Attempts to Roll Back Marriage Equality since the Trump Election.

[Syriusly]

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..

Exact same logic- exact same Constitutional reasoning.

See the basic hypocrisy of your position is that you on the one hand try to argue that the Supreme Court has no authority to rule on the Constitutionality of a state marriage law- and on the other hand you try to argue "except when race is involved"

The Constitution doesn't apply the 14th Amendment based upon race- or on gender- or on sexual preference.

The equal protection rights of the 14th Amendment apply to the marriage rights of Americans- regardless of the race- or the gender- of the person that they want to marry.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

The 14th Amendment is explicit- the Equal protection applies to state laws.

Loving was okay to you because you agree with Loving- but not Obergefell- Constitutionally there is no difference.

 

[Coyote]

You are a fool to believe this nonsense. "Gay marriage" is here to stay - not because a majority of Americans want it - they don't - but because the workings of our court system make it impossible to turn back the clock. REGARDLESS OF ANYTHING ELSE, both the Federal Government and the states are required unambiguously by the Constitution to give "full faith and credit" to the legal acts of every other state. Therefore, as long as at least one state has "gay marriage" then the Feds and every other state are forced to recognize the institution, and it is pointless to fight it - you will ultimately, definitely lose.

As for discrimination against the [sexually fucked-up] community within the Federal government, it is, as a practical matter, not possible, and no Executive Order or memorandum can change that. And one might also point out that Our Exalted President has no animus whatsoever against the [sexually fucked-up] community, and has never shown any inclination to sign such a document.

Parenthetically and slightly to the contrary, the President and many people on his staff CLEARLY intend to nullify any regulations or executive orders that have the effect of compelling any private business to cater to the wishes of any potential customer whose public behavior is found morally repugnant - public behavior including, for example, getting married to someone of the same gender. And anyone feeling oppressed by this "seller's right" should be slapped and beaten about the head and shoulders until some sense returns to their empty, pathetic, sensitive little souls.

Actually, they do: Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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..

Exact same logic- exact same Constitutional reasoning.

See the basic hypocrisy of your position is that you on the one hand try to argue that the Supreme Court has no authority to rule on the Constitutionality of a state marriage law- and on the other hand you try to argue "except when race is involved"

The Constitution doesn't apply the 14th Amendment based upon race- or on gender- or on sexual preference.

The equal protection rights of the 14th Amendment apply to the marriage rights of Americans- regardless of the race- or the gender- of the person that they want to marry.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Silhouette]

The 14th Amendment is explicit- the Equal protection applies to state laws.

Loving was okay to you because you agree with Loving- but not Obergefell- Constitutionally there is no difference.

And...in the 7th circuit court of appeals, Hively v Ivy Tech found in 2016 that homosexuals are not covered in any anticipation under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. They concluded that an Act of Congress would have to be made to afford homosexuals Constitutional protections. That's the latest word from the courts.

 

[jillian]

Trump isn't a social conservative and it isn't on his radar. Y'all need to go calm the hens down.

it doesn't have to be on his radar.....all the orange sociopath has to do is appoint someone like his current nominee to the supreme court.

or do you not understand that?

 

[Silhouette]

I think this administration will have two or even three appointments to SCOTUS.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The 14th Amendment is explicit- the Equal protection applies to state laws.

Loving was okay to you because you agree with Loving- but not Obergefell- Constitutionally there is no difference.

And...in the 7th circuit court of appeals, Hively v Ivy Tech found in 2016 that homosexuals are not covered in any anticipation under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. They concluded that an Act of Congress would have to be made to afford homosexuals Constitutional protections. That's the latest word from the courts.

Obergefell was the latest word from the courts on marriage and that is what this is about Bubba


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Unkotare]

Trump is the first pro-gay marriage president elected in US history.

 

[Silhouette]

Obergefell was the latest word from the courts on marriage and that is what this is about Bubba


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The latest perhaps...but not the last. Children's main benefit of marriage will have its day in Court...Bubba..

 

[Silhouette]

Trump is the first pro-gay marriage president elected in US history.

But his SCOTUS picks won't be. Isn't that odd? Makes you wonder how truly pro-gay Trump is.

 

[Markle]

Not applicable. allowing two people of the same sex to marry is such a radical change to the concept of marriage, that it can not be considered constitutionally "equal".t.

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

Make up your mind.

According to the Constitution they are not.

Equal protection under the law is most certainly covered. You don't seem to understand much about constitutional law, but I already knew that about you.

Please tell me where marriage is mentioned in the Constitution. You know that people are denied the right to marry on a daily basis. The government does not satisfy rights by supplying marriage partners. Millions of people have to live without a partner no matter how desperately they want one.

Who is not entitled to marry in the US unless already married or not of age??

No one except direct relatives, incest.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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.

Not all children of gay parents. They are all dysfunctional but not monsters. The monsters are the chimeras cobbled together artificially with the dna of multiple parties.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.??

there were gays on his transition team.

Gays have the same rights to marry and to not be discriminated the same as other minorities.

Trump is about all americans, not special interest groups. Contact your state instead.

Gays have the right to marry but they still face discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations in many states and sexual orientation/gender identity is not protected at the federal level. We are not there yet. While Trump himself might not push to roll back LGBT rights, he is not going to move it forward either.

He has been busy in the last two weeks

Jobs, economy and medical reform take priority

LGBT rights will have to dealt with on a state level for the time being

He has been busy tweeting about stupid shit, disparaging the press , alienating allies, recruiting for IS , and fretting about 5m imaginary dead voters who all voted for Clinton.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wow! You just deflected from your own topic! Congrats!

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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.

That is why the law needs to be changed.

 

[Markle]

Gays don't want equality. They want specialiality with the right of veto over anything they don't like. What they don't like are people who refuse to live their own lives according to their own decisions.

Utter nonsense. They want the same right to marry the person they love, just like straight folks.

And why on Earth do you give a shit that they now have that same right?

i don't care. If they want to involve me in their lives then I care. They drag the baker, the photographer, the florist and others into their marriage. Keep it to yourself. A couple sued me, they didn't get away with it, but they tried to force me into painting a wedding portrait. I did not want to be dragged into their marriage and was able to successfully fend them off.

Leave people alone, then you will find your "rights" more easily defended.

People shouldn't be in a public accommodations business if they don't want to serve the public.

How do you square that with the First Amendment? Allow me to refresh your memory.

First amendment of the Constitution
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

 

[Markle]

There is ample evidence that they are in fact that are racists, homophobes, bigots, nativists, or whatever as are his associates and appointees therefor not at all libelous . Do you even have any understanding of who Steve Bannon is?

Is English your second language or did you have a few too many adult beverages? Do you even have a clue as to the meaning of this tiny word salad?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

A strict constitutional supreme Court will hopefully straighten out gay overreaching and instruct them that they do not control the world.

 

[Markle]

Trump is the first pro-gay marriage president elected in US history.

I don't believe President Donald Trump is "pro-gay marriage" or anti-gay marriage. He doesn't believe it is a Federal Matter and simply doesn't care. Far more important things to do. I agree.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

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.??

Bro..no man made law ever produces equality.