DOMA unconstitutional (5-4); Court punts on gay marriage (no standing)

Well played on Cashman.

What I would like to see are polls released (and I know some are online) saying how many Republicans support gay marriage. I'm seeing stuff on Twitter saying "Wow, I bet Republicans' heads are exploding today!"

Funny, my head didn't blow up. I'm okay with this decision, and last I checked I was conservative.

 

That's true, but it's a different ball game when they refuse to marry a constitutionally protected group. They couldn't refuse an interracial couple, for example. At least I don't think so. Adulterers are not constitutionally protected. Not all discrimination is created equal.

 

This is a fairly prominent example of how much bigger (and more dominant) the Republican Party would be if they concentrated on the core principles (small government, fiscal responsibility) and got rid of all this crap and their insistence that everyone party like it's 1955.

 

Yes, they can refuse to marry anybody.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/mississippi-church-rejects-black-wedding/t/story?id=16878536

 

This is definitely an issue that breaks down more by age and geography than straight party lines.

 

Now I've raised this issue before, and it does cut close to politics, so I apologize in advance if it's too much. But that New Mexico photographer probably doesn't feel one iota more comfortable today.

 

Now that I think of it:

Outing: Dog is Alex Rodriguez

 

A church could refuse to marry an interracial couple if that couple didn't practice the tenants of their faith, couldn't they? I ask out of genuine curiousity. I can only speak from a Canadian perspective where no church I'm aware of has been forced to marry same sex couples if it conflicts with their beliefs since the couple wouldn't have been a member of that church anyway.

 

toddstarnes@toddstarnes: "As for me and my house - we follow God's law."

[snort]

 

I guess that's because it's not a business that affects interstate commerce?

 

Nor should he. He's a business owner. He shouldn't be allowed to discriminate in that regard any more than a restaurant owner should.

If a church rents out its facilities to non-members, for weddings conducted by people other than its staff? Then it may have an issue here.

 

Churches and houses of worship can refuses anyone they want. Many will marry only church members, or those of their faith. Many won't marry you unless you complete some pre-marital counseling. Some might not marry you because after talking to you, they don't think the marriage is a good idea. I thought, anyway, those advocating marriage equality were very clear that the issue was the state's failure to recognize a legally performed marriage. This explains it well:

http://www.marriageequality.org/religious-vs-civil

A key part: "In the U.S., a marriage is only legal with the signing of a marriage license. That is why many opposite-sex couples can go to a judge or any other public officiant and need not go to a church, synagogue or mosque. Our government has made the process simpler by allowing religious leaders to perform a religious wedding AND to act as a civil officiant. Each religious leader must sign the civil license before witnesses and the couple for the marriage to be legal. In Europe, couples MUST go before a public official to marry. A religious ceremony is 'secondary' and optional -- only occurring if the couple wishes to have one.

"This fact is important to note because many same-sex couples are simply interested in the government's acknowledgement of their relationship. We are not asking for any religion to accept our marriages, although, many religious institutions throughout our country do."