Abbott statement on gay court decision.

[ByrdMan]

But what are the odds of that happening? It would obviously be a direct violation of the First Amendment, and something tells me even SCOTUS wouldn't be that fuckin' stupid.

Anyone that thinks this one ruling has a good chance of leading to "the moral decay of America" or whatever the **** you want to call it, do us all a favor - take a chill pill, and pull your heads outta your asses. You're acting like a bunch of paranoid retards.

Yup

 

[Southpaw]

and it ain't like they're forcing priests to perform ceremonies (which actually would be a rather blatant, direct violation).

.

Would you feel different about this decision if this occurs?

 

[Blind Sniper]

Would you feel different about this decision if this occurs?

You're God damn right I would. Freedom Of (and from) Religion is the reason the first colonists came here in the first fuckin' place. Using law to force anyone to do something that goes against their religious beliefs is, IMHO, outright evil, as is forcing someone to follow the tenants of a faith they don't belong to.


Seriously though. This ruling is no different than a law mandating that (for example) a Texas driver's license be recognized in BFE, Alaska, and arguably has a -lot- less of an impact (after all, it ain't like most Texans know how to drive on snowy roads >.>).

 

[vmax]

But what are the odds of that happening? It would obviously be a direct violation of the First Amendment, and something tells me even SCOTUS wouldn't be that $#@!in' stupid.

Anyone that thinks this one ruling has a good chance of leading to "the moral decay of America" or whatever the $#@! you want to call it, do us all a favor - take a chill pill, and pull your heads outta your asses. You're acting like a bunch of paranoid retards.

so much fail.. I do understand the "blind" part of your screen name better

 

[oldguy]

Overall change of this type does effect all of us, certain it will have an impact on schools and children, only time will tell but I think America is moving down a dark road, some think its progress I do not think so. I cannot point to one change this administration has placed on society that has a benefit but I'm bias or I'm just a paranoid retard

 

[Blind Sniper]

so much fail.. I do understand the "blind" part of your screen name better

How about, instead of ad hominems and personal attacks, you actually answer the damn question?

 

[Vaquero]

You're God damn right I would. Freedom Of (and from) Religion is the reason the first colonists came here in the first fuckin' place. Using law to force anyone to do something that goes against their religious beliefs is, IMHO, outright evil, as is forcing someone to follow the tenants of a faith they don't belong to.


Seriously though. This ruling is no different than a law mandating that (for example) a Texas driver's license be recognized in BFE, Alaska, and arguably has a -lot- less of an impact (after all, it ain't like most Texans know how to drive on snowy roads >.>).

Personal feelings aside this is very different from a "law" .
It's legislation from the judicial branch.. Unconstitutional.

 

[winchster]

In what way? In what meaningful way would you be affected by this? Every time this topic comes up, that's a question that never gets answered.

Here, in part. And I quote:
"Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept."

 

[ray22]

Marriage is a religious sacrament, always has been, always will be. And the primary reason for the union is the appropriations of children. Nature dictates that it can only be accomplished by a male and female. It's that simple. It's an abomination to natural order of life. It's not about a person's rights, it's not about how people feel, it's about simple biology.
True Freedom isn't about doing what you want, it's being able to what's right.

Govern wisely and as little as possible~Sam Houston

 

[Tony2]

How about, instead of ad hominems and personal attacks, you actually answer the damn question?

It isn't just one law. It is another step in the degradation of the morality in which this country was founded on. Unless you are an "island" in this life you are affected. If you have kids or family it is easier to understand. Can you protect them from a lifestyle you wouldn't want for them. This lifestyle is being sold everywhere on the news in the schools by teachers and it is legal. Harder to protect you kids from than drugs. So unless you have no family, live on an uninhabited island are so rich and far removed from daily life then you are right. Probably some more scenarios out there.

 

[ByrdMan]

Everyone feels the way they feel, believes what they believe, and opines as such. I understand the sanctity of marriage. I get it. I'm married (to a woman, lol). I'm not saying it's right that two men or two women get married, pack fudge, munch taco or whatever they do. All I'm gettin at is that I just don't care much about it either way. There isn't much that gets my feathers ruffled. Do I think the Supreme Court should have stayed the hell out of it? Absolutely. Having said that, they did what they did and whether it's right or wrong I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

 

[stdreb27]

You seem to be basing your opinion on the LGBT crowd off the actions of a -very- few people. The vocal "rage against the establishment, sue people that tell us 'no'" group makes up the fringe, and a -lot- of LGBT folks hate 'em for the image they put out (and that folks like you buy in to). It's like the liberals comparing you and I to that $#@!er Roof or Laughner.

These are state wide policies that govern every business in the state. This isn't the act of 2 folks...

 

[itchin]

They're gonna pack your fudge in your sleep.

 

[ByrdMan]

LOL

 

[Younggun]

Symptom of a much bigger problem.

Agree or disagree with gay marriage, the issues killing this nation are much bigger and much more dangerous.

This course was set decades ago. If things like personal responsibility, work ethic, (substantiated) personal pride, self reliance, and honesty were still taught at home we would not be having these debates.

Instead of our heros being those who deserve it, we have a generation of kids growing up who's heros and roll models are football players with more felonies than the average crack dealer, rappers, and have naked sluts who lip sync to carbon copy songs passed off as music.

This cancer has spread across the nation. It's in almost every facet of life from schools, to television, to the government (regardless of party).

The point of the constitution is to protect the rights of everyone, including protecting the minority from the will of the majority.

Now we are debating gays being able to marry and collect gov benefits that shouldn't even exist because the gov should never have been involved in marriage in the first place. This course was set when the gov was allowed to take a role in something that they have no business in.

I see no way for the nation to recover at this point. SCOTUS has been a joke for some time. The gov no longer gives a damn about what is or isn't constitutional. States are feeding off the fed and an enormous portion of the people are feeding off the state.

The nation is going in to meltdown. Find what's important, know who you can rely on, and try to be ready when it crashes.

In the mean time, spend time with your family, teach them what they should know, and try to make a difference with the individuals you meet. Waters comin in to fast to save the ship, just try to keep the life boats afloat.

 

[Younggun]

TLDR version:

We're screwed.

 

[Jakashh]

I do believe Abbott is speaking about people forcing religious institutions to marry homosexuals, but do agree that there are plenty of institutions that would already host gay marriages out there, Christian or not, and that homosexuals would probably rather have a wedding there, rather than try to force it somewhere else just to spite them.

My opinion is that Govt should have nothing to do with marriage to begin with. Hetero or homo.

 

[Se7en62]

I agree with Abbott making a preemptive declaration; He can see the horizon for what it is and it's morally tumultuous at best.

 

[Davetex]

Anyone that thinks this one ruling has a good chance of leading to "the moral decay of America" or whatever the $#@! you want to call it, do us all a favor - take a chill pill, and pull your heads outta your asses. You're acting like a bunch of paranoid retards.

I seem to remember similar statements in 2008. Many people were saying there's just no way America would ever elect obozo to POTUS.

There are many other examples of "this could not happen here" over the last 10 years. I regret that there will be more.

 

[XinTX]

This wasn't "granting a right to marry". There is no "right to marry". The Constitution is silent on marriage, as it is an institution that predates the founding of this nation by millennia. This was a redefinition of marriage. So it has also changed the definition of mine. Will it affect my day-to-day life or the way I relate to the MUCH better half? No. But still the legal side of it has been redefined.

The greatest harm is the damage to Constitutional governance. Government did not create the institution of marriage. Government became involved in it of their own volition and instituted things like marriage licenses. Then added certain legal "benefits" (inheritance, etc) to that relationship. But many were already commonly recognized by society anyway. Then they added some fiscal benefits (SS "survivors benefit" probably the most recognizable). Some of these were done for good reasons, some not. But it was government that did this. Nothing in the Constitution made these "necessary". But now that government involved themselves in the institution, now it claims ownership of said institution to the point it can redefine it as they please. But as I said, the institution of marriage predates the founding of this nation by a long shot.


Same with health care. Government inserted themselves into health care via things like Medicare/Medicaid and other programs. Once involved, they claim ownership and a right to redefine how it's delivered. Heck, there are some floating the idea that since the government is involved in the press (via NPR, C-SPAN, etc.) so they can now claim a right to start regulating the press. It's that view of governance I reject.