Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Moyank24, Jan 16, 2015.
Supreme Court agrees to rule on gay marriage
They overturned DOMA, so I'm cautiously optimistic.
If they rule in favor of equality, would that make it legal in every state?
Looks like the time has finally come! This is exciting. I hope they rule correctly, and being that they couldn't even muster 4 justices to hear the appeals from the appelate courts that overturned the bans back in October, I think it will be a 6-3 ruling in favor of marriage equality.
Yes. And I'm not basing my optimism on DOMA, I'm basing it on their actions in October that led to it being legal in 36 states. Notice how every time the bans are overturned in lower courts, SCOTUS refuses to hear it, and the one case they finally agreed to hear is the one where the ban is upheld. It's a good sign.
My prediction: Scalia and Thomas vote against equality, the other justices vote in favour of equality.
Roberts could go either way depending on whether he votes based on political lines (against equality) or legal precedent (for equality).
Can't wait until this is over...
Hearings in April... rulings a later in the Summer? Argh. Another good part of the year of people puking up talking points...
As a follower of Christ (I sense people's blood pressure starting to boil) and a conservative (are you already writing me off??) here is my point of view on this.
How dare, we christians try to pass laws to enforce "our" thinking? How many times did Jesus try to pass laws? Anyone?
Maybe we should stop spending time trying to persecute people and try to, oh, I don't know, talk to them, get to know them, they may even become friends.
And to my fellow christians who say that homosexuality is a sin. I agree. But, so is greed, lust, gluttony...idolatry - all of which are mentioned and discussed far more times than homosexuality. Furthermore, one sin is not greater or lesser than another sin. We are all sinners. Divorced?? Well, guess what, the Bible speaks out against that too. Boom. Sinner. Remember, my sin is a tree trunk compared to your dust particle sin.
I get so frustrated at "christians" who are so full of hate and judgement. Way to give us a good name.
Being gay/not gay is not and should not be a precondition for being welcomed into the faith.
I have been blessed to know and befriend several people who are gay. Some are Christians, some are not. If you step back and look at the PEOPLE it should change your perspective if you are anti-equal rights.
And if nothing else, WHO CARES if they get married??!?! Don't throw that definition crap back at me. In my experience I know gay couples who are BY FAR in better loving relationships than heterosexual couples.
So, let's just get this passed. Move on.
You sound more like a liberal Christian.
This court is very cautious about grand sweeping rulings.
I would expect a fairly narrow ruling, which essentially pushes the matter back to the states.
If they did push it back to the states then would that reinstate the bans that were overturned already by the courts?
I don't really care which way it goes, but it would be good to have a consistent policy across the country.
I think it'll be another 5-4 vote. Going either way Roberts is feeling that day.
Yet somehow it's a "sin".
Kennedy is pretty much guaranteed. 5-4 without Roberts, 6-3 with Roberts.
Not this time, they already did that in 2013. Pretty much kicked the can down the road. Then they strategically allowed it to become legal in 36 states. At this point, it's not a grand sweeping ruling anymore as it will only change things in 14 states. They planned it like that. It's even less than the 16 states that banned interracial marriage in 1967 when those were struck down. This is their chance to be part of a historical ruling in the social advancement of our country, don't think they'll pass it up. This is their Loving vs. Virginia.
I'm going to disagree on this one.
I don't expect a narrow decision, one that kicks it back to the states ... unless that is the prevailing conservative opinion that wins the day.
If the liberals win, I'm betting on a more sweeping decision that all states must recognize same sex marriage.
honestly, i can't see how this one goes anywhere but forward.
Scalia needs to not be on the bench anymore. He's an old, senile bigot.
Another interesting thing to consider is that the 5th Circuit just heard the cases in its jurisdiction this week. I wonder if they will even bother issuing a ruling now.
Feel free to rant anytime. A Christian actually in tune with Christ's teachings...novel, new, refreshing.
With all due respect (and I agree with everything else you wrote) - I don't see homosexuality as a sin.
If we take the literal word of the Bible, there are many other behaviors that are defined as sins: eating shellfish, or the flesh of pigs for example - that today we don't consider "sins." The Bible is a work of literature, compiled from many sources over thousands of years, reflecting often the prejudices and ignorance of the day when it was written.
And how can love for another human being be a sin?
Is that not what Christ himself lived and died for?
We are all of us human beings, blessed and/or cursed with desires and needs. We may very well count those that harm our fellow man (theft, lying, murder) as sins.
But I steadfastly refuse to name the love of two adults for one another in any way as a "sin." I call love, in whatever form, as one of God's greatest gifts to us all.
Hear, hear! Well said. Although, I myself do not partake in religion, I believe if there were a God, he/she would appreciate love regardless of the ones being loved. Love is never a sin.
Well, that's two different things, no? Love and homosexuality.
To me, homosexuality, along with a ton of other things, "misses the mark" of God's ideal. Therefore by definition it is a sin. With that said, we ALL miss the mark. Trust me, I miss it by a wide mile.
Since the fall, we all miss the mark because we are born into sin.
What we know about the Robert's court is it tends to refrain from scorched earth, all or nothing social rulings.
I think the court will rule very specifically on the language on the laws being challenged, and not "legalize gay marriage" specially but strike down specific language related exactly to those laws.
Not the same thing. It will be a "you can't do X, but we won't force Y on all 50 states" ruling.
You mean like "all states have to recognize same sex marriages from other states, but don't have issue same sex marriage licenses themselves"?
I don't know. I think they've already gnawed away at all the meat surrounding this question over the past 2 years. It seems like they're down to the bare bones of the issue. I get what you're saying about this court not usually being big on all or nothing social rulings, but judging by their refusal to stop it from happening in so many states, it seems like this case will be an exception. It will definitely be one for the history books.
I think reciprocity is a given. None of the conservative justices are going allow the federal government to "unmarry" gay couples with a ruling, and the states have no authority to do so either.
How they approach the actual language of gay marriage ban laws in some states, I don't know. I would suspect when it is all over the states will still have power over regulating marriage, and court will not throw open the doors and say gay marriage is mandatory in all 50 states by federal decree.
That would be in line with how the Robert's court has handled social rulings prior. I could be wrong, but a sweeping ruling would be out of character for the Robert's court.
Roberts will vote in favour like Obamacare.
hand in your conservative christian badge you do not qualify
Aaaaand somehow lesbian porn is very exciting to watch while gay men are dreadful =P