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

[EvilCat Breath]

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.

Melissa was reminded that as a Christian, she should not engage in sinful acts. She thought better of her conduct.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Change the PA laws in your state if you are unhappy with them.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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

A homosexual may choose to not engage in homosexual acts. A black person cannot choose not to engsge in being black. The courts are clearly wrong. Which does not mean that the law need not be complied with. Obey the law, THEN exact the price.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Changing their minds breaks the business laws of their state. I say take their license away. What law did Former President Obama break when he changed his mind?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Christians are too peaceful. They need to obey the law, to the exact provisions of the law, then make pursuit of that lawful right so painful, no one wants to do it. This might well involve a published protest with the personal information of the couple disseminated all over the country.

Why Westboro hasn't started protesting at gay weddings is a disgraceful omission. Maybe all they need is a little encouragement.

 

[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

A homosexual may choose to not engage in homosexual acts. A black person cannot choose not to engsge in being black. The courts are clearly wrong. Which does not mean that the law need not be complied with. Obey the law, THEN exact the price.

A gay person may choose to not have sex. A straight person my choose not to have sex . That does not change who they are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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

A homosexual may choose to not engage in homosexual acts. A black person cannot choose not to engsge in being black. The courts are clearly wrong. Which does not mean that the law need not be complied with. Obey the law, THEN exact the price.

A gay person may choose to not have sex. A straight person my choose not to have sex . That does not change who they are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No one is suggesting that anything be done to them for who they are. Leave them be. It is only when they force themselves on others that they need to be stopped. If someone does not want to participate in their wedding, even if a vendor, those people should be let alone too.

If homosexual couples want to force the issue, they should pay a price for that.

 

[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

A homosexual may choose to not engage in homosexual acts. A black person cannot choose not to engsge in being black. The courts are clearly wrong. Which does not mean that the law need not be complied with. Obey the law, THEN exact the price.

A gay person may choose to not have sex. A straight person my choose not to have sex . That does not change who they are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No one is suggesting that anything be done to them for who they are. Leave them be. It is only when they force themselves on others that they need to be stopped. If someone does not want to participate in their wedding, even if a vendor, those people should be let alone too.

If homosexual couples want to force the issue, they should pay a price for that.

I am absolutely sick of this bleating about "forcing themselves on others" A person walking into a business expecting to be served with curtesy like everyone else is not :forcing themselves" You might just as easily say that the shop owners who refuse service in the name of this bogus "religious freedom "are the ones forcing themselves on someone.

 

[JoeB131]

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

Yeah, I don't think I want gay folks pretending to be straight to please bigots like you.

Now, religion is a behavior. A really bad behavior that has brought us crusades, jihads, terrorism, inquisitions and a lot of other bad shit. THere's a behavior we need to put limits on.

What I'd like to do is when anyone says they are doing something shitty because "God" said so, we should throw them off the top of a tall building to see if God catches them on the way down.

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.

Except the Klein's did make their addresses public, and their address wasn't made public, just the name of their business.

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?

Again, the Klein's ran a business, so the address of their business was already public.

 

[JoeB131]

Melissa was reminded that as a Christian, she should not engage in sinful acts. She thought better of her conduct.

After her husband slapped her around for about an hour, I'm sure she did.

Christians are too peaceful. They need to obey the law, to the exact provisions of the law, then make pursuit of that lawful right so painful, no one wants to do it. This might well involve a published protest with the personal information of the couple disseminated all over the country.

Again, this is what Mr. Wifebeater did, and its' why he paid a huge fine.

Why Westboro hasn't started protesting at gay weddings is a disgraceful omission. Maybe all they need is a little encouragement.

Mostly because the Westboro freaks are trying to incite lawsuits. It's why they do things that will get their asses kicked so they get sued.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Or they can go to a court and sue to get their rights. Incidentally, that is EXACTLY how they put an end to the miscegenation laws. They didn't try to convince the Bubba Rednecks in the state legislature, they went to court and won.

How come every time a right winger talks about "States Rights", it's usually to justify some shitty behavior?

 

[martybegan]

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.

I don't know how the Branch Davidians apply here, and they should be able to smoke teh gange.

Nope, you are a bigoted asshole.

And again with your baseless jerk-off fantasy accusations.

 

[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.

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.

What due process? Due process involves courts and such. You are confusing equal protection with due process.

And again, only in the minds of progressives is interracial marriage and same sex marriage "equal".

 

[JoeB131]

The courts were wrong.

I don't know how the Branch Davidians apply here, and they should be able to smoke teh gange.

Nope, you are a bigoted asshole.

And again with your baseless jerk-off fantasy accusations.

The Davidians and Rastafarians break the law because their religions tell them to.

God Told David Koresh to fuck those teenage girls and make little messiahs, and his followers happily offered them up. But some "Religious bigots" as you say, put a stop to that so they all killed themselves.

Just like some religious bigots told Mr. Wifebeater that he couldn't discriminate against the gays.

The Laws of Man. Better than the Laws of God.

 

[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".

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.

Change the PA laws in your state if you are unhappy with them.

They don't have to be changed, they just have to be properly applied, like the movie theater that had those "women only" viewings of Wonder Woman should be punished, because a movie theater is an actual public accommodation.

 

[JoeB131]

What due process? Due process involves courts and such. You are confusing equal protection with due process.

And again, only in the minds of progressives is interracial marriage and same sex marriage "equal".

Why aren't they?

 

[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.

Changing their minds breaks the business laws of their state. I say take their license away. What law did Former President Obama break when he changed his mind?

it's amazing how easily people support tyranny when it gets them what they want.

You are a fascist tool.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Or they can go to a court and sue to get their rights. Incidentally, that is EXACTLY how they put an end to the miscegenation laws. They didn't try to convince the Bubba Rednecks in the state legislature, they went to court and won.

How come every time a right winger talks about "States Rights", it's usually to justify some shitty behavior?

For loving it was the right move, but SSM was something not even considered 30 years ago. It's a NEW concept, not a modification of an old established one.

 

[martybegan]

What due process? Due process involves courts and such. You are confusing equal protection with due process.

And again, only in the minds of progressives is interracial marriage and same sex marriage "equal".

Why aren't they?

History, precedent, the fact that one is only a cosmetic difference between partners and the other is a biological difference.

If people want to allow it via legislative action or referendum I am all for it, but the courts have no play in this game.

 

[JoeB131]

it's amazing how easily people support tyranny when it gets them what they want.

You are a fascist tool.

Guy, you have no problem with laws when they protect your rights and privileges, you just don't like it when those people get the same treatment.

If Mr. Wifebeater doesn't want to deal with the icky gays... he has a remedy. Don't be in a business where you might encounter an icky gay person.