Why is SSM such a big deal?

[CountryClassSF]

Because there are entrenched interests that not only want to impose SSM on America via the courts, but also want to make sure it is put in our face at all times.  There are many who want to do this to make Christians feel uncomfortable.

It is fairly clear that the two judges who routinely perform same-sex "marriages" will not be recusing themselves from the federal case.  It's also clear how the court will rule.

Yet, for some reason, we have to be forced to continue hearing about this, to continue seeing this, and restricting the rights of those who disagree. That's how you know it's not about equality, but more about a radical agenda that is designed to oppress expressions of faith

[CountryClassSF]

Such tolerance

[CountryClassSF]

It does when the stranger is forced to hear about the gay agenda and see it every day everywhere. It is when one faces social/business implications for expressing support for trad'l marriage.

One can have a loving gay relationship in private without radically redefining marriage or speaking about sexuality to the complete strangers you mentioned. I cannot fathom why one's homosexuality or heterosexuality too for that matter, has to define an entire person

Same-sex marriage will soon be imposed by the Supreme Court. Why is there now a need to punish those who may take a different view?

[CountryClassSF]

Because being so cruel to a group of people as to an matter that is one of the most important aspect of our lives, marriage, for reasons that have no reasonable public policy basis as shown by the data, and thus seem based on bigotry or  priori religious beliefs that do not have a independent secular public policy rationale based on the data, is shocking to the conscience. I am just saying what others have said in a different way.

Don't you think there would be some more support on the Right for civil marriage if opponents were not basically compared to Hitler? Or that there was some acknowledgement (such as Fox News' gay conservative Guy Benson) that the vast majority of trad'l marriage supporters are not bigots?

Gay marriage is a relatively new thing in society. Has the country lacked a conscience until 30 years after the bicentennial when SSM was imposed on Massachusetts?

it's very true that this issue has been settled. So what more is there?

[CountryClassSF]

.... Yeah, so like I said. It's not just about "achieving equality" They now want to make sure those in dissent are marginalized and harrassed. They've gutted the 1st amendment.

[CountryClassSF]

1. People don't understand the law or civil rights. Gay people can get married in all 50 states. Activists don't want to deal with this inconvenient legal hurdle, and they think they can shout their way to victory because, frankly, they're too dumb to find a way around.

2. The problems faced by gay people are faced by all single people, which means this niche issue the Democratic Party is trying to exploit for political gain is actually a populist issue that needs to be addressed, starting with tax code reform.

Many on the left have difficulty separating material wants with civil rights. Many times I have seen libs essentially declare any new idea they have to be a civil right.

[CountryClassSF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think I would ever agree with the concept of it, but it would upset me much less if there was more respect and no "consequences" (job loss, "shaming,") to having a viewpoint from an openly gay perspective against redefinition of marriage

[CountryClassSF]

The religious liberty involved in this centers around free speech and the imposition of involuntary servitude on bakeries and if the far-left has their way, churches.

[CountryClassSF]

Don't you think there would be some more support on the Right for civil marriage if opponents were not basically compared to Hitler?

Um, no.

Well, folks like Guy Benson are helping bridge that. He is pro-SSM but also pro-religious liberty. He's the only prominent gay man out there (other than me but hey im not prominent lol) who expresses this. He recently came out, actually.

[CountryClassSF]

I wish more would listen to dreamboat Guy Benson, who has reached out to opponents of SSM.  One of the *first* things Guy said during his interview with Megyn Kelly is that opposition to SSM does not equate to hating or disliking gays, or bigotry. 

Now, hopefully he will not be co-opted by the left, but he is, to my knowledge, the ONLY openly gay male who is a public figure who says that, despite personal support for SSM

[CountryClassSF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Many have openly admitted to a goal of theirs which is to make it socially unacceptable to voice a different opinion.  And they have done so successfully - atleast where I live. Cannot be open about any conservative beliefs or you risk losing your job.  We need an ENDA for conservatives.

[CountryClassSF]

If Loving is the basis for same-gender marriage, then these marriages would've taken place after the ruling.

Make no mistake about it, any court decision imposing SSM is based on public opinion/wants vs rights. There's no ERA, there should be no federal mandate for SSM.

The judicial tyrant that struck Prop 8 down used the term "unconstitutional," yet there's nothing in the US constitution that guarantees same gender marriage, otherwise, we'd have had them since the country's inception.

Left unable to distinguish between a desire to change marriage and a civil right. I find it very sad -- because their next step will be restricting our free speech

[CountryClassSF]

Loving the individual / not loving what's been done to marriage.

Above poster is committing blasphemy. You claim that the Lord says nothing about homosexuality, but then you claim that your homosexual relationship is blessed by Christ.

[CountryClassSF]

Above poster is committing blasphemy. You claim that the Lord says nothing about homosexuality, but then you claim that your relationship is blessed by Christ.

I mean that we follow Christ's teachings (and I am an ordained reverend). Jesus and same-sex relationships are not incompatible.

I see. But where did Christ teach that homosexual activity was acceptable and encouraged?  I don't think they're incompatible either, but engaging in homosexual acts are a different story.

[CountryClassSF]

I see. But where did Christ teach that homosexual activity was acceptable and encouraged?  I don't think they're incompatible either, but engaging in homosexual acts are a different story.

Not sure what your point is. He didn't address the subject. Thus all we can do is to follow his teachings on all other subjects, such as being kind to one another and our fellow human beings. Pretty much trying to follow Matthew 7:12 in everything we do.

What about Lev 18:22? 1 Corinth 6:9? The Bible is the inspired word of God, if it's said by an Apostle, we're supposed to just disregard it if we feel like it? What about "pride"?

If God "made" you and I gay, don't you think this would be part of the Word?

[CountryClassSF]

The judiciary doesn't make decisions based on poll numbers or fleeting public opinion. Also, the number of states that have added unconstitutional provisions into their state constitutions is entirely irrelevant.

On SSM, that's exactly what they're doing.  If this was such a burdensome denial of civil rights, the courts would've heard the cases long ago.  I'd like to know what exactly happened in the late 2000s/early 2010s that shifted public opinion almost upside down, suddenly, overnight.
It wasn't gradual.  The aggression towards Christians came on very strong, and it was corporate-funded.

Big businesses have been jumping all over eachother over this.

[CountryClassSF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This was the left-wing's view just 3 short years ago.  Now, they're acting as if everyone else is a bigot for sharing those views.

You're absolutely right - they're essentially writing it into the constitution. 

[CountryClassSF]

My local rep in the state house overcame his own personal misgivings to support gay marriage for exactly the right reasons.

Take the four minutes to watch his speech.

http://youtu.be/FQi45bs-BNE

I'm sorry but this has been a Democrat strategy for a long time. "My kids got me to change my mind!" -- it probably polls well.  Many politicians use their children as an excuse for a blatant flip-flop. 

[CountryClassSF]

Many in the tea party are doing just that.  Look at Rand Paul. 

[CountryClassSF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think his point was that voters who are frustrated and unhappy should stop electing the same people over and over again, i.e. try something new for once.  Baltimore is a monolithic left-wing oligarchy, and it hasn't really served them well.

[CountryClassSF]

There's a difference between judicial review and judicial supremacy.  A ruling imposing SSM on America would be judicial supremacy. It should be defied. It would be an unprecedented violation of multiple state constitutions. The court would essentially be invalidating the constitutions of the states. If same-sex marriage was granted by the founders, we would have had it since the 1700s.

[CountryClassSF]

ERA didn't pass for that reason. Atleast now it's proponents are acknowledging that's what they would have used it for. Remember when Schlafly was called a fearmonger for saying that it would be used to make a case for SSM? Oops.

There's no explicit right to same-sex marriage in the constitution. It's simply going to be yet another  case of left-wing  judges usurping their role as interpreters and creating a new law based on their own personal opinions. Their page in the "civil rights" history book means more to them than upholding their oath.

[CountryClassSF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because he's gay and still loves his mom? Really? He's supposed to hate her? Apparently she was so much of an idiot that she truthfully predicted that ERA would be used to further the progressive agenda on other fronts, while progs called her a liar for saying so.

You cannot stand the fact that she loves her son and he loves her. Because it cuts to your narrative that opposition to the gay agenda is rooted in hatred.

[CountryClassSF]

While Schafly made that argument, it certainly wasn't the thrust of her argument, nor is it what resonated with the public.  She argued the ERA would lead to women being drafted, unisex public bathrooms, and losing the right to alimony and a preference in child custody when divorce occurred.

The former is a dead issue, the second is silly, and the third has essentially already occurred.

Well, according to the articles  during the 1992 GOP convention when they decided to out her son out of spite for her (such kindness), they certainly made it seem as if that was a major part of it.

"In the 1970s she led the successful fight against the Equal Rights Amendment
partly by claiming it would pave the way for gay weddings"

http://www.qrd.org/qrd/misc/text/schlafly.outing.reaction-KNIGHT.RIDDER

I don't think many on the left get this.  She has a son who is gay. She disagrees/disagreed with it at the time. But gosh, by George, they still love eachother.  Indulge Media Matters--is it possible that having a disagreement doesn't mean  hating the person you disagree with?

[CountryClassSF]

I want to preface this question with an assurance that I am genuinely curious.

Who came up with the concept of same gender marriage ? I know that someone in Minnesota sued for SSM way back in the day. But who decided in the 90s that the definition of what consititutes a marriage be changed? I had never once heard of this concept until my teenage years when it was forced on Massachusetts .

Someone had to have created the idea