Monker wrote:RPM wrote:Moderate Liberals do not see a "slippery slope" or a coming attack on churches because they are not part of
Or subscribe to Relativism which has no belief in any absolute truth.
There is an absolute truth that all people are guaranteed equal protection.
The "slippery slope" argument simply makes no sense at all. It makes no sense because what the ruling said is we are protecting rights to straight people and denying them to gays. Not just the right to marry, but all of the benefits that go along with it most significantly tax benefits and insurance benefits. For a state to write a law that bans gay marriage is unconstitutional.
None of these "slippery slope" cases are changed by that. All of them would have to stand on their own ground because this court decision would not benefit them. In fact, I doubt a court would decide to hear them.
That door has been opened. True there is no political will from mainstream politicians to push for plural Marriages or other social changes moderates and conservatives would agree should be left alone, however the legality Of any restrictions are now more open to challenge and they certainly will be. For me at my age I am more concerned About the type of society my kids and grandkids will live in, and it's looking very troubling.
You are simply WRONG. There is no door that has swung open. What happened is this Supposed there was some made up crap that said no left handed people could get married...and states started passing laws that said that marriage is only for right handed people. All that happened is the federal courts said is left handed people are not being treated equally under the law when a state passes legislation that band them from getting married.
That doesn't apply to something like a pedophile marrying a kid., or a polygamist. Those are actual crimes.
it is the most ridiculous fear-mongering notion possible to propose the leap from allowing gays to be married to pedophiles wanting marriage, or even polygamy. it's fucking stupid.
"There is an absolute truth that all people are guaranteed equal protection."
This in itself is impossible. It sounds good, makes "common" sense but there are simply to many conflicting views.
The real danger comes from allowing definitions of what something is to be changed because a few supreme court
justices say so. If marriage was this and is now that,why can't it be something else as well?
I don't think these people are feeling any guaranteed protection.
On Friday the state ordered owners Aaron and Melissa Klein to pay $135,000 in damages to a lesbian couple they turned away in 2013.
The state also slapped a gag order on the evangelical Christian bakers – banning them from speaking publicly about their refusal to participate in or bake wedding cakes for same-sex unions.
“This effectively strips us of all our First Amendment rights,” Mrs. Klein wrote on Facebook. “According to the state of Oregon, we neither have freedom of religion or freedom of speech.”
"it is the most ridiculous fear-mongering notion possible to propose the leap from allowing gays to be married to pedophiles wanting marriage, or even polygamy. it's fucking stupid."
There was a time when two guys kissing in a taxi was a crime, now its the taxi driver who commits the crime if he ask them to exit the vehicle. Things change, but allowing the basic definitions that make up our society to change can be very dangerous. Your right hand left hand analogy is logic based , however the implications are far more complex.
I would have liked to have seen the outcome if they would have allowed the gay marriage debate to be
answered by a national referendum rather that a couple people in robes.
lets agree animal behavior