Supreme Court justices RIP ruling forcing states to recognize same-sex marriages - 'Threat To Religious Freedom!'

[bodecea]

Let’s just ban all marriages. Most end in divorce anyway.

Go right ahead.....actively work for that.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The Constitution prohibits government interfering in religious rites, but I agree with you on the ban of government sponsored marriages. Since they destroyed that, just convert it to some sort of social contract enabling all benefits between any two people, and leave marriage where it belongs--with religions.

So then only religious people would be able to marry? Do you see any constitutional problems with that ?

 

[bodecea]

The Constitution prohibits government interfering in religious rites, but I agree with you on the ban of government sponsored marriages. Since they destroyed that, just convert it to some sort of social contract enabling all benefits between any two people, and leave marriage where it belongs--with religions.

You are unhappy with gays getting legally married...so let's pout and get rid of all legal marriages....just like segregationists didn't like that blacks were allowed in city pools, so they closed them and filled them with cement. Same attitude when those you don't like get the same rights you have.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So then only religious people would be able to marry? Do you see any constitutional problems with that ?

What constitutional problems? If marriage went back to where it was as a religious rite, then the Constitution has nothing to do with it. Furthermore there are a lot of people like myself who never wanted to be married so I never got married. I have lived with a woman and children on several occasions. The only way for us to get marital benefits would have been for us to get married, and those women (like myself) objected to any kind of marriage religious or otherwise.

Unless you are planning to have children to carry out your name, marriage to me is stupid. How does that conversation go anyway? "Honey, I love you, and you love me. We have this great thing going, and the only possible way to make it better is getting government involved in our relationship!"

So a social contract replacing government marriage preserves marriage for normal people and gives anti-marry people like myself the ability to have the government benefits married people get.

 

[bodecea]

The problems that we have today?? I'm still waiting for you to explain how gay marriage has effected to personnally, or has been detrimental to society. You must have something to say about that considering your hostility to marriage equality.

I remember, years ago, listening to the radio on my way home from work and a local rightwing radio program had some woman.....president of a con-servative women's group "Concerned Women of America" on. She declared, seriously, that if gay marriage was legalized thousands of women would flock to divorce their husbands in order to marry each other. Maybe we have some of those divorced and abandoned men here?

 

[Blues Man]

The whole idea that the Supreme Court even has the authority to determine what the law is, is questionable to me. Where in the Constitutional does the court get to decide what the law is?

All SCOTUS does is rule on the Constitutionality of laws.

 

[bodecea]

What constitutional problems? If marriage went back to where it was as a religious rite, then the Constitution has nothing to do with it. Furthermore there are a lot of people like myself who never wanted to be married so I never got married. I have lived with a woman and children on several occasions. The only way for us to get marital benefits would have been for us to get married, and those women (like myself) objected to any kind of marriage religious or otherwise.

Unless you are planning to have children to carry out your name, marriage to me is stupid. How does that conversation go anyway? "Honey, I love you, and you love me. We have this great thing going, and the only possible way to make it better is getting government involved in our relationship!"

So a social contract replacing government marriage preserves marriage for normal people and gives anti-marry people like myself the ability to have the government benefits married people get.

So...what to do with people who are not religious?

 

[Blues Man]

Civil marriage is nothing but a legal property contract.

So states should have to recognize it for what it is.

IMO the state should not recognize any religious rite as legal.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It doesn't support your point...that couple got a power of attorney and that Florida hospital REFUSED to recognize it. And yes, it was a 12 year old article.........shows what it was like BEFORE legalized gay marriage had happened. You want to go back to that. It's not going to happen.

What the article said is what I said, and that is hospital visitation are regulated by hospitals--not government. It's the hospital that refused this woman to see her other. And as your article points out, they did the very same with heterosexual couples as well.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How does two gays getting married threaten religious freedom?
What your really saying is your again st it and using it to promote your freedom is at risk. That's bullshit. You're still to criticise and speak on behave if God.

Why would it be in the constitution?
Neither was row v wade but it's still law.
Get over it.

To my knowledge it hasn't happened yet, but what if a gay couple insist on being married in a Catholic church? The Catholic church is against gay relationships of any kind. Would they have to conduct the marriage against their beliefs because of a Supreme Court decision? And if they do, doesn't that violate their constitutional rights in regards to religion?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So...what to do with people who are not religious?

The same thing normal couples that don't want to marry would do to have marital benefits, and that is replace government marriage with a social contract.

 

[Blues Man]

To my knowledge it hasn't happened yet, but what if a gay couple insist on being married in a Catholic church? The Catholic church is against gay relationships of any kind. Would they have to conduct the marriage against their beliefs because of a Supreme Court decision? And if they do, doesn't that violate their constitutional rights in regards to religion?

One more reason we need to not recognize religious rites of marriage as legal.

Giving a religious organization the power to sanction anything as legal and binding seems to me to be a violation of the First Amendment.

 

[Blues Man]

The same thing normal couples that don't want to marry would do to have marital benefits, and that is replace government marriage with a social contract.

Civil marriage is a property contract

 

[Seawytch]

One word for you ...

UnConstitutional

Not even remotely. She wasn't fired for anything she said, she was fired for refusing to do her job.

 

[SHOWME]

That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution, & such a forced mandate on Religious persons and institutions poses a threat to religious freedom!

"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."

"The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses. The two justices said they agreed with the consensus of the court that it should not take Davis' case, but only because it did not "cleanly present" the "important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell."

Thomas and Alito dissented from the original Obergefell decision and their statement Monday could indicate that they would vote to overturn it if presented the chance."



"Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss," he wrote. "In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals."

Just because you have a deep RELIGIOUS conviction regarding marriage being between a man and a woman and does not include same-sex marriages does NOT make one a Bigot or Homophobe and protects that religious belief / conviction.

Thomas added: "This assessment flows directly from Obergefell’s language, which characterized such views as 'disparag[ing]' homosexuals and 'diminish[ing] their personhood' through '[d]ignitary wounds.'"

IN ORDER TO FIND YOUR WAY TO PARADISE, MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS

Justices Thomas, Alito slam Obergefell same-sex marriage decision as Supreme Court denies Kim Davis case

The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Seawytch]

Let’s just ban all marriages. Most end in divorce anyway.

Did yours? Mine hasn't. Been married since 2008 but been together since 1996. If you are or were married, do or did you eschew all the rights, benefits and privileges associated with civil marriage?

 

[Seawytch]

What the article said is what I said, and that is hospital visitation are regulated by hospitals--not government. It's the hospital that refused this woman to see her other. And as your article points out, they did the very same with heterosexual couples as well.

It's not about visitation, but DECISIONS. A legal spouse can make medical and legal decisions for their partner.

Also, a spouse cannot be compelled to testify. You glossed over these very important privileges of civil marriage.

 

[John T. Ford]

Not even remotely. She wasn't fired for anything she said, she was fired for refusing to do her job.

Doesn't matter ....

It is still a violation of her 1st Amendment Rights as the SCOTUS Justices point out!!

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Go right ahead.....actively work for that.

You obviously don’t understand sarcasm. Poor old hag.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Did yours? Mine hasn't. Been married since 2008 but been together since 1996. If you are or were married, do or did you eschew all the rights, benefits and privileges associated with civil marriage?

It was a JOKE. Do you leftists ever have a sense of humor. I am still married lol. My wife hasn’t kicked me out yet. Obviously marriages won’t be banned. How did you take that literally? OMG!