Attempts to Roll Back Marriage Equality since the Trump Election.

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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

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.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I simply refused to paint the portraits knowing they couldn't do anything. But if it was a bakery, or florist or photographer I would perform their service with the absolute worst customer service that the couple ever experienced. Ruining their event would be high on my list. They got their rights and that's all they got.

 

[aris2chat]

So now Liberals are creating stories to whine about? smh Pathetic.

Creating stories?? What story did I create. Is there something here that is not factual? Fake news?

All marriages are state matters. Feds don't issue the licenses, the states do.

>>Around the 1920’s, there was no such thing as a marriage license. The states invented them as a way to dictate who could and could not get married for the purpose of making sure blacks, whites, Asians and Indians didn’t mix.<<


Marriages were simply registered and you get a certificate, you did not need states permission to get married by applying for license.

Read the Constitution and read the Obergefell decision and get back to us!!

Full faith and credit ought to be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, of every other state; and the legislature shall, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings, shall be proved, and the effect which judgments, obtained in one state, shall have in another.



Obergefell v. Hodges. On June 26, 2015
5-4 decision that same-sex marriage is protected under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.(July 9, 1868)

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

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

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I simply refused to paint the portraits knowing they couldn't do anything. But if it was a bakery, or florist or photographer I would perform their service with the absolute worst customer service that the couple ever experienced. Ruining their event would be high on my list. They got their rights and that's all they got.

Sick!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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

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.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

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

 

[aris2chat]

And, kids have a right to have marriage..

No- actually kids don't have a right to marriage- which is why your kids ended up with divorced parents.

Americans have a right to marriage. Children hopefully will have parents who care about them- and yes- hopefully their parents will be allowed to marry.

You want to harm the children of gay parents by preventing their parents from marrying.

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 ...

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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

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.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

No- actually kids don't have a right to marriage- which is why your kids ended up with divorced parents.

Americans have a right to marriage. Children hopefully will have parents who care about them- and yes- hopefully their parents will be allowed to marry.

You want to harm the children of gay parents by preventing their parents from marrying.

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.

 

[Rob37]

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.

 

[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.

It's forcing it into the lives of the unwilling. Anyone should have the right to say no. Whatever decency normal people still have should be allowed to say no.

 

[Rob37]

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.

It's forcing it into the lives of the unwilling. Anyone should have the right to say no. Whatever decency normal people still have should be allowed to say no.

How is it being forced into your life? Because you have to see them on TV? You have to see homos holding hands and kissing? Aside from listening to leftist LGBT talking heads on the news and seeing some holding hands, they really do not affect me. Besides, the homos are only like 2-3% of the population. It doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Of course if you are Roman Catholic or involved in some of these backwoods baptist churches, then I get that you have an objection based upon your moral ideology. But even that is changing There are now women and gays serving as priests in the Episcopal Church. Nonetheless, if your objection to gay lifestyle is based upon religion, then ok... I get it, and I am not going to impugn you based upon your faith. But if your objection based upon something else then I am afraid that I do not get it.

 

[martybegan]

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.

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.

 

[martybegan]

Gasoline provision is a point of sale, fungible commodity, and considering travel is a protected right, the attendant and owner could be required to provide said product regardless of their feelings.

You keep forgetting that pesky first amendment, that guarantees free exercise of Religion.

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.

I would bake a cake for anyone, however unlike you, I don't feel the need to force my views on others, just "because"

Progressivism is all about force.

 

[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",

 

[martybegan]

That would require States to recognize licenses issued by other States, but issuing them can still be fought over.

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?

Oh Christ!! Seriously?? Are you really asking that ? Have you read the majority opinion in Obergefell or any of the lower court ruling that smacked down state bans on same sex marriage? Do you understand the concepts of equal protection under the law, due process and federal supremacy? Apparently not. I think we have been through this before, leading me to conclude that you have a learning disability , or worse.

Nothing but jiggery-pokery.

 

[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.

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.

 

[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:

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??

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:

Then we have this out of Arkansas.
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.

It's forcing it into the lives of the unwilling. Anyone should have the right to say no. Whatever decency normal people still have should be allowed to say no.

How is it being forced into your life? Because you have to see them on TV? You have to see homos holding hands and kissing? Aside from listening to leftist LGBT talking heads on the news and seeing some holding hands, they really do not affect me. Besides, the homos are only like 2-3% of the population. It doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Of course if you are Roman Catholic or involved in some of these backwoods baptist churches, then I get that you have an objection based upon your moral ideology. But even that is changing There are now women and gays serving as priests in the Episcopal Church. Nonetheless, if your objection to gay lifestyle is based upon religion, then ok... I get it, and I am not going to impugn you based upon your faith. But if your objection based upon something else then I am afraid that I do not get it.

I never mentioned religion or faith.