What the SSM SCOTUS Ruling Actually Means.

[Coloradomtnman]

It means that the Federal and State governments of the United States has to legally recognize same-sex marriage. That's it; nothing more.

If you believe that same-sex marriage is morally or personally repugnant, you can continue to believe that way. You are not being forced to accept gay marriage. You are not being forced to accept homosexuality in anyway, at all.

The ruling isn't about redefining marriage for anyone but the government. Individual US citizens can continue to define, for themselves, that marriage is between and a man and a woman.

Let freedom ring!

 

[martybegan]

It means that the Federal and State governments of the United States has to legally recognize same-sex marriage. That's it; nothing more.

If you believe that same-sex marriage is morally or personally repugnant, you can continue to believe that way. You are not being forced to accept gay marriage. You are not being forced to accept homosexuality in anyway, at all.

The ruling isn't about redefining marriage for anyone but the government. Individual US citizens can continue to define, for themselves, that marriage is between and a man and a woman.

Let freedom ring!

BAKE THAT DAMN CAKE, PEASANT!!!

 

[Delta4Embassy]

It means that the Federal and State governments of the United States has to legally recognize same-sex marriage. That's it; nothing more.

If you believe that same-sex marriage is morally or personally repugnant, you can continue to believe that way. You are not being forced to accept gay marriage. You are not being forced to accept homosexuality in anyway, at all.

The ruling isn't about redefining marriage for anyone but the government. Individual US citizens can continue to define, for themselves, that marriage is between and a man and a woman.

Let freedom ring!

Means what I and others have been saying all along: marriage as far as the government is concerned is simply a legal contract. So if two men or two women can enter into other contracts, they must be allowed to enter into others.

Everything else is irrelevant.

 

[konradv]

BAKE THAT DAMN CAKE, PEASANT!!!

A lot more benign than, "TAKE THAT BEATING, FAG!!!"

 

[martybegan]

BAKE THAT DAMN CAKE, PEASANT!!!

A lot more benign than, "TAKE THAT BEATING, FAG!!!"

Did government ever mandate beating up homosexuals? Was there a commission to make sure it happened?

Equating violence with providing a service and somehow trying to make a point between the two shows the weakness of your position.

 

[Roadrunner]

It means that the Federal and State governments of the United States has to legally recognize same-sex marriage. That's it; nothing more.

If you believe that same-sex marriage is morally or personally repugnant, you can continue to believe that way. You are not being forced to accept gay marriage. You are not being forced to accept homosexuality in anyway, at all.

The ruling isn't about redefining marriage for anyone but the government. Individual US citizens can continue to define, for themselves, that marriage is between and a man and a woman.

Let freedom ring!

Means what I and others have been saying all along: marriage as far as the government is concerned is simply a legal contract. So if two men or two women can enter into other contracts, they must be allowed to enter into others.

Everything else is irrelevant.

Why just two?

What is sacrosanct about couples?

If this pisses off enough people, the Constitution can be amended.

If not, time to get over it.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

It means that the Federal and State governments of the United States has to legally recognize same-sex marriage. That's it; nothing more.

If you believe that same-sex marriage is morally or personally repugnant, you can continue to believe that way. You are not being forced to accept gay marriage. You are not being forced to accept homosexuality in anyway, at all.

The ruling isn't about redefining marriage for anyone but the government. Individual US citizens can continue to define, for themselves, that marriage is between and a man and a woman.

Let freedom ring!

Means what I and others have been saying all along: marriage as far as the government is concerned is simply a legal contract. So if two men or two women can enter into other contracts, they must be allowed to enter into others.

Everything else is irrelevant.

Why just two?

What is sacrosanct about couples?

If this pisses off enough people, the Constitution can be amended.

If not, time to get over it.

Want a 1000-person marriage more power to you. But the government should only apply the economic adjustments once.

 

[konradv]

BAKE THAT DAMN CAKE, PEASANT!!!

A lot more benign than, "TAKE THAT BEATING, FAG!!!"

Did government ever mandate beating up homosexuals? Was there a commission to make sure it happened? Equating violence with providing a service and somehow trying to make a point between the two shows the weakness of your position.

You're missing the point. You're obsessing about things that have gained publicity, but haven't actually happened very often vs. things that have happened often for decades. What is the government mandating except equal protection, found in the Constitution, but which conservatives only give lip service to when convenient?

 

[Wildman]

the future is that anyone can marry any thing, whether it be an object, animal, human and/or any number of said "things"

 

[konradv]

the future is that anyone can marry any thing, whether it be an object, animal, human and/or any number of said "things".

We do need a stupidity test, however. Starting with you.

 

[martybegan]

BAKE THAT DAMN CAKE, PEASANT!!!

A lot more benign than, "TAKE THAT BEATING, FAG!!!"

Did government ever mandate beating up homosexuals? Was there a commission to make sure it happened? Equating violence with providing a service and somehow trying to make a point between the two shows the weakness of your position.

You're missing the point. You're obsessing about things that have gained publicity, but haven't actually happened very often vs. things that have happened often for decades. What is the government mandating except equal protection, found in the Constitution, but which conservatives only give lip service to when convenient?

It's going to happen more and more often, and it will be government doing the dirty work.

And since you think equal protection has no limits, I guess I should be able to get a CCW in NYC using the same rules as found in Texas.

 

[Seawytch]

In some places you still would have to bake the cake...whether we could legally marry or not. Stop conflating Public Accommodation laws with civil marriage laws. Two completely different things.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

It means that the Federal and State governments of the United States has to legally recognize same-sex marriage. That's it; nothing more.

If you believe that same-sex marriage is morally or personally repugnant, you can continue to believe that way. You are not being forced to accept gay marriage. You are not being forced to accept homosexuality in anyway, at all.

The ruling isn't about redefining marriage for anyone but the government. Individual US citizens can continue to define, for themselves, that marriage is between and a man and a woman.

Let freedom ring!

BAKE THAT DAMN CAKE, PEASANT!!!

Indeed, or they will call the media and destroy your business.

 

[Roadrunner]

It means that the Federal and State governments of the United States has to legally recognize same-sex marriage. That's it; nothing more.

If you believe that same-sex marriage is morally or personally repugnant, you can continue to believe that way. You are not being forced to accept gay marriage. You are not being forced to accept homosexuality in anyway, at all.

The ruling isn't about redefining marriage for anyone but the government. Individual US citizens can continue to define, for themselves, that marriage is between and a man and a woman.

Let freedom ring!

Means what I and others have been saying all along: marriage as far as the government is concerned is simply a legal contract. So if two men or two women can enter into other contracts, they must be allowed to enter into others.

Everything else is irrelevant.

Why just two?

What is sacrosanct about couples?

If this pisses off enough people, the Constitution can be amended.

If not, time to get over it.

Want a 1000-person marriage more power to you. But the government should only apply the economic adjustments once.

Hey, there are extremes.

What if a person wanted to be in more than one marriage, but their partner didn't?

Could a gay man married to a gay man also marry a straight woman, so as to reproduce?

According to SCOTUS, I see no reason why mix and match in any combo should not be legal.

 

[Exquisite]

the future is that anyone can marry any thing, whether it be an object, animal, human and/or any number of said "things"

Now all I can think of is Peter Griffin marrying a pie.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

It means that the Federal and State governments of the United States has to legally recognize same-sex marriage. That's it; nothing more.

If you believe that same-sex marriage is morally or personally repugnant, you can continue to believe that way. You are not being forced to accept gay marriage. You are not being forced to accept homosexuality in anyway, at all.

The ruling isn't about redefining marriage for anyone but the government. Individual US citizens can continue to define, for themselves, that marriage is between and a man and a woman.

Let freedom ring!

Means what I and others have been saying all along: marriage as far as the government is concerned is simply a legal contract. So if two men or two women can enter into other contracts, they must be allowed to enter into others.

Everything else is irrelevant.

Why just two?

What is sacrosanct about couples?

If this pisses off enough people, the Constitution can be amended.

If not, time to get over it.

Want a 1000-person marriage more power to you. But the government should only apply the economic adjustments once.

Hey, there are extremes.

What if a person wanted to be in more than one marriage, but their partner didn't?

Could a gay man married to a gay man also marry a straight woman, so as to reproduce?

According to SCOTUS, I see no reason why mix and match in any combo should not be legal.

Can marry and live with however many you want. But the tax breaks and such will only be applied once. Wanna live alone and say you're "married" you can do that.

 

[BlindBoo]

the future is that anyone can marry any thing, whether it be an object, animal, human and/or any number of said "things"

When I was a young man I loved my rebuilt XS650B. So How soon can we wed?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Wanna invent your own cult and "marry" 500 men and 500 women you can do that. But the government will only recognize the first spouse and apply those economic incentives once.

 

[Seawytch]

It means that the Federal and State governments of the United States has to legally recognize same-sex marriage. That's it; nothing more.

If you believe that same-sex marriage is morally or personally repugnant, you can continue to believe that way. You are not being forced to accept gay marriage. You are not being forced to accept homosexuality in anyway, at all.

The ruling isn't about redefining marriage for anyone but the government. Individual US citizens can continue to define, for themselves, that marriage is between and a man and a woman.

Let freedom ring!

BAKE THAT DAMN CAKE, PEASANT!!!

Indeed, or they will call the media and destroy your business.

Wait...that's what Marty wants though. He wants the free market to handle things like "we don't serve n words here".

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It means that the Federal and State governments of the United States has to legally recognize same-sex marriage. That's it; nothing more.

If you believe that same-sex marriage is morally or personally repugnant, you can continue to believe that way. You are not being forced to accept gay marriage. You are not being forced to accept homosexuality in anyway, at all.

The ruling isn't about redefining marriage for anyone but the government. Individual US citizens can continue to define, for themselves, that marriage is between and a man and a woman.

Let freedom ring!

BAKE THAT DAMN CAKE, PEASANT!!!

This is ignorant and wrong.

Public accommodations laws are authorized by the Commerce Clause, having nothing to do with Obergefell, which was a 14th Amendment case.