What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

ThisIsMe

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
4,300
Reaction score
1,673
Points
210
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

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
254,340
Reaction score
74,427
Points
2,190
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.

 

San Souci

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
4,255
Reaction score
3,461
Points
1,940
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

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
24,815
Reaction score
6,505
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
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

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
24,815
Reaction score
6,505
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
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

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
1,172
Reaction score
543
Points
210
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

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
24,815
Reaction score
6,505
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
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

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
13,258
Reaction score
9,087
Points
1,265
Location
Pittsburgh
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

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
24,815
Reaction score
6,505
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
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

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
24,815
Reaction score
6,505
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
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 FUCK should anyone have to go to another state to get married?
 
Last edited:

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
254,340
Reaction score
74,427
Points
2,190
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 FUCK 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

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
24,815
Reaction score
6,505
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
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

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
254,340
Reaction score
74,427
Points
2,190
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

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
4,300
Reaction score
1,673
Points
210
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?
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
254,340
Reaction score
74,427
Points
2,190
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

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
24,815
Reaction score
6,505
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA

San Souci

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
4,255
Reaction score
3,461
Points
1,940
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

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2021
Messages
6,066
Reaction score
4,533
Points
1,938
Location
Texas
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.
 

đź’˛ Amazon Deals đź’˛

Forum List

Top