Uncertain

I often wonder if the United States should not move to a Euro Zone sort of arrangement. 4 or 5 smaller countries that share trade, defense and such.

I agree with your last statement, I also agree with the Libertarian view of marriage, the government has no right to define, license or restrict personal relationships.

Definitely insulting to the majority of americans but even more so, I saw it as an in your face insult to God. He might as well have set up an altar to a false god on the white house lawn. It made me wonder if God was going to give the us a smack down over that. Especially since obamas goal is to spread this across the world. The majority of Americans support same sex marriage 61% to 35% against. Not sure the majority are upset. As it has already been said by Patriot, the majority of the US embraces sin. Such has been said about the end times in scripture. The majority of Americans have always embraced sin in one form or another.

Marriage, in the context of a civil union with certain benefits attached to it has always been defined by the society assigning the benefits. The Godly sacrament of marriage and the civil legal partnership that share the name are not the same thing. God does not issue a license.

https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/family-suffers-horrible-harassment-for-122518147462.html What is wrong with people? A little girl and her family being harassed due to a name.

Thank goodness they have heterosexual marriage to use as example of sticking together and toughing it out... oh wait, never mind, don't follow our example.

Well, there it is. Marriage has always been governed by the state you live in....there has never been a federal marriage license in the history of the U.S. The SCOTUS has way overstepped and it's time we, the people, figure out what to do about them. They're a bunch of old fossils anyway, IMO, and have WAY too much power over the country. The Constitution specifcally states that any powers not granted explicitly to the Federal government by that document belong solely to the states. Precedent can be found in history.....power given can be taken away. This is NOT over. I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure before recently states did not refuse to honor the license issued by another state, even if they had differing rules. I have lived in many states and never once did one not honor my marriage. This is how the Supreme Court got involved. Imagine this, a gay couple was legally married in NY and then was driving to SoCal via Texas. One partner has a heart attack while passing through Texas. As it stood before yesterday, the other partner had no legal rights to approve medical treatments or even be a visitor in the hospital. Does that seem right to you? Your observation is valid but has no bearing on what I posted. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A FEDERAL MARRIAGE LICENSE. There has never been a law that any state has to recognize another state's marriages. The S.C. is supposed to INTERPRET law. In this case, there is no prior law to interpret. There still is no Federal marriage license, the Supreme Court interpreted "equal protection under the law".

Definitely insulting to the majority of americans but even more so, I saw it as an in your face insult to God. He might as well have set up an altar to a false god on the white house lawn. It made me wonder if God was going to give the us a smack down over that. Especially since obamas goal is to spread this across the world. The majority of Americans support same sex marriage 61% to 35% against. Not sure the majority are upset.

We will just have to disagree, I think an adult should be free to choose whomever they wish for such decisions. But I never was much one for telling people how to live their lives, there are more than enough people such as yourself to do that.

Well, there it is. Marriage has always been governed by the state you live in....there has never been a federal marriage license in the history of the U.S. The SCOTUS has way overstepped and it's time we, the people, figure out what to do about them. They're a bunch of old fossils anyway, IMO, and have WAY too much power over the country. The Constitution specifcally states that any powers not granted explicitly to the Federal government by that document belong solely to the states. Precedent can be found in history.....power given can be taken away. This is NOT over. I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure before recently states did not refuse to honor the license issued by another state, even if they had differing rules. I have lived in many states and never once did one not honor my marriage. This is how the Supreme Court got involved. Imagine this, a gay couple was legally married in NY and then was driving to SoCal via Texas. One partner has a heart attack while passing through Texas. As it stood before yesterday, the other partner had no legal rights to approve medical treatments or even be a visitor in the hospital. Does that seem right to you?

What law did the Supreme Court make?

Gay marriage has been legal in 37 states prior to today's ruling. How many of those have examples of people marrying dogs or children or themselves? Are you for or against gay marriage? I would never marry a gay person. Gay marriage goes against God's word. The United States is not a theology, thus our laws are not bases upon God's word. A gentleman I work with is gay and there is no legitimate legal reason he and is partner should be denied the same benefits that my wife and I enjoy. The civil benefits such as social security benefits, visitation rights, property transfer rights, tax filing categories and more have nothing to do with religious beliefs or God's word.

Gay marriage has been legal in 37 states prior to today's ruling. How many of those have examples of people marrying dogs or children or themselves?

depends on who is in charge.... Not really, be it a ® or a (D) sitting there, both take our freedoms and rights at an equal pace.

Religion has nothing to do with it. We are not of this world, we are just in it until we are removed by the Lord. While I agree that this is not a battle that we, as believers, can win, it is not an issue that we should just accept and ignore. GOD made HIS legal system, and that is the one we are to follow. Not some man made system that is devised to oppose GOD's stated will. God's legal system does not seem to address the civil issues listed above. No offense, but have you read the Bible lately? GOD, in the OT, and Christ in the NT, said that homosexuality is an abomination. A sin is a sin, no matter what "civil" remedy that man comes up with to justify or ligitimize something. Social justice Christianity is a cop-out. I know I am getting older and my memory is going, but I am very certain I did not say homosexuality was not a sin. So, no offense, but try reading what I wrote instead of making it up. And from reading what I wrote, I never accused you for saying anything like that. Your responses are based on some sense of social justice, some human moral equivalency between GOD's system of moral instruction and man's decision to go against that in order to ligitimize and reward immorality. GOD's Word does address the civil issues listed above. Thus my referral to Scripture to find such instructions. Please show me the scriptures that speak of social security benefits, or hospital visitation, or property ownership rights or tax filing statuses. And after that show me which of my words you took to mean I basing my view on social justice.

In the states where this was already legal this was not happening, why would that happen now.

Not yet but it is coming when a pastor will be in big trouble or jailed if he does not marry a gay couple. Not until another case makes its way to the Supreme Court, this ruling deals with the state and nothing else.

Religion has nothing to do with it. We are not of this world, we are just in it until we are removed by the Lord. While I agree that this is not a battle that we, as believers, can win, it is not an issue that we should just accept and ignore. GOD made HIS legal system, and that is the one we are to follow. Not some man made system that is devised to oppose GOD's stated will. God's legal system does not seem to address the civil issues listed above. No offense, but have you read the Bible lately? GOD, in the OT, and Christ in the NT, said that homosexuality is an abomination. A sin is a sin, no matter what "civil" remedy that man comes up with to justify or ligitimize something. Social justice Christianity is a cop-out. I know I am getting older and my memory is going, but I am very certain I did not say homosexuality was not a sin. So, no offense, but try reading what I wrote instead of making it up.

Religion has nothing to do with it. We are not of this world, we are just in it until we are removed by the Lord. While I agree that this is not a battle that we, as believers, can win, it is not an issue that we should just accept and ignore. GOD made HIS legal system, and that is the one we are to follow. Not some man made system that is devised to oppose GOD's stated will. God's legal system does not seem to address the civil issues listed above. Nothing to do with civil issues. Homosexuals always had civil rights. You don't need marital status to have that. You can set up any civil partnership contract to obtain those rights. Stop making excuses for evil. It is NOT the correct decision legally. Homosexuals do not have the right to marry - they don't reproduce, and their sexual activity is unhealthy and unnatural. Marriage is a covenant that was given to us by God. It is not meant to be an excuse for sodomites to carry out their depraved activities and obtain legal privileges by doing so. There is no reproduction requirement for a civil marriage, or for a biblical one at that, and there are many unhealthy sexual practices between some heterosexual couples. I agree that marriage is a covenant given to us by God, where we went wrong was attaching secular benefits to it that have nothing to do with God. Once you hitch your buggy to the secular\civil horse you get pulled where ever that horse goes. There is nothing in God's law about social security benefits or hospital visitation or tax filing categories. These things were attached to the sacrament of marriage out of convenience, not religious based reasons.

Maybe the Executive branch can use some of their shiny new powers and confine these people with charges or a hearing till the end of hostilities. How long do you think this war on terror might last?

Religion has nothing to do with it. We are not of this world, we are just in it until we are removed by the Lord. While I agree that this is not a battle that we, as believers, can win, it is not an issue that we should just accept and ignore. GOD made HIS legal system, and that is the one we are to follow. Not some man made system that is devised to oppose GOD's stated will. God's legal system does not seem to address the civil issues listed above.

As distasteful as it is from a religious standpoint, it is the correct decision legally. If Social Security benefits, property rights, hospital visitation rights, tax filing status, and other legal issues are all tied to martial status there is no legal reason to deny those based upon our religious views.

As have all other mass killings, which has been my point all along. Yet you are creating this fantasy narrative that people expected a different reaction or that the Charleston reaction was somehow different.

There have been black people shot by white police both before and after Brown without riots, for your myopic view to be correct there would need to be a riot every time, which of course there is not. You are basically just too biased to view these things rationally. Are you claiming that Holmes, Lanza, Harris and Klebold did not plan and calculate their killing sprees? That is really what you are going to try and hang your hat on? Have you read about the planning that Harris and Klebold did? It was intricate and exact. Holmes bought his guns over the course of months, choose the theater on its out of the way location and easily locked doors. He even choose the midnight showing to cut down on the number of children in the theater. Your lack of any actual knowledge of these cases is astounding, to say the least. But it is in line with your biased view of things.

The riots in Ferguson was not due to a white cop shooting a black man, that is a common occurrence in the St Louis area. The Baltimore riots were not about a white cop killing a black man, as 50% of the cops involved were themselves black. Both events had more to do with a perceived (incorrectly as it was) lack of justice. The only way the Charleston event compares would be if Story had not been charged with a crime. As it is, the aftermath of the shooting in Charleston is very much the same as after every other mass shooting. The idea anyone was expecting riots is just a fantasy brought on by your extreme biases.