Am i the only one who doesn't think its right that gay marriage was forced into law?

How is allowing gay marriage a dangerous precedent? How is allowing two people who love each other to marry dangerous for the U.S. Supreme Court system?

So long as there are adequate protections in place that mean that religious organisations are not forced to host or carry out same sex marriages I'm not really bothered.

If it was left up to the states to decide it would have taken a generation for it to become legalised across the board. Legalisation of homosexuality slowly crept into America with Illinois legalising it in the 1960s and more liberal states following suit in the 1970s. In 2002 13 states still had sodomy laws on the statutes. It depended on a Supreme Court decision in 2003 to finally let consenting adults do as they pleased in the bedroom. If a similar situation occured with same sex marriage we could've seen states holding out until the 2040s. Likewise if segregation and disenfranchisement wasn't removed by federal law some states in the South might still have had similar discriminatory statutes on the books. There is a limit to the powers of state government, and having federal law supersede it is nothing new.

I think the decision might have come a bit too early, but attitudes are changing in America and the hard right conservative christian bloc are losing ground. Most Americans now support gay marriage. This outcome was inevitable, it has just happened sooner rather than later. Now hopefully the Republican party will no longer be held hostage by those hard-liners and in America both the GOP and Democrats can get past their ridiculous divide in regards to social issues, and instead set a clearer divide on economic and foreign policy.

Hell, just give us freedom to associate with or disassociate from whomever! That way homosexuals and those not too fond of them can be equally happy. And whilst we're at it, privatise marriage; the state shouldn't impose its definition of marriage on the rest of us.

Hell, just give us freedom to associate with or disassociate from whomever! That way homosexuals and those not too fond of them can be equally happy. And whilst we're at it, privatise marriage; the state shouldn't impose its definition of marriage on the rest of us.

Yes, the state is imposing its definition of marriage on everyone, you are now required to marry the same sex, otherwise you get a bullet in your head.

Privatise marriage? I think George Osborne might jump at that one.

No, but folk look to the "law of the land" as a source of moral authority. Not to mention, what does the union of two individuals have to do with the government anyway? By all means, have it dish out civil unions, but whether these civil unions constitute "marriage" or not should be up to individuals and organisations, hence why marriage should be privatised. Not to mention, the less functions the state takes on, the more freedom for us all! Also, those who don't want to tend to the wishes of homosexual couples who plan on marrying, such as a Christian bakery and a bed-and-breakfast who were both in the news, get sued for it. It's freedom for homosexuals to associate, but not the same freedom for the rest of us. That is the risk of institutionalising moral stances which really aren't sensibly in the jurisdiction of a state.

Yeah I know, I have heard this before honey! Trying to justify bigotry with usual right wing nonsense. I dont go around in circles with you people, try it on someone else.

So you don't support proprietary rights? So if you own a shop, I can just defecate on the floor of it, and you should be sued if you contest it?

I did say I wasnt going around in circles with people like you, I guess I should've added 'this is my last reply to you' but i thought it was obvious. Goodbye.

"Privatise" as in taking it out of the hands of government and allowing individuals and organisations to judge whether they think a civil union is a "marriage" or not. What I'm saying is, the state shouldn't legally uphold a stance on the matter. Not to mention, why do you care what the government thinks of your marriage anyway? The state should only be aware of civil unions, if anything, but not "marriages". Does that make sense?

I Think it's utterly disgusting! Society is getting more and more stupid day by day.I think homosexuality should be behind closed doors!It's spoiling our future generations.

I wasn't actually engaging you, just making an off-cuff remark.

Yes, at one point I argued that all legally binding relationships should be recognised as civil partnerships by the government, and whether it was a marriage or not was simply dependant on whether you wanted to informally refer to it or consider it as such. Or if you were religious whether you had a separate, but non-legally binding ceremony for it.

Then I realised simply extending the right to marriage to everyone was easier, so long as no religious group was forced to conduct them.

My main concern is that the supreme court have set a dangerous precedented of circumventing the American democratic process.

The Supreme Court has just forced all states within its jurisdiction to obey contrary to their wishes. That doesn't sound very democratic to me. That is what he's alluding to, I assume.