We should probably not care. Let those folks that want to dress up funny and chant and swing incense, play their medieval games and ignore them (just keep them out of government and schools). It's a new business opportunity for civil weddings I'd say.
Personally, if I was LGTG, I woudln't want to get anywhere near a religious organization that thinks I'm going to burn in hell forever. But I can imagine there will be some that want to push the boundaries and potentially sue for not being allowed to be married by a pastor/priest in a church. I hope those lawsuits fail, defining a clear line. I would say hopefully then everyone will be happy, but that's unlikely to happen
I married my wife on top of a mountain, and that was good enough for us
I can see some very vocals ones trying, but the question is, what will the courts rule? People sue for all sorts of crazy stuff, doesn't mean they automatically win. We shall see, but my prediction is that forcing religious organizations to go against their religious beliefs and marry a LGTG couple won't happen.
You underestimate them.
Their chant use to be "We just want to be left alone".
You are wrong here. This decision does not end anything.
The gay community will now insist that the be allowed to be married in a church and they will shout bigotry and file a case to the Supreme Court that they be allowed too.
It will never end.
They can go to a courthouse and get married. Some will do that but others will continue their quest until they get EVERYTHING they think they should get.
So you're a member of that community and can be confident you speak for the entire group? That might be more than a tad over-reaching. Internal religious activities are rather effectively walled off from outsiders. Now members arguing from within their respective institutions are free to make the argument, women have argued for decades to be allowed into the Catholic Priesthood, but no lawsuits that I can recall with good reason: The First Amendment... plus RFRA.
Oh and in the states at issue in this ruling, no, they couldn't "go to a courthouse and get married" and That Was The Point.
You say 'No more'. That's huge. Just for comparison in numbers (and no other) the entire Jewish population of the USA is far, far lower, I'm sure you recognize their influence and importance in the US.
I used "no more" because the article had estimates ranging as widely as 2-20%.
Personally, if I was LGTG, I woudln't want to get anywhere near a religious organization that thinks I'm going to burn in hell forever. But I can imagine there will be some that want to push the boundaries and potentially sue for not being allowed to be married by a pastor/priest in a church. I hope those lawsuits fail, defining a clear line. I would say hopefully then everyone will be happy, but that's unlikely to happen
I married my wife on top of a mountain, and that was good enough for us
So you're a member of that community and can be confident you speak for the entire group? That might be more than a tad over-reaching. Internal religious activities are rather effectively walled off from outsiders. Now members arguing from within their respective institutions are free to make the argument, women have argued for decades to be allowed into the Catholic Priesthood, but no lawsuits that I can recall with good reason: The First Amendment... plus RFRA.
Oh and in the states at issue in this ruling, no, they couldn't "go to a courthouse and get married" and That Was The Point.
Over reach is what liberals and big government do best!
We should probably not care. Let those folks that want to dress up funny and chant and swing incense, play their medieval games and ignore them (just keep them out of government and schools). It's a new business opportunity for civil weddings I'd say.
Sigh, I miss the days of happy ritual cannabilism. Eating the flesh and blood of our God like He intended. The mandatory fish on Fridays I don't miss.
I think most will be 100% happy with this. Like any group, there will be those that want to push the boundaries. These of course will be the vocals ones you hear about in the news, while the majority are happy to continue quietly living their lives with their newly granted equal rights.
I really hope this begins a wave of normalising for people around the world. It is ridiculous to have one set of rules for one group in society, and a different set for another.
Great work Cook, and all of Apple! Long live the Queen!
Great news, well done America and welcome to the club! Gay marriage around the world:
Netherlands - 2001
Belgium - 2003
Spain - 2005
Canada - 2005
South Africa - 2006
Norway - 2009
Sweden - 2009
Portugal - 2010
Iceland - 2010
Argentina - 2010
Uruguay - 2013
New Zealand - 2013
France - 2013
Brazil - 2013
UK - 2013
Luxembourg - 2014
Ireland - 2015
USA - 2015
Great news, well done America and welcome to the club! Gay marriage around the world:
Netherlands - 2001
Belgium - 2003
Spain - 2005
Canada - 2005
South Africa - 2006
Norway - 2009
Sweden - 2009
Portugal - 2010
Iceland - 2010
Argentina - 2010
Uruguay - 2013
New Zealand - 2013
France - 2013
Brazil - 2013
UK - 2013
Luxembourg - 2014
Ireland - 2015
USA - 2015
Good news indeed.
How are the other countries doing on equal pay for women? The US still doesn't have it.
In the case of marriage, Government has to be involved because of the legal ramifications of marriage in the areas of marital assets, decision-making when one person becomes ill, estate issues, etc. That was one of the arguments for legalizing gay marriage in the first place: partners were not recognized by the State. People would live together for 50 years, one would become ill and hospitals wouldn't recognize the right of the partner to make health decisions.
Let's take a completely different case: minimum wage. As a libertarian, you probably don't support minimum wage laws. But let's say I reluctantly agree to take a job for $5 an hour, because I don't seem to have any other choice. So it's consensual, but I can't live on $5 an hour. So I apply for welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, etc. Now the taxpayers are making up the difference. If Government was involved, Government could pass minimum wage laws, so taxpayers wouldn't have to make up the difference. This is where I think libertarians get it wrong.
52% of fast food workers nationwide have at least one family member on welfare. New York State pays out $700 million annually in taxpayer money to fast-food workers (and that doesn't include any Federal benefits). That's basically $700 million in corporate welfare. Why should I as a taxpayer have to fund the wages of fast food workers? Let the fast food industry pay its workers properly by increasing the minimum wage. If they can't afford it, they can raise prices or negotiate better real-estate deals. At least in that case, it's the customers of that business who will pay, not taxpayers. But that's a government decision, not a "consensual" decision. Consensual decisions only work when there are no ramifications of the relationship outside of the relationship.
You kinda went off track here with the assumption that the government should, by default, step in to provide what a minimum wage job doesn't cover in terms of living expenses. I'm not a Libertarian, or a Democrat or Republican. I'm a human with a brain, and I approach each issue as a separate and non-political problem to be mulled.
I totally agree with your observation that marriage, as a legal contract between partners, is an inherently government-centric construction.
But on the minimum wage issue, I see this in a similar manner to how I see the Affordable Care Act. It's the wrong way to think about the problem. In the case of the ACA, the problem of health care costs to individuals can best be addressed by first making healthier individuals. So if government were to get involved, its involvement should have begun with measures to ensure that people live healthy lives, and those who don't should foot the bill for their unhealthy habits. For example, tax what you want less of; tobacco, fatty, sugary foods and drinks, riding motorcycles without a helmet, etc. Not that I'm in favor of government intervention in people's lives, but hey, since the government seems to want to weigh in, then it should at least do so in a logical and scientifically sound manner.
So, prevention is the most significant measure to reduce overall healthcare costs. The same concept can be applied to the cost of living. If my income was at minimum wage, I certainly wouldn't take on any life expenses beyond feeding, clothing and sheltering myself. When I came out of the Air Force in 1985 and took a $6/hour job, I had two roommates, a used Mazda GLC econobox with a stick shift that got 45mpg, I prepared ALL my meals at home and packed a lunch for work, and did;t have a girlfriend until I had established myself and started earning more money. How is that not obvious to those coming out of high school and taking those minimum wage jobs? Could it be because our society is not imposing that discipline on our young generations? Minimum wages jobs are not the path to a decent family life, home ownership, or any other aspect of the American dream. So stop having kids you can't afford, carry a cheap mobile phone versus an iPhone, work two jobs, and save like a demon while you're young, single, and have the ability to live like a gypsy until you get your feet under you. And quit the thinking that you deserve a standard of living equal to those who have done all of the above. That's how Greece got into trouble, thinking its citizens deserve the same standard of living in a mostly agricultural country than those in industrialized Germany enjoy. It didn't work for them and it won;t work for an individual person either.
Personally, if I was LGTG, I woudln't want to get anywhere near a religious organization that thinks I'm going to burn in hell forever. But I can imagine there will be some that want to push the boundaries and potentially sue for not being allowed to be married by a pastor/priest in a church. I hope those lawsuits fail, defining a clear line. I would say hopefully then everyone will be happy, but that's unlikely to happen
I married my wife on top of a mountain, and that was good enough for us
Cool! My last marriage (and hopefully 'last' in every sense) was by our pool in Florida.
Cook can't take his money with him when dies and is cast into the lake of fire. He should worry about his eternal home.
Christians need to boycott Apple.
Christians can do whatever they wish in their Churches. This isn't about religious dogma, this is about hospital visitation rights, spousal inheritance exemption, health insurance eligibility, etc. I don't agree with that Chick-fil-A guy about his views on gay rights, but he makes a good sandwich, so I eat it. And their staff is always friendly, like Apple's. How about you just buy stuff you like. Duh.
Christians can do whatever they wish in their Churches. This isn't about religious dogma, this is about hospital visitation rights, spousal inheritance exemption, health insurance eligibility, etc. I don't agree with that Chick-fil-A guy about his views on gay rights, but he makes a good sandwich, so I eat it. And their staff is always friendly, like Apple's. How about you just buy stuff you like. Duh.
Comments
We should probably not care. Let those folks that want to dress up funny and chant and swing incense, play their medieval games and ignore them (just keep them out of government and schools). It's a new business opportunity for civil weddings I'd say.
Personally, if I was LGTG, I woudln't want to get anywhere near a religious organization that thinks I'm going to burn in hell forever. But I can imagine there will be some that want to push the boundaries and potentially sue for not being allowed to be married by a pastor/priest in a church. I hope those lawsuits fail, defining a clear line. I would say hopefully then everyone will be happy, but that's unlikely to happen
I married my wife on top of a mountain, and that was good enough for us
I can see some very vocals ones trying, but the question is, what will the courts rule? People sue for all sorts of crazy stuff, doesn't mean they automatically win. We shall see, but my prediction is that forcing religious organizations to go against their religious beliefs and marry a LGTG couple won't happen.
You underestimate them.
Their chant use to be "We just want to be left alone".
Now we got this.
Will never end.
You are wrong here. This decision does not end anything.
The gay community will now insist that the be allowed to be married in a church and they will shout bigotry and file a case to the Supreme Court that they be allowed too.
It will never end.
They can go to a courthouse and get married. Some will do that but others will continue their quest until they get EVERYTHING they think they should get.
So you're a member of that community and can be confident you speak for the entire group? That might be more than a tad over-reaching. Internal religious activities are rather effectively walled off from outsiders. Now members arguing from within their respective institutions are free to make the argument, women have argued for decades to be allowed into the Catholic Priesthood, but no lawsuits that I can recall with good reason: The First Amendment... plus RFRA.
Oh and in the states at issue in this ruling, no, they couldn't "go to a courthouse and get married" and That Was The Point.
I used "no more" because the article had estimates ranging as widely as 2-20%.
Personally, if I was LGTG, I woudln't want to get anywhere near a religious organization that thinks I'm going to burn in hell forever. But I can imagine there will be some that want to push the boundaries and potentially sue for not being allowed to be married by a pastor/priest in a church. I hope those lawsuits fail, defining a clear line. I would say hopefully then everyone will be happy, but that's unlikely to happen
I married my wife on top of a mountain, and that was good enough for us
They got the courthouse. Fine.
Or on a nce beach somewhere.
So you're a member of that community and can be confident you speak for the entire group? That might be more than a tad over-reaching. Internal religious activities are rather effectively walled off from outsiders. Now members arguing from within their respective institutions are free to make the argument, women have argued for decades to be allowed into the Catholic Priesthood, but no lawsuits that I can recall with good reason: The First Amendment... plus RFRA.
Oh and in the states at issue in this ruling, no, they couldn't "go to a courthouse and get married" and That Was The Point.
Over reach is what liberals and big government do best!
We should probably not care. Let those folks that want to dress up funny and chant and swing incense, play their medieval games and ignore them (just keep them out of government and schools). It's a new business opportunity for civil weddings I'd say.
Sigh, I miss the days of happy ritual cannabilism. Eating the flesh and blood of our God like He intended. The mandatory fish on Fridays I don't miss.
They got the courthouse. Fine.
Or on a nce beach somewhere.
I think most will be 100% happy with this. Like any group, there will be those that want to push the boundaries. These of course will be the vocals ones you hear about in the news, while the majority are happy to continue quietly living their lives with their newly granted equal rights.
Great news, well done America and welcome to the club! Gay marriage around the world:
Netherlands - 2001
Belgium - 2003
Spain - 2005
Canada - 2005
South Africa - 2006
Norway - 2009
Sweden - 2009
Portugal - 2010
Iceland - 2010
Argentina - 2010
Uruguay - 2013
New Zealand - 2013
France - 2013
Brazil - 2013
UK - 2013
Luxembourg - 2014
Ireland - 2015
USA - 2015
Freedom is Fish 'n Chips any day!
Ok sorry my bad.
Good news indeed.
How are the other countries doing on equal pay for women? The US still doesn't have it.
In the case of marriage, Government has to be involved because of the legal ramifications of marriage in the areas of marital assets, decision-making when one person becomes ill, estate issues, etc. That was one of the arguments for legalizing gay marriage in the first place: partners were not recognized by the State. People would live together for 50 years, one would become ill and hospitals wouldn't recognize the right of the partner to make health decisions.
Let's take a completely different case: minimum wage. As a libertarian, you probably don't support minimum wage laws. But let's say I reluctantly agree to take a job for $5 an hour, because I don't seem to have any other choice. So it's consensual, but I can't live on $5 an hour. So I apply for welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, etc. Now the taxpayers are making up the difference. If Government was involved, Government could pass minimum wage laws, so taxpayers wouldn't have to make up the difference. This is where I think libertarians get it wrong.
52% of fast food workers nationwide have at least one family member on welfare. New York State pays out $700 million annually in taxpayer money to fast-food workers (and that doesn't include any Federal benefits). That's basically $700 million in corporate welfare. Why should I as a taxpayer have to fund the wages of fast food workers? Let the fast food industry pay its workers properly by increasing the minimum wage. If they can't afford it, they can raise prices or negotiate better real-estate deals. At least in that case, it's the customers of that business who will pay, not taxpayers. But that's a government decision, not a "consensual" decision. Consensual decisions only work when there are no ramifications of the relationship outside of the relationship.
You kinda went off track here with the assumption that the government should, by default, step in to provide what a minimum wage job doesn't cover in terms of living expenses. I'm not a Libertarian, or a Democrat or Republican. I'm a human with a brain, and I approach each issue as a separate and non-political problem to be mulled.
I totally agree with your observation that marriage, as a legal contract between partners, is an inherently government-centric construction.
But on the minimum wage issue, I see this in a similar manner to how I see the Affordable Care Act. It's the wrong way to think about the problem. In the case of the ACA, the problem of health care costs to individuals can best be addressed by first making healthier individuals. So if government were to get involved, its involvement should have begun with measures to ensure that people live healthy lives, and those who don't should foot the bill for their unhealthy habits. For example, tax what you want less of; tobacco, fatty, sugary foods and drinks, riding motorcycles without a helmet, etc. Not that I'm in favor of government intervention in people's lives, but hey, since the government seems to want to weigh in, then it should at least do so in a logical and scientifically sound manner.
So, prevention is the most significant measure to reduce overall healthcare costs. The same concept can be applied to the cost of living. If my income was at minimum wage, I certainly wouldn't take on any life expenses beyond feeding, clothing and sheltering myself. When I came out of the Air Force in 1985 and took a $6/hour job, I had two roommates, a used Mazda GLC econobox with a stick shift that got 45mpg, I prepared ALL my meals at home and packed a lunch for work, and did;t have a girlfriend until I had established myself and started earning more money. How is that not obvious to those coming out of high school and taking those minimum wage jobs? Could it be because our society is not imposing that discipline on our young generations? Minimum wages jobs are not the path to a decent family life, home ownership, or any other aspect of the American dream. So stop having kids you can't afford, carry a cheap mobile phone versus an iPhone, work two jobs, and save like a demon while you're young, single, and have the ability to live like a gypsy until you get your feet under you. And quit the thinking that you deserve a standard of living equal to those who have done all of the above. That's how Greece got into trouble, thinking its citizens deserve the same standard of living in a mostly agricultural country than those in industrialized Germany enjoy. It didn't work for them and it won;t work for an individual person either.
Cool! My last marriage (and hopefully 'last' in every sense) was by our pool in Florida.
Cook can't take his money with him when dies and is cast into the lake of fire. He should worry about his eternal home.
Christians need to boycott Apple.
Christians can do whatever they wish in their Churches. This isn't about religious dogma, this is about hospital visitation rights, spousal inheritance exemption, health insurance eligibility, etc. I don't agree with that Chick-fil-A guy about his views on gay rights, but he makes a good sandwich, so I eat it. And their staff is always friendly, like Apple's. How about you just buy stuff you like. Duh.
How dare Microsoft is promoting abnormal lifestyle! And you're thinking of switching to Windows because of Apple's pro-gay stand?
http://microsoftjobsblog.com/microsoft-pride-this-is-who-i-am/?WT.tsrc=MSsharing
Switching to Android? Oh wait, isn't it developed by Google that also supports gay marriage and cheered for it?
www.google.com
Guess you don't have any other choices.
Excellent attitude.
Maybe Rick Santorum will start a new tech for for Tea Party types. LOL
Great decision by SCOTUS. Proud to be an Apple user.