Gay Marriage At Scotus: One Wedding Ring Thread To Rule Them All...

[sethpayne]

and from the sound of it, the Polygamists will be next to visit the altar of the court to get their "equal rights".

 

And I hope they succeed.  The Church suffered a gross and unconstitutional injustice.  My own family had to flee the country.

 

 It's about time to right that wrong.

Edited June 29, 2015 by sethpayne

[ELF1024]

And I hope they succeed.  The Church suffered a gross and unconstitutional injustice.  My own family had to flee the country.

 

 It's about time to right that wrong.

 

I think it's inevitable that Polygamy will be allowed, it would appear that the writing is the wall, and in the writings of those that disagreed with the decision. Just as it was with the anti-Sodomy case in from Texas.

 

That being said, I actually hope the Church does NOT return to endorsing polygamy in my lifetime.

[ELF1024]

I was born with the desire to pant my seed in every female I meet, why should I be condemned the rest of my life for doing what comes naturally? 

 

Mosiah 3:19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

[JLHPROF]

If that's the true then why did the Church ask members to waste literally millions of dollars to fight marriages that arent' real anyway?

 

Oh.... and while we are at it we should ask why the Church discontinued polygamy given that the law has no bearing on marriage.  Sure, we would lose our property.  But what is property when it comes to upholding principles?

 

Obviously the law has great bearing on what marriage is and how it functions in civil society.

 

Yep.  Very good questions.

 

Well, here's another definition of marriage...

 

This is purely a symantic argument. Some want to only define marriage as they choose to define it, even to the point of rejecting legal authority of the country to perform or recognize marriage. This makes ZERO sense to me. On one hand we claim we don't want the government defining our morality while at the same time demanding that they accept OUR morality.

 

IF the government is able to decide which marriage is legal and which is not based on a religious law or definition then we must be willing to accept how the governement defines that religious law. They have essentially gotten out of the business of defining what is and what isn't a morally acceptable marriage and instead leave it up to each individual and each church to define it for themselves.

 

You can't have it both way folks. I have yet to see a valid argument for why SSM should not be legally recognized. The only argument I see is a religious one based individual interpretation of "God's laws" and out of fear about what might happen in the future. People would rather deny equal rights simply out of fear of a slippery slope.

 

The simple scriptural truth is that God established marriage according to the religion I follow.  It is his to define, not ours.

Therefore any marriage that deviates from the word of God is not a real marriage.  He gets to decide what are marriages and what are not.  And until God says that SSM is a valid form of marriage I am under no requirement to call it such.

[Duncan]

I was born with the desire to pant my seed in every female I meet, why should I be condemned the rest of my life for doing what comes naturally? 

 

I would be happy to go to a BBQ with you anytime but eeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwww!!!!!! 

[ELF1024]

I was born with the desire to pant my seed in every female I meet, why should I be condemned the rest of my life for doing what comes naturally? 

 

Oh, and just for the record... telling the Stake High Council that you were just vigorously attempting to live the commandment of loving your neighbor... won't get you out of trouble.

 

True story.  

[Damien the Leper]

Just a side note for those who think gay parents are so wonderful. Have you seen the response from children of gay parents who wish they had a real mother and father. http://www.westernjournalism.com/woman-raised-lesbian-parents-just-said-destroys-liberal-gay-parenting-narrative/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=TPNNPages&utm_content=2015-06-29

One opinion.

Edited June 29, 2015 by Valentinus

[tonie]

You can take it one of two ways. Either I am assured enough in the Brethren that I "know" it will never come to that; or two, a complete lack of faith in the Church to remain true under the full weight of the government and society.

 

According to the FLDS and other polygamous groups, we've already buckled once.... and from the sound of it, the Polygamists will be next to visit the altar of the court to get their "equal rights".

 

I would like to read an argument supporting traditional marriage (man, woman, who procreate and the offspring are raised by biological parents), but is opposed to plural marriage.

 

If anything, the polygamist have more support from those who support traditionl marriage; plural marriage satisfies the reasons offered to support traditional marriage.

 

Polygamist did not need same sex marriage to become legal; polygamist ONLY needed ever claim "traditional marriage".

Edited June 29, 2015 by tonie

[Stone holm]

Sethpayne:  I suspect they got some very bad political advice or else it was rather a matter of group think.  The latter sometimes happens when you eliminate any opposing viewpoints -- whatever the case, if the idea was that Prop 8 would stop or slow down the movement towards legalizing SSM, they clearly got it wrong.   Even out here in liberal Vermont, the State had bought into Civil Unions (despite a concerted anti-lobbying effort by the Church and the Catholics) and the issue had settled down, until Prop 8 exploded on the scene after which the State quietly legislated SSM over the Governor's veto.  The backlash of Prop 8 triggered a huge tsunami which I believe can only be explained by the fact that the Church was so publicly visible.

[ELF1024]

This is laughable.  If anything, the polygamist have more support from those who support traditionl marriage.  One can not argue (from a legal standpoint) that plural marriage should be prohibited, when plural marriage satisfies the reasons offered to support traditional marriage.

 

Polygamist did not need same sex marriage to become legal; polygamist ONLY needed ever claim "traditional marriage".

 

Laughable or not, polygamous marriage is mentioned in the dissents of the justices, and the same day the ruling came out, Politico ran an article about it being time to legalize it.

[Duncan]

Laughable or not, polygamous marriage is mentioned in the dissents of the justices, and the same day the ruling came out, Politico ran an article about it being time to legalize it.

 

 

do you think there would be a lot of people who get married to multiple spouses? I can't see many who would do it other than for religious reasons, it's hard to obtain and maintain one to marry let alone 2 or more! 

[JLHPROF]

Laughable or not, polygamous marriage is mentioned in the dissents of the justices, and the same day the ruling came out, Politico ran an article about it being time to legalize it.

 

Oh, it'll happen.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Kody Brown and family spearhead it.  TLC would pay the legal battle fees, ratings would go through the roof.

Yep, I could see that happening.

Considering the number of articles promoting the tag line "marry who you love", I can see polygamy coming back in a big, non-religious way.

[sethpayne]

 

That being said, I actually hope the Church does NOT return to endorsing polygamy in my lifetime.

 

On this we certainly agree.

[ELF1024]

do you think there would be a lot of people who get married to multiple spouses? I can't see many who would do it other than for religious reasons, it's hard to obtain and maintain one to marry let alone 2 or more! 

 

I make it a rule to attempt never to under-estimate the stupidity of people in large groups.

 

I can envision all kinds of cult leaders eating up the idea of being married to all of their female followers. Jonestown, the Manson Family... now with spousal protection against testifying against the cult leader.

[rockpond]

That being said, I actually hope the Church does NOT return to endorsing polygamy in my lifetime.

 

Why?

[rockpond]

Oh, it'll happen.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Kody Brown and family spearhead it.  TLC would pay the legal battle fees, ratings would go through the roof.

Yep, I could see that happening.

Considering the number of articles promoting the tag line "marry who you love", I can see polygamy coming back in a big, non-religious way.

 

I agree.  Completely.

[ELF1024]

Why?

 

I have very personal reasons for such, which I do not feel like putting on an open forum.

 

Added:

 

The easy answer is the Feminists will throw a fit, but they will throw a fit anyway, so it's not like that's a real answer.

Edited June 29, 2015 by ELF1024

[Kenngo1969]

do you think there would be a lot of people who get married to multiple spouses? I can't see many who would do it other than for religious reasons, it's hard to obtain and maintain one to marry let alone 2 or more! 

Yep.  I've only said it about 20 times before, but, ya hafta monog before ya kin polyg!  

Edited June 29, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[The Nehor]

Yep.  I've only said it about 20 times before, but, ya hafta monog before ya kin polyg! D

Jacob only monoged for a week. Why has no one made a movie about that story and Jacob waking up the next morning to find out he married the wrong woman.

[HappyJackWagon]

Yep.  Very good questions.

 

 

The simple scriptural truth is that God established marriage according to the religion I follow.  It is his to define, not ours.

Therefore any marriage that deviates from the word of God is not a real marriage.  He gets to decide what are marriages and what are not.  And until God says that SSM is a valid form of marriage I am under no requirement to call it such.

The "simple scriptural truth" according to your interpretations. I may even share that interpretation, but not everyone will. It's great when we have the power to impose our interpretation on others but once we don't, watch out. To go with this line of reasoning requires great confidence in the government defining it.

 

Question- I've heard some claim that only temple marriage is a "legitimate" marriage which would mean every other marriage in the world is illigitimate. So to claim that the only legitimate marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman as God has ALWAYS defined it would naturally mean that any marriage outside of that paramater is illigitimate. Since the church has discontinued polygamy do you consider all polygamous marriages to be illigitimate, even when they are done legally (as they soon will be)? Or is legitimate marriage only definied by the CoJCoLDS?

[rockpond]

I have very personal reasons for such, which I do not feel like putting on an open forum.

 

Added:

 

The easy answer is the Feminists will throw a fit, but they will throw a fit anyway, so it's not like that's a real answer.

 

When the U.S. legalizes polygamy, it won't be strictly the way Mormonism practices it.  Legal polygamy in U.S. would include the ability to have multiple wives and/or multiple husbands.  Shouldn't be a cause for alarm with the feminists.  But who knows.

[Stone holm]

Rockpond, not only that but it was only authorized within the Church if approved by the upper levels of the Church Priesthood hierarchy, otherwise it was condemned.  Very doubtful that we would ever see the government authorize polygamy only for Mormons.

[Daniel2]

What I find missing in the discussion of this issue is the fact that the Supremes pretty much nullified States Rights and the will of the people in those states, setting a dangerous precedent for future decisions,.

 

Hi, Deborah,

 

Actually, the justices did not nullify states rights.  In fact, if one reads the ruling, you'd understand that they explicitly point out that although states often set their own policies regarding marriages in their own states, any of those state-based policies cannot infringe on the rights of individuals which are protected by the Federal Constitution.  That's not a new concept, and has been ruled on before many times.

 

In so doing, the justices used the U.S. Constitution to recognize a newly-recognized protected class's right to exercise their freedoms of privacy, association, and even religion to choose their own spouse in EXACTLY the same way that the court has previously struck down some states' restrictions regarding marriage.  In so doing, the court recognized and protected a new group's right to marry in the same way it had previously done in the cases of Loving, Zablocki, and Turner (as well as in 11 other rulings the court didn't focus as much on), all three of which were quoted in it's ruling:

 

Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. See Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 147–149 (1968). In addition these liberties extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453 (1972); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486 (1965).

 

The identification and protection of fundamental rights is an enduring part of the judicial duty to interpret the Constitution. That responsibility, however, “has not been reduced to any formula.” Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497, 542 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting). Rather, it requires courts to exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. See ibid. That process is guided by many of the same considerations relevant to analysis of other constitutional provisions that set forth broad principles rather than specific requirements. History and tradtion guide and discipline this inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. See Lawrence, supra, at 572. That method respects our history and learns from it without allowing the past alone to rule the present.

 

The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.

 

Applying these established tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution. In Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 12 (1967), which invalidated bans on interracial unions, a unanimous Court held marriage is “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” The Court reaffirmed that holding in Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U. S. 374, 384 (1978), which held the right to marry was burdened by a law prohibiting fathers who were behind on child support from marrying. The Court again applied this principle in Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78, 95 (1987), which held the right to marry was abridged by regulations limiting the privilege of prison inmates to marry. Over time and in other contexts, the Court has reiterated that the right to marry is fundamental under the Due Process Clause. See, e.g., M. L. B. v. S. L. J., 519 U. S. 102, 116 (1996); Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v. LaFleur, 414 U. S. 632, 639–640 (1974); Griswold, supra, at 486; Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535, 541 (1942); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 399 (1923).

 

......

 

Objecting that this does not reflect an appropriate framing of the issue, the respondents refer to Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997), which called for a “‘careful description’” of fundamental rights. They assert the petitioners do not seek to exercise the right to marry but rather a new and nonexistent “right to same-sex marriage.” Brief for Respondent in No. 14–556, p. 8. Glucksberg did insist that liberty under the Due Process Clause must be defined in a most circumscribed manner, with central reference to specific historical practices. Yet while that approach may have been appropriate for the asserted right there involved (physician-assisted suicide), it is inconsistent with the approach this Court has used in discussing other fundamental rights, including marriage and intimacy. Loving did not ask about a “right to interracial marriage”; Turner did not ask about a “right of inmates to marry”; and Zablocki did not ask about a “right of fathers with unpaid child support duties to marry.” Rather, each case inquired about the right to marry in its comprehensive sense, asking if there was a sufficient justification for excluding the relevant class from the right. See also Glucksberg, 521 U. S., at 752–773 (Souter, J., concurring in judgment); id., at 789–792 (BREYER, J., concurring in judgments).

 

That principle applies here. If rights were defined by who exercised them in the past, then received practices could serve as their own continued justification and new groups could not invoke rights once denied. This Court has rejected that approach, both with respect to the right to marry and the rights of gays and lesbians. See Loving 388 U. S., at 12; Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 566–567.

 

The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and tradition, but rights come not from ancient sources Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 19 Opinion of the Court alone. They rise, too, from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era. Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here. But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied. Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.

 

The right of same-sex couples to marry that is part of the liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment is derived, too, from that Amendment’s guarantee of the equal protection of the laws. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way, though they set forth independent principles. Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal protection may rest on different precepts and are not always coextensive, yet in some instances each may be instructive as to the meaning and reach of the other. In any particular case one Clause may be thought to capture the essence of the right in a more accurate and comprehensive way, even as the two Clauses may converge in the identification and definition of the right. See M. L. B., 519 U. S., at 120– 121; id., at 128–129 (KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment); Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U. S. 660, 665 (1983). This interrelation of the two principles furthers our understanding of what freedom is and must become.

 

The Court’s cases touching upon the right to marry reflect this dynamic. In Loving the Court invalidated a prohibition on interracial marriage under both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause. The Court 20 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES Opinion of the Court first declared the prohibition invalid because of its unequal treatment of interracial couples. It stated: “There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.” 388 U. S., at 12. With this link to equal protection the Court proceeded to hold the prohibition offended central precepts of liberty: “To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.” Ibid. The reasons why marriage is a fundamental right became more clear and compelling from a full awareness and understanding of the hurt that resulted from laws barring interracial unions.

 

The synergy between the two protections is illustrated further in Zablocki. There the Court invoked the Equal Protection Clause as its basis for invalidating the challenged law, which, as already noted, barred fathers who were behind on child-support payments from marrying without judicial approval. The equal protection analysis depended in central part on the Court’s holding that the law burdened a right “of fundamental importance.” 434 U. S., at 383. It was the essential nature of the marriage right, discussed at length in Zablocki, see id., at 383–387, that made apparent the law’s incompatibility with requirements of equality. Each concept—liberty and equal protection—leads to a stronger understanding of the other.

 

Indeed, in interpreting the Equal Protection Clause, the Court has recognized that new insights and societal understandings can reveal unjustified inequality within our most fundamental institutions that once passed unnoticed and unchallenged. To take but one period, this occurred with respect to marriage in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Notwithstanding the gradual erosion of the doctrine of cover- Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 21 Opinion of the Court ture, see supra, at 6, invidious sex-based classifications in marriage remained common through the mid-20th century. See App. to Brief for Appellant in Reed v. Reed, O. T. 1971, No. 70–4, pp. 69–88 (an extensive reference to laws extant as of 1971 treating women as unequal to men in marriage). These classifications denied the equal dignity of men and women. One State’s law, for example, provided in 1971 that “the husband is the head of the family and the wife is subject to him; her legal civil existence is merged in the husband, except so far as the law recognizes her separately, either for her own protection, or for her benefit.” Ga. Code Ann. §53–501 (1935). Responding to a new awareness, the Court invoked equal protection principles to invalidate laws imposing sex-based inequality on marriage. See, e.g., Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U. S. 455 (1981); Wengler v. Druggists Mut. Ins. Co., 446 U. S. 142 (1980); Califano v. Westcott, 443 U. S. 76 (1979); Orr v. Orr, 440 U. S. 268 (1979); Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U. S. 199 (1977) (plurality opinion); Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U. S. 636 (1975); Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U. S. 677 (1973). Like Loving and Zablocki, these precedents show the Equal Protection Clause can help to identify and correct inequalities in the institution of marriage, vindicating precepts of liberty and equality under the Constitution.

 

Other cases confirm this relation between liberty and equality. In M. L. B. v. S. L. J., the Court invalidated under due process and equal protection principles a statute requiring indigent mothers to pay a fee in order to appeal the termination of their parental rights. See 519 U. S., at 119–124. In Eisenstadt v. Baird, the Court invoked both principles to invalidate a prohibition on the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried persons but not married persons. See 405 U. S., at 446–454. And in Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, the Court invalidated under both principles a law that allowed steriliza- 22 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES Opinion of the Court tion of habitual criminals. See 316 U. S., at 538–543.

 

In Lawrence the Court acknowledged the interlocking nature of these constitutional safeguards in the context of the legal treatment of gays and lesbians. See 539 U. S., at 575. Although Lawrence elaborated its holding under the Due Process Clause, it acknowledged, and sought to remedy, the continuing inequality that resulted from laws making intimacy in the lives of gays and lesbians a crime against the State. See ibid. Lawrence therefore drew upon principles of liberty and equality to define and protect the rights of gays and lesbians, holding the State “cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.” Id., at 578.

 

This dynamic also applies to same-sex marriage. It is now clear that the challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and it must be further acknowledged that they abridge central precepts of equality. Here the marriage laws enforced by the respondents are in essence unequal: same-sex couples are denied all the benefits afforded to opposite-sex couples and are barred from exercising a fundamental right. Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial to same-sex couples of the right to marry works a grave and continuing harm. The imposition of this disability on gays and lesbians serves to disrespect and subordinate them. And the Equal Protection Clause, like the Due Process Clause, prohibits this unjustified infringement of the fundamental right to marry. See, e.g., Zablocki, supra, at 383–388; Skinner, 316 U. S., at 541.

 

These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 23 Opinion of the Court longer may this liberty be denied to them. Baker v. Nelson must be and now is overruled, and the State laws challenged by Petitioners in these cases are now held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite sex couples. 

 

(pgs.  10-11, 19-23

 

I'm sorry for the long quotations here... but really, I think if people actually READ the ruling, they'd find it's hard to suggest that members of the court somehow went rogue and didn't use the Constitution and build on an extensive and well documented load of cases that applied the same Constitutional reasoning to why gays and lesbians should be able to marry as they did to interracial couples, convicts, couples who use birth control, and even dead-beat dads who are behind in their child support payments to the children they had from first marriages.

 

The exceptional reasoning of the ruling speaks for itself.

[jwhitlock]

No church is required to perform same sex weddings. No church is required to accept or retain same sex couples in their membership. No church is required to recognize same-sex marriages as sacramental. Where is the threat to religious practice?

 

 

No religious institution is required to take tax exemptions or take state funding for their institutions, either. Neither are they forced to be public accommodations. Again, where is the threat?

 

Did you even bother to read the quotes? Do you understand the concept of cause an effect? Are you willfully ignoring the fact that the way this ruling was made will, without any doubt, result in pressure on churches to change their doctrines and practices to "conform" in violation of the First Amendment?

 

Taxing religious organizations would be a violation of the First Amendment, but there's going to be pressure to do so by removing tax exemptions for those who won't accept SSM. It's already been disturbing to see SSM supporters demand that churches be taxed, while their own non-profit activist organizations maintain tax-exempt status.

 

And you think there's no threat?

[california boy]

Ding, ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding! "Tell her what she's won, Bob!"

I was just about to say that not nearly enough attention has been paid to the implications the majority decision in Obergfell v. Hodges for religious exercise. As much as I appreciate the majority for kindly consenting to throw those of us who are devout a bone by allowing us to continue to "believe" and to "teach" according to the dictates of our consciences, neither one of those magnanimous allowances are as broad as what I believe the Founders had in mind when they drafted the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment. It's as though the majority says, "Sure, you can continue to have 'free exercise' of religion ... within the walls of your holy place on your holy day."

P.S.: And that's why, as concerned as the Brethren might be with the moral implications of gay marriage, to say that such moral concerns form the entire basis (or nearly the entire basis) of their opposition to it is to grossly misstate their position.

So we got one poster able to talk for Jesus and satan now we got you who is able to talk to the founding fathers. No wonder you guys don't think we need a Supreme Court.