SCOTUS: states cannot ban same sex marriage

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well here we go. That didn't take long.
VIDEO at the site


SNIP:
THE WAR BEGINS – Lesbian Senator: First Amendment Makes Clear Christians Must Participate In Gay Weddings

all of it here
Read more at http://patdollard.com/2015/06/the-w...ticipate-in-gay-weddings/#H8OsrXQU3ccuPJQK.99

You're either a liar or an idiot – likely both.

Did you bother to read what you linked – nowhere was anyone advocating that churches be compelled through force of law to afford same-sex couples religious marriage rituals.

 

[Shogun]

NAMBLA is thrilled with all this going on..... gives them hope.

(if you don't know what NAMBLA is I'll be happy to inform you..)

uh, you got business cards or something?

lol

 

[Steinlight]

I don't think it had much to do with the civil rights movement. I think Feminism and the Sexual Revolution definitely had a role in the current view of homosexuality in the mainstream media, the political establishment, and a good percentage of the country(probably close to 50% of people). I think you are right about Feminism having an influence. Definitely in the idea of separating sex from procreation, marriage from procreation, came out of feminism and the sexual revolution. Also, the idea of solidified gender roles that became more vague as feminism became mainstream. The idea that there is no difference between men and women, and that roles can be interchanged, particularly in parenting. A good percentage of don't think that having two parents necessarily matters in child rearing, or that the sex of those parents matters.

The biggest down side of feminism being that now two incomes are required to pay the bills, thus making it quite difficult to raise a family AND children for the less educated. (aka forced to drop out of school and thus stunting their education.) The support structure we have in place for single young mothers is oft little more than religious based shame and not a lot of actual help. Though I'm at a loss how we can fix this stacking problem because the market has flown on the dual income plane and to change that would require doing things that we simply cannot do under our system.

The problem is the Government incentivizes single motherhood through the welfare state. The more you subsidize a behavior, the more you get of it. As long as single motherhood is a viable economic option, and women who have children outside of wedlock can rely on the State, this situation won't be corrected.

Well it's clearly not a viable economic option, nor is apparently working at min wage. Cutting off all welfare is not... an acceptable solution in my mind. We are a wealthy enough country to help folks in need of help out. There needs to be limits of course, and perhaps stronger limits than we have now. However, that does /nothing/ to address the underlying problem that mothers today cannot handle the supervision of their child(ren) while working, it does not address the fact that fathers are abandoning their children and dodging child support. Again, the process of shaming the single parent is not working, and I'll agree neither is just throwing money at them for eternity; we need to find a different method.

The rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms. Women have children out of wedlock because they know they will have a bailout. That isn't to say that all single motherhood will be eliminated. But it will be reduced significantly. At the end of the day, humans are economic actors, and act to maximize their resources. If women know they wont have government resources, and have to pay it all on their own, they are more likely to not get into situations that lead to children out of wedlock.

It may sound mean, but in reality, we shouldn't be expected to pick up the tab for other people's bad decisions, particularly at the federal level. In the long run everyone will be better off when this economic incentive for dysfunctional behavior is removed. It is better off for the moms, children, and the society as a whole.

Do you have data to support your claim that the rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms?

In a forthcoming study for the journal Demography, Robert Moffitt, an economist at Johns Hopkins University, details how the poorest single-parent families—80 percent of which are headed by single mothers—receive 35 percent less in government transfers than they did three decades ago. Also, the birth rate to unmarried women has been flat since 2006 and declined in 2014

How Welfare Reform Left Single Moms Behind - The Atlantic

Share of births to unmarried women dips reversing a long trend Pew Research Center

At the same time, the evidence of a link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. Among the best of these studies is the work done by June O’Neill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent.(8)

Relationship Between the Welfare State and Crime Cato Institute

But in addition to this data, it is just common sense. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. Humans are resource maximizing beings that respond to economic signals. If women knew there wasn't a safety net where their poor decision wasn't subsidized, they would be less likely to make that poor decision. Obviously, such a program will have to phased out overtime, and you can't just cut aid to already born children. At the most, it should be a state issue, but even at my state level, I wouldn't support it because it just creates more of the problem it tries to solve.

 

[EverCurious]

The biggest down side of feminism being that now two incomes are required to pay the bills, thus making it quite difficult to raise a family AND children for the less educated. (aka forced to drop out of school and thus stunting their education.) The support structure we have in place for single young mothers is oft little more than religious based shame and not a lot of actual help. Though I'm at a loss how we can fix this stacking problem because the market has flown on the dual income plane and to change that would require doing things that we simply cannot do under our system.

The problem is the Government incentivizes single motherhood through the welfare state. The more you subsidize a behavior, the more you get of it. As long as single motherhood is a viable economic option, and women who have children outside of wedlock can rely on the State, this situation won't be corrected.

Well it's clearly not a viable economic option, nor is apparently working at min wage. Cutting off all welfare is not... an acceptable solution in my mind. We are a wealthy enough country to help folks in need of help out. There needs to be limits of course, and perhaps stronger limits than we have now. However, that does /nothing/ to address the underlying problem that mothers today cannot handle the supervision of their child(ren) while working, it does not address the fact that fathers are abandoning their children and dodging child support. Again, the process of shaming the single parent is not working, and I'll agree neither is just throwing money at them for eternity; we need to find a different method.

The rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms. Women have children out of wedlock because they know they will have a bailout. That isn't to say that all single motherhood will be eliminated. But it will be reduced significantly. At the end of the day, humans are economic actors, and act to maximize their resources. If women know they wont have government resources, and have to pay it all on their own, they are more likely to not get into situations that lead to children out of wedlock.

It may sound mean, but in reality, we shouldn't be expected to pick up the tab for other people's bad decisions, particularly at the federal level. In the long run everyone will be better off when this economic incentive for dysfunctional behavior is removed. It is better off for the moms, children, and the society as a whole.

Do you have data to support your claim that the rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms?

In a forthcoming study for the journal Demography, Robert Moffitt, an economist at Johns Hopkins University, details how the poorest single-parent families—80 percent of which are headed by single mothers—receive 35 percent less in government transfers than they did three decades ago. Also, the birth rate to unmarried women has been flat since 2006 and declined in 2014

How Welfare Reform Left Single Moms Behind - The Atlantic

Share of births to unmarried women dips reversing a long trend Pew Research Center

At the same time, the evidence of a link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. Among the best of these studies is the work done by June O’Neill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent.(8)

Relationship Between the Welfare State and Crime Cato Institute

But in addition to this data, it is just common sense. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. Humans are resource maximizing beings that respond to economic signals. If women knew there wasn't a safety net where their poor decision wasn't subsidized, they would be less likely to make that poor decision. Obviously, such a program will have to phased out overtime, and you can't just cut aid to already born children. At the most, it should be a state issue, but even at my state level, I wouldn't support it because it just creates more of the problem it tries to solve.

My argument is still that part of the criminal problem we have is mothers being forced to work. I do not doubt that some single-parents abuse the welfare program, in that they have more kids to get more money. Still, you kind of have to make a social/moral choice on that; do you want to risk more criminal/untended/bad kids, or do you want to save money on welfare? (Agreeably the present welfare setup is killing us on expense, but I'm sure, given that it's run by the government, it's horribly setup and wasteful. They can't even put out a damn website for millions...)

In any event, I think we've gotten off the subject at hand a bit.

 

[rightwinger]

The "lifestyle choice" part. It's not only bigoted but just plain stupid!

We all make choices in life. Getting up out of bed in the morning is a choice. Living with and having sex with someone of the same sex is a choice.

Only in your opinion, which is not factual.

How is that not a fact? Explain?

Since you can't prove it, then it is not fact.

Okay well you said this is not factual - not even my post, but, see below:

We all make choices in life (FACT). Getting up out of bed in the morning is a choice (FACT). Living with and having sex with someone of the same sex is a choice (FACT)

So you are encouraging denial of your sexuality as a choice?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

oh lookie,

SNIP:
Not News: Obama Admin Admits Tax-Exempt Status of Churches at Stake in Supremes' Gay 'Marriage Case
By Tom Blumer | April 30, 2015 | 12:04 AM EDT

Add the following to the "you will be made to care" stories Erick Erickson at RedState began to recognize several years ago.

Those who think that legalizing same-sex "marriage" won't affect them should have received a wake-up call on Tuesday during arguments at the Supreme Court over inventing a constitutional right for two people of the same sex to have such an arrangement. Most of them didn't get it, because, with only one exception I could find, the establishment press covering the proceedings perfectly understood the gravity of the discussion and its implications — and refused to report it, because doing so would give away the Obama administration's, and the left's, ultimate game plan.

The exception was at the Washington Post, via Sarah Pulliam Bailey at the paper's Acts of Faith blog. Even then, Get Religion's Terry Mattingly reports that Bailey's work didn't make the "ink on paper" edition.

Here's Bailey's coverage of what was arguably the most important question of the day:

Could religious institutions lose tax-exempt status over Supreme Court’s gay marriage case?


ALL of it here:

- See more at: Not News Obama Admin Admits Tax-Exempt Status of Churches at Stake in Supremes Gay Marriage Case

Again, you're either a liar or an idiot – and again, likely both.

You're an idiot for linking to a rightwing blog completely devoid of credibility.

You're a liar for attempting to propagate the lie contrived by the blog author that religious institutions will lose their tax-exempt status because they refuse to afford religious marriage rituals to same-sex couples.

The case cited in the blog, Bob Jones University v. United States (1983), is applicable only to schools, not churches or other purely religious institutions. And a tax-exempt status can be removed only when the private organization is in violation of Federal law; since there are no Federal statues prohibiting discrimination against same-sex couples, there is no Federal law to violate. Moreover, in Bob Jones the Court held that “government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education.” Clearly there is no fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating discrimination against same-sex couples in education.

Last, and most importantly, no one is seeking now, nor will anyone ever, to remove the tax-exempt status of churches or other religious organizations because of their hostility toward same-sex couples; indeed, in Obergefell Justice Kennedy reaffirmed in no uncertain terms that religious objections to same-sex couples marrying are entitled to full and comprehensive First Amendment protections:

“[T]he First Amendment ensures that religions, those who adhere to religious doctrines, and others have protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.”

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

BONZI SAID:

“Living with and having sex with someone of the same sex is a choice (FACT)”

A choice entitled to Constitutional protections, immune from attack by the state (FACT).

 

[Hossfly]

BONZI SAID:

“Living with and having sex with someone of the same sex is a choice (FACT)”

A choice entitled to Constitutional protections, immune from attack by the state (FACT).

Except sex with a same sex person isn't sex, love or tenderness. It's simple animalistic rutting and an abomination in God's eye.

 

[HappyJoy]

BONZI SAID:

“Living with and having sex with someone of the same sex is a choice (FACT)”

A choice entitled to Constitutional protections, immune from attack by the state (FACT).

Except sex with a same sex person isn't sex, love or tenderness. It's simple animalistic rutting and an abomination in God's eye.

Says the expert.

 

[Hossfly]

BONZI SAID:

“Living with and having sex with someone of the same sex is a choice (FACT)”

A choice entitled to Constitutional protections, immune from attack by the state (FACT).

Except sex with a same sex person isn't sex, love or tenderness. It's simple animalistic rutting and an abomination in God's eye.

Says the expert.

The expert ain't gonna go to hell or waste away with AIDS.

 

[HappyJoy]

BONZI SAID:

“Living with and having sex with someone of the same sex is a choice (FACT)”

A choice entitled to Constitutional protections, immune from attack by the state (FACT).

Except sex with a same sex person isn't sex, love or tenderness. It's simple animalistic rutting and an abomination in God's eye.

Says the expert.

The expert ain't gonna go to hell or waste with AIDS.

Good for you, ya' wrapped your dog.

 

[Hossfly]

BONZI SAID:

“Living with and having sex with someone of the same sex is a choice (FACT)”

A choice entitled to Constitutional protections, immune from attack by the state (FACT).

Except sex with a same sex person isn't sex, love or tenderness. It's simple animalistic rutting and an abomination in God's eye.

Says the expert.

The expert ain't gonna go to hell or waste with AIDS.

Good for you, ya' wrapped your dog.

 

[HappyJoy]

BONZI SAID:

“Living with and having sex with someone of the same sex is a choice (FACT)”

A choice entitled to Constitutional protections, immune from attack by the state (FACT).

Except sex with a same sex person isn't sex, love or tenderness. It's simple animalistic rutting and an abomination in God's eye.

Says the expert.

The expert ain't gonna go to hell or waste with AIDS.

Good for you, ya' wrapped your dog.

It's OK, don't worry about it.

 

[TrinityPower]

I have read through most of the posts about this issue and you know what occurred to me? Same as with abortion...those for it never admit they are a part of it just that they should be allowed to do it. I remember years ago working with people who argued oh I would never do it (abortion) but it isn't for me to say someone else can't. Interesting that not one of them admitted to having an abortion when later I leaned some had. I am seeing the same with this issue. No one admits they are gay but I bet you a good majority of those of you agreeing with the decision are one or know one, most likely related to one. I have yet in this thread to see someone admit hey I am gay. There is a stigma that comes with admitting it that is different than just stepping out saying I agree with the right to it but not admitting you are one of them. Just my observation.

 

[HappyJoy]

I have read through most of the posts about this issue and you know what occurred to me? Same as with abortion...those for it never admit they are a part of it just that they should be allowed to do it. I remember years ago working with people who argued oh I would never do it (abortion) but it isn't for me to say someone else can't. Interesting that not one of them admitted to having an abortion when later I leaned some had. I am seeing the same with this issue. No one admits they are gay but I bet you a good majority of those of you agreeing with the decision are one or know one, most likely related to one. I have yet in this thread to see someone admit hey I am gay. There is a stigma that comes with admitting it that is different than just stepping out saying I agree with the right to it but not admitting you are one of them. Just my observation.

There are several posters who have said they are gay. Does it matter? Am I gay? Who cares? A right is a right.

 

[Faun]

BONZI SAID:

“Living with and having sex with someone of the same sex is a choice (FACT)”

A choice entitled to Constitutional protections, immune from attack by the state (FACT).

Except sex with a same sex person isn't sex, love or tenderness. It's simple animalistic rutting and an abomination in God's eye.

Well if we're talkin' about an abomination in G-d's eye, so is:

Leviticus 11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you.

Leviticus 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
15 Every raven after his kind;
16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.

Leviticus 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

Leviticus 11:41 And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth shall be an abomination; it shall not be eaten.

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 19:5 And if ye offer a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the Lord, ye shall offer it at your own will.
6 It shall be eaten the same day ye offer it, and on the morrow: and if ought remain until the third day, it shall be burnt in the fire.
7 And if it be eaten at all on the third day, it is abominable; it shall not be accepted.

Deuteronomy 18:10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,
11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.
12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord

 

[rightwinger]

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.


How could anyone object to this?

 

[Hossfly]

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.


How could anyone object to this?

How about the known fact that a huge majority of gays were molested by adult gays when they were kids. Because they were violated and hurt and damaged spiritually they are now adults and if they're in a same sex marriage they are going to want kids in order to live a "loving" family life. Well, the sad truth is, they want every kid to experience the same molestation, pain and hurt they went through. They will insure their kids are broken-in like they were They are going to raise their kids as homosexuals and those kids are not being raised to have heterosexual marriages. They're going to marry someone of the same sex and the scenario will repeat itself over and over and over. That is my objection.

 

[Hossfly]

BONZI SAID:

“Living with and having sex with someone of the same sex is a choice (FACT)”

A choice entitled to Constitutional protections, immune from attack by the state (FACT).

Except sex with a same sex person isn't sex, love or tenderness. It's simple animalistic rutting and an abomination in God's eye.

Well if we're talkin' about an abomination in G-d's eye, so is:

Leviticus 11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you.

Leviticus 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
15 Every raven after his kind;
16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.

Leviticus 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

Leviticus 11:41 And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth shall be an abomination; it shall not be eaten.

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 19:5 And if ye offer a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the Lord, ye shall offer it at your own will.
6 It shall be eaten the same day ye offer it, and on the morrow: and if ought remain until the third day, it shall be burnt in the fire.
7 And if it be eaten at all on the third day, it is abominable; it shall not be accepted.

Deuteronomy 18:10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,
11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.
12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord

God hates a lot of things but he doesn't particularly like fudge packers or carpet munchers.

 

[rightwinger]

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.


How could anyone object to this?

How about the known fact that a huge majority of gays were molested by adult gays when they were kids. Because they were violated and hurt and damaged spiritually they are now adults and if they're in a same sex marriage they are going to want kids in order to live a "loving" family life. Well, the sad truth is, they want every kid to experience the same molestation, pain and hurt they went through. They will insure their kids are broken-in like they were They are going to raise their kids as homosexuals and those kids are not being raised to have heterosexual marriages. They're going to marry someone of the same sex and the scenario will repeat itself over and over and over. That is my objection.

Still selling that myth? That is from like 50 years ago

What does that have to do with people who are in love getting married?