Too bad the Supreme Court didn't have more homophobes and bigots. Ronald and Nancy would be pitching a fit, it's a good thing they are dead. But Republicans love and embrace the "Rule of Law" and now it is the "Rule of Law" so suck it up Mr and Mrs Uptighty Whitey (R) your sorry lives will not change because the SCOTUS did the right thing twice in one week. Stuff happens and sometimes it is good.
George I believe you are doing the same thing that you are complaining about. Pointing fingers. I am a republican and I fully support this law and believe the government shouldn't tell us what to do. Stereotyping doesn't look good on anyone!
To be honest, I support shacking up. Marriage is a life sentence that drags on like having a job that you hate until you die, long after the thrill is gone.
I am very disappointed that already more than 100 people disagree with the ruling.
Marriage in our society conveys many personal and powerful rights to the partner - including life-and-death decisions. For too long, those who happen to not fit "traditional" marriage have been barred from participating in that legal agreement. This ruling extends those legal rights to those whose rights were restrained.
From a religious angle, this ruling means NOTHING. No religion or religious figure will be forced to perform same-sex marriages, just as no religion or religious figure is required to, for example, perform marriages for non-members. Anybody telling you otherwise is lying, and if that lie is coming from a pulpit, that liar better brush up on that "thou shalt not give false witness" thingy.
Those who are against this ruling due to the concept of "traditional marriage"? Let's look at the biggest (loudest) proponents of "traditional marriage" - Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole (from a while back), Rush Limbaugh, Donald Trump.... All married, all DIVORCED, two of them multiple times. I guess I'm a follower of traditional marriage per their definition - got married, got divorced. At least I didn't leave my ex- in a hospital bed in the cancer ward, or trade in an older used model (pun intended, I guess) with a few wrinkles for a newer one.
From the religious standpoint - tradition used to be that the wife was chattel to the husband, and that the man could have multiple wives. Haven't heard many rants about THAT tradition being overturned (ignoring remote groups in Utah, of course). Don't forget other traditions written about in holy books such as stoning "whores" (duck, Bristol!), not wearing wool and cotton together, and physically owning other human beings. Gosh - such great traditions, yet we have managed to overcome them as we've come to realize that restraining rights from others in such manner is just plain wrong.
Oh, well.... A dozen or so years ago surveys showed same-sex marriage was approved by only 37 (or was it 39?) percent of the people, yet now a similar survey shows same-sex marriage is now disapproved by the same percentage. That's growth, in a good way.
It's also possible to strongly support gay marriage and oppose the ruling on federalist's grounds. The question as asked, admittedly, doesn't allow for that kind of nuance. I know some of our readers would fall into that camp.
I felt that this issue should have never been addressed at the SCOTUS level. This court was originally established to rule on the Constitutionality of disputes. Not affairs of the heart. Marriage has always been controlled by the state and religions. Now the financial impact at the Federal level will be felt in the future.
Curious if this will lead the way to legalizing polygamy. It only makes sense, given the court's ruling. I am quite sure this is going to be challenged somewhere out there. Any WNY'ers living in a multiple partner relationship thinking about it? I have my hands full with one, but I don't begrudge anyone the ability to be married to multiple people. If we are throwing tradition out the window anyway, why stop at couples?
He better watch himself, Bea! I've seen multiple RWWJs posting videos of President Obama from 2008 declaring marriage to be man/woman, and that same-sex marriages should not happen. They cannot comprehend that somebody might change their minds when their belief puts constraints on the rights of some. Shoot, even George Wallace recanted his racists beliefs.
But if Senator Graham (he's from South Carolina, not North Carolina as stated in the article) pushes for acceptance of same-sex marriage, his GOP buddies will accuse him of being a flip-flopper (not a decent human being).
"From a religious angle, this ruling means NOTHING. No religion or religious figure will be forced to perform same-sex marriages, just as no religion or religious figure is required to, for example, perform marriages for non-members"
But if I refuse to cater a gay wedding, based on my Christian faith, I can be sued and shut down.
"Let's look at the biggest (loudest) proponents of "traditional marriage" - Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole (from a while back), Rush Limbaugh, Donald Trump."
You forgot to mention Bill and Hillary in his second presidential bid - with Pelosi on their coattails.
"Don't forget other traditions written about in holy books such as stoning "whores" (duck, Bristol!)"
Jesus asked the person with no sin to throw the first stone. I'm sure that your remark about Bristol Palin is objective and not the typical liberal tactic of accusations without basis trying for political gain.
I did not vote but I will take Tim's word that a 100 people disagree with the ruling. There is good reason they have not come on here to give their view.
You can not come on here and go against " Batavia's" grain. This board and the regulars have a lynch mob mentality. You will get hammered and criticized and when you swing back, your posting will be pulled. This is Howard's on line news and he can rightfully edit or censor any part of it he pleases, however do not express your opinion if it goes against the masses. .... p.s. how was the picnic with the Quran thumpin iragi lady?
YOU are not a religion - therefore you cannot discriminate. Get ordained and hide behind the mythology of your choice if you want to do that.
FWIW- President and Mrs. Clinton are still married. A rough spot in the road or two (and maybe a stained dress here or there), but they are still married....unlike the heretics I mentioned. ;-)
And last I checked, it was a bunch of so-called christians who were damning gays to hell. And I'm sure *they* had no sins in their past, just like Jimmy Bakker and his ilk.
Thats not true David, you just have to have enough smarts to attack the issue and not the poster. You also accuse Howard of editing..... where has that ever happened? Only times Howard ever pulled anything of mine has always been over a personal attack.
Bob - Care to elaborate how this ruling leads to more intervention and intrusion by our government? I think giving a group of people the freedom to do something that they previously couldn't qualifies as more freedom.
I think if the gays want to marry, so be it. What I don`t get is why all of America is supposed to celebrate it. To wake up in the morning, turn on the news and see the White House lit up like a rainbow is a joke! Take away the right of a southerner to wave the rebel flag one day and then plaster the rainbow everywhere the next??? I don`t care if the gays get married but I also refuse to support it as well and don`t appreciate our country looking like it is a big gay circus to the rest of the world by lighting the White House like a rainbow. They gave Bruce Jenner a medal for turning into a woman and the masses applaud that? What the hell is going on in our country? I for one do not look to this as nothing more than a sign of weakness and I think we all better wake up! It`s not about religion to me either. Religion is far too hypocritical for me as well. Its about common values. Political correct is destroying this country! We as a nation were much better off back before all this crap came about. Maybe we should figure out how to strengthen the economy again with full-time jobs, cure cancer, stop Isis, etc. and celebrate that. I just don`t get it. It makes me sick to turn on the news anymore.
Too bad the Supreme Court
Too bad the Supreme Court didn't have more homophobes and bigots. Ronald and Nancy would be pitching a fit, it's a good thing they are dead. But Republicans love and embrace the "Rule of Law" and now it is the "Rule of Law" so suck it up Mr and Mrs Uptighty Whitey (R) your sorry lives will not change because the SCOTUS did the right thing twice in one week. Stuff happens and sometimes it is good.
George I believe you are
George I believe you are doing the same thing that you are complaining about. Pointing fingers. I am a republican and I fully support this law and believe the government shouldn't tell us what to do. Stereotyping doesn't look good on anyone!
To be honest, I support
To be honest, I support shacking up. Marriage is a life sentence that drags on like having a job that you hate until you die, long after the thrill is gone.
I am very disappointed that
I am very disappointed that already more than 100 people disagree with the ruling.
Marriage in our society conveys many personal and powerful rights to the partner - including life-and-death decisions. For too long, those who happen to not fit "traditional" marriage have been barred from participating in that legal agreement. This ruling extends those legal rights to those whose rights were restrained.
From a religious angle, this ruling means NOTHING. No religion or religious figure will be forced to perform same-sex marriages, just as no religion or religious figure is required to, for example, perform marriages for non-members. Anybody telling you otherwise is lying, and if that lie is coming from a pulpit, that liar better brush up on that "thou shalt not give false witness" thingy.
Those who are against this ruling due to the concept of "traditional marriage"? Let's look at the biggest (loudest) proponents of "traditional marriage" - Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole (from a while back), Rush Limbaugh, Donald Trump.... All married, all DIVORCED, two of them multiple times. I guess I'm a follower of traditional marriage per their definition - got married, got divorced. At least I didn't leave my ex- in a hospital bed in the cancer ward, or trade in an older used model (pun intended, I guess) with a few wrinkles for a newer one.
From the religious standpoint - tradition used to be that the wife was chattel to the husband, and that the man could have multiple wives. Haven't heard many rants about THAT tradition being overturned (ignoring remote groups in Utah, of course). Don't forget other traditions written about in holy books such as stoning "whores" (duck, Bristol!), not wearing wool and cotton together, and physically owning other human beings. Gosh - such great traditions, yet we have managed to overcome them as we've come to realize that restraining rights from others in such manner is just plain wrong.
Oh, well.... A dozen or so years ago surveys showed same-sex marriage was approved by only 37 (or was it 39?) percent of the people, yet now a similar survey shows same-sex marriage is now disapproved by the same percentage. That's growth, in a good way.
It's also possible to
It's also possible to strongly support gay marriage and oppose the ruling on federalist's grounds. The question as asked, admittedly, doesn't allow for that kind of nuance. I know some of our readers would fall into that camp.
I'd love to point out that
I'd love to point out that Mrs. Hilary Clinton was firmly against same-sex marriages when that was the popular view. Now, that has changed and she celebrates Love these days.
Gaaak. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/hillary-clintons-ga…
If you don't like gay
If you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married!
I'm pleased with the decision. More freedom is a good thing.
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/9YiSVn
I'm too old to care and I never did before I was too old to care. Still I am partial to picture six.
I felt that this issue should
I felt that this issue should have never been addressed at the SCOTUS level. This court was originally established to rule on the Constitutionality of disputes. Not affairs of the heart. Marriage has always been controlled by the state and religions. Now the financial impact at the Federal level will be felt in the future.
Curious if this will lead the
Curious if this will lead the way to legalizing polygamy. It only makes sense, given the court's ruling. I am quite sure this is going to be challenged somewhere out there. Any WNY'ers living in a multiple partner relationship thinking about it? I have my hands full with one, but I don't begrudge anyone the ability to be married to multiple people. If we are throwing tradition out the window anyway, why stop at couples?
Rethinking a position seems
Rethinking a position seems to be in the air. http://buzzpo.com/gop-presidential-candidate-calls-on-party-to-change-p…
He better watch himself, Bea!
He better watch himself, Bea! I've seen multiple RWWJs posting videos of President Obama from 2008 declaring marriage to be man/woman, and that same-sex marriages should not happen. They cannot comprehend that somebody might change their minds when their belief puts constraints on the rights of some. Shoot, even George Wallace recanted his racists beliefs.
But if Senator Graham (he's from South Carolina, not North Carolina as stated in the article) pushes for acceptance of same-sex marriage, his GOP buddies will accuse him of being a flip-flopper (not a decent human being).
"From a religious angle, this
"From a religious angle, this ruling means NOTHING. No religion or religious figure will be forced to perform same-sex marriages, just as no religion or religious figure is required to, for example, perform marriages for non-members"
But if I refuse to cater a gay wedding, based on my Christian faith, I can be sued and shut down.
"Let's look at the biggest (loudest) proponents of "traditional marriage" - Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole (from a while back), Rush Limbaugh, Donald Trump."
You forgot to mention Bill and Hillary in his second presidential bid - with Pelosi on their coattails.
"Don't forget other traditions written about in holy books such as stoning "whores" (duck, Bristol!)"
Jesus asked the person with no sin to throw the first stone. I'm sure that your remark about Bristol Palin is objective and not the typical liberal tactic of accusations without basis trying for political gain.
You translate more
You translate more intevention and intrusion by government regulating our behavior as more freedom?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
http://louderwithcrowder.com
http://louderwithcrowder.com/hillary-clinton-called-gay-marriage-hypocr…
I did not vote but I will
I did not vote but I will take Tim's word that a 100 people disagree with the ruling. There is good reason they have not come on here to give their view.
You can not come on here and go against " Batavia's" grain. This board and the regulars have a lynch mob mentality. You will get hammered and criticized and when you swing back, your posting will be pulled. This is Howard's on line news and he can rightfully edit or censor any part of it he pleases, however do not express your opinion if it goes against the masses. .... p.s. how was the picnic with the Quran thumpin iragi lady?
YOU are not a religion -
YOU are not a religion - therefore you cannot discriminate. Get ordained and hide behind the mythology of your choice if you want to do that.
FWIW- President and Mrs. Clinton are still married. A rough spot in the road or two (and maybe a stained dress here or there), but they are still married....unlike the heretics I mentioned. ;-)
And last I checked, it was a bunch of so-called christians who were damning gays to hell. And I'm sure *they* had no sins in their past, just like Jimmy Bakker and his ilk.
Thats not true David, you
Thats not true David, you just have to have enough smarts to attack the issue and not the poster. You also accuse Howard of editing..... where has that ever happened? Only times Howard ever pulled anything of mine has always been over a personal attack.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Bob - Care to elaborate how
Bob - Care to elaborate how this ruling leads to more intervention and intrusion by our government? I think giving a group of people the freedom to do something that they previously couldn't qualifies as more freedom.
I think if the gays want to
I think if the gays want to marry, so be it. What I don`t get is why all of America is supposed to celebrate it. To wake up in the morning, turn on the news and see the White House lit up like a rainbow is a joke! Take away the right of a southerner to wave the rebel flag one day and then plaster the rainbow everywhere the next??? I don`t care if the gays get married but I also refuse to support it as well and don`t appreciate our country looking like it is a big gay circus to the rest of the world by lighting the White House like a rainbow. They gave Bruce Jenner a medal for turning into a woman and the masses applaud that? What the hell is going on in our country? I for one do not look to this as nothing more than a sign of weakness and I think we all better wake up! It`s not about religion to me either. Religion is far too hypocritical for me as well. Its about common values. Political correct is destroying this country! We as a nation were much better off back before all this crap came about. Maybe we should figure out how to strengthen the economy again with full-time jobs, cure cancer, stop Isis, etc. and celebrate that. I just don`t get it. It makes me sick to turn on the news anymore.