[Dilbert San Diego]

Can I just take issue with the term: “marriage equality”.

This is not “marriage equality”. We still don’t have marriage equality, because we still don’t allow for polygamy and group marriage.

The ultimate goal of homosexual activists is group marriage, any number of partners, any gender of partners.

They see monogamous same sex marriage as a transitional phase leading to their final goals.

The liberal view has been to laugh and ridicule a la Saul Alinsky, anyone who suggested that polygamy or other redefinitions of marriage could come about if we allow homosexual marriage.

Time will tell on that.

Time will also tell if religious liberty will be under assault now due to this ruling.

It’s up to the gay activists. If they don’t file lawsuits against churches and religious institutions over marriage, then we would have nothing to worry about.

But if they choose to file such lawsuits, then we are all in danger of losing our religious liberties.

Time will tell. It’s up to them as to whether they choose to file more and more lawsuits to force acceptance of homosexual marriage by religions.

[grania]

Back in the days of civilizing populations, ministers would come into an area and encourage one husband-one wife relationships. Without that, it was impossible to have a moral, positive society.

Where did I learn that? Oddly on a tour in Grand Turk, conducted by a Jamaican history scholar. His hypothesis was that you can't civilize tribal environments without having an environment than involved marriage and family commitment, (paraphrasing)

Why isn't the black community speaking up?

[Clump]

If they file lawsuits? If?
Oh hell yes they will be.
There’s no fun in a victory like this if they don’t complete the agenda.
This ruling is merely a weapon to be wielded against everyone they want to bully into subjugation.