The Marriage Equality Juggernaut just keeps rolling on

It is not my definition, it is one of the Bronze Age customs that defined marriage in days long gone, that few theists take as seriously these days as they do in presently vilifying gays, and denying them marriage equality. It would seem that applying biblical practices and customs is highly selective, and that inconvenient customs are honoured more in the breach, than the observance when it suits theists.

I cite it as an example of valid biblical marriage between one man and one woman...I'm not sure what the deal would be with regard to a man who rapes multiple female victims, though, as polygyny was a prevalent cultural practice in deuteronomical times, one would imagine that the bride price compensation of 50 silver shekels (about 575 grams)would be paid to each of the fathers. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - If a man happens to meet a virgin who - Bible Gateway

You make my point for me....you and virtually everyone else at the beginning of the 21st, Century in western liberal democratic societies would find this particular form of marriage as outrageously anachronistic and unacceptable....evidence that even bible believing Christians and liberal Jews don't feel bound to the strictures of the Old Testament when it comes to marriage...the marriage paradigm has shifted well and truly since then, and will continue to do so. The paradigm of applying scriptural strictures to same sex marriage is also changing, simply because western societies are less constrained by religious prohibitions against same sex marriage. Unless compelling secular objections can be presented in opposition to same sex marriage, it will most likely be that western societies will continue to legislate in favour of allowing same sex marriage.

My guess is that with main stream Christian denominations declining in congregants, churches will increasingly be welcoming adherents with open arms, offering the sacrament of marriage to all, regards of gender identity, and sexual preference. And, like slavery, racial segregation, women's suffrage, child labour, and anti miscegenation marriage laws, I predict that in time to come, Christian apologists will be claiming that "Christianity" championed the cause of same sex marriage from the outset, in the same way that it had supposedly championed preceding social justice causes without controversy and internal opposition.

 

I am a Christian and do not feel that gay marriages are valid, but I agree they should be able to have a civil union and call it what they want. I have gay friends and family and do not care much what they do and do not think I should impose my morality on them. After all without Christ they will eventual face God's judgement, not for their sin but for rejecting Christ.
The problem with gay marriage is not what the gays do. The problem is what the government and gay activists are doing. I was warned of this years ago, and it has come true. Gay marriage is a tool by Soros to end both free speech and religious freedom. Reading the Bible or even owning one has been labeled hate speech by gay activists. Teaching about Christianity has been labeled hate speech. Mostly in the military but also in civilian life.
Also there have already been several cases of Christian owned businesses being targeted by gays to sue for them not providing services in violation of their religious rights. These are clearly not random events.
This is a Soros financed campaign to destroy the Bill of Rights and so far it is working.
Gay marriage in America is about many things. About 4 years ago a member of Holder's staff admitted that this is a zero sum game. Meaning that there will not be tolerance for the religious view. The two will not co-exist.
Gays have been around for thousands of years and have been mostly secretive. But now it has changed to an in your face attack on morality. It is not so much about gays as it is an attack on religion, Christianity and Judaism in particular.

 

Christ believed in separation of Church and State. His statement as not just about paying taxes. He said give unto Cesar what is Cesar's and give unto God what is God's. That IS separation of Church and state. Jesus ended the law, fulfilled it, finished it, A Christian is saved by his grace not condemned by Mosaic Law. Marriage is defined as one man and one woman. No where is it ever defined and two men or two women . Cesar is defining it as any two persons so let Cesar govern civil unions and God Govern Marriage. To ME that is the best way to end the battle.

 

The Supreme Court, in a split decision (5 for / 4 against), ruled in favour of Marriage equality for same sex couples. SCOTUS Justice Anthony Kelly writing the judgement for the affirmative, and Justices and Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Alito writing their own individual dissenting judgements.

Obergefell et al vs Hodges,

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

As they say....."winners are grinners and losers can make their own arrangements".

The marriage equality juggernaut still has a way to go to flatten out the bumps and pot holes remaining as impediments against the accommodation of marriage equality in American society...but the same applied to the overturning of anti miscegenation laws in previous decades. Mildred and Richard Loving would approve, mightily.

 

Some responses to the SCOTUS Obergefell vs Hodges decision.



America’s Biggest Companies React To SCOTUS’ Same-Sex Marriage Ruling – Consumerist

 

The worst part of this is just as I stated earlier in this thread. The court used the term Marriage. They just redefined the word. Now it is a constitutional right for same sex couples to marry. If a Church refuse to marry a same sex couple they can and will be sued for discrimination. This has been the goal all along. I see many pastors getting out of the marriage business now further destroying the traditional form of marriage . The next case before the Supreme court on this matter will be between a gay couple and a pastor who refused to marry them. I like Scalia's remarks on this . Fortune cookie indeed.

 

I don't think that would work out... I do see the possibility of some churches loosing their non profit status tho..... I wonder which gay couple wants to try to get married in the Westboro Baptist church? might make an interesting case....

 

I have stayed out of this for a number of reasons but in reading the opinions (yes, I'm in the middle of reading all 106 pages), I came across this by Chief Justice Roberts in his dissent:

"Indeed, however heartened the proponents of same-sex marriage might be on this day, it is worth acknowledging what they have lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause. And they lose this just when the winds of change were freshening at their backs."

Regardless of how I feel personally, I have to agree that this ruling was not a matter of law, it was driven by the personal beliefs of the judges.

I was, confused to put it mildly, by the reasoning and rationale of the majority opinion, especially with regards to law and not belief.

The role of the court is not to bring about social change, it is to rule on the constitutionality of existing laws. Not to legislate.

Before I get torn apart for being a bigoted racist homophobe, and branded as someone who only questions the opinions when they don't go my way, I'm not. There have been plenty of times when I questioned the legality of the decision and it's basis, even when the outcome was something I agreed with.

The ends do not justify the means and I believe it was Judge Rehnquist who said (paraphrase) that the authority of the court and its rulings rests on the trust of the people in the institution. Legislating from the bench erodes that trust.

 

Absolutely correct. Rulings that desolve the trust in the office, destroy the purpose of that office.

 

Agreed.

I don't care if or what you sleep with or how many. The government doesn't need to be in the bedrooms of consenting adults. And it needs to be well out of the marriage business.

The larger agenda here is trying to force acceptance. They couldn't do it by increments, so they've taken the plunge and laid the blueprint to force other issues on us. Guns control, anyone?

On that note, shouldn't reciprocity be in all 50 states if we're going by this blueprint? Somebody would have to get arrested to find out.

 

What about nationwide hunting permits, then? I have wanted one of those as long as I've been a hunter.
Buy a licence in one state, valid in ALL STATES.
No more being raped by every state except yourown.

 

@DarkLight. While I love Justice Roberts sentiment the argument is silly. The Supreme Court has ruled on marriages before. Eg mixed racial marriages which received it's share of controversy as well. There was no disenting opinion that said that mixed racial couples missed the opportunity to persuade their fellow man.

I think people are getting too hung up on the rhetoric about a church being mandated to marry two people. That would be a blatant violation of the constitution.

I think the real rub will be in a civil ceremony where if a Justice of the Peace or other duly sworn official refuses to marry a same sex couple based on his/her personal belief. Then we may have a real problem.

 

@Ganado A gay couple is already suing the Church of England to force them to perform their wedding: Millionaire gay couple is suing to force a church to hold their wedding

I'd be surprised if we didn't see similar in the US within the month.

 

The true aim of all of this the elimination of all moral judgment. The old "if it feels good, do it". In my opinion, and I don't give a damn if you disagree, it was a sad turning point for this country when the SCOTUS created a right that does not exist in the Constitution, and made legal what MY GOD (maybe not your) calls an abomination. It will never be universally accepted in this country and will be an issue for years to come as abortion is today 50 years and 50 million murders after Roe v Wade.

 

Texas has passed the first law protecting pastors and Churches from lawsuits for refusing to marry gays. I knew this was coming.