Gay marriage opponents' strategy uncertain in 2015

[Slander and/or Libel]

The key thing now will be to see if there will be any exemptions allowed in society to a genderless definition of marriage. Will clergy who refuse to perform same-sex marriages be able to keep their ability to solemnize vows in the eyes of the state? I could see that changing in the next couple years.

I don't see the issue. Clergy are not employees of the state, and churches/places of worship are not places of public accommodation.  I don't think anyone's seriously saying that  pastors who are against gay marriage should be required to perform them  anyway. What supporters of gay marriage are asking is that the state recognizes same-sex marriages and affords them equal rights and protections under the law.

Religious beliefs are a private matter (not "private' in the colloquial sense, but in the legal/constitutional sense) , and a particular religious belief (e. g. opposing homosexuality) should never be a basis for legally codified discrimination.   Same-sex marriage is a public issue, since it concerns  state discrimination that has been legally codified. That is what I wish more opponents of gay marriage would understand.

Catholic Charities could be barred from being involved with adoptions in Massachusetts because they did not want to facilitate adoptions to gay couples.  That it was a church-based organization did not matter because adoptions were overseen by the state. Wouldn't marriages be similar in this regard?  We've seen the definition of what counts as private shrink dramatically.   "Public accommodation" originally had to do with accommodations in the basic sense of one's needs to food and shelter. It has come to mean all manner of optional services and clubs.  Gay marriage is not only being insisted upon with regard to the state. If there is an exception with regard to clergy, it is a notable exception that would buck the trend.

At issue was the fact that Catholic Charities was receiving public funding and basically acting as an agent of the state in that particular regard.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Nobody has a compelling counterargument on the age question. Very old people, or people who are otherwise demonstrably infertile, are allowed to get married and stay married. There has been no convincing argument for why this should be the case if marriage is solely or even only primarily about procreation.

Back to the case of the vendors, those poor put-upon bakers and florists. In what other cases do bakers and florists demand before delivering services to know what the flowers or cakes are going to be used for after they're sold? If I buy a bouquet of flowers from Joe's Flower Shack to use in my Satanic ritual, am I illicitly betraying his conscience by involving him in my black mass? Why or why not, and why is the answer the same or different as if I took those flowers to decorate an altar at a wedding between two dudes?

[Slander and/or Libel]

What about an opposite sex marriage between two people who are completely infertile?

[Slander and/or Libel]

Back to the case of the vendors, those poor put-upon bakers and florists. In what other cases do bakers and florists demand before delivering services to know what the flowers or cakes are going to be used for after they're sold? If I buy a bouquet of flowers from Joe's Flower Shack to use in my Satanic ritual, am I illicitly betraying his conscience by involving him in my black mass? Why or why not, and why is the answer the same or different as if I took those flowers to decorate an altar at a wedding between two dudes?

I can't think of any reason a florist would want to know why someone wants a single bouquet of flowers. But as has been pointed out, a florist or a baker will typically have a more substantial involvement in a wedding ceremony than that.

Yes, I understand this. But for instance, when I got married, the florist was only involved in preparing the flowers. We went over and picked them up and brought them to the venue. A set of bouquets, a set of boutonnieres, and a couple of arrangements for the front of the ceremony. The florist's involvement began and ended at the flower shop.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Yes yes yes. Giving preferential tax treatment to married couples subsidizes being married. Giving preferential tax treatment to families with kids subsidizes procreation.

[Slander and/or Libel]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I impose it on public policy because not doing so would make me an accomplice to sin, which also isn't tolerated by god. The only way I'd change this is if one could prove to me through scripture that god has given up on imposing man-woman marriage. I know there are christians who personally support gay marriage (not just endorse it to separate church and state, but endorse it because they truly support it), but their argument, as I understand it, is simply "Well, that was a long time ago, and surely god doesn't endorse 'unreasonable political positions'". That's not an argument that's (to my knowledge, correct if wrong) supported by the bible, it's just a rationalization.

At the end of the day, I know that this issue admittedly doesn't have much impact on the overall welfare of the country, so I typically don't vote based on it. That's how I can support politicians such as Ann Kirkpatrick (D, AZ-01) and Mark Kirk (R, IL) in good conscience - because I look beyond their liberal positions on gay marriage and abortion and see that, on the whole, they are good politicians. But I don't see myself ever supporting the gay marriage/abortion aspects of their platform.

If that's your rationale, like GSAtW said, then just make that your rationale. You've tied yourself up in knots trying to make a secular argument to convince people who aren't convinced by your religious argument, but it makes absolutely no sense. Not one bit.

And if you think that religious supporters of gay marriage have positions that are explicitly unsupported by the Bible, why not ask one of them why their position is what it is, and what biblical support they feel like it has? Why not read something like God and the Gay Christian by Matthew Vines for a biblical interpretation that favors gay marriage? You may not agree with it, but those arguments are there, and are more nuanced than your straw man construction.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Having listened to the oral arguments, Kennedy's comments about the reluctance to say the court knowing better is a bit surprising and encouraging, but I am of the belief that they will indeed impose SSM

What will be imposed on you if they rule in favor of SSM? What will be required of you by such a decision?

[Slander and/or Libel]

Wulfric, are you at all concerned about bringing explicit theological views into policymaking, since it opens the gate to draconian majority enforcement of religious views you may think are wrong?

Well, if you're asking "Am I concerned about non-Christians who would want to enforce their (false) religion on society?", then yes.

Wow, I think we can drop the 'moderate hero' tag from Mr Wulfric. There's nothing moderate or in any way heroic about these positions.

Why has everyone thought Wulfric was a moderate? On his post in the "Political Views Explained" megathread months ago, he was consistently conservative on almost everything with the exception of a few random liberal positions, mostly on economics.

He's straight up conservative almost across the board.

There's a difference between straight up conservative and straight up theocrat.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Being in favor of banning the construction of mosques.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Read it again.