I am really happy that the supreme court has ruled that gay and lesion people can have the same right to marriage as the rest of us who are straight. I found it sad that a person could not legally marry a person that he or she loved because the states said that they couldn't. Who are we as a society to decide such a thing?
I think t was a day of celebration for all the gay communities all over the world. Here in the Philippines, there was a mass wedding for gay couples the other day as a way of celebrating the decision of the US Supreme Court.
I think it was something that was always going to happen. When you look at the amount if support it had gained and the momentum it had, there was only ever going to be the one outcome. To me it's just another step towards people being free to do what they want to do in life and that can only ever be a good thing.
Some conservatives were not happy with the ruling. And it is expected that there'll be legal battles in some "conservative states." But if the majority want same sex couples to be married why should the few who don't like it oppose them? Isn't that what democracy is all about? The majority rule?
I'm happy for them. We don't have any saying toward what they love and not. Let them be happy. It doesn't affect our lives, so why bother putting ourselves against them?
I'm all for consenting adults all having the same rights. I have no personal issue with gay marriage - doesn't bother me at all, and I'm happy for any 2 people who decide to marry. My concerns are that according to Constitutional experts, this is a states' rights issue, and that the Court apparently violated the 10th Amendment. I am also concerned that those who exercise their First Amendment rights to not support gay marriage (or even not openly embrace it) will be targeted by the leftist pc loons for all out personal, religious, and financial destruction.
I think it was a goofy, wrong headed decision. Marriage is supposed to be an issue left to the states. As far as gay marriage I don't care too much about the issue one way or the other. I think people should be able to enter into contractual relationships with each other. As a religious issue, I would not support my house of worship performing gay marriage ceremonies. And I am opposed of the government stepping in and forcing churches to marry gay folks.
Um, dude. The government is not and cannot make churches do any such thing. The state is letting people *who are not from religions/sects/denominations that condemn homosexuality* act according to their own beliefs rather than making them slaves to some random other people with some random other religious beliefs. They them will get married in the house of worship for that faith which supports marriage equality or some atheist building of their choice. Marriage equality is going to cost some businesses some money because of spouse coverage, but some things are more important than money. Like freedom. Freedom from an outside religions I do not belong to ruling my life, freedom from government interference with who I want to share my life with, freedom to marry whatever sorry-ass sane and competent adult human being would actually agree to marry me regardless of what is between their legs.
States now seek loopholes so they won't honor the supreme courts decisions. In Texas, the attorney general made it clear that state officials don't have to issue marriage licenses to gay couples if it's against their religious beliefs. Since gay marriage was in illegal in a number of states they could pounce on such loopholes to keep gay people from getting married. I also heard that Mississippi may stop issuing ALL marriage licenses. Gay couples would be forced to get married in church where many of them will be turned away because it's against the religious beliefs of the preachers/priests/etc — the fight is on.
^This. I'm not concerned about same-sex marriage, nor most most "value" issues, and I think grown-ups get to run their life the way they want to. I am concerned, however, that the court ruled with very little precedence in this case. It also wrestled away more authority from the states as they have been the ones who set the parameters of marriage. That and the left is already using this to propagate some pretty wacky, anti-religious ideas. Americas have the right to do what they want in their bedroom. They also have the right of conscience too, which includes the free exercise of religion. If that starts to get tramped, the country is going to take a disturbing turn towards totalitarianism. It won't likely go far, but the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Beyond that, I have little doubt the PC Police will use it a bludgeon on those they don't like. But what else is new.
