Gods Own Party Can’t Get Over Same Sex Marriage

[flacaltenn]

Its only as "legal" as the actual written law MAKES IT.. That's why gender-free couplings are not really safe under the name of marriage. Because ALL current "marriage law" and court precedents are mostly gender specific. And as delicate as that is for gays -- it's also potentially disastrous for hetero women..

OH boy there you go again! Written law? Same sex marriage came about nationally as a result of a Supreme Court decision that carries the force of law as assuredly as any "written law" by which I assume you mean legislation.

That decision effectively overrides an " gender specific" language in existing marriage law, and despite my prior challenges to you have failed to explain what problems have arisen from that.

Disastrous for hetero women? You have been bleating that line for some time now, but despite my challenges to you to explain it, you have woefully failed , and in fact have not even attempted to explain it.

A Supreme Ct ruling doesn't CREATE all the new interpretations and precedents that will mar 1000 of civil cases for the next decade while all the "gender specific" marriage stuff gets killed off...

 

[flacaltenn]

You think a Greek opening a Taco restaurant is bad and insensitive?? You'd be major hypocrites if you didn't understand the blowback about calling it marriage. Just create your OWN CULTURE for crying out loud.

Tell us more about the blow back. 99% of the country has forgotten about it and has moved on. It is only a small pocket of reactionary resistance who is having a hissy fit

Courts are busy now grappling with custody, domestic violence, alimony, restraining orders, etc... All those hetero women are losing bigly... It's not even CLOSE to getting rid of the "unintended side effects" of your Cultural Appropriation.. Will be DECADES of imperfect and wasted motions and appeals before you have some bastardized shoe-horning of NON gender specific marriage into everyday marriage law..

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

A Supreme Ct ruling doesn't CREATE all the new interpretations and precedents that will mar 1000 of civil cases for the next decade while all the "gender specific" marriage stuff gets killed off...

Can you be a little more vague please. Tell us about some of those cases.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Courts are busy now grappling with custody, domestic violence, alimony, restraining orders, etc... All those hetero women are losing bigly... It's not even CLOSE to getting rid of the "unintended side effects" of your Cultural Appropriation.. Will be DECADES of imperfect and wasted motions and appeals before you have some bastardized shoe-horning of NON gender specific marriage into everyday marriage law..

More vague blathering that is meaningless with out specific example of what your talking about. CASES PLEASE! EXAMPLES PLEASE!

 

[flacaltenn]

A Supreme Ct ruling doesn't CREATE all the new interpretations and precedents that will mar 1000 of civil cases for the next decade while all the "gender specific" marriage stuff gets killed off...

Can you be a little more vague please. Tell us about some of those cases.

I'm not being vague. You proved to be clueless why a GENDER SPECIFIC law like VAWA would have ANY bearing on trying to stuff NON GENDER SPECIFIC couplings into the legal definition of marriage. I had to explain that to you and how ---- by culturally appropriating the term marraige --- all the precedents on preferences for hetero women were in jeopardy.

If you cannot see how custody cases are gonna hafta change hearts and verdicts BECAUSE marriage is now NON gender specific or how women's protective housing and counseling services will be unfunded and cut BECAUSE they are gender specific --- you just haven't thought through the myriad of details that gonna mire down court cases for decades.

You're a zealot. You don't think about stuff that doesn't get you the victory..

 

[WheelieAddict]

Republicans and evangelicals are keeping the "good old boy marry an 11 year old" ancient perverted values going.

House Republicans effectively kill anti-child marriage bill, cite possible case against gay marriage

Evangelicals really are horrible people with no shame. Luckily their "values" are being surpassed slowly but surely:

Forced to marry her rapist at 11, woman finally changes Florida marriage law

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I'm not being vague. You proved to be clueless why a GENDER SPECIFIC law like VAWA would have ANY bearing on trying to stuff NON GENDER SPECIFIC couplings into the legal definition of marriage. I had to explain that to you and how ---- by culturally appropriating the term marraige --- all the precedents on preferences for hetero women were in jeopardy.

You have explained nothing. You have offered nothing but these generalized rants about what will happen, or might happen. I would ask you again to give a specific example of how hetero women might be or have been put at risk of domestic violence, or denied services related to it, but I won't because it's apparent that you cant.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If you cannot see how custody cases are gonna hafta change hearts and verdicts BECAUSE marriage is now NON gender specific or how women's protective housing and counseling services will be unfunded and cut BECAUSE they are gender specific --- you just haven't thought through the myriad of details that gonna mire down court cases for decades.

Please give examples of how the outcomes of custody case has been effected by the fact that there are married same sex couples.

Please give examples of programs for women that have been unfunded because there are married same sex couples.

What problems have there been in Mass.? The first state to have same sex marriage going back well over a decade. Specific case examples PLEASE

 

[emilynghiem]

Just as they have been working to water down Roe v. Wade , with restrictions on abortion, they continue to concern themselves with another, more recent decision, Obergfelle v Hodges which made same sex marriage the law of the land.

They are obsessed with people private lives and social issues, while purporting to be the party of freedom and individual responsibility.

While the country is facing numerous threats and problems both foreign and domestic, they can’t keep their noses out of people’s bedrooms. While they are hell bent on allowing Wall Street to run amok, and letting corporations pollute the planet, women, gays and other who they disapprove of must be tightly controlled.

While they are not actively seeking to overturn Obergefell- that know that even with a conservative SCOTUS- it would be a long road to hoe. So as with Roe, they are finding ways to water down the gains that have been made with respect to choice, privacy, and equality. Consider:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-signorile-georgia-adoption_us_5a9c23e7e4b0a0ba4ad45681

Georgia is on its way to creating a law that would allow state-funded adoption agencies to turn away LGBTQ couples ― or, more specifically, to turn away any parents the agencies don’t approve of based on religious beliefs.

Make no mistake: This anti-LGBTQ adoption bill is part of a wide-reaching plan by religious conservatives ― backed by President Donald Trump and his administration ― to turn same-sex marriage into second-class marriage with a longer-term goal of overturning federal marriage rights for gays and lesbians entirely.

Adoption is only one of several fronts on which they are attacking:

By getting courts to rule that wedding-related businesses can turn away gay couples based on the business owners’ religious beliefs, by allowing governments to refuse to give the same benefits to spouses within same-sex marriages as they do to those within opposite-sex marriages, and by allowing adoption agencies to say no to LGBTQ parents.

I

t is really in those three major areas- adoption, public accommodation, and benefits- that equality is being assailed. I do not believe for a Nano second that this is about religion or religious freedom. It’s about bigotry-plain and simple. It is not about concern for the children either. It is about bigotry.

Furthermore, in the Huston Texas case where the Texas Supreme Court rules that married same sex couples on the city payroll were not necessarily entitle to employee benefits is clearly bigotry because it has nothing to do with religion and clearly is harmful to the children of those couples.

Is that what God would want? These issues, along wth the myriad of so call "bathroom bills " aimed at trans people make it clear that the GOP is hell bent on making life as difficult as possible for LGBT people in order to appease the religious right.

People don’t care about what others are doing behind closed doors. I know I don’t.
The problems start when a small segment of society tries normalizing behavior that’s abnormal.

Gee ******* Wizz!! That's real helpful. What do you mean by "normalize" ? The ability to live openly and be treated with dignity and respect? The ability to marry the person of ones choice? To damned bad if you have a problem that . There is no going back

I don’t treat you people any differently than someone who is normal. Are you now expecting us to bow down and kiss your ass?

You people are ridiculous.

Dear tycho1572
You address TheProgressivePatriot
as "you people"
that means separating that group of people as an identity.

There is nothing wrong with that, if all groups were treated equally.

So if liberals don't trust conservatives, and vice versa,
or LGBT don't want Christians in charge of policy, and vice versa:
Are we really treating all groups equally?

Are we requiring political parties to fund and run their own private
programs the way we require Churches to do?

Do we tear down Churches and try to cut them out of society?

Right now political groups are both vying to dominate while
cutting out the other.

The groups don't like when they are cut off from equal representation,
so why do we insist on doing this to other groups?

tycho1572 if you truly treat people of each group
equally as you would "members of your own group" that's fair.

But in that case, neither group can go around supporting and endorsing
THEIR marriage beliefs and traditions but expect the other to stay out of public policy.
Either all beliefs about marriage should be included equally,
or keep all marriages out of govt, endorse a neutral policy only that all sides
agree to without conflict, and require the rest of the terms and social benefits
to be decided by individual people or groups, not govt endorsing one policy for all people (unless
all people of a state or the nation agree to a universal neutral policy void of beliefs or bias)

 

[emilynghiem]

If you cannot see how custody cases are gonna hafta change hearts and verdicts BECAUSE marriage is now NON gender specific or how women's protective housing and counseling services will be unfunded and cut BECAUSE they are gender specific --- you just haven't thought through the myriad of details that gonna mire down court cases for decades.

Please give examples of how the outcomes of custody case has been effected by the fact that there are married same sex couples.

Please give examples of programs for women that have been unfunded because there are married same sex couples.

What problems have there been in Mass.? The first state to have same sex marriage going back well over a decade. Specific case examples PLEASE

Dear TheProgressivePatriot and flacaltenn
For sake of understanding the argument, I'd also like to hear a brief rundown version from flacaltenn
of the language in VAWA that has to do with same sex marriage and legal terms that don't benefit women but cause complications or harm.

However TheProgressivePatriot
it is not necessary to show actual damages caused in order to argue for faith-based biases to be removed from public policy.

In the case of Crosses or prayer, what harm is caused by allowing a teacher's memorial on public school property
to display a cross? What harm is caused by allowing a Veteran's memorial to stand that is built with a Cross in the design?
Yet these things were subjects of lawsuits for removal based on PRINCIPLE.

More harm can be argued as caused by the removal, than by allowing faith based practices or expression in public institutions.
Yet on principle, the fact that these are faith based expressions, that is enough for people to sue for removal.

I've stated my solution before:
Since both sides are equally faith based and equal free choice of individuals with equal rights and protection of law,
then both sides should mediate and come up with a mutually agreed solution.
That should be required by law.

So if the problem is that public schools cannot be funded by the state in a district with
such diverse beliefs that one side or another would be infringed, the school should separate
funding or go private in order to allow people not to be subjected to beliefs they disagree with.

Either agree on a policy, or separate jurisdiction and funding.
Quit this business of funding programs under govt then "complaining" there isn't equal accommodation of beliefs.

Maybe that's why public schools and running everything through govt is not such a good idea!
Maybe we need to allow "inclusion of diversity" so everyone can fund and follow what they want.

To treat people of all beliefs and creeds equally, either agree to a common NEUTRAL policy void of biases and beliefs that otherwise cause conflict,
or SEPARATE jurisdiction and have people of different groups, agenda or political/religious identity/affiliations
fund and run their own programs for their own members. So all people are protected and represented equally.

Govt cannot force anyone to change their beliefs or comply with the beliefs of others we disagree with.
So let's quit putting ourselves in that compromising position.
Either mediate to create a neutral all inclusive policy that all sides agree is general enough for the public,
or agree to separate funding and jurisdiction so all people's beliefs are protected equally, and none are either prohibited, established nor discriminated against by govt.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Dear TheProgressivePatriot and flacaltenn
For sake of understanding the argument, I'd also like to hear a brief rundown version from flacaltenn
of the language in VAWA that has to do with same sex marriage and legal terms that don't benefit women but cause complications or harm.

So would I -Good luck

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

In the case of Crosses or prayer, what harm is caused by allowing a teacher's memorial on public school property
to display a cross? What harm is caused by allowing a Veteran's memorial to stand that is built with a Cross in the design?
Yet these things were subjects of lawsuits for removal based on PRINCIPLE.

I really do no understand what that has to do with same sex marriage but since you asked, the harm is that it alienates and marginalizes those who fine such symbols oppressive . It is showing favoritism for the symbol of one religion over others on public property. Have you read the first amendment?

 

[emilynghiem]

Can't BE more specific than telling you that marriage law is currently VERY Gender specific. By DEMANDING it include non-Gender specific couplings, you will undo a lot of special concessions to married women under the law. VAWA is just ONE example of that undoing.

I understand your confusion. You've probably not heard this argument before. Most hot-headed single-issue zealots' heads just explode when you hit them with facts and situations they never took the time to research or consider. Happens all the time when zealots meet reality based problem solvers.

My head is absolutely not exploding because I have not heard anything that makes any sense. you're still just speaking in generalities. Convince me that you're not just making this shit up. Show me some actual problems that have resulted from marriage equality.

Dearest TheProgressivePatriot
That's like asking what harm is caused by schools mandating school prayer for everyone. The prayers and good they have been shown to do are not the issue, but the FREE CHOICE.

Christianity and Christian healing prayer in particular can save lives and end addictions, abuse, disease and social ills; but not by forcing this on anyone. It only causes rejection. It only works when freely chosen.

Same sex marriage is not the root conflict per se but ramming it through govt without consent and free choice of people is!
For example, lots of people (and I've heard this from Conservatives, Christians and even gay people who don't support states endorsing same sex marriage) have NO PROBLEM with people having same sex marriage in their own churches or organizations, but just NOT forcing this through the state on everyone else to have to endorse unless they agree democratically first.

Isn't that similar to allowing students in schools to choose and engage in prayer, but not have the schools or administrators involved in these decisions, so it remains free choice. It is NOT a school function.
The only thing the State of Texas implemented was a neutral "moment of silence" that people agreed to as a compromise.

So the equivalent here would be if people of a STATE agree to neutral policy such as civil unions or domestic partnerships, where people COULD CHOOSE to have gay relations with their domestic partners and that's their private business. But anyone can set up a financial and legal agreements to operate as a partnership or share a household.

I will ask YOU the same thing you ask flacaltenn
What harm is caused by allowing EVERYONE to have civil unions or partnership contracts through the state that are NEUTRAL.

What harm is caused by having people set up and manage their own benefits under their own terms, and organize collectively over statewide or national groups, so everyone can choose and access benefits and resources under the beliefs of their choice?

Wouldn't the benefits outweigh the complications of separating social policies programs and choices from federalized govt bureaucracy?

I'm thinking that separation is the best way to stop endless bickering and fights over control of policy and resources, and give everyone EQUAL representation and protection of the laws (especially protection from the beliefs of other people in conflict).

Is there any proof such a separation would cause more harm than good, if we've never tried it?

Thanks TPP you keep fighting the good fight.
In the end, we will all end up on the same page,
but bringing all the experience from different approaches to the table.

I'm not against same sex marriage, but for the best way to establish the free and equal choice where it doesn't interfere with the equal beliefs of anyone else. You forget that Constitutionalists and Libertarians believe in keeping ALL marriage out of the govt in the first place. So YES it is causing harm by infringing on the beliefs and free choice of Americans who are supposed to be equally protected under law from establishment of beliefs, especially that violate our own.

We have been down this road way too many times. Give it a rest. You people need to STOP trying to fix what is not broken

^ Exactly what people are saying about LGBT trying to change bathroom policies ^
NOW you get it TheProgressivePatriot
Just apply that same wisdom equally across the board, and we're on the same page!

Wrong Emily.Trans People did not try to change " bathroom policies " until the right wingers started to explicitly exclude them from using the bathroom of their gender identity. Trans people were probably doing just that for a long time but then they were targeted by the hysterical bigots . Bet that you have been in a stall next to a transwoman more than once and never knew it. Bathrooms did not need fixing anymore that marriage needs fixing.

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
I think we are arguing about what consistitutes INDIVIDUAL cases in schools of conflicts over bathroom use.
Vs. nationally when the rightwing got involved as a state issue.

In Houston, the Mayor used funding from LGBT support from CA and nationwide to push for
a Transgender bathroom bill that started a huge backlash.

Before this, most people I know had no issue with INDIVIDUALS using the restroom of their choice.
In schools, if there was a conflict, the students might be directed to use the Faculty restroom.

So the problem was there wasn't NEUTRAL unisex or single use restrooms.
That would have solved the problem.

Instead Mayor Parker was the first to try to implement city ordinances
FINING people for even QUESTIONING someone in a restroom who was transgender.
You weren't even allowed to ASK or that could be considered harassment with a 5,000 dollar fine.

So clearly that went too far
(I compare it to the AZ immigration bill that tried to impose fines for HAND SIGNALS
that even to communicate to a potential worker from a car was going to be penalized.
So that starts to abridge FREE SPEECH without due process of laws before depriving or imposing a penalty by law)\

Instead of fixing this bill by requiring UNISEX or neutral restrooms,
the problem got worse by Mayor Parker violating city process and policy
by obstructing petitions and votes that were later recognized by courts so they struck down the ordinance
according to legal process that Parker unlawfully stifled for political ploy.

This further compounded the original issue and set off a shark frenzy
of LGBT vs Christian activists that spread nationwide.

That's where the lawsuits and mass reaction stemmed from.

Had Parker stuck with the legal process, this would not have escalated to a total scandal
because she and others violated the laws and rights of others and pushed this politically by abusing the system.

Had the City and churches agreed to unisex restrooms, then all sides' beliefs could be protected
and govt would not have to get involved with taking any one side over another.

That's what I mean by Political Backlash, TheProgressivePatriot
Attacking people's beliefs on one side or the other just made it worse!

The original way of dealing with transgender bathroom use was to let individuals use the restroom
or go use a private restroom such as the staff restroom or principal's office in schools.

With the bullying that went on in INDIVIDUAL cases and schools,
(that these schools/communities FAILED to resolve by providing enough unisex restrooms
where nobody had to impose on anyone else),
then it became a larger issue.

The point still remains as well as the solution TheProgressivePatriot
Communities on a LOCAL level must retain equal rights and freedoms to decide for themselves, not govt:
either implement enough unisex restrooms per site or district where this isn't an issue,
agree to accommodate at INDIVIDUAL sites where THOSE people AGREE to it (again not forced by govt)
or agree to separate schools and facilities if people of THOSE districts agree to that instead.

There isn't one solution for all districts.
If some want to accommodate, others want to separate, and others want to neutralize
policy and just have unisex, single stall or "family friendly" restrooms whatever,
the govt cannot decide for each person or community what represents and solves their issues.

They have to consent for it to be valid Constitutional policy,
because faith based beliefs and personal choice is involved!!!

 

[emilynghiem]

In the case of Crosses or prayer, what harm is caused by allowing a teacher's memorial on public school property
to display a cross? What harm is caused by allowing a Veteran's memorial to stand that is built with a Cross in the design?
Yet these things were subjects of lawsuits for removal based on PRINCIPLE.

I really do no understand what that has to do with same sex marriage but since you asked, the harm is that it alienates and marginalizes those who fine such symbols oppressive . It is showing favoritism for the symbol of one religion over others on public property. Have you read the first amendment?

^ And the same can be said of same sex marriage in the govt policy.
It favors people who believe in including same sex marriage
and discriminates against people for whom this ritual is against their beliefs.
similar to atheists who don't believe in including Christian prayer while
Buddhists have no problem with it nor do Muslims I know and they aren't Christian.^
TheProgressivePatriot

I still want to hear what is the language inthe VAWA that causes complications.
That is a separate argument about what's going on or wrong with that bill?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I've stated my solution before:
Since both sides are equally faith based and equal free choice of individuals with equal rights and protection of law,
then both sides should mediate and come up with a mutually agreed solution.
That should be required by law.

You just can't get away from the nonsensical idea that sexual orientation/ gender is faith based.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

^ And the same can be said of same sex marriage in the govt policy.
It favors people who believe in including same sex marriage
and discriminates against people for whom this ritual is against their beliefs.
similar to atheists who don't believe in including Christian prayer while
Buddhists have no problem with it nor do Muslims I know and they aren't Christian.^
TheProgressivePatriot

Oh please, we have been over this before. Forcing those who would discriminate against others to, instead treat them equally, IS NOT DISCRIMINATING. That is just ridiculous. You cannot make everyone happy and I have no problem in making narrow minded bigots unhappy.

 

[bodecea]

Its only as "legal" as the actual written law MAKES IT.. That's why gender-free couplings are not really safe under the name of marriage. Because ALL current "marriage law" and court precedents are mostly gender specific. And as delicate as that is for gays -- it's also potentially disastrous for hetero women..

OH boy there you go again! Written law? Same sex marriage came about nationally as a result of a Supreme Court decision that carries the force of law as assuredly as any "written law" by which I assume you mean legislation.

That decision effectively overrides an " gender specific" language in existing marriage law, and despite my prior challenges to you have failed to explain what problems have arisen from that.

Disastrous for hetero women? You have been bleating that line for some time now, but despite my challenges to you to explain it, you have woefully failed , and in fact have not even attempted to explain it.

A Supreme Ct ruling doesn't CREATE all the new interpretations and precedents that will mar 1000 of civil cases for the next decade while all the "gender specific" marriage stuff gets killed off...

That's exactly what the Supreme Court does....interpret the law and their interpretations become precedents for future courts.

 

[emilynghiem]

BT

When the shoe is on the other foot, the liberals DISCRIMINATE by creed.
It's "okay" to push liberal beliefs through govt, just not tolerate or include others!

Can't argue one side TheProgressivePatriot
without arguing the other.

Both sides have their own BELIEFS
and last I checked the govt was NOT supposed to allow discrimination by creed.

Again, it is not about beliefs. That is where you seem to be hung up. Liberals do not give a rats hind parts about anyones beliefs, but right wingers sure seem to concern themselves about it a lot.

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
Yes it is a conflict of beliefs and that's why people aren't able to change their views.
People who believe LGBT is inborn, natural and cannot be changed
are going to argue for protection of this as a class not a behavior.
People who believe it is a choice, whether natural or unnatural,
and it is a behavior are going to argue it cannot be protected as a class because it is choice of behavior.

These are the core beliefs in conflict TheProgressivePatriot

They are both faith based, neither proven by science,
and the most disturbing thing about this is that both
sides are right in SOME cases, some are natural for that person and cannot change,
some are unnatural behavior and can change, and both sides have equal rights to their beliefs about this!
(they just don't have rights to abuse govt to IMPOSE their beliefs on the others,
which is happening because both sides are having to defend their views from such infringement.)

It's not onesided TheProgressivePatriot
It's probably 3 or 4 sides.
If you don't want YOUR beliefs overridden by govt,
well neither do the rw! Do you want the rw to take their beliefs
that "all LGBT cases are unnatural behavior" and make public
policy out of that? Well they dont want YOU to take YOUR beliefs
that "all LGBT cases are born that way" and make public policy out of that.

Both beliefs explain SOME cases, but not all.
We can't prove which or which, it's all FAITH BASED.

At least with 'cisgender' this can be proven by birth certificate
so that's how the traditionalists want to keep the law, based on that criteria.

This is similar to not allowing prolife to change the recognition of legal person
to "conception" but keep it at live birth as the LEGAL criteria we can all agree is the standard of law.

They can never establish the argument that "life and personal will begins at conception"
because that's spiritual and not proven "when does the person's soul or con sciousness
enter the body" it could be BEFORE conception that the soul is assigned to that body.
The soul may be free to enter a DIFFERENT body if it isn't physically born yet, we can't prove this it's faith based!

So similar is going on with what determines LGBT identity.
It ISN'T purely genetic because Identical Twins are not always born with the same orientation.

Those who believe it is inborn and "cannot be changed" believe in treating LGBT identity/orientation
as a protected class like race.
Those who believe this is behavioral choice that CAN be changed believe that people
HAVE the right to discriminate against BEHAVIOR (not people) but the BELIEFS they don't agree with and or which violate their beliefs.

And people like me who believe that all cases are possible and should be treated as equal choices and beliefs,
believe that LGBT should be treated as other faith-based choice of expression and exercise,
like other spiritual or religious affiliations that are ALREADY protected under the First Amendment.

These beliefs/practices and expressions can neither be established nor prohibited by govt
but remain as free choice of individuals to decide.

This is the most consistent approach, and it aligns with the LGBT idea of free choice without religious bias against someone's choice of identity or expression.
it also aligns with the rightwing beliefs about religious freedom that are inalienable.

So by taking this approach, both sides should be able to agree to respect the beliefs of the other and keep both out of govt.

 

[bodecea]

You think a Greek opening a Taco restaurant is bad and insensitive?? You'd be major hypocrites if you didn't understand the blowback about calling it marriage. Just create your OWN CULTURE for crying out loud.

Tell us more about the blow back. 99% of the country has forgotten about it and has moved on. It is only a small pocket of reactionary resistance who is having a hissy fit

Courts are busy now grappling with custody, domestic violence, alimony, restraining orders, etc... All those hetero women are losing bigly... It's not even CLOSE to getting rid of the "unintended side effects" of your Cultural Appropriation.. Will be DECADES of imperfect and wasted motions and appeals before you have some bastardized shoe-horning of NON gender specific marriage into everyday marriage law..

Give examples of hetero women "losing bigly" because of gay marriage. Specific examples/cases.

 

[emilynghiem]

Its only as "legal" as the actual written law MAKES IT.. That's why gender-free couplings are not really safe under the name of marriage. Because ALL current "marriage law" and court precedents are mostly gender specific. And as delicate as that is for gays -- it's also potentially disastrous for hetero women..

OH boy there you go again! Written law? Same sex marriage came about nationally as a result of a Supreme Court decision that carries the force of law as assuredly as any "written law" by which I assume you mean legislation.

That decision effectively overrides an " gender specific" language in existing marriage law, and despite my prior challenges to you have failed to explain what problems have arisen from that.

Disastrous for hetero women? You have been bleating that line for some time now, but despite my challenges to you to explain it, you have woefully failed , and in fact have not even attempted to explain it.

A Supreme Ct ruling doesn't CREATE all the new interpretations and precedents that will mar 1000 of civil cases for the next decade while all the "gender specific" marriage stuff gets killed off...

That's exactly what the Supreme Court does....interpret the law and their interpretations become precedents for future courts.

Yes and no bodecea

The Supreme Court can rule that a law is unconstitutional and strike it down .
But it is still the job of the legislature to write or reform the written laws to establish something as legal.

Example: The SC is right in striking down BANS on same sex marriage as unconstitutional
because it deprives citizens of free exercise of their beliefs in such marriage.

But that's NOT the same as state legislatures passing laws ENDORSING and implementing same sex marriage through govt.

Striking down bans as unconstitutional
is NOT the same as passing laws legalizing what was banned.

Those are two separate functions.

In the case of recognizing right to marriage,
the Courts can legally recognizing that BELIEF in right to marriage
is Constitutionally protected from infringement by the First Amendment
(and 14th on equal protection of the laws).

But bodecea that is NOT the same as legislatures writing
and passing a law where same sex marriage is endorsed by state or federal govt.

Do you see the difference?

To establish "right to marriage" equally as "right to bear arms"
requires a Constitutional Amendment passed by STATES.
Courts cannot just declare a right and then it carries the same
authority as rights delineated in the Constitution that were made law
by writing legislation and passing these by States.
Otherwise that is the Judicial branch acting as Legislative,
instead of those powers and duties being distinct jurisdictions and authority.

And otherwise, that is the Courts becoming like a divine authority
to RULE on behalf of people without check or balance by the other
branches designed to protect the representation and free exercise/choice/consent of the people
from tyrannical dictatorship by judges and courts.