Gay marriage opponents' strategy uncertain in 2015

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

While I disagree with CCSF's tone, he is correct this time.

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.

Only if we strip all clergy of the ability to perform a civil marriage would that be even remotely Constitutional.  I also fail to see the need.  What BLGT couple would want an anti-SSM pastor to solemnize their ceremony? Unlike florists, pastors perform an unambiguously religious role in a marriage for which ey are the celebrant.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Did you just out yourself?

No..? Did you just learn to read?

You used ‘we’ quite a lot and advised a (if we take him at his word) a self-loathing gay not to give into concupiscence. Then you said ‘to do this requires us..’ etc etc. The whole thing is peppered with ‘kinship’ and it came across you empathised with him on matters of sexual restraint. Given that your response to me wasn’t actually a response at all, but a dig at me apparently not being able to read doesn’t exactly allay matters.

Andrew, it probably appeared the way it did to you because your focus on this topic is primarily your sexuality.  To me, as TJ made clear by his post while I was writing this, it appeared as TJ was empathizing with CCSF on his religion and politics.  And where did you get that he was advising him to not give in to his "concupiscence"?  It doesn't read that way at all to me.  Even if it did, there are plenty of Christians who advise us straights to not do that either.  Our whole modern culture could use a massive dose of concupiscence, tho not to the extremes some advocate.

When I was cleaning up this thread last night before heading to bed from the string of posts CCSF made and the replies thereto, TJ's long thoughtful post was the only thing I deemed salvageable precisely because it was focused on politics in my opinion.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It's distinctly personal, stuck out like a sort thumb and is why I raised it.

Politics should never be personal?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Do gays even have a right to form a domestic partnership/civil union anymore? Or are we forced to get a SSM if we oppose it? I can't find any information on it, at least in California

In California, yes. However, we straights are forced to marry unless we're 62 or older. (It's a way to get the benefits of marriage without triggering some side effects towards Federal benefits. So I guess in California, domestic partnerships are now a substitute for SSM: Social Security Marriage.)
http://www.sos.ca.gov/registries/domestic-partners-registry/

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

We could see something big tomorrow. I am convinced that the Supreme Court will make the decision national quickly. Federal rulings tend to apply to all states unless something very specific relates to one state or a few, as on voting rights.

Doubtful. This is a big case and SCOTUS likes to take their time with them. While they may not wait until the last week of the term, I'll be surprised if they rule before June, especially if Roberts is trying to figure out how he can be part of a 6-3 ruling.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why should polygamy be illegal though?

As practiced, polygamy is patriarchal polygyny in which the females are deprived of basic human rights.  Granted, traditional marriage was once the same, but it was the change in civil marriage to being a marriage of two equals that led to the eventual recognition of SSM by the state. Conceivably, I could see non-traditional polygamy in which all involved are equal someday receiving state recognition, but there's no demand for that.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Because he believes that God says that's wrong, "and no one can ever say otherwise."  You just ended a sentence with "and no one can ever say otherwise" and you're asking how he can have a rigid, faith-based view?

Not up on your Update memes, I see?

God dude, no

Understand now, though

I don't as I never understood why anyone bothered with Update to the point of developing a catechism for it.