We are supposed to stand for freedom, liberty, personal choices, and personal responsibilities. I think our government got a little smaller today, and that makes me proud. I dont care if you are Democrat or Republican, if you claim to support small government and freedom, today is a good day. Marriage is between you and your church, or you and your partner. The government can stay out of it.
Now that the ruling overturning Prop 8 was let stand, and DOMA was struck down, what of religious exceptions to SSM?
I expect them to pretty much go the same way as religious exceptions to Obamacare, which is to say, there won’t be any.
The SCOTUS has said it won’t tell states how to define marriage. States who do not grant religious exceptions to SSM will probably not have the SCOTUS tell them they must grant them.
Will those on the right who believe in moving away from social issues defend religious freedom if it means objections to SSM?
But the government hasn’t stayed out of religious freedom. Obamacare is not between you and your doctor or you and your church. Neither is SSM. It’s about government. Government did not get smaller today. The door was opened for government to have a greater say in your faith, if your faith has a moral objection to SSM.
@johng405 I dont want the government involved in my faith. And I dont want it involved in my health care either. The size of government did not get smaller today, your right. But it did not get bigger either. And I consider that a win. The government is separate from religion, and marriage is a religious matter. I think government should stay out of marriage all together period.
I’ll do the “less government” happy dance when I see what the DOJ and IRS unleash on churches after this.
The government is no longer separate from religion, and and government has countless regulations pertaining to marriage.
It’s a little simplistic to wave a magic wand and declare government is out of either.
I think that marriage is not something that government really can have a say in.
yes, it regulates it to a certain extent — you cant marry a 12 year old, for example…but limiting what two adults can do based on other people’s faith is a total violation of the separation of church and state.
if your religion tells you that people can’t marry interracially, is it right for the government to make it law?
most importantly, the government will not force any church to marry same sex couples, it would just give them the option to do so.
Good discussion. But @nathalie, the problem is that this gov caves to the loudest and rudest minority. I would love to believe that gay marriage would be just that–two gay people marrying. But, believe me, now that the traditional marriage definition has been successfully challenged (a definition that has stood the test of most of recorded civilization), it has opened the door to all kinds of aberrations. I’ve heard of a South American country considering granting a 3-person marriage; and of polygamists getting ready to legalize their marriages. I truly, sadly, do not think it impossible, or even improbably, that there WILL be marriages with children some day. After all, it’s a common practice in the Islamic world. Why not here.
I’d love it if churches were exempt from a law to marry same sex couples, but with this government’s refusal to honor Christian and Catholic ministries, schools, businesses, and their values, traditions, and policies, I see the dark side coming. I posted this link in another stream: http://spectator.org/blog/2013/07/09/baker-faces-jail-time-for-refu
A baker, of all things, is being threatened with a ONE YEAR JAIL TERM for refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple. Is that freedom?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.