1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Dick Whitman, Jun 26, 2015.

  1. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    "Man" and "woman" aren't gender-specific terms?
     
  2. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    No one was ever denied a right. What they were denied in the past was the ability to ignore a definition. Today's ruling involved five sub-moronic people doing logic gymnastics and deciding that ignoring a definition is a constitutional right because they "feel" it should be. Nothing more, nothing less.
     
  3. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    Sure, but marriage hasn't been legally defined as being by a man and a woman. Why else were the anti-gay marriage supporters constantly pushing for state laws and a Constitutional amendment seeking to define marriage as between a man and a woman if it had already been legally defined as such?
     
  4. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    No, they were denied equality under the law. To argue anything different is to lie.

    Five Supreme Court justices are sub-moronic? That's funny.
     
  5. JC

    JC Well-Known Member

    Tony, why are you against gay marriage?
     
  6. Spartan Squad

    Spartan Squad Well-Known Member

    The five moronic justices line is especially laughable considering the "ask the nearest hippie" line in today's ruling and the "jiggery-pokery" line in yesterday's.
     
  7. Spartan Squad

    Spartan Squad Well-Known Member

    Except their were violated. Marriage isn't some abstract thing that only exists within a religious definition. There is a host of legal implications that come with it, including medical decisions, end of life choices, inheritances and more. By strictly adhering to a Christian definition of marriage, the State was denying people basic rights enjoyed under the law.
     
  8. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

  9. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    How were "their" violated? Marriage is between a man and a woman and any man could still marry any woman and any woman still could marry a man. That they wouldn't choose to do so isn't society's fault or problem.
     
  10. HC

    HC Well-Known Member

  11. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    That is your definition of marriage, not everybody's. Hate to break it to you, but you don't get to push your faith on others in this country.
     
    schiezainc likes this.
  12. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    So who does? It appears you've decided others can push their faith or lack of faith on others. You guys are still celebrating the bakers and florists and photographers being put out of business for not participating in gay weddings.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page