Legal Gay Marriage in the United States- yes or no?

[JakeStarkey]

Any pastor can refuse to marry a same sex couple in a religious ceremony.

That case will soon be going to SCOTUS.

And the pastor's religious right (as long as he is not running a wedding chapel for profit) will remain defended by SCOTUS.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Does the government have the right to decide what the conditions are for what it will and will not "recognize" as a marriage? Yes or no?

Does the government the right to draw that line of distinction or not?

[Correction] Short answer is Yes, however I understand you trying to lay limits on the question, but your attempt to add absolute limits are artificial and not a function of the law (nor of common sense).

For example:

#1 If the conditions are implemented in a Constitutional manner, applied equally - Yes. For example, States set age limits that are applied to all applicants. As another example many states required blood tests as part of obtaining a Marriage License (IIRC Mississippi was the last to repeal it 6 or 7 years ago). They are/were Constitutional because the laws were generally applicable and not written to exclude certain persons or segments of the population.

#2 If the conditions are implemented in an Unconstitutional manner, applied in a discriminatory manner - No. For example, States limited Civil Marriage based on race composition of the couple, those were held to be unconstitutional. States also limited Civil Marriage based on the biological sex of the couple, those were also held to be unconstitutional. As a third example, the Federal government attempted to pick and choose which legally recognized Civil Marriages it would recognize for Federal purposes, that discriminatory action by a section of government was also found to be unconstitutional.

*****************************************************************************

In the cases of #2, it was a branch of the government the found action unconstitutional and so nullified the actions of other branches of government we those actions were tested against the Constitution.

So unconstitutional actions by one branch of government were ended by another branch of government - so in reality it was still the government that determined the boundaries that could be used.

Remember, "government" does not equal just Legislative Branch. Executive and Judicial are also branches of government.



>>>>

 

[Chuz Life]

Was it that? Or was it that they couldn't get recognition?

A different-sex couple can go to a religious organization and get a Religious Marriage without civil recognition so that wasn't an issue. It was illegal for them to enter into a Civil Marriage, recognition of Religious Marriages were never an issue as a function of law. It was the Civil Law that was the issue.


>>>>

Does the government have the right to decide what the conditions are for what it will and will not "recognize" as a marriage? Yes or no?

Does the government the right to draw that line of distinction or not?

You still got that crazy woman. Please help her.

I like her just the (triggered) way she is.

 

[Chuz Life]

Does the government have the right to decide what the conditions are for what it will and will not "recognize" as a marriage? Yes or no?

Does the government the right to draw that line of distinction or not?

[Correction] Short answer is Yes, however I understand you trying to lay limits on the question, but your attempt to add absolute limits are artificial and not a function of the law (nor of common sense).

For example:

#1 If the conditions are implemented in a Constitutional manner, applied equally - Yes. For example, States set age limits that are applied to all applicants. As another example many states required blood tests as part of obtaining a Marriage License (IIRC Mississippi was the last to repeal it 6 or 7 years ago). They are/were Constitutional because the laws were generally applicable and not written to exclude certain persons or segments of the population.

#2 If the conditions are implemented in an Unconstitutional manner, applied in a discriminatory manner - No. For example, States limited Civil Marriage based on race composition of the couple, those were held to be unconstitutional. States also limited Civil Marriage based on the biological sex of the couple, those were also held to be unconstitutional. As a third example, the Federal government attempted to pick and choose which legally recognized Civil Marriages it would recognize for Federal purposes, that discriminatory action by a section of government was also found to be unconstitutional.

*****************************************************************************

In the cases of #2, it was a branch of the government the found action unconstitutional and so nullified the actions of other branches of government we those actions were tested against the Constitution.

So unconstitutional actions by one branch of government were ended by another branch of government - so in reality it was still the government that determined the boundaries that could be used.

Remember, "government" does not equal just Legislative Branch. Executive and Judicial are also branches of government.



>>>>

On what basis would you deny the recognition of a marriage between two gay brothers or two gay sisters or a gay mother and daughter couple or father son gay couple?

 

[Syriusly]

Was it that? Or was it that they couldn't get recognition?

A different-sex couple can go to a religious organization and get a Religious Marriage without civil recognition so that wasn't an issue. It was illegal for them to enter into a Civil Marriage, recognition of Religious Marriages were never an issue as a function of law. It was the Civil Law that was the issue.


>>>>

Yep- just like a man could be marry his lawn mower in a religious ceremony- but it wouldn't make it a legal marriage.

 

[Peach]

Any pastor can refuse to marry a same sex couple in a religious ceremony.

That case will soon be going to SCOTUS.

And the pastor's religious right (as long as he is not running a wedding chapel for profit) will remain defended by SCOTUS.

That is crucial, no religious beliefs can be infringed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Chuz is fun to watch he goes full triggered.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The people who write these things against the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution appear to just want some legal pass for the their hatred of others. They hate LGBTs. They hate heterosexuals unless the female is a slave and the penis is worshiped. It's all pretty disgusting.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Peach, the pastor can believe whatever he wants.

SCOTUS may find that he can't use "belief" as a cover for profit.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Does the government have the right to decide what the conditions are for what it will and will not "recognize" as a marriage? Yes or no?

Does the government the right to draw that line of distinction or not?

[Correction] Short answer is Yes, however I understand you trying to lay limits on the question, but your attempt to add absolute limits are artificial and not a function of the law (nor of common sense).

For example:

#1 If the conditions are implemented in a Constitutional manner, applied equally - Yes. For example, States set age limits that are applied to all applicants. As another example many states required blood tests as part of obtaining a Marriage License (IIRC Mississippi was the last to repeal it 6 or 7 years ago). They are/were Constitutional because the laws were generally applicable and not written to exclude certain persons or segments of the population.

#2 If the conditions are implemented in an Unconstitutional manner, applied in a discriminatory manner - No. For example, States limited Civil Marriage based on race composition of the couple, those were held to be unconstitutional. States also limited Civil Marriage based on the biological sex of the couple, those were also held to be unconstitutional. As a third example, the Federal government attempted to pick and choose which legally recognized Civil Marriages it would recognize for Federal purposes, that discriminatory action by a section of government was also found to be unconstitutional.

*****************************************************************************

In the cases of #2, it was a branch of the government the found action unconstitutional and so nullified the actions of other branches of government we those actions were tested against the Constitution.

So unconstitutional actions by one branch of government were ended by another branch of government - so in reality it was still the government that determined the boundaries that could be used.

Remember, "government" does not equal just Legislative Branch. Executive and Judicial are also branches of government.



>>>>

On what basis would you deny the recognition of a marriage between two gay brothetsnor two gay sisters or a gay mother and daughter couple or father son gay couple?

The million dollar question they refuse to confront. They want to say some groups of adults can’t marry simply because they have self generated a line of morality. Even incest is on the table. Takes 8 generations of incest before genetic problems begin to occur.

 

[Syriusly]

Poor little snowflake. Sounds like you visited Trump Towers.

My sister and brother in law belong to a wonderful Episcopal Church- hell they would even welcome an asshole like you there.

And they could even help a sinner like you find the Bibles in every pew.

You validate my statement with you calling the Episcopal Church wonderful.

It is a wonderful church. Where they actually talk about Jesus

Yes- you would hate it.

A church without a Bible in it is not a church.

If you can't find the Bible in the church- its not the churches fault.

Either its god telling you you are not worthy- or the more likely answer it is a mental defect that prevents you from seeing anything you don't believe in.

If there is no Bible in any pew or in the hands of anyone in attendance it most certainly is the fault of that church leadership.

Episcopal church is anti God. Their illiteracy of the Bible and teachings of anti Biblical views validates it. You’re better off arguing water is not wet.

If you can't find a Bible in an Episcopal Church- then I suggest that you get your eyes checked, or more likely your brain.

Here is one of the most beautiful churches in San Francisco- feel free to drop by for Bible Study classes.

Classes for Adults - Grace Cathedral

If you are unable to find the bibles in the pew- they have assistance for the vision impaired.

 

[WorldWatcher]

On what basis would you deny the recognition of a marriage between two gay brothetsnor two gay sisters or a gay mother and daughter couple or father son gay couple?

It's not a question of what "I" would argue, we are discussing the law and not personal opinion.

Currently there is no challenge on laws based on how close a family relationship exists, such laws remain valid and don't have basis (except for archaic language that may not have been updated yet in view of same-sex Civil Marriage) for nullification because they can be applied equally irregardless of race, gender, or age (once a person has reached a legal age of consent in a given State).



>>>>

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Per capita, men commit more crimes than women.

Per capita, straight men commit more rape than gay men.

Per capita, homophobic bigots have tiny dicks.

Deal with it.

And yet, per capita, it's only filthy faggots who are concerned enough with other mens' dicks to make such an absurd assumption about them.

Deal with it.

 

[Syriusly]

Poor little snowflake. Sounds like you visited Trump Towers.

My sister and brother in law belong to a wonderful Episcopal Church- hell they would even welcome an asshole like you there.

And they could even help a sinner like you find the Bibles in every pew.

You validate my statement with you calling the Episcopal Church wonderful.

It is a wonderful church. Where they actually talk about Jesus

Yes- you would hate it.

A church without a Bible in it is not a church.

If you can't find the Bible in the church- its not the churches fault.

Either its god telling you you are not worthy- or the more likely answer it is a mental defect that prevents you from seeing anything you don't believe in.

Episcopal church is anti God. Their illiteracy of the Bible and teachings of anti Biblical views validates it. You’re better off arguing water is not wet.

Which Bible do you pretend to read?

I bet it is the exact same Bible the Episcopalians actually read.

 

[Syriusly]

Any pastor can refuse to marry a same sex couple in a religious ceremony.

That case will soon be going to SCOTUS.

there is no such case going to the Supreme Court.

 

[Syriusly]

Per capita, men commit more crimes than women.

Per capita, straight men commit more rape than gay men.

Per capita, homophobic bigots have tiny dicks.

Deal with it.

And yet, per capita, it's only filthy faggots who are concerned enough with other mens' dicks to make such an absurd assumption about them.

Deal with it.

Per capita the reason why homophobic bigots are so obsessed with sex is because of their tiny dicks

 

[Chuz Life]

On what basis would you deny the recognition of a marriage between two gay brothetsnor two gay sisters or a gay mother and daughter couple or father son gay couple?

It's not a question of what "I" would argue, we are discussing the law and not personal opinion.

Currently there is no challenge on laws based on how close a family relationship exists, such laws remain valid and don't have basis (except for archaic language that may not have been updated yet in view of same-sex Civil Marriage) for nullification because they can be applied equally irregardless of race, gender, or age (once a person has reached a legal age of consent in a given State).



>>>>

Mother fucking (pun intended) coward assed cop out.

 

[Syriusly]

Does the government have the right to decide what the conditions are for what it will and will not "recognize" as a marriage? Yes or no?

Does the government the right to draw that line of distinction or not?

[Correction] Short answer is Yes, however I understand you trying to lay limits on the question, but your attempt to add absolute limits are artificial and not a function of the law (nor of common sense).

For example:

#1 If the conditions are implemented in a Constitutional manner, applied equally - Yes. For example, States set age limits that are applied to all applicants. As another example many states required blood tests as part of obtaining a Marriage License (IIRC Mississippi was the last to repeal it 6 or 7 years ago). They are/were Constitutional because the laws were generally applicable and not written to exclude certain persons or segments of the population.

#2 If the conditions are implemented in an Unconstitutional manner, applied in a discriminatory manner - No. For example, States limited Civil Marriage based on race composition of the couple, those were held to be unconstitutional. States also limited Civil Marriage based on the biological sex of the couple, those were also held to be unconstitutional. As a third example, the Federal government attempted to pick and choose which legally recognized Civil Marriages it would recognize for Federal purposes, that discriminatory action by a section of government was also found to be unconstitutional.

*****************************************************************************

In the cases of #2, it was a branch of the government the found action unconstitutional and so nullified the actions of other branches of government we those actions were tested against the Constitution.

So unconstitutional actions by one branch of government were ended by another branch of government - so in reality it was still the government that determined the boundaries that could be used.

Remember, "government" does not equal just Legislative Branch. Executive and Judicial are also branches of government.



>>>>

On what basis would you deny the recognition of a marriage between two gay brothetsnor two gay sisters or a gay mother and daughter couple or father son gay couple?

The million dollar question they refuse to confront. They want to say some groups of adults can’t marry simply because they have self generated a line of morality. Even incest is on the table. Takes 8 generations of incest before genetic problems begin to occur.

Its the straw man that people who don't approve of gay marriage love.

 

[Syriusly]

Does the government have the right to decide what the conditions are for what it will and will not "recognize" as a marriage? Yes or no?

Does the government the right to draw that line of distinction or not?

[Correction] Short answer is Yes, however I understand you trying to lay limits on the question, but your attempt to add absolute limits are artificial and not a function of the law (nor of common sense).

For example:

#1 If the conditions are implemented in a Constitutional manner, applied equally - Yes. For example, States set age limits that are applied to all applicants. As another example many states required blood tests as part of obtaining a Marriage License (IIRC Mississippi was the last to repeal it 6 or 7 years ago). They are/were Constitutional because the laws were generally applicable and not written to exclude certain persons or segments of the population.

#2 If the conditions are implemented in an Unconstitutional manner, applied in a discriminatory manner - No. For example, States limited Civil Marriage based on race composition of the couple, those were held to be unconstitutional. States also limited Civil Marriage based on the biological sex of the couple, those were also held to be unconstitutional. As a third example, the Federal government attempted to pick and choose which legally recognized Civil Marriages it would recognize for Federal purposes, that discriminatory action by a section of government was also found to be unconstitutional.

*****************************************************************************

In the cases of #2, it was a branch of the government the found action unconstitutional and so nullified the actions of other branches of government we those actions were tested against the Constitution.

So unconstitutional actions by one branch of government were ended by another branch of government - so in reality it was still the government that determined the boundaries that could be used.

Remember, "government" does not equal just Legislative Branch. Executive and Judicial are also branches of government.



>>>>

On what basis would you deny the recognition of a marriage between two gay brothers or two gay sisters or a gay mother and daughter couple or father son gay couple?

The same reason I would deny recognition of a marriage between a mother and sister or a sister and brother, etc, etc.

 

[Syriusly]

Poor little snowflake. Sounds like you visited Trump Towers.

My sister and brother in law belong to a wonderful Episcopal Church- hell they would even welcome an asshole like you there.

And they could even help a sinner like you find the Bibles in every pew.

You validate my statement with you calling the Episcopal Church wonderful.

It is a wonderful church. Where they actually talk about Jesus

Yes- you would hate it.

A church without a Bible in it is not a church.

A church with a bible but no Jesus is not a Christian church. The bible as put together by Constantine's minions means nothing.

That and $5 gets you a cup of Starbucks.

That covers virtually all of your posts here at USMB