March For Marriage Draws Tens, But Promises Ultimate Victory Over Obergefell

[martybegan]

They could have gotten that through Civil Union laws, which would have given the same benefits with less blow-back. Somewhere during the 2000's the activists got in in their heads to push for marriage, and here we are today.

And you deciding you can qualify how a person follows their religion is bad, but we all know you would want government to do your dirty work for you, and that is even worse.

It's the same "you have to live your life like I live my life or fuck you" attitude that we have come to expect from progressives.

Since you asked:

It panders to the religious right and other bigots, while not really getting government out of marriage and not appeasing those opposed to same sex unions. Why? Keep reading.

Marriage has a special meaning to many people-religious and secular, gay and straight alike. It is universally understood to mean a certain thing. The fact that many do not understand what a civil union is was a big problem for gay couples before Obergefell and would be a problem for every one if we reverted to it now.
I am a married, heterosexual person and I -along with many others would not be happy if I could not call it marriage. In addition, the Supreme Court has said on numerous occasions that marriage is a “fundamental right” If states tried to take marriage away, they would be violating constitutional law and setting up decades more of costly litigation. More not less government involvement.

If we are not talking about doing away with marriage all together and the idea is to preserve marriage for those who want to be joined religiously, there are additional problems that should be obvious. We may have eliminated discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation but set up a situation where there is religious discrimination were secular people are howling about not being able to call their union marriage. More years of litigation and more government involvement.


In addition, many religious institutions do in fact marry same sex couples and it’s naive to think that the religious right would be willing to allow those gay couples to call it marriage, even if there was no government recognition of it. More haggling, more political angst, more litigation and yes more government involvement
Aside from the constitutional questions, there is the reality that it would take many years for all states to get on the same page with this. There would be a confusing patchwork of differing laws on civil unions while some states would retain marriage. That in turn would create questions about the legal status of couples who move from to another state-and especially between states that recognize marriage and those who do not. In short we would be right back to where we were before Obergefell with conflicts about reciprocal recognition of marriages from state to state. More litigation and more government involvement.
Speaking of government involvement, civil unions as we knew them before Obergefell did indeed involve government. They were applied for and issued through local government. So that does not remove government from marriage

If on the other hand, we are talking about private contracts between individuals, that would entail hiring a lawyer, something that may not be affordable for all. More importantly, contracts are provided for in law so you still have government involvement, as you would if it came to a contentious desolation requiring litigation.

A contract between two individuals only governs the terms of their relationship and does not compel any third party entity, government of non-government, to recognize it or to extend any rights or benefits to those parties. Under current law, only marriage accomplishes that. One might say that the law could be changed, but I say good luck with that. Some states would surely resist, it would take decades, and more litigation. Yes, more government involvement.
Sure a constitutional amendment could be drafted to cover all of this a get everyone on the same page but again, I say good luck.
I might also point out that the federal government never recognized civil unions for the purpose of federal marriage benefits. Prior to the Windsor case overturning the Defense of Marriage act, the Federal government did not grant recognition to marriage or civil unions of same sex couples .Post Windsor, it recognized marriage but still not civil unions. It would take an act of Congress to change that. Let’s be realistic about the possibility of that happening any time soon

If, by “government out of marriage we simply mean that no licenses would be issued and the government had no say in who can marry, there would be no way to control inappropriate marriage due to things like age of consent, competency and close relative issues. And if in fact that is the only change, government would still be deeply involved in marriage


There are many on the religious right who object to any recognition of same sex unions no matter what they are called so while we still have government involved in marriage, or even if only by churches, we have not really solved anything.

people can call it whatever they want. When government defines it, however, it gives the progressive busybodies the leverage they desire against those who disagree with them. "Well government considers it marriage, so why don't we force YOU to consider it marriage".

Considering Same sex unions a "marriage" is such a large break from history and precedence that in any representative society, such a change should be done via the people, in this case State Legislatures, and not some judicial fiat.

No one is looking for leverage angst those who "disagree with them" Disagree all you want. Refuse to call it marriage. No one cares. Just stay the hell out of the way and let people be who they are and live as they chose, and that includes having the same rights as everyone else.


I just explained quite clearly why the name is important. That you chose to gloss it over is not my problem. I also explained that there are a myriad of problems with civil unions while they solve nothing but you are ignoring that too. Here is more:

Civil Unions are a Sham and a Failure - by Progressive Patriot 5. 7. 16

Long after Obergefell, I’m still hearing that gay people should have been satisfied with civil unions or domestic partnerships instead of pushing the issue of marriage. This is the familiar separate but equal argument reminiscent of the Jim Crow era. To begin with, the simple fact is that even if they are equal on paper, in reality they are not equal if for no other reason, because they are called by different names. “Marriage” is universally understood to mean a certain thing… a bond and a commitment between two people. “Civil Unions” carry no such instantly understood meaning. Now, I know that there are those who will say that marriage is understood to mean a man and a woman, but those people are living in a bygone era. Similarly, there are those who contend that marriage is a religious institution, but they too are living in a world that no longer exists, if it ever did. While there were times and places in history where it was-and for some still is -for the most part it is anything but religious. Therefore, neither heterosexuals nor the religious own “marriage”

I firmly believe that those who claim that they believe in equal rights for gays and lesbians but are against marriage in favor of civil unions are using that story line so as not to appear to be anti -equality while not really believing in equality at all. This may be conscious process that is deliberately deceptive, or a rationalization to make themselves feel good about how magnanimous they imagine themselves to be, but the motive, and the outcome is the same.
Words are powerful. Consider the word “Citizen” In this country anyone who is born a citizen -as well as those who are naturalized – are simply” citizens” They all have the same rights and responsibilities. But let’s say that we decided that naturalized citizen could not and should not be called “citizens” but rather they must be distinguished from those who were born into citizenship by calling them something like Permanent Legal Domestic Residents. Still the same rights and responsibilities but are they equal in reality? How many times will they have to explain what that means? For instance, will hospital staff understand when there is an issue with visitation or making a medical decision regarding a spouse?
Consider this:

Marriage is more perfect union: In gay marriage debate, separate but equal won't cut it

Civil unions are in no way a legitimate substitute for gay marriage.

They fail on principle, because - as America should have learned from racial segregation - separate is never equal.

And they fail in practice, because couples who enter into this second-class marriage alternative in New Jersey and elsewhere are constantly denied the rights and benefits that married couples take for granted.

Which brings up a third way in which they fail - verbally. Imagine getting down on one knee and saying, "Will you civilly unite with me?"
All kidding aside, semantics matters when it comes to labeling our most important and intimate relationships. Denying gay and lesbian couples the right - and the joy and the responsibility and the ordinariness - to use the M-word is a profound slap in the face.
"When you say, 'I'm married,' everyone knows who you are in relation to the primary person you're building your life with," says Freedom to Marry director Evan Wolfson. " 'Civil union' doesn't offer that clarity, that immediately understood respect." Why civil unions aren't enough: In gay marriage debate, separate but equal won't cut it

So people can only express their views "out of the way" if you disagree with them. Gee, thanks.

All of this is an example of activists wanting acceptance, not tolerance, and using government to bully people into giving in.

Stop playing the perennial victim. It does not become you. You don't have to accept anything . Acceptance is something that goes on inside your own head. I'll settle for tolerance. You mind your business and I will mind mine. And no one is saying that you cant express your views. . That is just more absurd whining that you people are so good at

You may, but others are not, and that is the whole issue. And I am not talking about myself. I was happy when NY State changed its marriage laws via legislative action to allow for SSM. My issue has always been with the Courts forcing the issue "because we feel like it".

It's the same thing with the forced commerce due to the whole PA laws and gay marriage ceremonies. I would be glad to serve a gay wedding if I was in that industry. However I don't see why we have to force religious people to choose between their faith and their livelihood over a non-essential, non point of sale, easily replaced good or service.

 

[JoeB131]

Being cheated implies paying for something and not receiving what you paid for.

If I took time off of my day to go down to your shop after you promised me that you would provide a service, only to have your homophobic husband scream Bible Verses at my mother, that's pretty much cheating me.

 

[JoeB131]

That's because the Southerners made shit up about race. Denunciations of homosexual acts are explicit in the texts of most major religions.

And again, you are such a religious bigot.

The Southerners didn't make any thing up. There's a shitload of verses in the bible that support slavery. In fact, support of slavery by race is explicit in the bible.

They could have gotten that through Civil Union laws, which would have given the same benefits with less blow-back. Somewhere during the 2000's the activists got in in their heads to push for marriage, and here we are today.

Again, "Civil Unions" are the equivlent of Colored Drinking Fountains. Just like those showed that colored where less than whites, Civil unions had gays as less than straights.

And you deciding you can qualify how a person follows their religion is bad, but we all know you would want government to do your dirty work for you, and that is even worse.
It's the same "you have to live your life like I live my life or fuck you" attitude that we have come to expect from progressives.

Really? Because honestly, I didn't see anyone tell Mr. Wifebeater Klein that he had to do the gay sex. (There have been studies that prove most homophobic men are latent homosexuals, but never mind.) They just told him that when gay people come into his shop, they should expect the same level of service as straight people. Just like black people should enjoy the same level of service as white people. What a concept.

If Mr. Wifebeater is too much of a bigot to do that, maybe he should find something else to do for a living other than destroying his wife's business.

 

[JoeB131]

So what? Still not evidence of wife beating.

YOu said that they didn't work those events. I proved that Mrs. Klein actually DID offer to work that specific event for that specific couple, before her husband got into the act.

 

[martybegan]

So what? Still not evidence of wife beating.

YOu said that they didn't work those events. I proved that Mrs. Klein actually DID offer to work that specific event for that specific couple, before her husband got into the act.

Well they changed their mind, just like when Obama said he was against gay marriage and then was for it when the pity pole (voting research) changed it's priorities

And your "proof" is a she said/she said situation.

 

[JoeB131]

people can call it whatever they want. When government defines it, however, it gives the progressive busybodies the leverage they desire against those who disagree with them. "Well government considers it marriage, so why don't we force YOU to consider it marriage".

But government has been doing that for centuries, so I'm not seeing what the problem here is again.

Considering Same sex unions a "marriage" is such a large break from history and precedence that in any representative society, such a change should be done via the people, in this case State Legislatures, and not some judicial fiat.

By that logic, some states would still ban interracial marriages, because a majority of people in states where they still fly confederate flags wouldn't approve of this sort of thing.

 

[JoeB131]

Well they changed their mind, just like when Obama said he was against gay marriage and then was for it when the pity pole (voting research) changed it's priorities

And your "proof" is a she said/she said situation.

Well, that's the problem. Legally, they can't "change their minds". You made a verbal contract to do something, only to be abusive to the customer when they came to collect on the service she promised.

So we had a national discussion on gay marriage, and Obama changed his mind on the subject when he realized the best arguments your side had were 'I think it's icky when it's two dudes" and "My imaginary fairy in the sky says it's bad", neither of which turned out to be a valid argument.

 

[martybegan]

people can call it whatever they want. When government defines it, however, it gives the progressive busybodies the leverage they desire against those who disagree with them. "Well government considers it marriage, so why don't we force YOU to consider it marriage".

But government has been doing that for centuries, so I'm not seeing what the problem here is again.

Considering Same sex unions a "marriage" is such a large break from history and precedence that in any representative society, such a change should be done via the people, in this case State Legislatures, and not some judicial fiat.

By that logic, some states would still ban interracial marriages, because a majority of people in states where they still fly confederate flags wouldn't approve of this sort of thing.

Again, race and sex are not comparable. Race bans on marriage were reactions to racial strife in this country, and power issues. They were tacked on after centuries of people from differing tribes, clans and even races marrying each other on and off.

SSM's are a completely new construct, something with should be created by the people, not the courts.

And if you think that picture is gonna trigger me, I am actually IN an inter-racial marriage, so try again.

 

[martybegan]

Well they changed their mind, just like when Obama said he was against gay marriage and then was for it when the pity pole (voting research) changed it's priorities

And your "proof" is a she said/she said situation.

Well, that's the problem. Legally, they can't "change their minds". You made a verbal contract to do something, only to be abusive to the customer when they came to collect on the service she promised.

So we had a national discussion on gay marriage, and Obama changed his mind on the subject when he realized the best arguments your side had were 'I think it's icky when it's two dudes" and "My imaginary fairy in the sky says it's bad", neither of which turned out to be a valid argument.

"Verbal contract?" Really? What a fucking stretch.

No, Obama never changed his mind. He lied due to political expediency, pure and simple.

Just like Hillary lied about it.

And the Courts forcing the issue is not a "National Discussion"

 

[JoeB131]

You may, but others are not, and that is the whole issue. And I am not talking about myself. I was happy when NY State changed its marriage laws via legislative action to allow for SSM. My issue has always been with the Courts forcing the issue "because we feel like it".

which they didn't do, but never mind. they just found there was no constitutional basis to continue to deny gay rights after the sodomy laws were all tossed out.

It's the same thing with the forced commerce due to the whole PA laws and gay marriage ceremonies. I would be glad to serve a gay wedding if I was in that industry. However I don't see why we have to force religious people to choose between their faith and their livelihood over a non-essential, non point of sale, easily replaced good or service.

Mostly, because we don't want religious assholes imposing themselves on the rest of us.

If your belief in your Imaginary Friend in the Sky is that great, then you should probably also deny services to people who've gotten divorces, women who wear pants, women who wear jewelry, women who wear braids, men with tattoos, people who cohabit before marriage, women who had sex before marriage and a whole other list of things that the Bible says are bad.

But if you are just using the bible as an excuse to hate on gay people, then you seriously need to go fuck yourself.

 

[JoeB131]

"Verbal contract?" Really? What a fucking stretch.

No, Obama never changed his mind. He lied due to political expediency, pure and simple.

Just like Hillary lied about it.

And the Courts forcing the issue is not a "National Discussion"

Uh, yeah it is. When both sides put lawyers in front of judges to discuss it, that's a national discussion.

And all your side had was "I think it's icky." That's why you lost.

 

[JoeB131]

Again, race and sex are not comparable. Race bans on marriage were reactions to racial strife in this country, and power issues. They were tacked on after centuries of people from differing tribes, clans and even races marrying each other on and off.

SSM's are a completely new construct, something with should be created by the people, not the courts.

And if you think that picture is gonna trigger me, I am actually IN an inter-racial marriage, so try again.

Sure you are, buddy.

But either you think that the majority should be able to define marriage, in which case some states would ban interracial marriages, or you think that marriage is a right that everyone should have so long as they aren't violating other laws.

You all can't have it both ways.

 

[martybegan]

You may, but others are not, and that is the whole issue. And I am not talking about myself. I was happy when NY State changed its marriage laws via legislative action to allow for SSM. My issue has always been with the Courts forcing the issue "because we feel like it".

which they didn't do, but never mind. they just found there was no constitutional basis to continue to deny gay rights after the sodomy laws were all tossed out.

It's the same thing with the forced commerce due to the whole PA laws and gay marriage ceremonies. I would be glad to serve a gay wedding if I was in that industry. However I don't see why we have to force religious people to choose between their faith and their livelihood over a non-essential, non point of sale, easily replaced good or service.

Mostly, because we don't want religious assholes imposing themselves on the rest of us.

If your belief in your Imaginary Friend in the Sky is that great, then you should probably also deny services to people who've gotten divorces, women who wear pants, women who wear jewelry, women who wear braids, men with tattoos, people who cohabit before marriage, women who had sex before marriage and a whole other list of things that the Bible says are bad.

But if you are just using the bible as an excuse to hate on gay people, then you seriously need to go fuck yourself.

There was no constitutional basis to force States to issue SSM licenses.

How is this "imposing" are they going around stopping gay weddings?

You don't get to decide how someone exercises their religious beliefs, and neither does government.

And you confuse hate with just not wanting to be associated with. But of course you do, because you hate anyone not like you.

 

[martybegan]

"Verbal contract?" Really? What a fucking stretch.

No, Obama never changed his mind. He lied due to political expediency, pure and simple.

Just like Hillary lied about it.

And the Courts forcing the issue is not a "National Discussion"

Uh, yeah it is. When both sides put lawyers in front of judges to discuss it, that's a national discussion.

And all your side had was "I think it's icky." That's why you lost.

The verbal contract thing is a civil matter between two parties. The main issue was the 140k fine from the government, which is completely rediculous for not providing a non necessary service for any reason.

 

[martybegan]

Again, race and sex are not comparable. Race bans on marriage were reactions to racial strife in this country, and power issues. They were tacked on after centuries of people from differing tribes, clans and even races marrying each other on and off.

SSM's are a completely new construct, something with should be created by the people, not the courts.

And if you think that picture is gonna trigger me, I am actually IN an inter-racial marriage, so try again.

Sure you are, buddy.

But either you think that the majority should be able to define marriage, in which case some states would ban interracial marriages, or you think that marriage is a right that everyone should have so long as they aren't violating other laws.

You all can't have it both ways.

believe what you want.

I believe race and gender when it comes to marriage cannot be equalized, despite what progressives desire. Thus when it comes to gender, if people want SSM to be the law of a State, they have to go through the legislature or a referendum, as per the State's own Constitution.

All the Feds can do in this case is force States to recognize all marriage licenses from other States, same as they do now.

 

[JoeB131]

There was no constitutional basis to force States to issue SSM licenses.

The courts thought differently...

How is this "imposing" are they going around stopping gay weddings?

You don't get to decide how someone exercises their religious beliefs, and neither does government.

Bullshit. The government tells people that all the time. It's why the Branch Davidians can't fuck kids and the Rastafarians can't smoke the gange.

And you confuse hate with just not wanting to be associated with. But of course you do, because you hate anyone not like you.

Naw, I just despise superstitious hypocrites.

The verbal contract thing is a civil matter between two parties. The main issue was the 140k fine from the government, which is completely rediculous for not providing a non necessary service for any reason.

Which was only imposed because Mr. Wifebeater engaged in a national hate campaign against the Cryer-Bowmans by making their names public and going on the Hate Circuit denouncing them. THAT'S why they slapped his ass with a big old fine.

 

[JakeStarkey]

people can call it whatever they want. When government defines it, however, it gives the progressive busybodies the leverage they desire against those who disagree with them. "Well government considers it marriage, so why don't we force YOU to consider it marriage".

But government has been doing that for centuries, so I'm not seeing what the problem here is again.

Considering Same sex unions a "marriage" is such a large break from history and precedence that in any representative society, such a change should be done via the people, in this case State Legislatures, and not some judicial fiat.

By that logic, some states would still ban interracial marriages, because a majority of people in states where they still fly confederate flags wouldn't approve of this sort of thing.

Again, race and sex are not comparable. Race bans on marriage were reactions to racial strife in this country, and power issues. They were tacked on after centuries of people from differing tribes, clans and even races marrying each other on and off.

SSM's are a completely new construct, something with should be created by the people, not the courts.

And if you think that picture is gonna trigger me, I am actually IN an inter-racial marriage, so try again.

Your fallacy of false equivalency argument falls flat on its face. It's about due process before the law, and race and sexual orientation have nothing to do with changing that fact.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Race is an immutable characteristic. Sexual orientation is a behavior. We have all kinds of limitations on behavior.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

There was no constitutional basis to force States to issue SSM licenses.

The courts thought differently...

How is this "imposing" are they going around stopping gay weddings?

You don't get to decide how someone exercises their religious beliefs, and neither does government.

Bullshit. The government tells people that all the time. It's why the Branch Davidians can't fuck kids and the Rastafarians can't smoke the gange.

And you confuse hate with just not wanting to be associated with. But of course you do, because you hate anyone not like you.

Naw, I just despise superstitious hypocrites.

The verbal contract thing is a civil matter between two parties. The main issue was the 140k fine from the government, which is completely rediculous for not providing a non necessary service for any reason.

Which was only imposed because Mr. Wifebeater engaged in a national hate campaign against the Cryer-Bowmans by making their names public and going on the Hate Circuit denouncing them. THAT'S why they slapped his ass with a big old fine.

The courts were wrong to fine the Kliens for publicly denouncing the gay couple. They should have made not only their names, but their addresses public. Just as making the names and addresses of the Kliens public was legal.

Would you feel differently if the Kliens had baked the cake and then gone on a national tour about how their rights were violated and made public the names, addresses, phone numbers and places of work?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Race is an immutable characteristic. Sexual orientation is a behavior. We have all kinds of limitations on behavior.

The courts have said differently .Sexual orientation is also an immutable characteristic. Your uninformed opinion means nothing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk