Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage Nationwide

[Danny]

Your local preacher will say about performing homosexual marraiges. " Count me out!"

[Scottathew]

Indeed. After 15 yrs on the down low, my wife and i want to marry our best friend Cindy, for all the right reasons. Why not?

Yup.

Who cares who wants to marry who.

Hell, let's decriminalize prostitution. It's a crime without a victim. We can take prostitution out of the dark and into the light, regulate it, and tax it. Less disease, less sex slaves, etc...

We don't need morality police. We don't need other people imposing their values on everyone.

[beachboy]

Why all the fuss? The Supreme Court case was about
coverage of Federal benefits to same-sex spouses, and
had repercussions re: recognition of s.s. marriages.

Civil marriage is a contract. In a society that professes
and institutionalizes equal justice under law, one can-
not in a general sense prevent two adults from entering
into a contractual relationship - with the exception of
some customary mental competency restrictions.

Civil marriage is very different from sacramental mar-
riage. The former is a contractual relationship and the
ability to make a contract between two people is seen
as a fundamental right under English civil law. The
latter comprises rules and procedures defined by the
host [[religious) organization, which is appropriate for
a private concern such as a church or social club.

[Wheels]

I think I'm going to marry my goat! She can get pretty feisty when I stick her back legs in my boots a push her over a cliff!

[Baselinepunk]

I think I'm going to marry my goat! She can get pretty feisty when I stick her back legs in my boots a push her over a cliff!

You're goat cannot enter into a binding contract; therefore, you'd just into bestiality and I'm sure the Religowackos would have a field day with you -- and animal control and the court system and perhaps bubba in the slammer, too. That's why these types of arguments fail right out of the gate. Nice try, tho . . . . .

[Wheels]

She is still more appealing!

[BankruptcyGuy]

A couple of interesting points, from a "no dog in the fight" observation position:

1. Churches have refused to complete marriages for many reasons. Divorced Catholics can't get married unless the previous marriage was annulled, the Greek Orthodox Church won't conduct a marriage unless both parties have gone through whatever process is called, etc. [[I'm not that worldly of a person, and those are examples personal friends have experienced.) Churches don't have to "recognize" [[whatever that is) any two people as married, and that doesn't change today.

2. There actually is a plural marriage case bubbling up through the 10th Circuit, which covers Utah.

3. Anyone who says that Bill Schuette should have "gotten on the right side of history" by going against the opinion of the majority of the people that elected him should reconsider if they really believe in democracy. Until very, very recently, no court in the country had indicated that a state's definition of marriage was unconstitutional. It's not the place of attorneys general to do so. It is the place of the Supreme Court, and they did.

The Supreme Court recently held that a particular Maryland tax was unconstitutional. How would everyone have felt if Michigan's attorney general had decided to be "on the right side of history" by not enforcing a tax that he thought was similarly unconstitutional?

Or here's a better example: The Supreme Court recently ruled that many state laws that prohibit gun ownership are unconstitutional. How would you all feel if an AG had "been on the right side of history" and decided not to enforce gun limitations lawfully passed in his own state because he thought they were unconstitutional? I think you get my point.

4. Lastly, I encourage anyone who is troubled by this result to go back and read Loving v. Virginia. The arguments that were made by the State of Virginia were the same was were made in this case. This has been the traditional position, states can define marriage, blah, blah. This case is virtually indistinguishable. Whether you feel that homosexuality is a sin or not is irrelevant. This is about what the government may nor may not do. And they may not make the distinction they've always made. Like in Loving, I think we may look back in a relatively short period and wonder what the big deal was.

[Dan Wesson]

You do know that it ain't over. It's gonna be like Rowe vs Wade. The religious right will keep chipping away at this ruling year after year after year............till.

[ABetterDetroit]

Today was a great day for anyone who places value on freedom and equality for all human beings in aAmerica.

Today was a shit day for all assholes who feel it is their right to tell other law abiding Americans how they should live and be less equal.

[ABetterDetroit]

Today was a great day for anyone who places value on freedom and equality for all human beings in America.

Today was a shit day for all assholes who feel it is their right to tell other law abiding Americans how they should live and be less equal.

[Jimaz]

DetroitYES Home » Non Detroit Issues » Thom Hartmann » Bernie Sanders on Same-Sex Marriage and Equality

[Pam]

Congrats to all the newlyweds.

[Hypestyles]

Regarding the “effect” on Detroit:
I wonder what political coalitions will fragment and which ones will coalesce?

I wonder will this end up being the catalyst for a GOP-led “Southern Strategy” for black America?

Will some black folks openly defect to the GOP because of their staunch feelings about traditional marriage? We’ll see.
I do hope that Detroit's City Council meetings don't degenerate into "they pushed this gay marriage stuff on the country, now they want to do this to Detroit.." But just wait.. That's exactly what's going to happen.


The exclusively theological worldview that informs much of what passes for political insight stateside deserves to be openly challenged. I'm glad this was settled at the federal level. at least now, the litmus test for mayoral candidates doesn't have to revolve around his or her take on gay couples. It will still be "an issue" for the gubernatorial race, I am sure. The next governor candidate that vows to openly defy recognizing gay unions will probably get the majority of votes of Michigan residents. Absolutely no other policy idea will matter. At all.

The contemporary GOP has painted itself into an ideological corner regarding its decades-old alignment with religious conservatives. The same people who hate Affirmative action, who don’t care if colleges and workplaces are 99% white, who don’t care about imbalanced criminal justice laws/sentencing, who don’t care about questionable police/vigilante shootings, are also the people who swear that they are pious Godservants when they go on about gay marriages somehow magically destroying the economy and increasing global terrorism.

Black people in this country have better things to do than to be one-issue voters. At least, they should have better things to do.

If the various religious congregations here in Detroit [[Christian, Muslim and whoever else) call themselves engaging in “civil disobedience” regarding this ruling, what does that mean, exactly? Not officiating a gay wedding? That’s a moot point. The leadership of any congregation can already refuse to officiate a gay wedding ceremony. Up until now, straight couples always had the option to go to the city hall or county clerk’s office for a civil ceremony. Too many people still explicitly equate civil marriage with religious-based marriage.

I think this will challenge a lot of the “deep structure” narratives that so many people in this country have about its origins.

So many people still are comfortable in “knowing” that the country was founded by staunch modern-day-standards-based evangelical Protestant Christians. Never mind that various ‘founding fathers’ were not-quite-evangelical deists, and a clear majority were slave owners; on top of that, Manifest Destiny that left nothing for the indigenous tribes was considered cool.

For a lot of black America, our religious traditions are in part based on the evangelical nuttery that the Pilgrims/Puritans practiced—or, at least the religion that they preached, and didn’t practice when it meant treating people of color fairly.

Various social justice movements in black America have found momentum in its religious leadership [[e.g., MLK, Malcolm X, etc.) But dependence has bred overdependence. This is one zone where religious leadership in African American culture has always fallen way short. It fell tragically short on HIV/AIDS long ago, until it was too late and the disease affects blacks at much higher rates than the white/dominant culture. The not-so-quiet rationale that HIV was a gay white folks’ thing and God’s Revenge rings extremely hollow now, though you still have die hard nuts who still choose to believe ultra-conspiracies like the Illuminati are behind it all.

If people really want to live under a straight-up-theocracy, go seek out some Persian folks and ask them how that’s working out for everyday people in Iran.
I’m not offended by a distinct, new political party being created by like-minded folks, however, I do think that its platform needs to be very carefully considered.

[DetroitBoy]

Detroit should be inviting the gays to move in like they did in Royal Oak and then Ferndale. When they come, they fix up their houses, make their lawns and flower beds pretty, invite other gay homesteaders to move in and fix up houses then open great places to eat and other shops. The neighborhood becomes trendy and more people come there and property values rise then straight people follow and drive up the values even more. Maybe those neighborhood groups struggling to keep their neighborhoods alive should court the gays to move in.

[Lowell]

Some great posts on this thread, particularly Bankruptcyguy.

While the Republican right has been wailing and gnashing their teeth over this weeks's decisions I think secretly they're relieved. They don't have responsibility for 15 million people suddenly kicked off health insurance sitting in their laps. They don't don't have to defend their increasingly unpopular and mean-spirited anti gay position that is rapidly and massively being rejected. Same sex marriage recently passed 60% approval in polls.

[Jimaz]

Some great posts on this thread, particularly Bankruptcyguy.

While the Republican right has been wailing and gnashing their teeth over this weeks's decisions I think secretly they're relieved. They don't have responsibility for 15 million people suddenly kicked off health insurance sitting in their laps. They don't don't have to defend their increasingly unpopular and mean-spirited anti gay position that is rapidly and massively being rejected. Same sex marriage recently passed 60% approval in polls.

Plus the conspicuously-abruptly vanishing Confederate flag. These are all major opportunities for the chameleon Republicans.

They're shedding their skin again.

[DetBill]

A majority of Michiganders voted against gay marriage...

And why do you have to write all this like a total d-bag. You must not be well-travelled if you think we live in a theocracy.

i agree totally that Snyder and company, did what the voters wanted and carried out their job responsibilities, although its pretty clear in total allignment with their parties platform, however, Snyder amazingly signed the adoption bill allowing gay discrimination, which he could have refused to sign. What I found so odd was this constant reinforcement of carrying out the publics will. For gosh sakes your talking about a vote taken in 2004.? Even most conservative polls showed public opinion has materially changed since then. Always thought it interesting no drive for a current poll was not encouraged by our powers, gee I wonder why. All doesnt really matter now, as the Supreme Court has decided all Americans are infact equal in their desire to marry. Congrats on that one. Its nice to see majorities dont have the right to dictate minorities rights.

[DetBill]

Detroit boy, So true, so true, then half move out as straight people move in making values double. What a world!

[Danny]

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 18:22

[KJ5]

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 18:22

Nobody is forcing your church to marry 2 men to each other so you should have nothing to complain about. If others don't want to live by your book of mythology that's their business, not yours.

[emu steve]

How this will impact Detroit will be interesting.

From article:

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Friday that it is legal for all Americans, no matter their gender or sexual orientation, to marry the people they love.

The decision is a historic victory for gay rights activists who have fought for years in the lower courts. Thirty-seven states and the District of Columbia already recognize marriage equality. The remaining 13 states ban these unions, even as public support has reached record levels nationwide.

The justices found that under the 14th Amendment, states must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and recognize same-sex unions that were legally performed in other states. Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_7470036.html

I take a view from 30,000 feet:

The 'problem' which we have is that the United States is an extremely pluralistic country with believers and non-believers of all stripes. Probably every faith known to mankind can be found here as well as non-believers.

As such it is difficult to 'melt' all of these believers and their beliefs [[as well as those of non-believers) into a set of public laws which doesn't infringe on others.

Should a view promulgated by Catholics, evangelicals, etc. by 'forced' on those not of those faiths?

Should the Catholic Church speak to Catholics, for Catholics, but realize that other faiths [[and those with none) may hold different views entirely?

Should other faiths be free to perform those marriage ceremonies if it is part of their beliefs?

I don't see this as 'religious freedom' as my bishop said on the radio yesterday. Whose freedom? Catholics, Methodists, Southern Baptists, Lutherans, Jews, etc. Each has their own view of same sex marriage and what it means. A contrary ruling yesterday would have infringed on the beliefs of certain religions. There is no 'religious position.'

As soon as someone states his [[or her) view, it very likely will contradict someone else.

For some religions, especially Catholics, there is the issue of public policy vs. personal behavior. Should a Catholic legislator favor same sex marriage as PUBLIC POLICY yet say, "If I were gay I would not marry [[another gay) because my faith doesn't permit it."

[Pam]

Nobody is forcing your church to marry 2 men to each other so you should have nothing to complain about. .

Let's post that again. That is my understanding of it also, churches will still be able to "opt out". So I'm not sure why some religious people are still having a hissyfit.

[MotorCityTrikes]

God will be the final judge. And you know what's funny about those who either don't believe He exists or think He condones all this evil, immoral, self-centered live for yourself crap? If you were able to live on this earth forever you may have a chance of getting away with it ......................... but you will die, you will pass on, you will either just cease to exist or move to a different dimension. And maybe God will forgive everybody and then again maybe He won't. Think about this............. even satan believes in God and most of the world no matter what their belief believe there is a heaven AND a hell not just a heaven. Live how you want, think what you want while you're here,,,, love who you want, marry who you want, they'll come a day you won't be here you'll be answering to the creator.

[MotorCityTrikes]

I personally hope He forgives everybody for the sick, twisted way they lived their lives even politicians who sell us down the river everyday for their own selfish purposes. But if He doesn't I hope I get to see what He does.

[Scottathew]

Let's post that again. That is my understanding of it also, churches will still be able to "opt out". So I'm not sure why some religious people are still having a hissyfit.

A church doesn't have to marry straight people either. A Christian church doesn't have to marry a Jewish couple, a Gay couple, etc...

Right now churches are trying to stir their populace's by creating a controversy the doesn't exist. This issue is going to be great for democrats in 2016. Republican's will need to be very anti-gay in the primaries and that will flop with independents in the general.