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

[progressive hunter]

Yes I am married. My wife is in my every day life. Not the government.

but yet you had to get their permission to marry her,,

like I said, trying to rationalize with a progressive is a waste of time,,

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes I am married. My wife is in my every day life. Not the government. But the government is there when we need it to secure our legal and financial security. What the **** about that is so hard to understand.

Nothing that can't be done with a good lawyer for single people.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

For most people it is a civil/ legal arrangement. For some , religion also plays a role but that does not change or diminish the legal aspect of it

Which is why the court should have ruled for the government to get out of marriage. Marriage is a religious institution government adopted as time went on.

 

[Flopper]

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

This seems to old news from Oct 2020 when the Supreme Court refused to hear the 2005 case. On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down all state bans on same-sex marriage, legalized it in all fifty states, and required states to honor out-of-state same-sex marriage licenses in the case Obergefell v. Hodges. As of 2019, there were 568,000 same sex marriages in the US. Today it estimated that there have been over 700,000 same sex marriages in all states. Obviously same sex marriages are here to stay.

 

[Flopper]

Which is why the court should have ruled for the government to get out of marriage. Marriage is a religious institution government adopted as time went on.

It is also a legal one which is what the court addressed, not religious marriages.
Ray, I haven't seen your posts in a long time. Have you been posting or maybe I have been elsewhere?

 

[Dr Grump]

I should be able to discriminate against whoever I want,,

No you should not. Unless you want to live in Somalia. In which case, off you go.

 

[progressive hunter]

No you should not. Unless you want to live in Somalia. In which case, off you go.

so I as a business owner or government official shouldnt be allowed to discriminate against a person thats not vaccinated???

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

but yet you had to get their permission to marry her,,

like I said, trying to rationalize with a progressive is a waste of time,,

No I did not need permission. We had to get a lisence but that is just to ensure that we are legally eligible to be married . No one could arbitrarilly deny our ability to marry

 

[progressive hunter]

No I did not need permission. We had to get a lisence but that is just to ensure that we are legally eligible to be married . No one could arbitrarilly deny our ability to marry

dude,, a license is permission you idiot prog,,, just like a license to drive is permission to drive,,

youre a slave and dont even know it,,

 

[Dr Grump]

so I as a business owner or government official shouldnt be allowed to discriminate against a person thats not vaccinated???

That's a health issue, not a discrimination issue. You give equal weight to both. This is not the case.

 

[progressive hunter]

That's a health issue, not a discrimination issue. You give equal weight to both. This is not the case.

so discrimination is ok if its something you agree with,, got it,,

 

[Dr Grump]

so discrimination is ok if its something you agree with,, got it,,

I could have written your answer for you. Such is your ignorance of both nuance and comprehension...

 

[progressive hunter]

I could have written your answer for you. Such is your ignorance of both nuance and comprehension...

spoken like a true fascist,,,

 

[emilynghiem]

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

Originally the Bill of Rights spelled out that Congress shall not make laws either Establishing Religion or Prohibiting religious free exercise.
Then the 14th Amendment extended equal protections of individuals to State Govt.
Most recently the Civil Rights Act then extended this to Public Institutions, which could not deny equal rights on the basis of creed, race, gender etc.

It is generally agreed that nobody can be banned from marriage as a personal choice of activity, so the govt cannot Prohibit persons from marrying or having weddings according to their beliefs.

But no govt can establish beliefs either, and can only conduct policies based on what the public consents to.

Now that same sex weddings have been added to the conditions for the state to be involved in marriages, if the public does NOT agree to the same terms then this becomes a spiritual or religious difference in beliefs the state cannot mandate.

States that can resolve this issue can continue to be involved in marriages.

If not, then States/Govt cannot take one side's bias over the other, but may need to revert to secular neutral terms such as civil unions or domestic partnerships that are only about the legal agreements concerning property, custody, or other shared authority legally and financially.

The social relationship is not anything the govt can recognize, establish, endorse, regulate or either legalize/illegalize.

The partnership contract that govt recognizes should only be about the legal/financial relationship.

 

[Dr Grump]

spoken like a true fascist,,,

I'm a fascist like you're intelligent. ie, not much..

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Nothing that can't be done with a good lawyer for single people.

Yes, of course. Not surprisingly, you are alluding to a private contract between spouses. Now all that you have to do is explaine how such a contract can compell a third party to honor it. Let us know when you think that there is popular and political support for ending government reccognition of marrige

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

so I as a business owner or government official shouldnt be allowed to discriminate against a person thats not vaccinated???

False equivelancy logical fallacy. Enforcing a public health mandate is not discrimination

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Which is why the court should have ruled for the government to get out of marriage. Marriage is a religious institution government adopted as time went on.

The courts could not have made such a ruling because the issue og government involvement in marriage was not befor the court. Marriage is a religious institution for religious people. For the rest of us it is a civil/ legal matter

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The courts could not have made such a ruling because the issue og government involvement in marriage was not befor the court. Marriage is a religious institution for religious people. For the rest of us it is a civil/ legal matter

If there were no benefits to marriage (civil, legal, government goodies) than the court would have never heard the case in the first place. Force government to restructure our society so there are no more benefits to being married than unmarried and problem solved. But wait! Would that actually solve the problem?

Of course not, because it has nothing to do with legalities. What it has to do with is people forcing their way of life down our throats. They are offended that most people don't "accept" their way of life, and if they can force their way of life down our throats, we would have to accept it which is a flawed way of thinking. If anything, it makes people more irritated about gay relationships.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, of course. Not surprisingly, you are alluding to a private contract between spouses. Now all that you have to do is explaine how such a contract can compell a third party to honor it. Let us know when you think that there is popular and political support for ending government reccognition of marrige

Give me an example of what you're talking about. You can't compel anybody into anything simply because you have a marriage certificate. There is no law that states so.