Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
But equal protection under the law and the right to due proces is in the constitution.
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
Of course..if you want to marry a non-Catholic--there's an issue.
the constitution is mainly what government can and cant do not the average person,, I should be able to discriminate against whoever I want,,
as for gay marriage,, thats covered in the 1st A with freedom to assemble,,
You might think that you have that right but the laws against discrimination that cove LGBT people in many states say otherwise. It is not only what the government can and cannot do. It is also what the government will allow to be done to people by others.the constitution is mainly what government can and cant do not the average person,, I should be able to discriminate against whoever I want,,
WHAT!!!????as for gay marriage,, thats covered in the 1st A with freedom to assemble,,
Hysterical, slippery slope logical fallacy inane equine excrement. It has been about six years since the Obergfell ruling. How many people have tried to marry a sibling, or a child, or their dog citing that ruling?Yep, and with that ruling, brother and sister can be married, father and daughter, mother and son. Equal protection doesn't apply to just straight and gays, it applies to everybody. It's only a matter of time until some smart ass takes it to the Supreme Court.
As long as AIDS medications aren't paid for by the taxpayers and hospitalization costs don't increase due to rectal injuries.Hysterical, slippery slope logical fallacy bovine excrement. It has been about six years since the Obergfell ruling. How many people have tried to marry a sibling, or a child, or their dog citing that ruling?
Gay people made their case for marriage by challenging the states to come up with a compelling government reason, or at least a rational basis to deny unrelated, consenting adults of the same sex marriage. The states failed miserably.
If someone wished to further expand the definition of marriage to include close relatives or animals they are welcome to pursue it through the judicial and/or legislative process. However, the issues would be different and for the states to show that there are compelling reasons to not allow such unions would likely be far easier.
Lastly, the Obergfell decision SPECIFICALLY states that the right for same sex couple to marry will be in accordance with current state laws governing marriage between opposite sex coupls. Thoes laws prohibit siblings and parrent -child marriage. So get a fucking grip!
what what??WHAT!!!????
to a degree youre right,, but to discuss it in detail is a waste of time with some of you,,You might think that you have that right but the laws against discrimination that cove LGBT people in many states say otherwise. It is not only what the government can and cannot do. It is also what the government will allow to be done to people by others.
The government connot imprison someone without due process but the government also prohibits individuals from practicing unlawful imprisonment . Your libertarian bullshit falls flat.
Hysterical, slippery slope logical fallacy inane equine excrement. It has been about six years since the Obergfell ruling. How many people have tried to marry a sibling, or a child, or their dog citing that ruling?
Gay people made their case for marriage by challenging the states to come up with a compelling government reason, or at least a rational basis to deny unrelated, consenting adults of the same sex marriage. The states failed miserably.
If someone wished to further expand the definition of marriage to include close relatives or animals they are welcome to pursue it through the judicial and/or legislative process. However, the issues would be different and for the states to show that there are compelling reasons to not allow such unions would likely be far easier.
Lastly, the Obergfell decision SPECIFICALLY states that the right for same sex couple to marry will be in accordance with current state laws governing marriage between opposite sex coupls. Thoes laws prohibit siblings and parrent -child marriage. So get a fucking grip!
You should NOT be free to discrimminate against anyone. That violates THEIR rights to freedom and the pursuit of happiness. You can choose to not associate with people, but if you do so in a way that violates non-discrimmination laws, you should be punished for violating their Constitiutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I was a lad when this whole gay thing started. Just let them out of the closet the leftists protested, and they will be happy. Fast forward to today, they are forcing their way of life down the throats of all Americans. Perhaps the best idea was not letting them out of the closet in the first place. All it really does is invite trouble down the road.
Same horseshit different post. Read what I wrote again and try to comprehend if you can. Give the histrionics a rest and stop trying to justify your bigotry. It's a pathetic fail. You're not even trying to address the points that I madeNo because if marriage is a right guaranteed by equal protection under the law, then it's equal protection for everybody or none at all. Correct, nobody tried to push incest cases as of yet, but down the road somebody will.
I was a lad when this whole gay thing started. Just let them out of the closet the leftists protested, and they will be happy. Fast forward to today, they are forcing their way of life down the throats of all Americans. Perhaps the best idea was not letting them out of the closet in the first place. All it really does is invite trouble down the road.
Thank you for acknowledging that I am right. But, what further detail are you referring to? Try me.to a degree youre right,, but to discuss it in detail is a waste of time with some of you,,
So you were dragged into gay marriage and gay sex.? Please tell us more.We went from “Don't force your morality on me!” to allowing them to force their immorality on us.
We went to it being about “consenting adults” to them trying to drag those of us into their filth who want nothing to do with it (so much for ”consenting”) and even going after children (so much for “adults”).
to a degree you were right,, your problem is you dont want anything other than your full opinion acknowledged,,Thank you for acknowledging that I am right. But, what further detail are you referring to? Try me.
Oh Christ!! Seriously? Freedome to assemble is NOT MARRIAGE.what what??
are you saying the freedom to assemble doesnt include marriage??
thats two people assembling isnt it??
As I said, try me. Don't just whine about how it is futile to argue because I won't capitulate. Make your caseto a degree you were right,, your problem is you dont want anything other than your full opinion acknowledged,,
trying to rationalize with a progressive is useless,,
