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

[Redfish]

Yup.

then why not allow "abortion" 2 weeks after birth? there is no difference between 2 days before and 2 weeks after.

You libs want to eliminate the death penalty for mass murderers, but you are all for killing innocent children.

You are just plain stupid.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Now you're going to tell us that Americans have no right to privacy? lol

In reality she doesn't need a right to privacy. All she needs is the right to see a doctor and to obtain medical procedures that cannot justifiably be made illegal.

Since the fetus has no rights constitutionally, as crass as it may sound, an abortion is materially no different than an appendectomy.

If you want to create a difference, amend the Constitution to give fetuses personhood and citizenship.

 

[Syriusly]

One of the best things about laws is that they can be enacted, changed, repealed or revised almost at whim.

Then get crackin on repealing those public accommodation laws you object to so badly.

 

[Redfish]

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.

and you want to create laws to cater to a minority view. there are two sides to this, idiot.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Lets see how opinions shift when PA laws are really used to go after people, and when the activists start going after Churches, Synagogues, Mosques, and Temples.

Progressives can't stop, they have to keep going, and there is a line that once crossed will evaporate a lot of the support and sympathy being had.

I'm an example of that, considering I don't have an issue with SSM when enacted legislatively, and when people are not punished by government for their beliefs. Yet I have to take a position also held by people with far more hateful views because of the way it was enacted, and the future I see because of it. I do this because when you only support the rights of people you agree with, you really aren't supporting rights at all.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are no con, fish. I believe abortion has limits. It should not be after the twelfth week, and only before that for rape or incest, and during the entire period, for the health and life of the mother.

 

[Syriusly]

Yup.

then why not allow "abortion" 2 weeks after birth? there is no difference between 2 days before and 2 weeks after.
.

Redfish with another stupid post.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yup.

then why not allow "abortion" 2 weeks after birth? there is no difference between 2 days before and 2 weeks after.

You libs want to eliminate the death penalty for mass murderers, but you are all for killing innocent children.

You are just plain stupid.

You want to call abortion murder but you will not call the woman a murderer and punish her appropriately.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There are no minority views when it comes to civil rights. There is only the civil right view.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Lets see how opinions shift when PA laws are really used to go after people, and when the activists start going after Churches, Synagogues, Mosques, and Temples.

PA laws were used extensively to 'go after' business's in the 1960's. Somehow we all survived.

Activists are not going after Churches, Synagogues, Mosques or Temples- just fear mongering by the butt hurt right.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Lets see how opinions shift when PA laws are really used to go after people, and when the activists start going after Churches, Synagogues, Mosques, and Temples.

Progressives can't stop, they have to keep going, and there is a line that once crossed will evaporate a lot of the support and sympathy being had.

I'm an example of that, considering I don't have an issue with SSM when enacted legislatively, and when people are not punished by government for their beliefs. Yet I have to take a position also held by people with far more hateful views because of the way it was enacted, and the future I see because of it. I do this because when you only support the rights of people you agree with, you really aren't supporting rights at all.

Rightwingers have been going after mosques for years.

 

[Syriusly]

county is being sued more likely they will pay the costs....now that is comparable to jews being exterminated in your opinion?

So your standard is that as long as people arent gassed any policy is OK?

So your standard is that requiring a clerk to do their job is the same thing as gassing Jews?

 

[martybegan]

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.

PA laws were meant to fight systemic economic discrimination that was the residual of government mandated discrimination, i.e. Jim Crow. PA laws also were not meant to cover every single commercial activity, but point of sale items, necessary commerce, and things involving travel (i.e hotels). In some cases they are needed, but I do not see the need to force a few bakers/wedding halls/photographers to either provide a service or go out of business.

Also, since when has a PA law been used to protect Christians? I haven;t heard many cases. Enlighten me.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Lets see how opinions shift when PA laws are really used to go after people, and when the activists start going after Churches, Synagogues, Mosques, and Temples.

Progressives can't stop, they have to keep going, and there is a line that once crossed will evaporate a lot of the support and sympathy being had.

I'm an example of that, considering I don't have an issue with SSM when enacted legislatively, and when people are not punished by government for their beliefs. Yet I have to take a position also held by people with far more hateful views because of the way it was enacted, and the future I see because of it. I do this because when you only support the rights of people you agree with, you really aren't supporting rights at all.

Rightwingers have been going after mosques for years.

True that- good point.

Not so much respect for 'religious freedom' when it came to allowing Muslims to build houses of worship.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

The cat is out of the bag

Once same sex couples establish married relationships around the country, there will be no going back to the old rules

 

[martybegan]

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.

Lets see how opinions shift when PA laws are really used to go after people, and when the activists start going after Churches, Synagogues, Mosques, and Temples.

Progressives can't stop, they have to keep going, and there is a line that once crossed will evaporate a lot of the support and sympathy being had.

I'm an example of that, considering I don't have an issue with SSM when enacted legislatively, and when people are not punished by government for their beliefs. Yet I have to take a position also held by people with far more hateful views because of the way it was enacted, and the future I see because of it. I do this because when you only support the rights of people you agree with, you really aren't supporting rights at all.

Rightwingers have been going after mosques for years.

Really? I just remember the one near ground zero, and that was more of a "too soon man, too soon" thing, not a systemic attack on all Mosques.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Lets see how opinions shift when PA laws are really used to go after people, and when the activists start going after Churches, Synagogues, Mosques, and Temples.

Progressives can't stop, they have to keep going, and there is a line that once crossed will evaporate a lot of the support and sympathy being had.

I'm an example of that, considering I don't have an issue with SSM when enacted legislatively, and when people are not punished by government for their beliefs. Yet I have to take a position also held by people with far more hateful views because of the way it was enacted, and the future I see because of it. I do this because when you only support the rights of people you agree with, you really aren't supporting rights at all.

Rightwingers have been going after mosques for years.

True that- good point.

Not so much respect for 'religious freedom' when it came to allowing Muslims to build houses of worship.

One case, and did anything really come of that?

 

[martybegan]

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.

The cat is out of the bag

Once same sex couples establish married relationships around the country, there will be no going back to the old rules

So just like segregation yesterday, segregation today, segregation tomorrow?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

PA laws were meant to fight systemic economic discrimination that was the residual of government mandated discrimination, i.e. Jim Crow. PA laws also were not meant to cover every single commercial activity, but point of sale items, necessary commerce, and things involving travel (i.e hotels). In some cases they are needed, but I do not see the need to force a few bakers/wedding halls/photographers to either provide a service or go out of business.

Also, since when has a PA law been used to protect Christians? I haven;t heard many cases. Enlighten me.

As I pointed out- every PA that protects homosexuals from discrimination are most often State laws- so why exactly are you against Colorado's right to pass anti-discrimination laws?

I don't know if PA laws have been used to protect Christians- but Christians have been protected by PA laws from the passing of the very first one- unlike homosexuals.

I

 

[martybegan]

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.

PA laws were meant to fight systemic economic discrimination that was the residual of government mandated discrimination, i.e. Jim Crow. PA laws also were not meant to cover every single commercial activity, but point of sale items, necessary commerce, and things involving travel (i.e hotels). In some cases they are needed, but I do not see the need to force a few bakers/wedding halls/photographers to either provide a service or go out of business.

Also, since when has a PA law been used to protect Christians? I haven;t heard many cases. Enlighten me.

As I pointed out- every PA that protects homosexuals from discrimination are most often State laws- so why exactly are you against Colorado's right to pass anti-discrimination laws?

I don't know if PA laws have been used to protect Christians- but Christians have been protected by PA laws from the passing of the very first one- unlike homosexuals.

I

because the right to free exercise of religion is in the constitution, and the bill of rights has been found to be incorporated to the States, thus Colorado's PA laws must take religion into account.

Again, PA laws have their place for necessary commerce, but not for something like wedding vendors. In that case the free exercise takes precedence.