Wow, ray and webby went in whole 'nother direction than I was thinking.

I really do not care that bay's can marry. I do care that the Federal government stepped in and made the decision versus leaving it to the states. I also care that, bay marriage, really means gay's benefiting from an ancient tradition meant for tribes/people groups to support/maintain and grow their populations. Something that two same bex people cannot do. as has been mentioned... this tends to escalate:
since bays must be allow to marry with full benefits, but they cannot meet any "traditional" obligations of marriage, I see benefits being withdrawn from ALL marriages.
As benefits drop, the cost to have children go up, but not for bays..
As the cost goes up births will go down
also as costs go up the Federal will be inclined to seek other venues for increasing the population.. such as open immigration to all
Since marriage is right, ANY marriage should be a right.. not just those approved by bays... polygamy, xxxx, marring a chicken should all be required as legal.

I do not support any of this of course... just agreeing that I cannot see how allowing gay marriage based on the right of happiness, and the federal courts overrulling the states to determine what can and cannot be discriminated against... well I dont see how this can be the end of it.  It certainly would not be fair, if it were. I find it kinda odd that the churches are at such fuss over it ( locally). The Black churches are in a real bind about it. Most are very conservative and traditional, but that would be at odds with "progress". Others are being open, but seem reluctant about it. White churches are just as stuck, but not willing as willing to speak up it seems.  More drama than CSI ...

WOOHOO.. it took a bit.. but I found the SCOTUS ruling. The opinion was of course disappointing, and even I (backwoods) could see they were glossing over some things and highlighting others that met with their ideals. Boring read... But ahh the dissenting opinion... VERY GOOD READ: LIke this part:

One immediate question invited by the majority’s position
is whether States may retain the definition of marriage
as a union of two people. Cf. Brown v. Buhman, 947
F. Supp. 2d 1170 (Utah 2013), appeal pending, No. 14-
4117 (CA10). Although the majority randomly inserts the
adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all
why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage
may be preserved while the man-woman element
may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition,
a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage
is much greater than one from a two-person union to
plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures
around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big
leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one.

Bazinga!

Reading the last two, nothing to argue.

WebsterMark wrote on 06/30/15 at 15:12:45:


Where did that come from Web?

Best regards,

Came from a post on mark steyn website.

Well that didn't take long.

http://rt.com/usa/271387-montana-polygamist-marriage-license/

Best regards,

Ohh, look, an angle I hadn't considered!
Ohhh, I've just been Dreaming of the day when you marry me. I have all the dresses picked out..  ohhh, and where we go for our honeymoon.


And the divorce lawyers,,, gee, I wonder just how much they contributed to getting it passed....As IF they need more work.

raydawg wrote on 07/04/15 at 08:06:38:

Doubt it...  but, they'll sure show us how to cater a divorce...  ...