Blah Blah Blah. Same crap different thread.

No one cares what you deem to be moral or not moral. Do you have a legal reason to discriminate or not? If you do not have a legal reason to deny equal rights then it is discrimination. Protests to the contrary are irrelevant.

DOMA....goodbye and good riddance.

I once feared such same sex unions as I did not know if such sexual orientations could be learned or if they were inherent.

It seems pretty clear that in most cases nobody chooses what sex they are attracted to so I think we need to be tolerant and accepting to all.

....and same sex couples have been adopting children for a good while now. Apparently there is no difficulties arising from same sex couples due to their sexual orientation.

Lord knows being heterosexual is no guarantee of being a competent parent.

I have not read the ruling, but it sounds like a good thing. However, and I am serious, law should not preclude more than two people joining in a civil union contract.

I said it once and I will again. The government just needs to stay out of marriage.

Let them claim whatever title that shuts them up.

I agree 100%. There should jot be anybtax break for worried couples so as to remove all financial incentives and plural marriages should jot be against the law. There is no legal reason to ban them.

And just to address the next idiot who talks about children or animals or chairs, they do jot have the legal right to consent so go ahead and skip that lame excuse for an argument.

Have you been drinking already this morning?

ZING!

Not very libertarian of you, Larry.

Liberty and justice for all. You're either for individual freedom, that is the government staying the hell out of one's personal business, or not. Personal business is just that, personal.

Your morals apply to you. The rest of us have our own morals, many of which may very well share some principals with those that are religion-based. Just a matter of right or wrong and what is acceptable behavior.

I would contend that my homosexual acquaintance; in a monogamous relationship for 20+ years, gainfully employed, paying their taxes, eschews profanity, who is a non-drinker and non-smoker; is leaving a "cleaner" life than many heterosexual folks who might be considered "moral."

Since we're talking about a state issued license, is there any reason why practitioners of same sex unions should be denied business licenses, fishing permits, or driver's licenses?

Yeah, that's more along the lines of what I was hoping for. I was waiting for the Court to step back and say, "Wait a minute here, we've (the government) got no business in this marriage thing at all", but I doubt that will happen. Not as long as they're getting their cut of the money for issueing papers telling folks it's ok to be in a relationship.

MV

...and then...and then...
 

“Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted,” Bachmann said. “What the court has done will undermine the best interest of children and the best interests of the United States.”

Ralph Reed, a leading Christian conservative and head of the Faith & Freedom Coalition, denounced the ruling as “an Orwellian act of judicial fiat” and said he will join in the effort for new legislation to replace the Defense of Marriage Act.

“We will now seek the passage of federal legislation to remedy this situation as much as possible given the parameters of the decision,” he said.

Conservatives promise legislative fight over marriage - The Washington Post

Please point out to me where I wrote anything about the government being involved in anything. I missed it.

So then you support the right of same sex couples to get married?

Given that the definition of marriage is the partnership of a man and a woman, your question is completely illogical.

Going by your reaction, I got the impression that you were disappointed with the ruling. That you were good with the government allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed under the laws of other states and also effectively bar same-sex married couples from being recognized as spouses. Perhaps I assumed incorrectly. (I know I shouldn't assume.)