unbillievable

Sounds a lot like the liberal policy of passing laws to find out what is in it. "uhh.. we didn't know it would do that." While many point to the warning signs, the left keep marching forward crying ever harder that the "slippery slope" is a fallacy; reassuring us that just because they took the first step -which was painfully idiotic- they aren't planning on taking step two (just yet).

Give me back my jacket!!

This was already answered in cases following the court's ruling; Denying to bake a gay wedding cake isn't considered discriminatory unless the owner is doing so under religious reasons. Think Hate Crime criteria: you'll know it's illegal when you see it.

It's better to charge forward with a bad plan than to sit still with none? Is that in Sun Tzu?

Licenses granted in one state must now be recognized in all states? Guns and Weed for everyone!!!

It can't be any simpler. ...and there was no mention of God in the example.

A couple wants a divorce because one of them cheated on the other. Their catholic priest says they aren't allowed to divorce for any reason. The couple joins a Protestant church who allows them to end the marriage citing adultery. Was the above conflict about the couple's right to divorce or whether cheating is a valid reason?

Let's be honest. There is no legal reason for the Supreme Court's decision. The justices voted for the outcome they wanted. Even Kennedy states that it was an emotional decision. He admitted to bypassing the text of the Constitution to correct a cultural (in his opinion) grievance. The Supreme Court did what Congress was unwilling (or unable) to do. Next up: Legalize illegal immigrants:Denying the rights of citizens to non-citizens is discriminatory.

I don't know which is worse, the above statement being serious, or sarcastic.

I do wonder what would happen if states were to start eliminating marriages altogether; leaving it to the federal government. Can states be forced to hand out licenses? Will the federal government have to open new offices? Will it be called an escalation against the "War on Women"? I can see some states (Texas) bowing out of the marriage business, and leaving it exclusively to churches.

That dress is a size or three too small.

It's supposed to bring awareness to an individual's impact on the environment. It's like snapping a rubber band when you're on a diet. Paying carbon credits is self punishment for using too many resources. It also allows the carbon credit receiver to avoid getting a real job. (and keeps his SUV in the garage)

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/white-house-buildings-across-the-country-light-up-122601444526.html Liberals use public building (including the White House) to gloat. Rainbow lights splashed across monuments. For a movement that demands we butt out of their private lives, they sure love to rub their "private lives" in everyone's faces.

It's a recurring theme in gun legislation; they pass laws that make it illegal to break the law. "Gun free zones" are insane if you think about it.

The Republicans dodged a bullet here. If they had won the case, the Democrats would have pinned the overall failure of Obamacare on this one issue. As it stands, the ACA must now stand on it's own as a wholly Democrat-written law. As more of it's provisions hit the public (Obama can't delay them forever) the angrier the people will get; just wait until 2018 when the unions get hit by the "cadalac" plan tax.

As the country moves further to the left, more people will be shoved to the right as the center line moves. There will come a day when the bleeding-heart liberals of today will be called a right-wing nut job by their grand children. Yesterday, we ended a debate that lasted 20yrs over an issue that is "none of our business" that affects less than 3% of the population.

It's a weird time in history when there are two popes and one of them is nuts.

If we are to encourage (and legalize) every urge a person has because "they are born that way," the human race would cease to exist very quickly. Why hasn't the gay gene been bred out of humans if it's unlikely to propagate?

I re-read the thread thinking I must have missed your answer, but you just moved the responsibility of regulating gay marriage from the federal level to the state's, (which is what the topic is mostly about anyway so it's a perfectly valid point) but it doesn't answer the question of why the government shouldn't be allowed to dictate the terms as it desires. If asked, what valid objection (excluding religion) is there to government sanctioned same-sex marriages? I can't think of any. bottom line: Marriage is a government (historically) invention, so they should be allowed to redefine it. However, if the argument is that we should narrow the precedent to US law because it accepted the religious definition of marriage in the past, it still doesn't preclude the government's original right to change it's stance on it now. It's not like the government hasn't split from religious doctrine before.

I just watched it (and the theater was still packed. I had to sit up front). It's better than the last two Jurassic Park movies. It helped that Starlord was in it. It's exactly what you would expect, so I wasn't disappointed. Although, Bryce Dallas Howard's indestructable stilletoes was a surprise.

Because religion isn't limited to the United States. (and did not begin it's ban on gay marriage in 1776) Many protestant churches already allow gay marriages. If your going to go with religious objections as your rebuttal, then you cannot use the catholic church based in Rome as your vehicle. (Since they are the ones primarily driving the ban). If you're going to limit your arguments to US based law and US culture starting in 1776-present, then the debate is already over; US born religions have no (or very little) objection to same-sex marriages. You're basically saying that you're allowed to use a foreign-born idea, dating before the USA, but your opponents are restricted to a certain time frame.

I understand your point, only that it won't stand up to criticism since you choose to include flawed constraints. I also found it amusing that my nephew thought Transformers was an original idea of Michael Bay. He was surprised to learn they were toys in the 80s.

My contentions isn't that humans are incapable of altering the environment, it's the idea that carbon credits is the solution to global warming (especially since the left has admitted it will just add the increased tax revenue to the general fund)

What we need is to invent smart guns.

No I don't have it backwards. I was surprised too, but when I did the research-thinking that religion came first, did I discover that marriage is not a religious concept. The earliest unions were performed by the elders (not the spiritual leader). It was the families (sanctioned by city/state leaders) that joined couples together. Only later (with the rise of organized religions) did it become sanctified.