Not precisely. Having read nary a word of any of the opinions, while it was yet another brazen violation of 10A, I don't even think we need to get that granular. My take is that given the Preamble, the only legitimate response to Obergefell by any court under US jurisdiction was summary dismissal along with a penalty for filing a frivolous lawsuit. His design is one thing; the public perception thereof, quite another.
Why would you assume that by saying, "Christians certainly believe that marriage is God's design" that I meant, Christians certainly believe that CIVIL marriage is God's design? Only idiots think that using religious argument are going to work with non-religious people. I began a religious argument here with @Dayton3 because I was confident that I was talking to a Christian.
the common usage and meaning of words changes all the time in the case of marriage, it seems to me that this word has multiple meanings depending upon the context there is the legal contractual meaning There is a religious meaning There is a colloquial meaning And there is an interpersonal meaning all of these meanings can, and in fact have changed.... taking just one example... the religious meaning of marriage.... it is certainly not unchanging... nor uniform. If that is a fact.... why would any of us be concerned about non religious changes in the meaning of marriage? Unless, of course our true motive lies in casting implied moral approbation against those whose life choices make us uncomfortable.
Sorry but I have to burst this bubble. Many of the socially conservative, religiously based, groups also fought tooth and nail against civil unions. In Virginia a constitutional amendment was added that vociferously denied recognition of any legal arrangements between couples of the same sex. If these same groups had actively promoted civil unions as an alternative that may be the status quo even now. But they didn't and the push-back (which I'm pretty sure they weren't expecting) was so strong that now we have SSM. In my experience social-conservatives do this a lot. They go into an issue so cocksure they have the backing of the entire population that they cannot conceive they may have misjudged the sentiments of others and as a result they keep on losing.
No, as has been pointed out by myself and others, many on the religious right actively fought against ANY legal recognition for same-sex couple whatsoever so they weren't interested in "live and let live" until after they lost. Hmmm!
The fact that people have been trying to exclude things, specifically both religious and legal marriages, from different camp, is a major theme in this thread.
Sorry but I can't let that one slip. The legal argument was that same-sex couples are similarly or identically situated to heterosexual couples with respect to the administration of the marriage contract and therefore cannot be denied access to that contract without some rational basis as to why they should be so denied. There was no rational basis for this denial whatsoever. Your understanding of the case is colloquial rather than factual.
I don't think anybody has issue with that. If a particular church or sect or even anti-SSM group of atheists wants to band together and exclude same-sex married couples from their ranks they are perfectly entitled to do just that. On the flip side many churches etc. do support what they would see as same-sex "covenant marriages" within their ranks. I think this is causing an actual split in the Methodist Church as we speak. As Americans the only thing we need to have in common is the legal definition. Anything else is up to you.
I'm not sure that would stand up to legal challenge but I doubt there are enough people out there who would be bothered enough to care. On the other hand, I just found this: "Covenant marriage is a legally distinct kind of marriage in three states (Arizona, Arkansas, and Louisiana) of the United States, in which the marrying spouses agree to obtain pre-marital counseling and accept more limited grounds for later seeking divorce (the least strict of which being that the couple lives apart from each other for two years). Louisiana became the first state to pass a covenant marriage law in 1997;[1][2] shortly afterwards, Arkansas[3] and Arizona[4] followed suit. Since its inception, very few couples in those states have married under covenant marriage law. As of the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage, covenant marriages now can be contracted by either opposite- or same-sex couples."
It is my experience that liberals, and other light in the loafer types who are for sure "cocksure" reach their level of morality based on the current morality of the collective. They have no anchor. Their morality is forever in decline.
My morality is partly based on people being treated fairly under the law. Gay people weren't being treated fairly with respect to being able to enter a contract they were paying for with their taxes and for no apparent reason which I could discern. That's why I supported them. I wasn't in the least bit surprised when they won.
and again, this is demonstrably false. Real marriages are also between 2 men or 2 women. Reality shows otherwise. Obergefell v Hodges
Oh well then you should easily be able.to cite a law that says religious does not exist. Keep in mind, the claim is is NOT that religious marriage is sufficient to obtain legal benefits. The claim is that religious marriage exists despite not being used to claim legal benefits. I am reasonably sure that you are not arguing against my claim, but what you think I am arguing. In other words you are creating a strawman. If you feel that at any time in this whole thread, I have made a claim that a religious marriage entitles the participants to legal benefits, cite it.
Under your specific religious dogma, true enough. However, other religions disagree. Furthermore, the legal version has nothing to do with any given religion's definition.
I noted that earlier as well. It's amazing how I'll informed these people are. Worse is having to deal with people from the other side just as I'll informed.
For you. As you think your religion trumps mine and others, so too do we think ours trumps yours. However the great part of living in America is that we all have the freedom to follow whatever religion and deity we wish and don't have to worry about the civil government punishing us for it.