Supreme Court justices RIP ruling forcing states to recognize same-sex marriages - 'Threat To Religious Freedom!'

[easyt65]

That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution, & such a forced mandate on Religious persons and institutions poses a threat to religious freedom!

"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."

"The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses. The two justices said they agreed with the consensus of the court that it should not take Davis' case, but only because it did not "cleanly present" the "important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell."

Thomas and Alito dissented from the original Obergefell decision and their statement Monday could indicate that they would vote to overturn it if presented the chance."



"Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss," he wrote. "In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals."

Just because you have a deep RELIGIOUS conviction regarding marriage being between a man and a woman and does not include same-sex marriages does NOT make one a Bigot or Homophobe and protects that religious belief / conviction.

Thomas added: "This assessment flows directly from Obergefell’s language, which characterized such views as 'disparag[ing]' homosexuals and 'diminish[ing] their personhood' through '[d]ignitary wounds.'"

Justices Thomas, Alito slam Obergefell same-sex marriage decision as Supreme Court denies Kim Davis case

The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Andylusion]

That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution, & such a forced mandate on Religious persons and institutions poses a threat to religious freedom!

"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."

"The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses. The two justices said they agreed with the consensus of the court that it should not take Davis' case, but only because it did not "cleanly present" the "important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell."

Thomas and Alito dissented from the original Obergefell decision and their statement Monday could indicate that they would vote to overturn it if presented the chance."



"Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss," he wrote. "In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals."

Just because you have a deep RELIGIOUS conviction regarding marriage being between a man and a woman and does not include same-sex marriages does NOT make one a Bigot or Homophobe and protects that religious belief / conviction.

Thomas added: "This assessment flows directly from Obergefell’s language, which characterized such views as 'disparag[ing]' homosexuals and 'diminish[ing] their personhood' through '[d]ignitary wounds.'"

Justices Thomas, Alito slam Obergefell same-sex marriage decision as Supreme Court denies Kim Davis case

The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses.

www.foxnews.com

The whole idea that the Supreme Court even has the authority to determine what the law is, is questionable to me. Where in the Constitutional does the court get to decide what the law is?

 

[Oddball]

The whole idea that the Supreme Court even has the authority to determine what the law is, is questionable to me. Where in the Constitutional does the court get to decide what the law is?

They seized that authority in Marbury v. Madison, and the congress was too cowardly to abolish them.

 

[easyt65]

The whole idea that the Supreme Court even has the authority to determine what the law is, is questionable to me. Where in the Constitutional does the court get to decide what the law is?

"Article III, Section I states that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Although the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, it permits Congress to decide how to organize it."

About the Supreme Court

Supreme Court Background Article III of the Constitution establishes the federal judiciary. Article III, Section I states that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."...

www.uscourts.gov

 

[rightwinger]

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."

There is a lot of stuff not explicitly in the Constitution. Women’s rights, a standing Army, Space Force...

Same Sex Marriage is here to stay

 

[TemplarKormac]

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."

There is a lot of stuff not explicitly in the Constitution. Women’s rights, a standing Army, Space Force...

Same Sex Marriage is here to stay

And? If it isn't mandated in the Constitution, it shouldn't be mandated on the population it governs. It matters not who passes the mandate. Trump or Obama.

Being a part of the LGBT community now, I can tell that the majority of the community do not want to force itself onto society, we just want equal treatment under law. But what is there to gain from our equal status in society if it comes by trampling the rights of others? If my rights come at the cost of other's rights, I don't want them.

Tell me, how is that fair? My grandmother is a devout Christian. She also knows I'm gay as well, as she was the one I came out to first. But I will not force her to change her beliefs to accept me. That is wrong. Just as wrong as someone trying to change me because of my sexual affiliation.

 

[BluesLegend]

The era of Dem mob law is coming to a close as the SCOTUS returns to the US Constitution.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The science tells me that homosexuality is a flaw in the human genome. Yes, it is genetic. It does not change the fact that homosexuality is a counterproductive mechanism to the proliferation of our species. It does not abide our evolution. Homosexuality is a defect. Heterosexual reproduction is the norm. Homosexual is not. Any means of reproduction in a heterosexual species such as ours requires heterosexual methods. If two moms want a child, one of them must be inseminated with male sperm. If two fathers want a child, they inseminate a surrogate mother. You cannot further the evolution of our species via homosexuality. You cannot deny the heterosexual nature of humanity. Never.

I understand that the minority should be treated no differently from the majority, but the minority should not have more rights than the majority. What liberals want is special treatment for us, we just want to be left alone. We do not want to conquer society with our version of morality. Equality, not submission. Coexistence, not subversion.

 

[RodISHI]

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."

There is a lot of stuff not explicitly in the Constitution. Women’s rights, a standing Army, Space Force...

Same Sex Marriage is here to stay

And? If it isn't mandated in the Constitution, it shouldn't be mandated on the population it governs. It matters not who passes the mandate. Trump or Obama.

Being a part of the LGBT community now, I can tell that the majority of the community do not want to force itself onto society, we just want equal treatment under law. But what is there to gain from our equal status in society if it comes by trampling the rights of others? If my rights come at the cost of other's rights, I don't want them.

Tell me, how is that fair? My grandmother is a devout Christian. She also knows I'm gay as well, as she was the one I came out to first. But I will not force her to change her beliefs to accept me. That is wrong. Just as wrong as someone trying to change me because of my sexual affiliation.

I appreciate your stance.

Government should never have been involved in marriage as it is a religious institution. Contracts on the otherhand are for all so it should be a civil contract and the same for all couples wanting their marriage to be registered with the state.

 

[Dragonlady]

That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution, & such a forced mandate on Religious persons and institutions poses a threat to religious freedom!

"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."

"The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses. The two justices said they agreed with the consensus of the court that it should not take Davis' case, but only because it did not "cleanly present" the "important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell."

Thomas and Alito dissented from the original Obergefell decision and their statement Monday could indicate that they would vote to overturn it if presented the chance."



"Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss," he wrote. "In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals."

Just because you have a deep RELIGIOUS conviction regarding marriage being between a man and a woman and does not include same-sex marriages does NOT make one a Bigot or Homophobe and protects that religious belief / conviction.

Thomas added: "This assessment flows directly from Obergefell’s language, which characterized such views as 'disparag[ing]' homosexuals and 'diminish[ing] their personhood' through '[d]ignitary wounds.'"

Justices Thomas, Alito slam Obergefell same-sex marriage decision as Supreme Court denies Kim Davis case

The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses.

www.foxnews.com

You get dumber every day Easy. The Supreme Court, ruled on a 7-2 basis, that Kim Davis has no legal right to refuse to give marriage licences to gay people and that Davis cannot try to impose her religious beliefs on people in the State where she lives, or anywhere else, and the Court recently ruled overwhelming in favour of gay rights.

Thomas and Alito's dissent reads like right wing bullshit, not well considered law.

 

[rightwinger]

And? If it isn't mandated in the Constitution, it shouldn't be mandated on the population it governs

You have obviously never read the Constitution.

It provides broad guidance and is intentionally vague.
There is no way for it to cover all contingencies

 

[Lysistrata]

The Constitution provides for equal protection of the law for all.

"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."

Nowhere in this statement did Thomas and Alito address how the liberty of all persons is to be balanced against the "liberty" of those persons in the population who do not believe in same-sex marriage. They are implying that the rights of these people are more important than, and must be given precedence over, the rights of others, of all sexual orientations, who do not hold this belief and who are entitled under the U.S. Constitution to equal protection of the law.

The Obergefell decision addressed only the right to contract a marriage under civil law. It is certain that people who enter into same-sex marriages do not have a religious belief against it. Moreover, people of every religion have the right to enter a marriage according to the requirements of their respective faiths and undergo their faith's marriage rites and to choose whom to marry.

Someone should make Thomas and Alito aware that the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion.

Of course, there are further issues in this case of a public employee's right to refuse to perform the duties of his/her job.

 

[Indeependent]

And? If it isn't mandated in the Constitution, it shouldn't be mandated on the population it governs

You have obviously never read the Constitution.

It provides broad guidance and is intentionally vague.
There is no way for it to cover all contingencies

I was wondering why there are 50,00,000 interpretations of every letter in the USC.
We should simply give you a call.

 

[Natural Citizen]

There are no such things as gay rights. There are only Individual rights. Incidentally, Individuals have the natural right of freedom of association. Why on Earth two Individuals would want to give the state jurisdiction over their relationship via "license' baffles me. By asking permssion from the state for a license to marry basically just means that you feel that you aren't capable of running a household and a family, so you're giving them authority over your family unit. You're basically asking them for permission and then because you're asking permission by way of applying for license, you're saying that you aren't capable of marriage without government supervision.

 

[Seawytch]

That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution, & such a forced mandate on Religious persons and institutions poses a threat to religious freedom!

"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."

"The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses. The two justices said they agreed with the consensus of the court that it should not take Davis' case, but only because it did not "cleanly present" the "important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell."

Thomas and Alito dissented from the original Obergefell decision and their statement Monday could indicate that they would vote to overturn it if presented the chance."



"Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss," he wrote. "In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals."

Just because you have a deep RELIGIOUS conviction regarding marriage being between a man and a woman and does not include same-sex marriages does NOT make one a Bigot or Homophobe and protects that religious belief / conviction.

Thomas added: "This assessment flows directly from Obergefell’s language, which characterized such views as 'disparag[ing]' homosexuals and 'diminish[ing] their personhood' through '[d]ignitary wounds.'"

Justices Thomas, Alito slam Obergefell same-sex marriage decision as Supreme Court denies Kim Davis case

The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses.

www.foxnews.com

Is it a slow news day or something? This is settled law, get over it.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Statism is a really, really repulsive religion.

 

[22lcidw]

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."

There is a lot of stuff not explicitly in the Constitution. Women’s rights, a standing Army, Space Force...

Same Sex Marriage is here to stay

in your zest you are not paying attention to things. Traditional marriage has taken a beating. Still the cheapest way to raise kids with a higher percentage ending up civil. Things stay until there are no more resources. Then people get blamed. Read about it. Right now....for supporting a Repub you get fired from jobs. You shamed, demeaned attacked and more. The last chapter of the Bible calls it "Buy and Sell"....... Pay attention to it. It means that humans are to the point that someone is getting ph uked over. The past is full of it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This shit is not the hill to die on.

I join Austin Petersen in the ideal scenario:

"Gay married couple defends marijuana farm with machine guns."

I can think of no better way to describe individual liberty.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Nowhere in this statement did Thomas and Alito address how the liberty of all persons is to be balanced against the "liberty" of those persons in the population who do not believe in same-sex marriage. They are implying that the rights of these people are more important than, and must be given precedence over, the rights of others, of all sexual orientations, who do not hold this belief and who are entitled under the U.S. Constitution to equal protection of the law.

The Obergefell decision addressed only the right to contract a marriage under civil law. It is certain that people who enter into same-sex marriages do not have a religious belief against it. Moreover, people of every religion have the right to enter a marriage according to the requirements of their respective faiths and undergo their faith's marriage rites and to choose whom to marry.

Someone should make Thomas and Alito aware that the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion.

Of course, there are further issues in this case of a public employee's right to refuse to perform the duties of his/her job.

To be totally honest, what they should have ruled is government needs to get out of marriage. Let the religions have their own marriage along with their own criteria and if they want to marry a gay couple, then it's up to them, not the government.

So what does equal protection under the law have to do with this? Government benefits.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

To be totally honest, what they should have ruled is government needs to get out of marriage.

Fucking......THIS!!! Exactly!!!