The Supreme Court declared Friday that same-sex couples have a right to marry anywhere in the United States.

There are 5 Comments

Jim's picture

Why Four Justices Were Against the Supreme Court's Huge Gay Marriage Decision

Thomas additionally warns that the Court's "inversion of the original meaning of liberty will likely cause collateral damage to other aspects of our constitutional order that protect liberty." Further, he argues that the decision will threaten religious liberty by creating an unavoidable collision between the interests of same-sex couples and some religious organizations.

"In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well," Thomas wrote. "Today's decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples."

Bert Perry's picture

is that a certain portion of sociological data about homosexual relationships is now going to be a matter of public record.  So all those papers pointing out different things about homosexuals that were more or less shouted down are now going to be buttressed by the actual marriage and divorce rates among the various groups, if I read things right.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Barry L.'s picture

First, regional accreditation will be tested and taken away from Christian universities who do not comply with diversity standards.

Second, 501(c)(3) status will not be allowed on any church or religious institution that doesn't reflect society's diversity standards. The government will argue that you can still practice religion, we're just not going to "subsidize" it.  This will be a big financial hit for churches with regards to property taxes if a church has any property at all. I calculate our church property would have a property tax bill of about $90K annually.

We discussed the possible losing of accreditation on a thread about two years ago. Many thought it would take a change of persons on the Supreme Court for the federal government to protect gay marriage. Looks like it happened much sooner. Others on the board thought we were just paranoid and panicky. Looks like Scalia and Thomas are panicky when you read their dissenting opinions. Justice Kennedy brought up the danger of challenging religious institutions during the arguments of this case and the government kind of shrugged their shoulders implying, yes that's possible. Kennedy still sided with the plaintiff.


Jim's picture

Paper Will Limit Anti-Gay Marriage Op-Eds

From the edit: ‘PL/PN will no longer accept, nor will it print, op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage.’ …This is not hard: We would not print racist, sexist or anti-Semitc letters. To that, we add homophobic ones. Pretty simple.”

So opposition is "homophobic" ... basically hate speech!

Jim's picture

What if an employer has a religious objection to gay marriage?

They have limited options.

Companies could choose not to offer benefits to spouses altogether. Or they could self-insure and attempt to offer benefits to only straight spouses, but they run a high risk of discrimination suits, Mr. Solomon says.

Could be Hobby Lobby all over again!