I'm sure the court could have found a way to protect Christians from losing jobs and businesses on account of the stand we must take for Biblical marriage, but they chose not to.
No US Christians have been forced out of their business or jobs by the SCOTUS ruling. To claim otherwise is simply a lie.
Again; Christians are protected and to say otherwise is simply a lie. However since "Biblical Christianity" is built on the base of dishonesty and fantasy over reality or truth that should be expected.
No Christian in the US is forced to marry someone of the same sex or even approve of a same sex marriage any more than a Roman Catholic is forced to marry a divorced person or even approve of marriage of divorced people (although there is hope that last will change).
A License Clerk though is required to issue licenses. A Roman Catholic license clerk may not approve of divorced people getting married but still must issue the license.
But the real issue is that Biblical Christians love to whine and claim they are persecuted instead of acknowledging that the reality is that they are the persecutors.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
They have not much in the way of evidence or even good arguments. Tradition and historical practices really can't override the Constitution, or justify the real injustices that even Faith admits to.
I am not convinced that the idea of expanding special privileges for religion will go very far. Certainly there are obvious problems. The last case of a clerk refusing to marry an interracial couple was surprisingly recent. And what happens when Muslims start to take advantage? Or even Satanists?
Tradition and historical practices really can't override the Constitution, or justify the real injustices that even Faith admits to.
That's ideally true, but in practice quite a few separation of church and state rulings illustrate that religious traditions sometime gets translated into a non-secular observation of decorum that the court then elects to tolerate. Such would seem to be the case in the cases involving religious opening prayers at government functions and the Ground Zero Cross case, and perhaps the most notorious case, the Lynch v. Donnelly case in which the Supreme Court found that a state sponsored nativity scene had a non-secular purpose.
The last decision allowing gay marriage in every state was not a slam dunk win by any stretch, it was a 5-4 decision with the result basically being Justice Kennedy's call. Contrast that with the unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of education. Yes, we can defend the ruling constitutionally with ease, but that does not mean that the ruling was inevitable.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
It is certainly possible that I missed your meaning. What did you mean by the following?
If we trace marriage back to medieval times, originally all marriage was religious marriage.
Hmmm. Not phrased that well, it does seem confusing, maybe it read better in context. Clarifying, I wasn't arguing that medieval times are when we should judge marriage to have begun. I was suggesting that the origin of the modern entanglement of marriage and state was medieval times. That was when church/states in Europe began insisting on sanctifying marriages. I think your Wikipedia excerpt mentioned this.
I don't see how. How does a gay person getting married effect your marriage?
Apparently my marriage that has lasted for 21 yrs now is somewhat void and worthless (we are just oblivious to that fact)
In all honesty, I just cannot comprehend how the expansion of legal marriages would threaten heterosexual marriages. Are peeps telling that Jill and Jack, though they love each other and want to create a family together, would decide against it because somewhere else Jack and John can decide alike?
Are peeps telling that Jill and Jack, though they love each other and want to create a family together, would decide against it because somewhere else Jack and John can decide alike?
Yes, that's all it is. Pathetic, really.
They are invoking the last, and greatest, scapegoat.
"It's not me condemning you, it's God!" "I don't hate you at all, it's just that God doesn't appreciate this sort of thing." "These are not the punishments I want you to endure, they are what God is commanding us to do!"
"I am not responsible for what I do, I am only following God Himself."
A nice, still-currently-mostly socially acceptable, and easy way to turn feelings of contempt, jealousy and their own life's regrets into hurting others for "a good cause."
Any child can still identify the unnecessary and unwarranted pain that is being inflicted upon gays and lesbians from this whole pile of poop. It's obvious and glaring and can only be pushed aside by years of uncaring and unloving living.