All of them:


To return to where we started in this opinion, more than unsupported conjecture that same-sex marriage will harm heterosexual marriage or children or any other valid and important interest of a state is necessary to justify discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. As we have been at pains to explain, the grounds advanced by Indiana and Wisconsin for their discriminatory policies are not only conjectural; they are totally implausible.

The government should not be allowed to marry..... anyone. 

This is a church and state issue.  Churches have been marrying people long before the government and they should decide what the definition of marriage is and how they want to apply it.

The government should only be allowed to create personal partnerships.  Then they can do what they want and the churches can do what they want.

...and you can be married without the partnership or not married with it.

The government telling me that my religion is "wrong" is discriminatory to the group of people for which I belong.


They need to just get out of the marrying business.
 

Posted by raucous on 9/5/2014 5:02:00 PM (view original):
The government should not be allowed to marry..... anyone. 

This is a church and state issue.  Churches have been marrying people long before the government and they should decide what the definition of marriage is and how they want to apply it.

The government should only be allowed to create personal partnerships.  Then they can do what they want and the churches can do what they want.

...and you can be married without the partnership or not married with it.

The government telling me that my religion is "wrong" is discriminatory to the group of people for which I belong.


They need to just get out of the marrying business.
 

When did anyone tell you your religion was wrong?

The government of my own state of MA tells me that my religion's definition of marriage is wrong.

Posted by raucous on 9/5/2014 5:07:00 PM (view original):
The government of my own state of MA tells me that my religion's definition of marriage is wrong.

How so?

The definition from my religion

"The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."

MA definition does not match that.

Nor should the one I believe in be forced upon everyone else in the country.  That would be discriminatory against others.  The best thing for the government to do is get out of the business altogether and just stick with creating and dissolving partnership, corporations (yay Mormons and Muslims!) or civil unions if you want a nicer but less effective wording of it.

Posted by raucous on 9/5/2014 5:24:00 PM (view original):
The definition from my religion

"The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."

MA definition does not match that.

Nor should the one I believe in be forced upon everyone else in the country.  That would be discriminatory against others.  The best thing for the government to do is get out of the business altogether and just stick with creating and dissolving partnership, corporations (yay Mormons and Muslims!) or civil unions if you want a nicer but less effective wording of it.

Do we make laws based on what religion says?

I'm married but not at all religious. I know other people who belong to religions that accept gay marriage.

Your "should be" is nice, but government is involved in marriage. That isn't changing.

Also, ignoring gay marriage, unbaptized could already marry.

I agree.  No one would ever stand up and make everyone truly equal.

Posted by raucous on 9/5/2014 8:42:00 PM (view original):
I agree.  No one would ever stand up and make everyone truly equal.

No clue what this means.