Should people have to perform/provide services for gay weddings?

[Katzndogz]

Of the 13 states that have marriage equality 11 of them didn't make that choice. It was imposed on them. Only two states actually made that choice. It's a perversion of reality to pretend that the people made that choice. California made a choice. We rejected same sex marriage, TWICE, then it was imposed on us.

This isn't over, part two will be the fight for religious freedom. Businesses will find a way to preserve their rights. They just have to become more creative in doing so.

 

[The Rabbi]

Reason and Logic would suggest that the Definition of Marriage, here, in the US, be a Union of a Man and a Woman, that the Court really has no grounds to declare differently. Unless it is the role of the Court to redefine the meanings of words, which it surely must do here, to show credibility. I would ask, under what authority does the Court have the Right to do that, or to legislate from the bench.
In the interest of Equality, does the Court have a Duty to create a term for a Union between Same Sex Couples, under any other name, granting it the same legal rights, as a Straight Married couple? Arguably? That is understandable. Why wasn't that the course? Why the attack, or the perceived attack on the concept of Traditional Marriage? Is the argument about fair resolution, or is there another agenda, more in line with an assault on Traditional Values, in the interest of forcing conformity to the will of the State, whom, at times confuses it's role with that of Supreme Authority? Is it that the State is looking for balance in the interest of justice, or are these just mind games, which both, divide the Community further, and impose greater control over our lives?

No, your religion dictates that. In 13 states marriage is legally between same sex couples as well. Those states chose marriage equality and the only ruling the SCOTUS made was on the Federal recognition of those legal marriages.

It has nothing to do with religion.

Many states forbid gay marriage. Do you support the right of those states to continue not to recognize gay marriage, as you support the right of those states that did vote to recognize it?

 

[Katzndogz]

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children, There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

Justice Kennedy

ALL children have a biological mother and a biological father. That pair is the only one that should be recognized.

That's a lot of adoptions, artificial inseminations and surrogacies you want to stop...by straight couples.

In what kind of adoption, artificial insemination or surrogacy does the child not have a biological mother and a biological father?

 

[OODA_Loop]

I give up. You just don't get it and aren't going to get it until the SCOTUS hears the first challenge. Who knows, maybe it will even be a challenge to your state's law.

So Perry Mason tell me, when that first case comes, what will the precedent be ?

With the current court? 5-4 in favor of striking down all anti gay marriage laws...if that's the case. I am thinking a challenge to Section 2 of DOMA will come first when some couple from NY moves to PA or a CA couple moves to Utah and their marriage is not recognized by the state like yours would be.

They could have struck down last week but affirmed it was a state choice.

 

[LittleNipper]

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children, There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

Justice Kennedy

ALL children have a biological mother and a biological father. That pair is the only one that should be recognized.

That's a lot of adoptions, artificial inseminations and surrogacies you want to stop...by straight couples.

I didn't say to stop adoption. I simply believe that only children that are biological to a husband and wife should be deductible. Marriage is only between a man and woman for the purpose of becoming one flesh.

 

[Seawytch]

Reason and Logic would suggest that the Definition of Marriage, here, in the US, be a Union of a Man and a Woman, that the Court really has no grounds to declare differently. Unless it is the role of the Court to redefine the meanings of words, which it surely must do here, to show credibility. I would ask, under what authority does the Court have the Right to do that, or to legislate from the bench.
In the interest of Equality, does the Court have a Duty to create a term for a Union between Same Sex Couples, under any other name, granting it the same legal rights, as a Straight Married couple? Arguably? That is understandable. Why wasn't that the course? Why the attack, or the perceived attack on the concept of Traditional Marriage? Is the argument about fair resolution, or is there another agenda, more in line with an assault on Traditional Values, in the interest of forcing conformity to the will of the State, whom, at times confuses it's role with that of Supreme Authority? Is it that the State is looking for balance in the interest of justice, or are these just mind games, which both, divide the Community further, and impose greater control over our lives?

No, your religion dictates that. In 13 states marriage is legally between same sex couples as well. Those states chose marriage equality and the only ruling the SCOTUS made was on the Federal recognition of those legal marriages.

It has nothing to do with religion.

Many states forbid gay marriage. Do you support the right of those states to continue not to recognize gay marriage, as you support the right of those states that did vote to recognize it?

No because those laws violate the US Constitution as does the rest of DOMA still in place.

 

[Seawytch]

ALL children have a biological mother and a biological father. That pair is the only one that should be recognized.

That's a lot of adoptions, artificial inseminations and surrogacies you want to stop...by straight couples.

In what kind of adoption, artificial insemination or surrogacy does the child not have a biological mother and a biological father?

He said the biological parents are the only ones that should be recognized. Read!!!!!

 

[OODA_Loop]

No because those laws violate the US Constitution as does the rest of DOMA still in place.

Not according to the Supreme Court.

It just made a decision based on the affirmation that marriage is state purviewed.

 

[Seawytch]

So Perry Mason tell me, when that first case comes, what will the precedent be ?

With the current court? 5-4 in favor of striking down all anti gay marriage laws...if that's the case. I am thinking a challenge to Section 2 of DOMA will come first when some couple from NY moves to PA or a CA couple moves to Utah and their marriage is not recognized by the state like yours would be.

They could have struck down last week but affirmed it was a state choice.

No they could not have because that was not the question before the court in the only case they chose to rule on.

 

[OODA_Loop]

With the current court? 5-4 in favor of striking down all anti gay marriage laws...if that's the case. I am thinking a challenge to Section 2 of DOMA will come first when some couple from NY moves to PA or a CA couple moves to Utah and their marriage is not recognized by the state like yours would be.

They could have struck down last week but affirmed it was a state choice.

No they could not have because that was not the question before the court in the only case they chose to rule on.

And what they ruled on was based on what ?

Come on type it.

 

[Seawytch]

No because those laws violate the US Constitution as does the rest of DOMA still in place.

Not according to the Supreme Court.

It just made a decision based on the affirmation that marriage is state purviewed.

Jesus H Christ on a raft. Will someone else please explain it to this person?

 

[OODA_Loop]

No because those laws violate the US Constitution as does the rest of DOMA still in place.

Not according to the Supreme Court.

It just made a decision based on the affirmation that marriage is state purviewed.

Jesus H Christ on a raft. Will someone else please explain it to this person?

What did the majority hold and proclaim as the purview of the state ?

 

[Seawytch]

ALL children have a biological mother and a biological father. That pair is the only one that should be recognized.

That's a lot of adoptions, artificial inseminations and surrogacies you want to stop...by straight couples.

I didn't say to stop adoption. I simply believe that only children that are biological to a husband and wife should be deductible. Marriage is only between a man and woman for the purpose of becoming one flesh.

Oh...so only those that conceive naturally, without adopting or using technological advances should get tax breaks. great idea...get to legislating.

 

[OODA_Loop]

"The history of DOMA's enactment and its own text demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the States in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than an incidental effect of the federal statute."

- Justice A. Kennedy for the majority

 

[Seawytch]

Not according to the Supreme Court.

It just made a decision based on the affirmation that marriage is state purviewed.

Jesus H Christ on a raft. Will someone else please explain it to this person?

What did the majority hold and proclaim as the purview of the state ?

They did not rule as to the constitutionality of anti gay marriage laws.

Yes, states can create laws. If the law violates the Constitution, it will be struck down by the SCOTUS (in theory). Whether anti gay marriage laws do that has not been challenged yet.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Jesus H Christ on a raft. Will someone else please explain it to this person?

What did the majority hold and proclaim as the purview of the state ?

They did not rule as to the constitutionality of anti gay marriage laws.

Yes, states can create laws. If the law violates the Constitution, it will be struck down by the SCOTUS (in theory). Whether anti gay marriage laws do that has not been challenged yet.

The ruled on another case based on the sovereignty of the state in marriage.

Thus the 10th says the Constitution has no effect on the matter.

State right.

 

[Katzndogz]

ALL children have a biological mother and a biological father. That pair is the only one that should be recognized.

That's a lot of adoptions, artificial inseminations and surrogacies you want to stop...by straight couples.

I didn't say to stop adoption. I simply believe that only children that are biological to a husband and wife should be deductible. Marriage is only between a man and woman for the purpose of becoming one flesh.

Then you were just medically incorrect. A surrogate mother has no biological connection of the child she carries. It is the biological child of the parents who engaged the surrogate services. In some cases the surrogate mother is the biological mother, but in most cases the embryo is implanted once conceived in a laboratory.

 

[OODA_Loop]

 

[OODA_Loop]

On Wednesday, the court’s majority ruled that the power of the individual state in defining marriage "is of central relevance" and the decision to grant same-sex couples the right to marry is "of immense import." The state, the court ruled, "used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relation in this way, its role and its power in making the decision enhanced the recognition, dignity, and protection of the class in their own community." The court held that DOMA "because of its reach and extent, departs from this history and tradition of reliance on state law to define marriage."

DOMA’s "demonstrated purpose is to ensure that if any State decides to recognize same-sex marriages, those unions will be treated as second-class marriages for purposes of federal law," the majority ruled.

Supreme Court DOMA Decision Rules Federal Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

 

[Seawytch]

What did the majority hold and proclaim as the purview of the state ?

They did not rule as to the constitutionality of anti gay marriage laws.

Yes, states can create laws. If the law violates the Constitution, it will be struck down by the SCOTUS (in theory). Whether anti gay marriage laws do that has not been challenged yet.

The ruled on another case based on the sovereignty of the state in marriage.

Thus the 10th says the Constitution has no effect on the matter.

State right.

{sigh}

The Supreme Court on Wednesday cleared the way for same-sex couples to marry in California, but avoided directly answering constitutional questions about state marriage laws.

SCOTUS Punts on Gay Marriage

The Court opts for an incremental approach but a major victory nonetheless

Okay already?