Supreme Court: Same-sex couples can marry in all 50 states

[Zaac]

I do wonder what kind of Pandora box the SCOTUS has just opened up. By declaring marriage a fundamental Right, there will not be liberals who will say that it is the governments job to make marriage happen if a person wants. So what happens if person A ask person B to marry them and person B says no, could not person A argue that person B is denying them their right to marriage. Liberals are crazy when it comes to their perceived Rights.

If it were just a liberal thing, we wouldn't have so many right wingers supporting the right to fly a confederate flag over government property.

 

[Use of Time]

I do wonder what kind of Pandora box the SCOTUS has just opened up. By declaring marriage a fundamental Right, there will not be liberals who will say that it is the governments job to make marriage happen if a person wants. So what happens if person A ask person B to marry them and person B says no, could not person A argue that person B is denying them their right to marriage. Liberals are crazy when it comes to their perceived Rights.

Are we just making up problems to complain about now? Really, you can see liberals saying that people shouldn't be able to turn down a marriage proposal?

 

[Jedi Knight]

According to what I have found it says in an article:

Thanks for posting this it's obviously treading on religious freedom.

 

[Alcott]

The Satanic Court of the United States ruled that God's own definition of marriage is wrong. That has a very biblical ring to it-- something like the Obamanation of Desolation.

For the present, churches or ministers cannot be forced to marry same-sex couples, or else to abandon their mission. But we have to presume there will be a future. 4 decades ago, many of us recall the continual battle to ratify the "equal rights amendment" to the constitution. One objection to it was that it would result in same-sex marriage. But left-leaning columnists, such as economist Sylvia Porter, for one, downplayed that because "the definition of marriage is one man and one woman." While I don't know about Porter, many of these advocates obviously changed their positions. Legal same-sex marriage just wasn't really taken seriously. Do times change?

So now, the question of whether religious bodies must define marriage to include same-sex couples if they want to legally exist has to look to the future. No, it's not reasonable right now that they can be forced by law to redefine marriage, but 30, 40, or 50 years from now this may be different-- as we have seen today, looking back 30, 40, or 50 years. But the next step likely won't be forcing them by government hand to change-- it will be tax status. In order to retain exemption from property taxes and still be a 501.c.3 institution, a church will have to have a statement of "marriage equality."

You think this won't happen? What did you think about legal same-sex marriage 40 years ago?

 

[blessedwife318]

Are we just making up problems to complain about now? Really, you can see liberals saying that people shouldn't be able to turn down a marriage proposal?

Yes I can. If marriage is a right then eventually they will decide it is the government job to ensure that anyone that wants to be married will be married and that will mean that people will be forced to marry even if they don't want to, just like they declared health insurance a right and now people are forced to buy health insurance.

 

[Zaac]

The Satanic Court of the United States ruled that God's own definition of marriage is wrong. That has a very biblical ring to it-- something like the Obamanation of Desolation.

For the present, churches or ministers cannot be forced to marry same-sex couples, or else to abandon their mission. But we have to presume there will be a future. 4 decades ago, many of us recall the continual battle to ratify the "equal rights amendment" to the constitution. One objection to it was that it would result in same-sex marriage. But left-leaning columnists, such as economist Sylvia Porter, for one, downplayed that because "the definition of marriage is one man and one woman." While I don't know about Porter, many of these advocates obviously changed their positions. Legal same-sex marriage just wasn't really taken seriously. Do times change?

So now, the question of whether religious bodies must define marriage to include same-sex couples if they want to legally exist has to look to the future. No, it's not reasonable right now that they can be forced by law to redefine marriage, but 30, 40, or 50 years from now this may be different-- as we have seen today, looking back 30, 40, or 50 years. But the next step likely won't be forcing them by government hand to change-- it will be tax status. In order to retain exemption from property taxes and still be a 501.c.3 institution, a church will have to have a statement of "marriage equality."

You think this won't happen? What did you think about legal same-sex marriage 40 years ago?

So let them have their tax exemptions back.:thumbsup:

 

[Zaac]

Yes I can. If marriage is a right then eventually they will decide it is the government job to ensure that anyone that wants to be married will be married and that will mean that people will be forced to marry even if they don't want to, just like they declared health insurance a right and now people are forced to buy health insurance.

huh?

 

[Bro. James]

What the Bible calls abomination is now called alternate lifestyle. We used to call abortion murder; now it is freedom of choice.

We have been working on amorality for many generations. Most of the bad stuff has been allowed because God's people have become complacent and conformed to the world. Apostasy has been rampant for nearly 2000 years.

Scripture says the end will not come until there be a falling away. We are still free falling at 32 feet per second per second.

We have not seen anything yet. The govt. will be dictating what we can preach. John 14:6 will not be allowed. State religion is making a comeback. This will not be a problem for the ecumenical evangelicals. The New Testament Churches will have to meet in caves--again.

Are we ready for another Passover?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

PS: since when did the Supreme Court become a legislative body?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Not a surprise.

All of the "Defense of Marriage" rulings that put the government in charge of defining marriage laid the legal groundwork for this decision.

Good observation. And the one about pastors not having to marry anyone is also a good point.

And I'll panic when a Mosque is forced to marry two men.

 

[blessedwife318]

huh?

It's liberal logic what do you expect. I have no doubt that it will happen though, as liberal never think about the consequences of their actions, as we can see with Obamcare and minimum wage, and school lunches that Michelle put in place and a host of others. The SCOTUS has opened up Pandoras box even if they don't realize it.

 

[Use of Time]

It's liberal logic what do you expect. I have no doubt that it will happen though, as liberal never think about the consequences of their actions, as we can see with Obamcare and minimum wage, and school lunches that Michelle put in place and a host of others. The SCOTUS has opened up Pandoras box even if they don't realize it.

There's enough stuff...real stuff...to complain about without worrying about the problems that are only manufactured in your own head.

 

[Alcott]

So let them have their tax exemptions back.

Let WHO have them back? And who has the authority to do so?

 

[annsni]

The way to defend against this is to simply make it a policy that the pastor will not marry anyone who is not a member of the church.

Exactly. And be careful to utilize church discipline when necessary. Don't let an outing of a member being gay and then asking to marry be a step. One comes out against the agreed upon standard of the Word of God, they are disfellowshipped. This is not to say that those struggling with same-sex attraction are removed from fellowship but instead are loved, counseled and guided towards wholeness in Christ. They may not ever lose their SSA but they will know not to act on it.

 

[blessedwife318]

There's enough stuff...real stuff...to complain about without worrying about the problems that are only manufactured in your own head.

I've read to much history to know that liberals always say not to worry about X when they make a big change and then X eventually happens.

 

[Use of Time]

I've read to much history to know that liberals always say not to worry about X when they make a big change and then X eventually happens.

Okaaay then. Well I guess it's a good thing I'm already married. I would encourage everyone to find their mate now before you are forced into marriage. This is by far the strangest thing I've ever had to discuss on this board.

 

[matt wade]

I've read to much history to know that liberals always say not to worry about X when they make a big change and then X eventually happens.

Where's anyone even saying not to worry about being forced to be married? Who's even talking about this except a single delusional person on an internet forum?

 

[Salty]

On Facebook,I keep asking if homose/ual marriage is legal - then would they have a problem with polygamy or a man getting married to his daughter.

To date, not one person has answered my question.

Me thinks that they don't want to use the word immoral....

 

[Use of Time]

On Facebook,I keep asking if homose/ual marriage is legal - then would they have a problem with polygamy or a man getting married to his daughter.

To date, not one person has answered my question.

Me thinks that they don't want to use the word immoral....

What on Earth do any of those things have in common?

 

[Alcott]

What on Earth do any of those things have in common?

It's possible they could be within the consent of those involved, so then the government should affirm them.

 

[Salty]

It's possible they could be within the consent of those involved, so then the government should affirm them.

Exactly -

You know, Use of Time, you really need to think a little.

So UT, would you have a problem with polygamy marriage, or a man getting married to his daughter?

It is a simple yes or no, but an explanation of your answer would be nice also.