Why do so many Goppers oppose Gay Marriage ?

[BackAgain]

Until SCOTUS removes that you mean. Hence the need to codify it.

No. That’s not what I mean.

In fact, I would expect SCOTUS to be on board with the idea of having the States handle such state law matters.

 

[Dayton3]

SCOTUS and same-sex marriage: What could be in store?

Now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade, sending abortion policy back to the states, could the court do th

www.politifact.com

This seems a very unconservative stance. It is more akin to an authoritariaan stance. I understan that 150 gops voted against protecting Gay marriage. The same number voted against rotecting inter racial marriage.

What sort of country would America become if these rights were over turned by your crazy Supreme Court.

because we find it disgusting.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No. That’s not what I mean.

In fact, I would expect SCOTUS to be on board with the idea of having the States handle such state law matters.

Which would remove the constitutional protections you just mentioned.

Nope. States are not Constitutionally permitted to treat their own citizens unequally. So again, no basis for Federal involvement.

 

[BackAgain]

If nobody cares if it is called marriage, why to go all the trouble to change the name?

I didn’t say nobody cares. What I have said is that iF the couple wants to call it a marriage, that’s fine. But to the extent marriage is a religious concept, then I’m all for getting the government out of it. Any couple who has the civil union (a state law matter of legal obligations and consequences) is perfectly free to get a religious marriage and call it a marriage.

My point on that latter matter is clear: what difference does it make to the government at that point? None of their business anyway.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

because we find it disgusting.

Who cares?

 

[BackAgain]

Which would remove the constitutional protections you just mentioned.

Not at all. You’re being obtuse.

Citizens within any one state get the same legal protections (or impediments) as every other citizens in that same state.

In NC, people can’t enjoy recreational marijuana. In NY, they can. No deprivation of equal protection.

 

[Concerned American]

And then go about changing 10s of thousands of documents

What era are you living in? You just don't have much grasp on the wonders of technology and the workings of government. I don't have time for your ignorance troll. Looks like you've hijacked another thread with irrelevance to the topic.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I didn’t say nobody cares. What I have said is that iF the couple wants to call it a marriage, that’s fine. But to the extent marriage is a religious concept, then I’m all for getting the government out of it. Any couple who has the civil union (a state law matter of legal obligations and consequences) is perfectly free to get a religious marriage and call it a marriage.

My point on that latter matter is clear: what difference does it make to the government at that point? None of their business anyway.

Is there such thing as a "religious marriage" in our country. I have never been to a church that considered two people married that did not have the certificate from the civil authorities.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

What era are you living in? You just don't have much grasp on the wonders of technology and the workings of government. I don't have time for your ignorance troll. Looks like you've hijacked another thread with irrelevance to the topic.

You think the Govt does not print their rules and regulations?

You are just ignorant of how the Govt operates

 

[Flopper]

Why not? It’s none of the government’s business except for certain related consequences. So if Joe wants to “marry” Jane, he’s free to do so. But as far as the state is concerned, the happy couple is bound by a simple civil contract.

Who cares if it’s called marriage? Maybe the couple. Maybe for religious reasons. Fine. Get married then. But for non religious secular purposes, the state just treats them as the parties to a contract with related legal consequences.

Whether they are married by a minister or a justice of peace, it is still a civil contract. There is no difference under law. There is simple no reason to make the change so you don't do. I serious doubt that any legislature would waste time considered it.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Not at all. You’re being obtuse.

Huh?
By overturning Obergafell, states can return to prohibiting same sex marriages.
There would be no constitutionally protected right, fool.

Hence the need to codify it.

 

[BackAgain]

Is there such thing as a "religious marriage" in our country. I have never been to a church that considered two people married that did not have the certificate from the civil authorities.

Irrelevant. Those who get the governmental contract permission slip (civil union) can then go to church or whatever and get married.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Irrelevant. Those who get the governmental contract permission slip (civil union) can then go to church or whatever and get married.

That’s already the case.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Irrelevant. Those who get the governmental contract permission slip (civil union) can then go to church or whatever and get married.

It is not irrelevant, why do churches require them if marriage is 100% religious?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It is not irrelevant, why do churches require them if marriage is 100% religious?

WTF?
Is this actually a grown man who doesn’t understand how marriage works?

 

[Flopper]

Is there such thing as a "religious marriage" in our country. I have never been to a church that considered two people married that did not have the certificate from the civil authorities.

There certain is a religious marriage and it has legal definition:
religious marriage means a marriage solemnized according to religious rites or usages;

religious marriage Definition | Law Insider

Sample Contracts and Business Agreements

www.lawinsider.com

and there's a civil marriage, a marriage performed by a magistrate

Definition of CIVIL MARRIAGE

a marriage performed by a magistrate… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[Harpy Eagle]

WTF?
Is this actually a grown man who doesn’t understand how marriage works?

They understand, but they have painted themselves into a corner and cannot get out now

 

[Harpy Eagle]

There certain is a religious marriage and it has legal definition:
religious marriage means a marriage solemnized according to religious rites or usages;

religious marriage Definition | Law Insider

Sample Contracts and Business Agreements

www.lawinsider.com

and there's a civil marriage, a marriage performed by a magistrate

Definition of CIVIL MARRIAGE

a marriage performed by a magistrate… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

That is very nice. But try and find a church that would hire a pastor that just had a "religious" marriage and no civil certificate.

 

[BackAgain]

Huh?
By overturning Obergafell, states can return to prohibiting same sex marriages.
There would be no constitutionally protected right, fool.

Hence the need to codify it.

There is ZERO federal jurisdiction over marriage which is a state law matter.

So, your concern is simply about gay marriage. While I truly don’t understand how it matters or should matter to any State, it’s the business of that State. Unless …

Unless you can point to some US Constitutional provision that commands that gays must have the same right to marry a member of their own sex, then it isn’t a Federally guaranteed right. I suppose that was what Justice Thomas was suggesting.

I don’t really agree with Justice Thomas on that one. But I have to admit I’m not able to identify any Constitutional provision on point.

 

[Concerned American]

That is very nice. But try and find a church that would hire a pastor that just had a "religious" marriage and no civil certificate.

Which by its very definition is a violation of the first amendment. Marriage licenses are no more than the government saying OK we'll give you legal rights and advantages. The real reason is more along the lines that they don't want you inbreds marrying your sister. Who knows, with the current amorality, I wouldn't be surprised if you leftists wanted to legalize that as well.