What are the implications now that the Supreme Court ruled same sex couples can marry in all all 50 states?

2015-06-26T10:40:41-04:00

What implications do you expect for businesses, churches, and freedom of speech now that SCOTUS has ruled in favor of same sex marriage and invalidated all state constitutional amendments against it.
I hope that people will still be able to speak freely about the issues surrounding same sex marriage including adoption, therapy, counseling, etc.
I also hope that businesses and pastors or priests who shepherd churches, imams and other leaders of mosques, rabbis of synagogues, priest who lead temples, etc. will be able to decline hosting or participating in same sex marriages.
Update 6/27/2015] Today I read that the pedophiles are intending to follow on the heels of the same sex court success. Included in Justice Kennedy's opinion was "the required minimum age is 16 in Vermont, but only 13 in New Hampshire." Based on this logic NAMBLA ( North American Man/Boy Love Association) should be able to press their arguments. If they are successful this may drive more reasonable people to get angry - very angry.
GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad, CH (MAJ) William Beaver, SSG Roger Ayscue, SGT Private RallyPoint Member, LTC Private RallyPoint Member, SSG Lawrence Crow, CH (MAJ) Private RallyPoint Member, SGT Robert Hawks, SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA, SPC Private RallyPoint Member, COL Charles Williams, MAJ Private RallyPoint Member, MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca ), LTC Stephen C.

Response by SGT Forrest Stewart made Jun 26 at 2015 10:43 AM

2015-06-26T10:43:05-04:00

I think the end is very near.

Response by SSG Daniel Deiler made Jun 26 at 2015 10:44 AM

2015-06-26T10:44:40-04:00

I don't see much needing to happen. Programs and legislation has been in place already in enough states to make any transition easy. It's the law of the land now and regardless of anybody's personal beliefs, must be adhered to.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2015 10:48 AM

2015-06-26T10:48:39-04:00

I just don't see how this is in any way, legal. To tell my State that we HAVE to do this. I don't get it. LTC Stephen F.

Response by Sgt Mark Ramos made Jun 26 at 2015 11:00 AM

2015-06-26T11:00:17-04:00

Given the two big opinions this week, The supreme Court is now in the dictionary business.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2015 11:00 AM

2015-06-26T11:00:18-04:00

The ruling only states a State cannot deny anyone the ability to marry another. This issue only allows them to get a marriage license and be married.

A Church still has the right to deny same sex marriages because of Freedom of Religion. They cannot force a Religious Establishment to violate their beliefs. If the Supreme Court could do so, Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka would have been ruled against for protesting funerals. They lost a Freedom of Speech argument, but won on Freedom of Religion, proving the Supreme Court will not force against a religious belief.

Response by SPC Brandon Wilson made Jun 26 at 2015 11:07 AM

2015-06-26T11:07:42-04:00

Americans are being stripped of all freedoms...wonder when a revolution will occur so we can take back our country from the very people we protect who are ruining us.

Response by SPC Brandon Wilson made Jun 26 at 2015 11:09 AM

2015-06-26T11:09:46-04:00

The beginning of Goverment/Religion continues to spread as well as lawlessness.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Jun 26 at 2015 11:17 AM

2015-06-26T11:17:52-04:00

I have just read through the Supreme Court decisions which essentially overturns and invalidates the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The text focuses on a case from New York and DOMA. The state amendment issue does not seem to be addressed at all.
The majority held that Congress had no legal authority to develop the legislation because the marriage issue belongs to the states. DOMA is held to be unconstitutional.
Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion (5 out of 9) Here is a quote which sums up the circular reasoning of the court on this issue.
"The States’ interest in defining and regulating the marital relation, subject to constitutional guarantees,"
Here are some other significant quotes from the majority opinion:
"The responsibility of the States for the regulation of domestic relations is an important indicator of the substantial societal impact the State’s classifications have in the daily lives and customs of its people. "
"The power the Constitution grants it also restrains. And though Congress has great authority to design laws to fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
What has been explained to this point should more than suffice to establish that the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution."

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2015 12:13 PM

2015-06-26T12:13:02-04:00

This ruling only forces all 50 states to allow and recognize gay marriage, thankfully nothing more. However, I see interest groups using this as a spring board for the next step: forcing churches and religions to recognize gay marriage. Right now that seems like the next battlefield for gay rights. If they see a basilica that they love, they're gonna want the right to marry in that basilica. If they decide to push that idea, it's gonna get messy.

Response by SSG Leonard Johnson made Jun 26 at 2015 12:24 PM

2015-06-26T12:24:57-04:00

well I don't know....Our next future President Allen West said something of interest that it could lead to civil war....I pray he's wrong. However I do believe you will start seeing the judgment of God on this nation, just as we are seeing in California before our very eyes.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jun 26 at 2015 2:10 PM

2015-06-26T14:10:33-04:00

I find it funny actually. Liberals want separation of Church and State unless it concerns gay marriage. Then they feel that a church should be forced to marry a gay couple. Kind of ironic don't you think?

With that said, if gays want to marry, why do you really care? how does it in any way affect you personally?

I am also a Christian, and I believe in the scripture that goes like this: "Judge not, that ye be not judged."

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Jun 26 at 2015 3:29 PM

2015-06-26T15:29:55-04:00

LTC Stephen Ford, you are prescribing discrimination towards those born gay or lesbian, you are using religions as an excuse to justify discriminating but all fail to see that gays, lesbian are born therefore made by God and yet you want religious people to oppose what God creates.

Response by Sgt Kris Newcomb made Jun 26 at 2015 7:37 PM

2015-06-26T19:37:23-04:00

LTC Stephen Ford: This is just the beginning. It is open season on the Constitution and everything else in this country. The PC police are making the policy now. I would like my country back.

Response by SGT Robert Hawks made Jun 27 at 2015 11:33 AM

2015-06-27T11:33:44-04:00

Will now that the SCOTUS has made their ruling we live with what comes. I wonder though since homosexuals now have the right to marry I can them getting behind their bi sexual friends who are in love with a man and woman and want to be married to both in a triangle relationship.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 27 at 2015 8:26 PM

2015-06-27T20:26:59-04:00

Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They have the right to believe or not to believe in God and/or the Bible. We should never force our beliefs onto others and we should have tolerance that people are different. They are not harming anyone by getting married and it does not affect your life. If you do think that two people getting married affects your life, then you have bigger issues to deal with. By them being legally married it affords them with the same rights as straight couples. Now, some may be concerned about churches being sued for not performing gay marriage. I believe, based on freedom of religion, that the church should not have to go against their beliefs and therefore should be exempt from a lawsuit based on discrimination. However, elected officials (i.e. Judges, Justice of the Peace, etc) would have to perform the ceremony. BUT, I'm sure there are will not be a shortage of people who are willing and able to perform the ceremonies.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jun 28 at 2015 3:57 PM

2015-06-28T15:57:41-04:00

Marriage will simply be referred to as marriage with no differentiation between same-sex or different-sex marriage. States will have to adjust all laws and forms to specify spouse and remove terms like "domestic partner". It is going to take time for all the dust to settle.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Jun 28 at 2015 10:24 PM

2015-06-28T22:24:19-04:00

I think we have left the rails. The current administration, and/or the democrats, have no regard for the constitution, or the 3 branches of government. I, honestly LTC Stephen F. could care less about same sex marriage; I believe to each his/her own. But, I am very concerned about the relentless assault on our constitution, our system of government, and states rights. I wish the federal government would focus on issues they are supposed to deal with.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jun 28 at 2015 10:30 PM

2015-06-28T22:30:58-04:00

Us hetero married couples receive federal benefits for being married so why shouldn't gay couples receive the same?

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 1 at 2015 4:31 AM

2015-07-01T04:31:43-04:00

one good thing about that decision it made me turn to Christ I love this country and it means so much to me and I pray for our salvation I hope God still bless this country

Response by 1LT Aaron Barr made Jul 8 at 2015 8:59 AM

2015-07-08T08:59:24-04:00

Some of the reaction to this has been so over the top that it frankly needs refuted and refuted hard.

Marriage is a form of contract and so is governed by the same general rules that apply to ALL contracts. The complaints here break down into two general lines of 'thought', some which are easily refuted and some not.

First, you can't enter into a contract with an animal or inanimate object or minor child so no, your pervert farmer neighbor can't marry Princess his prize hog nor Priscilla his Slutty Nurse blow-up doll nor the 9 year-old girl from down the street.

Of more interest will be how the courts handle issues were contracts are permitted such as incest or polygamy if they come up. The courts have held, in cases such as Lawrence v Texas which struck down anti-sodomy laws and in cases such as the earlier DOMA case and this one that a lack of procreation is not of sufficient interest to the state to ban gay marriage.

That said, there's nothing that says people can't enter into contracts with immediate family members. I suppose, in the case of incest, that even though people can enter into contracts with immediate family members, that the high likelihood of birth defects and of the state needing to provide aid might be a justification to uphold bans on the same.

Far more thorny a legal issue is polygamy; there's no restriction on entering into contracts with more than just two parties. One might suppose that they could simply state that issues of inheritance etc. might be a bar but how that would hold up I don't know.