Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage

[ThisIsMe]

The TRUMPCourt has moved past Abortion and is now centering on Religious Liberty.
A liberty to claim religious justification for discrimination

You talk of sincerely held religious belief. Something the TRUMPCourt is unwilling to define. Basically, it means anyone who hates gays.

Oh yeah? What religious liberty case have they taken up?

Also, you keep saying "Trump court"....looks like that court isn't so trumpy. Look at the decisions they've made against Trump recently, including today.

 

[rightwinger]

Oh yeah? What religious liberty case have they taken up?

Also, you keep saying "Trump court"....looks like that court isn't so trumpy. Look at the decisions they've made against Trump recently, including today.

The Supreme Court Benches the Separation of Church and State | ACLU

The court has adopted an approach that would see the lines between church and state hopelessly blurred, if not eliminated altogether.

www.aclu.org

 

[San Souci]

Only a matter of time before the TRUMP court strikes down same sex marriage

The only question is will they just overrule it or start by allowing business to deny service for “religious reasons”

Good. Marriage is a religious concept. Why not just call it something else? Domestic Partnership ,for example? Same rights.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Again, as I've told PP, I highly doubt this, but it's a very opinionated idea, because we're not going to agree on this.

Discrimination denial is complicity but without the courage to say what you really believe

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Good. Marriage is a religious concept. Why not just call it something else? Domestic Partnership ,for example? Same rights.

Bullshit first and formaost it is a civil /legal matter. You can get married without a religious ceremony but you cant get married without the marriage license.

Civil unions may appear to be equal on paper but never worked that way in reality. Separate but equal did not work with racial equality and it does not work for marriage equality

 

[AsherN]

Bullshit first and formaost it is a civil /legal matter. You can get married without a religious ceremony but you cant get married without the marriage license.

Civil unions may appear to be equal on paper but never worked that way in reality. Separate but equal did not work with racial equality and it does not work for marriage equality

There is a also a practical matter. There is a definition of marriage. Then there are laws, statures, regulations, etc that reference marriage.

we can change the legal definition of marriage is, or create another definition and change everywhere marriage is referenced to referenced both.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

There is a also a practical matter. There is a definition of marriage. Then there are laws, statures, regulations, etc that reference marriage.

we can change the legal definition of marriage is, or create another definition and change everywhere marriage is referenced to referenced both.

It does not have to be that complicated. For some time noe, marriage has been between two consenting adults* who are not to closely related* ( although state laws may vary )

Prior to 1967, It was two consenting adults of the same race in some states

Prior to 2015 it was between two consenting adults of the opposite sex

Now bith race and gender have been taken out of the equation. No need to struggle with the "definition of marriage" It is what it is. Marriage is marriage.

 

[DGS49]

This thread truly has a remarkable lifespan.

It is amazing how you can trigger Leftists with the truth.

Here's the reality. To the extent that the USSC determined that States could not discriminate against same sex couples because of "equal protection" or privacy principles, the case was wrong.

But the more important reality is the "full faith and credit" obligation of States. So anyone who lived in, let's say, an anti-gay marriage State could easily have traveled to a gay-mariage friendly State, got married there, and their home state would be obliged under the Full Faith & Credit clause to recognize those marriages. That means that they would have to treat them the same as hetero marriages conducted within the State.

Furthermore, even if the current USSC overruled THAT PART of Oberkfell, no marriages that were performed while the decision was the Law of the Land would be void or affected in any way.

Cruz' remark was little more than an observation, with no practical import. Rather like Rick Santorum's observation that the same rationale that overturned anti-sodomy laws could be used to overturn anti-incest, and anti-bestiality laws. Which was correct.

Leftists are so pathetic.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Here's the reality. To the extent that the USSC determined that States could not discriminate against same sex couples because of "equal protection" or privacy principles, the case was wrong.

Wrong ? Really? Please elaborate

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

But the more important reality is the "full faith and credit" obligation of States. So anyone who lived in, let's say, an anti-gay marriage State could easily have traveled to a gay-mariage friendly State, got married there, and their home state would be obliged under the Full Faith & Credit clause to recognize those marriages. That means that they would have to treat them the same as hetero marriages conducted within the State.

Now THAT is wrong. The Defense of Marriage Act-which is still on the books but unenforceable and moot due to Obergefell- specifically prohibits the application of FFC to gay marriage

Secondly, WHY THE **** should anyone have to go to another state to get married?

 

[rightwinger]

Now THAT is wrong. The Defense of Marriage Act-which is still on the books but unenforceable and mott due to Obergefell- specifically prohibits the application of FFC to gay marriage

Secondly, WHY THE **** should anyone have to go to another state to get married?

States still will not honor marriages that they don’t sanction.

Loving vs Virginia was because Virginia arrested the Lovings even though they were legally married in DC

In the early stages of same sex marriage, states did not honor gay marriages from other states

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Furthermore, even if the current USSC overruled THAT PART of Oberkfell, no marriages that were performed while the decision was the Law of the Land would be void or affected in any way.

You have no idea what the states would do or try to do.

 

[rightwinger]

You have no idea what the states would do or try to do.

Or what actions the court would defend

Roberts, Thomas and Alito all opposed Oberkfell
It is likely that Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett Comey would do the same.

All precedents are off the table if Same Sex Marriage goes back to the Supreme Court.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The Supreme Court Benches the Separation of Church and State | ACLU

The court has adopted an approach that would see the lines between church and state hopelessly blurred, if not eliminated altogether.

www.aclu.org

How does that relate to discrimination?

In the court case you link, while im not going to read the...20 page? ruling from scotus, it appears they are talking about an area of Maine where there are no other schools available? And, publicly available tuition money was being withheld solely on basis of the schools religious nature. They are suggesting that it violate the free exercise clause to specifically exclude a school based on its religious charter.

Also, from my understanding, the establishment clause is a barrier from the federal government establishing a national religion, which this court ruling doesn't do. This is a case of a states use of publicly available tuition money. The establishment clause applies to the federal governments interaction with religion. I mean, does the state give money to any other private organization? If so, how could you disparage one group just because they are religious by nature.

It appears that the state constitution mandates that every child gets a free public education, but some parts of the state are very remote, so they allow the parents to choose a school and that school could be public or private. As long as the school is accredited, they are eligible for the tuition payments. Some of these schools may be religious by nature. The state, nor the federal government are not establishing a religion in doing this, right?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Discrimination denial is complicity but without the courage to say what you really believe

I disagree that it'd discrimination

 

[rightwinger]

How does that relate to discrimination?

In the court case you link, while im not going to read the...20 page? ruling from scotus, it appears they are talking about an area of Maine where there are no other schools available? And, publicly available tuition money was being withheld solely on basis of the schools religious nature. They are suggesting that it violate the free exercise clause to specifically exclude a school based on its religious charter.

Also, from my understanding, the establishment clause is a barrier from the federal government establishing a national religion, which this court ruling doesn't do. This is a case of a states use of publicly available tuition money. The establishment clause applies to the federal governments interaction with religion. I mean, does the state give money to any other private organization? If so, how could you disparage one group just because they are religious by nature.

It appears that the state constitution mandates that every child gets a free public education, but some parts of the state are very remote, so they allow the parents to choose a school and that school could be public or private. As long as the school is accredited, they are eligible for the tuition payments. Some of these schools may be religious by nature. The state, nor the federal government are not establishing a religion in doing this, right?

What it shows is the line between separation of church and state is fading.
The TRUMPCourt is willing to allow religions to ignore any civil right as long as they claim religious exemption.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I disagree that it'd discrimination

I disagree with the idea that your disagreement matters in the least bit

 

[San Souci]

Bullshit first and formaost it is a civil /legal matter. You can get married without a religious ceremony but you cant get married without the marriage license.

Civil unions may appear to be equal on paper but never worked that way in reality. Separate but equal did not work with racial equality and it does not work for marriage equality

No. I said the CONCEPT of marriage. Call it something else. Gays can't concieve. With each other ,that is.

 

[Seymour Flops]

What it shows is the line between separation of church and state is fading.
The TRUMPCourt is willing to allow religions to ignore any civil right as long as they claim religious exemption.

The free exercise of religion is itself a civil right, and one specifically, explicitely and in no uncertain terms protected by the constitution.

 

[San Souci]

The free exercise of religion is itself a civil right, and one specifically, explicitely and in no uncertain terms protected by the constitution.

There is nothing in the Constitution about Fags and trannys.