term is free range as far as I'm concerned. Religions need not be co-opted by this however.

I have no idea why you'd still want to take part in religion if you were gay. It makes little sense to me.

I believe that this is what we call a red herring...or maybe the Chewbacca defence. Marriage, as far as the government is concerned, has nothing to do with religion. No one is seriously arguing that churches should be forced to marry same sex couples.

Thus the dumb bigots opposed to it with arguments that basically boil down to either 'gays are icky' and/or 'you must follow the rules of my religion'. Neither of which are really well thought out arguments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Etymology The word "marriage" derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300 CE. This in turn is derived from Old French marier (to marry) and ultimately Latin marītāre meaning to provide with a husband or wife and marītāri meaning to get married. The adjective marīt-us -a, -um meaning matrimonial or nuptial could also be used in the masculine form as a noun for "husband" and in the feminine form for "wife."[5] The related word "matrimony" derives from the Old French word matremoine which appears around 1300 CE and ultimately derives from Latin mātrimōnium which combines the two concepts mater meaning "mother" and the suffix -monium signifying "action, state, or condition." "[6]

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=marry c.1300, "to give (offspring) in marriage," from Old French marier "to get married; to marry off, give in marriage; to bring together in marriage," from Latin maritare "to wed, marry, give in marriage" (source of Italian maritare, Spanish and Portuguese maridar), from maritus (n.) "married man, husband," of uncertain origin, originally a past participle, perhaps ultimately from "provided with a *mari," a young woman, from PIE root *mari- "young wife, young woman," akin to *meryo- "young man" (source of Sanskrit marya- "young man, suitor").

Meaning "to get married, join (with someone) in matrimony" is early 14c. in English, as is that of "to take in marriage." Said from 1520s of the priest, etc., who performs the rite. Figurative use from early 15c. Related: Married; marrying. Phrase the marrying kind, describing one inclined toward marriage and almost always used with a negative, is attested by 1824, probably short for marrying kind of men, which is from a popular 1756 essay by Chesterfield.

In some Indo-European languages there were distinct "marry" verbs for men and women, though some of these have become generalized. Compare Latin ducere uxorem (of men), literally "to lead a wife;" nubere (of women), perhaps originally "to veil" [Buck]. Also compare Old Norse kvangask (of men) from kvan "wife" (see quean), so, "take a wife;" giptask (of women), from gipta, a specialized use of "to give" (see gift (n.)), so, "to be given."

Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:


I assume it's not the case in an LGBT (What's the Q for?) churches?

IIRC, it's queer. Which I think means some where in the middle?

Medium of Death wrote:Gay and Queer aren't the same any more? Duly noted.

 Hordini wrote:

Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:


I assume it's not the case in an LGBT (What's the Q for?) churches?

IIRC, it's queer. Which I think means some where in the middle?

Medium of Death wrote:Gay and Queer aren't the same any more? Duly noted.

No, the Q stands for "Questioning," not Queer. Gay and Queer are still the same.

 Medium of Death wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
That or more than one matter can be addressed at a time.

Maybe if some dumb bigots would stop being dumb bigots the matter would be resolved...

How ironic.

What is exactly "dumb" about not agreeing with Homosexual marriage?

I think the fear from those "bigots" is that it would somehow pervert their faith, with it being mandatory that they be allowed to marry in a church.

I'm not religious and I don't particularly hold "gay marriage" as on my top priority lists but the term is free range as far as I'm concerned. Religions need not be co-opted by this however.

I have no idea why you'd still want to take part in religion if you were gay. It makes little sense to me.

 d-usa wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:


I assume it's not the case in an LGBT (What's the Q for?) churches?

IIRC, it's queer. Which I think means some where in the middle?

Medium of Death wrote:Gay and Queer aren't the same any more? Duly noted.

No, the Q stands for "Questioning," not Queer. Gay and Queer are still the same.

My understanding is that queer boils down to "something non-binary gender attracted to something" with the main point being that gay and lesbian fit into this best "boy/girl" box and that if you don't then you are excluded in the LGBT acronym, and "queer" became a term for "other".

Or something like that...

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

I can respect that viewpoint, religion is like a club, if you don't want to follow the club's rules, don't join the club.
When the club starts getting its rules involved in your life when you don't want them...then that's where the problems start, to me.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
That or more than one matter can be addressed at a time.

Maybe if some dumb bigots would stop being dumb bigots the matter would be resolved...

How ironic.

What is exactly "dumb" about not agreeing with Homosexual marriage?

I think the fear from those "bigots" is that it would somehow pervert their faith, with it being mandatory that they be allowed to marry in a church.

I'm not religious and I don't particularly hold "gay marriage" as on my top priority lists but the term is free range as far as I'm concerned. Religions need not be co-opted by this however.

I have no idea why you'd still want to take part in religion if you were gay. It makes little sense to me.

trying tell others how to live and who they can or can not marry is dumb. Hasn't it been legal in Scotland for a year now? Tell me, how has that decision negatively affected your life since then? Why do you think it must be agreeable to you? If you don't like it, don't do it. Thinking your opinion should matter to other people is dumb.

Tell me, how do these legal marriages fit into the definitions you choose.
http://thefw.com/weirdest-marriages-of-the-world-photos-videos/

there's states like north carolina with a church doing this:
http://gawker.com/5991270/north-carolina-church-refuses-to-perform-straight-marriages-until-this-right-is-granted-to-same-sex-couples

same sex marriages were happening long before christianity became a fad. Religions are not being co opted, and it is not mandatory for churches to perform them. Some churches willing and openly support marriage equality, and willing open their doors for everyone. Even the bible has a same sex marriage in it. 1 Samuel 18:1 Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. It doesn't have to make sense to you, Anyone can be religious, regardless of sexual orientation, or how you identify yourself.

there's thousands of things people do that make no sense to me, but as none of those things negatively affect me or those around me I have no basis to disagree with them. Nor would I try to force my opinions on those things into law.

 Medium of Death wrote:


People seem to shout down the argument that it's not right to accept Gay Marriage but never really say why it isn't right to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Etymology The word "marriage" derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300 CE. This in turn is derived from Old French marier (to marry) and ultimately Latin marītāre meaning to provide with a husband or wife and marītāri meaning to get married. The adjective marīt-us -a, -um meaning matrimonial or nuptial could also be used in the masculine form as a noun for "husband" and in the feminine form for "wife."[5] The related word "matrimony" derives from the Old French word matremoine which appears around 1300 CE and ultimately derives from Latin mātrimōnium which combines the two concepts mater meaning "mother" and the suffix -monium signifying "action, state, or condition." "[6]

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=marry c.1300, "to give (offspring) in marriage," from Old French marier "to get married; to marry off, give in marriage; to bring together in marriage," from Latin maritare "to wed, marry, give in marriage" (source of Italian maritare, Spanish and Portuguese maridar), from maritus (n.) "married man, husband," of uncertain origin, originally a past participle, perhaps ultimately from "provided with a *mari," a young woman, from PIE root *mari- "young wife, young woman," akin to *meryo- "young man" (source of Sanskrit marya- "young man, suitor").

Meaning "to get married, join (with someone) in matrimony" is early 14c. in English, as is that of "to take in marriage." Said from 1520s of the priest, etc., who performs the rite. Figurative use from early 15c. Related: Married; marrying. Phrase the marrying kind, describing one inclined toward marriage and almost always used with a negative, is attested by 1824, probably short for marrying kind of men, which is from a popular 1756 essay by Chesterfield.

In some Indo-European languages there were distinct "marry" verbs for men and women, though some of these have become generalized. Compare Latin ducere uxorem (of men), literally "to lead a wife;" nubere (of women), perhaps originally "to veil" [Buck]. Also compare Old Norse kvangask (of men) from kvan "wife" (see quean), so, "take a wife;" giptask (of women), from gipta, a specialized use of "to give" (see gift (n.)), so, "to be given."

Seems marriage is pretty well defined to me. To suddenly change it, relatively overnight, should be expected to get some kind opposition.

Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

Original Article or

A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Israel. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (a best man), overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men.

Is the icon suggesting that a gay "wedding" is being sanctified by Christ himself? The idea seems shocking. But the full answer comes from other early Christian sources about the two men featured in the icon, St. Sergius and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who were Christian martyrs. These two officers in the Roman army incurred the anger of Emperor Maximian when they were exposed as ‘secret Christians’ by refusing to enter a pagan temple. Both were sent to Syria circa 303 CE where Bacchus is thought to have died while being flogged. Sergius survived torture but was later beheaded. Legend says that Bacchus appeared to the dying Sergius as an angel, telling him to be brave because they would soon be reunited in heaven.

While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Christian church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly intimate. Severus, the Patriarch of Antioch (AD 512 - 518) explained that, "we should not separate in speech they [Sergius and Bacchus] who were joined in life". This is not a case of simple "adelphopoiia." In the definitive 10th century account of their lives, St. Sergius is openly celebrated as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus. Sergius and Bacchus's close relationship has led many modern scholars to believe they were lovers. But the most compelling evidence for this view is that the oldest text of their martyrology, written in New Testament Greek describes them as "erastai,” or "lovers". In other words, they were a male homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was not only acknowledged, but it was fully accepted and celebrated by the early Christian church, which was far more tolerant than it is today.

Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual.

Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12thand/ early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded.

Same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe list in great detail some same gender ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century rite, "Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union", invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, and called on God to "vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand-years from the 8th to the 18th century.

The Dominican missionary and Prior, Jacques Goar (1601-1653), includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek Orthodox prayer books, “Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum Complectens Ritus Et Ordines Divinae Liturgiae” (Paris, 1667).

While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, homophobic writings didn’t appear in Western Europe until the late 14th century. Even then, church-consecrated same sex unions continued to take place.

At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish church) in 1578, as many as thirteen same-gender couples were joined during a high Mass and with the cooperation of the Vatican clergy, "taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together" according to a contemporary report. Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century.

Prof. Boswell's academic study is so well researched and documented that it poses fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their own modern attitudes towards homosexuality.

For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be cowardly and deceptive. The evidence convincingly shows that what the modern church claims has always been its unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is, in fact, nothing of the sort.

It proves that for the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom, from Ireland to Istanbul and even in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given love and committment to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honored and blessed, through the Eucharist in the name of, and in the presence of, Jesus Christ.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Homosexual man, who struggled to rationalise his faith with his sexuality, cherry picks examples from history to promote agenda?

It's a sign of a good argument when you attack the person.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Am I attacking him for restating what is written about him?

...cherry picks examples from history to promote agenda?

 Medium of Death wrote:
Am I attacking him for restating what is written about him?

Try harder.

 reds8n wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Am I attacking him for restating what is written about him?

Cherry picking is a term he uses or of support is it ?

Try harder.

When your sole argument is in fact the development not of human beings and their relationships but of that of the ontology of linguistic development in a very small area of the world, and ignores the many changes that have already happened to marriage - even if we restrict it solely to the era post the definition you produced earlier involves, one would suggest that it is you who needs to "try harder" with regards to the topic at hand.

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias, also called myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, or recall information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses.

 streamdragon wrote:
I always find Christian fascination and glorification of marriage to be hysterically funny. I mean, look even to the middle ages, strongest era for the Church, and you see marriage was not about love, romance or anything it is commonly associated with now. It was about political maneuvering, shifting property, securing bloodlines and inheritance rights; in short: money and power.

So frelling romantic, that.

 Medium of Death wrote:


Same sex marriage has been a thing since forever? The Romans or Greeks didn't practice it, homosexual acts certainly were but not marriage, and I doubt it was practiced in Europe.

You can keep projecting that I have a problem with this if you like. I'm merely pointing out that screaming "bigot" isn't really going to make this argument go away. It only increases the feeling that this will be forced upon people.

The kind of venomous shouting of "It's a legal term!", "Laws Change", "Times change, deal with it!" or that somehow that this is about individuals rather than rapid changes in society would really have me on the defensive if I were a conservative Christian. It doesn't really foster any kind of comfort that this isn't going to be forced upon those with conservative values in their places of worship or in their daily lives. If it isn't a religious term why is there a need for people to get married in Churches? Even typically non-religious people tend to go through the motions of religious ceremony for this very purpose.

 Medium of Death wrote:


The exact debate is framed around an area of the world, the West, that has been dominated by Christianity for over a millennium. I feel that taking the European etymology of the word marriage to be pretty valid.

This is especially so when I'm trying to put forward a point that there might be a reason that it is opposed by conservative Christians

and that simply calling them "bigots" as a shut down is misplaced. Bigot now meaning "somebody who doesn't approve of me" rather than being intolerant. You can tolerate something without actually liking or endorsing it.

The kind of venomous shouting of "It's a legal term!", "Laws Change", "Times change, deal with it!" or that somehow that this is about individuals rather than rapid changes in society would really have me on the defensive if I were a conservative Christian.

It doesn't really foster any kind of comfort that this isn't going to be forced upon those with conservative values in their places of worship or in their daily lives. If it isn't a religious term why is there a need for people to get married in Churches? Even typically non-religious people tend to go through the motions of religious ceremony for this very purpose.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:


Same sex marriage has been a thing since forever? The Romans or Greeks didn't practice it, homosexual acts certainly were but not marriage, and I doubt it was practiced in Europe.

You can keep projecting that I have a problem with this if you like. I'm merely pointing out that screaming "bigot" isn't really going to make this argument go away. It only increases the feeling that this will be forced upon people.

Lets see, about the romans: You are incorrect.
At least two of the Roman Emperors were in same-sex unions; and in fact, thirteen out of the first fourteen Roman Emperors held to be bisexual or exclusively homosexual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).

 Medium of Death wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
That or more than one matter can be addressed at a time.

Maybe if some dumb bigots would stop being dumb bigots the matter would be resolved...

How ironic.

What is exactly "dumb" about not agreeing with Homosexual marriage?

I think the fear from those "bigots" is that it would somehow pervert their faith, with it being mandatory that they be allowed to marry in a church.

I'm not religious and I don't particularly hold "gay marriage" as on my top priority lists but the term is free range as far as I'm concerned. Religions need not be co-opted by this however.

I have no idea why you'd still want to take part in religion if you were gay. It makes little sense to me.

trying tell others how to live and who they can or can not marry is dumb. Hasn't it been legal in Scotland for a year now? Tell me, how has that decision negatively affected your life since then? Why do you think it must be agreeable to you? If you don't like it, don't do it. Thinking your opinion should matter to other people is dumb.

Tell me, how do these legal marriages fit into the definitions you choose.
http://thefw.com/weirdest-marriages-of-the-world-photos-videos/

there's states like north carolina with a church doing this:
http://gawker.com/5991270/north-carolina-church-refuses-to-perform-straight-marriages-until-this-right-is-granted-to-same-sex-couples

same sex marriages were happening long before christianity became a fad. Religions are not being co opted, and it is not mandatory for churches to perform them. Some churches willing and openly support marriage equality, and willing open their doors for everyone. Even the bible has a same sex marriage in it. 1 Samuel 18:1 Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. It doesn't have to make sense to you, Anyone can be religious, regardless of sexual orientation, or how you identify yourself.

there's thousands of things people do that make no sense to me, but as none of those things negatively affect me or those around me I have no basis to disagree with them. Nor would I try to force my opinions on those things into law.

That quote saying the bible has same sex marriage in it seems pretty spurious.

It's a sign of a good argument when you attack the person posing the question, say dumb a lot and then post some clickbait articles. The first article seems to show various examples of mental illness...

Same sex marriage has been a thing since forever? The Romans or Greeks didn't practice it, homosexual acts certainly were but not marriage, and I doubt it was practiced in Europe.

Here's what I said a page back.

 Medium of Death wrote:


People seem to shout down the argument that it's not right to accept Gay Marriage but never really say why it isn't right to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Etymology The word "marriage" derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300 CE. This in turn is derived from Old French marier (to marry) and ultimately Latin marītāre meaning to provide with a husband or wife and marītāri meaning to get married. The adjective marīt-us -a, -um meaning matrimonial or nuptial could also be used in the masculine form as a noun for "husband" and in the feminine form for "wife."[5] The related word "matrimony" derives from the Old French word matremoine which appears around 1300 CE and ultimately derives from Latin mātrimōnium which combines the two concepts mater meaning "mother" and the suffix -monium signifying "action, state, or condition." "[6]

Seems marriage is pretty well defined to me. To suddenly change it, relatively overnight, should be expected to get some kind opposition.

You can keep projecting that I have a problem with this if you like. I'm merely pointing out that screaming "bigot" isn't really going to make this argument go away. It only increases the feeling that this will be forced upon people.

 Frazzled wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
I always find Christian fascination and glorification of marriage to be hysterically funny. I mean, look even to the middle ages, strongest era for the Church, and you see marriage was not about love, romance or anything it is commonly associated with now. It was about political maneuvering, shifting property, securing bloodlines and inheritance rights; in short: money and power.

So frelling romantic, that.

Really, THATS what you find hysterically funny? You should get out more.

 CptJake wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:


Same sex marriage has been a thing since forever? The Romans or Greeks didn't practice it, homosexual acts certainly were but not marriage, and I doubt it was practiced in Europe.

You can keep projecting that I have a problem with this if you like. I'm merely pointing out that screaming "bigot" isn't really going to make this argument go away. It only increases the feeling that this will be forced upon people.

Lets see, about the romans: You are incorrect.
At least two of the Roman Emperors were in same-sex unions; and in fact, thirteen out of the first fourteen Roman Emperors held to be bisexual or exclusively homosexual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

And just below where you grabbed your info:

It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).

(apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases)

 reds8n wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

But when you want to actively prevent others from doing something because you don't like or agree with you step over the -- admittedly somewhat nebulous -- divide.

I just have to quibble on that particular point. All societies do that all the time. Thats what laws are. By their nature they are limiting events.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 streamdragon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
I always find Christian fascination and glorification of marriage to be hysterically funny. I mean, look even to the middle ages, strongest era for the Church, and you see marriage was not about love, romance or anything it is commonly associated with now. It was about political maneuvering, shifting property, securing bloodlines and inheritance rights; in short: money and power.

So frelling romantic, that.

Really, THATS what you find hysterically funny? You should get out more.

That and videos of people getting owned by their dogs. Nothing makes me laugh quite like a dude taking a nut shot from his dog.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:


Same sex marriage has been a thing since forever? The Romans or Greeks didn't practice it, homosexual acts certainly were but not marriage, and I doubt it was practiced in Europe.

You can keep projecting that I have a problem with this if you like. I'm merely pointing out that screaming "bigot" isn't really going to make this argument go away. It only increases the feeling that this will be forced upon people.

Lets see, about the romans: You are incorrect.
At least two of the Roman Emperors were in same-sex unions; and in fact, thirteen out of the first fourteen Roman Emperors held to be bisexual or exclusively homosexual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

And just below where you grabbed your info:

It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).

Right, it wasn't legally accepted, but it was accepted in the eyes of god that they were married. It's a spiritual thing right? I bet it was a nice religious ceremony.

But you said it wasn't done, I found 2 cases where it was done.

(apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases)

No legal standing for the common men, but the emperor's counted as his was apart from those.

You claim it never happened in europe, yet from the same article: Spain is in europe right?
A same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on 16 April 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova.

 reds8n wrote:
Oh indeed.

IN fact one would suggest the essence of society is -- to a degree -- restriction and compromise.

And of course laws can be and are changed, even if it takes a long time.

 Orlanth wrote:
Relgious freedom remains in seperation to wisdom. Were I a pastor I would not officiate gay weddings, because the Bible tells me not to, hate doesn't come into it. Gays can get married elsewhere.

Want to close down places of worship because they don't fit your world view, that's hate right there. Hate involves an action to be actionable, if a place of worship doesn't want to proliferate gay marriage so be it. It it riles up members to attack gays with sticks, then you have a case.

They provide a service first to their deity, the to whoever will follow the deity.

But a church is not like a car dealership, a car dealership doesn't have a belief system, for an analogy its more like a political party.

The Labour party is not 'discriminating' if it doesn't choose David Cameron as its party leader. None would accept that as discrimination, but you are forcing something very similar on religions.

As pointed out mixed race couples wouldn't want to attend such a church.

That would be wrong.

What is hilarious about the comment is that it is restricted to 'churches'.
Nobody even tries to think about imposing that level of 'equality' on a mosque or synagogue. In fact you could find several equal opportunity related reasons not to interfere.

Atheists are certainly enabled to hold personal beliefs, so can polirtcal organisations, different ethnicities and most religious groups seen as attached to those ethnicites. You can also have politicicise LCBT groups.

But not Christians, curious that.

So your solution is ban religious marriage.

Hold on, after your tirade against 'discrimination' you now say that 'discrimination' is legally acceptable so long as its taxed and has no ability to officiate civic ceremony.
Please make up your mind, at face value your comments make no sense.

Actually its fairly clear from an external point of view, reading between the lines you are perfectly happy so long as the 'church' is bashed.

On the tax issue some religious institutions can make money, but the vast majority do not because religion as a whole is not profit minded and often contrary to aquiring such. Yet the tax exempt status has to be blanket legislation in order to be fair.

I have zero objection to places which don't fit my world view. I've been to quite a number of religious services in my time and had/have a number of religious friends entirely without objection to their beliefs or how they go about things. I have an objection to places which espouse hatred and discrimination against people. On a separate note, I have a significant issue with this being done on little to no evidence. This would be regardless of the source, religious, scientific, cultural, etc.

 reds8n wrote:
A lot of reasonable stuff

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Are you reading your own sources? Because it sure doesn't look like you do to me.

 Orlanth wrote:
i am not saying that at all, and you can only strectch to the assumption because you desire to to fulfill an anti-religious hate fantasy.

I mentioned orthodox Judaism. With some orthodox Jews, especially Hassids you need to have a Jewish geneology to be accepted at all, and marriage outside ther sect is not acceptable. This happens, its isnt 'discriminatiojn' and nobody complains. Also for reformed Judaism you don't even need a Jewish mother, you can convert.

So what you are saying is that Sikhism is a valid example that you can have religions being culturally separated in terms of marriage, therefore you will ignore it.

Actually we are talking about statute law, its not 'pretty silly' its pretty damn important to look at all the variables.

Only in your own little head.

Highly prevalent? That sort of discrimination was never highly prevalent in the UK or US in the post slavery era. And in fact in the slavery era church attendance was encouraged, not prohibited. Your pandering to your own petty hatreds, please stop.

If you bothered to look at the facts you will find that blacks in the UK and African Americans are very heavily represented in the churches. It so prevalent that the black congregation choir is one of Americas cultural memes, as is the black pastor.

I cannot account for every single hick extremist church, but those churches aren't really churches, and allowing that Christianity is the largest religion on the planet and in the US/Uk both, it will only be a tiny unrepresentational minority, and one inevitable in any very large cultural grouping of people.

 Frazzled wrote:
So to be clear, again would shut down religions that disagree with you?

What about their extended entities: for example Catholic Charities?

 Frazzled wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
Oh indeed.

IN fact one would suggest the essence of society is -- to a degree -- restriction and compromise.

And of course laws can be and are changed, even if it takes a long time.

This is true as well.

Personally I don't think SCOTUS should have taken this case. Its being settled remarkably quickly in the states, with public opinion and consensus shifting. Make some overarching court case and you risk pulling an RvW and freezing the controversy in place for decades. if SCOTUS really wanted, a better idea would have been to sit for five year years and then find a case, as the matter would effectively be settled then.

I think this was the plan, but if I recall there was a ruling against same-sex marriage in one of the circuit courts. And don't circuit splits usually force the SCOTUS to make a decision?

 Frazzled wrote:

I think this was the plan, but if I recall there was a ruling against same-sex marriage in one of the circuit courts. And don't circuit splits usually force the SCOTUS to make a decision?

Just as a point of edification, thats often why SCOTUS will hear a case, but they are not required to. They leave conflicting cases let stand all the time.

It would be extremely unlikely that an entire religion would be shut down. Individual churches/temples/etc maybe. Although I can think of a number of secular organisations which may well fall foul of such a policy.

What about them? If they are breaking a law (proposed or actual), they are breaking a law (proposed or actual). The punishment for breaking said law is laid out and should be supplied where a court of law deems that a breech occurred, tempered by the severity of the breech.

You know, same as any other crime

Baxx wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

I can respect that viewpoint, religion is like a club, if you don't want to follow the club's rules, don't join the club.
When the club starts getting its rules involved in your life when you don't want them...then that's where the problems start, to me.

And if you won't join the club, you'll get smacked in the head by it.

 Frazzled wrote:

It would be extremely unlikely that an entire religion would be shut down. Individual churches/temples/etc maybe. Although I can think of a number of secular organisations which may well fall foul of such a policy.

Wo. Really? That’s dictatorship, and lots of people die when you do that.

What about them? If they are breaking a law (proposed or actual), they are breaking a law (proposed or actual). The punishment for breaking said law is laid out and should be supplied where a court of law deems that a breech occurred, tempered by the severity of the breech.

You know, same as any other crime

So you would criminalize that which you disagree with. How are you any different than they are?

Thats just scary.

PhantomViper wrote:
Actual real question: where did all of this "churches will be forced to marry gay couples" comes from? Was that issue really raised?

sirlynchmob wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
Actual real question: where did all of this "churches will be forced to marry gay couples" comes from? Was that issue really raised?

No, it's just fear mongering with no basis in reality.

 Desubot wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
Actual real question: where did all of this "churches will be forced to marry gay couples" comes from? Was that issue really raised?

No, it's just fear mongering with no basis in reality.

Well there is that and there are groups that will pull stunts like this for the attention.

PhantomViper wrote:
Actual real question: where did all of this "churches will be forced to marry gay couples" comes from? Was that issue really raised?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Go look at the oncoming storm ad from prop 8 in california

 Frazzled wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
Actual real question: where did all of this "churches will be forced to marry gay couples" comes from? Was that issue really raised?

Not really certain anyone with more than four teeth has argued that.

PhantomViper wrote:
Actual real question: where did all of this "churches will be forced to marry gay couples" comes from? Was that issue really raised?

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
Actual real question: where did all of this "churches will be forced to marry gay couples" comes from? Was that issue really raised?

Not really certain anyone with more than four teeth has argued that.

They're the kind of people who think there's a "gay agenda" (that always makes me laugh)

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
For the life of me, I cannot understand why anybody would want to get married. Worst mistake I ever made! I ended up losing my X-files box sets

My advice to anybody thinking about marriage, be they gay, be they straight, be they whatever, is too walk away while you still have the chance...and your DVDs

 zombiekila707 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
For the life of me, I cannot understand why anybody would want to get married. Worst mistake I ever made! I ended up losing my X-files box sets

My advice to anybody thinking about marriage, be they gay, be they straight, be they whatever, is too walk away while you still have the chance...and your DVDs

This man knows what is up! Marriage seems pretty worthless anyways... You have a corporation and you enjoy being CEO but wait!! You got married!! *gasp* You now own half your corporation! Oh wait marriage didn't work out like you thought (CAUSE IT NEVER DOES)... you just lost half your corporation...

I say let gays get married so they can be miserable like the rest of us.

 d-usa wrote:
There is always this old joke:

"Why does it cost so much to get a divorce? Because it's worth it!"

sirlynchmob wrote:

 zombiekila707 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
For the life of me, I cannot understand why anybody would want to get married. Worst mistake I ever made! I ended up losing my X-files box sets

My advice to anybody thinking about marriage, be they gay, be they straight, be they whatever, is too walk away while you still have the chance...and your DVDs

This man knows what is up! Marriage seems pretty worthless anyways... You have a corporation and you enjoy being CEO but wait!! You got married!! *gasp* You now own half your corporation! Oh wait marriage didn't work out like you thought (CAUSE IT NEVER DOES)... you just lost half your corporation...

I say let gays get married so they can be miserable like the rest of us.

Remember boys & girls, Nothing says "I love you" like a prenuptial agreement.

If you don't want to lose 1/2 your hobby stuff, or be forced to sell it by some angry soon to be X. Set some ground rules for the marriage and property.

 Frazzled wrote:

Wo. Really? That’s dictatorship, and lots of people die when you do that.

So you would criminalize that which you disagree with.

How are you any different than they are?

Thats just scary.

Better dress sense?

 Medium of Death wrote:
Homosexual man, who struggled to rationalise his faith with his sexuality, cherry picks examples from history to promote agenda?

I think the overwhelming amount of times that Gay Marriage hasn't been practiced would show that even if his claims are valid that it'd be the exception rather than the rule.

 Medium of Death wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Are you reading your own sources? Because it sure doesn't look like you do to me.

Cuts out one of the quotes to "prove" a point.

 d-usa wrote:


So basically I think we would end up with three different options for being the officiant at a wedding:

A) Purely secular Agent of the State: Officiate over legal secular marriages for anyone.
B) Religious Clergy and Agent of the State: Able to officiate over select secular and spiritual marriages at a church, but required to officiate over secular marriages outside of church for anyone.
C) Purely religious Clergy: Able to officiate over spiritual marriages at a church only.

Like I said. I'm not saying that this is the right approach or that it makes sense. That's just where I am at in my head as my stance continues to evole.

 daedalus wrote:
My biggest problem with the LGBT movement is that when people throw the Q in there, it gets all befuddled in my mind and I see BBQ in the middle of it, and I just get hungry instead.

 Frazzled wrote:
How if making somehting illegal different than them?

 Cheesecat wrote:
I always say LGBT rolls off my tongue the best.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
I always say LGBT rolls off my tongue the best.

See thats all nonsensical. Its just LG and Greedy.

Bran Dawri wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


So basically I think we would end up with three different options for being the officiant at a wedding:

A) Purely secular Agent of the State: Officiate over legal secular marriages for anyone.
B) Religious Clergy and Agent of the State: Able to officiate over select secular and spiritual marriages at a church, but required to officiate over secular marriages outside of church for anyone.
C) Purely religious Clergy: Able to officiate over spiritual marriages at a church only.

Like I said. I'm not saying that this is the right approach or that it makes sense. That's just where I am at in my head as my stance continues to evole.

What's this? A religious person coming up with a reasonable compromise? Only to be completely ignored for the rest of the thread?

I'm nominally anti-religious, but this is a concept I can get behind. Big thumbs up for this one!

Also, FYI, AFAIK, in the Netherlands, and Germany as well to my knowledge, option B doesn't exist; state and church marriages are completely separate here.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

If marriages are to have any legal force they need to be registered with the legal authorities and until that has been done they do not count as legal marriages no matter what ceremonies you may have emjoyed.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
How if making somehting illegal different than them?

I'm not making something illegal "because I disagree with it". I'm (at the very least) holding religious institutions to the same legal standards as everyone else when it comes to discrimination. When it comes to US laws, I would be adding in provisions to bring them more into line with UK law on hate speech and inciting hatred.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
See, I see a huge difference here that you apparently dont see the same way... A church, in itself is like a club... hair club, beer club, fight club, duck hunters of america club, etc.... ALL of them are allowed, basically speaking, to have any discriminatory rule they want, the same goes for LDS, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Baptist, or whatever other name of religion you have. Religious institutions already do have to follow "the same legal standards as everyone else" (when it comes to discrimination) when it comes to their employment/hiring practices, ie, the local Catholic hospital cannot discriminate a doctor and not hire him/her simply for being a Sikh or Muslim.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
See, I see a huge difference here that you apparently dont see the same way... A church, in itself is like a club... hair club, beer club, fight club, duck hunters of america club, etc.... ALL of them are allowed, basically speaking, to have any discriminatory rule they want, the same goes for LDS, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Baptist, or whatever other name of religion you have. Religious institutions already do have to follow "the same legal standards as everyone else" (when it comes to discrimination) when it comes to their employment/hiring practices, ie, the local Catholic hospital cannot discriminate a doctor and not hire him/her simply for being a Sikh or Muslim.

However, when that person/institution is acting as an agent of the state, they should have to follow the rules which apply to every other agent of the state. This would include conducting marriages for anyone who met the legal requirements of marriage. A "club" also does not generally get to exist tax free. Nor does it generally get to go out and say and do anything it wants.

PhantomViper wrote:
I still don't understand why we are discussing this if this proposition was never really put forward but even when Priests are acting as agents of the state performing a marriage, they are also doing so in their capacity as priests, usually because of protocols that the church has entered with the state so I don't think that they should have to follow the same rules as a justice of the peace (that performs civil marriages).

Now, and I'm speaking as an Atheist that thinks that humanity would be greatly improved if all religions were abolished, the sacrament of marriage in the Catholic faith is defined as the union between a man and a women, a Priest cannot perform a marriage sacrament that falls outside those parameters, so "forcing" a Priest to marry a same sex couple doesn't really work and I don't think that it falls under discrimination, Catholic Priests also can't marry divorced people, or people that aren't from the Catholic faith, etc, and none of that is considered discrimination.

The wording of the upcoming referendum on same-sex marriage has been published by the Government.

The wording proposes to add a new section to the Constitution, stating that: "Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex".

The referendum will be held in May this year but no specific date has yet been set.
Cabinet agrees wording of same-sex marriage referendum
RELATED AUDIO & VIDEO

Watch: Cabinet agrees wording of same-sex marriage referendum

Minister for Justice and Equality Frances Fitzgerald said the wording is clear and precise, and gives a right to every citizen who wishes to get married.

Making the announcement, she also confirmed that the Government is separately preparing an Implementation Bill that will address the changes to legislation that will be needed if the referendum is carried.

She said this will include changes to the Civil Registration Acts to remove the impediments preventing same-sex couples from being able to marry.

The minister will bring the General Scheme of the Implementation Bill to Government in February.

She said: "I hope we can have a constructive and respectful debate which will help to inform and engage citizens on this important issue."

Fianna Fáil Justice Spokesperson Niall Collins said his party was happy to support the referendum and welcomed the wording, saying it was clear and concise.

The Gay and Lesbian Equality Network, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and Marriage Equality have said the publication was "historic".

GLEN Chair Kieran Rose said: "Today we move a step closer to full inclusion in our Constitution for lesbian and gay couples."

ICCL Director Mr Mark Kelly added: "The proposed amendment would update the Constitution to say that any two people can marry, regardless of their sex."

Marriage Equality Chair Grainne Healy said: "We look forward to a positive campaign for the referendum, which focuses on the value of marriage to everyone in Irish society and explains why marriage matters to lesbian and gay couples."

The Catholic Communications Office said that bishops will discuss the referendum at their next plenary meeting in March.

The Cabinet met this morning to discuss the referendum, which will be held in May, along with one on reducing the age limit for presidential election candidates from 35 to 21 years of age.

The Carlow-Kilkenny by-election to fill the seat left vacant after Phil Hogan's move to Europe is also expected on the same day.

The date for the referendums will be set by ministerial order following the passage of the required bills through the Oireachtas.

 d-usa wrote:


With so many states passing "you can't force people to do their job if their job goes against their religion" laws I realize that I'm probably in the minority there.

 d-usa wrote:

That's where I think we need to realize that a Catholic Priest performs two marriages at the same time. The Catholic Sacrament of marriage, which only allows a man and a woman to marry and which is as much a marriage between the couple and God as much as it is a marriage between themselves and which also doesn't allow for divorce unless it falls under a very specific set of circumstances and has certain expectations of baby making and what roles the husband and wife have in their spiritual life and many other things. He also performs a civil marriage that is recognized by the state, which lets you get divorced for a lot of reasons and which doesn't care if you made a promise to God, a tree, a rock, or just each other. The state marriage has nothing to do with the Sacrament of marriage, and the Sacrament of marriage has nothing to do with the state marriage. They are two separate things, with two separate rules, and the priest just happens to have the power to perform both at the same time.

A priest shouldn't be forced to conduct a religious ceremony for someone that doesn't agree with his faith, and he shouldn't have proclaim that the people he marries are married under the authority of his God. But a priest, if he is an agent of the state, should be required to do a quick "Do you? Do you? By the power invested in my by the State, I pronounce you whatever and whatever" ceremony.

If your personal conviction doesn't allow you to be both a priest and an agent of the state, then you should have to drop one of those roles.

That's just my opinion on this, I realize that I could be completely wrong.

 Medium of Death wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
A lot of reasonable stuff

My main reason for posting was really to try and put across the idea that being opposed to gay marriage doesn't make you a bigot and that they're reasonable opinions that conservative Christians have when put into the context of their faith.

PhantomViper wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


With so many states passing "you can't force people to do their job if their job goes against their religion" laws I realize that I'm probably in the minority there.

But I completely agree with you in this, I only think that in the case of Priests an exception should be made because their job literally IS their Religion...

Prestor Jon wrote:
Hindsight being what it is, it would have been better to limit marriage licenses to only being awarded through govt officials like magistrates and justices of the peace. Weddings are great and people can have them and priests can administer weddings in strict adherence to their respective religions without ever signing a marriage license. A marriage license is for qualifying for certain tax reporting status/exemptions, name changes, etc. and never needed to be tied to a wedding ceremony. Priests can sign marriage licenses to make it easier on the married couple so they can have everything done on the same day by the same person, it's for convenience nothing more.

Prestor Jon wrote:


That said, I think that SCOTUS will rule that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment will require states that don't allow gay marriage to honor gay marriages that are performed in other states but that Section 1 doesn't force all states to allow gay marriage.

A marriage license is still just a state license. Same as a drivers license, business license, fishing license, etc. States have different requirements in keeping with state laws. If one state let 15 year olds earn a drivers license it wouldn't be grounds for SCOTUS to rule that all 50 states have to let 15 year olds get a drivers license.

 d-usa wrote:

I think that they should have to follow the same rules as a justice of the peace, since their state sanctioned role is the same. If they perform a role that requires a state license or state sanctioning then there should be no exemptions. I feel the same way about a member of the clergy that is also a pharmacist, a nurse, a doctor, or any other profession that requires a license by the state.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


That said, I think that SCOTUS will rule that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment will require states that don't allow gay marriage to honor gay marriages that are performed in other states but that Section 1 doesn't force all states to allow gay marriage.

A marriage license is still just a state license. Same as a drivers license, business license, fishing license, etc. States have different requirements in keeping with state laws. If one state let 15 year olds earn a drivers license it wouldn't be grounds for SCOTUS to rule that all 50 states have to let 15 year olds get a drivers license.

I'd bet on equal protection, and states will have to allow same sex marriages, just like the courts have had to step in to allow inter racial marriages, and end segregation, and give women & blacks equal protection and the right to vote. No one in thread has yet put forth any reason, let alone a valid reason to not allow same sex marriages. "It's icky and conservatives don't like" is not a argument to deny anyone equal rights under the law.

No but it would be grounds for all states to accept he has a drivers license and that he can drive legally through their state. Drinking ages used to vary state to state, until the federal stepped in and said "raise it to 21, or we cut off your federal money" they can do the same for marriage equality, "do it, or you won't get any funding"

 Frazzled wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Hindsight being what it is, it would have been better to limit marriage licenses to only being awarded through govt officials like magistrates and justices of the peace. Weddings are great and people can have them and priests can administer weddings in strict adherence to their respective religions without ever signing a marriage license. A marriage license is for qualifying for certain tax reporting status/exemptions, name changes, etc. and never needed to be tied to a wedding ceremony. Priests can sign marriage licenses to make it easier on the married couple so they can have everything done on the same day by the same person, it's for convenience nothing more.

Thats called a civil union.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

I think that they should have to follow the same rules as a justice of the peace, since their state sanctioned role is the same. If they perform a role that requires a state license or state sanctioning then there should be no exemptions. I feel the same way about a member of the clergy that is also a pharmacist, a nurse, a doctor, or any other profession that requires a license by the state.

I agree with this... with one caveat. Use of the "clubhouse" can be denied, following the rules of whatever religion it is, much the same way a country club or other venues do.

-If "you" (the couple getting married) do not conform to the rules set forth by the religious group, or secular group (such as golfing clubs/country clubs), and the group is not OK with you using their grounds should be A-OK, and you should basically expect to be turned down if you're asking to use the venue.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Marriage licenses have always been inherently discriminatory and that's never been ruled unconstitutional.

Why can't somebody marry multiple people at the same time?

Why can't somebody marry an underage person?

Why can't two blood relatives get married?

Why does somebody have to pass a blood test to get married?

If a state is allowed to discriminate against certain people from getting married then why can't a state rule that homosexuals are included in those groups?

Either SCOTUS upholds states' rights to determine who is lawfully qualified to be awarded a marriage license or SCOTUS rules that everybody who wants a marriage license can get one but they can't have it both ways.

 d-usa wrote:

Why can't somebody marry multiple people at the same time?

That's not discrimination since everyone can only marry one person.

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Why can't somebody marry multiple people at the same time?

That's not discrimination since everyone can only marry one person.

I guess the same logic would mean, everyone can currently marry one person of the opposite sex, so that is not discrimination either.

But some folks want to choose someone of the same sex. And others may choose to marry multiple partners...

 Desubot wrote:
Man why would you want to have more than 1 wives? sounds like a gluten for punishment

 CptJake wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

If marriages are to have any legal force they need to be registered with the legal authorities and until that has been done they do not count as legal marriages no matter what ceremonies you may have emjoyed.

That is not true. There are plenty of jurisdictions which recognize common law marriages.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

If marriages are to have any legal force they need to be registered with the legal authorities and until that has been done they do not count as legal marriages no matter what ceremonies you may have emjoyed.

That is not true. There are plenty of jurisdictions which recognize common law marriages.

Nine, actually, according to Wikipedia, which is hardly plenty.

Nevertheless, all states—including those that have abolished the contract of common-law marriage within their boundaries—recognize common-law marriages lawfully contracted in those jurisdictions that permit it.

Some states have abolished common law marriage, in that such marriages cannot be contracted anymore in those states, but they continue to recognize common law marriages which have been contracted in the past, before a specific date.

A common-law marriage is recognized for federal tax purposes if it is recognized by the state where the taxpayers currently live, or in the state where the common-law marriage began. If the marriage is recognized under the law and customs of the state in which the marriage takes place (even if the state is a foreign country), the marriage is valid (Rev. Rul. 58-66).

 Desubot wrote:
Man why would you want to have more than 1 wives? sounds like a glutton for punishment

Edit: lol spelling

Prestor Jon wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Marriage licenses have always been inherently discriminatory and that's never been ruled unconstitutional. Why can't somebody marry multiple people at the same time? Why can't somebody marry an underage person? Why can't two blood relatives get married? Why does somebody have to pass a blood test to get married? If a state is allowed to discriminate against certain people from getting married then why can't a state rule that homosexuals are included in those groups? Either SCOTUS upholds states' rights to determine who is lawfully qualified to be awarded a marriage license or SCOTUS rules that everybody who wants a marriage license can get one but they can't have it both ways.

Your slippery slope argument just fails as everything you question is already allowed.
I know the reason why polygamy got outlawed was more fear mongering by the christians to specifically discriminate against the mormons. But I'm pretty sure it is legal in some states already.
some of your states don't even have a minimum age requirement to get married, you can marry the girl 1 day old with parental consent. And most states will allow underage girls to marry with parental consent.
blood relatives can, and cousins are commonly the ones that do.
no blood tests required anymore

it's funny everything you fear will happen with same sex marriages are already legal and allowable. As you yourself point out the states are being discriminatory, any laws preventing someone from marrying can be challenged and decriminalized. Just because those laws haven't been challenged yet, doesn't mean anything. Same sex couples want to get married, does allowing that create any victims? nope, so there is no reason to disallow it. Does that affect anyone else? Nope.