I don't support, but hear me out.

Gay marriage should not be legal. I do not think this because i am a christian (in fact i am an atheist), or because i don't believe in civil rights or any other thing that u would associate with most conservative (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s, so don't pit me in with that group.

I think that the reason gay marriage was outlawed was because marriage is a christian tradition that is stated in the bible to be between a man and a woman, therefore eliminating the actual possibility of a real gay marriage. This does not, however, mean that homosexuals do not deserve the same legal rights and other traditional lifestyles that of which a married couple share.

I am in full support of civil unions and commitment ceremonies between two people of the same sex. they should share all of the same rights such as spousal privilege and legally be considered spouses, but in reality, gay marriage cant be legal because that would mean it isn't a marriage. If you have anything to add, please tell me.

 

Marriage is not a christian tradition by any means. Not even in Europe. What we call marriage existed before christianity and probably will exist long after christianity disappears.

 

Civil Unions were deemed inadequate and unequal. Beyond that, there are some gays who would have preferred civil unions over "marriage" but they were thrown into the ditch with the Bible Thumpers too by the intelligentsia. Gay marriage isn't legal because it combines gay and marriage is a lead balloon legally, in its semantics, and on the ground in reality though.

 

Gay Marriage is a product of social evolution. True, Gay Marriage was outlawed due to traditional Bible teachings of marriage between one man and one woman, however, that ban applied to the times back then. Things have changed now and Gay Marriage is now accepted in plenty of nations.

 

I look at homosexuality as a form of evolution, whatever guiding force you believe in or don't, it's natures form of population control...Less people being born to destroy the planet. Let them adopt, two moms or two dads is better than no family.

 

Religions have no hold on legal principal so the quoted is incorrect. Marriage is and has been defined and redefined over the centuries as needed. Homosexual advocates attempted to push for civil unions on equal standing with the legal definition of marriage, unfortunately the same people against same-sex marriage were also against any legal recognition of homosexual couples and had the practice banned in several states, anti-gay politicians and laws fired the opening shot in the battle for marriage equality and are now wishing they would have just allowed civil unions, instead they lost the credibility they had referencing wanting to ban same sex unions as an affront to their religion.

I agree with you to an extent, the government should not endorse marriage as legal principal, it should be a practice between the church (many churches preform same sex unions but that is another topic) and civil unions should have taken the place of the legal platform.

 

As the premise of your argument is the above I will need source citation to back your claim if your claim is that marriage was invented by the Christians and as such did not exist before said directive in the Bible.

 

Well you are welcome to your own opinion.

Here is my opinion- the Supreme Court has already confirmed that same gender couples have the same Constitutional right to marry, as my wife and I enjoy.

The Supreme Court is correct- and there is not need of civil unions(something there is no Constitutional right to) and marriage is more equal than it was before.

 

Marriage is a civil union. The church or Christianity or any religion doesn't have to be involved.

A marriage it's whatever we choose to call it.

 

The government should never have gotten into the marriage business, but did so not only for license fees but also to try to get votes by giving tax and other legal favoritism to married couples. However, by putting marriage into the sphere of government then it became subject to government definitions and regulations.

 

I don't know why people are even arguing about this any more. It's over, gays won the recognition of the right to marry regardless of gender.

It's not going to change anytime soon.

Move along, nothing to see here.

 

Naw, because it well beyond that. Hundreds of thousands of dollars of fines if you won't participate in an SSM marriage. And now cross-dressing transvestite men and men pretending to be get to make cell phone videos of little girls in bathrooms and get to shower with females in gym class, plus those men now have to be treated as women in all regards. The demands for more will never end.

Hooters won in their Supreme Court case. But laws will change that. They should plan to change their name to "Boobs and Balls."

 

I thought this thread was about SSM, not pointless ranting against anything that can be vaguely connected to the LGBT community.

 

If it was over there wouldn't be people business wiped out, fines and cases all over the country about it, would there?

 

The question of whether people can marry others of the same sex is over and that was the subject of this thread. The poster didn't even mention any of the other things you brought up.

 

Gays have been able to marry for decades. The question was whether government would recognize the marriage.

No, it is not over as there are issues of laws and beaucratically enforced rules as to what gays have a protected right to marry as a matter of anti-discrimination means in actual effect. In addition, it is foolish to claim that what then came from that ruling in residual ways is totally irrelevant. The ruling was one stage of an evolution about gays and LGTBs for over a century that is ongoing. Reality isn't of as absolutes nor as simplistic as your thought process.

The ruling of the Supreme Court wasn't the end of the issue whatsoever, unfortunately. Neither those opposed to gay rights and those supporting gay rights consider it the end of the topic.

 

If not recognized by the government, it's not a legitimate marriage. It's just meaningless ceremony.

Well it should mean they're treated in exactly the same way as their heterosexual counterparts as there's no such thing as "gay" marriage, there's just marriage.

Well, my "simplistic" thought process mirrors exactly the arguments used to successfully win the right for same sex couples' marriages to be legally recognized nationwide. The only people who are making it more difficult than it needs to be are those that seek special exemption because they don't "believe" same sex couples have a right to marry. Their beliefs are irrelevant to the conduct of law and commerce.

Well it was regarding same-sex couples' right to legally recognized marriages or did I miss something?

My initial post specifically concerned the contention of the OP: whether same-sex couples should have the right to marry? That's now in the past, done and dusted, that's all I was saying.

If you want to discuss these other issues why not start another thread? I'd be happy to join in if I can find the time. I just think it's pointless laboring on a prior event.

 

That's not how topics work. It really isn't just all you want to say. For that, start a blog.

What legal SSM means is the topic of litigation, regulations and conflicting ordinances. Contrary to your belief, the federal government is not the only governmental entity in the USA. Volumes of applications of and regulations regarding SSM are being argued in local and state governments across the country.

I have always supported SSM. I have many personal reasons to do so. However, I oppose many of the regulations and ordinances being passed by state and local governments in such regards to SSM. It is none so simplistic as you wish to limit it to and few people actually believe the Supreme Court ruling was the final and all-encompassing ruling on SSMs.

For example, while the Supreme Court ruled that states can not refuse to issue marriage licenses or refuse to respect SSM marriage licenses of other states, it was then just asserted that SSM is also then entirely covered in every imaginable way to anti-discrimination standards as if gays are a racial minority - a ruling the Supreme Court did not make - and is a matter of local and state laws and ordinances.

The most notable example is putting SSM into a minority category in relation to businesses and NOT just for the purpose of the legality of a marriage, but also SSM religious marriage rituals that have no legal effect whatsoever. That is not settled law nor universal law throughout the USA, as it is being defined by individual local and state governments. Federal agencies are outright creating federal anti-discrimination regulations without any Constitutional or Congressional authority to do so as another example.

The Supreme Court ruling no more was the last word on SSM than Roe V. Wade was the last word on legal abortions.

 

No one will force you to participate in any wedding you don't want to participate in.

However, if you are a business which provides services for weddings- you can get fined for refusing to cater a wedding because the couple are black or Christian and in those states which protect persons based upon their sexual orientation- homosexuals.

- - - Updated - - -

Legally in the United States there is only 1 kind of marriage- legal marriage.

Now same gender couples have the same right to legally marry as my wife and I enjoy- and that is exactly as it should be.

 

You are speaking of local/state laws which extend public accommodation laws beyond race, and religion and national origin and gender to also include sexual orientation. Those laws applied prior to Obergefell- and apply now. Of course the localities and States can always repeal their laws if that is what their citizens want to do.

Which Federal agencies are creating these regulations that you speak of?

 

The problem I have with the catering example is that the "wedding" is not a marriage whatsoever - as you note. The only marriage is the signing of the marriage license. The "wedding" is just an ideological/religious ritual.

I do not believe anyone, even an owner of a business, can ever be compelled to participate in or support any ideological or religious ritual. A Muslim should not be required to cater a bar mitzvah, a Jewish handyman required to put up Christmas lights on someone's home, an atheist required to operate the sound system for a Pentacostal church, or a Christian required to DJ a Hindu ceremony.

I do not accept that as a condition of participating in our economic system a person has to support, worship, foster, say, or be silent about religious activities, ceremonies and occasions. There is nothing in the Bill of Rights that states as a condition of employment you must give up your free speech rights. So when the minister says a prayer and reads a Bible verse, I see no reason why a person FORCED to be there for employment has to be silent - but instead could shout out "That's A Lie! There is not God that says women should be submissive to men!"

As for gays having the same "marriage rights," absolutely for that. Have an SSM daughter. Know some other married gay very, very, very well. But it is a different matter REQUIRING ANYONE to attend, participate or provide materials to any gay religious or ideological ceremony or occasions.

 

For what it's worth I don't think the government should be involved in marriage but they are, and they likely aren't going to leave it. So it's a moot point to make.

I'd be okay if they didn't call the legal part marriage and just let churches or individuals do that. But that isn't the way it played out.

When these fines are placed on businesses it isn't done by the bogeyman gays. It's actually levied by the government.

We really need to speak up about this. It isn't okay fur the government to do these things to businesses.

 

Christians didn't invent marriage, and neither did the writers of the bible. Neither Christianity nor any other religion can make any legitimate claim of ownership of the word or the concept of marriage. Moreover, some Christian sects bless same-sex marriages.

No religion controls our laws in the USA. That alone negates your premise.

As for civil unions, they're about some heterosexuals' desire to remind gay people of our perceived inferiority, while patting themselves on the back for supporting 'equality' < and yes, those are sneer quotes I've placed around the word 'equality', in order to highlight the irony.

 

First there is no requirement to own a business, no right to own a business and there are a thousand ways to participate in an economy besides owning operating a business. If you want to own or operate a business, you must obey all laws regulations and ordinances that apply in the jurisdiction. That includes environmental, labor, tax, safety, consumer laws as well as fire and building codes. It also includes civil rights laws as passed by Congress, state legislatures and municipal ordinances. Not a single state has changed their laws to include sexual orientation since this landmark decision on SSM. States are simply applying preexisting protections to ensure that gays are not discriminated against.

Once SSM is declared legal, those same states are not going to turn a blind eye while gay marriage is treated differently than straight marriage, or while gays renting an apartment are treated differently, or while gays seeking employment are treated differently or while gays planning a wedding are treated differently. If a business conducts its business differently depending on the orientation of the customers, or the nature of the service, in a state that prohibits discrimination, there will be consequences.

if an employee does not want to cover a gay marriage as part of their job, they need to discuss it with their employer . It is the employer who has to figure out how to obey civil rights laws and they have several options. They can hire someone who does not mind, subcontract the work to another party, alter their business model, or require that their employee suck it up or face discipline.

If an employer does not mind a lawsuit and fines, they can employ people to scream Bible verses at gay marriages in those states. Their choice.

 

Well you are about 50 years late for that argument- since the 1965 Civil Rights Act absolutely made it illegal to refuse to do business with a person because of their religion- just as it made it illegal to refuse to do business with someone because of their skin color or gender.

If you are against all public accommodation laws- I can understand that- but if it is okay to tell a business that they cannot refuse to cater the wedding of a mixed race couple because of the business owner's beliefs- then it is okay to tell a business that they cannot refuse to cater the wedding of a same gender couple.