Federal Judge rules Utah's ban on gay marrage illegal. Internet about to explode
- Thread starter downtown
- Start date
What makes you think 1st-century Rome was secular?
Augustus was considered a living god in some parts of the Empire. So were Caligula and Claudius. There were government-mandated religious ceremonies that happened rather frequently (ie. taking of the auspices) and these were used to determine official policy, as in whether or not it was a good time to go to war or hold an imperial wedding. There were a lot of religious festivals scattered throughout the year, and on those days no government or law-court business could be transacted. There were religious aspects to some of the gladiatorial games. One of the perks of aristocracy was getting appointed to some cushy priesthood job that may or may not have involved real work.
Rome was religion-tolerant for much of the first century AD. But secular? No.
Besides, the Romans didn't care about some (to them) obscure and silly religious rituals, as long as they didn't interfere with government and taxes, or cause disturbances. Herod flipped out over Jesus and the prophecies surrounding his birth, though...
That's still a lot longer than many Hollywood marriages. As for a goldfish's inability to consent/remember, Disney would disagree on that. So if you want to marry a goldfish, make sure it's one that appeared in a Disney movie.
What makes you think 1st-century Rome was secular?
Augustus was considered a living god in some parts of the Empire. So were Caligula and Claudius. There were government-mandated religious ceremonies that happened rather frequently (ie. taking of the auspices) and these were used to determine official policy, as in whether or not it was a good time to go to war or hold an imperial wedding. There were a lot of religious festivals scattered throughout the year, and on those days no government or law-court business could be transacted. There were religious aspects to some of the gladiatorial games. One of the perks of aristocracy was getting appointed to some cushy priesthood job that may or may not have involved real work.
Rome was religion-tolerant for much of the first century AD. But secular? No.
Besides, the Romans didn't care about some (to them) obscure and silly religious rituals, as long as they didn't interfere with government and taxes, or cause disturbances. Herod flipped out over Jesus and the prophecies surrounding his birth, though...
Fair point, and I stand corrected.
I ... actually don't know if there's evidence that Herod actually flipped out or if it was just as likely an embellishment.
What's the evidence that he did or didn't slaughter the firstborns of Bethlehem?
I think it's only mentioned in Matthew, using a 'narrator's point of view'. It seems like an embellishment (which Matthew is known for doing), but would require Herod having access to sorcerers that he believed. A 'culling' in a small town would've been such a non-event that it's doubtful that there'd be other records. Although, its absence in the other gospels is a decent indicator that it's an embellishment.
In OP related developments, it looks like Utah will have a petition ready for the US Supreme Court to try and get a stay on the ruling until they can prepare an appeal. Utah is actually in the middle of changing AGs (the previous one resigned due to corruption allegations), so they were probably caught off guard with the timing of this and the polygamy case, botching their initial appeal.
It'll probably be hard for SCOTUS to avoid ruling on the merits of gay marriage itself for too much longer.
It'll probably be hard for SCOTUS to avoid ruling on the merits of gay marriage itself for too much longer.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
I'm really kinda hoping the SCOTUS is just waiting for public opinion to decide the issue before ruling. The longer they wait, the more decided it is. Not really sure that I want to watch this go into a federal amendment battle if they rule the other way. Which it would. And it wouldn't be fast. Though we're up to what, 18 states at least momentarily?
I do wonder... the GOP has a lot more influence at the State level. They could try that method that totally bypasses Congress which has never been used. I don't see it happening, but I guess it's a possibility.
I know that's not the route Farm Boy was talking about (he was thinking the other direction), but I honestly think it is a possibility that it could be tried if the SC strikes down all State laws and amendments banning gay marriage.
I don't think the Supreme Court will force all states to allow gay marriages to be initiated in their states. They may force states to give some degree of recognition to marriages that were legally performed in another state, though it is tough to see how far this recognition would have to extend.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Only Cutlass is talking about a constitutional amendment to approve it...
Over half the population now wants same-sex marriage. There is no way an amendment calling for the opposite would get nearly enough support.
Instead of starting a new thread, I put this here, because I feel it's applicable to the conversation.
http://tv.yahoo.com/news/duck-dynasty-reversal-e-said-last-week-today-225534795.html
"So after discussions with the Robertson family, as well as consulting with numerous advocacy groups, A&E has decided to resume filming “Duck Dynasty” later this spring with the entire Robertson family."
"After more than 250,000 people signed a petition calling for Robertson’s return, A&E announced it had lifted the suspension, without Robertson missing a single episode."
Unlike gay marriage, which is not a "right" but an arguable "privilege", having an opinion and voicing it is a right. Recognizing that, the people have spoken against this knee-jerk, sophomoric brand of censorship. I'm very happy with this decision.
http://tv.yahoo.com/news/duck-dynasty-reversal-e-said-last-week-today-225534795.html
"So after discussions with the Robertson family, as well as consulting with numerous advocacy groups, A&E has decided to resume filming “Duck Dynasty” later this spring with the entire Robertson family."
"After more than 250,000 people signed a petition calling for Robertson’s return, A&E announced it had lifted the suspension, without Robertson missing a single episode."
Unlike gay marriage, which is not a "right" but an arguable "privilege", having an opinion and voicing it is a right. Recognizing that, the people have spoken against this knee-jerk, sophomoric brand of censorship. I'm very happy with this decision.
Apparently, poor-nogrophy is too good of an income stream.
That's a shot against Duck Dynasty?
You know, before A&E ever filmed an episode, that family was worth a combined "tens of millions of dollars", right?
Yup and nope.
They have a multi-generational business of trademarked crafted animal calls.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
So you have a wealthy old protestant who toes the line of his church and doesn't seem terribly politically active on lobbying lawmakers regarding his belief(correct me if you know I'm wrong), and that's a super bad thing? While I understand why the LGBTQ communities and Allies are annoyed with him, I'm really quite confused as to why the NAACP is coming after him with the excerpts of the interview I've read. Didn't he mostly say his experiences with poor people of differing ethnicity were that poor people can be happy? That not all poor people are doomed to be racist? Did he deny that the Jim Crow South had atrocities? Or say that segregation was a good thing? I didn't read that. I read an affirmation of the strength of men despite being in an undesirable set of circumstances.
Similar threads
