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

[martybegan]

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...

And that's your opinion. Me personally, my libertarian (small l) leanings doesn't get involved in the moral aspect with regards to sexuality, only in the aspect of constitutionality (framer's intent, and amendment intent) and in the morality of using government to force your views on others.

 

[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.

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

I was a couple of months ago, and there's only been one change to the Court. Justice Ginsberg is gone.

With Republicans Senators dropping like flies from Covid, and Moscow Mitch having no virtual voting, I don't think this is going to going down like you think it will. At this point, with two members of the Judiciary Committee sick with covid and unable to vote, Mitch may have problems getting the nomination out of committee.

Murkowski and Collins have said they will not vote to confirm prior to the election, so with the 3 Senators who are ill, there may not be enough votes on the floor of the Senate to get her confirmed. McConnell can't even pass a Resolution for virtual voting before the confirmation hearings, because so many Republican Senators are sick and in quarantine, that he doesn't have enough live votes left to pass the Resolution.

It was stupid of Trump to try to confirm her before the election. But everything Trump does is shortsighted and stupid. 7 bankruptcies and billions of business losses. Not a lot of good decision making involved is an understatement. He could have told voters vote for him to ensure a conservative court, but instead he want's to go "ta da". Vote for me because I did it.

By trying to get her confirmed BEFORE the election, Trump loses those voters who have been holding their noses and voting for him because of the courts. McConnell and Trump have been bragging that all federal courts nominations have now been filled with good conservatives, and the courts are safely packed. OK the courts are done so we don't have to for these jackasses any more.

 

[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

I was a couple of months ago, and there's only been one change to the Court. Justice Ginsberg is gone.

With Republicans Senators dropping like flies from Covid, and Moscow Mitch having no virtual voting, I don't think this is going to going down like you think it will. At this point, with two members of the Judiciary Committee sick with covid and unable to vote, Mitch may have problems getting the nomination out of committee.

Murkowski and Collins have said they will not vote to confirm prior to the election, so with the 3 Senators who are ill, there may not be enough votes on the floor of the Senate to get her confirmed. McConnell can't even pass a Resolution for virtual voting before the confirmation hearings, because so many Republican Senators are sick and in quarantine, that he doesn't have enough live votes left to pass the Resolution.

It was stupid of Trump to try to confirm her before the election. But everything Trump does is shortsighted and stupid. 7 bankruptcies and billions of business losses. Not a lot of good decision making involved is an understatement. He could have told voters vote for him to ensure a conservative court, but instead he want's to go "ta da". Vote for me because I did it.

By trying to get her confirmed BEFORE the election, Trump loses those voters who have been holding their noses and voting for him because of the courts. McConnell and Trump have been bragging that all federal courts nominations have now been filled with good conservatives, and the courts are safely packed. OK the courts are done so we don't have to for these jackasses any more.

It's a done deal. No amount of wishful thinking is going to change that. Even when Roberts swings, it will be a 5-4 court for the good guys. HA HA!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Yep, you hit the nail right on the head. Like any group of people, gays have a percentage that just can't accept rejection. I believe these were the types that led the fight. In their minds, if they force society to accept their marriages, then their lifestyles will also be accepted. It doesn't work that way.

 

[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.

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.

It was a 7-2 decision. Over 300,000 couples have been married. Gay marriage isn’t being reversed.

 

[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.

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

That was an injustice. This is not. Your fever dream ain’t gonna happen. This IS done and won’t be undone.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Yep, you hit the nail right on the head. Like any group of people, gays have a percentage that just can't accept rejection. I believe these were the types that led the fight. In their minds, if they force society to accept their marriages, then their lifestyles will also be accepted. It doesn't work that way.

U.S. Support for Same-Sex Marriage Matches Record High

Two in three Americans (67%) say marriages between same-sex couples should be legally recognized, matching the previous high Gallup measured in 2018.

news.gallup.com

I guarantee you gay marriage is more popular than a Trump supporter.

 

[Seawytch]

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...

We really don’t care about you or your hearts. We care that we are equal legally.

 

[Meathead]

It was a 7-2 decision. Over 300,000 couples have been married. Gay marriage isn’t being reversed.

No, it was a 5-4 decision. We will have three more Trump-appointed SCOTUS members, two of them rep;acing Kennedy and Ginsburg who voted with the majority.

I am not against gay marriage, but you're wrong.

Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Dragonlady]

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...

Marriage isn't a union "blessed by God". Marriage is a civil contract, blessed by the state, conferring certain rights and obligations upon the participants, all of which can be enforced by a court of laws, in any state in the nation.

Gays don't want "civil contracts" because they don't offer anywhere near the rights or protections of marriage. Civil contracts are state, not federal contracts. None of the protections of provide in federal marriage laws, are offered in "civil unions". Even worse, the relationship isn't recognized outside of the state which granted the status. If a person wants to avoid the financial obligations to my civil partner in Ohio, they can simply move to New York where the contract is unenforceable.

But the biggest reason why the gays needed to RAM IT DOWN YOUR THROAT, is because of sickness and death and medical care, property and family rights. It was not uncommon when a gay partner became ill and incapacitated, for the parents of gay people to swoop in and assert their "next of kin" status, and take over the care of the gay child, banning their partner from the hospital. The gay partner is the one who knows their spouse, their wishes, what they need, not the homophobic family. There have been instances when children are involved where the grandparents take their grandchildren away from their suviving parent, and destroy the family.

This became a HUGE issue during the AIDS pandemic, where the patients were often young men in their 20's and 30's, and families were hateful to the partners because they blamed the lifestyle for the death of their sons. Before gay marriage, if gays adopted, one partner's name was on the papers, not both. The surviving partners had to fight for custody or even access of their children. Similary, with lesbian couples, the birth mother had rights, but not the partner.

This is gay marriage advocates will never settle for a "civil union" and demand the full on protections of a legal "marriage". And as a one half of a straight couple, I can honestly say that that the fact that gays are allowed to marry has had absolutely no impact on me, the members of our church or anyone else. So the idea that gay marriage has any impact on the lives of those who believe it's wrong, would be a flat out lie. Those in the marriage services business who refuse to provide services to a gay couple who are not getting married in their home church, is no infringement on their right to worship as they see fit.

As a divorced woman, there were any number of churches where I could not get married for the second time. So Churches are being forced to marry people they don't believe should marry. I got remarried in the Presbyterian Church. Kim Davis, the woman who wouldn't issue a marriage license to gays, had been married 5 times. Hardly a model citizen for making good decisions in her life.

Also, her Christian Church, doesn't allow divorce, and considers remarriage "adultery". Does the 5 times married Mrs. Davis also refuse to issue marriage licenses on "religious grounds" to divorced couples? Because if she does, her religious argument goes right out the window.

If any of these "Christian bakers", and deeply religious types are providing marriage licenses and wedding services to other sinners - adulterers, blasphemers, liars or thieves, or other sins named in the 10 Commandments, then their claim that their "religious freedom is being compromised", is bullshit. This is simply homophobia and hate hiding behind the 1st Amendment, and claiming religious freedom to continue to violate Jesus' first law - do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

So SOME judicial activism is okay, but not ALL judicial activism.

Conservative principles are a chameleon on plaid.

 

[Dragonlady]

It was a 7-2 decision. Over 300,000 couples have been married. Gay marriage isn’t being reversed.

No, it was a 5-4 decision. We will have three more Trump-appointed SCOTUS members, two of them rep;acing Kennedy and Ginsburg who voted with the majority.

I am not against gay marriage, but you're wrong.

Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court decided that employers and landlords could not discriminate against gay couples. Nothing has changed. The Constitution hasn't changed. Kavenaugh voted for that one. Just because the judges are conservative, doesn't mean that they won't follow the Constitution.

There is absolutely no legal reason to uphold the notion that gays should not be allowed to marry. And such laws have no impact on the religious right. They don't even have standing in the matter. It has no impact on them at all.

 

[Meathead]

It was a 7-2 decision. Over 300,000 couples have been married. Gay marriage isn’t being reversed.

No, it was a 5-4 decision. We will have three more Trump-appointed SCOTUS members, two of them rep;acing Kennedy and Ginsburg who voted with the majority.

I am not against gay marriage, but you're wrong.

Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court decided that employers and landlords could not discriminate against gay couples. Nothing has changed. The Constitution hasn't changed. Kavenaugh voted for that one. Just because the judges are conservative, doesn't mean that they won't follow the Constitution.

There is absolutely no legal reason to uphold the notion that gays should not be allowed to marry. And such laws have no impact on the religious right. They don't even have standing in the matter. It has no impact on them at all.

It is the opinions of the justices that matter here, not yours. The court is undergoing radical change for the better. I do not share they gay guy's opinion and have the notion that your panties may get bunched up a lot in the coming years.

 

[Invisibleflash]

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

Years ago this subject was brought up. The forum said that even if SCOTUS said to go queer, the states could run themselves and not be bound by a queer marriage ruling.

We can see how the forum's prediction worked out.

The gun forums say that states will run themselves for gun laws if a crazy SCOTUS outlaws guns. The same will happen with guns no doubt.

Personally I like queers and trans people...but only as an underground subculture. Once you make them normal and mainstream...standards go to hell. Once a man with a pee-pee is really a woman...anything goes.

 

[Dragonlady]

It was a 7-2 decision. Over 300,000 couples have been married. Gay marriage isn’t being reversed.

No, it was a 5-4 decision. We will have three more Trump-appointed SCOTUS members, two of them rep;acing Kennedy and Ginsburg who voted with the majority.

I am not against gay marriage, but you're wrong.

Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court decided that employers and landlords could not discriminate against gay couples. Nothing has changed. The Constitution hasn't changed. Kavenaugh voted for that one. Just because the judges are conservative, doesn't mean that they won't follow the Constitution.

There is absolutely no legal reason to uphold the notion that gays should not be allowed to marry. And such laws have no impact on the religious right. They don't even have standing in the matter. It has no impact on them at all.

It is the opinions of the justices that matter here, not yours. The court is undergoing radical change for the better. I do not share they gay guy's opinion and have the notion that your panties may get bunched up a lot in the coming years.

That still didn't stop the court from deciding that landlords and employers could not discriminate against gays, on the grounds of sexual orientation. The judges never just sit down and say "Let's go through all of the old decisions and toss out the stuff we don't like".

The Court has already ruled that gay marriage is constitutional. It's Precedent now. There has to be a really compelling reason for the courts to even revisit the ruling - a major harm that can only be remedied by reversing the Precedent. There isn't even a case in the lower court pipeline to revisit that decision. So it would take a least 3 years for a case to be filed, and to make it's way through the appeals court process to the Supreme, and then the SC has to agree to hear it.

The ACA case that the Court is hearing this month has been in the pipeline every since the Republican Party failed to pass the President's health care plan - 3 years ago. The only gay rights cases in the pipeline right now are the revisited version of whether or not the baker has to bake the cake. Even if they find in favour of the baker, it doesn't have any effect on gay marriage. Just whether nor not you can refuse to provide wedding services to gays, on religious grounds. Those are the only kinds of gay issues the court is even looking at.

It is not me who is ignorant of how the courts and specifically the SC works.

 

[Seawytch]

It was a 7-2 decision. Over 300,000 couples have been married. Gay marriage isn’t being reversed.

No, it was a 5-4 decision. We will have three more Trump-appointed SCOTUS members, two of them rep;acing Kennedy and Ginsburg who voted with the majority.

I am not against gay marriage, but you're wrong.

Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Davis ruling they were sniveling about was 7-2.

 

[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.

That was an injustice. This is not. Your fever dream ain’t gonna happen. This IS done and won’t be undone.

Sorry, but "bake or die" is an injustice, you just don't see it because you support the oppressors.

And when the constitution is litigated from the bench, it is maybe not an injustice, but it's short sighted and stupid.

And it's funny you had to add a qualifier to your position when called out.

 

[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.

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

That was an injustice. This is not. Your fever dream ain’t gonna happen. This IS done and won’t be undone.

Sorry, but "bake or die" is an injustice, you just don't see it because you support the oppressors.

And when the constitution is litigated from the bench, it is maybe not an injustice, but it's short sighted and stupid.

And it's funny you had to add a qualifier to your position when called out.

Your "bake or die" hangup isn't on us. Take it up with Title II of the CRA. PA laws protecting gays are STATE laws, cupcake.

 

[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.

That was an injustice. This is not. Your fever dream ain’t gonna happen. This IS done and won’t be undone.

Sorry, but "bake or die" is an injustice, you just don't see it because you support the oppressors.

And when the constitution is litigated from the bench, it is maybe not an injustice, but it's short sighted and stupid.

And it's funny you had to add a qualifier to your position when called out.

Your "bake or die" hangup isn't on us. Take it up with Title II of the CRA. PA laws protecting gays are STATE laws, cupcake.

PA laws cannot trump Free Exercise, even at the State level.

Your "force people to accept us using the government bayonet" mindset is on you.

You don't want tolerance, you want forced acceptance.

 

[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.

It was a 7-2 decision. Over 300,000 couples have been married. Gay marriage isn’t being reversed.

Ha. Then you know nothing about the tendencies of the Supreme Court.

On another note, I know you are gay as well as I, so do not attempt to speak for me. I want equality under the law, but not at the expense of other people's legal rights.

We're not supposed to be conquering people, we should be getting them to accept us!