Today is a sad day in American history

[philip964]

I really don't care about Gays one way or the other. They are people and should have rights like anyone else.

I don't think however, the government should be in the business of marrying people.

Let churches do the marrying.

Let governments decide on partnerships.

To me the government should issue domestic partnership licenses. Please don't call it marriage. I am offended for the government to do that.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Marriage is both a spiritual status recognized and held sacred by God, and a legal status recognized by the state. Property rights, child custody and support and other matters are determined by the legal status of marriage.

There's no need for so-called domestic partnerships; that's just a euphemism for marriage, just as "a matter of choice" is a euphemism for baby-killing. Anyone can set up a partnership to establish property rights, rights of survivorship, etc. That's been possible since before Texas became a state. The simple truth is people who support same-sex marriage don't merely want "rights," they want society to recognize them as being a married couple just as we do a man and a woman.

Chas.

[VMI77]

BTW, I agree with Scalia: http://www.nationaljournal.com/domestic ... e-20130626 This in particular:

It takes real cheek for today's majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority's moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress's hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will "confine" the Court's holding is its sense of what it can get away with.

[cb1000rider]

Chas, you can't have both.

Do you agree that one of our fundamental tenants as a country is that we separate religion from the running of government? Marriage is a religious idea, not a governmental concept... The government has it confused and because they're injecting a secular definition that requires equal acceptance to a religious concept, we've got a big conflict...

That facts are that gay people are disadvantaged in the areas that you've mentioned and as such, they don't have "separate but equal" options.
Oh, and by the way, we've tried "separate but equal" and it didn't work out so well.
If you think the options and rights are the same for same sex couples - do a little reading, particularly on inheritance and taxation differences. They're huge. I'll spare you the references. The options are very unequal in lots of cases.

Making a law doesn't mean society will accept it. Look at prohibition. Society isn't going to just do what the laws say. They're going to judge by personal morality, by what's legal, and probably with a little help from their local religious organization. I've seen no one here claim that gay is "right"... The courts decision simply recognizes the inherent class unfairness and indicates that it can't continue under the law.

You may be right that there are gay people that want more social acceptance. My opinion is that isn't what this is about and saying it's about "acceptance" is a political scare tactic.
We can't legislate social acceptance. We can legislate anti-descrimination. Feel free to have your own morality that aligns with your beliefs and/or religion. I'll have mine... And a 3rd parties can be different. It's part of what so many people fought and died for and continue to die for....

[Rrash]

Want a marriage policy that we call can agree on?
Marriage is a religious institution. One of the basic founding principles of our country is separation of church and state.
The government should get out of the marriage business. If they want to regulate something, they can regulate civil unions.
Churches get to regulate marriage and via that means, they can include or exclude whomever they want per moral doctrine.
Rights granted to citizens should not be predicated on marriage. They should be predicated on civil union. To do anything else results in some form of inequality and discrimination.

Well said.

I have always said that we will do much better as Christians (I work in a church) to live out what marriage is rather than tell others what it is not. I know it is not as simple as that, but it sure starts with living our lives the way we desire others to live.

[Redneck_Buddha]

So the last 24 hours have allowed the left to spread their peacock feathers and deploy their key weapons of mass distraction and faux outrage. The Texas GOP in no small part enabled this by waiting until zero hour for the abortion clinic standards bill.

Benghazi, IRS, NSA, DOJ, lawlesss elements in control of government. Glad to see the sheep are square in their collective focus.

[cb1000rider]

Yea, I'm having trouble following you there, although I understand the GOP reference.

[jimlongley]

By refusing to rule on the California amendment banning gay marriage, the Supreme Court has effectively said that government officials, by fiat, can chose to ignore the will of the people and refuse to defend a Constitutional amendment passed by the people.

Prior to 1965, there were many places in the USA where African Americans were not allowed to vote due to the will of the majority.
Prior to that, it was the will of the people that African Americans couldn't own property.
Prior to that, African Americans WERE property.
Women couldn't vote until 1920.

Clearly, we can't depend on the will of the people to make fair decisions. History teaches us over and over that an unprotected minority gets treated unfairly.


Want a marriage policy that we call can agree on?
Marriage is a religious institution. One of the basic founding principles of our country is separation of church and state.
The government should get out of the marriage business. If they want to regulate something, they can regulate civil unions.
Churches get to regulate marriage and via that means, they can include or exclude whomever they want per moral doctrine.
Rights granted to citizens should not be predicated on marriage. They should be predicated on civil union. To do anything else results in some form of inequality and discrimination.

And when my first wife tried to divorce her first husband, at the age of 18, in NY State, besides NY's divorce law requiring PROVABLE adultery (and the standard was set so high that it figuratively had to occur in front of the judge to be provable) she soon discovered that NY's divorce law considered a wife to be chattel if she was under the age of 21 (she was 18) and since her parents had signed for her to get married, they could not be assigned as her guardians should she succeed in obtaining a divorce from her property holder.

The chattel law for wives remained on NY's books until Nelson Rockefeller discovered how tough it would be to divorce his wife to marry the woman he was carrying on with, and as governor was able to twist enough political arms and call in enough favors to get the law changed, and during the rewrite they conveniently left out the chattel part.

[anygunanywhere]

There is no language in the Constitution regarding separation of church and state.

The constitution forbids the federal government from establishing a state sponsored religion and also prohibits the free exercise of religion.

Anygunanywhere

[Redneck_Buddha]

Yea, I'm having trouble following you there, although I understand the GOP reference.

Glad you were able to decipher something. That's better than most people can do with my posts !

[cb1000rider]

There is no language in the Constitution regarding separation of church and state.
The constitution forbids the federal government from establishing a state sponsored religion and also prohibits the free exercise of religion.

I don't argue that fact. Are you professing that the separation of church and state isn't a founding principle?

If you're going to argue the principle, please let me know which church the federal government should align with. Let me know how well that will work out for anyone.

There is an interesting reference in an old treaty that the US signed in 1797:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries

[philip964]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-i-w ... le/2532418" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Obama won't make churches conduct gay marriages. How benevolent of him. But will our next king or queen feel the same?

[Charles L. Cotton]

Chas, you can't have both.

Both what?

Do you agree that one of our fundamental tenants as a country is that we separate religion from the running of government? Marriage is a religious idea, not a governmental concept... The government has it confused and because they're injecting a secular definition that requires equal acceptance to a religious concept, we've got a big conflict...

I disagree. Marriage is not purely a "religious status." Marriage has been a recognized legal status since the beginning of the country. Things such as legal inheritance rights by intestate succession (no will) determine ownership rights to property is based solely upon the status of marriage.

You changed your position somewhat by speaking of "separate religion from the running of government." Originally, you use the buzz phrase "separation of church and state" and that phrase was not used by the founding fathers. The only thing the First Amendment intended was to prevent the United States from creating/mandating one single church as did England with the Church of England. It was never intended to allow atheists to thwart religion as is now the case.

The First Amendment was never intended to "separate religion from the running of government" because the constitutional form of government did not make it possible for any organized religion to "run the government." Entities don't vote, citizens do.

That facts are that gay people are disadvantaged in the areas that you've mentioned and as such, they don't have "separate but equal" options.
Oh, and by the way, we've tried "separate but equal" and it didn't work out so well.

So what? Homosexuality is not a constitutionally protected class, so your attempt to harken back to racial issues fails.

If you think the options and rights are the same for same sex couples - do a little reading, particularly on inheritance and taxation differences. They're huge. I'll spare you the references. The options are very unequal in lots of cases.

I'm an attorney and I know precisely what all citizens rights are in terms of currently available partnerships. Taxation is different in terms of the different marriage deduction for federal income tax purposes, but apparently you forgot about the so-called "marriage penalty" that actually penalized married couples.

I've seen no one here claim that gay is "right"... The courts decision simply recognizes the inherent class unfairness and indicates that it can't continue under the law.

If by "here" you mean TexasCHLforum, you may be right. If you contend that those who support same-sex marriage in the gay community don't claim a "right" to marriage, then you are paying attention to their position. "Inherent fairness" is not a constitutional issue and that's why this decision is so dangerous.

Feel free to have your own morality that aligns with your beliefs and/or religion. I'll have mine... And a 3rd parties can be different. It's part of what so many people fought and died for and continue to die for....

I don't make "my morality," and this is precisely the problem. When liberals and those supporting them argue that there is no "truth," no "right," and that each person should establish their own morality, then society is doomed. There is one morality, like it or not, accept it or not.

I also could not disagree with you more on the issue of what our servicemen fought and died for in so many wars. I dare say my father's comrades didn't risk their lives in WWII to support gay marriage, nor did my generation in Vietnam, or subsequent generations in the middle east. I don't know of one single serviceman who went to war so people back home could take an "anything goes" approach to morality. Indeed, such a people would not be worth fight for, much less dying.

Chas.

[baldeagle]

It really stinks for the polygamists.

Trust me. Their turn is coming. Pandora's box has been opened.

[baldeagle]

What if the will of the people is to confiscate all the wealth of people earning more than $50,000 a year and redistribute it among those "less fortunate?"

Selfishness will never let that happen, but liberals will enforce it.

What if the will of the people is to ban all firearm ownership?

That will happen soon.

Should the will of the people be ignored? This is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic. What's supposed to happen is that an executive branch that implements the law is checked and balanced by representatives who understand and uphold the constitution and are checked and balanced by courts that understand and uphold the constitution. While the system doesn't work anymore, it was never meant to be an instrument for implementing the will of the people.

Sorry, I disagree.