Maybe the SCOTUS is about to connect some more dots!

[WorldWatcher]

Supremacy clause

Again, the question is not what the law is - i.e. Supremacy Clause.

The question was whether the poster thought the Federal government should recognize legal Civil Marriages based on a States action (the current law), or reject legal Civil Marriage as it did with the 1996 DOMA law (which was later repealed by Congress).

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

Will the Supreme Court revisit its ruling on same-sex marriage?

Updated on Oct. 22 at 6:28 p.m. In 2015, shortly after the Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges, a local county clerk from […]

www.scotusblog.com

Yes?

If Obergefell gets overturned, and State allowed again to discriminate against same sex couples again, the question remains...

Should the federal government recognize legal Civil Marriages entered into under the laws of the state where the event took place? Current law (previously posted) says the Federal government must.

Current law, not the Obergefell ruling - also previously linked in Post #269, requires that States recognize Civil Marriage as a public act between states. So under current law, even if Obergefell is reversed, the State may not issue new Civil Marriage licenses to Same-sex Couples, but under Federal law are required to recognize Civil Marriages entered into in other states.

That will be a can of worms.

WW

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yes?

If Obergefell gets overturned, and State allowed again to discriminate against same sex couples again, the question remains...

Should the federal government recognize legal Civil Marriages entered into under the laws of the state where the event took place? Current law (previously posted) says the Federal government must.

Current law, not the Obergefell ruling - also previously linked in Post #269, requires that States recognize Civil Marriage as a public act between states. So under current law, even if Obergefell is reversed, the State may not issue new Civil Marriage licenses to Same-sex Couples, but under Federal law are required to recognize Civil Marriages entered into in other states.

That will be a can of worms.

WW

For the Feds to refuse to recognize same sex marriages in states that allow them, the Windsor decision would also have to be overturned

AI Overview

The Windsor decision, officially United States v. Windsor, was a landmark 2013 Supreme Court case that struck down a key part of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Specifically, the Court found Section 3 of DOMA, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman for federal purposes, to be unconstitutional. This ruling had significant implications for same-sex couples, granting them access to federal benefits and rights previously denied to them.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

We have more problems than just Kim Davis. The Orange Ogre is also working to undermine same sex marriage

Trump's nominees to the federal bench are gunning for same-sex marriage - LGBTQ Nation

Asked about their support for the Supreme Court's landmark ruling, the would-be judges dodge like mad.

www.lgbtqnation.com

Donald Trump could go after same-sex marriage rights. We talked to legal experts. - LGBTQ Nation

Trump and the GOP been making bold (and possibly) illegal attacks on LGBTQ+ rights. What if marriage is next?

www.lgbtqnation.com

 

[Chuz Life]

Except you appear to ignore the facts of her actions. She didn't just refuse to issue a Civil Marriage license because of her religious beliefs, she ordered or subordinates to comply with her religious beliefs even though they testified they would be fine with issuing the licenses.

He not issuing a license was not why she ended up in jail. She ended up in jail for ordering her staff not to comply with the law.

WW

So she doubled down.

Soon the SCOTUS might rule if her actions were Constitutionally sound or not.

 

[Chuz Life]

Yes?

If Obergefell gets overturned, and State allowed again to discriminate against same sex couples again, the question remains...

Should the federal government recognize legal Civil Marriages entered into under the laws of the state where the event took place? Current law (previously posted) says the Federal government must.

Current law, not the Obergefell ruling - also previously linked in Post #269, requires that States recognize Civil Marriage as a public act between states. So under current law, even if Obergefell is reversed, the State may not issue new Civil Marriage licenses to Same-sex Couples, but under Federal law are required to recognize Civil Marriages entered into in other states.

That will be a can of worms.

WW

They made a mess and it looks like it will forever be a mess. For sure.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So she doubled down.

Soon the SCOTUS might rule if her actions were Constitutionally sound or not.

She was in contempt of court. Regardless of the wider constitutional issue , that does not change . Try to get you small mind around that simple fact.

 

[Chuz Life]

He(r) not issuing a license was not why she ended up in jail. She ended up in jail for ordering her staff not to comply with the law.

WW

Kind of like, if a General ordered a Battalion commander (ranked Colonel or Major) to march their battalion through a known (or suspected) mine field, and the Battalion commander refuses to order the troops to do so and orders his troops to maintain the perimeter but "don't go into that field. . . ."

My view and position remains the same.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I think the Federal Government needs a legislative point of reference because the Constitution does not define marriage for them. So, they need to pass some kind of legislation FIRST and then recognize and or not recognize what marriages they want to, accordingly to that legislation.

It is not a side step in any way. It is my suggestion about how I think this issue should be resolved - in accordance with the Constitution.

After all, we ARE a representative republic are we not?

More convoluted inane bovine excrement that just muddies the waters . We do not need more legislation ,except perhaps to codify Obergefell. What we need is for you bigots to get the **** out of the way and let peaceful people love in peace. They are not bothering you and the current system is working just fine.

 

[Chuz Life]

I have been consistent with my views on this.

Post in thread 'Texas SC rules state does NOT have to give benefits to homosexual "couples"'

Jul 5, 2017

There is no "right" for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman, anymore than there is a "right" for a woman to abort her child. The liberals have invented these "rights" but they aren't from the Constitution, they are from the imagination of people who have declared enmity against God and nature.

I agree with your premise, man. My problem, however, is the govt got their greedy hands on it. They have no place getting involved in marriage. But they did..
Them denying equal rights is institutional discrimination. I'm just not down for govts being peculiar. That...

• Chuz Life

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Kind of like, if a General ordered a Battalion commander (ranked Colonel or Major) to march their battalion through a known (or suspected) mine field, and the Battalion commander refuses to order the troops to do so and orders his troops to maintain the perimeter but "don't go into that field. . . ."

My view and position remains the same.

Holy shit on a shingle! WHAT! A logical fallacy in the form of a false and bizarre analogy. Issuing a marriage license is like walking into a minefield?? !!

You're not even trying to hide your bigotry anymore !!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I have been consistent with my views on this.
View attachment 1149842

Post in thread 'Texas SC rules state does NOT have to give benefits to homosexual "couples"'

Jul 5, 2017

There is no "right" for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman, anymore than there is a "right" for a woman to abort her child. The liberals have invented these "rights" but they aren't from the Constitution, they are from the imagination of people who have declared enmity against God and nature.

I agree with your premise, man. My problem, however, is the govt got their greedy hands on it. They have no place getting involved in marriage. But they did..
Them denying equal rights is institutional discrimination. I'm just not down for govts being peculiar. That...

• Chuz Life

Well. Well, we seem to be inching closer to some level of honesty. A least no mention of states rights

You seem to be alluding to some belief that gay couples are not as good for society and family as others but still lack the intestinal fortitude to say so directly,

Spell it out! How do gay couples not contribute equally to society and family ? What qualifications do they not have that others do? Never mind. It is now clear where you’re coming from

And what is that shit about brother and sister? That is rather bizarre. Another red herring, false analogy, false equivlency bullshit logical fallacy that you resort to because you have nothing else

See post 111, If you have any reading comprehension ability at all, that will inform you as to why marrying a sibling is not the same as the marriage of two consenting unrelated people

 

[sparky]

Freedom of choice includes the freedom to make choices that might (or will most likely) land you in jail. If you think YOUR views are strong enough that you want to risk jail too. . . you are free to make those kind of choices too.

It's kind of like when I was in the service. We were instructed to always follow orders. That is all orders. . . unless the order is "unlawful."

If you are going to refuse to obey an order because you THINK or believe it is an unlawful order? You'd better be prepared to prove that decision in the end.

or one could elevate freedom of choice towards not being free from other folks choices Chuz.......~S~

 

[Chuz Life]

or one could elevate freedom of choice towards not being free from other folks choices Chuz.......~S~

That is either really deep or I am over thinking it. Care to elaborate or talk me through it?

 

[WorldWatcher]

That is either really deep or I am over thinking it. Care to elaborate or talk me through it?

Simply put...

I think it goes like this.

Do you have freedom of choice (for example entering into a legal Civil Marriage) if a government employee based on their choice can (a) deny you that legal event and (b) order their subordinates to deny you that legal choice.

At which point it's NOT your freedom of choice, your freedom of choice to participate in a fully legal status is denied by the choice of another.

WW

 

[HeyNorm]

One more time, YOU don't get to decide who can and cannot marry. It is NOT up to you or anyone else. You choose hate. Which is NOT pro-life.

What are you talking about? It happens all the time. The law even states who and how many you are allowed to marry.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is a side-step. I'm not asking what the Feds "could" do.

I'm asking what avenue "you" would support. Federal recognition of Civil Marriage entered into under state law, or impose restrictions on Federal recognition irregarless of what the State says. Along the lines of DOMA which implemented a Federal definition regardless of what the State said.

So which option do you support?

If Maine approved Same-Sex Civil Marriage, should the Fed's - in your opinion - recognize or reject that legal status?

It's not hard question.

WW

The question was not directed at me but I can answer it easily.

I believe a legal marriage in the United States should be one man and one woman. The definition of marriage has been a union between a man and a woman for all of recorded human history even when polygamy was the norm.

The purpose of marriage has always been to establish familial bloodlines and presumes that there could be children. It creates a legal bond that protects both the married couple and any children produced from the union as well as right of inheritance, ability to make decisions for an incapacitated mate, visitation rights, etc.

As a gay union establishes no familial bloodlines and does not presume that there could be children, in my opinion it is not a marriage. In general gay unions do not produce the same benefits to society that traditional marriage does though reasonably gay people who establish unions intended to be permanent do need some accommodation by society.

I do think the law should provide necessary protections for gay couples--right of inheritance, visitation rights, right to make financial or healthcare decisions for an incapacitated mate, etc. But don't call it marriage. It isn't. Give it its own designation.

As a society the many should not have to change their culture to accommodate a very few other than to protect the unalienable rights of all. The very few should have to accommodate and adapt to the culture of the many.

 

[sparky]

Simply put...

I think it goes like this.

Do you have freedom of choice (for example entering into a legal Civil Marriage) if a government employee based on their choice can (a) deny you that legal event and (b) order their subordinates to deny you that legal choice.

At which point it's NOT your freedom of choice, your freedom of choice to participate in a fully legal status is denied by the choice of another.

WW

Thank you WW

That would be the gub'mit side of the freedom coin, the other side would be those that are subjected to the choices some folks make

One is free to be a potted plant in America , have at it, but that does not obligate the rest of us to fertilize you

~S~

 

[HeyNorm]

The question was not directed at me but I can answer it easily.

I believe a legal marriage in the United States should be one man and one woman. The definition of marriage has been a union between a man and a woman for all of recorded human history even when polygamy was the norm.

The purpose of marriage has always been to establish familial bloodlines and presumes that there could be children. It creates a legal bond that protects both the married couple and any children produced from the union as well as right of inheritance, ability to make decisions for an incapacitated mate, visitation rights, etc.

As a gay union establishes no familial bloodlines and does not presume that there could be children, in my opinion it is not a marriage. In general gay unions do not produce the same benefits to society that traditional marriage does though reasonably gay people who establish unions intended to be permanent do need some accommodation by society.

I do think the law should provide necessary protections for gay couples--right of inheritance, visitation rights, right to make financial or healthcare decisions for an incapacitated mate, etc. But don't call it marriage. It isn't. Give it its own designation.

As a society the many should not have to change their culture to accommodate a very few other than to protect the unalienable rights of all. The very few should have to accommodate and adapt to the culture of the many.

That was very well put.

The Supreme Court created a bizarre institution from one that had purpose.

From an institution that United two vastly different beings that could provide a continuing population, to an institution that could combine two straight men, or two straight women?

Insanity.

They would have served society better if they had just dropped marriage as a governmental institution all together.

 

[Foxfyre]

That was very well put.

The Supreme Court created a bizarre institution from one that had purpose.

From an institution that United two vastly different beings that could provide a continuing population, to an institution that could combine two straight men, or two straight women?

Insanity.

They would have served society better if they had just dropped marriage as a governmental institution all together.

It was never SCOTUS's (or any court's) prerogative to dictate what marriage must be or that it cannot be a government institution. The issue had always been left to the states. But with no government role at all, there is no protection for anybody, including the children.

The institution of marriage has worked well through all of human history, especially when some unacceptable laws involving it were repealed, until the courts became unnecessarily and destructively involved.