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

[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

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

Read it
There is not a lot of detailed direction in just four pages

 

[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.

Read it
There is not a lot of detailed direction in just four pages

That's why our opinions don't matter.

 

[initforme]

How does same sex marriage threaten my traditional marriage? Answer? It doesn't. I have no issues with it and I'm a lifelong Christian.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

I guess when they feel a law is unconstitutional. But let's take that a step further: If states are prohibited by law from discriminating against gay marriage, then they can't discriminate if brother and sister get married, father and daughter. Hell in this day and age, father and son.

It hasn't happened yet but I'm sure it will down the road. Then how are the courts going to rule?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

So, you interpret the "vaguery" to mean giving and taking rights as you see fit?

No. Nowhere in the founding documents of our nation did the founders say we could interpret the Constitution outside of its bounds. The Constitution was meant to preserve rights, not to be used as a method of taking them away from one group or another. If you cannot interpret and/or enact law within its confines, the interpretation and the law you enacted are baseless.

 

[Lysistrata]

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.

You and Natural Citizen are arguing against contracting a marriage under civil law. But legal marriage involves not only government benefits, but also inheritance rights, the right to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapable spouse, tax treatment, court testimony in criminal cases, the rights of military spouses, and I'm sure there is more. These matters have nothing to do with religion, but your proposal would create the massive chaos of government having to figure out how to administer these rights with respect to each and every religion and each and every individual. Moreover, there are plenty of people who don't have a religion. What are they supposed to do?

Your proposal would require a massive re-write of many laws and regulations. It's absurd.

And all because of some people who are upset about whom some stranger marries. Idiotic.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You have obviously never read the Constitution.

Actually, I have several books and commentaries on the Constitution. Odds are, I'm more versed in it than you are.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

You and Natural Citizen are arguing against contracting a marriage under civil law. But legal marriage involves not only government benefits, but also inheritance rights, the right to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapable spouse, tax treatment, court testimony in criminal cases, the rights of military spouses, and I'm sure there is more. These matters have nothing to do with religion, but your proposal would create the massive chaos of government having to figure out how to administer these rights with respect to each and every religion and each and every individual. Moreover, there are plenty of people who don't have a religion. What are they supposed to do?

Your proposal would require a massive re-write of many laws and regulations. It's absurd.

And all because of some people who are upset about whom some stranger marries. Idiotic.

Equality under the law means gaining the benefits, as well as suffering the liabilities of said law. Either treat everyone equally under the law or rewrite the law. Which would you prefer? We've already seen what rewriting the law does.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This is settled law, get over it.

It's settled law until it isn't.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You and Natural Citizen are arguing against contracting a marriage under civil law. But legal marriage involves not only government benefits, but also inheritance rights, the right to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapable spouse, tax treatment, court testimony in criminal cases, the rights of military spouses, and I'm sure there is more. These matters have nothing to do with religion, but your proposal would create the massive chaos of government having to figure out how to administer these rights with respect to each and every religion and each and every individual. Moreover, there are plenty of people who don't have a religion. What are they supposed to do?

Your proposal would require a massive re-write of many laws and regulations. It's absurd.

And all because of some people who are upset about whom some stranger marries. Idiotic.

You just made my point for me. Yes, it's because of all the government goodies, stupid laws and tax benefits to being married. Marriage is not a necessity. I've never been married in my life and never will be.

When this came up during the GW administration, many states put SSM on the ballot. In almost all states, it was voted down. Then the lower liberal courts started to get involved and said to hell with the will of the people. We know you voted against it, but we don't care. We're overturning your vote.

After that of course it went to a national level from there.

But as I stated earlier, if government benefits are the deciding factor in all this, what's wrong with father marrying daughter? What about mother marrying son? First cousins (yes, I know it's legal in several states already) do you see where I'm going with this?

The solution to this problem is to get government totally out of it. Everybody treated the same. If you want to get married, find a religion willing to marry you. If our federal government has to make changes, then make them. It's not like these people are terribly overworked.

 

[Seawytch]

This is settled law, get over it.

It's settled law until it isn't.

It won't ever not be. The court will no more reverse Obergerfell than they would reverse Loving. The genie is out of the bottle. It's not going back in.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This is settled law, get over it.

It's settled law until it isn't.

It won't ever not be. The court will no more reverse Obergerfell than they would reverse Loving. The genie is out of the bottle. It's not going back in.

You're being naive if you think law is ever settled. Bans against gay marriage were "settled law" until they were overturned in SCOTUS by those two same rulings.

 

[martybegan]

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

Actually the issue with Obergfell is that all States are forced to ISSUE same sex marriage licenses.

To me the better choice would be to force States to accept valid marriage licenses issued by other States as they have to do now and before Obergfell.

 

[martybegan]

This is settled law, get over it.

It's settled law until it isn't.

It won't ever not be. The court will no more reverse Obergerfell than they would reverse Loving. The genie is out of the bottle. It's not going back in.

Separate but Equal was "settled law" for decades until overturned.

 

[easyt65]

Actually the issue with Obergfell is that all States are forced to ISSUE same sex marriage licenses.

To me the better choice would be to force States to accept valid marriage licenses issued by other States as they have to do now and before Obergfell.

Why would anyone want to force some other state's decision on someone. If someone in a state wants something they will vote for it in their own state. What is it with Liberals trying to force someone else's choices on people?

 

[martybegan]

Actually the issue with Obergfell is that all States are forced to ISSUE same sex marriage licenses.

To me the better choice would be to force States to accept valid marriage licenses issued by other States as they have to do now and before Obergfell.

Why would anyone want to force some other state's decision on someone. If someone in a state wants something they will vote for it in their own state. What is it with Liberals trying to force someone else's choices on people?

Because our system works on States accepting the documents of other States as binding. It's why your Driver's license works all over, why you don't need a new birth certificate every time you move, and why you don't need to be re-married every time you move from State to State.

To me Obergfell should have allowed States the choice to issue SSM licenses or not, but the State governments would have had to accept SSM licenses from other States as valid, just as they accept marriage licenses from other States that don't meet their other requirements (age of consent, blood tests, level of cousin you can marry legally, etc)

 

[easyt65]

The easier / easiest - IMO - thing to do is remove the religious connotation by not using the word 'marriage'.

Pass a law that states anyone who would like to receive state/federal benefits and rights currently afforded to traditional married couples just needs to pay for a govt license, have an officially-licensed official oversee some event, and afterwards submit the necessary signed paperwork.

It' snot really God's blessing LGBT couples want but rather the same local/state/federal govt legal status and benefits traditional married couples want.

 

[martybegan]

The easier / easiest - IMO - thing to do is remove the religious connotation by not using the word 'marriage'.

Pass a law that states anyone who would like to receive state/federal benefits and rights currently afforded to traditional married couples just needs to pay for a govt license, have an officially-licensed official oversee some event, and afterwards submit the necessary signed paperwork.

It' snot really God's blessing LGBT couples want but rather the same local/state/federal govt legal status and benefits traditional married couples want.

Most of them want the word and social acceptance that comes with it as well. When offered civil unions the activists didn't want that, they wanted marriage.

 

[easyt65]

Most of them want the word and social acceptance that comes with it as well. When offered civil unions the activists didn't want that, they wanted marriage.

Agreed, they wanted to 'ram it up their asses' & 'FORCE' them to accept their relationships / bonding as equal. Even if the USSC ruled everyone MUST consider the relationships/bonds you can not TRULY force people in their hearts / religious beliefs to accept them as 'equal'. People of true religious conviction will never truly accept homosexual marriages as 'a union blessed by God'. They would accept the relationship as one viewed by the government as legally, lawfully equal, giving them the same LEGAL benefits as traditional marriage couples.

IMHO...

 

[Meathead]

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.

New day, and will be a new court. Ha ha