Attempts to Roll Back Marriage Equality since the Trump Election.

[EvilCat Breath]

While Trump himself has been pretty quiet on the subject of same sex marriage and LGBT rights in general, we know that he has surrounded himself with some of the most opprobrious bigots - both religious and those that are just far right-or alt right -ideologues and hate mongers.

There was the recent report - a resulted from a leak from the White House- that an executive order was being drafted to overturn Obamas EO prohibiting discrimination against Federal LGBT employees and contractors. If put in front of Trump, the lazy and incurious plutocrat might have mindlessly signed it. Fortunately, Jerod and Ivanka Kushner- two of the few rational and decent people on his inner circle interceded and it was quashed.

Nevertheless, the knowledge of the anti gay forces lurking in the White House, have , apparently ,emboldened ideological bigots and religious zealots across the country to take new aim at marriage equality.

There are at least three attempts in progress to do so. All have been launched since the election, and I can't help but to believe that they have been inspired and encouraged by the reactionary forces that have gained power and influence recently. No doubt that the prospect of tipping the balance of the Supreme Court is also a factor. Consider:

Tennessee Bill Would Undo Marriage Equality
A bill making its way through the Tennessee state legislature aims to roll back marriage equality in the Volunteer State. But LGBT advocates say the legislation is an unconstitutional attempt to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court.
Tennessee Republican Rep. Mark Pody, who claims God has called him to stop same-sex marriages, introduced House Bill 1412, the Tennessee Natural Marriage Defense Act, last September. At the same time, Sen. Mae Beavers, also a Republican, introduced companion legislation in the Senate.

This is really stupid and unconstitutional is light of the Obergefell ruling. What are these people thinking and do they not have anything better to do? Are there not some actual problems to address that they will spent time, money and energy on this??

As written, the bill seeks to declare it "the policy of Tennessee to defend natural marriage between one man and one woman regardless of any court decision to the contrary." It requires state officials, including the attorney general, to "defend any state or local government official from any lawsuit" arising from an official's refusal to marry a same-sex couple. The bill also seeks to prevent state and local agencies from implementing any punishment for those violating the Supreme Court's June 2015 ruling that mandated legal marriage equality nationwide.

They cannot possibly get away with this unless they can get Obergefell and Windsor overturned, and that is not happening. Similarly, the City of Houston is trying to undermine the right of same sex partners of city employees to recieve spousal benefits, also in violation of Obergefell:

Amid GOP Pressure, Texas High Court to Hear Challenge to Spousal Benefits

The Texas Supreme Court Friday agreed to hear a case challenging some of the rights gained with marriage equality.
The case involves whether the city of Houston is obligated to provide benefits to same-sex spouses of city employees, The Dallas Morning News reports. In September the high court had declined to hear the case, but justices reversed that decision amid pressure from top Republican state officials, including Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, and Attorney General Ken Paxton.

Then we have this out of Arkansas.

Seriously, Arkansas? Even Trump Knows Same-Sex Marriage Is Done Deal
Guys, you aren’t actually going to even believe this. There are still people trying to get rid of same-sex marriage. If you’re all, “didn’t we already fight about this a long time ago?” you’d be right. Except that news apparently hasn’t hit Arkansas just yet. One of its esteemed legislators just filed a Senate Joint Resolution requesting the United States Congress to start working on a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as the “union of one man and one woman.” How positively late-90s of him.

Yes, it is unlikely to go anywhere, and even congressional Republicans know that it is unpopular and a colossal waste of time. However, the point is, as I have said, that there has been a flurry of this type of activity since the election. Does anyone deny the obvious connection given that fact that no such attempts to roll back marriage equality in the 18 months or so since the Obergefell ruling were introduced until now.??

Quiet ? Trump made himself clear on the subject awhile back. He stated that the issue had already been decided by the SC it was a done deal. But for me marriage is a state level issue not something the Fed should be involved in at all.

Marriage is a done deal. Now how many lives can the happy couple destroy by dragging the unwilling into their personal lives?

I agree that the gay lifestyle is gross, but that is just my opinion. Perhaps we should not force our lifestyle on them like they should not force their's on us. That being said, I really don't feel like I am having the gays forcing their lifestyle on me or my family. Do I have to see gays hold hands and kiss in public? Unfortunately, yes. It makes me ill. But I just cringe and go on about my business. In reality, the existence of gays doing whatever does not affect my life in any way whatsoever.

For a brief time I opposed gay marriage because I did not want them in our health and life insurance risk pools because I thought it may drive up premiums. This was, of course, prior to the ACA. But then I figured we would be paying for their AIDS treatments one way or another, so why not just go ahead and afford them the same benefits and dignity enjoyed by everyone else? There is no reason to not do this, and the equal protection jurisprudence pretty much compels legal equality to gays.

Society and culture evolves and changes. You just have to accept it and move forward. You don't have to like it, but you pretty much got to accept it.

Thank you! Now you are beginning to sound reasonable. I will add that being able to marry and to be free of discrimination that causes stress and financial hardship, the are likely to lower rates of STD and other health problems.

There is no right to dessert made by one specific person. Neither is there a right to your floral arrangement made by one specific person. Neither causes financial hardship.

 

[Syriusly]

Even if the state is compelled to recognize a same sex marriage individuals are not bound by such compulsions. An individual is still free to refuse to recognize such marriage and refuse to attend such ceremony. That is just as deserving of protection.

And every individual is absolutely free to do so.

But a business still has to follow business law.

Not if the business law is unconstitutional, or is applied in an unconstitutional way.

You keep going with "appeal to authority",

A business is obligated to comply with the law- if it doesn't it will face the legal consequences of hits actions.

Of course a business has the right to pursue the constitutional question in court- just as gay couples did.

And if a business wins, then they will be vindicated, just as the gay couples who won their right to legal marriage.

 

[martybegan]

Even if the state is compelled to recognize a same sex marriage individuals are not bound by such compulsions. An individual is still free to refuse to recognize such marriage and refuse to attend such ceremony. That is just as deserving of protection.

And every individual is absolutely free to do so.

But a business still has to follow business law.

Not if the business law is unconstitutional, or is applied in an unconstitutional way.

You keep going with "appeal to authority",

A business is obligated to comply with the law- if it doesn't it will face the legal consequences of hits actions.

Of course a business has the right to pursue the constitutional question in court- just as gay couples did.

And if a business wins, then they will be vindicated, just as the gay couples who won their right to legal marriage.

Again arguing the how and not the why.

The were the wrong venue for getting SSM accepted, it was just the easy route, and today's progressives prefer the easy "force them" route over the harder "convince them" route.

 

[Syriusly]

While Trump himself has been pretty quiet on the subject of same sex marriage and LGBT rights in general, we know that he has surrounded himself with some of the most opprobrious bigots - both religious and those that are just far right-or alt right -ideologues and hate mongers.

There was the recent report - a resulted from a leak from the White House- that an executive order was being drafted to overturn Obamas EO prohibiting discrimination against Federal LGBT employees and contractors. If put in front of Trump, the lazy and incurious plutocrat might have mindlessly signed it. Fortunately, Jerod and Ivanka Kushner- two of the few rational and decent people on his inner circle interceded and it was quashed.

Nevertheless, the knowledge of the anti gay forces lurking in the White House, have , apparently ,emboldened ideological bigots and religious zealots across the country to take new aim at marriage equality.

There are at least three attempts in progress to do so. All have been launched since the election, and I can't help but to believe that they have been inspired and encouraged by the reactionary forces that have gained power and influence recently. No doubt that the prospect of tipping the balance of the Supreme Court is also a factor. Consider:

Tennessee Bill Would Undo Marriage Equality
A bill making its way through the Tennessee state legislature aims to roll back marriage equality in the Volunteer State. But LGBT advocates say the legislation is an unconstitutional attempt to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court.
Tennessee Republican Rep. Mark Pody, who claims God has called him to stop same-sex marriages, introduced House Bill 1412, the Tennessee Natural Marriage Defense Act, last September. At the same time, Sen. Mae Beavers, also a Republican, introduced companion legislation in the Senate.

This is really stupid and unconstitutional is light of the Obergefell ruling. What are these people thinking and do they not have anything better to do? Are there not some actual problems to address that they will spent time, money and energy on this??

As written, the bill seeks to declare it "the policy of Tennessee to defend natural marriage between one man and one woman regardless of any court decision to the contrary." It requires state officials, including the attorney general, to "defend any state or local government official from any lawsuit" arising from an official's refusal to marry a same-sex couple. The bill also seeks to prevent state and local agencies from implementing any punishment for those violating the Supreme Court's June 2015 ruling that mandated legal marriage equality nationwide.

They cannot possibly get away with this unless they can get Obergefell and Windsor overturned, and that is not happening. Similarly, the City of Houston is trying to undermine the right of same sex partners of city employees to recieve spousal benefits, also in violation of Obergefell:

Amid GOP Pressure, Texas High Court to Hear Challenge to Spousal Benefits

The Texas Supreme Court Friday agreed to hear a case challenging some of the rights gained with marriage equality.
The case involves whether the city of Houston is obligated to provide benefits to same-sex spouses of city employees, The Dallas Morning News reports. In September the high court had declined to hear the case, but justices reversed that decision amid pressure from top Republican state officials, including Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, and Attorney General Ken Paxton.

Then we have this out of Arkansas.

Seriously, Arkansas? Even Trump Knows Same-Sex Marriage Is Done Deal
Guys, you aren’t actually going to even believe this. There are still people trying to get rid of same-sex marriage. If you’re all, “didn’t we already fight about this a long time ago?” you’d be right. Except that news apparently hasn’t hit Arkansas just yet. One of its esteemed legislators just filed a Senate Joint Resolution requesting the United States Congress to start working on a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as the “union of one man and one woman.” How positively late-90s of him.

Yes, it is unlikely to go anywhere, and even congressional Republicans know that it is unpopular and a colossal waste of time. However, the point is, as I have said, that there has been a flurry of this type of activity since the election. Does anyone deny the obvious connection given that fact that no such attempts to roll back marriage equality in the 18 months or so since the Obergefell ruling were introduced until now.??

Quiet ? Trump made himself clear on the subject awhile back. He stated that the issue had already been decided by the SC it was a done deal. But for me marriage is a state level issue not something the Fed should be involved in at all.

Marriage is a done deal. Now how many lives can the happy couple destroy by dragging the unwilling into their personal lives?

Ah the question about every marriage.

LOL

 

[Syriusly]

Even if the state is compelled to recognize a same sex marriage individuals are not bound by such compulsions. An individual is still free to refuse to recognize such marriage and refuse to attend such ceremony. That is just as deserving of protection.

And every individual is absolutely free to do so.

But a business still has to follow business law.

Not if the business law is unconstitutional, or is applied in an unconstitutional way.

You keep going with "appeal to authority",

A business is obligated to comply with the law- if it doesn't it will face the legal consequences of hits actions.

Of course a business has the right to pursue the constitutional question in court- just as gay couples did.

And if a business wins, then they will be vindicated, just as the gay couples who won their right to legal marriage.

Again arguing the how and not the why.

The were the wrong venue for getting SSM accepted, it was just the easy route, and today's progressives prefer the easy "force them" route over the harder "convince them" route.

They are exactly the same 'right venue' as the business has recourse to.

The Loving's didn't take the 'easy route' when they went to court to demand their right to legal marriage, and neither did the gay couples who were denied their rights to legal marriage.

Today's conservatives prefer to pass legislation to deny people their rights- and then whine when the courts point out that they are unconstitutional laws.

Unless they are gun control laws of course- Conservatives are happy to take the 'easy route' when it comes to challenging gun control laws passed by states.

 

[Syriusly]

You keep forgetting that Christians still have to follow the law and don't get a special exemption.

Yes- that meant that Christian business owners couldn't deny gas to blacks by claiming that their religion didn't allow them to associate with blacks.

They would have a much harder time proving their harm is greater than the harm done to a person trying to fuel their vehicle, considering providing gasoline is hard to consider as a sinful act, or condoning anything.

Making a contracted cake for a ceremony celebrating something one finds sinful can be construed as blocking free exercise, and considering they are plenty of other bakers available, the person's religious rights in this case supersede someone else's "right" to buy a cake.

They don't have to prove that their harm is 'greater'- the law doesn't care which harm is greater- only that there is harm.

Serving gas to a person of another race, if the server believes that doing business with someone of another race is sinful could be construed as blocking free exercise- but it isn't.

But I do fully support the rights of the business owners to pursue changing the law- just like gay couples denied their marriage rights, they can go to court and claim that their rights are being violated.

And if they win, then the state law will be overturned- just like the unconstitutional anti-gay marriage laws.

Denying SSM at the State level was never unconstitutional, it was un-asshole-progressive-un-elected-lawyers-stitutional.

And yes, when you make a law ruin someone and fine them $143k, there had better be some actual harm, not butt hurt.

You progressives really are a bunch of wussies.

OH NOES!!! THEY MADE ME FEEL BAD! RUIN THEM!!!!

And then you throw in your asshole need to let government do your dirty work.

LOL- you Conservative wusses were so scared of 'gay marriage' you went around passing new laws in state after state to ensure that gays were denied the right to marriage.

Then you delicate snowflakes whine because the law requires Christians to follow the same law as everyone else.

Complaining that your delicate feelings were hurt if the law said you had to bake a cake for blacks and Jews and oh yes- gays.

I actually supported the legislative move in NY to allow for SSM. That's the right way to do it, not via flimsy court actions and activist judges..

'activist' judges- you mean like the judges which overturned Virginia's ban on mixed race marriages?

States control marriage law- but those laws must be constitutional.

Obergefell is the fourth time the Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws or rules because they violated American's right to marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

Either marriage laws are covered by the constitution or they are not.

Make up your mind.

In the case of loving, it was about extra conditions being applied to the marriage contract, mostly on the books either before the civil war in the slave codes, or after reconstruction under Jim Crow. Marriages between races, while uncommon were accepted in many locations, word wide. The same cannot be said of SSM, which is a phenomenon of the past few decades with no precedent.

Thus such a radical change should be implemented by the State legislatures, which have constitutional authority over it. Using the Courts is a perversion of constitutional process in this case, not so in Loving.

So just to be clear- you now agree that marriage is covered by the Constitution.

Equal protection is, Marriage isn't. Where we disagree is if SSM is considered equal to OSM via judicial action.
.

Well its a good thing then that Obergefell was based on Equal Protection.

The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection

Of course Obergefell also goes into detail as to the Constitutional right to marriage

Applying these tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution. For example, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, invalidated bans on interracial unions, and Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78, held that prisoners could not be denied the right to marry.

Just more jiggery pokery justification by 5 of 9 unelected lawyers that corrupt the constitution as a whole.

What you call jiggery pokery is the Supreme Court in action- Supreme Court justices appointed and approved as per our Constitution, ruling on the Constitution.

Shame you don't appreciate our Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

Curious how homosexual parents HAVE children.

They don't. They have taken them from someone else.

Well if women opted for abortions instead of carrying for full term only to give their babies up for adoption, there would be no babies for gays to take.

Most gays pay someone, a surrogate to have children from them. They are trying to create chimera children too. Little monsters to satisfy themselves as they hump those kids as soon as they get big enough.

Gay Couple Makes Medical History, Welcomes Triplets Born with Both ...
www.towleroad.com/2016/08/triplets/
Aug 24, 2016 - A gay couple who just had triplets have made medical history. ... No baby has both father's DNA; among the three of them, bothfathers are ...
Gay Men Could Have Babies Together with Both Men's DNA ...
www.towleroad.com/2016/09/gay-men-babies/
Sep 14, 2016 - This could open up the possibility for gay men, older women or infertile couples to have children with both parents' DNA. The research was ...
Same-Sex Couples Could Have Babies With Genes From Both ...
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/12/18/fertility-treatment-ivg_n_8836470.html
Dec 18, 2015 - Same-sex couples may one day be able to have babies who are ... IVG could allow babies to be born with 50% of their DNA from each partner ...

Yes. Chimeras. Little monsters. I knew that already.

Yes- another right wing nut job who thinks that the children of gay couples are monsters.

Next you will be demanding that they all be aborted.......

 

[Syriusly]

I told you troll, get out of my face. Telling the truth is not hate speech.

. Trump supporters are not racists, homophobes, bigots, nativists, or whatever else you deem fit to call them.

Some are racists, homophobes, bigots, nativists and other things.

Most probably aren't.

But you certainly can't deny that some are.

Not if you ever read any post by Steve McGarret here at USMB.

Sure, some are. And some Dems are dangerous too. I get that.

Well if women opted for abortions instead of carrying for full term only to give their babies up for adoption, there would be no babies for gays to take.

Most gays pay someone, a surrogate to have children from them. They are trying to create chimera children too. Little monsters to satisfy themselves as they hump those kids as soon as they get big enough.

There are more religious Christians humping little kids than there are gays doing that. Perhaps we should ban Christianity too then, huh?

No one wants to ban gays. Just their power to drag the unwilling into their personal sex lives.

How many times have you been dragged into having gay sex?

You realize at a certain point if you aren't saying no, that speaks for itself.

I can't have gay sex. I don't want to be involved in the personal lives of gays. I don't want to go to weddings, go to homes, have them inflict their children on any child I'm responsible for. .

Sure you 'could' have gay sex- lesbians have sex all the time.

I want to point out that once again you are labeling the children of gays as some kinds of monsters that would be harmful to a child you are responsible for.

Why are you so scared of such children? Or do you just hate them because their parents are gay?

 

[Syriusly]

Some are racists, homophobes, bigots, nativists and other things.

Most probably aren't.

But you certainly can't deny that some are.

Not if you ever read any post by Steve McGarret here at USMB.

Sure, some are. And some Dems are dangerous too. I get that.

There are more religious Christians humping little kids than there are gays doing that. Perhaps we should ban Christianity too then, huh?

No one wants to ban gays. Just their power to drag the unwilling into their personal sex lives.

How many times have you been dragged into having gay sex?

You realize at a certain point if you aren't saying no, that speaks for itself.

I can't have gay sex. I don't want to be involved in the personal lives of gays. I don't want to go to weddings, go to homes, have them inflict their children on any child I'm responsible for.

Unfortunately there are people that gays can browbeat. That should stop. Let them stay with their friendlies. Why bother others.

It's all the same if you close your eyes.

I don't like sex at all. .

That explains soooooooooooooooooooooooo many things about your posts.

 

[Syriusly]

That would be a rather quixotic battle- if Georgia has to recognize Massachusetts marriages, then if Georgia residents would just go to Mass to get married.

Inconvenient for Georgian citizens but Georgia would still have to recognize gay marriages.

The essence of compromise is everyone being disappointed in the end result. Georgia has to recognize out of state marriages as always, but controls who it issues them to.

Georgian SSM opponents are butthurt they have to recognize out of state SSM's, Pro SSM georigans are butthurt that gay georgians would have to travel to get married.

And the constitution is respected overall.

The constitution is already respected.

Georgian couples can get married in Georgia.

Where does the federal constitution say marriage laws are covered by the feds?

Marriage licences are issued by the states. If the couple want a religious or formal marriage, that is up to them.

A priest, a judge, a notary or a neighbor who has filed to officiate can marry a couple.

Does A, Does B, sign on the line, have a good life

keep your monster children away from others

Why does Tipsy think that the children of gay couples are 'monster children'?

She is a really sick bitch.

 

[Syriusly]

Oh please. People have lost their business, their homes. Yes they have been destroyed over a gay snit.

Anyone's lives who have been destroyed were 'destroyed' because of their own personal snits.

 

[Syriusly]

For being bigots and invoking a bastardized version of religious liberty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They shouldn't have to use religious liberty. I don't want to should be more than sufficient.

In the privacy of their homes yes. In a place of public accommodation, NO!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You finally agree with me.

I think you misunderstood or maybe I was not clear. In public accommodation there is no excuse for discrimination on religious or any other grounds.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes. Fully agree. Anyone who walks into that bakery gets to buy all the cup cakes they want.

Dragging someone out of that business into their wedding is where the line is drawn.

Nobody from that business is required to go to any wedding- unless of course that business delivers to weddings- if they deliver to weddings then they are required to follow the law- and not discriminate just because the wedding couple is black or Jewish or gay.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

While Trump himself has been pretty quiet on the subject of same sex marriage and LGBT rights in general, we know that he has surrounded himself with some of the most opprobrious bigots - both religious and those that are just far right-or alt right -ideologues and hate mongers.

There was the recent report - a resulted from a leak from the White House- that an executive order was being drafted to overturn Obamas EO prohibiting discrimination against Federal LGBT employees and contractors. If put in front of Trump, the lazy and incurious plutocrat might have mindlessly signed it. Fortunately, Jerod and Ivanka Kushner- two of the few rational and decent people on his inner circle interceded and it was quashed.

Nevertheless, the knowledge of the anti gay forces lurking in the White House, have , apparently ,emboldened ideological bigots and religious zealots across the country to take new aim at marriage equality.

There are at least three attempts in progress to do so. All have been launched since the election, and I can't help but to believe that they have been inspired and encouraged by the reactionary forces that have gained power and influence recently. No doubt that the prospect of tipping the balance of the Supreme Court is also a factor. Consider:

Tennessee Bill Would Undo Marriage Equality
A bill making its way through the Tennessee state legislature aims to roll back marriage equality in the Volunteer State. But LGBT advocates say the legislation is an unconstitutional attempt to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court.
Tennessee Republican Rep. Mark Pody, who claims God has called him to stop same-sex marriages, introduced House Bill 1412, the Tennessee Natural Marriage Defense Act, last September. At the same time, Sen. Mae Beavers, also a Republican, introduced companion legislation in the Senate.

This is really stupid and unconstitutional is light of the Obergefell ruling. What are these people thinking and do they not have anything better to do? Are there not some actual problems to address that they will spent time, money and energy on this??

As written, the bill seeks to declare it "the policy of Tennessee to defend natural marriage between one man and one woman regardless of any court decision to the contrary." It requires state officials, including the attorney general, to "defend any state or local government official from any lawsuit" arising from an official's refusal to marry a same-sex couple. The bill also seeks to prevent state and local agencies from implementing any punishment for those violating the Supreme Court's June 2015 ruling that mandated legal marriage equality nationwide.

They cannot possibly get away with this unless they can get Obergefell and Windsor overturned, and that is not happening. Similarly, the City of Houston is trying to undermine the right of same sex partners of city employees to recieve spousal benefits, also in violation of Obergefell:

Amid GOP Pressure, Texas High Court to Hear Challenge to Spousal Benefits

The Texas Supreme Court Friday agreed to hear a case challenging some of the rights gained with marriage equality.
The case involves whether the city of Houston is obligated to provide benefits to same-sex spouses of city employees, The Dallas Morning News reports. In September the high court had declined to hear the case, but justices reversed that decision amid pressure from top Republican state officials, including Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, and Attorney General Ken Paxton.

Then we have this out of Arkansas.

Seriously, Arkansas? Even Trump Knows Same-Sex Marriage Is Done Deal
Guys, you aren’t actually going to even believe this. There are still people trying to get rid of same-sex marriage. If you’re all, “didn’t we already fight about this a long time ago?” you’d be right. Except that news apparently hasn’t hit Arkansas just yet. One of its esteemed legislators just filed a Senate Joint Resolution requesting the United States Congress to start working on a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as the “union of one man and one woman.” How positively late-90s of him.

Yes, it is unlikely to go anywhere, and even congressional Republicans know that it is unpopular and a colossal waste of time. However, the point is, as I have said, that there has been a flurry of this type of activity since the election. Does anyone deny the obvious connection given that fact that no such attempts to roll back marriage equality in the 18 months or so since the Obergefell ruling were introduced until now.??

Quiet ? Trump made himself clear on the subject awhile back. He stated that the issue had already been decided by the SC it was a done deal. But for me marriage is a state level issue not something the Fed should be involved in at all.

So it would follow that you are also opposed Loving v. Virginia??

 

[martybegan]

Even if the state is compelled to recognize a same sex marriage individuals are not bound by such compulsions. An individual is still free to refuse to recognize such marriage and refuse to attend such ceremony. That is just as deserving of protection.

And every individual is absolutely free to do so.

But a business still has to follow business law.

Not if the business law is unconstitutional, or is applied in an unconstitutional way.

You keep going with "appeal to authority",

A business is obligated to comply with the law- if it doesn't it will face the legal consequences of hits actions.

Of course a business has the right to pursue the constitutional question in court- just as gay couples did.

And if a business wins, then they will be vindicated, just as the gay couples who won their right to legal marriage.

Again arguing the how and not the why.

The were the wrong venue for getting SSM accepted, it was just the easy route, and today's progressives prefer the easy "force them" route over the harder "convince them" route.

They are exactly the same 'right venue' as the business has recourse to.

The Loving's didn't take the 'easy route' when they went to court to demand their right to legal marriage, and neither did the gay couples who were denied their rights to legal marriage.

Today's conservatives prefer to pass legislation to deny people their rights- and then whine when the courts point out that they are unconstitutional laws.

Unless they are gun control laws of course- Conservatives are happy to take the 'easy route' when it comes to challenging gun control laws passed by states.

The 2nd amendment is explicit. All of the stuff progressives want require jiggery pokery, and hack justices.

Loving was OK because race is a far lesser differential than sex is when it came to the traditional concept of marriage. Inter-racial marriages have been allowed, and banned, and allowed again for centuries in various countries. Until the past 20 years or so no one even thought of two people of the same sex getting married, which makes it such a radical change that it should be handled by the proper constitutional parties, the State legislatures.

 

[martybegan]

They would have a much harder time proving their harm is greater than the harm done to a person trying to fuel their vehicle, considering providing gasoline is hard to consider as a sinful act, or condoning anything.

Making a contracted cake for a ceremony celebrating something one finds sinful can be construed as blocking free exercise, and considering they are plenty of other bakers available, the person's religious rights in this case supersede someone else's "right" to buy a cake.

They don't have to prove that their harm is 'greater'- the law doesn't care which harm is greater- only that there is harm.

Serving gas to a person of another race, if the server believes that doing business with someone of another race is sinful could be construed as blocking free exercise- but it isn't.

But I do fully support the rights of the business owners to pursue changing the law- just like gay couples denied their marriage rights, they can go to court and claim that their rights are being violated.

And if they win, then the state law will be overturned- just like the unconstitutional anti-gay marriage laws.

Denying SSM at the State level was never unconstitutional, it was un-asshole-progressive-un-elected-lawyers-stitutional.

And yes, when you make a law ruin someone and fine them $143k, there had better be some actual harm, not butt hurt.

You progressives really are a bunch of wussies.

OH NOES!!! THEY MADE ME FEEL BAD! RUIN THEM!!!!

And then you throw in your asshole need to let government do your dirty work.

LOL- you Conservative wusses were so scared of 'gay marriage' you went around passing new laws in state after state to ensure that gays were denied the right to marriage.

Then you delicate snowflakes whine because the law requires Christians to follow the same law as everyone else.

Complaining that your delicate feelings were hurt if the law said you had to bake a cake for blacks and Jews and oh yes- gays.

I actually supported the legislative move in NY to allow for SSM. That's the right way to do it, not via flimsy court actions and activist judges..

'activist' judges- you mean like the judges which overturned Virginia's ban on mixed race marriages?

States control marriage law- but those laws must be constitutional.

Obergefell is the fourth time the Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws or rules because they violated American's right to marriage.

Saying you can't restrict marriages based on race, something that has been on and off legal/illegal for centuries in various jurisdictions, and saying that you have to allow SSM when the concept is less than 2 decades old are two radically different things.

Obergfell is the only one that crossed the line.

 

[martybegan]

In the case of loving, it was about extra conditions being applied to the marriage contract, mostly on the books either before the civil war in the slave codes, or after reconstruction under Jim Crow. Marriages between races, while uncommon were accepted in many locations, word wide. The same cannot be said of SSM, which is a phenomenon of the past few decades with no precedent.

Thus such a radical change should be implemented by the State legislatures, which have constitutional authority over it. Using the Courts is a perversion of constitutional process in this case, not so in Loving.

So just to be clear- you now agree that marriage is covered by the Constitution.

Equal protection is, Marriage isn't. Where we disagree is if SSM is considered equal to OSM via judicial action.
.

Well its a good thing then that Obergefell was based on Equal Protection.

The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection

Of course Obergefell also goes into detail as to the Constitutional right to marriage

Applying these tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution. For example, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, invalidated bans on interracial unions, and Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78, held that prisoners could not be denied the right to marry.

Just more jiggery pokery justification by 5 of 9 unelected lawyers that corrupt the constitution as a whole.

What you call jiggery pokery is the Supreme Court in action- Supreme Court justices appointed and approved as per our Constitution, ruling on the Constitution.

Shame you don't appreciate our Constitution.

The progressive wing of the SC and all the other courts haven't been following the constitution for decades. They feel what they want, then slap together some bullshit reason that it is "constitutional"

 

[EvilCat Breath]

They don't. They have taken them from someone else.

Well if women opted for abortions instead of carrying for full term only to give their babies up for adoption, there would be no babies for gays to take.

Most gays pay someone, a surrogate to have children from them. They are trying to create chimera children too. Little monsters to satisfy themselves as they hump those kids as soon as they get big enough.

Gay Couple Makes Medical History, Welcomes Triplets Born with Both ...
www.towleroad.com/2016/08/triplets/
Aug 24, 2016 - A gay couple who just had triplets have made medical history. ... No baby has both father's DNA; among the three of them, bothfathers are ...
Gay Men Could Have Babies Together with Both Men's DNA ...
www.towleroad.com/2016/09/gay-men-babies/
Sep 14, 2016 - This could open up the possibility for gay men, older women or infertile couples to have children with both parents' DNA. The research was ...
Same-Sex Couples Could Have Babies With Genes From Both ...
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/12/18/fertility-treatment-ivg_n_8836470.html
Dec 18, 2015 - Same-sex couples may one day be able to have babies who are ... IVG could allow babies to be born with 50% of their DNA from each partner ...

Yes. Chimeras. Little monsters. I knew that already.

Yes- another right wing nut job who thinks that the children of gay couples are monsters.

Next you will be demanding that they all be aborted.......

Well if these children are cobbled together by manipulating dna, they are monsters. Abortion should never enter into the discussion. These monsters are deliberately fashioned in laboratories much like the Frankenstein monster was created. They should never be made and the men and women making such monstrosities imprisoned and never allowed to enter a laboratory ever again.

 

[Syriusly]

Well if women opted for abortions instead of carrying for full term only to give their babies up for adoption, there would be no babies for gays to take.

Most gays pay someone, a surrogate to have children from them. They are trying to create chimera children too. Little monsters to satisfy themselves as they hump those kids as soon as they get big enough.

Gay Couple Makes Medical History, Welcomes Triplets Born with Both ...
www.towleroad.com/2016/08/triplets/
Aug 24, 2016 - A gay couple who just had triplets have made medical history. ... No baby has both father's DNA; among the three of them, bothfathers are ...
Gay Men Could Have Babies Together with Both Men's DNA ...
www.towleroad.com/2016/09/gay-men-babies/
Sep 14, 2016 - This could open up the possibility for gay men, older women or infertile couples to have children with both parents' DNA. The research was ...
Same-Sex Couples Could Have Babies With Genes From Both ...
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/12/18/fertility-treatment-ivg_n_8836470.html
Dec 18, 2015 - Same-sex couples may one day be able to have babies who are ... IVG could allow babies to be born with 50% of their DNA from each partner ...

Yes. Chimeras. Little monsters. I knew that already.

Yes- another right wing nut job who thinks that the children of gay couples are monsters.

Next you will be demanding that they all be aborted.......

Well if these children are cobbled together by manipulating dna, they are monsters. .

Yes- another right wing nut job who calls the children of gay couples- monsters.

What kind of sick bitch calls babies 'monsters'?

Tipsy.

 

[Syriusly]

So just to be clear- you now agree that marriage is covered by the Constitution.

Equal protection is, Marriage isn't. Where we disagree is if SSM is considered equal to OSM via judicial action.
.

Well its a good thing then that Obergefell was based on Equal Protection.

The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection

Of course Obergefell also goes into detail as to the Constitutional right to marriage

Applying these tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution. For example, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, invalidated bans on interracial unions, and Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78, held that prisoners could not be denied the right to marry.

Just more jiggery pokery justification by 5 of 9 unelected lawyers that corrupt the constitution as a whole.

What you call jiggery pokery is the Supreme Court in action- Supreme Court justices appointed and approved as per our Constitution, ruling on the Constitution.

Shame you don't appreciate our Constitution.

The progressive wing of the SC and all the other courts haven't been following the constitution for decades. They feel what they want, then slap together some bullshit reason that it is "constitutional"

That is what the butt hurt snowflake right wing nut jobs keep saying.

It must be a burden to be pissed of for the last 50 years that the courts ruled that state bans on inter-racial marriages were unconstitutional.