Bitcoin Forum

Setting the stage for its most significant ruling ever on gay rights, the U.S. Supreme Court said Friday it would resolve the state-by-state battle over same-sex marriage.

The justices said they will decide cases from Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee, where state officials are defending laws that limit marriage to a man and a woman.

The high court is expected to hear arguments in late April and will probably issue a decision by the end of June.

The case could lead to a landmark ruling on whether gay and lesbian couples have a right to marry nationwide under constitutional protections for individual rights and equal treatment.

The truth is that the State is a conspiracy designed not only to exploit, but above all to corrupt its citizens… Henceforth, I shall never serve any government anywhere.

The government should have no involvement in marriage period, including heterosexual marriages.

This is yet one faction lobbying the state against another faction that has used the state to keep the former down for a long time. The end result is that the state is the one calling the shots and not private associations of voluntary contracting individuals. The statists (social conservatives in this instance) will likely see the power of the state bear down on them as the baton changes hands as was expected after a generational societal shift. Live by the state's sword for a while, then get stuck with it. I'm at the point where this particular vestige of religious freedom (not having to acknowledge gay marriage) isn't at the top of my list and is basically the rooster coming home to roost because you went to bed with vultures (the state) for so long and now times have changed and you're on the outs. On one hand, I think the LGB community has gone too far at times but you can hardly blame them for bringing out the so-called knives against a bunch (evangelicals, socons, etc) that have targeted them for far too long. As it is, most of the latter are one or two issue voters and their main mea culpa in recent times has been the gay community. So, in the end, liberty rises and falls because those that sought it used the state to be their protector.

I personally think they will likely punt on the issue. Traditionally marriage has been defined as between a man and a women. Sure there are religious aspects to this, however there are also traditional aspects to this.

I personally would like to see the tax benefits of marriage taken away (as well as welfare benefits). If this were to happen I would say that neither side would be anywhere near as passionate about the subject as they are

Any state which ratified the 14th Amendment shouldn't have done so if it wanted to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Polygamy (insofar as all the spouses consent) and minor marriage bans (insofar as there is consent) are absolutely unconstitutional as well, IMO.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/judge-finalizes-ruling-declaring-part-of-utah-polygamy-ban-. constitutional-lets-man-live-with-his-four-wives-125597/

It is increasingly clear that the freedom of speech often works only at that bare minimum — protecting us from imprisonment and decapitation by governments, but not from social and economic destruction by our fellow Americans, including government officials.

Take the case of Kelvin Cochran, Atlanta’s former fire chief. Cochran was fired by Mayor Kasim Reed last week after 30 years of service for writing a book on morality, with a passage on homosexuality, in his private time for a Bible study group.

Another mayor who has targeted those with certain beliefs is Houston Mayor Annise Parker, who last October moved to subpoena sermons from pastors who had opposed an ordinance that would make public bathrooms gender-neutral. After a national outcry, Parker backed-off.

Two leading businesspeople have also faced the wrath of the outrage industry. Last year, Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich — who along with 52 percent of California voters backed the pro-marriage Proposition 8 in 2008– was forced to resign over his beliefs.

Memorably in 2012, Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy was the object of public rage for maintaining traditional views on marriage, as well as the target of vindictive mayors Tom Menino of Boston and Rahm Emanuel of Chicago, who threatened to exile his business.

It’s not just public officials who engage in this behavior. Marquette University’s Professor John McAdams was banned from campus for blog posts criticizing fellow faculty member Cheryl Abbate. McAdams criticized Abbate for saying — in a class discussion on controversial ethical issues, at a Catholic university — that “everybody agrees on [gay rights], and there is no need to discuss it.”

Perhaps surprisingly, no punishment has come to Abatte, who told a student, “you don’t have the right in this class to make homophobic comments” — which appear to include any divergence from the LGBT agenda.

The purge continues in the media, where Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson was suspended for quoting the Bible on marriage, and the show Flip It Forward was cancelled over the pro-life, pro-family, views of Jason and David Benham.

And the list goes on. Civil suits abound to force Christian bakers, florists, photographers, and chapel operators to implement the new definition of marriage. Religious organizations have been forced to shut-down charitable adoption agencies in light of same-sex “marriage” laws. More recently, our nation’s capital removed religious liberty protections to potentially force religious organizations to pay for abortions, as well as make Catholic schools promote LGBT activities.

In England, couples who hold traditional views are often even deemed unfit to foster or adopt children.

The public crusade for unanimity on controversial issues goes beyond sexuality. Last year, a curiously high number of conservative university commencement speakers were disinvited by angry student bodies over their politics.

The attacks can get quite personal. Questioning climate change (despite the scientific community’s backing away from the “hockey stick,” rethinking the thermal absorbency of the ocean, adjusting 20th century temperature readings, massaging data, making a host of failed predictions, and changing the phenomenon’s very name) is to be dubbed the village idiot. Anything short of fully standing behind the media and government’s particular conceptualization of the campus rape problem is declared to be misogyny, as is suggesting solutions contrary to sexual libertinism. To give the benefit of the doubt to police officers dealing with unruly suspects is racist. And to maintain that marriage is what it was universally considered until 2003 is not only bigotry, but high blasphemy.

Once labeled, offenders face peril in their employment and communities. While the First Amendment does not protect one from private discrimination – government officials like Emanuel, Parker, and Reed may want to check their pocket Constitutions, however — nor does society benefit from targeting those whose opinions are merely politically incorrect or unpopular.

So while events in France have rightly energized all sides to cheer the freedom to express unpopular opinions, the West should take the opportunity to ask whether the bare minimum of not executing those who profess unpopular speech is enough. Indeed, we should consider whether it is not still a violation of fundamental liberties for society to deny its citizens the opportunity to use the breath they have been allowed to keep.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/01/18/the-silence-of-the-sheep/

Religious bullshit prohibitions and/or ones without any rational basis, applied to government marriage licensing to everyone except male/female adult couples, are not equal. If states don't want to abide by what they ratified, they are welcome to secede from the union entirely. CA, IL, HI, NY, CT, MA, et al, can secede from the union over refusal to not infringe the 2A they ratified and incorporated in 14A as well.

By your logic, the states have no right to impose any law that a particular group finds unfavorable. So rich people could say they aren't equal under the law because they pay higher taxes. Should pedophiles have the right to marry a child? (I am not comparing pedophiles to homosexuals, I am only comparing the legal logic). By your logic yes! If I replace "a man not being allowed to marry a man demonstrates that he is not equal with straight men under the law" with "a man not being allowed to marry a child demonstrates that he is not equal with other men under the law," the logic should extend, no?

By your logic, the states have the right to torture a particular class of people as long as it's not defined as punishment. If you want the states to have these absolute rights to do whatever indefensible shit they want to specific classes only, get a Constitutional repeal amendment for the 14th passed.

If anything, I would argue that being religious is more likely to lead to peadophilia than being gay, since we all know how much Catholics like their choir boys, yes I fucking went there.

By your logic, the states have no right to impose any law that a particular group finds unfavorable. So rich people could say they aren't equal under the law because they pay higher taxes. Should pedophiles have the right to marry a child? (I am not comparing pedophiles to homosexuals, I am only comparing the legal logic). By your logic yes! If I replace "a man not being allowed to marry a man demonstrates that he is not equal with straight men under the law" with "a man not being allowed to marry a child demonstrates that he is not equal with other men under the law," the logic should extend, no?

This isn't a case of some particular group being bitchy for no reason, this is as global wide conspiracy by all religions to oppress homosexuals, it's just a fucking contract. Sure, a church can go ahead and declare that marriage between homosexuals isn't legitimate all they like, but they can't go around telling state and government what to do.

According to previous respondents, the views of “the tribe” are only as valid as they are shared (so much so, in fact, that one must employ state to maintain them).

You just did, the moment you bring peadophilia into an argument about homosexuality, you're being a fucking moron. This isn't a case of some particular group being bitchy for no reason, this is as global wide conspiracy by all religions to oppress homosexuals, it's just a fucking contract. Sure, a church can go ahead and declare that marriage between homosexuals isn't legitimate all they like, but they can't go around telling state and government what to do and yes, as someone from the UK I'm going to remind you about your own laws about seperation of church and state, we have the very same problem here where religion is constantly trying to impose it's doctrine on the rest of us.

This 'social' issue is purely an invention of religion, no one else gives a fuck save for a few homophobic cunts and it's about time they got over it and stopped being such pussies, gay marriage has been legalised already in various parts of the world. The world has not descended into chaos, peadophilia and beastality have not suddenly become legal, it's all a load of scare mongering bullshit and there is no real argument you can make against it.

If anything, I would argue that being religious is more likely to lead to peadophilia than being gay, since we all know how much Catholics like their choir boys, yes I fucking went there.

what happened to separation of the church and state yet the state can force a church to wed someone if they want to or not.

By your logic, the states have the right to torture a particular class of people as long as it's not defined as punishment. If you want the states to have these absolute rights to do whatever indefensible shit they want to specific classes only, get a Constitutional repeal amendment for the 14th passed.

Freedomno made a good point.

I was actually fairly sympathetic to pushes for anti-discrimination laws for gays, until they started being abused. Just a few months after passing one in Houston, a baker was sued for refusing to make a cake that said "Support Gay Marriage." What about his freedom of concience? On one hand, I don't think McDonalds should be able to refuse to serve someone just because they are gay, but I do think they should be allowed to ban a gay pride party on their property.

The gay "rights" movement is so unforgiving and darn near oppresive to anyone who holds different views right now. The CEO of Mozilla was fired for a private political donation he made over 10 years ago, seriously? What about his freedom of speech? It's worth noting that this changed my mind about campaign transparency laws requiring that donor lists be public. I now entirely oppose them.

the national government has been doing that for years against terrorist

2 wrongs don't make a right.

do you have a link to that article sounds interesting.