20% off all products!   Sale ends tonight at midnight EST.

Return to Main Discussion Page
Discussion Quote Icon

Discussion

Main Menu | Search Discussions

Search Discussions
 
 

Louise Reeves

8 Years Ago

The Most Important Scotus Decision Since Roe V Wade...

And not a single comment? Wow.

Well, I for one think it was a logical decision and wonder why it wasn't unanimous. The Constitution clearly makes a case against discrimination of any kind. It also makes a case against the country being ruled by any religious doctrine. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof " so the Bible thumpers didn't have a leg to stand on.

We should be able to, in a free society, live how we want, love who we want and not have a label restrict us.

Reply Order

Post Reply
 

Lawrence Supino

8 Years Ago

"live" how we want, can get tricky...
but "love" who we want?...certainly!!




edited: I know what you mean by the "live"...I agree ;)

 

Patricia Strand

8 Years Ago

It's all over my FaceBook feed, and I like it. Rainbows everywhere. People are celebrating! There are a few haters, but aren't there always :( They just look stupid. It's a good news day, and a good news week!

 

Its certainly not unexpected that so many self-proclaimed "tolerant" people would brand me a "hater" and say I look "stupid" simply because I have a dissenting opinion, or because I don't "conform" to some artificialy normative trend.

Herein lies the rub: There's a world of difference between objecting to a "minority group's" sexual preference and actually professing "hatred" of everyone within that group simply because of choice of sexual preference. To conflate the the two ideas does everyone a disservice as it only serves to further divide us.

Marriage between a man and a woman is a reflection of the archetypal paradigm upon which the natural world is built, and without which the sixth great extinction would commence post haste.

 

Mario Carta

8 Years Ago

I personally could care less about the laws government passes or not ,maybe all that's left for government to do now is outlaw GOD, but it really means nothing considering "who and what government is", zilch, nada,not a thing in the long run for those who remain faithful. But Louise before you get all happy and think that "Bible thumpers" are going to crawl under a rock, I wouldn't hold my breath on that.

"We should be able to, in a free society, live how we want, love who we want and not have a label restrict us"-Loiuse

Yes I agree with your quote ,I and hundreds of millions of Christians around the world and this country know this and live our lives like this, and don't ask the government for permission, even where the the penalty imposed by government could be death, we certainly don't let labels like" Bible thumpers" get in our way.

 

Mario Carta

8 Years Ago

I personally could care less about the laws government passes or not ,maybe all that's left for government to do now is outlaw GOD, but it really means nothing considering "who and what government is", zilch, nada,not a thing in the long run for those who remain faithful. But Louise before you get all happy and think that "Bible thumpers" are going to crawl under a rock, I wouldn't hold my breath on that.

"We should be able to, in a free society, live how we want, love who we want and not have a label restrict us"-Loiuse

Yes I agree with your quote ,I and hundreds of millions of Christians around the world and this country know this and live our lives like this, and don't ask the government for permission, even where the the penalty imposed by government could be death, we certainly don't let labels like" Bible thumpers" get in our way.

 

Mark Papke

8 Years Ago

Just because people don't agree with a law doesn't make them haters, or stupid. I don't hate homosexuals, I disagree with the decision but I don't hate. In fact God expects us to love them as he loves them. Unfortunately there will be hate crimes done against them and they will probably be done in God's name. Those crimes are not representative of the majority of "Bible thumpers".

 

I stand firmly with Mark and Mario on this issue, and for the same reasons, just as they have expressed them.

Whether Theist, Deist or Atheist, none of us are haters; we simply disagree with those who have shown support for the SCOTUS ruling.

 

Sydne Archambault

8 Years Ago

A great thread to start Louise.

 

Louise Reeves

8 Years Ago

There have been a lot of ignorant hateful remarks all across the internet and it saddens me just how ignorant people in this country are.
Here are a few of them:
"So I guess next it will be liberals wanting to marry their brother or sister or marry their mother or uncle who snuck in their rooms at night and called it love " .....as long as they call it LOVE then Obama will make it law"
"This ruling just sickens me! So now I'm looking at the bright side of this -AT LEAST THEY CAN'T BREED!"
"How in the hell this happened is unbelievable. This hate crime against the church is now legal?! I believe Homo's when they say they are born that way...its called a birth defect & should be treated as such not embraced as normal in any way ever!!!!!!"

The most common hate-filled comments always come from people who claim it's "against God" yet forget that this country is not a deist country. Luckily, the common sense commentary far outweighs the ignorant ones.

Oddly enough, among the most ignorant comments was from justice Antonin Scalia.
Apparently he is a huge fan of the 19th century: "When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases."
Anyone want to let him know we're in the 21 century now? Women and blacks can not vote and own property, among other advancements of human rights.
""Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality (whatever that means) were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie." Well, nice to know he remembers 1969...

This man needs to retire while he can still dress himself.

 

Sydne Archambault

8 Years Ago

20 years ago I was honored to give a sermon for two of my most favorite people in the world at their "Commitment Blessing." The sermon was based on Ruth and Naomi in the old testament. Yes they are still together, they raised 4 kids, all of which are doing just fine. Yes a celebration of courage, strength, and love has made it to the finish line.

 

Patricia Strand

8 Years Ago

Oops sorry. I wasn't branding anyone as being stupid, I said it makes them look stupid. It was in the context of having this wonderful celebration on my facebook page full of rainbow posts. Then one person came in with their hate, prompting more sour comments, and it kind of ruined the moment. It was disappointing. Sorry, that's all I meant.

 

Mario Carta

8 Years Ago

Louise, there is enough hate to go around on both sides of this issue, hate is hate no matter who it comes from, certainly your not holding those who claim to be believers in GOD to some higher standards or maybe you are?

 

Patricia Strand

8 Years Ago

Patrick, I don't see homosexual marriage as contributing to our extinction. But overpopulation and depletion of our natural resources probably will.

 

Mark Papke

8 Years Ago

Ruth and Naomi were not lovers. They were very close but the Bible makes it clear that their relationship was as mother and daughter in law. Naomi constantly called her "my daughter". Naomi approved of Ruth marrying Boaz. I really don't understand where people get the idea that they were gay.

 

Sydne Archambault

8 Years Ago

This is true Mark, it is not a story of a lesbian relationship, but a relationship of dedication, love and faith between two women. However; Then she said, "Behold, your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and her gods; return after your sister-in-law." But Ruth said, "Do not urge me to leave you or turn back from following you; for where you go, I will go, and where you lodge, I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God. 17"Where you die, I will die, and there I will be buried. Thus may the LORD do to me, and worse, if anything but death parts you and me."…

This scripture is often used in heterosexual weddings, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with a male and female relationship. But it does proclaim a commitment for the other.

 

Carolyn Weltman

8 Years Ago

And yet, Mark, in Ruth 1:14 “Ruth clung to [Naomi].” The Hebrew word for “clung” is “dabaq.” This is the Hebrew word used in Genesis 2:24 to describe how Adam felt toward Eve. So we could go either way on this and in fact, what difference does it make? As long as we are accepting of everyone's right to loving whomever they choose.

I suspect the prophet Jesus would have welcomed them and other homosexuals in the same way he welcomed us all.

 

Patricia Strand

8 Years Ago

The quote Louise posted by Scalia reminds me that in 1868, homosexuals were very much in the closet. Homosexuality has always been with us and always will be. Which is why this new ruling should be something to celebrate with flying colors, and it does no harm. They no longer have to hide who they are and can live like other members of society. Who would want to deny them that? Agree or disagree, I see it as a welcome change for a more enlightened world, and too long in coming (as Sydne pointed out in her post about the couple together 20 years).

 

Mark Papke

8 Years Ago

Sorry Sydne, I misuderstood your meaning. There are many apologetics that use their relationship as proof the Bible supports homosexuality. Carolyn, I don't speak Hebrew so I can't comment on what clung in Hebrew means. But just because it is used to describe the way Adam felt about Eve does not make Ruth's feelings toward Naomi a homosexual nature. Adam loved Eve unconditionally as any spouse should love each other, just as a daughter can love a mother unconditionally which I believe is the case here. But we can go on forever until we are blue in the face trying to figure out the exact meaning So let's just agree to disagree I guess.
Jesus mentions many times that Homosexuality is a sin, Yes he would welcome them to follow him but they would need to repent first. Whereas Homosexuals don't see it as sin therefore they would not feel the need to repent of it.We are all sinners and all sin is the same in God's eyes. But if you can't repent of the sin and ask forgiveness then there is nothing He can do for you.

 

Bob Galka

8 Years Ago

Marriage itself is a made up concept. It is not a "law", My wife and I have lived together since we were 18, never intended to have children and never had..... 4 years ago we got married after living together for 46 years to simplify all the legal stuff like inheritance and taxes. We did not get married to have children... I like to think of marriage as a partnership, someone that will always have your back [ stop snickering ;O) ], someone you can just be yourself with, tell all your secrets to, and someone to laugh with. Why should "partners" of the same sex not have that same opportunity... and benefits of marriage?

I have not heard any reasonable downside to it. Think of the economic growth.. all those weddings will need florists, bakers, planners, musicians, photographers, all the wedding gifts that will be purchased, houses purchased.... etc... then there will be the honeymoon vacations, cruises... followed by adoptions babies needing a home.

It was just a logical thing to do.

 

Sydne Archambault

8 Years Ago

Thank you for clarification in Hebrew for "Clung" Sophi. Excellent!

I believe he would have Sophi.

 

Lawrence Supino

8 Years Ago

Why gays shouldn't also suffer the strains of marriage, is beyond me. lol

In all seriousness...I truly don't understand how this ruling affects anyone but those who are gay. How has this ruling perpetuated the end of the human race...since gays are not marrying the opposite sex and having children anyway? All it does is give them the ability to live a more secure life when their husband/wife dies...just like in hetorosexual marraige.

We know a gay couple that has been living together for 30+ years...last year they got "married"....so what has changed?...nothing but legalities and rights when one of them dies...that's all.

 

Mark Papke

8 Years Ago

Perhaps the prophet Jesus would have, I don't know who he is so I can't speak for Him.

 

Louise Reeves

8 Years Ago

i am not holding them to higher standards, Mario. But when someone proclaims to be a "Christian" and praises Jesus, then spews hate toward those who are not of their standards, it makes me ill. One either follows and lives the teachings they quote or they should shut up.

I am curious as to why Patrick and others oppose this ruling. Equal rights should be across the board. No one should ever have to be told they can't do something or have something available to others simply because of a label. Should fat people be banned from marrying? Should those of Chinese descent be banned from buying homes? 150 years ago blacks were freed as slaves but still considered only 99% "human". Until the 1964 Civil Rights Act they couldn't even vote in the southern states or marry outside their race. They had to go to school separately from whites until the Supreme Court changed that in 1954 with the Brown v.Bd. of Education.

The Supreme Court is tasked with interpretation of law as it pertains to the Constitution, so how 4 of these so-called "educated" people think that this ruling is wrong boggles my mind. Thank goodness it was only 4.

 

Bob Galka

8 Years Ago

"But if you can't repent of the sin and ask forgiveness then there is nothing He can do for you." --- Mark

Sorry Mark but that statement doesn't make any sense. You are speaking for God when you do not have a clue what God would or would not do for someone.

Yea, yea, I know I am an atheist what do I know about God.. ;O) Just sayin... I am always told you cannot know the mind of God but then people try telling me what God thinks, and what he would do.. You can't have it both ways.

Show All Messages

Big Skip

This is a very popular discussion with 339 responses.   In order to help the page load faster and allow you to quickly read the most recent posts, we're only showing you the oldest 25 posts and the newest 25 posts.   Everything in the middle has been skipped.   Want to read the entire discussion?   No problem: click here.

 

Mark Papke

8 Years Ago

I am being strictly biblical. The Bible clearly states God's view on the subject. The Bible tells us what God thinks. I am not pretending to know what he thinks or making it up. I know you don't believe the bible is true Bob, so it doesn't really matter I guess.

 

Sydne Archambault

8 Years Ago

LOL! Harriet sings it much more dramatically than I remember! I think I could use any words actually. What was I worried about!!!!

 

Rudy Umans

8 Years Ago

Who can remember anything after an ice cream freeze?

 

Sydne Archambault

8 Years Ago

Exactly!

 

Lawrence Supino

8 Years Ago

Syd...lol...it's hard for me to pass up an op to post that vid...one of my favs on utube....but since the conversation here was about people like "her"...this time posting it was a must ;))

 

Roseann Caputo

8 Years Ago

Watching that makes me think of coffee talk from SNL.

 

Patricia Strand

8 Years Ago

Oh, that is sweet. Love Harriet's rendition! Last time I sang that song was around a campfire at church camp, maybe 50 years ago, lol. It really is a very calming tune.

 

Sydne Archambault

8 Years Ago

I know its your favorite or one of mine.....hey check out Rachel Feinstein on the Make Me Laugh thread....its not about this but she is now my favorite comedienne!

 

Louise wrote that this is the most important decision the Supreme Court has made since Roe vs. Wade: I say this decision, made by a Totalitarian SCOTUS, is a blight on the Judicial Branch that will go down in history as the day the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution is unconstitutional.

 

Bob Galka

8 Years Ago

And I say you are wrong.. ;OP

Just joking around.... even though I do think you are wrong.

 

Roseann Caputo

8 Years Ago

Can you clarify how they ruled that the constitution is unconstitutional? I'm not following you there.

 

Hi, Roseann!

In response to your question: Yes, I can.

 

Roseann Caputo

8 Years Ago

LOL! Okay.

Would you mind sharing? You can do it here in private or in a new thread. Or not at all if you prefer.

As I said before, if I'm going to yank someone's rights out from under them, I need a very compelling reason.

 

Lawrence Supino

8 Years Ago

"Citizens United"...perhaps? ;)

 

Roseann Caputo

8 Years Ago

Citizens Untied is not about individuals but corporations. Corporations are made up of individuals, but they are not individuals. They pay corporate taxes. They shouldn't have the same rights as individuals.

 

Lawrence Supino

8 Years Ago

it's about how "free speech for persons" applies to corps. ;)

 

I agree. And they didn't even have to be first, given all the examples scattered around the world. Living in Canada, where same sex marriage has been legal for over a decade, and I haven't seen the downfall of society that was projected by some.

Kevin,
of Cobbled Path Photography

 

Roseann Caputo

8 Years Ago

It makes no sense at all.

 

Lawrence Supino

8 Years Ago

lol...I'm not sure what makes no sense...but here's 10 SC rulings that were overturned;
http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-cases.htm#page=1

(this is one of them)
Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce (1990)
Michigan's campaign finance laws initially prevented corporations from contributing to political campaigns or purchasing political advertising out of the company's general fund. The Chamber of Commerce felt the law - the Michigan Campaign Finance Act -- was an unconstitutional violation of their free speech and sued. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court declared that the law was narrowly constructed and served a compelling government interest: the reduction of corruption induced by corporations funding politicians favorable to their interests. Therefore, it didn't violate the Constitution. This ruling -- Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce -- opened the door for potent state and federal campaign finance reform laws.

In 2010, the Supreme Court heard the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and overturned the Austin decision. The 5-4 decision essentially drew two conclusions:Money equals speech, and corporations have the same right to free speech as individuals. Therefore, corporate political spending can't be illegal.
The concurring opinions (opinions agreeing with the ruling, but adding additional details) were careful to consider the role of stare decisis and why it was important to overturn the ruling despite legal precedent. The dissenting opinion was pointed in observing the ruling's "rejection of the common sense of the American people … few outside the majority of this Court would have thought [American democracy's] flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."

The Citizens United decision also overturned parts McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a 2003 Supreme Court decision that upheld the McCain-Feingold Act, which introduced federal campaign finance reforms.

 

Roseann Caputo

8 Years Ago

I guess I'm just a simple-minded person who sees the basic issue that a corporation is not an individual. It is made up OF individuals. I don't see it as having rights of free speech.

Is it unconstitutional for me not to like it? :-)

 

Lawrence Supino

8 Years Ago

Roseann...I just re-read what Patrick wrote, which started this...and I thought he said/meant that this marriage ruling will go down as "like" when they SC made an unconstitutional ruling...that's why I wrote...perhaps he meant Citizens United...
in other words...nevermind ;))

 

Roseann Caputo

8 Years Ago

Ser Lawrence - Understood. Wait, it's 5 am, I will in a few hours. LOL

 

From the United States Code:

Definition of "marriage" and "spouse"
Text contains those laws in effect on July 11, 2015
From Title 1-GENERAL PROVISIONS CHAPTER 1-RULES OF CONSTRUCTION

§7. Definition of "marriage" and "spouse"
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.1 USC 7:



This same U.S. Code, our national rule book, defines corporations as people in its very first sentence. And since the 19th century, the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are entitled to a wide range of constitutional protections.

This was a business decision, and it was a good one. Incorporation encourages risk-taking: Investors are far more likely to put money into a business that can outlast its creators; managers, for their part, are more likely to take risks themselves because they owe nothing to the investors if they fail.

 

Bob Galka

8 Years Ago

The United States Code is apparently a living document.... The laws evolve.. ;O)

The United States Code

The United States Code is a compilation of most public laws currently in force, organized by subject matter. When a law has been amended by another law, the U.S. Code reflects this change. The U.S. Code collates the original law with subsequent amendments, and it deletes language that has later been repealed or superseded.

 

I'm not arguing; I'm merely quoting the code as it was written. As it was originally 'intended.'

And, I still maintain that this decision, made by a Totalitarian SCOTUS, is a blight on the Judicial Branch that will go down in history as the day the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution is unconstitutional.

 

Bob Galka

8 Years Ago

OK.. ;O)

 

Roseann Caputo

8 Years Ago

Ser Patrick! Ser Lawrence!

Gentlemen, I must ask for your forgiveness for my delay here in responding. Thirty years ago I developed allergies to at least three paint mediums and I have been unable to work with them. Recently, I was introduced to a newer developed and made acrylic that did not make me physically ill. Granted, I had to wear a nose/mouth mask, but it was nice to paint again. I've been using it to paint on polymer clay that I'm making into jewelry. I recently obtained some Pan Pastels and as long as I wear thin gloves, I can use them. So, I've spent the bulk of this day experimenting with a variety of papers and techniques. It's been fun and apparently they will also work with clay.

I'll need a bit more time as I will need to read the specifics of the US Code. I don't know it off the top of my head.

 

Now anon, Lady Roseann. Anon!

The code is unimportant...merely a device I used to rekindle some interest in throwing down with you lot.

Here's a maquette I designed and built to use as an aid in 3D rendering; I used Super Sculpey - a non-drying, polymer modelling compound - over an aluminum armature, baked it in the oven at 275 degrees, then sealed it with a primer and painted it with all manner of slooshy acrylics.

Usually, I just sculpt and bake the maquettes and then pack & ship them to the foundry to be cast.

Photography Prints

Roseann. I like your innovative spirit and steadfast determination to find a solution to your allergy dilemma. You could have just given up, but your passion fueled your desire to create with so much high octane that any "...resistance was futile."

 

This discussion is closed.