Gay marriage is constitutional 5-4

The thing is, the state has some involvement with marriages, especially if the law gets involved in it. Partiulcary for divorces and the likes. That is why there is a licence for it.

And answer me what type of relevance does your post hav3 to mine? Let me guess, an appeal to authority? That because that piggly wiggly scab named Scalia has a law degree that he is automatically in the right?

Actually read his dissent compared to Roberts, they're leagues apart. Both wrong, but leagues apart. Crawl in a hole and don't come out.

Its supported by upwards of 60% of the country. So no, it was supported by the actual majority.

all i know is, i hope im not beat up or killed over my religious views

Exactly

That would be silly. Even to think such a notion is silly.

Especially in a country where 80% of the people share your religious views.

Many Christians honestly believe they are an oppressed minority, which is exactly what makes them so dangerous to liberty. In trying to blindly fight off non existent oppression, they enable actual oppression against actual minority groups. They are so blatantly and obviously manipulated by the political right wing in the USA that it's just plain sad. The ones at the top are shrewd people, people who know better and don't even really believe in or follow Christ, the ones at the bottom are genuinely ignorant and scared, and are extremely dangerous as a result. Anyone who tries to explain reality to them is "doing the work of the devil" and trying to deceive them into hell. (gotta love that last line of defense hell brainwashing)

It's truly terrifying to me, the thought of what a tyrannical majority can do while under the mass delusion of being an oppressed minority.

@Buckhannah:Hey now, lets avoid going to such lenghts as to accuse a religious group. Lets keep this civil and avoid bashing religion (or accusing homosexuality as evil or harmful or whatever). And juts focus on the legal decision. Afterall, the GS rules still apply. It is very tempting however. That said I agree that paranoid people are very irrational and thus, very dangerous people. And it has been proven by the academia as well.

Dunno if its been discussed yet, but it seems that same sex orientation hasn't been granted 'suspect class' (unlike race/ gender etc) under the law which leaves the door open for some states to 'legally' discriminate against them in marriage issues - seems like an oversight to me...

You mean "protected class", correct?

I don't think it's an oversight at all....in a lot of states, it's a willful act of discriminatory policies (Such as being able to fire someone due to their homosexuality).

In regards to the ruling, it's about damn time. And the conservative response is laughable.

@Ring_of_fire: I dont know to be honest, it was second hand information - maybe you are right.

State Sovereignty has been dead for some time I guess. Kind of lame that no one seems to care for the rights of the mainly Christians who don't want that legal; I just play devil's advocate to keep things balanced, so don't shoot.

So if I want to legalise slavery are my rights being infringed on if slavery is not made legal?

This is a secular country. Allowing homosexuals equality under the law does absolutely nothing to Christians.

@toast_burner:

You are taking it too an extreme; obviously the slavery issue has been put to rest and it is fundamentally and historically different from this.. not answering something so frivolous.

So where is the line drawn? How is saying someone is not entitled to their basic rights not an extreme view?

Maybe not "real" damage in a court of law, but that other kind; it's been a while since I read any law theory, I mean the damage that isn't considered physical or to one's property- the damage homosexual and bi-persons claim outlawing gay marriage does. I think Christians receive some damage, too. I guess bygones will be bygones though. Personally, I don't care if they marry or not. I rather they not, but I don't care.

@toast_burner:

I don't know. I agree it's a bit wrong too deny someone the right to marry in this day in age, but the way it's being handled seems ridiculous; the majority topples all. It's kind of scary so many people and no opinions diverge; I'm actually "sort of" bi, and I still don't think it should be legal on a National scale. If you don't like it, move. I mean, you can't get everything you want; that goes for everyone.
The big problem I have with it is that it may lead to other things like cross-dressers, "equal bathrooms," and all that crap. I don't want to take my son to the toilette and have him ask me why that hairy-bearded lady was in there.

No the majority doesn't topple all. Segregation of blacks wasn't ended by a public vote, so why should segregation of gays be left to public vote?

@toast_burner:

It was never a "basic" right... out of the blue everyone's outraged as though something was taken away. Not a basic right, here, in U.S.A. People listed countries here wherein the practice is allowed; why don't gays go those places? Plenty of places looks like to me.... nope. Young kids need something to do, guess.

Marriage is included in the universal deceleration of human rights and was earlier determined to be a human right by the supreme court in 1888 and have held onto that view ever since. So no it's not out of the blue.

If you're against same sex marriage why don't you just leave to one of the countries that don't allow it. North Korea is probably quite nice this time of year.

@toast_burner:

Gay marriage is not in there, nor in that Supreme Court decision (not that I've read it, but obviously this wouldn't be an issue if that was the case.) Segregation of gays and blacks are soooooo different. Again, one is discrimination against a race-that was enslaved; shipped in boats and chained! forced to toil under the sun for no pay; in every country, raped women, beaten, for centuries. I understand you must respect the rights of blacks for praising the end of segregation and harking it back to this issue, but they are completely different in their historical contexts and ti doesn't make sense to liken them to the extent you do; they barely overlap. It's effective though-to reconjure up images of oppressed blacks not being allowed to get a sandwich at the counter in order to guilt people into eating up this gay marriage stuff. Effective, but without honor; either that or full of naiveity.

You are yet to actually address my point. Why is it ok to discriminate against gays?

Saying blacks had it worse is a strawman. This isn't a contest, discrimination is bad whether small or large.

Oh I see so what your saying is providing equal rights to blacks was merely as a repayment for what had happened to them, not that it was the right thing to do.. The reason why things like segregation is brought up is because it proves how morally bankrupt your bullshit argument you have.. Pro segregation and pro slavery people constantly cited the bible as their source to their justification.. The reason why it is brought up is to illustrate the hypocrisy of the entire argument..

People seem not to realize that marriage being under law is a huge deal.. If it were not a employer, judge, etc etc could choose not to recognize the marriage whether its for property rights or healthcare providing coverage to a spouse..

@toast_burner:

So, you gonna go weed out discrimination with your gang of liberators? Shoot, man, it's an opinion; deal with it. It's not okay to discriminate against gays. It's also not okay to say people can't; free country. Your last post had no point. You just tried to sneak gay marriage into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and an 1888 SCOTUS decision. And no comparing blacks situation at all to gays' is a straw-man; I'm just showing you how weak.

Are you serious? Learn to read. I said marriage is a human right. That is a fact. No where was I trying to sneak in some nonsense about same sex marriage being mentioned in 1888.

Funny that you call it a free country, because that the exact reason why gay marriage is allowed, blacks can attend the same schools as whites, and women can vote. You're the one arguing that it shouldn't be a free country.

@sSubZerOo:

I am not saying that at all, and if that's all you got from that then I guess one of us is possibly an idiot. (Seriously, I may not be getting across what I mean) What hypocrisy do you mean, exactly? I thought hypocrisy is when you say one thing, but act not in accordance with that.. what hypocrisy and who? If me, then how?

Gettin nowhere...

Anyway, the reason I brought up segregation is because someone else did.. I demonstrated the misery afflicted to blacks for an imaginable amount of time and the fact is it is different from gays. If you can not see that, you must be either incredibly dumb or blind with bias.

Also, I apologize if I sound rude, I'd hope you not to take it personally.

@toast_burner: Okay just to be clear, are you suggesting that same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed at all?

...... A contract between two private parties, how in the hell would that some how result in it being recognized by others such as a employer with healthcare? It wouldn't, that is the point.. Marriage holds a legal precedence that is recognized by employers, doctors, courts etc etc.. Hence why it makes sense for the government to recognize it, and hence why it costs money to do.. Your solution would in fact make everything overly complicated and basically would **** a lot of people.

A marital license is essentially a contract as is, since it entails sets of laws governing property rights under marriage/divorce, child custody, etc. It's basically a process for streamlining a contract. This is why the whole "keep the government out of marriage" argument is kind of silly.

And as Maroxad says, you can get married without a license, it just won't be recognized by the state (there's no contract). Hence, the marriage license itself is just the contract that you want.

Yet again all your doing is making something more convoluted and complicated because you have a problem with the state getting involved yet have offered no actual solution that would be better or easier.. What's next, should we start making things like drivers license unregulated by the state?

What about dealing with the 2nd amendment? That is a right, yet can require someone to acquire a license/permit (such as concealed carry).

Congrats Murica(yes I am being sarcastic)

why?

@lostrib: cause is fun.

You are such a baddy.

@Master_Live: yay Micheal Jackson.