[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Moderator

Just a gentle reminder... the original topic was the Supreme Court ruling on same sex marriage.

The thread has veered off into religious and other social tangents but has remained, for the most part, thoughtful and civil and non-political. Good job!!!

You are right, Moderator; as far as I'm concerned, we've pretty much covered the original topic—time and again—and I would agree that the "religious and social tangents" are exactly that—tangents—to this important topic of the U.S. Supreme Court inclusionary decision. As I had suggested earlier, I think we've reached the point of coming to terms with "beating a dead horse" (or "equine," Gracie). I for one have nothing further to add....

[angiefox10]

Originally Posted by Quixote

You are right, Moderator; as far as I'm concerned, we've pretty much covered the original topic—time and again—and I would agree that the "religious and social tangents" are exactly that—tangents—to this important topic of the U.S. Supreme Court inclusionary decision. As I had suggested earlier, I think we've reached the point of coming to terms with "beating a dead horse" (or "equine," Gracie). I for one have nothing further to add....

Agree!

[Golfingnut]

I will close out by saying the courts DOMA decision is supported by MANY Christians, Muslims, Atheists' and ME.

Also, I will close out by saying the courts DOMA decision is not supported by MANY Christians, Muslims, Atheists.

I am proud to be among the supporters.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Golfingnut

I will close out by saying the courts DOMA decision is supported by MANY Christians, Muslims, Atheists' and ME.

Also, I will close out by saying the courts DOMA decision is not supported by MANY Christians, Muslims, Atheists.

I am proud to be among the supporters.

True 'nuff, though I would add Jews, Hindus, and all other religious groups to both statements (just to be inclusionary). But remember, as Moderator pointed out, religious issues are "tangents" to the actual topic of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision; the real issue is equal civil rights for a group of our fellow citizens!

[rubicon]

The Supreme court decided (actually one Justice Kennedy) and not "we the people "and it therefore remains unsettled in many citizens minds, again as did roe V Wade. The consequences will of that move by the court are yet to unfold. You can judge issues such as this by who spoke up because most won't.

[janmcn]

Originally Posted by rubicon

The Supreme court decided (actually one Justice Kennedy) and not "we the people "and it therefore remains unsettled in many citizens minds, again as did roe V Wade. The consequences will of that move by the court are yet to unfold. You can judge issues such as this by who spoke up because most won't.

"We the people" spoke in 2008 when the residents of Florida voted by a 61% margin to ban same-sex marriage in the state of Florida. If you were living here and didn't vote, shame on you. I, for one, was not part of the 61% but I will abide by the vote by "we the people". In our democracy, the majority rules.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by rubicon

The Supreme court decided (actually one Justice Kennedy) and not "we the people "and it therefore remains unsettled in many citizens minds, again as did roe V Wade. The consequences will of that move by the court are yet to unfold. You can judge issues such as this by who spoke up because most won't.

Our country was founded as a nation of laws, and the U.S. Supreme Court operates on the basis of constitutional structure. Those of us who focus so much on "strict interpretation" of the U.S. Constitution must be very, very conscious of this. It is my understanding that court decisions are made based on majority, as is appropriate for the democracy that we are. Hence, even though one Justice undertakes the responsibility of writing the majority opinion, he or she is not responsible for the decision itself; he or she was just one vote in making that decision.

Speaking of democracy, when Alexis de Tocqueville visited and toured our fledgling nation in the 1830s, one of the things he noted was what he referred to as "the tyranny of the majority," meaning that the minority (i.e. in some instances, "minorities" [plural]) were forced by democracy, so to speak, to live with the effects of votes by the majority. This can be particularly appreciated when one is on the losing end of an election, as an example. Anytime is a good time to pick up de Tocqueville's seminal work (Democracy in America) and re-read it, as it is always timely.

I'm in complete agreement with the statement about "who spoke up because most won't." And that "won't" so often means "not be bothered." Sad when you think about it. This is why when an elected official receives a letter (yes, some of us still write letters!) expressing a view on a subject, that official considers that the letter represents hundreds of constituents, perhaps thousands, perhaps even tens or hundreds of thousands.

[Golfingnut]

Originally Posted by Quixote

True 'nuff, though I would add Jews, Hindus, and all other religious groups to both statements (just to be inclusionary). But remember, as Moderator pointed out, religious issues are "tangents" to the actual topic of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision; the real issue is equal civil rights for a group of our fellow citizens!

Yea, I think I got it. I would direct you to the one that started this thread. I simply wished to make an exit from the thread without offending anyone.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by Barefoot

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

The problem with that is, "Do unto others...." can be looked at in any number of ways. Who's doing what to whom is largely a matter of one's perception or perspective. In general, both sides see the other as trying to deprive them of something. Some are saying, "don't deprive me of same-sex marriage" while others are saying, "don't destroy the institution of marriage as being between one man and one woman."

[Monkei]

Originally Posted by allus70

So who do we listen to, the ever avenging, angry God.... forever watching and waiting for someone to break a rule or two so he can deal out swift and terrible punishment.... or the simple, peaceful guy that said "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another."

I don't know about you, but the carpenter gets my vote.

That's what's wrong when you use a pick and choose book to base life on. Gay marriage is now here to stay. All the hatred will simply go away some day in the future and it will become no less common than any oth other items our society has accepted albeit dragged into kicking and shouting.

[kittygilchrist]

can you get married in a church without a license? gay or straight...?

[chachacha]

not if you want a legal marriage.

[angiefox10]

Originally Posted by kittygilchrist

can you get married in a church without a license? gay or straight...?

As already stated.... yes but it's not legal. Gays have been "married" in churches for years... Just not legally.... Many churches have no problem with gays or gays being married.

[ilovetv]

Originally Posted by janmcn

"We the people" spoke in 2008 when the residents of Florida voted by a 61% margin to ban same-sex marriage in the state of Florida. If you were living here and didn't vote, shame on you. I, for one, was not part of the 61% but I will abide by the vote by "we the people". In our democracy, the majority rules.

This is exactly the problem! "We the People" of California also spoke when they voted to define "marriage" as one man and one woman in their state.

But "that eminent tribunal", as Lincoln called it, over-reached and struck down the will of "we the people" in CA:

"....this kind of judicial presumption is not compatible with the American promise of popular self-rule. As Lincoln observed in his First Inaugural,

If the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.

Abraham Lincoln, the Supreme Court, and the Defense of Marriage Act | Public Discourse

[Monkei]

Originally Posted by ilovetv

This is exactly the problem! "We the People" of California also spoke when they voted to define "marriage" as one man and one woman in their state.

But "that eminent tribunal", as Lincoln called it, over-reached and struck down the will of "we the people" in CA:

"....this kind of judicial presumption is not compatible with the American promise of popular self-rule. As Lincoln observed in his First Inaugural,

If the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.

Abraham Lincoln, the Supreme Court, and the Defense of Marriage Act | Public Discourse

Using that knowledge I am sure that a vast majority of southern citizens were ok with slavery. They might not have had a prop to vet on but their elected officials chose to leave the union. Sometimes I wonder if this country would have been better to just let the south succeed.