Breaking: Supreme Court rules SSM a legal right

[ag]

It seems like Bernie Sanders has supported SSM since at least 1972.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/27/1397068/-BERNIE-Boringly-Pro-LGBT-and-Pro-Civil-Rights-for-the-last-40-to-50-years

Well, at that point all he, probably, meant, was abolition of actively anti-gay laws. Marriage equality was not on the agenda, and he did not mention it in any explicit way. Chances are, he did not even think of it - though I might be wrong.

[Holmes]

Everyone, stop talking to CountryClassSF. Go outside! Enjoy your life!

I have an idea! Whenever any of the gay posters get married, they should pm pics to CountryClassSF!

I'm not sending my pictures to him.

[CountryClassSF]

Many of us are bullied by LGBT leftists. Just ask Baronelle Stutzman who had to shut down her business. Does "it get better" for her ?

[DrScholl]

This is for the right-wing. Marriage equality is here.

[CountryClassSF]

So, Badger, in response to inquiry  on homosexuality and the Bible and my thoughts vs SSM:

On homosexuality in and of itself, here are my thoughts and how I see the Bible.
I preface this with the fact that I could use more bible study.

Based on my own experience and obviously so many others, I do believe sexual orientation is not a conscious choice.  I don't know if it's something you're born with, I don't know if it's something learned, but I do remember that from childhood onward, I definitely felt different from others. That's how I Think we can logically conclude, that it is LIKELY a biological issue.

Having prefaced this with that, if homosexuality were itself a sin, because of free will, there would have to be some kind of choice involved.  Coveting is chosen, lying is chosen.  But we know sexuality is not. 
That is why although I think it's ambiguous based on wording/translations in the NT (1 Corinth 6:9), the translation of "homosexuals" has been interpreted by some to be many other things, such as a high priest, effeminate according to some scholars meant a weak person morally.

Furthermore, I do think it's an open question whether gay acts are permissible biblically, but because gay relationships have just as much of an emotional connection as heterosexual relationships, I do not see why God would connect the emotion of love to something that is abomination to God.

As for gay marriage, we can go back to Genesis as to how God defined marriage. Becoming one flesh , fruitful and multiply. I think it's plainfully clear that the institution of  marriage was intended for procreation.


Most of my reasons for opposing gay marriage is that I think there has to be some kind of societal boundary and respecting tradition. 

Constitutionally, I do not think that when the 14th amendment was authored in 1860s, that they were thinking about two men getting hitched.

And I do not like the way gay activists have gone about it.

I hope this helped shed some light

[CountryClassSF]

This is for the right-wing. Marriage equality is here.

Well, atleast you have excellent taste in Classic TV shows!

I would refer everyone in this thread to this -- I'm surprised a liberal news outlet published it earlier this year. But, please stop assuming that one can't be gay and oppose SSM.  Either MANY people are flat out lying about their sexual orientation to the pollsters, or we exist. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/01/27/meet-the-lgbt-americans-who-oppose-gay-marriage/

20% of LGBT Republicans oppose

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yeah...CCSF has horrid views on gay marriage and religion...but you cant blame carrion for messing up your street when the crows have had a feast and spread everything everywhere.

Let me clarify before ernest censors and infracts:

CCSF put his opinion in here.  People responded negatively, so he responded back and on and on we go.  Torie and Badger are no doubt getting ready to pounce on him for being the contrarian.

Badger is the one who brought up not believing CCSF is gay.  But surely CCSF must be punished for responding.

Other than infracting for vulgarity in a couple posts, there's been nothing so far in this thread I've felt inclined to moderate so far. There's a lot I wish weren't in it, but I don't feel like making the effort to separate the discussion about CCSF into a thread of its own. His first post in this thread was generic socon angst that could have been made by any of our socons, and I'm not planning on doing anything to it.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

So, Badger, in response to inquiry  on homosexuality and the Bible and my thoughts vs SSM:

On homosexuality in and of itself, here are my thoughts and how I see the Bible.
I preface this with the fact that I could use more bible study.

Based on my own experience and obviously so many others, I do believe sexual orientation is not a conscious choice.  I don't know if it's something you're born with, I don't know if it's something learned, but I do remember that from childhood onward, I definitely felt different from others. That's how I Think we can logically conclude, that it is LIKELY a biological issue.

Having prefaced this with that, if homosexuality were itself a sin, because of free will, there would have to be some kind of choice involved.  Coveting is chosen, lying is chosen.  But we know sexuality is not. 
That is why although I think it's ambiguous based on wording/translations in the NT (1 Corinth 6:9), the translation of "homosexuals" has been interpreted by some to be many other things, such as a high priest, effeminate according to some scholars meant a weak person morally.

Furthermore, I do think it's an open question whether gay acts are permissible biblically, but because gay relationships have just as much of an emotional connection as heterosexual relationships, I do not see why God would connect the emotion of love to something that is abomination to God.

As for gay marriage, we can go back to Genesis as to how God defined marriage. Becoming one flesh , fruitful and multiply. I think it's plainfully clear that the institution of  marriage was intended for procreation.


Most of my reasons for opposing gay marriage is that I think there has to be some kind of societal boundary and respecting tradition. 

Constitutionally, I do not think that when the 14th amendment was authored in 1860s, that they were thinking about two men getting hitched.

And I do not like the way gay activists have gone about it.

I hope this helped shed some light

So in a few words, tradition for tradition's sake. Gosh, I can't believe I was once so silly too. Hopefully you'll learn, but you're hanging on much too tightly.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Many of us are bullied by LGBT leftists. Just ask Baronelle Stutzman who had to shut down her business. Does "it get better" for her ?

she absolutely did not have to shut down her business. what are you even talking about?

[Middle-aged Europe]

This court ruling is totally gay!

(Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

[eric82oslo]

This is for the right-wing. Marriage equality is here.

Well, atleast you have excellent taste in Classic TV shows!

I would refer everyone in this thread to this -- I'm surprised a liberal news outlet published it earlier this year. But, please stop assuming that one can't be gay and oppose SSM.  Either MANY people are flat out lying about their sexual orientation to the pollsters, or we exist. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/01/27/meet-the-lgbt-americans-who-oppose-gay-marriage/

20% of LGBT Republicans oppose

There are lots of blacks, even in South Carolina, who want the Confederate battleground flag to fly freely everywhere as well. About 20% even. So if one of 5 blacks in the US can be so self-hating that they deep inside would have preferred to be enslaved voluntarily, why couldn't gays be equally self-hating?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Many of us are bullied by LGBT leftists. Just ask Baronelle Stutzman who had to shut down her business. Does "it get better" for her ?

she absolutely did not have to shut down her business. what are you even talking about?

She was given the choice of providing flowers to same-sex marriages, which she felt was against her beliefs, or of shutting down to avoid future charges.  You may may think it a good thing she'd have to shut down her business to comply with her beliefs, but it certainly is a case of it being shut down.

[Torie]

Many of us are bullied by LGBT leftists. Just ask Baronelle Stutzman who had to shut down her business. Does "it get better" for her ?

she absolutely did not have to shut down her business. what are you even talking about?

She was given the choice of providing flowers to same-sex marriages, which she felt was against her beliefs, or of shutting down to avoid future charges.  You may may think it a good thing she'd have to shut down her business to comply with her beliefs, but it certainly is a case of it being shut down.

Hey is the key footnote in the flower arranging case:

"The discussion was preliminary, so that the parties did not discuss the specific details for the arrangements. However, the Superior Court found no legal distinction between forcing Barronelle to provide full wedding support (custom design work and physical presence and personal assistance at the ceremony) and selling raw, unarranged product. RA 207-08; see also RA 11. The Court held it could order her to provide full wedding support. RA 230-31 n.19."

There are three categories of facts in these sorts of cases in my view: 1) just selling items off the shelf, 2) doing custom flower arrangements in the shop, and 3) providing on-site wedding support. I think forcing someone to do 3) does infringe First Amendment rights, and that 1) does not. 2) is the difficult case, and may turn on whether the flower arrangement or custom work has some specific SSM theme, the question being that if someone came in and asked for a specific flower arrangement, or for a custom flower arrangement using Stutzman's skills, could that work be done without her knowing that it was for a SSM? If so, there mere fact she knows it was for a SSM, in the same way, that if she knew that someone buying flowers off the shelf was for a SSM, probably should not under the religious freedom of expression clause give her a right to discriminate.  Anyway, the lower court seemed to think the same result obtained for all three categories: they all constituted illegal discrimination.

The lower court should be reversed in my opinion. A brief was filed with the Washington Supreme Court, and if that fails, this case may well be heading to SCOTUS. At the end of the day, I believe it probable that Stutzman will obtain relief. She certainly should.



Oh, let me take this opportunity to join others, in commending Clarko95's remarkable post above. It was eloquent, and moving, and wise. Kudos to him.

[Mechaman]

So wait, let me get this straight:

The US Supreme Court decided, in a 5-4 decision, to take away 30% of Hillary Clinton's talking points next election.  And the Republican candidates, instead of just simply stating "it is now the law of the land", are going to protest instead of recognize a good thing when it happens?

God, these people are stupid.

[muon2]

Torie, as a fan of your distinctions, will you be filing an amicus brief in Stutzman? Along that line, do you read Kennedy's opinion as opening the door to a favorable view for your third category.

From the syllabus:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From the main opinion:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've read some who are concerned that this only suggests that religious adherents may advocate/teach but does not go so far as to say they can act on their beliefs as would be needed to support Stutzman's position.

[Torie]

Don't know about filing an amicus brief Muon2, but what is odd about Kennedy's language, is that it seems to be referring to free speech, rather than freedom of religious expression. When it comes to speech, Kennedy was just stating the obvious, I guess feeling the need to throw a symbolic  - and not in play concern at all, and really not advocated by anyone - bone to those concerned about the issue, rather than something more tangible and what is indeed the big concern out there in certain sectors of the religious community. Obviously, it's all dictum anyway. I would just be shocked and amazed however if SCOTUS were to rule, that one must do 3) as a form of temporary involuntary servitude. It would really be shocking to the conscience, and outrageous, and I think it would be extremely toxic and disruptive to the public square ... Roe v Wade all over again, on steroids.

[Simfan34]

What is "3)"?

[Torie]

What is "3)"?

From my post above: "3) providing on-site wedding support."

[Hydera]

So wait, let me get this straight:

The US Supreme Court decided, in a 5-4 decision, to take away 30% of Hillary Clinton's talking points next election.  And the Republican candidates, instead of just simply stating "it is now the law of the land", are going to protest instead of recognize a good thing when it happens?

God, these people are stupid.

Implying she doesn't have more to campaign on than gay marriage.

Also 50% of Republican voters are evangelicals. While LGBT is actually a small puzzle piece of the democratic coalition of 5-10%. Here's hoping that the social conservatives weaken as a % of the overall electorate voterbase from here on.

[muon2]

Don't know about filing an amicus brief Muon2, but what is odd about Kennedy's language, is that it seems to be referring to free speech, rather than freedom of religious expression. When it comes to speech, Kennedy was just stating the obvious, I guess feeling the need to throw a symbolic  - and not in play concern at all, and really not advocated by anyone - bone to those concerned about the issue, rather than something more tangible and what is indeed the big concern out there in certain sectors of the religious community. Obviously, it's all dictum anyway. I would just be shocked and amazed however if SCOTUS were to rule, that one must do 3) as a form of temporary involuntary servitude. It would really be shocking to the conscience, and outrageous, and I think it would be extremely toxic and disruptive to the public square ... Roe v Wade all over again, on steroids.

I think that is a real fear out there, and one that Roberts alluded to. He even called out Ginsburg on that topic, quoting her in his dissent.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Congrats to our LGBT posters and all members of the LGBT community. This is really their victory, even if it makes America  in general look good (finally ).

[politicallefty]

This is the ruling I'd been expecting for quite some time, but it feels so much better that it has actually happened. I am so proud of this country right now.

I didn't see this mentioned anwhere here, but I thought the White House looked pretty cool last night:

[Mechaman]

So wait, let me get this straight:

The US Supreme Court decided, in a 5-4 decision, to take away 30% of Hillary Clinton's talking points next election.  And the Republican candidates, instead of just simply stating "it is now the law of the land", are going to protest instead of recognize a good thing when it happens?

God, these people are stupid.

Implying she doesn't have more to campaign on than gay marriage.

Also 50% of Republican voters are evangelicals. While LGBT is actually a small puzzle piece of the democratic coalition of 5-10%. Here's hoping that the social conservatives weaken as a % of the overall electorate voterbase from here on.

No you read the post wrong.  Just that this is obviously an opening for the GOP to subtly take the gay marriage question out of their campaigns.  Evangelicals are not going to suddenly revolt against a party that is still strongly anti-abortion (for starters) just because the question of gay marriage is put on the backburner.  Modifying their position particularly on that issue would deaden a lot of the appeal the Democrats have with people who otherwise would feel their interests at odds with the party they support.

My comment wasn't to imply the only thing Clinton has going for her is her gay marriage position or that is her only position, merely that by settling the gay marriage issue the GOP would have a way to subtly move their way out of a controversial hot button issue that younger generations are overwhelmingly in support of.  Liberal Catholics like Ted Kennedy did something similar when Roe V. Wade was handed down IIRC.  Because frankly, right now the standard Democratic talking point seems to overwhelmingly be "WE ARE SOCIAL LIBERALS!", a point that would look incredibly weak if the GOP just moved on from this issue and ran on IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID or something to that effect.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

I hate the fact that rainbows are associated with homosexuality.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I hate the fact that rainbows are associated with homosexuality.

I do too.