Tennessee Seeks tonBar Same Sex Marriage

[WinterBorn]

'Tennessee Natural Marriage Defense Act' seeks to strip gay marriage rights


I really have to wonder what the fuck is wrong with these people! My only question is, are they so stupid and blindly driven by their bigotry that they don't know that any federal judge will immediately slap on injunction on this- because they would have to given the Obergefell precedent- OR is a a strategy to get the case back to SCOTUS?

My guess is that they are anticipating and provoking a court fight, but even if it gets to SCOTUS there is no certainty that Obergefell will be overturned. Never in our history a right-once established- been revoked. A Roberts, who seems to have become the new swing vote, is aware of the outrage that would insue and the stain on his legacy that it would inflict.

Nearly four years after the Supreme Court made same-sex marriage legal throughout the U.S. in its landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision, Republican lawmakers in Tennessee are attempting to turn back the clock with legislation aimed at barring gay marriage in the state.


The "Tennessee Natural Marriage Defense Act," which was first proposed in 2016, seeks to "defend natural marriage between one man and one woman regardless of any court decision to the contrary." The bill, which was reintroduced on Friday, would deem the high court's Obergefell decision "unauthoritative, void, and of no effect."

And that is not all

The reintroduced "natural marriage" law, however, "isn't the only anti-LGBT bill on the docket right now," noted Sanders. He said there are at least five other bills in the state legislature that may threaten the rights of LGBTQ people in Tennessee. One of these bills, which was introduced in both the state House and Senate (Pody is the sponsor of the Senate bill), seeks to allow private adoption agencies to decline to participate in any child placement services that would "violate the agency's written religious or moral convictions." This type of legislation, which can already be found in 10 states across the U.S., creates barriers for LGBTQ individuals and same-sex couples looking to adopt or foster.

These people have to be, and will be stopped.

The state not recognizing queer marriages isn’t “banning” them.

Get a grip.

For practical purposes it is. They are not granted the hundreds of benefits married couples get.

 

[anynameyouwish]

There is no "gay marriage right." You're confusing "rights" with "privileges".

You also have no "right" to an abortion, a free education, free internet, free housing, free food, or a free telephone. Go back and re-read the Constitution and get back to me when you're done.

By that logic, there is no right to a gun, free speech, due process of law, the religion of your choice.

Just ask Japanese-Americans in 1942. Or the Branch Davidians.

There are no "rights" at all, whether enumerated in the constitution or by court ruling. There are only privileges that the majority thinks you should have.

I believe you misunderstood what the conservative meant.

CONSERVATIVES have RIGHTS!

everyone else has PRIVILEGES granted by conservatives.

 

[theHawk]

'Tennessee Natural Marriage Defense Act' seeks to strip gay marriage rights


I really have to wonder what the fuck is wrong with these people! My only question is, are they so stupid and blindly driven by their bigotry that they don't know that any federal judge will immediately slap on injunction on this- because they would have to given the Obergefell precedent- OR is a a strategy to get the case back to SCOTUS?

My guess is that they are anticipating and provoking a court fight, but even if it gets to SCOTUS there is no certainty that Obergefell will be overturned. Never in our history a right-once established- been revoked. A Roberts, who seems to have become the new swing vote, is aware of the outrage that would insue and the stain on his legacy that it would inflict.

Nearly four years after the Supreme Court made same-sex marriage legal throughout the U.S. in its landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision, Republican lawmakers in Tennessee are attempting to turn back the clock with legislation aimed at barring gay marriage in the state.


The "Tennessee Natural Marriage Defense Act," which was first proposed in 2016, seeks to "defend natural marriage between one man and one woman regardless of any court decision to the contrary." The bill, which was reintroduced on Friday, would deem the high court's Obergefell decision "unauthoritative, void, and of no effect."

And that is not all

The reintroduced "natural marriage" law, however, "isn't the only anti-LGBT bill on the docket right now," noted Sanders. He said there are at least five other bills in the state legislature that may threaten the rights of LGBTQ people in Tennessee. One of these bills, which was introduced in both the state House and Senate (Pody is the sponsor of the Senate bill), seeks to allow private adoption agencies to decline to participate in any child placement services that would "violate the agency's written religious or moral convictions." This type of legislation, which can already be found in 10 states across the U.S., creates barriers for LGBTQ individuals and same-sex couples looking to adopt or foster.

These people have to be, and will be stopped.

The state not recognizing queer marriages isn’t “banning” them.

Get a grip.

For practical purposes it is. They are not granted the hundreds of benefits married couples get.

Not should they be. Show me the extensive studies that have shown that gay couples are just as good at parenting. We already know that gays have a much higher tendency to be violent, as well as child molesters.

 

[Dana7360]

You said it would be ruled unconstitutional would be over turned

I was confused about what law and state you were talking about, it appears.

Ok.

 

[anynameyouwish]

'Tennessee Natural Marriage Defense Act' seeks to strip gay marriage rights


I really have to wonder what the fuck is wrong with these people! My only question is, are they so stupid and blindly driven by their bigotry that they don't know that any federal judge will immediately slap on injunction on this- because they would have to given the Obergefell precedent- OR is a a strategy to get the case back to SCOTUS?

My guess is that they are anticipating and provoking a court fight, but even if it gets to SCOTUS there is no certainty that Obergefell will be overturned. Never in our history a right-once established- been revoked. A Roberts, who seems to have become the new swing vote, is aware of the outrage that would insue and the stain on his legacy that it would inflict.

Nearly four years after the Supreme Court made same-sex marriage legal throughout the U.S. in its landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision, Republican lawmakers in Tennessee are attempting to turn back the clock with legislation aimed at barring gay marriage in the state.


The "Tennessee Natural Marriage Defense Act," which was first proposed in 2016, seeks to "defend natural marriage between one man and one woman regardless of any court decision to the contrary." The bill, which was reintroduced on Friday, would deem the high court's Obergefell decision "unauthoritative, void, and of no effect."

And that is not all

The reintroduced "natural marriage" law, however, "isn't the only anti-LGBT bill on the docket right now," noted Sanders. He said there are at least five other bills in the state legislature that may threaten the rights of LGBTQ people in Tennessee. One of these bills, which was introduced in both the state House and Senate (Pody is the sponsor of the Senate bill), seeks to allow private adoption agencies to decline to participate in any child placement services that would "violate the agency's written religious or moral convictions." This type of legislation, which can already be found in 10 states across the U.S., creates barriers for LGBTQ individuals and same-sex couples looking to adopt or foster.

These people have to be, and will be stopped.

The state not recognizing queer marriages isn’t “banning” them.

Get a grip.

For practical purposes it is. They are not granted the hundreds of benefits married couples get.

Not should they be. Show me the extensive studies that have shown that gay couples are just as good at parenting. We already know that gays have a much higher tendency to be violent, as well as child molesters.

"Not should they be. Show me the extensive studies that have shown that gay couples are just as good at parenting. We already know that gays have a much higher tendency to be violent, as well as child molesters."


show me the studies that have shown gays to be more violent or child molesters.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

'Tennessee Natural Marriage Defense Act' seeks to strip gay marriage rights


I really have to wonder what the fuck is wrong with these people! My only question is, are they so stupid and blindly driven by their bigotry that they don't know that any federal judge will immediately slap on injunction on this- because they would have to given the Obergefell precedent- OR is a a strategy to get the case back to SCOTUS?

My guess is that they are anticipating and provoking a court fight, but even if it gets to SCOTUS there is no certainty that Obergefell will be overturned. Never in our history a right-once established- been revoked. A Roberts, who seems to have become the new swing vote, is aware of the outrage that would insue and the stain on his legacy that it would inflict.

Nearly four years after the Supreme Court made same-sex marriage legal throughout the U.S. in its landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision, Republican lawmakers in Tennessee are attempting to turn back the clock with legislation aimed at barring gay marriage in the state.


The "Tennessee Natural Marriage Defense Act," which was first proposed in 2016, seeks to "defend natural marriage between one man and one woman regardless of any court decision to the contrary." The bill, which was reintroduced on Friday, would deem the high court's Obergefell decision "unauthoritative, void, and of no effect."

And that is not all

The reintroduced "natural marriage" law, however, "isn't the only anti-LGBT bill on the docket right now," noted Sanders. He said there are at least five other bills in the state legislature that may threaten the rights of LGBTQ people in Tennessee. One of these bills, which was introduced in both the state House and Senate (Pody is the sponsor of the Senate bill), seeks to allow private adoption agencies to decline to participate in any child placement services that would "violate the agency's written religious or moral convictions." This type of legislation, which can already be found in 10 states across the U.S., creates barriers for LGBTQ individuals and same-sex couples looking to adopt or foster.

These people have to be, and will be stopped.

The state not recognizing queer marriages isn’t “banning” them.

Get a grip.

For practical purposes it is. They are not granted the hundreds of benefits married couples get.

Not should they be. Show me the extensive studies that have shown that gay couples are just as good at parenting. We already know that gays have a much higher tendency to be violent, as well as child molesters.

"Not should they be. Show me the extensive studies that have shown that gay couples are just as good at parenting. We already know that gays have a much higher tendency to be violent, as well as child molesters."


show me the studies that have shown gays to be more violent or child molesters.

The Hawk is a lying sack of shit. If he comes up with anything it will be some anti gay propaganda crap, probobly from the Family Research Council , or from 1950

 

[bodecea]

I guess that's all you got now....age-ism. Sad.

You are indeed.

But I still remember the good old days when you used to hit on me and I would scorn you lol.

Oh...that's right....I remember you fantasizing that.

I'm surprised you remember anything at your age.

When dementia knocks, memory leaves.

...considering that both my parents died of Alzheimers.....very conservative republican of you.

Wow that must have been back when they still called it senility.

You must be one of those conservative republican christians we hear about.

 

[bodecea]

Again, equal protection under the law....a concept that you are apparently unable to grasp.

Again...any homosexual man can marry any woman he wants, and any homosexual woman can marry any man she wants. They absolutely have equal rights. Want you want are special rights. And you want to mask them as being “unequal” when those special rights are denied.

I love that argument....just like this story:

During the Cold War, a Soviet soldier in Berlin met an American soldier at a bar.....they started talking. The American bragged about American freedom of speech. "In America, I can call the President of the United States a son of a bitch and I will not get arrested." The Soviet laughed and said, "In Soviet Russia, we too have freedom of speech. I can call the President of the United States a son of a bitch and I also would not get arrested."

 

[bodecea]

'Tennessee Natural Marriage Defense Act' seeks to strip gay marriage rights


I really have to wonder what the fuck is wrong with these people! My only question is, are they so stupid and blindly driven by their bigotry that they don't know that any federal judge will immediately slap on injunction on this- because they would have to given the Obergefell precedent- OR is a a strategy to get the case back to SCOTUS?

My guess is that they are anticipating and provoking a court fight, but even if it gets to SCOTUS there is no certainty that Obergefell will be overturned. Never in our history a right-once established- been revoked. A Roberts, who seems to have become the new swing vote, is aware of the outrage that would insue and the stain on his legacy that it would inflict.

Nearly four years after the Supreme Court made same-sex marriage legal throughout the U.S. in its landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision, Republican lawmakers in Tennessee are attempting to turn back the clock with legislation aimed at barring gay marriage in the state.


The "Tennessee Natural Marriage Defense Act," which was first proposed in 2016, seeks to "defend natural marriage between one man and one woman regardless of any court decision to the contrary." The bill, which was reintroduced on Friday, would deem the high court's Obergefell decision "unauthoritative, void, and of no effect."

And that is not all

The reintroduced "natural marriage" law, however, "isn't the only anti-LGBT bill on the docket right now," noted Sanders. He said there are at least five other bills in the state legislature that may threaten the rights of LGBTQ people in Tennessee. One of these bills, which was introduced in both the state House and Senate (Pody is the sponsor of the Senate bill), seeks to allow private adoption agencies to decline to participate in any child placement services that would "violate the agency's written religious or moral convictions." This type of legislation, which can already be found in 10 states across the U.S., creates barriers for LGBTQ individuals and same-sex couples looking to adopt or foster.

These people have to be, and will be stopped.

The state not recognizing queer marriages isn’t “banning” them.

Get a grip.

For practical purposes it is. They are not granted the hundreds of benefits married couples get.

Not should they be. Show me the extensive studies that have shown that gay couples are just as good at parenting. We already know that gays have a much higher tendency to be violent, as well as child molesters.

One in four girls are sexually abused before they reach 18......that is NOT by gays...and sadly, in many cases it is by hetero male FAMILY members and friends.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Another cut/pasted regressive parasite thread pissing and moaning because normal people don't give a shit about warped sexual deviants and perverts not being accepted as normal...

Because they're not.

Change the fucking record parasite.



.

Pathological hate ^^^ all dressed in blue. This ^^^ is abnormal.

 

[martybegan]

The amount of time, energy, and state money these state legislators spend on this stupidity is astonishing. Don't they have any real responsibilities?

The 14th Amendment exists, Obergefell is precedential, and it would do a great deal of damage to our country and legal system to allow the passing of legislation that is totally ideological in origin and has nothing to do with any legitimate government interest.

Are the people who try to pass these laws "normal"?

They are using the legislative process to voice their views, as is proper.

Obergfell overstepped the bounds of constitutionality, plain and simple. At best what they should have done is force all States to recognize valid Marriage licenses from other States as they always have under full faith and credit, regardless of if the license met the in-state requirements.

Obergefell did not overstep any bounds of constitutionality. Please review the 14th Amendment.
Outside of any constitutional argument, just what is your beef? The question of legal marriage is a CIVIL matter. Now, LGBTs can get married under CIVIL law and enjoy the LEGAL benefits of doing so.
Please recognize the difference between CIVIL LAW and the rules of whatever religion you have freely chosen to follow. Being legally married is under our U.S. civil law.
What being married means to you, under your chosen religion or ideology is up to you.
One of my uncles married a woman and had one child with her, my cousin. They divorced, and he married another, and had three children with her. They were never married in the Catholic Churrch with full ceremony, but they were married under civil law.
Marriage under civil U.S. law is so different than the concept of marriage that exists in the religious law that you choose to follow.

The issue is the creation of rights because people feel like it over sound principles. The 14th amendment isn't an open book that allows anything under "equal" to be inserted into it.

The issue is marriage contracts have always been the responsibility of the States. Using the courts to all of a sudden say a new concept such as SSM is now somehow a right is an end run around the constitution on dubious legal grounds. Obergfell would have been on much more sound legal footing if all they did was say even if a State doesn't want to issue SSM licenses, they had to recognize SSM licenses issued by other States (that passed it legislatively) under full faith and credit.

And your protestations about letting people be and do what they want falls hollow considering you are one of the "BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE PEASANT" mafia members.

We all know your true goal is forcing acceptance as opposed to tolerance, and you will use government as a bludgeon to do it.

Also, I always find it comical when progressive thugs like you read into amendments to three of four layers to get what you want while ignoring the 2nd amendment's blunt assurance of the people's right to keep and bear arms. Of course expecting honestly and fairness out of a progressive hack like you is asking too much.

Equal treatment under the law stands under the 14th Amendment.
Once a right is established, it is established for all.
I am not a "thug."
Laws created only to please adherents of a particular ideology are not acceptable in the United States.
"Mafia members"? What is a "mafia member" to stand up for our public-public-accommodation laws and insist that they be followed as a condition of being licensed to do business in our communities?
Since the Muslim term "sharia 'law" has now become to stand for "religious law" in general, to which form of sharia law do you adhere? You seem to be in agreement that a state in the United States of America should be entitled to enforce some form of sharia law on its citizens.
CIVIL LAW is very different than the law that you accept when you choose a religion. Remember that choosing a religion is choosing a lifestyle. From your post, it appears that you have chosen, freely, a lifestyle that involves some mixture of the "Christian faith," guns, and hatred of LGBTs. It is a bizarre cult..

The 14th amendment isn't some open ended thing that allows progressive hacks like you to force other people to accept your morality.

Yet you support laws that appease your moral codes, and FUCK everyone else, right? Progressivism is more of a religion these days anyway.

How is a baker asking someone to please go to another baker for one specific item "Sharia Law"?

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Another cut/pasted regressive parasite thread pissing and moaning because normal people don't give a shit about warped sexual deviants and perverts not being accepted as normal...

Because they're not.

Change the fucking record parasite.



.

I don't consider this guy normal -- but I don't think that gives me the right to prevent him from being married if there is an adult with the vast amount of low self esteem necessary to marry him..

 

[bodecea]

Another cut/pasted regressive parasite thread pissing and moaning because normal people don't give a shit about warped sexual deviants and perverts not being accepted as normal...

Because they're not.

Change the fucking record parasite.



.

I don't consider this guy normal -- but I don't think that gives me the right to prevent him from being married if there is an adult with the vast amount of low self esteem necessary to marry him..

Tho it shudders to make me think of some poor woman being attached to him.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Whities once had the right to own slaves.

I demand he retract his erroneous assertion immediately.

Good luck with that, RegressiveParasite only posts erroneous bullshit.

He married an illegal homo who left him when he got his green card.

True story. lol

Really? OMG!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The amount of time, energy, and state money these state legislators spend on this stupidity is astonishing. Don't they have any real responsibilities?

The 14th Amendment exists, Obergefell is precedential, and it would do a great deal of damage to our country and legal system to allow the passing of legislation that is totally ideological in origin and has nothing to do with any legitimate government interest.

Are the people who try to pass these laws "normal"?

They are using the legislative process to voice their views, as is proper.

Obergfell overstepped the bounds of constitutionality, plain and simple. At best what they should have done is force all States to recognize valid Marriage licenses from other States as they always have under full faith and credit, regardless of if the license met the in-state requirements.

Obergefell did not overstep any bounds of constitutionality. Please review the 14th Amendment.
Outside of any constitutional argument, just what is your beef? The question of legal marriage is a CIVIL matter. Now, LGBTs can get married under CIVIL law and enjoy the LEGAL benefits of doing so.
Please recognize the difference between CIVIL LAW and the rules of whatever religion you have freely chosen to follow. Being legally married is under our U.S. civil law.
What being married means to you, under your chosen religion or ideology is up to you.
One of my uncles married a woman and had one child with her, my cousin. They divorced, and he married another, and had three children with her. They were never married in the Catholic Churrch with full ceremony, but they were married under civil law.
Marriage under civil U.S. law is so different than the concept of marriage that exists in the religious law that you choose to follow.

The issue is the creation of rights because people feel like it over sound principles. The 14th amendment isn't an open book that allows anything under "equal" to be inserted into it.

The issue is marriage contracts have always been the responsibility of the States. Using the courts to all of a sudden say a new concept such as SSM is now somehow a right is an end run around the constitution on dubious legal grounds. Obergfell would have been on much more sound legal footing if all they did was say even if a State doesn't want to issue SSM licenses, they had to recognize SSM licenses issued by other States (that passed it legislatively) under full faith and credit.

And your protestations about letting people be and do what they want falls hollow considering you are one of the "BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE PEASANT" mafia members.

We all know your true goal is forcing acceptance as opposed to tolerance, and you will use government as a bludgeon to do it.

Also, I always find it comical when progressive thugs like you read into amendments to three of four layers to get what you want while ignoring the 2nd amendment's blunt assurance of the people's right to keep and bear arms. Of course expecting honestly and fairness out of a progressive hack like you is asking too much.

Equal treatment under the law stands under the 14th Amendment.
Once a right is established, it is established for all.
I am not a "thug."
Laws created only to please adherents of a particular ideology are not acceptable in the United States.
"Mafia members"? What is a "mafia member" to stand up for our public-public-accommodation laws and insist that they be followed as a condition of being licensed to do business in our communities?
Since the Muslim term "sharia 'law" has now become to stand for "religious law" in general, to which form of sharia law do you adhere? You seem to be in agreement that a state in the United States of America should be entitled to enforce some form of sharia law on its citizens.
CIVIL LAW is very different than the law that you accept when you choose a religion. Remember that choosing a religion is choosing a lifestyle. From your post, it appears that you have chosen, freely, a lifestyle that involves some mixture of the "Christian faith," guns, and hatred of LGBTs. It is a bizarre cult..

The 14th amendment isn't some open ended thing that allows progressive hacks like you to force other people to accept your morality.

Yet you support laws that appease your moral codes, and FUCK everyone else, right? Progressivism is more of a religion these days anyway.

How is a baker asking someone to please go to another baker for one specific item "Sharia Law"?

It's not about morality or religion , it's about due process and equal protection under the law. You people can't seem to understand that granting rights to others does not detract from your rights.

 

[Polishprince]

They are using the legislative process to voice their views, as is proper.

Obergfell overstepped the bounds of constitutionality, plain and simple. At best what they should have done is force all States to recognize valid Marriage licenses from other States as they always have under full faith and credit, regardless of if the license met the in-state requirements.

Obergefell did not overstep any bounds of constitutionality. Please review the 14th Amendment.
Outside of any constitutional argument, just what is your beef? The question of legal marriage is a CIVIL matter. Now, LGBTs can get married under CIVIL law and enjoy the LEGAL benefits of doing so.
Please recognize the difference between CIVIL LAW and the rules of whatever religion you have freely chosen to follow. Being legally married is under our U.S. civil law.
What being married means to you, under your chosen religion or ideology is up to you.
One of my uncles married a woman and had one child with her, my cousin. They divorced, and he married another, and had three children with her. They were never married in the Catholic Churrch with full ceremony, but they were married under civil law.
Marriage under civil U.S. law is so different than the concept of marriage that exists in the religious law that you choose to follow.

The issue is the creation of rights because people feel like it over sound principles. The 14th amendment isn't an open book that allows anything under "equal" to be inserted into it.

The issue is marriage contracts have always been the responsibility of the States. Using the courts to all of a sudden say a new concept such as SSM is now somehow a right is an end run around the constitution on dubious legal grounds. Obergfell would have been on much more sound legal footing if all they did was say even if a State doesn't want to issue SSM licenses, they had to recognize SSM licenses issued by other States (that passed it legislatively) under full faith and credit.

And your protestations about letting people be and do what they want falls hollow considering you are one of the "BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE PEASANT" mafia members.

We all know your true goal is forcing acceptance as opposed to tolerance, and you will use government as a bludgeon to do it.

Also, I always find it comical when progressive thugs like you read into amendments to three of four layers to get what you want while ignoring the 2nd amendment's blunt assurance of the people's right to keep and bear arms. Of course expecting honestly and fairness out of a progressive hack like you is asking too much.

Equal treatment under the law stands under the 14th Amendment.
Once a right is established, it is established for all.
I am not a "thug."
Laws created only to please adherents of a particular ideology are not acceptable in the United States.
"Mafia members"? What is a "mafia member" to stand up for our public-public-accommodation laws and insist that they be followed as a condition of being licensed to do business in our communities?
Since the Muslim term "sharia 'law" has now become to stand for "religious law" in general, to which form of sharia law do you adhere? You seem to be in agreement that a state in the United States of America should be entitled to enforce some form of sharia law on its citizens.
CIVIL LAW is very different than the law that you accept when you choose a religion. Remember that choosing a religion is choosing a lifestyle. From your post, it appears that you have chosen, freely, a lifestyle that involves some mixture of the "Christian faith," guns, and hatred of LGBTs. It is a bizarre cult..

The 14th amendment isn't some open ended thing that allows progressive hacks like you to force other people to accept your morality.

Yet you support laws that appease your moral codes, and FUCK everyone else, right? Progressivism is more of a religion these days anyway.

How is a baker asking someone to please go to another baker for one specific item "Sharia Law"?

It's not about morality or religion , it's about due process and equal protection under the law. You people can't seem to understand that granting rights to others does not detract from your rights.

How about the Right of bakers in Oregon NOT to participate in Gay Marriage? Or county clerks in Kentucky? The right to free practice of religion is enshrined in the Constitution, the right to take it up the ass is not.

 

[martybegan]

They are using the legislative process to voice their views, as is proper.

Obergfell overstepped the bounds of constitutionality, plain and simple. At best what they should have done is force all States to recognize valid Marriage licenses from other States as they always have under full faith and credit, regardless of if the license met the in-state requirements.

Obergefell did not overstep any bounds of constitutionality. Please review the 14th Amendment.
Outside of any constitutional argument, just what is your beef? The question of legal marriage is a CIVIL matter. Now, LGBTs can get married under CIVIL law and enjoy the LEGAL benefits of doing so.
Please recognize the difference between CIVIL LAW and the rules of whatever religion you have freely chosen to follow. Being legally married is under our U.S. civil law.
What being married means to you, under your chosen religion or ideology is up to you.
One of my uncles married a woman and had one child with her, my cousin. They divorced, and he married another, and had three children with her. They were never married in the Catholic Churrch with full ceremony, but they were married under civil law.
Marriage under civil U.S. law is so different than the concept of marriage that exists in the religious law that you choose to follow.

The issue is the creation of rights because people feel like it over sound principles. The 14th amendment isn't an open book that allows anything under "equal" to be inserted into it.

The issue is marriage contracts have always been the responsibility of the States. Using the courts to all of a sudden say a new concept such as SSM is now somehow a right is an end run around the constitution on dubious legal grounds. Obergfell would have been on much more sound legal footing if all they did was say even if a State doesn't want to issue SSM licenses, they had to recognize SSM licenses issued by other States (that passed it legislatively) under full faith and credit.

And your protestations about letting people be and do what they want falls hollow considering you are one of the "BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE PEASANT" mafia members.

We all know your true goal is forcing acceptance as opposed to tolerance, and you will use government as a bludgeon to do it.

Also, I always find it comical when progressive thugs like you read into amendments to three of four layers to get what you want while ignoring the 2nd amendment's blunt assurance of the people's right to keep and bear arms. Of course expecting honestly and fairness out of a progressive hack like you is asking too much.

Equal treatment under the law stands under the 14th Amendment.
Once a right is established, it is established for all.
I am not a "thug."
Laws created only to please adherents of a particular ideology are not acceptable in the United States.
"Mafia members"? What is a "mafia member" to stand up for our public-public-accommodation laws and insist that they be followed as a condition of being licensed to do business in our communities?
Since the Muslim term "sharia 'law" has now become to stand for "religious law" in general, to which form of sharia law do you adhere? You seem to be in agreement that a state in the United States of America should be entitled to enforce some form of sharia law on its citizens.
CIVIL LAW is very different than the law that you accept when you choose a religion. Remember that choosing a religion is choosing a lifestyle. From your post, it appears that you have chosen, freely, a lifestyle that involves some mixture of the "Christian faith," guns, and hatred of LGBTs. It is a bizarre cult..

The 14th amendment isn't some open ended thing that allows progressive hacks like you to force other people to accept your morality.

Yet you support laws that appease your moral codes, and FUCK everyone else, right? Progressivism is more of a religion these days anyway.

How is a baker asking someone to please go to another baker for one specific item "Sharia Law"?

It's not about morality or religion , it's about due process and equal protection under the law. You people can't seem to understand that granting rights to others does not detract from your rights.

"BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE, PEASANT"

 

[WinterBorn]

Obergefell did not overstep any bounds of constitutionality. Please review the 14th Amendment.
Outside of any constitutional argument, just what is your beef? The question of legal marriage is a CIVIL matter. Now, LGBTs can get married under CIVIL law and enjoy the LEGAL benefits of doing so.
Please recognize the difference between CIVIL LAW and the rules of whatever religion you have freely chosen to follow. Being legally married is under our U.S. civil law.
What being married means to you, under your chosen religion or ideology is up to you.
One of my uncles married a woman and had one child with her, my cousin. They divorced, and he married another, and had three children with her. They were never married in the Catholic Churrch with full ceremony, but they were married under civil law.
Marriage under civil U.S. law is so different than the concept of marriage that exists in the religious law that you choose to follow.

The issue is the creation of rights because people feel like it over sound principles. The 14th amendment isn't an open book that allows anything under "equal" to be inserted into it.

The issue is marriage contracts have always been the responsibility of the States. Using the courts to all of a sudden say a new concept such as SSM is now somehow a right is an end run around the constitution on dubious legal grounds. Obergfell would have been on much more sound legal footing if all they did was say even if a State doesn't want to issue SSM licenses, they had to recognize SSM licenses issued by other States (that passed it legislatively) under full faith and credit.

And your protestations about letting people be and do what they want falls hollow considering you are one of the "BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE PEASANT" mafia members.

We all know your true goal is forcing acceptance as opposed to tolerance, and you will use government as a bludgeon to do it.

Also, I always find it comical when progressive thugs like you read into amendments to three of four layers to get what you want while ignoring the 2nd amendment's blunt assurance of the people's right to keep and bear arms. Of course expecting honestly and fairness out of a progressive hack like you is asking too much.

Equal treatment under the law stands under the 14th Amendment.
Once a right is established, it is established for all.
I am not a "thug."
Laws created only to please adherents of a particular ideology are not acceptable in the United States.
"Mafia members"? What is a "mafia member" to stand up for our public-public-accommodation laws and insist that they be followed as a condition of being licensed to do business in our communities?
Since the Muslim term "sharia 'law" has now become to stand for "religious law" in general, to which form of sharia law do you adhere? You seem to be in agreement that a state in the United States of America should be entitled to enforce some form of sharia law on its citizens.
CIVIL LAW is very different than the law that you accept when you choose a religion. Remember that choosing a religion is choosing a lifestyle. From your post, it appears that you have chosen, freely, a lifestyle that involves some mixture of the "Christian faith," guns, and hatred of LGBTs. It is a bizarre cult..

The 14th amendment isn't some open ended thing that allows progressive hacks like you to force other people to accept your morality.

Yet you support laws that appease your moral codes, and FUCK everyone else, right? Progressivism is more of a religion these days anyway.

How is a baker asking someone to please go to another baker for one specific item "Sharia Law"?

It's not about morality or religion , it's about due process and equal protection under the law. You people can't seem to understand that granting rights to others does not detract from your rights.

How about the Right of bakers in Oregon NOT to participate in Gay Marriage? Or county clerks in Kentucky? The right to free practice of religion is enshrined in the Constitution, the right to take it up the ass is not.

The SCOTUS ruling has nothing to do with the Oregon bakers. The bakers lost because of anti discrimination laws.

And I would suggest being careful claiming that selling someone a cake is participating in the wedding. Because that could lead to someone selling a gun and being held liable because they participated in a murder.

 

[Lysistrata]

Obergefell did not overstep any bounds of constitutionality. Please review the 14th Amendment.
Outside of any constitutional argument, just what is your beef? The question of legal marriage is a CIVIL matter. Now, LGBTs can get married under CIVIL law and enjoy the LEGAL benefits of doing so.
Please recognize the difference between CIVIL LAW and the rules of whatever religion you have freely chosen to follow. Being legally married is under our U.S. civil law.
What being married means to you, under your chosen religion or ideology is up to you.
One of my uncles married a woman and had one child with her, my cousin. They divorced, and he married another, and had three children with her. They were never married in the Catholic Churrch with full ceremony, but they were married under civil law.
Marriage under civil U.S. law is so different than the concept of marriage that exists in the religious law that you choose to follow.

The issue is the creation of rights because people feel like it over sound principles. The 14th amendment isn't an open book that allows anything under "equal" to be inserted into it.

The issue is marriage contracts have always been the responsibility of the States. Using the courts to all of a sudden say a new concept such as SSM is now somehow a right is an end run around the constitution on dubious legal grounds. Obergfell would have been on much more sound legal footing if all they did was say even if a State doesn't want to issue SSM licenses, they had to recognize SSM licenses issued by other States (that passed it legislatively) under full faith and credit.

And your protestations about letting people be and do what they want falls hollow considering you are one of the "BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE PEASANT" mafia members.

We all know your true goal is forcing acceptance as opposed to tolerance, and you will use government as a bludgeon to do it.

Also, I always find it comical when progressive thugs like you read into amendments to three of four layers to get what you want while ignoring the 2nd amendment's blunt assurance of the people's right to keep and bear arms. Of course expecting honestly and fairness out of a progressive hack like you is asking too much.

Equal treatment under the law stands under the 14th Amendment.
Once a right is established, it is established for all.
I am not a "thug."
Laws created only to please adherents of a particular ideology are not acceptable in the United States.
"Mafia members"? What is a "mafia member" to stand up for our public-public-accommodation laws and insist that they be followed as a condition of being licensed to do business in our communities?
Since the Muslim term "sharia 'law" has now become to stand for "religious law" in general, to which form of sharia law do you adhere? You seem to be in agreement that a state in the United States of America should be entitled to enforce some form of sharia law on its citizens.
CIVIL LAW is very different than the law that you accept when you choose a religion. Remember that choosing a religion is choosing a lifestyle. From your post, it appears that you have chosen, freely, a lifestyle that involves some mixture of the "Christian faith," guns, and hatred of LGBTs. It is a bizarre cult..

The 14th amendment isn't some open ended thing that allows progressive hacks like you to force other people to accept your morality.

Yet you support laws that appease your moral codes, and FUCK everyone else, right? Progressivism is more of a religion these days anyway.

How is a baker asking someone to please go to another baker for one specific item "Sharia Law"?

It's not about morality or religion , it's about due process and equal protection under the law. You people can't seem to understand that granting rights to others does not detract from your rights.

How about the Right of bakers in Oregon NOT to participate in Gay Marriage? Or county clerks in Kentucky? The right to free practice of religion is enshrined in the Constitution, the right to take it up the ass is not.

.
A person in business must follow the laws regulating business. A public official must do his/her job of serving the public. Your opinion of someone else's sexual practices means absolutely nothing. I would not dare to discuss, say, whether karen pence gives BJs to mikey.

 

[Polishprince]

The issue is the creation of rights because people feel like it over sound principles. The 14th amendment isn't an open book that allows anything under "equal" to be inserted into it.

The issue is marriage contracts have always been the responsibility of the States. Using the courts to all of a sudden say a new concept such as SSM is now somehow a right is an end run around the constitution on dubious legal grounds. Obergfell would have been on much more sound legal footing if all they did was say even if a State doesn't want to issue SSM licenses, they had to recognize SSM licenses issued by other States (that passed it legislatively) under full faith and credit.

And your protestations about letting people be and do what they want falls hollow considering you are one of the "BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE PEASANT" mafia members.

We all know your true goal is forcing acceptance as opposed to tolerance, and you will use government as a bludgeon to do it.

Also, I always find it comical when progressive thugs like you read into amendments to three of four layers to get what you want while ignoring the 2nd amendment's blunt assurance of the people's right to keep and bear arms. Of course expecting honestly and fairness out of a progressive hack like you is asking too much.

Equal treatment under the law stands under the 14th Amendment.
Once a right is established, it is established for all.
I am not a "thug."
Laws created only to please adherents of a particular ideology are not acceptable in the United States.
"Mafia members"? What is a "mafia member" to stand up for our public-public-accommodation laws and insist that they be followed as a condition of being licensed to do business in our communities?
Since the Muslim term "sharia 'law" has now become to stand for "religious law" in general, to which form of sharia law do you adhere? You seem to be in agreement that a state in the United States of America should be entitled to enforce some form of sharia law on its citizens.
CIVIL LAW is very different than the law that you accept when you choose a religion. Remember that choosing a religion is choosing a lifestyle. From your post, it appears that you have chosen, freely, a lifestyle that involves some mixture of the "Christian faith," guns, and hatred of LGBTs. It is a bizarre cult..

The 14th amendment isn't some open ended thing that allows progressive hacks like you to force other people to accept your morality.

Yet you support laws that appease your moral codes, and FUCK everyone else, right? Progressivism is more of a religion these days anyway.

How is a baker asking someone to please go to another baker for one specific item "Sharia Law"?

It's not about morality or religion , it's about due process and equal protection under the law. You people can't seem to understand that granting rights to others does not detract from your rights.

How about the Right of bakers in Oregon NOT to participate in Gay Marriage? Or county clerks in Kentucky? The right to free practice of religion is enshrined in the Constitution, the right to take it up the ass is not.

The SCOTUS ruling has nothing to do with the Oregon bakers. The bakers lost because of anti discrimination laws.

And I would suggest being careful claiming that selling someone a cake is participating in the wedding. Because that could lead to someone selling a gun and being held liable because they participated in a murder.

If someone goes to a gun dealer and tells them he is looking for a weapon appropriate to kill his old lady, and the merchant helps him pick a weapon based upon that intended use, the merchant SHOULD BE held at least partially liable.