Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Skylar]

To anyone who favors the government making gay marriage illegal, I ask this. What if the government decided to make straight marriage illegal? I mean you do understand that is a possibility once you start letting the government define marriage, yes?

I know you want government out of marraige. But its not happening. Your idea is ridiculously complicated, pointlessly elaborate, and has no particular benefit.

If you want a government free marriage, you can have one. If you want legal recognition for your marriage, you can have that too. There's simply no need to exclude either option.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

To anyone who favors the government making gay marriage illegal, I ask this. What if the government decided to make straight marriage illegal? I mean you do understand that is a possibility once you start letting the government define marriage, yes?

I know you want government out of marraige. But its not happening. Your idea is ridiculously complicated, pointlessly elaborate, and has no particular benefit.

If you want a government free marriage, you can have one. If you want legal recognition for your marriage, you can have that too. There's simply no need to exclude either option.

Sure there is, it's called the COTUS. Unless of course you can point to the marriage clause of such document

See, you fag loving faggots wouldn't be satisfied with that, because equal rights isn't your goal. Shoving your fag lifestyle down other people's throats is the goal. That's why a perfectly reasonable compromise isn't acceptable to you.

 

[Skylar]

When it comes to behaviors...you have to gain permission of the majority who may find your behaviors repugnant

Nope. Your 'behavior' standard has no basis in law. You've invented it. Speech is a behavior. Religion is a behavior. Assembly is a behavior. And no, you don't need permission from the majority to do any of them. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

We get that you find homosexuality 'repugnant'. No one cares. Your personal opinion isn't the basis of any law. And your agreement isn't a legal requisite for someone else's relationship or sexual activity. Quite simply, you're irrelevant to any legal standard.

. LGBT is not a race of people.

It doesn't need to be a race of people to be protected from discrimination. As Romer V. Evans makes ludicrously clear. Ending yet another of your made up legal standards.

It's an organized deviant sex cult who is using the legal system to force opposing theologies to "come into line with the new cult" or else....

Says you, citing you. And who cares? Your made up definitions have no relevance to the law. Nor compel anyone to do anything.

Gay marriage is legal in 31 of 50 states. Get used to it.

 

[Skylar]

If you want a government free marriage, you can have one. If you want legal recognition for your marriage, you can have that too. There's simply no need to exclude either option.

Sure there is, it's called the COTUS. Unless of course you can point to the marriage clause of such document

Several problems with your analysis. First, the Constitution is a document that defines federal powers. Not one that defines the powers of the State. Marriage is recognized and protected at the State level. So there need be no 'clause' in the constitution for State action.

Second, the 9th amendment makes it clear that there are reserve rights that are unemumerated. And Marriage has been recognized by the SCOTUS as a fundamental right. Meaning that there need be no 'clause' mentioning marriage for it to be recognized and protected under the Constitution. And the 14th amendment authorizes congress to create laws to guarantee the privileges and immunities of US citizens.

Third, your 'solution' of nullifying every marriage certificate and purging all 50 states of their unique marriage laws remains uselessly complicated and offers no particular benefit. You just don't like the government in marriage. So what?

Fourth, COTUS isn't a common acronym. You might want to just refer to it as the 'Constitution'. As it will communicate your thoughts more clearly.

See, you fag loving faggots wouldn't be satisfied with that, because equal rights isn't your goal. Shoving your fag lifestyle down other people's throats is the goal. That's why a perfectly reasonable compromise isn't acceptable to you.

Advocates of marriage equality wouldn't be satisfied with nullifying all legal recognition of marriage because the idea is stupid. First, because it offers no benefit. Second, it couldn't be done without the explicit agreement of every State legislature in the union without a single exception.....or a constitutional amendment. And neither is happening. Making your 'solution' pointless rhetorical masturbation.

Its far simpler and more just to extend legal recognition to the marriages of gays and lesbians rather than unravel a century's worth of legal precedent and the laws of 50 of 50 States

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

If you want a government free marriage, you can have one. If you want legal recognition for your marriage, you can have that too. There's simply no need to exclude either option.

Sure there is, it's called the COTUS. Unless of course you can point to the marriage clause of such document

Several problems with your analysis. First, the Constitution is a document that defines federal powers. Not one that defines the powers of the State. Marriage is recognized and protected at the State level. So there need be no 'clause' in the constitution for State action.

If it were true that defining marriage were a state level decision, the Amendment in Calfiornia, for example, would not have been nullified by a federal court, because the federal court would have held no jurisdiction.

Second, the 9th amendment makes it clear that there are reserve rights that are unemumerated. And Marriage has been recognized by the SCOTUS as a fundamental right. Meaning that there need be no 'clause' mentioning marriage for it to be recognized and protected under the Constitution. And the 14th amendment authorizes congress to create laws to guarantee the privileges and immunities of US citizens

Just because it's a recognized right doesn't mean that the government had to define it.

Third, your 'solution' of nullifying every marriage certificate and purging all 50 states of their unique marriage laws remains uselessly complicated and offers no particular benefit. You just don't like the government in marriage. So what?

I don't advocate nullifying anything. I only advocate removing marriage from government documents. ANd you and yours are CERTAINLY trying to purge unique marriage laws from all 50 states, you want all 50 states to accept "fag marriage". Do you deny that?

Fourth, COTUS isn't a common acronym. You might want to just refer to it as the 'Constitution'. As it will communicate your thoughts more clearly.

COTUS is every bit as common as SCOTUS, which I also use, and note that you yourself use.

 

[Syriusly]

To anyone who favors the government making gay marriage illegal, I ask this. What if the government decided to make straight marriage illegal? I mean you do understand that is a possibility once you start letting the government define marriage, yes?

I know you want government out of marraige. But its not happening. Your idea is ridiculously complicated, pointlessly elaborate, and has no particular benefit.

If you want a government free marriage, you can have one. If you want legal recognition for your marriage, you can have that too. There's simply no need to exclude either option.

Sure there is, it's called the COTUS. Unless of course you can point to the marriage clause of such document

See, you fag loving faggots wouldn't be satisfied with that, because equal rights isn't your goal. Shoving your fag lifestyle down other people's throats is the goal. That's why a perfectly reasonable compromise isn't acceptable to you.

"fag"....'N****r.....c**t....****....****....all the same kinds of words used for the same purpose by the same people.

 

[Syriusly]

To anyone who favors the government making gay marriage illegal, I ask this. What if the government decided to make straight marriage illegal? I mean you do understand that is a possibility once you start letting the government define marriage, yes?

The majority would not and has not made "man/woman" marriage illegal. "The government" in this case is the People who voted to rule their state how they see fit . SCOTUS said in Windsor that majorities get to have the authority, the "unquestioned authority" on the definition of marriage in their discreet community. What they decide, the fed has to abide by.

Actual facts say that you are wrong.

What Windsor said was:
Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,

And the Supreme Court has said that marriage is a constitutionally protected right- i.e. guarantee.

And Federal Courts- and Federal Courts have been over-ruling State's laws prohibiting same gender marriage unanimously so far.

So once again- based upon the facts- you are just factually wrong.

 

[Skylar]

If it were true that defining marriage were a state level decision, the Amendment in Calfiornia, for example, would not have been nullified by a federal court, because the federal court would have held no jurisdiction.

Save of course for the second of the 3 reasons your argument didn't work:

Second, the 9th amendment makes it clear that there are reserve rights that are unemumerated. And Marriage has been recognized by the SCOTUS as a fundamental right. Meaning that there need be no 'clause' mentioning marriage for it to be recognized and protected under the Constitution. And the 14th amendment authorizes congress to create laws to guarantee the privileges and immunities of US citizens.

Ignore as you will. Its not like you closing your eyes matters a hill of beans to the law.

Just because it's a recognized right doesn't mean that the government had to define it.

The government had to guarantee that the states didn't deny federal citizens equal protection under the law. And if the States are going to deny gays and lesbians a right, they're going to need a very good reason.

The Several States didn't have one.

I don't advocate nullifying anything. I only advocate removing marriage from government documents. ANd you and yours are CERTAINLY trying to purge unique marriage laws from all 50 states, you want all 50 states to accept "fag marriage". Do you deny that?

Sure you do. You insist that the States no longer recognize their marriage certificates as valid or offer any legal recognition to marriage at all. And remember, you'd have to change the laws of 50 of 50 States, one at a time to do it. If even ONE state recognized marriage, then all the others would have to as well due to the Interstate Reciprocity requirements in the constitution.

And its ridiculously unlikely that even one state will purge its state laws of legally recognized marriage. With the odds of all 50 states doing it essentially zero. Your solution, isn't. As it lacks any plausible method of implementation. Nor any good reason for implementation. Its just your arbitrary personal opinion that you demand we make law.

Um, no. We're not doing that. What you suggest is stupid, pointlessly complicated, and doesn't offer any benefits.

 

[Silhouette]

Actual facts say that you are wrong.

What Windsor said was:
Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,

I see you left out some other quotes from SCOTUS from Windsor as to how they feel about states' rights with respect to regulating marriage. You found one sentence that wasn't even supported in the Court's conclusion or Ruling "if Loving applies"..[they went on to conclude that gay marriage was "only allowed in some states"]. Yet you skipped dozens of iterations and reiterations that regulation of marriage belongs forever, potently and historically with the states.

Why did you leave out all those quotes? Were you not aware that this heavy weight and discussion about states' rights to regulate marriage was the hinge they used to award Edie Windsor her win? They concluded that the fed has no right to dictate who is married and who isn't in a state. That if that state's discreet community decides, that's it. The fed has to abide. Can't have it both ways. A choice is not "the right to say "yes" or "yes" to gay marriage"..

 

[Syriusly]

Actual facts say that you are wrong.

What Windsor said was:
Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,

I see you left out some other quotes from SCOTUS from Windsor ..

LOL....considering you left out every other quote from Windsor.....I find it hilarious that you complain that I left out quotes.

The problem you have is that this quote clearly establishes that State laws still must pass Constitutional muster

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,

The court said that Marriage is a State issue- subject to 'certain constitutional guarantees'.

Otherwise States could forbid marriage between Jews and Christians. Or between Mormons and non-Mormons.

States can't- because even though Marriage is a state issue- State laws concerning marriage must pass Constitutional muster.

 

[Silhouette]

Otherwise States could forbid marriage between Jews and Christians. Or between Mormons and non-Mormons.

States can't- because even though Marriage is a state issue- State laws concerning marriage must pass Constitutional muster.

So again I'll ask you, is LGBT a religion?

 

[Syriusly]

Otherwise States could forbid marriage between Jews and Christians. Or between Mormons and non-Mormons.

States can't- because even though Marriage is a state issue- State laws concerning marriage must pass Constitutional muster.

So again I'll ask you, is LGBT a religion?

The problem you have is that this quote clearly establishes that State laws still must pass Constitutional muster

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,

The court said that Marriage is a State issue- subject to 'certain constitutional guarantees'.

Otherwise States could forbid marriage between Jews and Christians. Or between Mormons and non-Mormons.

States can't- because even though Marriage is a state issue- State laws concerning marriage must pass Constitutional muster.

 

[Silhouette]

The court said that Marriage is a State issue- subject to 'certain constitutional guarantees'.

Otherwise States could forbid marriage between Jews and Christians. Or between Mormons and non-Mormons.

States can't- because even though Marriage is a state issue- State laws concerning marriage must pass Constitutional muster.

I'll ask you again..... Is LGBT a religion?

 

[Syriusly]

The court said that Marriage is a State issue- subject to 'certain constitutional guarantees'.

Otherwise States could forbid marriage between Jews and Christians. Or between Mormons and non-Mormons.

States can't- because even though Marriage is a state issue- State laws concerning marriage must pass Constitutional muster.

I'll ask you again..... Is LGBT a religion?

Ask away.

Meanwhile....as I said before

The problem you have is that this quote clearly establishes that State laws still must pass Constitutional muster

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,

The court said that Marriage is a State issue- subject to 'certain constitutional guarantees'.

Otherwise States could forbid marriage between Jews and Christians. Or between Mormons and non-Mormons.

States can't- because even though Marriage is a state issue- State laws concerning marriage must pass Constitutional muster.

And the courts have been finding that laws preventing two people of the same gender from marrying do not pass Constitutional muster- hence as Windsor recognized Subject to certain constitutional guarantees - State laws that are unconstitutional can be addressed by the Federal government.

 

[Skylar]

COTUS is every bit as common as SCOTUS, which I also use, and note that you yourself use.

It really isn't. SCOTUS brings back 5.7 million results in a google search. COTUS, less than 130,000.

On our board, COTUS is used by primarily three posters: Zeke, Edict and you. SCOTUS is used by about 40 unique posters.

You may be mistaking your use for common use. They aren't the same thing. They aren't within orders of magnitude of each other.

 

[Skylar]

So again I'll ask you, is LGBT a religion?

Nope. LGBT are people. And what relevance does your question have with marriage equality?

 

[Skylar]

I see you left out some other quotes from SCOTUS from Windsor as to how they feel about states' rights with respect to regulating marriage. You found one sentence that wasn't even supported in the Court's conclusion or Ruling "if Loving applies"..[they went on to conclude that gay marriage was "only allowed in some states"]. Yet you skipped dozens of iterations and reiterations that regulation of marriage belongs forever, potently and historically with the states.

The question is whether or not gays are protected. The answer is yes. And that was established in Romer.

 

[Skylar]

States can't- because even though Marriage is a state issue- State laws concerning marriage must pass Constitutional muster.

Winna Winna Chicken Dinner!

 

[dblack]

I haven't been following this thread closely, but the question of the OP is whether churches should be prohibited from discriminating against gays when performing marriages.

 

[Seawytch]

I haven't been following this thread closely, but the question of the OP is whether churches should be prohibited from discriminating against gays when performing marriages.

And the answer is "no". Churches have and will always be free to discriminate if they want.