unbillievable

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.

http://www.ibtimes.com/immigration-reform-signature-collection-underway-california-initiative-give-1985664 so.... um.. If Arizona isn't allowed to enforce federal immigration law, can California pass laws to legalize them?

It has to do with the arguments (as stated by TakeYouToTasker) that the government needs to leave marriage to the church. It's the primary rebuttal being thrown out there. You can't say that the government should stay out of church business when marriage itself is a civil concept; the more logical argument being that the church should stay out of government business.

Anyone who uses a historical argument with religious objections need to stop. You are misinformed. Marriage was entirely a civil (non-religious) concept before it was co-opted by religion and sanctified. The entire idea is originally about property law. (and trading daughters between families.) Binding two people for life isn't exactly a natural concept. It was forced on the population by a governing body. You can't say that the government has no business regulating (or performing) marriages, because it was their idea to begin with... Imagine if the church started printing it's own money, then asked the government to butt out of it's business. edit: for the record, I support the government getting out of the marriage business, I just haven't figured out a better argument against the current ruling that doesn't include "religious" objections.

Taking guns from Americans is like taking vodka from Russians. Trying to relate statistics with dissimilar cultures is dishonest.. There are just some things you can't accurately compare against other countries. Enacting the exact same gun laws as (for example) Europe will not yield the same results. The best indicators can be found within the USA, in places like Washington DC, Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit...

So how many millions were wasted by states creating their own exchanges?