Supreme Court vote 5-4 in favour of gay marriage in USA

Long overdue in the USA and with my well known political view points as you might expect i'm fully in favour of this.

No doubt Fox News will say God will seek revenge for this descision taken by the Supreme Court

As long as churches/priests aren't forced into marrying couples that they do not wish to, I guess it's fine.

At least with this non-issue out of the way, perhaps American politics can focus on something substantial.

And slightly off on a tangent, but good to see some kippers ignoring the intimidation of far-left groups.



I think I need that on my bedroom wall.

And I need the placard that read: "Vote Labour? I'm gay, not stupid."

Haven't looked but it will be no doubt be mainly southern states that haven't got gay marriage yet......The ones that no doubt think the 13th amendment (slavery) should be reversed and still regard a black person as 3/5 of a Man...

Wouldn't jump for joy yet most of the Attorney General's in these States will be looking at the ruling to see If there is either a technical way out or a time limit imposed so they can stall....

As for the churches...........If it's law they should comply.........

One church pastor in Texas has already said if he is forced to marry same sex couples he will set himself on fire....

Well as a firm atheist, I don't agree with Christianity. Obviously.

But not supporting gay marriage is a view that is just as valid as supporting gay marriage.

And, as such, supporting gay marriage should not be forcibly imposed on organisations (say churches or bakeries!) who don't agree with it.

And that's before we even get to the issue of why any gay couple would want to be married in a church!

If we took all the Bible as read we'd all be spending our time jew hating and stoning homosexuals...

If the law states you do it..You do it !!

It's less than 50 years since churches in the US were banned from marry people from different races. I'm sure some people still disagree with interracial marriages, so would you be happy for churches not to hold interracial marriages if they don't believe in it?

Using the other side of your argument, I don't see why people should choose what laws they wish to abide by. Challenge them by all means, but if they can find the law is unconstitutional, then they should abide by it.

Gay marriage?

what next?

Who knows 1/2, equality for all, people not being treated differently, it's a slippery slope

I'm not quite sure this is the end of it. But congratulations to the pride movement and gay couples in the US.

I'm all for it, if straight couples have to suffer being married, I don't know why gay couples should be able to get away with it...

I think gay couples should have equal civil rights but I don't see why they should be allowed to marry in a church. Doesn't bother me but I think regular church goers could feel rightly miffed. It is a bit like hiring out Lords for the day and playing rugby on the square.

Why shouldn't they be able to marry in a church??? being gay doesn't stop someone from being a christian etc.

I think it does in most denominations.

What is gay marriage?

Must admit, I've never really understood it.

Am 100% behind total legal equality, regardless of age, gender, sexuality etc but I thought we (as in UK) had that with Civil Partnership legislation.

If a private organisation does not recognise the union between two persons of the same gender then I don't think they should be compelled to 'bless' that union.

If it means that churches (and I damn well hope synagogues and mosques as the cynic in me thinks they'll avoid the rap funnily enough) are essentially to become venues for civil partnership ceremonies then I don't see an issue.

Derbymanc wrote:Why shouldn't they be able to marry in a church??? being gay doesn't stop someone from being a christian etc.

Gays have a place in christianity and any of the 3 Abrahamic religions as everybody is worthy of mercy and forgiveness if they repent their sins and reject evil....

but the act of homosexuality is red flagged as 1 of the major sins. But every human has a place before the Most High.

This is not my opinion just facts.

Can you imagine the uproar if a gay couple tried getting married in a Mosque? Why is a Church okay?

Derbymanc wrote:being gay doesn't stop someone from being a christian etc.

True, but I've never understood why anyone gay wants to be part of something so obviously homophobic.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:Why shouldn't they be able to marry in a church??? being gay doesn't stop someone from being a christian etc.

Gays have a place in christianity and any of the 3 Abrahamic religions as everybody is worthy of mercy and forgiveness if they repent their sins and reject evil....

but the act of homosexuality is red flagged as 1 of the major sins. But every human has a place before the Most High.

This is not my opinion just facts.

It's not fact 1/2 it's interpretation from a book that's thousands of years old and has been known to have been translated wrong at various times. With lines taken out of context and nitpicked for people personal use.

Christianity (and most religions) are primarily about caring for other people and treating others how you'd like to be treated, the ones that use it to oppress and beat down anybody else are the ones that give religion a really really bad name and we'd be better off if a lot of them went off to their own private islands (paid for with the money they make that funnily enough never seems to get redistributed to the poorer communities (another teaching of the new testament in particular)

As for the other points, I completely agree that churches/mosques etc should be able to choose if they host a wedding of any kind as should other business's. If they don't want to take the money then that's there problem. Their shouldn't just be a blanket ban on it though.

Toppy it's just been made legal in all states  in the USA (seriously look up some of the major overreactions, it's bonkers. One pastor threatened to set himself on fire and 2 states decided that the only way to stop gays getting married was to ban all marriages) it's been legal in the UK since 2014 I think.

@Duty, not every christian (and that goes for church's too) is homophobic, the only way to drive the homophobia out of the church is to educate and gain small victories like this.

No, I don't think every Christian is homophobic, or even close to that in truth, but the Holy Bible certainly is.

Marky wrote:Can you imagine the uproar if a gay couple tried getting married in a Mosque? Why is a Church okay?

I think that if christians of any sect were to follow the religion word for word then you would get the same reaction to this as you would expect from muslims.

Muslims follow the religion to the book and whatever God has ordained they accept and whatever is forbidden is shunned. Which is understandable because they believe its the word of God but Christianity seems to have been watered down so to speak and followers tend to follow what suits them rather then what suits the Most High.

For example you will hear many say things like ''Jesus loves all people'' which is very comforting but Jesus was a man of GOD who followed GODS laws word for word so do you really believe he would endorse homosexuality???

I would say NO. It seems christians have the wrong estimation of the man. As a man of GOD Jesus was un compromising when it came to the laws and statutes of his faith. He was a loving human being yes but if he were around today the world view of him would be no different to the world view of ISIS except without the grotesque violence.

Gotta be honest Duty it's been a while since I read it as I'm more of a lapsed christian than a shake the bible kind.

Try and bring the kids up with the message rather than the 'follow that book to the letter'. Treat others how you'd like to be treated and have respect for everybody. (And if someone hits you, smack 'em back (turn the other cheek where we live and they'll just kick your ass )

Derbymanc wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:Why shouldn't they be able to marry in a church??? being gay doesn't stop someone from being a christian etc.

Gays have a place in christianity and any of the 3 Abrahamic religions as everybody is worthy of mercy and forgiveness if they repent their sins and reject evil....

but the act of homosexuality is red flagged as 1 of the major sins. But every human has a place before the Most High.

This is not my opinion just facts.

It's not fact 1/2 it's interpretation from a book that's thousands of years old and has been known to have been translated wrong at various times. With lines taken out of context and nitpicked for people personal use.

Christianity (and most religions) are primarily about caring for other people and treating others how you'd like to be treated, the ones that use it to oppress and beat down anybody else are the ones that give religion a really really bad name and we'd be better off if a lot of them went off to their own private islands (paid for with the money they make that funnily enough never seems to get redistributed to the poorer communities (another teaching of the new testament in particular)

As for the other points, I completely agree that churches/mosques etc should be able to choose if they host a wedding of any kind as should other business's. If they don't want to take the money then that's there problem. Their shouldn't just be a blanket ban on it though.

Toppy it's just been made legal in all states  in the USA (seriously look up some of the major overreactions, it's bonkers. One pastor threatened to set himself on fire and 2 states decided that the only way to stop gays getting married was to ban all marriages) it's been legal in the UK since 2014 I think.

@Duty, not every christian (and that goes for church's too) is homophobic, the only way to drive the homophobia out of the church is to educate and gain small victories like this.

You are correct but its not just about caring for people there are actually laws that need to be adhered to. If you want Biblical proof of the 3 Abrahamic religions stance on homosexuality then read about the destruction of Sodom and Gormorra it is clear that those people in that story were punished because they were wicked people but the act of homosexuality stands out in that story as the main crime committed and thus they were destroyed.

Not trying to offend anyone here but just trying to put my point across that its like chalk and cheese.

http://www.notalllikethat.org/taking-god-at-his-word-the-bible-and-homosexuality/

Have a gander at that 1/2, gives you another way to look at what the bible says (especially in relation to sinning in general).

I understand what your saying but think the bible is used by some as an excuse to bash people (Doesn't the bible say slavery is ok in parts???) (Don't think your doing this by the way as you do have a very interesting point)

Like I said, there are plenty of decent places where you can have ceremonies. Wanting to do it in a church seems like a two fingers to the regular church goers who follow religion to the law.

Is it still the case whereby a divorcee cannot be re-married in a church? Don't asee people trying to overturn that one.

Derbymanc wrote:http://www.notalllikethat.org/taking-god-at-his-word-the-bible-and-homosexuality/

Have a gander at that 1/2, gives you another way to look at what the bible says (especially in relation to sinning in general).

I understand what your saying but think the bible is used by some as an excuse to bash people (Doesn't the bible say slavery is ok in parts???) (Don't think your doing this by the way as you do have a very interesting point)

"But, because when the Bible was written there was no concept of gay people"

Ancient Greece, anyone?

Wasn't the Olympics created as essentially a gay pageant??!

seanmichaels wrote:Like I said, there are plenty of decent places where you can have ceremonies. Wanting to do it in a church seems like a two fingers to the regular church goers who follow religion to the law.

Is it still the case whereby a divorcee cannot be re-married in a church? Don't asee people trying to overturn that one.

The church is changing Sean and yes you can get married in a church if you've been divorced before (depending on the church.) Ours didn't mind

Pretty sure Catholic Churches don't allow it still, without exception.

Much more 'fire & brimstone' in Catholicism still, which isn't in CofE etc....

I agree with Doody here (shudder). As great as this is for gay civil rights and just plain common sense (never understood homophobia - less competition), I can't really see the attraction in forcing some angry twisted bigot to marry you. Or, uh... sell you scones, or a wedding cake.

Nonetheless, everyone deserves a chance to file for divorce, so, L'chaim!

One of my best mates is gay, brought up a Christian as the son of a fairly evangelical father (awkward!) and he always said "Why would I want to be part of something that doesn't want me?".

If I were Gay I'd still go for it, but only in a mosque of synagogue.

Most developed Western societies now have it written into law that a person cannot be treated differently on the basis of gender, ethnicity or sexuality, and rightly so. As such all persons should have equal treatment in terms of access to healthcare, housing and cannot be treated differently by shops, employers, hotels etc. I am at a loss as to why the church should get a dispensation whereby they do not have to follow suit, just because some 2000 year old book provides a justification for their bigotry.

If this should indeed give them a dispensation how far do we take things? If some vicar goes all fire and brimstone and starts wanting to burn heretics at the stake or drown people he suspects of being a witch, would we stand idly by out of respect for his religious views or would we say such behaviour is mental in this day and age and if you do it you'll be prosecuted with the full force of the law. It is the latter and it should be with regard to gay marriage. Bigotry is bigotry, there is no place for it in society, wrap it in the cloak of religion it is still as odious.

How is the church classified though?

Is it a business? If it was, the Equality Act 2010 would apply, implying the law does not consider the Church a business.

The church isn't discriminating against a customer or employee. So it's difficult. It's a collective of people with a shared viewpoint. And the right to hold that viewpoint is protected also.

Therefore, whilst I can see the sense in forcing them to open their doors as wedding venues, I failed to see how you can force them to 'bless' something which, by the very book which defines that blessing, isn't recognised or capable of blessing.

Rowley wrote:Most developed Western societies now have it written into law that a person cannot be treated differently on the basis of gender, ethnicity or sexuality, and rightly so. As such all persons should have equal treatment in terms of access to healthcare, housing and cannot be treated differently by shops, employers, hotels etc. I am at a loss as to why the church should get a dispensation whereby they do not have to follow suit, just because some 2000 year old book provides a justification for their bigotry.

If this should indeed give them a dispensation how far do we take things? If some vicar goes all fire and brimstone and starts wanting to burn heretics at the stake or drown people he suspects of being a witch, would we stand idly by out of respect for his religious views or would we say such behaviour is mental in this day and age and if you do it you'll be prosecuted with the full force of the law. It is the latter and it should be with regard to gay marriage. Bigotry is bigotry, there is no place for it in society, wrap it in the cloak of religion it is still as odious.

No book no church.

No book no Mosque

No book no temple

You can't expect that people who are devoutly religious in their respected faith to be willing to compromise their beliefs to appease the hopes of others all you will get is conflict. There is already a separation of church and state if 2 people want to get married then they can do so but encroaching on the beliefs of others and expecting them to step in line with the secular view is quite arrogant and dangerous.

If the rev is happy to marry them then the congragation should have no issues, the likelihood is that they won't be invited anyway so it won't (shouldn't) make a difference to them

Like I said if you want to play a game of rugby, don't hire out Lords

Gays and Christianity don't mix - because the Bible preaches homophobia and intolerance of gays.

Why on earth would:
a) you expect a Christian church to carry out a gay marriage and
b) a gay couple want anything to do with Christianity.

because not every branch of the church teaches homophobia Duty.

Derbymanc wrote:because not every branch of the church teaches homophobia Duty.

But I believe every church has the Old Testament, right?

Christianity focuses on the New Testament, Duty.

The Jews make a much bigger song n dance about the OT.

NT has all Jesus' teachings, death & rebirth etc. All the focal points of Christianity.

OT just has the funny stories like Noah (who f*cked his son, according to the OT, btw), burning bushes, colourful coats etc. Only the 10 commandments have much relevance to Christianity.

Have a read of that link I posted earlier Duty, too much emphasis is placed on a few comments when as Toppy points out, most churches should be teaching the new testament and the 10 commandments.

As I said before though Duty, I can understand where your coming from and the fact that you don't want to get married in a church (if at all) is your choice. If someone would like too then they should be able to have that choice too though.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Christianity focuses on the New Testament, Duty.

The Jews make a much bigger song n dance about the OT.

NT has all Jesus' teachings, death & rebirth etc.  All the focal points of Christianity.

OT just has the funny stories like Noah (who f*cked his son, according to the OT, btw), burning bushes, colourful coats etc.  Only the 10 commandments have much relevance to Christianity.

True, but the foundation of Christianity does originate from the Old Testament (10 commandments as you point out), and there are numerous Christians who take teachings from the Old Testament as gospel.

The OT is a guideline of sorts, but the teachings of Jesus are more what Christianity is about. The five books aren't really spoken much of in the New Testament. By and large, the references to the OT are the works of the prophets Jeremiah and Daniel, with a few referrals to the ten commandments. By right/logic Christianity wouldn't be opposed to gay marriage, as the religion's cornerstones are the principles "let ye who is without sin be the first to cast a stone" and "judge not lest ye be judged", but Christianity may have the lowest teachings-to-application ratio of all major religions.

The first five books of the Bible are as they read. A people (the Israeli) taking their first steps to proper civilization, and making it up as they go along

Duty281 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Christianity focuses on the New Testament, Duty.

The Jews make a much bigger song n dance about the OT.

NT has all Jesus' teachings, death & rebirth etc.  All the focal points of Christianity.

OT just has the funny stories like Noah (who f*cked his son, according to the OT, btw), burning bushes, colourful coats etc.  Only the 10 commandments have much relevance to Christianity.

True, but the foundation of Christianity does originate from the Old Testament (10 commandments as you point out), and there are numerous Christians who take teachings from the Old Testament as gospel.

I think you are very confused about Christianity. Not defending it, per se, but you are pontificating about something you clearly know very little about.

(FWIW, I'm raised Catholic as the son of a Cathloic primary school headteacher and, before Uni, had never been educated outside of RC schools).

You catholic then, Toppy.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Therefore, whilst I can see the sense in forcing them to open their doors as wedding venues, I failed to see how you can force them to 'bless' something which, by the very book which defines that blessing, isn't recognised or capable of blessing.

I agree totally, like Duty said earlier in the piece the idea of wanting to get married in the eyes or building of a god/religion that views me as something less than everyone else is completely ridiculous, none of the few gay people I know would have any interest in a church wedding. However I still believe if society is going to show a genuine commitment towards equality they have to have the option. Allowing a certain institution to drag its feet or exempt itself from equality legislation runs completely counter to the aims of equality, all are equal, but some less so than others doesn't work.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Christianity focuses on the New Testament, Duty.

The Jews make a much bigger song n dance about the OT.

NT has all Jesus' teachings, death & rebirth etc.  All the focal points of Christianity.

OT just has the funny stories like Noah (who f*cked his son, according to the OT, btw), burning bushes, colourful coats etc.  Only the 10 commandments have much relevance to Christianity.

True, but the foundation of Christianity does originate from the Old Testament (10 commandments as you point out), and there are numerous Christians who take teachings from the Old Testament as gospel.

I think you are very confused about Christianity. Not defending it, per se, but you are pontificating about something you clearly know very little about.

(FWIW, I'm raised Catholic as the son of a Cathloic primary school headteacher and, before Uni, had never been educated outside of RC schools).

Not sure what you're getting at, in truth. The foundation of the Abrahamic religions stems from the Old Testament, and I think 45% of Americans believe in the teachings of Genesis - that the world was created, and that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

kingraf wrote:You catholic then, Toppy.

Not practicing, hence why I chose the words 'raised Catholic'.

That was my upbringing, and I still sometimes feel a kind of connection to God & religion etc, it has helped me through some stuff, but generally I have not felt the need to strictly adhere to an outdated dogma, particularly where it conflicts with my own personal views (e.g. contraception).

Others have mentioned 'watered down' etc, I don't think modern Christianity is indoctrinated/force fed to the extent of the other major religions (a very good thing) and therefore it allows for a little more 'passive' following where common sense and general intelligence can prevail (if you let them).

Rowley wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Therefore, whilst I can see the sense in forcing them to open their doors as wedding venues, I failed to see how you can force them to 'bless' something which, by the very book which defines that blessing, isn't recognised or capable of blessing.

I agree totally, like Duty said earlier in the piece the idea of wanting to get married in the eyes or building of a god/religion that views me as something less than everyone else is completely ridiculous, none of the few gay people I know would have any interest in a church wedding. However I still believe if society is going to show a genuine commitment towards equality they have to have the option. Allowing a certain institution to drag its feet or exempt itself from equality legislation runs completely counter to the aims of equality, all are equal, but some less so than others doesn't work.

But if something isn't recognised, it isn't recognised. Use the venue, sure, but you can't force something to be acknowledged that isn't.

It's like telling a blind person to 'just see'. The religious blessing is based on a doctrine that does not recognise same-gender union - therefore how can that union ever be blessed? The book on which it was based was written a thousand years ago, you can deride it but you can't retwrite it. It is what it is.

People shouldn't be discriminated against in terms of their choice of desired wedding venue but you can't make something exist that doesn't.