Mississippi & Louisiana Join Refusal to Honor Same Sex "Marriage"

[Syriusly]

our backwards republican christian county is issuing ssm licenses.....didnt hear a peep from the clerks..they just did their jobs and went on

Kind of like the clerks processing Jews for transport to Auschwitz. They were just doing their jobs.

Yes I can see how you would equate clerks issuing marriage licenses to clerks sending Jews off to the Holocaust......

Conservative ignorance on display.

 

[Syriusly]

The Constitution rules and not the Bible.

Your interp of the Bible is wrong. Sil, you lost. Get over it. It's done.

I love how progs think this is "over" when Roe V Wade was over 40 years ago, and the abortion debate is still alive and well.

Of course Wade is settled...that's why people march on SCOTUS every year to remind them not to unsettle it.

Several states have hemmed it in on several fronts. Getting an abortion now is not as easy as it was ten years ago (in some states).

It's not settled in a Clausewitzian sense, the conflict that led to the decision is still being fought, with sizable groups of people supporting both sides.

If it was "settled" you wouldn't have the continuing lawsuits and protests you still see today.

Clausewitzian sense?
damn ...cute but far of the mark there is nothing military about the ignorant assholes who want to destroy a woman's right to control her reproductive choices.

And I don't want to "destroy a woman's right to off her fetus" (lets call a spade a spade here), What I don't see is the ability of the federal government to say Alabama can't make abortions illegal.

Lets call a spade a spade here- you want states to be able to control a woman's body.

 

[paddymurphy]

I did. Try to keep up.

Here is Louisiana's law requiring a marriage license.
205 Officiant to require marriage license

An officiant may not perform a marriage ceremony until he has received a license authorizing him to perform that marriage ceremony.

Louisiana Revised Statutes - Title 9: Civil Code-Ancillaries - Code Title IV: Husband and Wife - Chapter 1: Marriage General Principles - Part I. Officiants

None of that says the state must sponsor marriage licenses. You clearly do not understand law. Or anything else for that matter.

It just says they have to issue them, completely the opposite of your repeated claims. If the law says that you cannot marry without a license, to anyone with an education beyond the fourth grade that means that they have to issue them.

It actually says nothing of the kind. As usual you are tlaking out of your ass.

So, they did not teach you what the word "shall" means.

That's an admission of failure right there.

What does "shall" mean, dipshit? Does that mean it is something that clerk can do or must do?

 

[Syriusly]

Citizens United is settled- even though there is a considerable movement to overturn it.

An amendment would not 'settle' the issue- it just means that fewer people would disagree- there will always be disagreement.

To this day- the issue of 'mixed race marriage' is not settled- there are still people who are against mixed race marriage.

The number of people who are against mixed raced marriage so much they would ban it via government action is tiny enough that we could call the matter "settled". Even if people don't like it, most of them don't want to do anything about it except sneer at it and maybe disown their kids if one of them ever enters into one.

For abortion, you have a sizable portion of our country that would LOVE to overturn Roe v. Wade (including ironically, Roe).

A guy walks up to the beautiful blonde and asks her- "Would you have sex with me for 1,000,000 dollars?"
She hesitates and thinks about it a moment and says- "well okay"
"Would you have sex with me for $20.00?"
The woman errupts with outrage- and screams "What do you take me for?"
The man answers- "We already established that, we are just haggling on the price now.

So your "settled" is just a matter of the arguable size of the minority opinion- which just coincidentally coincides with your opinion.

abortion and gay marriage are best handled by the states so you can move rather than have the majority viewpoint shoved down your throat. American is supposed to be about freedom, not mob rule.

How is either someone's abortion being shoved down your throat? Or someone's marriage?

How does some other State banning abortion or banning same sex marriage affect you if you don't live in that State?

It doesn't- and I am not the one whining that those states are 'shoving it down my throat'.

Yes I support a woman's right to control her own body- and yes I support the right of Americans to marry each other- but I am not personally affected by any other states attempt to deny a person their Constitutional rights.

How is either someone's abortion being shoved down your throat? Or someone's marriage?

 

[Syriusly]

A guy walks up to the beautiful blonde and asks her- "Would you have sex with me for 1,000,000 dollars?"
She hesitates and thinks about it a moment and says- "well okay"
"Would you have sex with me for $20.00?"
The woman errupts with outrage- and screams "What do you take me for?"
The man answers- "We already established that, we are just haggling on the price now.

So your "settled" is just a matter of the arguable size of the minority opinion- which just coincidentally coincides with your opinion.

abortion and gay marriage are best handled by the states so you can move rather than have the majority viewpoint shoved down your throat. American is supposed to be about freedom, not mob rule.

How is either someone's abortion being shoved down your throat? Or someone's marriage?

How does some other State banning abortion or banning same sex marriage affect you if you don't live in that State?

Well, if you are a legally married same sex couple and you travel to that state, you are no longer married

That affects you

THAT is the question that should have been handled by the court, saying States would have to recognize marriages issued by other States regardless. The State would not have to issue SSM licenses, but would have to recognize out of State ones.

The court could have done that- but the court- just like it did in Loving v. Virginia- chose to recognize the fundamental right to marry.

And States do not have the right to ignore rights unless they can provide a compelling reason (i.e. denying convicted felons the right to own guns).

 

[JakeStarkey]

If marriage is a right, as SCOTUS has opined more than a dozen times, yes, the clerks have a legal duty to issue licenses.

 

[martybegan]

I love how progs think this is "over" when Roe V Wade was over 40 years ago, and the abortion debate is still alive and well.

Of course Wade is settled...that's why people march on SCOTUS every year to remind them not to unsettle it.

Several states have hemmed it in on several fronts. Getting an abortion now is not as easy as it was ten years ago (in some states).

It's not settled in a Clausewitzian sense, the conflict that led to the decision is still being fought, with sizable groups of people supporting both sides.

If it was "settled" you wouldn't have the continuing lawsuits and protests you still see today.

Clausewitzian sense?
damn ...cute but far of the mark there is nothing military about the ignorant assholes who want to destroy a woman's right to control her reproductive choices.

And I don't want to "destroy a woman's right to off her fetus" (lets call a spade a spade here), What I don't see is the ability of the federal government to say Alabama can't make abortions illegal.

Lets call a spade a spade here- you want states to be able to control a woman's body.

No, I don't. I don't support Abortion bans. my view is regulation after the 2nd trimester, exceptions for medical reasons up to the end, no public funding of abortions, non medical ones should be like elective surgery (pay for it your damn self), and anyone under 18 and still under the care of their parent has to get either their permission or a court order (special courts set up for rapid turn around on this matter).

What I don't see in the constitution is any authority of any level of the federal government to tell a State what it can or cannot do with regards to abortion, the document is silent on the matter, and thus the matter falls to the State Legislatures. So to me the feds don't have the power to tell Alabama how to regulate abortion, or New York on how to allow it with minimal regulations.

 

[Syriusly]

A guy walks up to the beautiful blonde and asks her- "Would you have sex with me for 1,000,000 dollars?"
She hesitates and thinks about it a moment and says- "well okay"
"Would you have sex with me for $20.00?"
The woman errupts with outrage- and screams "What do you take me for?"
The man answers- "We already established that, we are just haggling on the price now.

So your "settled" is just a matter of the arguable size of the minority opinion- which just coincidentally coincides with your opinion.

abortion and gay marriage are best handled by the states so you can move rather than have the majority viewpoint shoved down your throat. American is supposed to be about freedom, not mob rule.

How is either someone's abortion being shoved down your throat? Or someone's marriage?

How does some other State banning abortion or banning same sex marriage affect you if you don't live in that State?

It is simply a case of MYOB, Marty.

Fine, then why can't gay couples MTOB and go to another baker?

They can- and probably most gay couples will.

But some customers may well ask that business's comply with the law.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

A guy walks up to the beautiful blonde and asks her- "Would you have sex with me for 1,000,000 dollars?"
She hesitates and thinks about it a moment and says- "well okay"
"Would you have sex with me for $20.00?"
The woman errupts with outrage- and screams "What do you take me for?"
The man answers- "We already established that, we are just haggling on the price now.

So your "settled" is just a matter of the arguable size of the minority opinion- which just coincidentally coincides with your opinion.

abortion and gay marriage are best handled by the states so you can move rather than have the majority viewpoint shoved down your throat. American is supposed to be about freedom, not mob rule.

How is either someone's abortion being shoved down your throat? Or someone's marriage?

How does some other State banning abortion or banning same sex marriage affect you if you don't live in that State?

Well, if you are a legally married same sex couple and you travel to that state, you are no longer married

That affects you

If you're simply travelling what difference does it make?

What if you relocate to a state that does not recognize it ?

 

[martybegan]

abortion and gay marriage are best handled by the states so you can move rather than have the majority viewpoint shoved down your throat. American is supposed to be about freedom, not mob rule.

How is either someone's abortion being shoved down your throat? Or someone's marriage?

How does some other State banning abortion or banning same sex marriage affect you if you don't live in that State?

Well, if you are a legally married same sex couple and you travel to that state, you are no longer married

That affects you

THAT is the question that should have been handled by the court, saying States would have to recognize marriages issued by other States regardless. The State would not have to issue SSM licenses, but would have to recognize out of State ones.

The court could have done that- but the court- just like it did in Loving v. Virginia- chose to recognize the fundamental right to marry.

And States do not have the right to ignore rights unless they can provide a compelling reason (i.e. denying convicted felons the right to own guns).

The court also said segregation was just peachy, and a black person has no standing to sue at one time. Courts change, and things change.

and you rest your laurels on a 5-4 decision, not smart.

 

[martybegan]

abortion and gay marriage are best handled by the states so you can move rather than have the majority viewpoint shoved down your throat. American is supposed to be about freedom, not mob rule.

How is either someone's abortion being shoved down your throat? Or someone's marriage?

How does some other State banning abortion or banning same sex marriage affect you if you don't live in that State?

It is simply a case of MYOB, Marty.

Fine, then why can't gay couples MTOB and go to another baker?

They can- and probably most gay couples will.

But some customers may well ask that business's comply with the law.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

There is everything wrong with that, you just don't care because you like watching people who disagree with you get shafted.

 

[Syriusly]

states refusing should not be allowed to issue any marriage certificates....for hetros too.....see how long that boycott lasts

That's what's happening. Counties are simply saying "we wont issue marriage certificates period." Watch the fagghaddis start screaming like lttle bitches.

Just cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

Watch the homophobes start screaming when they realize that they have to spend another $40 in gas money to drive to another county to get married.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are weak, Marty, just weak.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Of course Wade is settled...that's why people march on SCOTUS every year to remind them not to unsettle it.

Several states have hemmed it in on several fronts. Getting an abortion now is not as easy as it was ten years ago (in some states).

It's not settled in a Clausewitzian sense, the conflict that led to the decision is still being fought, with sizable groups of people supporting both sides.

If it was "settled" you wouldn't have the continuing lawsuits and protests you still see today.

Clausewitzian sense?
damn ...cute but far of the mark there is nothing military about the ignorant assholes who want to destroy a woman's right to control her reproductive choices.

And I don't want to "destroy a woman's right to off her fetus" (lets call a spade a spade here), What I don't see is the ability of the federal government to say Alabama can't make abortions illegal.

Lets call a spade a spade here- you want states to be able to control a woman's body.

No, I don't. I don't support Abortion bans. my view is regulation after the 2nd trimester, exceptions for medical reasons up to the end, no public funding of abortions, non medical ones should be like elective surgery (pay for it your damn self), and anyone under 18 and still under the care of their parent has to get either their permission or a court order (special courts set up for rapid turn around on this matter).

What I don't see in the constitution is any authority of any level of the federal government to tell a State what it can or cannot do with regards to abortion, the document is silent on the matter, and thus the matter falls to the State Legislatures. So to me the feds don't have the power to tell Alabama how to regulate abortion, or New York on how to allow it with minimal regulations.

A woman has a right to privacy in the Constitution, and the fetus has no rights.

 

[martybegan]

It's not settled in a Clausewitzian sense, the conflict that led to the decision is still being fought, with sizable groups of people supporting both sides.

If it was "settled" you wouldn't have the continuing lawsuits and protests you still see today.

Clausewitzian sense?
damn ...cute but far of the mark there is nothing military about the ignorant assholes who want to destroy a woman's right to control her reproductive choices.

And I don't want to "destroy a woman's right to off her fetus" (lets call a spade a spade here), What I don't see is the ability of the federal government to say Alabama can't make abortions illegal.

Lets call a spade a spade here- you want states to be able to control a woman's body.

No, I don't. I don't support Abortion bans. my view is regulation after the 2nd trimester, exceptions for medical reasons up to the end, no public funding of abortions, non medical ones should be like elective surgery (pay for it your damn self), and anyone under 18 and still under the care of their parent has to get either their permission or a court order (special courts set up for rapid turn around on this matter).

What I don't see in the constitution is any authority of any level of the federal government to tell a State what it can or cannot do with regards to abortion, the document is silent on the matter, and thus the matter falls to the State Legislatures. So to me the feds don't have the power to tell Alabama how to regulate abortion, or New York on how to allow it with minimal regulations.

A woman has a right to privacy in the Constitution, and the fetus has no rights.

No, she doesn't, she has a right to privacy based on some crappy legal decision.

If you believe that way, i guess you are OK with a non-medical abortion 2 seconds before birth, right?

 

[martybegan]

You are weak, Marty, just weak.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup.

 

[Syriusly]

How is either someone's abortion being shoved down your throat? Or someone's marriage?

How does some other State banning abortion or banning same sex marriage affect you if you don't live in that State?

Well, if you are a legally married same sex couple and you travel to that state, you are no longer married

That affects you

THAT is the question that should have been handled by the court, saying States would have to recognize marriages issued by other States regardless. The State would not have to issue SSM licenses, but would have to recognize out of State ones.

The court could have done that- but the court- just like it did in Loving v. Virginia- chose to recognize the fundamental right to marry.

And States do not have the right to ignore rights unless they can provide a compelling reason (i.e. denying convicted felons the right to own guns).

The court also said segregation was just peachy, and a black person has no standing to sue at one time. Courts change, and things change.

and you rest your laurels on a 5-4 decision, not smart.

Yep- the courts have made bad decisions- and good decisions also.

Would I have preferred a 9-0 decision? Sure. And that only happens extremely rarely.

Bad 5:4 decisions include Bush v Gore- but I survived that.
And Citizen's United-
Both of those cases are what you would have called 'unresolved'- as in large segments of the population still consider those to be bad rulings- but guess what- they are the decisions that were made. A vote the other way would have been a 5:4 vote the other direction.

I am not 'resting my laurels' on anything- the majority of Americans now favor the right to marriage of Americans regardless of the gender of their spouse. Unlike Loving v. Virginia, the Court actually is following American opinion- in Loving v. Virginia the Court anticpated public opinion by 20 years.

And that worked out just fine.

 

[Syriusly]

How is either someone's abortion being shoved down your throat? Or someone's marriage?

How does some other State banning abortion or banning same sex marriage affect you if you don't live in that State?

It is simply a case of MYOB, Marty.

Fine, then why can't gay couples MTOB and go to another baker?

They can- and probably most gay couples will.

But some customers may well ask that business's comply with the law.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

There is everything wrong with that, you just don't care because you like watching people who disagree with you get shafted.

Public Accommodation laws have been in effect- and protecting Christians- since 1965.

You don't like them- then work to overturn them- you have had 50 years to get it done.

In the case of PA laws that protect homosexuals(and Christians) in every case those laws are either State laws(suddenly you oppose State's rights to their own laws) or local city or county laws.

 

[Syriusly]

o my i am honored you noted a truth in your signature line....one does not expect that of you....now do go on....tell us how gay marriage is killing and gassing people.....how are people suffering what minority....are we deporting people over ssm ...do go on

Clerks are already being sued for not issuing marriage certificates.

Good. They should be sued for not doing their fucking jobs.

Thank you for admitting this is all about punishing people for their beliefs.

Thank you for admitting that this is all about Christians wanting to be exempt from laws everyone else is supposed to obey.