By refusing to rule on the matter, the Supreme Court has essentially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs who have won repeatedly at the appellate court level striking down bans on gay marriage around the country. The Court likely avoided the issue because, up to this point, there has been no split in decisions at the appellate level.

Report from CNN:

The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way Monday for legal same-sex marriages in five more states.

The court refused to hear cases from the states — Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin — seeking to keep their same-sex marriage bans in place.

Experts say its refusal to hear the cases from those five states also means that six more states — Colorado, North Carolina, South Carolina, Kansas, West Virginia, and Wyoming — could soon have to lift their bans on same-sex marriage, because they are covered by the same circuit appeals courts that initially struck down the prohibitions.
Once that happens, the number of states permitting same-sex marriage would jump from 19 to 30.

Many Republicans around the country have been trying to avoid this topic like the plague and push the focus away from social issues and squarely on the President’s policies. This decision, which wasn’t entirely fulfilling for either side of the marriage debate, will likely push the issue back into the forefront in some races around the country.

Supporters were hoping the Supreme Court would take the case and enact gay marriage in all 50 states. Meanwhile. supporters of traditional marriage were hoping the Court would reverse the lower courts and uphold state-level constitutional amendments defining marriage as one man and one woman.


  1. There’s a glitch in the system. Twice when I have already written a response, I go to authenticate, and when it recognizes me, it dumps my post.

    I think I said I was not surprised by the court’s decision not-to-decide. They would have had to say ALL of the lower judges were wrong. But couldn’t they have just left it on the schedule, since they never hear everything brought to them?

    If you’re for states’ rights, you wouldn’t want a federal decision. But states have been wrong, such as in civil rights in the 60s.

    I am not comfortable with a court overruling a vote of the people, but I am also not comfortable with the majority limiting the rights of a minority.

    I wonder, is 30 states the “tipping point”?

    • I am not comfortable with a court overruling a vote of the people, but I am also not comfortable with the majority limiting the rights of a minority.

      So states stop “marrying” people, leave that to the church. States provide a civil contract (to all couples) to deal with dissolution of assets, etc…

      Beyond that, if your employer is a religious institution and doesn’t think you’re “married” by their definition, too bad.. find a new employer.. If you employer says you can extend your insurance to you and 1 other person (or family), then good for you.. you’re set..

      The bottom line is that not everyone will ever agree on this but forcing a one-size fits all ruling will not contort to the constitution regarding religious liberty. There will also be challenges..

      Oklahoma may get out of the marriage business entirely so as to avoid being forced to enact gay marriage.. I think more states should follow.. less government..

      That non-controversial approach should satisfy everyone… ha..

      • I think you hit on it. The government has always promoted “marriage,” which is seen as a legal contract, primarily regarding finances and parenting. Since the term is so well established and understood, I don’t think it would make sense to stop using it.

        Besides, believe it or not, there ARE atheists and agnostics, and other non-practicing and non-religious people in this country. Are you suggesting that the state should now say a man and woman cannot “marry” unless they go to a church??

        I think the only question now, is whether churches should be forced to do gay marriages. Few do now, but is seems to me, if churches are sucking on the government teat, they may be required to officiate over government-sanctioned marriages.

        Or they could unhook from the government trough.

        • Are you suggesting that the state should now say a man and woman cannot “marry” unless they go to a church??

          No. Civil unions, etc…

          • But what you said is,”so states stop marrying people, leave that to the church.”

            I basically agree, that it was a mistake to confuse the religious sacrament with civil jurisdiction. But that was many centuries ago.

          • I was thinking more in terms of all the extra bennies they get, but yeah. Why on earth should churches get automatic tax exempt status, especially the televangelists, who shake down poor people to build massive monuments?

            Churches should be like the rest of us: Declare income, then deduct when when and if they can prove that they’re doing any good.

            • Goethe;
              Well that would complete the job the secular left has been attempting for the past 90 years of putting the final nail in the coffin of organized religion in America. It would leave government to completely take over responsibilities of looking after the sick, poor and anyone else who needs help not to mention the ability to pass any legislation regardless of morals and the resulting consequences. HOW DID THAT GOVERNMENT WAR ON POVERTY THE PAST 50 YEARS WORK OUT ?

            • No, just the opposite. If churches had to SHOW that they were doing good works, maybe they actually would. And if they’re not doing good, they shouldn’t be getting a free ride.

            • Society and State are not the same! Churches, charities, family and neighbors have a better record of taking care of the poor and needy the 200 years prior to the early 20th century when the government decided to get into the business. Progressives show concern and rhetoric but little proof over their claim that the rich or corporations are receiving money thru illegal or ill gotten methods and at the expense of the individuals. They would rather go through czars, bureaucrats and the political elite by turning an empire of liberty into a bee hive of central authority.

              The Good Samaritan was a man not a government. A government is not made in Gods image. It has a function not a life. Government is a necessary evil. Government is necessary because man is flawed and it is evil because it corrupts men and usurps liberty. It is the progressive project to aggrandize government by humanizing it. Government becomes the life that cares, feeds, and exhibits concern. Our government does not exist to care it exist to promote freedom and security of our body politic. In addition the Good Samaritan gave away his own money. Contrary to what the government tells you wealth distribution WILL NOT BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE MOST NEEDY IN AMERICAN SOCIETY. Instead it will be used by politicians to buy a little more time for our failing public institutions, postponing a reckoning with unsustainable pension funds, delaying necessary reforms in our entitlement system and propping up our failed education system etc. The story of the last three decades is not the story of a benevolent government starved of funds by selfish rich people, corporations or fanatical republicans. It is a story of a public sector that has constantly done less with more and a liberalism that has defended this power grabbing scheme. “This bread and circuses is not the policy of a republic but rather of an empire entering moral senescence.” ……William Galston

            • Blah-blah-blah. This has nothing to do with helping the poor. It has to do with not being held accountable.

              If a church or atheist group or club for Dungeons and Dragons wants to help the poor, GREAT!! Let’s give them a tax break for the extent of their good work–but not just for putting a sign on the door–claiming to do it.

              Churches are not going to collapse if they are not blindly subsidized. If they can’t justify their existence, they should collapse.

            • When the government decided to practice legalized extortion by making us pay taxes to ENDLESSLY FUND THEIR SOCIAL JUCTICE PROGRAMS they slowly put the churches and charities out of the business of doing good. ALL OF SUCH PROGRAMS I MAY ADD ARE NOT ACCOUNTABLE TO THE SUCESS OF THOSE PROGRAMS. The money is an endless stream from the public which government can piss away at their discretion. But accountability doesn’t bother you there!

            • “Churches will fail if they don’t get a tax exemption.” Such BS.

              If they actually DO help people, fine, give them the exemption–limited to the amount of actual aid. –Just like you and me and Nate.

              Nobody should get a TOTAL and unquestioned tax exemption just by putting out a sign that says, “THE CHURCH OF WHAT’S HAPPENING NOW.”

              [Oh, wait, Nate will have to Google “Flip Wilson” to get that circa 1970 reference.}

            • Dear Johnny one note:

              I gave you my explanation of the difference between society and state and get a back of the hand dismissal of “Blah,blah,blah”. I also haven’t gotten any explanation from you why GOVERNMENT SHOULDN’T BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE for the open stream of taxpayer money they piss away. But the left never needs to be held accountable after all they have nothing but our best altruistic interest in mind. Now there’s your “B.S.”

              Till you can find an answer to those……..

            • Well, “Johnny One Note” is the same thing as staying on topic of the thread. My point was that we should not give TOTAL tax exemption to anyone, just because they claim to be a church. I expect them to show that they actually ARE doing some good in order to get away with skipping the tax you and I pay. IF they do the good you claim they are doing, fine, if they show it, they get a deduction for it. Like anybody else.

              What the government does or does not do, the timing of Halley’s Comet, or the current price of rice is all irrelevant blah-blah-blah meant to avoid the question of WHY we are paying churches just to claim they are “churches.”

              AND, by the way, your argument that they would die if they didn’t get subsidy sounds exactly like the squealing of people who said NPR would die if the government cut funding. Neither churches nor NPR would shrivel up if we stopped pouring our tax money on them.

              And if they would, they should!

            • Try using a comparison that works. NPR besides getting government money gets millions of dollars in grants from major corporations and millions more from the sale of products related to their programming. Churches don’t have either luxury.

              I’m still waiting for a response to my two original statements.

            • If churches were not hanging on the government teat, you don’t think Hobby Lobby and others would pitch in?

              If they couldn’t survive, it would mean people don’t value them, and they should go the way of the dinosaur, but my guess is that they’d get more money without the blind tax break.

  2. What I find inexcusable is a Supreme Court that puts personal and religious beliefs over the written word of the Bill of Rights. I do not profess that I understand “same sex” coupling or marriage but I do fully understand that each is fully entitled to the same rights and privileges that you or I exercise. Since the Supreme Court has 6 Catholic and three Jewish judges, therein lies a strong reason for many of their decisions or non-decisions. Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are old school Vatican Catholics. On a good day, Kennedy is in Pope Francis’ corner. Sotomayer, a liberal catholic, finds her vote usually going with Kagan, Breyer, and Ginsburg, who are seemingly constitutional scholars.

    Since very few employers are religious institutions, therefore, other employers are required (or should be) to abide by the constitutional law that each citizen has individual rights and choices. For many, it would be hard to find another job so they must abide the persecutions.

    Oklahoma wasted no time allowing same sex marriages in civil ceremonies..all this controversy has taken precious time from OU games.

    South Carolina, Kansas, and Wyoming are still refusing to issue license to same sex couples but the writing is on the wall.

    • I’m just curious if you have any misgivings, as Goethe mention, about citizens determining their destiny at the ballot box only to be overturned by the court? That is a topic that cuts both ways.

      Does this episode serve as proof that votes are only as good as the judge which may or may not uphold them?

      • I firmly believe that if we all used the Constitution as our daily guide for citizenship there would be no opportunity for the Supreme Court to overturn the ballot box.. I believe States Rights are firmly confirmed in Amendments 10 and 14.

        10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

        14. [1.] All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

        To me this means that States do not have the authority to vote (or pass laws) on a person’s lifestyle whether it is religious preference or none at all, or on same sex marriage.

        • Tess: Very thoughtful. States have supremacy if the Constitution doesn’t say the feds rule. YET, the 14th DOES say what states cannot do.

          In this case, the wording “equal protection” rules, and these judges say that the right to marry is a right that cannot be limited.

          • Goethe…I respectfully disagree that the state have supremacy. All state laws found contrary to “equal protection and due process” can be struck down by the Federal government which is presently happening with same sex marriage. The Courts struck down Section 3 of DOMA. This is the same slow process used with inter-racial marriages which are now legal.

        • The constitution is in conflict with itself.

          “You have the right to practice your religion, but this person has the right to force you to practice it in a certain way…”

          Does not compute.. should be left to the states entirely.

          The individual matters, which I entirely empathize with, such as spousal benefits should be addressed to let you leave your money to whomever you wish, let you designated anyone to be by your side in the hospital, etc…. those are personal liberty matters which should be irrespective of marriage.

          • Most of the men writing the Constitution were Deists. That is why the word Creator was used. Nowhere in the Constitution will you find the word “God”. President Thomas Jefferson’s gave this explanation of the 1st Amendment when a group of Conneticut Baptist ask him to declare a religious day of fasting “”Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”
            Our present Supreme Court forgot the separation of Church and State when ruling for Hobby Lobby so maybe there is a constitutional conflict.

            • You quote a LETTER BY THOMAS JEFFERSON which simply states that no national governmental religion shall be formed as in Europe…..and none has! First off what you quote is merely a letter and has no legal significance what so ever. Secondly Mr. Jefferson is saying government is a buttress against forcing religion on you NOT A PRISON YOU SHOULD BE LOCKED UP IN AS PROTECTION AGAINST RELIGION.
              But today changing what the scriptures say is called interpretation while in earlier times it was called heresy. To the left the Bible is off limits when the subject of abortion, homosexuality or any number of other issues are concerned when it comes to condemning souls. the president loves to preach how we are all in this together and “The Good Samaritan” but perhaps the left should follow the bile’s advice about “Thou shall not covet they neighbors property.” but I doubt he learnt that at the knee of the Rev. Wright.

            • Bob, you are really hung up on “the left.” Fact is, the right twists, tortures, and perverts religion to justify its ends, too. And THAT is the reason our government should be kept clean of it.

            • Goethe;
              Now you sound like those that say there isn’t any difference between Christianity and radical Islam. If you don’t like the comparison to the left then don’t subscribe to their views!


            • Actually, I, personally, feel more threatened by Christian extremists than Muslim extremists, since I don’t think Muslim extremists will ever have any direct impact on my own, personal, life, while Christian extremists are constantly trying to restrict what we may do as individuals in this country.

              So YES there IS a difference.

            • Oh, I see how you think: North Koreans believe the sun rises in the east.
              Bob believes the sun rises in the east. Therefore, Bob is a North Korean.

            • Actually, the Constitution doesn’t even have “creator.”

              Hobby Lobby is not a violation of separation of church and state. It’s a separation of humans and reason. The idea that a corporation can have a religion is just too ludicrous to consider. Next, they’ll be saying no corporation can ever go out of business, because somebody would have to “pull the plug,” and that would be murder!!!

            • You will find the word Creator in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. The Declaration’s purpose was to separate the United States from Britain, not for describing legal rights for the people. However, the Declaration has been used by the Supreme Court to interpret other laws. Thanks for correcting me.

            • And that’s the important point. The Declaration is a statement of independence–independence from Britain, but also from the Anglican Church, which was integral. So, not only did we need to separate from the Empire, we also had to separate from its church.

              “Creator” was a poetic way to say that people “deserve” rights.

              And note that, even before that reference, they were careful to say “Laws of NATURE and NATURE’S God.” It was not some old man in the clouds–it was the schematic of laws WITHIN nature.

              Today, we might say “a computer’s God,” when referring to an operating system. It is not Bill Gates, or any other human, who controls your computer, it’s Windows–the “law of computers, and computer’s God.”

            • Clearly by the Declaration stating “….. are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights” it was a religious reference and they mean they believe in God as the Supreme Being as Tess pointed out above NOT THEY ARE DECLARING FREEDOM FROM RELIGION. It would be a stretch of the imagination to interpret it otherwise.

              “Laws of computer god”??????? are you serious?

            • Bob, I believe that the very mild reference to “creator” was ONLY meant to rationalize why we should break from the Church of England (the king was it’s “pope”).

              As for the computer reference, if you fired up your brain, you’d see that it was a very apt metaphor for the Deist view, which was that if there were a creator, like a software writer, He may have set things up, but does not meddle in matters today. I was just trying to explain to you what they thought.

            • No you are attempting to explain WHAT YOU THINK! Obviously once again we don’t agree on this so we’ll have to agree that we disagree…….if you are willing to leave it at that. But knowing you and your ego for getting in the last word I doubt it!

            • Wrong again ! Of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence 34 were Anglicans (that shots that theory down doesn’t it), 13 Congregationalist (also known as Puritans), 6 Presbyterians and one each of Baptist, Catholic and Quaker.

              But why deal in facts when you can simply dismiss them with a “Blah,blah,blah” !

            • Bob: No, just the opposite. It proves my point. The British State and the Anglican Church were one unit, so it would be expected that most British colonists would be Anglican–and so, a split from Britain would also require a split from the Anglican Church.

            • Tess:
              And I believe it is in the last paragraph of the Declaration you will find where Congress made two more references to God using names related to the Biblical tradition where they state “Supreme Judge” of our consciences and “divine Providence”.

    • Well, I get the hand-washing reference. But I think, in this case, they just didn’t want to get their hands dirty with this issue.

      • Exactly. They failed to do their duty, to “dirty” their hands as they are sworn to do, regardless how “dirty” or “clean” a case is!

        Washing their hands — like a Pontius Pilate — the US Supreme Court has basically given a green light to sodomizing males to marry, and cucumber-inserting lesbians to do the same.

        How SICK is this?!?!

        Evolutionary dead-ends to make a mockery of the Natural Sanctity of Marriage (where only a man and a woman create progeny — thus ensuring the survival of our specie)!

        Instead gays are to be allowed to not only benefit by their Aberrant SICKNESS, but propagate their genetic sickness through “marriage” — when such “unions” will not produce children, thus making them non-producing PARASITES ?!?!

        Yep, the US Supreme Court as it stands now (with all the Liberal Obama and Clinton appointees) is one sick body that needs to be replaced ASAP when the Rule of Law finally returns to our nation!

        Or, we’ll lose our Nation Forever!

        • Omigod, where did that come from? In a different discussion, I seem to recall that you said that it is the libertarian ideal to allow individuals to do what they want in the bedroom without worry of a SWAT team attacking. Now, you’re going all “Catholic” on us? Even Bob isn’t going so maniacal on the subject. Get a grip.

          • Besides, they DID do their “duty.” They stayed out of state issues. I thought that’s what you wanted, too.

            If you want to rant, at least be consistent.

            • None of what you stated is true about my philosophical stand. Individuals can do anything they want in the privacy of their homes, as long as it does not injure others. That is my stance, and the Libertarian stance.

              Once an aberrant and vile conduct is taken out in public — then it becomes a matter of law.

              Dog fights are immoral and disgusting — so the law bans such aberrant behavior, and jails the culprits.

              That homosexuality is an aberrant (completely against nature) and, vile on its very own sickness, behavior is indisputable — what two males sticking their penises into their rectums, are fit to marry, let alone adopt children?! The same goes for dildoing lesbians.

              The Liberal media has been active for many years trying to destroy the moral fiber of this nation — and Gay “rights” is their biggest success so far.

              Time to put a stop to this insanity.

              The only maniacal thing is to allow such aberrant and sickening behavior to leave the privacy of their home, and become publicly accepted as “normal”!

              The solution is self-evident — BAN gay marriages, BAN adoption of children by gays…and let these evolutionary dead-ends conduct their sickness in the privacy of their homes ONLY!

  3. I guess this fits here.

    The Catholic Synod has shockingly shown acceptance of gay people, unmarried couples living together, and even (gasp) previously divorced couples, PLUS children in non-traditional families.

    According to traditional Catholic teaching, a first marriage must be ANNULLED in order to allow an accepted second marriage. I think that fits in with our current discussion because it shows that marriage is sepately a civil and religious act.

    American Catholics have had civil divorce, but NOT religious “divorce.” Since it was so difficult to get an annulment, Catholics stopped trying. So the church has considered the first marriage intact, even though the state has considered it ended. And that’s why the Church has refused to recognize second marriages.

    Religious marriage and civil marriage are two different things. If churches don’t want to marry gays, that should be their decision, as long as those churches don’t rely on government financial support.

    • Goethe — another tangent:

      It is ludicrous for religious organizations (churches) not to pay taxes — same goes for Native Americans (the Indian Casinos is one example) — when we ALL Americans are forced to pay Taxes!

      Either ALL pay taxes (which is unconstitutional) or none do (which is what the US Constitution declares)!

      p.s. gays are genetically messed up in their brains — these sickos need mental help, not Liberal praise for their vile behaviour!

      • I agree with the first part. I have no problem with churches to get deductions FOR WHAT THEY CAN JUSTIFY, but nobody should get a free ride just because they SAY they deserve it.

        As for gay marriage, Bob is ranting because, for some reason, he thinks there is a zero-sum for rights, and if other people get rights, he somehow loses them. He’s not hating the individuals.

        But you know, the intensity of YOUR hatred of gay people usually only comes from those who suspect on some level that THEY, themselves, are gay, and attack as part of their denial.

Comments are closed.