Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[JakeStarkey]

Sil keeps stumbling on the difference between right and privilege to marry

Define who has the right to marry Jake. And who doesn't. Be very specific.

Refer it to SCOTUS, because you refuse to recognize the facts. According to Windsor, states decide within the boundary of recognizing civil rights.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Sil keeps stumbling on the difference between right and privilege to marry

Define who has the right to marry Jake. And who doesn't. Be very specific.

Refer it to SCOTUS, because you refuse to recognize the facts. According to Windsor, states decide within the boundary of recognizing civil rights.

So Windsor may have the opposite effect, if states can 'decide within the boundary of recognizing civil rights', then they can just as easily decide to not recognize the civil rights of certain individuals. If this is a state issue, then states can set their own standards.

Not exactly what you had in mind, is it?

 

[bendog]

Sil keeps stumbling on the difference between right and privilege to marry

Define who has the right to marry Jake. And who doesn't. Be very specific.

Refer it to SCOTUS, because you refuse to recognize the facts. According to Windsor, states decide within the boundary of recognizing civil rights.

So Windsor may have the opposite effect, if states can 'decide within the boundary of recognizing civil rights', then they can just as easily decide to not recognize the civil rights of certain individuals. If this is a state issue, then states can set their own standards.

Not exactly what you had in mind, is it?

To do that the Supremes would have to distinguish Loving.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil keeps stumbling on the difference between right and privilege to marry

Define who has the right to marry Jake. And who doesn't. Be very specific.

Refer it to SCOTUS, because you refuse to recognize the facts. According to Windsor, states decide within the boundary of recognizing civil rights.

So Windsor may have the opposite effect, if states can 'decide within the boundary of recognizing civil rights', then they can just as easily decide to not recognize the civil rights of certain individuals. If this is a state issue, then states can set their own standards.

Not exactly what you had in mind, is it?

To do that the Supremes would have to distinguish Loving.

Sil somehow thinks the states can rule out marriage equality without the federal government courts stepping in.

Oh, that's right: almost two dozen decisions now.

So, Sil, yes, SCOTUS will decide in the end, as it always does when folks like you try to prevent other people from exercising their rights.

 

[bendog]

Well in Windsor the supremes passed on the question of whether states could deny same sex folks marriage. But, there was the distinct questioning of when Scalia asked Olson, "and when did this right of racial intermarriage arise?" And the answer was "when the court said it did."

If states can deny same sex marriage, they'll have to distinguish that from anti-miscegenation laws, because at some point the supremes will not be able to duck the issue.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is what Ginsburg said. Ginsburg Watch 6th Circuit On Gay Marriage US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[bendog]

Oh yeah. They're waiting till its down to Kentucky Ala Miss and SC, and then they'll drop the hammer.

 

[Seawytch]

Oh yeah. They're waiting till its down to Kentucky Ala Miss and SC, and then they'll drop the hammer.

They aren't going to have the luxury. They'll have to take it up in the next year or two.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Now that Sotomayo has Kennedy on board and Roberts wavering, the guillotine is being raised in its groove as the anti-marriage equality prisoner, arms and hands bounds by the horizontal leather straps cinched at the back, is being hurried to the engine's bed.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Well in Windsor the supremes passed on the question of whether states could deny same sex folks marriage. But, there was the distinct questioning of when Scalia asked Olson, "and when did this right of racial intermarriage arise?" And the answer was "when the court said it did."

If states can deny same sex marriage, they'll have to distinguish that from anti-miscegenation laws, because at some point the supremes will not be able to duck the issue.

Windsor was a Federal law case based on the 5th Amendment. Whether States could discriminate against homosexuals is a 14th Amendment issue that wasn't before the court.

Ms. Windsor was legally married, the Federal government said we're just going to ignore that. The court said no you can't. It had no bearing on whether New York could say "No", the case was based on New York having said "Yes".


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Windsor was a Federal law case based on the 5th Amendment. Whether States could discriminate against homosexuals is a 14th Amendment issue that wasn't before the court.

Ms. Windsor was legally married, the Federal government said we're just going to ignore that. The court said no you can't. It had no bearing on whether New York could say "No", the case was based on New York having said "Yes".


>>>>

The Court found that the REASON Ms. Windsor was legally married was because after a long deliberative process which involved the entire citizenry of the State of New York, the weird and new concept that defied thousands of years of traditional definition of marriage was embraced by that discreet community. Then and only then was her marriage legal. Read Windsor Opinion pages 14-22. See if you come up with a different view from the Court. Think: preponderance of statements and repetition. For they are key in interpreting what the Court's stance will be in the future as to the 14th covering gay behaviors. United States v. Windsor

The case determined the State made a choice on gay marriage and as a result of their choice, the fed had to abide.

Choices are not "the option to say "Yes" or "Yes". They are the option to say "Yes" or "No"...

The Windsor Decision can be called "The States' Choice" Decision.

 

[JakeStarkey]

142 pages in and guess what: WW is still right, and Sil is still wrong.

 

[Silhouette]

142 pages in and guess what: WW is still right, and Sil is still wrong.

142 pages and guess what? over 82% of "supporters of gay marriage" think there are exceptions to allowing it...

 

[RKMBrown]

142 pages in and guess what: WW is still right, and Sil is still wrong.

142 pages and guess what? over 82% of "supporters of gay marriage" think there are exceptions to allowing it...

142 pages and half of them are filled with your blatant lies.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What, that churches will not be forced to marry gays?

What, that Sil and others cannot attack the parenting quality of LGBT without examining those of hetero adults, because the latter commit 100s of times more attacks on youngsters?

What: that SCOTUS, under Windsor, has the right to intervene and order marriage equality throughout land?

What: that cultural McCarthyism of the far right is failing as a political and cultural movement?

 

[Silhouette]

142 pages in and guess what: WW is still right, and Sil is still wrong.

142 pages and guess what? over 82% of "supporters of gay marriage" think there are exceptions to allowing it...

142 pages and half of them are filled with your blatant lies.

Have you read the poll results at the top of this thread? Over 82% of hundreds of responders [one of the most popular polls I've seen at USMB] say they don't believe everyone should support gay marriage in practice. If the question was "should churches be forced to accomodate for black weddings", the poll results would be very different.

And that's because most people know the difference between sexual BEHAVIORS and an actual race of people..

 

[Jarlaxle]

One more time, for the really, really, REALLY slow kid: many supporters of gay marriage DO NOT support forcing churches to marry ANYONE.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The poll means nothing about support for marriage equality.

The poll findings mean only that 8 of 10 on THIS BOARD think churches should not have to marry folks they don't want to.

 

[JakeStarkey]

142 pages in and guess what: WW is still right, and Sil is still wrong.

142 pages and guess what? over 82% of "supporters of gay marriage" think there are exceptions to allowing it...

142 pages and half of them are filled with your blatant lies.

Have you read the poll results at the top of this thread? Over 82% of hundreds of responders [one of the most popular polls I've seen at USMB] say they don't believe everyone should support gay marriage in practice. If the question was "should churches be forced to accomodate for black weddings", the poll results would be very different.

And that's because most people know the difference between sexual BEHAVIORS and an actual race of people..

Only in the strange places in your head, Sil.

 

[RKMBrown]

142 pages in and guess what: WW is still right, and Sil is still wrong.

142 pages and guess what? over 82% of "supporters of gay marriage" think there are exceptions to allowing it...

142 pages and half of them are filled with your blatant lies.

Have you read the poll results at the top of this thread? Over 82% of hundreds of responders [one of the most popular polls I've seen at USMB] say they don't believe everyone should support gay marriage in practice. If the question was "should churches be forced to accomodate for black weddings", the poll results would be very different.

And that's because most people know the difference between sexual BEHAVIORS and an actual race of people..

You're a POS liar.