Florida Counties End Courthouse Weddings To Avoid Performing Gay Marriage Ceramonies (Great Idea!)

[WorldWatcher]

Or the gays are forcing marriage on others, when they could've agreed on a civil union.

I doubt it was homosexuals in Florida that passed a State Constitutional Amendment that banned BOTH Civil Marriage and Civil Unions. It was anti-equality movements that ensured Civil Unions weren't an option when they were passing such bans and included language to exclude Civil Unions.

Florida Constitution: "SECTION 27. Marriage defined.—Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."


>>>>

 

[rightwinger]

Or the gays are forcing marriage on others, when they could've agreed on a civil union.

I doubt it was homosexuals in Florida that passed a State Constitutional Amendment that banned BOTH Civil Marriage and Civil Unions. It was anti-equality movements that ensured Civil Unions weren't an option when they were passing such bans and included language to exclude Civil Unions.

Florida Constitution: "SECTION 27. Marriage defined.—Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."


>>>>

Legislation based on hate

 

[PGreen]

If one is opposed to legalizing gay marriage, it is automatically assumed that the opposition rests on a basis of hate, homophobia, or other such negative motivations. But it's wrong! There are, in fact, legitimate, substantive reasons as to why gay marriage should not be legalized. Everyone knows it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If one is opposed to legalizing gay marriage, it is automatically assumed that the opposition rests on a basis of hate, homophobia, or other such negative motivations. But it's wrong! There are, in fact, legitimate, substantive reasons as to why gay marriage should not be legalized. Everyone knows it.

OK here is your shot.

A legal analysis of equal protection is based on comparing two like situated individuals (or in this case couples) and the government has the responsibility to articulate an compelling government reason as to why discriminatory actions against one individual (or group) is warranted for dissimilar treatment.

So please articulate a compelling government reason that applies uniquely to one individual (or in this case couple) that warrants exclusion that does not apply to the other individual (or in this case couple) which is included. So please explain the compelling government interest in why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adult same-sex couples should be excluded from Civil Marriage when law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adult same-sex couples are not excluded from Civil Marriage.

Thank you.


>>>>

 

[rightwinger]

If one is opposed to legalizing gay marriage, it is automatically assumed that the opposition rests on a basis of hate, homophobia, or other such negative motivations. But it's wrong! There are, in fact, legitimate, substantive reasons as to why gay marriage should not be legalized. Everyone knows it.

There are no reasons why an agent of the government should be allowed to use their personal biases and hatreds to interfere with the rights of the citizens

 

[Katzndogz]

The clerks acted honestly in accordance with their principles. Gays wanted equality. Now they have equality. It isn't a snide or hateful move. It is the only move that could be made. It is a move of compromise. I know gays are never willing to compromise. They must be forced to it.

Their hatred of gays is so strong that they are willing to punish the 95% who are not gay by denying a basic public service

Some principle

No one has been denied a public service.

 

[rightwinger]

The clerks acted honestly in accordance with their principles. Gays wanted equality. Now they have equality. It isn't a snide or hateful move. It is the only move that could be made. It is a move of compromise. I know gays are never willing to compromise. They must be forced to it.

Their hatred of gays is so strong that they are willing to punish the 95% who are not gay by denying a basic public service

Some principle

No one has been denied a public service.

Access to your own courthouse for the performance of marriage

 

[Katzndogz]

The clerks acted honestly in accordance with their principles. Gays wanted equality. Now they have equality. It isn't a snide or hateful move. It is the only move that could be made. It is a move of compromise. I know gays are never willing to compromise. They must be forced to it.

Their hatred of gays is so strong that they are willing to punish the 95% who are not gay by denying a basic public service

Some principle

No one has been denied a public service.

Access to your own courthouse for the performance of marriage

That's not a right. The right if it exists at all would be the right to marry. Not the right of a venue of your choice. The function of the courthouse is the administration of justice. There are no accommodations for weddings. There is no right to get married in a courthouse. There's a right to access the judicial system. Getting married isn't part of the judicial system. They can get married someplace else. The regulation is not discriminatory. It does not unfairly burden a protected class.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If one is opposed to legalizing gay marriage, it is automatically assumed that the opposition rests on a basis of hate, homophobia, or other such negative motivations. But it's wrong! There are, in fact, legitimate, substantive reasons as to why gay marriage should not be legalized. Everyone knows it.

Cite them.

 

[rightwinger]

The clerks acted honestly in accordance with their principles. Gays wanted equality. Now they have equality. It isn't a snide or hateful move. It is the only move that could be made. It is a move of compromise. I know gays are never willing to compromise. They must be forced to it.

Their hatred of gays is so strong that they are willing to punish the 95% who are not gay by denying a basic public service

Some principle

No one has been denied a public service.

Access to your own courthouse for the performance of marriage

That's not a right. The right if it exists at all would be the right to marry. Not the right of a venue of your choice. The function of the courthouse is the administration of justice. There are no accommodations for weddings. There is no right to get married in a courthouse. There's a right to access the judicial system. Getting married isn't part of the judicial system. They can get married someplace else. The regulation is not discriminatory. It does not unfairly burden a protected class.

Marriage is a legal proceeding that has historically been conducted at courthouses.....until the fag haters got involved

 

[Katzndogz]

The clerks acted honestly in accordance with their principles. Gays wanted equality. Now they have equality. It isn't a snide or hateful move. It is the only move that could be made. It is a move of compromise. I know gays are never willing to compromise. They must be forced to it.

Their hatred of gays is so strong that they are willing to punish the 95% who are not gay by denying a basic public service

Some principle

No one has been denied a public service.

Access to your own courthouse for the performance of marriage

That's not a right. The right if it exists at all would be the right to marry. Not the right of a venue of your choice. The function of the courthouse is the administration of justice. There are no accommodations for weddings. There is no right to get married in a courthouse. There's a right to access the judicial system. Getting married isn't part of the judicial system. They can get married someplace else. The regulation is not discriminatory. It does not unfairly burden a protected class.

Marriage is a legal proceeding that has historically been conducted at courthouses.....until the fag haters got involved

No. Historically marriages have been performed in a church. Marriages have also historically occurred at City Hall. In the City Clerk's office. Historically marriages have been performed by a traveling Justice of the Peace in the family home or barn. Not a clerk in the court clerk's office by someone looking up from the filing cabinet.

That's historically.

In 35 years in courtrooms I never saw anyone married in a courthouse but in custody prisoners and that marriage was performed by a judge. Not a clerk. I have seen several couples get married at rhe County Recorder's office after the County began issuing licenses instead of the City.

Since no marriages are to be performed in the courthouse no one is being discriminated against. Everyone is treated equally. There is no complaint here and no one has been denied any rights. There is no right to a specific venue.

 

[JFK_USA]

Ah yes because nothing speaks true American spirit like denying people equal rights under the law.

Oh wait...

 

[Katzndogz]

Ah yes because nothing speaks true American spirit like denying people equal rights under the law.

Oh wait...

Oh wait. Gays have equal rights. They can't get married in these courthouses. Neither can anyone else. That's equality. I guess these couples will have to let the band and the caterer know.

 

[Faun]

Ah yes because nothing speaks true American spirit like denying people equal rights under the law.

Oh wait...

Oh wait. Gays have equal rights. They can't get married in these courthouses. Neither can anyone else. That's equality. I guess these couples will have to let the band and the caterer know.

Which is admission that issuing marriage licenses to some people but not all people violates the Constitution's equal protection clause.

 

[Katzndogz]

Ah yes because nothing speaks true American spirit like denying people equal rights under the law.

Oh wait...

Oh wait. Gays have equal rights. They can't get married in these courthouses. Neither can anyone else. That's equality. I guess these couples will have to let the band and the caterer know.

Which is admission that issuing marriage licenses to some people but not all people violates the Constitution's equal protection clause.

That isn't the issue here. This discussion is about courthouses in one county prohibiting courthouse marriages to anyone including gays. It seems that liberals don't like equality after all.

If you want to discuss whether issuing marriage licenses to gays is constitutional start a thread.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ending courthouse weddings is clearly a decision made in bad faith, and should be subject to a lawsuit to compel officials to justify the unwarranted action.

 

[Katzndogz]

Since there is no discriminatory effect it is as much bad faith as changing the hours in the cafeteria.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Let them apply for and hold their weddings in a nearby Catholic Church.

 

[rightwinger]

Their hatred of gays is so strong that they are willing to punish the 95% who are not gay by denying a basic public service

Some principle

No one has been denied a public service.

Access to your own courthouse for the performance of marriage

That's not a right. The right if it exists at all would be the right to marry. Not the right of a venue of your choice. The function of the courthouse is the administration of justice. There are no accommodations for weddings. There is no right to get married in a courthouse. There's a right to access the judicial system. Getting married isn't part of the judicial system. They can get married someplace else. The regulation is not discriminatory. It does not unfairly burden a protected class.

Marriage is a legal proceeding that has historically been conducted at courthouses.....until the fag haters got involved

No. Historically marriages have been performed in a church. Marriages have also historically occurred at City Hall. In the City Clerk's office. Historically marriages have been performed by a traveling Justice of the Peace in the family home or barn. Not a clerk in the court clerk's office by someone looking up from the filing cabinet.

That's historically.

In 35 years in courtrooms I never saw anyone married in a courthouse but in custody prisoners and that marriage was performed by a judge. Not a clerk. I have seen several couples get married at rhe County Recorder's office after the County began issuing licenses instead of the City.

Since no marriages are to be performed in the courthouse no one is being discriminated against. Everyone is treated equally. There is no complaint here and no one has been denied any rights. There is no right to a specific venue.

Legally, they are providing equal protection......nothing you can do about it

Meanwhile, they are denying access to the courthouse for 95% of the population just so they can punish 5% of the population

 

[reason10]

People are waking up to the fact that LOCALS have more power than feds. The counties did a noble thing. Gay marriage ceremonies must not be allowed in this country. It is immoral and goes against traditional marriage between a man and woman which is a founding moral principle to establish our sovereignty.


Edit: Should be 'Ceremonies' in title.

Three Florida Counties Put an End to Courthouse Weddings to Avoid Performing Gay Marriage Ceramonies

The Feds had little to do with this. The Congress passed the Defense Of Marriage Act. State governments ALL passed their own versions of that law, defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. It is the unelected Democrat-appointed fascist judges in the appellate courts who are thwarting the will of the people. So much for Democrat standing for "Democracy."