Georgia To Bolster Gay Marriage Refusals ..Religious Grounds..Though Secular Grounds Compelling Too

[Debra K]

I think that's what's gearing up here. When the word "race" or "Loving" gets brought up, some sharp lawyers are going to (finally and clearly) point out that fallacy..

Race and Loving were raised in virtually every court case that reached the Supreme Court.

After all- as Mildred Loving pointed out

Mildred Loving said that most of her generation accepted the idea that God wanted the races kept apart, and government should act as the moat. She’s pleased, now that she’s a grandmother, to see younger people believe differently. Each day she thinks about what it meant to her to be free “to marry the person precious to me,” even when plenty of people reacted as though she had married a garter snake.

“I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.”
She finished her statement by saying, “I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.”

"Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.” <--- THIS

When people open a business on Main Street, then they must follow the laws governing public accommodations. The business owner's "deeply held religious beliefs" should be applied to the business owner's personal life ... and should not be applied to discriminate against customers in the open marketplace. The bigots who hate, however, have the First Amendment right to post anti-gay messages on their business websites and their business doors. They may openly state to all potential customers: "I hate gays and abhor having to make cakes for them, but I will follow the law and make cakes for them ... so there!" The problem, however, for these bigots is they don't want other people to know about their bigotry. After all, those who disagree with their point of view might exercise their right to patronize other businesses. Therefore, bigots want to discriminate and simultaneously keep their discrimination "hush hush". Why? because patronage from other like-minded bigots might not be significant enough to ensure the business's survival.

 

[Skylar]

There is no 1st Amendment right in relation overthrowing LGBT marriage. SCOTUS has spoken. The states are rewriting the laws. Courts cases will rule on those cases. Until SCOTUS overturns its ruling (very unlikely), LGBT marriage remains.

1. There is a 1st Amendment right that says LGBT beliefs cannot force Christian beliefs to bow before them or enable them when strictly forbidden in the Bible. You're aware the Bible's Old and New Testament hold reminders of the account of an entire city destroyed because of the spread of the homosexual CULTure within it? And how Christians were reminded in Jude 1 of the New Testament of Jesus Christ (not old weird jewish laws from the Old Testament...a history citation for the New) to never enable the spread of a homosexual culture under threat of eternal damnation of their soul?

The legal recognition of same sex marriage has nothing to do with the beliefs of any Christian. That you hold a belief about marriage doesn't mandate that you be able to impose it through the law on same sex couples.

Especially when such an imposition is a violation of their constitutional rights.

2. New York vs Ferber (1982) found that a person's constitutional right is affirmed..unless in a very specific case. And that case is, unless their right harms children either physically or psychologically. Guess what "gay marriage" does? It strips a child even of the hope, for LIFE, of having either a mother or father present. And since children come in both genders...this study poses a huge problem for "LGBT marriage"... PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY A psychological prison without the possibility of parole for life, is unusual cruelty. At least with single parents the children can maintain hope that they will see their gender as a parent one day.

Ferber never so much as mentions marriage, nor finds anything you've claimed regarding it. Windsor and Obergefell specifically found that denying same sex marriage hurts children.

Thus, by your own argument the Supreme Court should have ruled exactly as they did: recognizing same sex marriage.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Windsor and Obergefell specifically found that denying same sex marriage hurts children."

^^^ that

 

[Silhouette]

"Windsor and Obergefell specifically found that denying same sex marriage hurts children."

^^^ that

And "that" was Found without expert testimony or children having separate representation. It was done by armchair guesses by those forgetting that boys suffer without fathers and girls without mothers as a convenience to adult lifestyles. It was done by Justices forgetting about New York vs Ferber (1982) USSC, where it was found that even if adults have a clear constitutional right, that right cannot be exercised by them if it results in harming children either physically or psychologically. Stripping a boy of the hope of a father FOR LIFE without the possibility of parole is a form of a psychological prison.

Additionally, as to this topic, a brand new Court-favorite repugnant lifestyle (but not others also repugnant, like polygamy or incest) cannot force Christians to bend to its "legal will" using PA laws to place Christians in jail for failing. The Kim Davis issue sent a chill up the spine of the South. You haven't heard the last of this yet..

 

[Syriusly]

"Windsor and Obergefell specifically found that denying same sex marriage hurts children."

^^^ that

And "that" was Found without expert testimony or children having separate representation. It was done by armchair guesses by those forgetting that boys suffer without fathers and girls without mothers as a convenience to adult lifestyles. It was done by Justices forgetting about New York vs Ferber (1982) USSC, where it was found that even if adults have a clear constitutional right, that right cannot be exercised by them if it results in harming children either physically or psychologically. Stripping a boy of the hope of a father FOR LIFE without the possibility of parole is a form of a psychological prison.

Additionally, as to this topic, a brand new Court-favorite repugnant lifestyle (but not others also repugnant, like polygamy or incest) cannot force Christians to bend to its "legal will" using PA laws to place Christians in jail for failing. The Kim Davis issue sent a chill up the spine of the South. You haven't heard the last of this yet..

Meanwhile in reality, in all 50 states, there is marriage equality, and couples can now get legally married.

 

[Skylar]

"Windsor and Obergefell specifically found that denying same sex marriage hurts children."

^^^ that

And "that" was Found without expert testimony or children having separate representation.

Says you. You have laughably insisted that unless 'all children' have a representative in a Supreme Court hearing that its a 'mistrial'.

Which is just made up gibberish. There's no such requirement. There's no such outcome. A Supreme Court hearing isn't even a trial. Making a 'mistrial' a physical impossibility.

Your imagination isn't a legal standard, Silly. Nor is ignoring the findings of a Supreme Court ruling.

It was done by armchair guesses by those forgetting that boys suffer without fathers and girls without mothers as a convenience to adult lifestyles. It was done by Justices forgetting about New York vs Ferber (1982) USSC, where it was found that even if adults have a clear constitutional right, that right cannot be exercised by them if it results in harming children either physically or psychologically. Stripping a boy of the hope of a father FOR LIFE without the possibility of parole is a form of a psychological prison.

The Ferber ruling never so much as mentions marriage nor finds that same sex marriage harms any child. Its a case about kiddy porn. Which you know, but hope we don't.

Both the Windsor ruling and the Obergefell ruling found that denying same sex marriage hurts children. And that same sex marriage benefits children. Twice each. Explicitly contradicting your claims 4 times.

Thus, per your own standards regarding Ferber, the Supreme Court should have ruled exactly as they did in the Obergefell ruling: in recognizing same sex marriage.

Worse for your argument, the Supreme Court explicitly found that the right to marry isn't predicated on children or the ability to have them. With those who won't have children or can't having the same right to marry as those who will or can.

So you ignore the Supreme Court 5 times in total. Which isn't a legal argument.

 

[Silhouette]

Meanwhile in reality, in all 50 states, there is marriage equality, and couples can now get legally married.

Really? In which states can the children of adults benefit by their polygamist parents marrying? There isn't marriage equality in 50 states. There is marriage equality in none of them. Because some adults can't marry the people they want to. So, you're lying. There is quasi-legal "gay marriage" in many states, while others are contesting that for the sake of Christians and children who don't want to/ shouldn't be made to play along to their detriment of joining that Court-favorite lifestyle by force.

 

[mdk]

Meanwhile in reality, in all 50 states, there is marriage equality, and couples can now get legally married.

Really? In which states can the children of adults benefit by their polygamist parents marrying? There isn't marriage equality in 50 states. There is marriage equality in none of them. Because some adults can't marry the people they want to. So, you're lying. There is quasi-legal "gay marriage" in many states, while others are contesting that for the sake of Christians and children who don't want to/ shouldn't be made to play along to their detriment of joining that Court-favorite lifestyle by force.

Red herring as polygamy has nothing to do with this thread. Be sure and report yourself for being off-topic.

 

[Skylar]

Meanwhile in reality, in all 50 states, there is marriage equality, and couples can now get legally married.

Really? In which states can the children of adults benefit by their polygamist parents marrying? There isn't marriage equality in 50 states. There is marriage equality in none of them. Because some adults can't marry the people they want to. So, you're lying. There is quasi-legal "gay marriage" in many states, while others are contesting that for the sake of Christians and children who don't want to/ shouldn't be made to play along to their detriment of joining that Court-favorite lifestyle by force.

Per your pseudo-legal gibberish, polygamy is legalized by the Obergefell ruling. While same sex marriages are 'void'.

Back in reality, your gibberish has no relevance to the law. Polygamy is still illegal in every state. And same sex marriages are fully recognized and enforced.

Remember, Silly.....your imagination isn't a legal argument. Its an excuse for one. And it has no bearing on the outcome of actual court cases. Which is is why your record of predicting legal outcomes is one of perfect failure.

You've never once been right.

 

[rightwinger]

Same sex marriage is the law of the land

Even Georgia knows better than to fight it. Notice how none of the republicans for president are bringing it up?

 

[Syriusly]

Meanwhile in reality, in all 50 states, there is marriage equality, and couples can now get legally married.

Really? In which states can the children of adults benefit by their polygamist parents marrying? There isn't marriage equality in 50 states. There is marriage equality in none of them. Because some adults can't marry the people they want to. So, you're lying. There is quasi-legal "gay marriage" in many states, while others are contesting that for the sake of Christians and children who don't want to/ shouldn't be made to play along to their detriment of joining that Court-favorite lifestyle by force.

According to you- polygamy is Legal after Obergefell!

Meanwhile- stop dragging our your strawmen- they are getting ragged.

In 50 states there is now marriage equality for couples, regardless of their gender.

 

[Silhouette]

According to you- polygamy is Legal after Obergefell!

Meanwhile- stop dragging our your strawmen- they are getting ragged.

In 50 states there is now marriage equality for couples, regardless of their gender.

1. Polygamy is legal according to Obergefell. The 14th as you know cannot play favorites when the judicial adds new material to it...

2. Your concern about the viability of my threads is touching. Yet I can't help but wonder if they are getting "ragged", it would mean people were losing interest in them and more importantly, me and my discussing them. If that was the case, why would you be heading that off? Seems like you should sit back and say nothing and let nature take its course.

3. In 50 states there is no marriage equality whatsoever. And, in 50 states where two people contrive to contract to deprive children of either a father or mother for life and call it "married", those marriage contracts are void upon their face. As you know by now, according to infant necessities and contract law, no contract may exist which deprives a child of a necessity. You can do something else as two people, but you cannot conspire to deprive a child of a necessity in contract.

 

[Syriusly]

According to you- polygamy is Legal after Obergefell!

Meanwhile- stop dragging our your strawmen- they are getting ragged.

In 50 states there is now marriage equality for couples, regardless of their gender.

1. Polygamy is legal according to Obergefell. The 14th as you know cannot play favorites when the judicial adds new material to it...
t.

But you say that Obergefell itself is invalid? Funny how you think Obergefell is legal when it comes to something it did not decide- but not legal when it comes to something it did not decide.

No matter how much you lie about Obergefell, or the 14th Amendment, polygamy is still not legal in the United States, and happy couples are marrying, regardless of their gender in all 50 states.

And Americans are more and more rejecting your brand of hate.

 

[mdk]

According to you- polygamy is Legal after Obergefell!

Meanwhile- stop dragging our your strawmen- they are getting ragged.

In 50 states there is now marriage equality for couples, regardless of their gender.

1. Polygamy is legal according to Obergefell. The 14th as you know cannot play favorites when the judicial adds new material to it...
t.

But you say that Obergefell itself is invalid? Funny how you think Obergefell is legal when it comes to something it did not decide- but not legal when it comes to something it did not decide.

No matter how much you lie about Obergefell, or the 14th Amendment, polygamy is still not legal in the United States, and happy couples are marrying, regardless of their gender in all 50 states.

And Americans are more and more rejecting your brand of hate.

Hells bells, just the other day Sil was gassing on about how Obergefell was illegal b/c of Windsor after spending many months arguing that was an illegal ruling as well. lol

 

[Silhouette]

Hells bells, just the other day Sil was gassing on about how Obergefell was illegal b/c of Windsor after spending many months arguing that was an illegal ruling as well. lol

The conclusion of Windsor was that states decide on gay marriage. Obergefell overturned that. Neither Obergefell nor Windsor are capable of removing a state's right to regulate marriage. For a multitude of reasons. And you will find that out soon enough.

 

[bodecea]

They are more than welcome to try and pass this nonsense but don't be too shocked if the business community pushes back rather harshly.

They already have...but at their own peril. The South especially is dedicated to religious practices and freedoms. Any corporation coming down hard on those who defend faith are going to get bit in the ass in the South.

So go ahead corporations..do your worst...and have fun cutting your own fiscal throat.. The South knows how to weather a storm for a cause if anywhere does..

Christian sharia.

 

[rightwinger]

Georgia faces a tough decision

Should they placate the bible thumpers or should they face the financial wrath of those refusing to do business with them?

Guess which path they will choose?

 

[bodecea]

Georgia faces a tough decision

Should they placate the bible thumpers or should they face the financial wrath of those refusing to do business with them?

Guess which path they will choose?

The same path they chose when they got rid of their tough anti-illegal immigrant laws because it was killing state agriculture.

 

[Skylar]

According to you- polygamy is Legal after Obergefell!

Meanwhile- stop dragging our your strawmen- they are getting ragged.

In 50 states there is now marriage equality for couples, regardless of their gender.

1. Polygamy is legal according to Obergefell. The 14th as you know cannot play favorites when the judicial adds new material to it...

Nope. Obergefell never even mentions polygamy. You're hallucinating again.

3. In 50 states there is no marriage equality whatsoever. And, in 50 states where two people contrive to contract to deprive children of either a father or mother for life and call it "married", those marriage contracts are void upon their face. As you know by now, according to infant necessities and contract law, no contract may exist which deprives a child of a necessity. You can do something else as two people, but you cannot conspire to deprive a child of a necessity in contract.

Says you citing your imaginary version of Obergefell and your made up version of contract law. Which has no legal relevance.

See, no court nor law is obligated to do anything because of your imagination. And that's all you've offered us. You citing you, insisting you must be right because you say you are.

You're still nobody. Same sex marriage is still performed in 50 of 50 States. See how that works?

 

[Skylar]

Hells bells, just the other day Sil was gassing on about how Obergefell was illegal b/c of Windsor after spending many months arguing that was an illegal ruling as well. lol

The conclusion of Windsor was that states decide on gay marriage. Obergefell overturned that.

Nope. Windsor stated that 'subject to certain constitutional guarantees' that the states decide marriage. With Obergefell finding that state same sex marriage bans violated those exact constitutional guarantees.

You're literally claiming that you understand the Windsor ruling better than Justice Kennedy, the man who wrote it.

Nope. You're just as clueless as you've always been. And your imagination is still irrelevant to the outcome of any case, law or marriage.

Neither Obergefell nor Windsor are capable of removing a state's right to regulate marriage. For a multitude of reasons. And you will find that out soon enough.

Every legal prediction you've made, without exception, has been wrong.

Your record of failure on this is perfect. As you genuinely have no idea what you're talking about.