Now what?

[Drich]

I didn't bother to check to see if anyone else replied to this, but here is my viewpoint on it:
I think you missed the point entirely when SCOTUS made its ruling last week. For starters, religion does not get to have a monopoly on marriage.

That's the thing. 'Marriage' is a sacred covenant between man and God in the Christian religion. Now if their were a True separation between Church and state, the state would not be able to dictate who is to be married. Which does not mean the state could not sanction state approved cival unions. which would given anyone the same rights as a Married couple. It's when the state demands that a church acknoweledge or perform said wedding (as per the article I posted) that I take issue.

Marriage, under the color of law is a Legal Binding Contract Between Two Consenting Adults. It is not in any way shape or form tied solely to any one religion. In fact, it does not have anything to do with religion whatsoever. Religion did not create the concept of marriage. Religion does not own the concept of marriage.

Actually it kinda does, however I will concede that those outside of the church have also adopted the concept.

To quote a friend of mine, with permission: "Everyone is talking about the Supreme Courts decision about gay marriage. Gays are not trying to redefine the definition of marriage. We do not need the courts to say we are exactly the same as straight people. What we fought for and what was won yesterday was the ABILITY to stand up everywhere in this country and pledge our love to our partners in a LEGAL ceremony.

which could have been done with a state sponcered civil union, with out all the fuss.

What was won yesterday was a hospital NOT BEING ABLE to kick me out of an ICU that my wife is in because I am technically not her "FAMILY", what we fought for and won yesterday was the PROTECTION afforded to every straight marriage in this country.

Which could be done with 'a big gay protest' against hospital policies, because no where in the vow of marriage is it declared we should be the only ones with access to the sick people we love. No, that issue lies with in that very specific institution.

What was fought for and won yesterday was the RIGHT to leave our property and possessions to our LEGAL SPOUSE.

again civil union would allow for the same thing

It is not about redefining the word marriage, it is about EQUALITY for all people.

b]
it's about taking something from the church/A deeply held religious belief and allowing anyone to basterdize is such a way as to thumb their nose at those beliefs.

It was not about going against GOD or throwing anything in the face of Christians anywhere[/b].

If this were remotely true then why not change the word marriage to civil union? why does your term have to be the same as ours? Why force Churches to be used, Pastors be threaten with Jail if we do not respect your 'Marriage?'

It is not about Gays against Christians, it is about LOVE and being able to profess that love and have that LOVE be RECOGNIZED by the people that make the RULES in this country.

Then you do not understand the word love. Love is to include the respect of our beliefs and not assoceiate what we believe to be as sexual sin, with a covenant that frees us from sexual sin.

It is not a WHIMSICAL idea that we came up with just to piss off Christians in this country...this decision means that Gay men and women no longer have to be scared of what happens if their partners family don't like it that their sister is gay and decide they are going to keep them out of a hospital room, this decision means that the house that a gay couple buys together does not get fought over by a family that has had ZERO contact with their gay relative since they came out.

This is BS. If this was about a hospital rooms or 'stuff' after one dies, then their are a lot easier ways to have met those ends without a 30 year battle with society, and involving the SCOTUS for a final ruling. The reason the SC had to be involved is because a section of the population wanted to remove a religious right from another part of the population and repurpose that right in a offensive way. Why? Because it brings or trys and force acceptance into a religion that forbids a given act. You and your friend are lying to yourself if you tell yourself anything different.

I DO NOT NEED people to agree with my lifestyle, I need people to leave me alone to make my own decisions about MY LIFE and WHO I LOVE.

Again another lie. You just said you needed the right to go to a hospital bedside or to leave stuff in a will without tax. That is acceptance/agreement with your life style.

All gay people want are the same rights that everyone has, those rights afforded to us all in the first words of our Constitution..."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ——"

Final a bit of truth. you want to be endowed/blessed by your creator, but on your terms (ironically using His) by forcing the church to recognize and accept what God has identified as sexual sin.

Im sure this speech plays well with a like minded crowd, but for those who seek truth can see through the pomp and pageantry to the agenda that lies beneth thinly veiled words. This is and always has been about the children/next generation and who gets to program them. That is why gay people seek the legitimacy of marriage verse a civil union. You need to start the propaganda young inorder to push what the OP identifies as "What's next." And a marriage puts a gay couple on par with a proper Mother and Father.

[Joods]

Just because someone puts something in print does not make it a legit source. These are tertiary source materials which means they can twist anything any way they want with no respect to any intellectual guidelines.. again propaganda.

*bolded and colored by me.

Heeeeeeey...Would ya look at that....

A bunch of "someones" wrote the bible.

And then it was eventually put into print.

BOOM.

See what I did there? You're welcome.

[Joods]

This is and always has been about the children/next generation and who gets to program them. That is why gay people seek the legitimacy of marriage verse a civil union. You need to start the propaganda young inorder to push what the OP identifies as "What's next." And a marriage puts a gay couple on par with a proper Mother and Father.  

Interesting you should mention this. Many would call the indoctrination of religion onto young children who are too young to be able to make an informed, independent decision, child abuse. And it is. Religion puts the idea of fear into young children, that if they don't obey god, they will go to hell. Religion brainwashes young children into thinking that the story of Noah's ark is a wonderful children's tale about gods love. When in fact, it's pure violence and bullshit. It puts the idea that if they don't accept good ol' JC, into their hearts as their lord and savior, they're going to hell.

As far as why gay couples sought out the legitimacy of marriage vs. a civil union - you obviously didn't read what I wrote, which was written by a member of the LGBT community. Who better to explain this than a person who has had to fight for the same EQUAL rights that married heterosexual couples currently enjoy? While I, myself am not gay, I have dozens of friends who are and you have a seriously twisted notion of why they wanted same sex marriage legalized in the first place.

And lastly, there is absolutely nothing wrong with two women or two men raising a child together. There isn't anything that a mom and dad can teach a child that a mom and mom or dad and dad can't teach their child. Nurturing and love can come from anyone. What do you think single parents do when the other parent is not in a child's life, for whatever reason? If a single parent can fill BOTH roles of mom and dad, than it goes to say that two parents of the same sex can and do enjoy raising a child with just as much love and nurturing.  Hate is taught. Discrimination and bias are taught. Bigotry is taught.

A white child and a black child playing together in the park see no differences and will happily be friends UNTIL someone points it out and makes an issue of it and convinces them both that they are different. The tone of skin color does not dictate what sort of personality that child will develop UNLESS there is someone there to make damn sure that hatred is learned and that they base that learned hatred on the color of someone's skin.

And you can apply that same negative thought pattern to stereotyping males and females. Adults - parents, grandparents, aunts, and uncles alike unwittingly teach girls that trucks, trains and cars are toys for "boys" and that they shouldn't play with them because of the misnomer that they'll end up a tomboy. Then they then turn around and teach boys that dolls, play houses, and princess-themed items are things for "girls" and indoctrinate the misnomer that they will be gay if they play with any of those things.

My youngest daughter played with trucks, toy cars, and trains. Her favorite sport is football. She likes monster truck races and mud bog racing. She never did like girly things until just a few years ago when she turned ten years old. Now, she loves makeup, dresses, nail polish and constantly asks me to style her hair. Has she turned out gay? Nope. Even if she does... I would fully support her and whomever she decides to marry. Coincidentally, my stepson came out to his father and myself two weeks ago. He's 13. He has always played with toys that are for "boys". So the bullshit argument that certain toys are for boys and certain toys are for girls is invalid. We, as an entire family, fully support him and whatever decisions he makes about his life going forward. We love him for who he is, not for who he is attracted to. And if he wants to wear a dress out to dinner, by all means... I'm going to take the kid shopping for a pink dress because that's his favorite color.

Some of you goddamn Christians need to stop with the persecution complex that anyone who isn't a Christian is out to get you or take away your rights. Fuck that. You aren't being persecuted and no one is trying to take away your rights. Period. I see none of you being oppressed, victimized, being mis-treated, getting abused or being discriminated against in any way simply because SCOTUS made a decision in favor of doing the right thing. All of those words mean persecution. None of which is happening to any Christian because of what happened on June 17th. Not a single decision made that day had any direct impact on your religious beliefs. No one is forcing a priest, pastor, minister or any other member of clergy to perform such marriages. And if you think that it does, you obviously don't have a clear understanding about what it DOES mean.

And as for the term "marriage" if you don't like gay marriage - then don't marry someone who's gay. You want to pick apart terminology and act like the word "marriage" is strictly for heterosexual couples? Well thanks to SCOTUS, it isn't anymore my friend. It's for EVERYONE. Time to let some of that hatred towards people who are different than you, go.

Curious, but since this public outcry against same sex marriage by Conservative Christians is so fucking important, then why isn't there such a huge, public outcry from them over the issue of divorce? I mean, seriously, two men getting married today is not going to have any impact on your marriage. They aren't moving into your house claiming the master bedroom and kicking you out. They aren't sharing a meal with you, or paying bills with you or raising your children. So if their marriage isn't causing a disruption in your day-to-day life, why do you feel you have to disrupt their lives, because clearly, it's none of anyone's fucking business but the two people marrying each other.

[Minimalist]

The reason the SC had to be involved is because a section of the population wanted to remove a religious right from another part of the population and repurpose that right in a offensive way.

I wish that was true, drippy, because sanctimonious cocksuckers like you deserve to have your bigotry shoved up your ass.  Sadly, it is nothing to do with you.  Your sick religion is fading away anyway.  It will be good to see it go.

Fuck off.

[Pyrrho]

I didn't bother to check to see if anyone else replied to this, but here is my viewpoint on it:
I think you missed the point entirely when SCOTUS made its ruling last week. For starters, religion does not get to have a monopoly on marriage.

That's the thing. 'Marriage' is a sacred covenant between man and God in the Christian religion. Now if their were a True separation between Church and state, the state would not be able to dictate who is to be married. Which does not mean the state could not sanction state approved cival unions. which would given anyone the same rights as a Married couple. It's when the state demands that a church acknoweledge or perform said wedding (as per the article I posted) that I take issue.

If "marriage" were purely a religious matter, it would have NO legal status whatsoever.  If you are blessed with holy water at your church, that is pretty much nothing as far as the government is concerned.  "Marriage," as a secular institution, has laws governing it, with legal privileges and legal responsibilities.  And it is only insofar as it is a secular matter that the law governs it.

This is why the various sects that have polygamous "marriages" do not have legal recognition of their "marriages."  They are not marriages, as far as secular law is concerned, no matter what religious beliefs the people in those sects have.  Of course, the religious people still call their "marriages" "marriages," but they are not legal marriages.

...

It was not about going against GOD or throwing anything in the face of Christians anywhere[/b].

If this were remotely true then why not change the word marriage to civil union? why does your term have to be the same as ours? Why force Churches to be used, Pastors be threaten with Jail if we do not respect your 'Marriage?'
...

The legal term for marriage has been "marriage" since the beginning of our country.  Why change it now to "civil union?"  It should certainly not be changed just to please some religious fanatics.

[Joods]

And again drippy, the court is NOT forcing your pastors, preachers or any other member of clergy to perform said marriages. That's why we have justices, mayors, judges and anyone else who comes along that wants to be LICENSED BY THE GOVERNMENT to perform those marriages. If a licensed person does not wish to perform said same sex marriage, then they need to turn in their license, as they are effectively disobeying the law and refusing to perform the duties that they swore UNDER OATH or by AFFIRMATION to do. It really is that simple and it really doesn't have ANYTHING to do with your precious religious beliefs.

[Cato]

That's the thing. 'Marriage' is a sacred covenant between man and God in the Christian religion.

Marriage is not a Christian invention or institution. Christian ideas of marriage only apply to Christians, and then only to those that wish to follow them. We all know you assholes can break whatever rules you want and then be forgiven later.

The rest of us are not compelled to live by your stupid fucking book.

[Randy Carson]

Some of you goddamn Christians need to stop with the persecution complex that anyone who isn't a Christian is out to get you or take away your rights. Fuck that. You aren't being persecuted and no one is trying to take away your rights. Period.

Then you are apparently unaware of the marching orders issued by Richard Dawkins.

So when I meet somebody who claims to be religious, my first impulse is: “I don’t believe you. I don’t believe you until you tell me do you really believe — for example, if they say they are Catholic — do you really believe that when a priest blesses a wafer it turns into the body of Christ? Are you seriously telling me you believe that? Are you seriously saying that wine turns into blood?”

Mock them! Ridicule them! In public! Don’t fall for the convention that we’re all too polite to talk about religion. Religion is not off the table. Religion is not off limits. Religion makes specific claims about the universe which need to be substantiated and need to be challenged and, if necessary, need to be ridiculed with contempt.

[video=dailymotion]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPqqp8KVuQU[/video]

[Ravenshire]

That's the thing. 'Marriage' is a sacred covenant between man and God in the Christian religion.

Marriage is not a Christian invention or institution. Christian ideas of marriage only apply to Christians, and then only to those that wish to follow them. We all know you assholes can break whatever rules you want and then be forgiven later.

The rest of us are not compelled to live by your stupid fucking book.

(emphasis is mine)

Unless the christers get their theocracy wet-dream.

[Randy Carson]

And again drippy, the court is NOT forcing your pastors, preachers or any other member of clergy to perform said marriages.

In a survey just released, 19% of respondents under the age of 40 stated that churches should be forced to perform gay weddings.

Source.