Good!!

[Cecelia]

ChadWooters
No law was actually passed. SCOTUS rulings are NOT the law. The Constitution of the United Sates is the law. Instead what we have is 5 black robes finding a right to habitual sodomy in a document that says exactly nothing about marriage period. You're a hypocritical anti-Christian bigot who justifies tyranny in pursuit of your progressive utopia.

No, what you have is 5 black robes finding it unconstitutional for the government to offer rights and benefits to one group but not another. They're not granting rights to anyone; they're saying that when legislation grants rights, everyone must have equal access to them.

Besides, no matter what you do there will always be people doing butt stuff.

If we're going with the legalization of Sodomy, it was actually legalized in 2003.  The vote wasn't 5-4, it was 6-3 in the case of Lawrence v. Texas.  It determined that anti-sodomy laws were unconstitutional. 

Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 (this year) on the other hand determined that denying gay couples the right to get married (regardless of their desire or intent to have sexual relations) is unconstituional. 

Marriage is not a religious institution, no matter how much Christians want it to be.  The concept both pre-dates their religion, and has been a staple of many cultures for a long time.  I'm an Atheist, and I'm married.  I didn't get married so that I could have sex.  Or even so that I could have children.  (Having sex while not being married isn't against the law either).    I got married to make a commitment to my husband, and so that he would make a commitment to me.  And so that we would have the legal rights that we have bestowed upon us.  Just like many gay couples wish.

Christians view gays as 'immoral' (much in the same way they view Atheists).  They think anything that is immoral should be illegal.  However, who determines what is moral and what is immoral?  Christianity is on a slow decline.  Eventually Atheism will become more acceptable.  Then perhaps one day Christianity will be viewed as immoral.  Should Atheists then argue that Christianity should be outlawed?  I'm sure that the Christians answer would be 'no.'  I'm sure they would have an excuse for how Christianity isn't immoral, despite their treatment of homosexuals and other various groups.  They expect people to uphold their values, while not being upheld to the values of others themselves.  Or perhaps if not Atheism, then perhaps Islam.  Islam is one of the fastest growing nations.  If our laws were to be based upon Islam, many Christians would not be happy (aside from their shared view on Homosexuality)

The Religious folks who see this as tyranny fail to understand that the Supreme Court determines only which laws are constitutional and which laws are not.  Laws that outlaw same sex marriage are unconstitutional.  They violate the 'separate but equal' clause of the 14th amendment.  Therefore, Same Sex Marriage does not require legislation in order to be legalized.  The states had no right in the first place to outlaw it.  A system of checks and balances are required for our system of government to work.  States can't pass laws that violate the constitution.  That's something that the Republicans running for President don't seem to understand.  It's quite disturbing to think that those running for office don't know how things work.

Gays have a right to get married.  Kim Davis deprived couples of that right.  Some are comparing her to Rosa Parks.  She isn't Rosa Parks in this scenario.  She was James Blake.  But instead of just trying to do her job like Blake claims he was, she was refusing to do her job.  If James Blake had refused to allow Rosa Parks to sit wherever she liked on his bus after Browder v. Gayle, he'd have been ordered to follow the law, or he would have been fired.  Kim Davis cannot be fired because she's an elected official.  Therefore the judge had only two options:  Fine her, or jail her.  The judge did not feel that a fine would convince her to uphold her duty to the law, so he put her in jail.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Gays have a right to get married. 

Even in states that banned same-sex marriage the law was applied equally. Prior to the Supreme Court ruling gay men and lesbians already had the right to marry. Any man, whether gay or straight, could marry a woman. Any woman, either lesbian of straight, could marry a man.

[Jackalope]

Gays have a right to get married. 

Even in states that banned same-sex marriage the law was applied equally. Prior to the Supreme Court ruling gay men and lesbians already had the right to marry. Any man, whether gay or straight, could marry a woman. Any woman, either lesbian of straight, could marry a man.

Fortunately, the courts are smart enough to see right through that transparently disingenuous turd of an argument.

[robvalue]

Yeah, and black men were allowed to marry black women...

[Chad32]

Gays have a right to get married. 

Even in states that banned same-sex marriage the law was applied equally. Prior to the Supreme Court ruling gay men and lesbians already had the right to marry. Any man, whether gay or straight, could marry a woman. Any woman, either lesbian of straight, could marry a man.

I used to use that excuse, but that would be like me being told I'm only allowed to marry men. I'm not into men. I don't want to be intimate with men. My dick only gets hard for women.

Bringing babies into the issue is becoming a moot point nowadays, anyway. You don't even need to impregnate a woman to have a baby anymore. Just donate an egg, and some sperm, and put them into a machine.

[MTL]

Gays have a right to get married. 

Even in states that banned same-sex marriage the law was applied equally. Prior to the Supreme Court ruling gay men and lesbians already had the right to marry. Any man, whether gay or straight, could marry a woman. Any woman, either lesbian of straight, could marry a man.

oh, so clever.

Fine, then:  let me tell you about the happiest married couple (man and woman) that I know.

They live in Toronto.

They grew up together, are best friends, and love each other very much.

They have children, and they are excellent parents.
They support each other emotionally, share property in common,
and both contribute to the running of the household.

The kids know that mum and dad love each other and are best friends,
they know that their parents prioritize each other, and the family,
and would do nothing to ever jeopardize it.

Their family is very stable, happy and normal.

The only thing that is different is this:

He is gay, and she is straight.

They have separate bedrooms.

The kids are not oblivious;
Dad's orientation has never been a secret;
nor is it a secret that BOTH mum and dad each have their own "friends"

...but these boyfriends are WELL OUTSIDE the house,
and the kids rarely, if ever, meet them.

(And these boyfriends are not looking for marriage, themselves;
they understand and respect the arrangement....and keep their distance;
these boyfriends are NEVER coming around the house.

Instead, the parents go out to see their boyfriends....when appropriate.
Both parents agree that the kids don't need to witness the various boyfriends coming and going,
or even hear about them, in any great detail. They're very discreet).

The kids are no more apprised of the details of their parents' sex lives
than most kids would be.

[Rhondazvous]

I just saw her picture in fox News. They got her looking like a fucking nun, all sweet and innocent.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/09/0...-jail.html

Really, she looks like the last thought I’d have just before committing suicide. I hope they won’t have any mirrors in her cell, else she might see her reflection and ugly herself to death, then the Christians will have a field day claiming she died for her faith.

I don’t know about god, but the fact that she was able to get 4 men to marry her is proof that the devil exists.

[Losty]

She's an elected official and cannot be fired. I suppose she would need to be impeached. I don't know how Kentucky law works on this.

Ah. Thanks for the clarity. I'm not really sure what to do in that case. Jail seems silly. Christians love to pretend they are martyrs and this gives them ammo.

She put herself in jail. Pretty sure she can get out anytime she chooses also.

In the meantime, I've been loving the memes. Haha

[Wyrd of Gawd]

As I said before, it's going to be hilarious when the muslims start claiming the same thing. Expect it any day. Will the Christian bigots support the muslims' right to discriminate against them? This will be fun to watch.

[Chad32]

There was already a story about a cashier not wanting to handle pork and alcohol sold at the store. Despite the fact that he isn't touching, eating, or drinking any of it. I don't think the christians made an uproar about it, but who knows?