ForumGarden

Yay. Live and let live says I.

Is that America, or is it only certain States?

FourPart;1481381 wrote: Is that America, or is it only certain States?


the whole country thanks to a Supreme Court decision earlier today. It's sure to light the internet up like a Christmas tree and cause many rednecks to have coronaries...

Saint_;1481382 wrote: the whole country thanks to a Supreme Court decision earlier today. It's sure to light the internet up like a Christmas tree and cause many rednecks to have coronaries...
Good to hear, although no doubt there'll now be vehement campaigns to overturn the decision.

FourPart;1481384 wrote: Good to hear, although no doubt there'll now be vehement campaigns to overturn the decision.


Plus a few "Obama is a Muslim Socialist!" gits running around causing trouble.

Saint_;1481380 wrote: Yay. Live and let live says I.


I heard your esteemed President on the news discussing it. I wonder sometimes whether his sense of humor shows through a little too clearly. "We’ve made our union a little more perfect" is more the sort of innuendo I'm meant to use, not him.

Congratulations to all concerned.

I am not going to make a big deal about it.

Our fate is cast.

tude dog;1481415 wrote: Our fate is cast.I'm interested - to what is your fate cast, as a consequence of Gay marriage becoming legal throughout the USA? Ostracism among the nations of the earth? Exclusion from paradise? Exposure to overly-festive parades?

Homosexuality is fairly common on this planet, among many different species. It's not confined to us! Put's a new interpretation on Homo Sapiens....

Saint_;1481382 wrote: the whole country thanks to a Supreme Court decision earlier today. It's sure to light the internet up like a Christmas tree and cause many rednecks to have coronaries...


It's called 'Full Faith & Credit', "states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Fait ... dit_Clause

FourPart;1481384 wrote: Good to hear, although no doubt there'll now be vehement campaigns to overturn the decision.


That's extremely difficult to do, and it won't happen. We progress, not regress.

Apparently, the dissenting opinion was written with the purpose of offering talking points and cover for conservative candidates because from what I've been reading their (minority opinion) reasoning is enormously flawed and partisan.

I did some research a few years back on both Roberts and Alito and found that they both often sided with the legality of gay rights. I came away thinking both were fair-minded on the issue of gay-rights. Thomas and Scalia, OTOH, are pure reprobates.

I notice a lot of "marriage is a lifelong commitment" commentary to this decision.

I call on the American judiciary to declare divorce non-constitutional, as soon as is convenient.

I performed a marriage ceremony for my youngest daughter two weeks ago. During the ceremony(?) or whatever it was, I asked both parties to answer two questions, which they were completely unaware I was going to ask;

1) Why do you want to marry?

2) For how long do you wish to remain married?

My now son-in-law answered the second question with "until I can't love you any longer."

I thought that was a magnificent answer from a twenty-eight year old (though, I wondered why loving me had anything to do with it).

AnneBoleyn;1481432 wrote: It's called 'Full Faith & Credit', "states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Fait ... dit_Clause


Us regular folk call it judicial activism.

tude dog;1481453 wrote: Us regular folk call it judicial activism.Do you mean that's what you're parroting because you've been told that's what Roberts said it was? I'm sure Roberts is guilty of the same offense in the ACA decision in the opinion of people such as yourself?

tude dog;1481453 wrote: Us regular folk call it judicial activism.


Can't resist - what do your bowel movements have to do with it?

Ahso!;1481454 wrote: Do you mean that's what you're parroting because you've been told that's what Roberts said it was? I'm sure Roberts is guilty of the same offense in the ACA decision in the opinion of people such as yourself?


My friend , I didn't parrot anybody. As soon as I read Roberts decision I realized its flaw.

I did write

I am not going to make a big deal about it.

tude dog;1481457 wrote: My friend , I didn't parrot anybody. As soon as I read Roberts decision I realized its flaw.

I did writeNot making a "big deal about it" means what, that you're not going to defend your position? IOW, it was a cop out statement?

Ahso!;1481447 wrote: I performed a marriage ceremony for my youngest daughter two weeks ago. During the ceremony(?) or whatever it was, I asked both parties to answer two questions, which they were completely unaware I was going to ask;

1) Why do you want to marry?

2) For how long do you wish to remain married?

My now son-in-law answered the second question with "until I can't love you any longer."

I thought that was a magnificent answer from a twenty-eight year old (though, I wondered why loving me had anything to do with it).


Firstly in what capacity did you 'Perform a marriage ceremony' ? Are you licenced to do so ?

And just out of interest, how long was the pause after each question ?

Finally I am glad to find out you have a wry sense of humour.......like myself.

Bruv;1481482 wrote: Firstly in what capacity did you 'Perform a marriage ceremony' ? Are you licenced to do so ?

And just out of interest, how long was the pause after each question ?

Finally I am glad to find out you have a wry sense of humour.......like myself.I'm a licensed minister, internet style.

The first question caused some stuttering, however, knowing me, they caught on fast and appeared less startled by the second question answering pretty quickly. My kids are pretty fast on their feet from spending so much time around me. You folks aren't exclusive to my challenges, my kids grew up that way, though I was more gentle with them because they were, well, children. I expect more from adults, including myself.

Shush, you'll ruin my reputation.

gmc;1481456 wrote: Can't resist - what do your bowel movements have to do with it?


It's the only time they take the opportunity to think?

All of this started back in the early 90's

Gay couples wanted a vehicle for legally sharing resources, and being able to have the same rights of medical determination and inheritance that legally married couples had.

The states resisted such legislation, and Congress refused to address the issue.

This drove the "Marriage" movement among gays and lesbians.

Had the states made a "Civil Union" available, it would have never morphed into the Gay Marriage movement.



Finally, such rights will now be available to all citizens.

And Christian moralists who made this all so difficult should be ashamed of themselves.

Look what happened when Jesus & Judas were caught kissing.

FourPart;1481545 wrote: Look what happened when Jesus & Judas were caught kissing.What about the disciple that jesus loved.

Jesus loves us all...............even me apparently.

He can't love Cherie Blair though, surely. There are limits. Nor that rogue of a husband of hers.

tude dog;1481453 wrote: Us regular folk call it judicial activism.


Well then, you regular folks haven't read the Constitution, Article IV, Section I. We are not 50 different countries, we are the UNITED States. And "regular"? You aren't "regular" to the people I spend my time with. You are regular to those like yourself, which is your personal right, which is not the same as what is Legally Right.

AnneBoleyn;1481565 wrote: We are not 50 different countries, we are the UNITED States.


You-all don't invariably appear so to outsiders...A 2014 Reuters/Ipsos poll showed 23.9% of Americans supported their state seceding from the union if necessary [...] Republicans were somewhat more supportive than Democrats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession ... ted_States



Your Supreme Court has said States can successfully secede, either by revolution or by the consent of the union itself. The latter sounds more like expulsion.

John Adams is quoted as saying "Only repeated, multiplied oppressions placing it beyond all doubt that their rulers had formed settled plans to deprive them of their liberties, could warrant the concerted resistance of the people against their government". Maybe Gay Marriage qualifies - you'd need to ask what John Adams would have thought.

I particularly like this from further down the page - I have no memory of it at all. "There was an attempt by Staten Island to break away from New York City in the late 1980s and early 1990s, leading to a 1993 referendum, in which 65% voted to secede. Implementation was blocked in the State Assembly by assertions that the state's constitution required a "home rule message" from New York City."

We don't always appear United to ourselves, let alone you!

"Your Supreme Court has said States can successfully secede, either by revolution or by the consent of the union itself. The latter sounds more like expulsion."

I refer you to Can a US state secede from the Union? - Quora

"The Federal Government will go to war, regardless of current political thought, to keep the Union together. There are no collection of even 10 states that have remotely sufficient weaponry to secede without the Union destroying their infrastructure in under a day, causing mass starvation and thus requiring that state to sue for peace with the Union (that is: we've become accustomed to water, electricity, etc. The moment it's removed, societal collapse ensues). Beyond that, the blockade and "legitimizing" of that seceding state (no trade, no exports, no currency) immediately makes it a no-go.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

By withdrawing from the Union, a state would effectively be denying someone who is a citizen of the United States their rights except by due process. The key there is "due process" and in this case, the state would need to find a LEGALLY RECOGNIZED way to withdraw. This would either be some kind of legislation passed in Congress or an Amendment to the Constitution. Anything less will ensure a civil war and no state will win such a war."

In other words, spot, it ain't gonna happen.

Re: John Adams---it doesn't matter what he said, it's not a law, it is his opinion.

Staten Island has been equally claimed by New Jersey and New York. Geographically, it is closer to Jersey. It also doesn't matter, it's settled law. It also has no place here, as it is a county, not a country or state. Richmond County, to be exact.

I know, I know, it's hard to argue with Wikpedia.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness[4]


So how does allowing gay marriage prevent christian fundamentalists being free and happy , unless their happines depends on making others miserable.

You could say the same thing about people being born in the UK being British Citizens. However, that didn't stop the Scottish from being able to hold a referendum on whether or not to remain part of the Union. The same could be said regarding the forthcoming (supposedly) referendum on remaining within the European Union. These referendums are the result of a little thing known as Democracy. A country that denies someone the right of Democratic Choice, especially by constitutional interpretation, is not a Democracy. It's a Dictatorship.

As to the states not being different countries. They might as well be. They all have their different laws - especially when it comes to ones involving religion. Take the teaching of Evolution, for example:

Fighting Over Darwin, State by State | Pew Research Center

FourPart;1481597 wrote: You could say the same thing about people being born in the UK being British Citizens.Except we have different laws in the UK, under a different legal constitution. The only law which applies to the US is US law, under the US constitution.

Andrew O'Hehir has written quite a good piece on this

This week’s Supreme Court decision captured an enormous shift in American mores and attitudes – and an enormous defeat for Christian conservatives – and inscribed it into law, presumably forever. But that shift, and that defeat, had already happened. Huckabee and Santorum and Bobby Jindal and the rest of the 2016 GOP dudebro party massacre are crying over spilt milk, something that only Jeb Bush, with his phalanx of strategists and his Bushian instinct for the shifting tides, seems to grasp. (Jeb’s Lewis Carroll-like message, here and everywhere else, is that he’s both for and against gay marriage, or perhaps the other way around.) Conservatives had drastically overplayed their hand in state after state, passing constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage in precisely the same historical period when middle America was getting cozy with Ellen DeGeneres and “Modern Family and the lesbian or gay couple who moved in down the block and had kids and turned out to just about as interesting and/or irritating as everybody else.


America is changing, and marriage equality is a huge victory — but we need to go so much further - Salon.com

LarsMac;1481495 wrote: It's the only time they take the opportunity to think?


Hmm,

Maybe in your world.

It took days and several bowl movements to get your scatologic Toilet humour

Not that it occupied my thoughts. Just dawned on me as I came here and read your post.

It's sad so many religious people find their meaning and purpose in life to be one of imposing thier beliefs on everydody for their "own good" rather than being able to live in peace with their fellow man. I am miserable and live in fear eternal damnation therefore you must as well seems to be their creed.

gmc;1481656 wrote: I am miserable and live in fear eternal damnation therefore you must as well


Any Christian who feels that way is doing it wrong. If you don't live in absolute certainty of eternal damnation then you're refusing to see yourself honestly. If you hold out any hope for yourself then you're just adding to your burden of sin. Your sole alleviation is the knowledge that the parishioners either side of you on the pew are equally certainly damned, and your only dignity in life is refusing to pretend otherwise.

First Marijuana is legalized, then gay marriage. Well, it's in the Bible after all.

Leviticus: "If any man should lay with a man, let them be stoned."

Apparently, we have been misinterpreting that since the beginning...

Marijuana is legalized for YOU! and a few lucky others!

If all laws were laid down in the constitution it would take years of University study - even for Americans. Come to that, if all laws were those supposedly laid down by God it would take even less study. I think most of us can remember them - Such as thou shalt not kill your neighbour for coveting your ass.

Laws are being made, amended & repealed all the time. The constitution has nothing to do with it. The constitution itself can be changed - hence all the Amendments.

Saint_;1481662 wrote: First Marijuana is legalized, then gay marriage. Well, it's in the Bible after all.

Leviticus: "If any man should lay with a man, let them be stoned."

Apparently, we have been misinterpreting that since the beginning...


:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Saint_;1481662 wrote: First Marijuana is legalized, then gay marriage. Well, it's in the Bible after all.

Leviticus: "If any man should lay with a man, let them be stoned."

Apparently, we have been misinterpreting that since the beginning...


Excellent!!!:yh_rotfl

Some folks have a rather negative attitude to gay marriage. I for one have no problem with it at all. In the OT the concern was temple prostitution when they should be having children to make the Israelite population. In Romans Paul was complaining about pederasty not homosexuality as we know it today and nothing to do with morals. Homosexuality has been shown to have a genetic component. God has made what He has made and who are we to reject what God has created.

I've always been confused by any Christian who hates. That's so...anti-Jesus. Hypocritical Christianity? I'm a Christian andI know I have a long way to go to live up to His Example, but for Pete's Sake, live and let live!

It is interesting that Jesus said absolutely nothing about GLBT issues. Homosexuality or its equivalent were not in his vocabulary. Just because something is in the Bible does not always make it right. Read Number31.

Leviticus also says we can stone recalcitrant children at the city gate. It also warns against eating shellfish. Levit. also condemns the eating of pork. A lot of other absurdities. Jesus got in trouble for healing on the Sabbath. Must be cherry picking. going on with some folks. Pick what you like and ignore the rest.