Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie
I can agree with that.
Doesn't mean that it's not complete superstitious b.s. But if "believing" makes people feel better then fine with me.
It's the thought of the religious people constantly trying to shove that on to other people that gets me defensive.
Like this woman in Kentucky. She isn't "God". It isn't her place to make these judgements on the lives of other people.
Two people in love getting married doesn't hurt her in any way, shape, or form.
That's what always amazes me about the extremely religious people. They seem so obsessed with telling other people what they can and can't do.
Hell, the history of the persecution of our own industry is based on religious people deciding that sexuality is "evil".  |
i'm surprised you have this view. the issue isn't about her really and has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the constitution.
and the Supreme Court was not unanimous, at all, in fact it was a 5-4 decision, here are some dissenting opinions from the justices:
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas. Roberts accepted substantive due process, by which fundamental rights are protected through the Due Process Clause, but warned it has been misused over time to expand perceived fundamental rights. Roberts stated that no prior decision had changed the core component of marriage, that it be between one man and one woman; consequently, same-sex marriage bans did not violate the Due Process Clause.
Roberts also rejected the notion that same-sex marriage bans violated a right to privacy, because they involved no government intrusion or subsequent punishment. Addressing the Equal Protection Clause, Roberts stated that same-sex marriage bans did not violate the clause because they were rationally related to a governmental interest, preserving the traditional definition of marriage.
More generally, Roberts analyzed the history of marriage, which he claimed had always consisted of a "universal definition," "the union of a man and a woman" with the intended purpose of successful childrearing. Roberts criticized the majority opinion for relying on moral convictions rather than a constitutional basis, and for expanding fundamental rights without caution or regard for history. He also suggested the majority opinion could be used to expand marriage to include legalized polygamy.
Roberts chided the majority for overriding the democratic process and for using the judiciary in a way that was not originally intended. According to Roberts, supporters of same-sex marriage cannot win "true acceptance" for their side because the debate has now been closed. Roberts also suggested the majority's opinion will ultimately lead to consequences for religious liberty, and he found the Court's language unfairly attacks opponents of same-sex marriage.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...4-556_3204.pdf