Same-Sex marriage is now legal in the entire United States-Good job!

Actually he's perfectly happy with his life and is a successful practicing lawyer.

you feel, as a straight male, that you have the right to not be blacklisted?

If I'm not mistaken, this ruling effectively mandates that anyone within the United States who are able to issue a legal marriage license cannot refuse just because the couple is homosexual. Many religious institutions, whether they be churches or synagogues or mosques or temples, either possess this legal authority or the religious officials who work there do. Without accommodating for these religious institutions, any same-sex couple can legally require a church or church official to marry them irrespective of whether that violates the church or the official's principles.

The church and its officials are technically acting as legal agents, so the law does not require them to reform their religious doctrines; however, the law is forcing religious institutions to reform their policies regarding who they choose to marry. It is true that a same-sex couple can go to a court house to get married (like most have been), but now they can go to a religious building and force the officials to marry them by federal mandate because no accommodations or specifications are made which exempts religious institutions from being required to do so if it violates their religious doctrines or principles.

One could distinguish between the church as a religious and legal institution, a line of reasoning I have done before myself. Unfortunately, the separation between church and state is not clear here, so unless there are legal accommodations for the "church", it is potentially violating their First Amendment right to freedom of religion (and the exercising thereof) by allowing anyone to require them to violate their religious principles to fulfill a legal requirement.

This is a rather uncertain argument, I admit, because I'm unsure whether the distinction between the church as a religious and legal institution is meaningful in determining their rights, and I'm moreover unsure whether the "legal" component of the church qualifies as a business or commercial entity. If it does, this same argument could be used to validate companies who deny their employees contraceptives in their health insurance, something I definitely don't support. I would argue here, however, that unless the company is also a religious institution, requiring it to violate any religious principles is not a violation of their First Amendment because it does not affect how the church or its constituents exercise their freedom; it only requires a commercial entity to respect the rights of its employees.

Although I could definitely find some more articles about this case (some, unsurprisingly, from the conservative Right), this article from Reason.org may help you understand the concerns to religious freedoms that this law imposes without there being any exemptions or accommodations for religious institutions.

Churches can deny to marry agnostics, atheists, those from different religions, or even those from different denominations of their religion, all despite how freedom of religion is a basic right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Freedom of religion is a fundamental right, just like the right to marry (although that right isn't in the U.S. Constitution), and yet church practitioners able to marry couples are legally required to marry same-sex couples. They can still refuse to marry people of the same religion even if they are a different denomination, or those of other religions (or none at all), but same-sex couples are given some sort of exemption from a right apparently even more fundamental than religion (despite not being in the Constitution) that requires religious institutions to comply even if it violates their principles. That, in my opinion, sounds very much like a violation of their First Amendment rights.

I support novel interpretations when they are founded on compelling arguments which corroborate with previous precedents or with historical interpretations, or both. A novel interpretation with little to no foundation in the document's history or in the Supreme Court's previous rulings is an exploitation of the livingness of the Constitution. The role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the constitutionality of the laws they address. The Supreme Court should take into account the society in which it is ruling, but it should not rule solely based on current sociopolitical or cultural atmospheres. There must still be some foundation in precedent and in historical interpretation. A Justice can interpret the constitution as a living document while avoiding judicial activism.

The ruling was not based on the Constitution or Amendment XIV because the majority clearly redefined and distorted the amendment to fit their agenda with complete disregard for historical precedent. Reading a part of the Constitution with "fresh eyes" as a plain-text statement free to be interpreted however one pleases is not how you interpret a living constitution. That's how you take advantage of it.

If these views sound contrary to the belief in a living constitution, then perhaps I am not your usual advocate of that view. All I know is that I support some of the core arguments for a living constitution interpretation, and that I support judicial restraint over judicial activism. Today, the majority took the activist route when their job required restraint.

The "core" of any given thing are its most lasting and essential components. The core of marriage was that of a union between a man and a woman. Whether these individuals were children, consented to marriage, came from the same race or class, or were permitted to divorce were all components of marriage which were inessential to marriage's definition. Some many have considered it essential at one point, but these provisos were stripped from the core meaning. Marriage has been redefined over the millennia, but its core meaning has not. Only in this century has the world attempted to redefine the core of marriage. The primary factor which distinguishes the component of opposite-sex union from the other components is duration: the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman has endured the longest and remained consistent since marriage was first defined.

Now, some in society seek to change this through force and mandate. Rather than accommodating for this definition of marriage, they seek to redefine it. I believe this was a needlessly contentious approach and a better alternative was available, mentioned here and explicated here.

My argument is not to preserve the core definition of marriage, but to acknowledge that the core definition has been prevalent and longstanding since the dawn of human civilization, and remains a powerful force in contemporary societies around the world. Due to this, the core definition of marriage should be respected because it is still an integral component of the values of billions across the world, and tens of millions in the United States alone. If the only option was to abolish the traditional core definition of marriage, then I would support it and accept the loss of yet another tradition to human progress. It was not the only option, so I do not support its redefinition.

I proclaimed my ideological identity at the beginning because I wanted people to know that even someone who might be expected to support this ruling does not, and even though my ideological position presumes support, I do not support this ruling. I would have preferred it if I didn't need to state something of the sort, since I would rather my arguments be judged on their own merits rather than on their concordance to my ideological positions, but if I were to not tell the world where I fell on the political spectrum, people are liable to presume me to be another. Often have I came into a debate, arguing with my fellow liberal peers, only for them to dismiss my criticisms was the ramblings of some conservative because my views are not identical to theirs and they are all too bloodthirsty to eat their own. My criticisms are thereby ignored and I am conveniently ostracized as not X enough to participate. If I were to at least publicize my identity with their ingroup, perhaps it would keep their vitriol at bay. In other words, it's a rhetorical device to announce that one is within an ingroup so as to prevent said ingroup from being hostile to someone who they perceive to be from an outgroup because their actions or behaviors deviate from the norm.

I am a liberal and a progressive, but I am fully aware of vicious my fellow liberal progressives can be when the more bigoted ones meet someone who doesn't fall in line with their goosestepping agenda. Radicals and dogmatic ideologues exist in every ideology; liberal progressives are not exempt from this phenomenon. Perhaps I shouldn't have announced my ideological position in my initial post, but I did so in the hopes of avoiding arguments like the one we're having right now. I'm weary of having to defend my own identity to people who should be my ideological compatriots; it solves nothing and in the end, my arguments are neglected in favor of attacking the arguer.

I mentioned my support for Sanders because Sanders is himself a liberal progressive and social democrat—ideologies to which I subscribe—and few people except his own ideological kin support him for president. I was pointing out the absurdity of your accusations because virtually every aspect of my identity contradicts them, up to and including which presidential candidate I support.

Perhaps my arguments here are not liberal or progressive. I think they are, but it's not particularly important to me if they are. What's important to me is the cogency and validity of my arguments, their strength and their logical rigor. Whether they are conservative or liberal, progressive or regressive, is secondary to the actual merits of my arguments. Liberals and conservatives can be wrong; what I care about is if I'm wrong, not if I sound like one or the other.

I am not particularly interested in keeping the institution of marriage in its traditional, opposite-sex definition. It doesn't matter to me whether this tradition is abolished because a tradition is not worth keeping just because it is a tradition when its continuance obstructs or hinders society in a deleterious way. I don't think it's necessary to accomplish the goal of marriage equality by changing the core definition of marriage, though, and I find the approach that was taken to be needlessly challenging and contentious. Regardless of any possible abstract arguments justifying marriage's traditional definition (I know of none), the traditional definition of marriage remains a powerful and prevailing cultural view among tens of millions of US citizens and potentially billions across the world. It may be an arbitrarily exclusive definition, but it's one that many religions, cultures, and societies still respect. Due to this, I think it would have been far more appropriate to try to achieve the goal of marriage equality while accommodating for the traditional institution of marriage.

Like I alluded to here, I believe that the push for marriage equality should have sought to divorce marriage from law and instate a new legal term which achieved the same practical goal while respecting the traditional semantics of an ancient institution to which many still adhere. More specifically, I believe that "marriage" as a legal term should have been replaced with "civil union". If the religious adherents and conservative ideologues wished to keep their term, they could. Marriage would remain a term for a union between a man and a woman, and religious institutions would be permitted to bless whichever union they pleased as a "marriage". It would hold no legal weight, however, so marriage would remain purely a traditional ritual performed by those who still cared. From a legal perspective, "marriage" would be as meaningful a term as "communion". "Civil union" would naturally inherit all the entitlements that "marriage" formerly possessed. More importantly, it would not be held back by the history and tradition that informed the institution of marriage.

Replacing "marriage" with "civil union" would secularize the institution and remove any religious elements from it. That was the main point of contention among traditionalists and religionists alike: by attempting to redefine marriage, the government was violating a tradition and undermining its meaning in society, a tradition which was meaningful to numerous religions. They wanted to retain the religious sanctity of marriage and this necessarily required (for some) that marriage be exclusively for opposite-sex couples, since same-sex couples were shunned by their religion. If "marriage" was removed from legal terminology and replaced with the more neutral, less connotative term "civil union", those appeals to the history and tradition of the institution of marriage would obsolesce because the sanctity of marriage would be retained. By stripping "marriage" of its legal power, the arguments for respecting its sanctity would be rendered powerless, since its sanctity would not be threatened.

The LGBT community—and its allies among liberal progressives—should therefore have been pushing to further separate church from state by replacing "marriage" with "civil union". This way, the goal of marriage equality would be achieved because "civil union" could be easily defined as "a union between two or more entities", thereby validating same-sex couples as equal to their opposite-sex counterparts. This way, the religious would also keep their damn tradition to do with it however they please. This decision would have been far less controversial and would have feasibly occurred far smoother than would attempting to usurp the tradition of marriage from the hegemony of the traditionalists. It would have made future decisions regarding civil unions far easier, as well, since it would eliminate any arguments of further degrading the tradition of "marriage" which might occur when polygamous marriage and even interspecies marriage is considered for legal recognition. They would all fall under the flexible and untraditional definition of "civil union"; "marriage" would be retained and the bigots could keep it.

This recent ruling has accomplished the same goal of marriage equality, but it did so in an inefficient and arduous manner. Doing so has undermined the traditional institution of marriage—a tradition and institution many still value—and has set up further conflict in the future when marriage undergoes another redefinition. It has also given conservatives more reason to believe that liberal progressives don't respect their traditions, and more reason to believe that homosexuals are a threat to their traditional lifestyles. Even worse, our doing so has further alienated us from traditionalists and conservatives around the world, with this decision being a spit in their face and a perceived affront on their values.

I personally feel no compunction for discarding tradition, even at the cost of bitching and whining among traditionalists, but this is not effective social policy. Following this path of tradition abolition when a mutually respecting option is available is to take the needlessly more difficult path when an easier avenue is open for travel. All following that more difficult path does is accomplish the same goal that could have been accomplished with far less division, alienation, and conflict between ideological groups. In the end, this decision is liable to radicalize the conservative side and further distance itself from the other spectrum, leading to an overall more contentious and more belligerent society.

Now that I've articulated my fuller views on this whole debate (something I didn't want to do), hopefully it dispels any perceived conflicts you see in my ideology and my arguments. As an aside, my point about the utility of traditions was meant to be a general commentary on tradition as an aspect of society and how I view it. This particular tradition—that of the institution of marriage being defined as a union between a man and a woman—is not useful in any discernible degree. It reinforces a traditional family model, but the merits of this model are uncertain at best. It would be more useful to accommodate for this tradition rather than seek to abolish it, however, since the latter strategy is far more likely to undermine what little public unity we have left and further divide us as a nation. We are a country of opposing values and conflicting ideals; rulings which only favor one side when a more diplomatic option is available is not how you unite a nation.

[10,000 character limit reached, continued in next reply.]

So the core of this line of thought is that it somehow goes against the "core definition." That, despite countless social changes that fundamentally altered marriage, this one goes particularly beyond the pale.

You make the same mistake that zelghadis did. Those "countless social changes" did not "fundamentally alter[] marriage". They altered the place marriage had in society, the function it served, and the criteria needed to qualify for marriage, but it did not alter the fundamental definition of marriage—that of being a union between a man and a woman. All of those changes were made with a consistent core definition of marriage permeating throughout:

• Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and neither could be a child.
• Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and they must consent.
• Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and they can be from different races.
• Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and they can be from different classes.
• Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and they can divorce.
• Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and they don't have to be religious.
• etc.

The core definition of marriage is the independent clause, whereas the changes you two noted occurred in the modifying clause(s), the clauses which modified the independent clause (the nonrestrictive clause, see below). The current redefinition of marriage changes the core definition because it alters the definition from being "between a man and a woman" to being "between two entities". To illustrate, consider the change in the same format as above:

• Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and they can be the same sex.

This is an absurd statement because if marriage is defined as "between a man and a woman", they must by definition be an opposite-sex couple. The marriage cannot logically be between a man and a woman if they are the same sex. Therefore, what is being redefined is the core definition of marriage, not the appended modifiers:

• Marriage is a union between two entities.

Even if it was:

• Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, or a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

The core definition of marriage is still being changed because the "or" here is an exclusive disjunction, not an inclusive disjunction. The core definition of marriage is being furcated into three separate components which all define the core. The "and" in the previous examples operates as a nonrestrictive clause, not as a logical conjunction.

(I admit that the first two examples, where children are not allowed to participate in marriage and both parties must consent, are arguably examples of the "and" being a logical conjunction. I would argue, however, that the core definition of marriage is still not changed because "man and woman" is synonymous in this context with "male and female". Restricting the ages of who can marry, or prohibiting nonconsensual marriage, does not modify the sexes or genders of those marrying. Therefore, the core definition of marriage is still present.)

Again, he selectively ignores the positive rights granted in several cases (which he is perfectly content to enjoy despite his objections).

Does this validate the ruling if those rulings are also similarly unjust? The Supreme Court's role is to protect negative liberties, not dispense positive liberties. Do you have evidence that dispensing positive liberties is a fundamental role of the Supreme Court? Evidence of similar decisions by the Supreme Court can either indicate longstanding precedence or long-term abuse of power (or both). Unless there is reason to believe this is a core function of the Supreme Court, I'm inclined to choose the latter. Marriage may be a contract, but it is a contract with the government which allots certain entitlements granted to those who agree to it. From my understanding, the granting of entitlements is the role of the legislature, not the judiciary. The Supreme Court protects rights; it does not dispense them.

I won't bother refuting your accusation of conservatism and the basis of my objections being conservative because my above arguments should suffice. I refer to it.

You asked me if I consider the Russian and Arabs cunts for being straight, to which I said no( I consider them so for being bigots)... If you didn't mean that, WTF did you mean???? Cause you are REALLY BAD at getting your ideas across to other people, it seems... Speak coherently and with punctuation, if you want people to understand you.

It's a well known fact that both Russia and The Middle East countries have very strict homophobic policies and that they hate the United States. They also hate all other countries that don't share their narrow and deeply bigot views on people who are different. So of course now they have another reason to hate the United States...basic logic. And of course these countries suck donkey balls for that. In most other countries(whether marriage is permitted or not) gay people are not denied basic civic or even human rights, like in Russia's case. In the Arab countries it's even worse: you can be publicly executed(stoned to death, which is a horrible way to die) for your sexual orientation, if it's not heterosexual.

the next one is gonna be The Knight, I have it ready too :D

Sounds great, imma look it up :)

Technically, retarded means delayed, slowed, or hindered. It's a perfectly reasonable word, just as long as context is taken into account. A country can, indeed, be retarded in context of social progress and civil rights. Or, "The flat tire retarded the vehicle's progress up the hill."

Sadly, the PC police these days have really overstepped their bounds when it comes to policing word choice. As an insult toward a person, it's not ok. Using it to mean stupid is not ok. Otherwise, it's a legitimate word that has legitimate uses.