Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
.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.Equal treatment under the law stands under the 14th Amendment.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.
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"?
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.
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.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"?
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.
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.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"?
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.
"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."
That's not the same thing at all!
WInterborn said "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."
In YOUR narrative you MADE the gun seller complicit by TELLING him your intention.
In the ORIGINAL narrative the gun seller did NOT know the intention.
.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.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"?
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.
Homosexuality violates people's religion. That's the problem. I can't force a Jihadi Butcher to sell me bacon or butcher a hog either.
He's entitled to his Heathenistic beliefs, just as the Oregon bakers are entitled to follow their Christian beliefs.
Actually they can -- if one of them is willing to take one for the team and either impregnate someone or be knocked up...2 queers cant create a human, you imbecile.What the fuck are you blathering about. That isn't even coherent. What do you have to say about hetero couples who" need outside help" There are many you know.They dont create, they merge. They need outside help, unlike a heterosexual.Same sex couples do create families like anyone else and our species, unfortunately, is in no danger of extinctionWe’ve been through this too many times; the people who invented marriage, legal or otherwise, never thought they’d have to explain that marriage exists for the purpose of creating families and survival of the species.If procreation were a criteria of marriage, you might have a point. It isn't. You don't.
I have been married twice. No where in any license was there mention of children. Hetero couples who are sterile are allowed to marry. How many women who have had their uterus removed have gotten married? Homosexual couples have children via other means, just like many, many heterosexual couples.
The "marriage is for procreation" is what is the same worn out, lost argument. It doesn't hold water. The proof is in the fact that those who cannot possibly have children are still allowed to marry.
As I said, same sex marriage has no effect on you. Why do you care?
Like the guy who invented the latex glove wouldn’t think that he’d be compelled by law to explain that it’s not a synthetic cow udder.
Its a stupid argument.
Gays should be able to adopt and get married because with ridiculous arguments like that, you look dumb.
They cant create a family. They can only merge one. Or seek outside help.
So...you are so confused that you think this is about forcing businesses to provide you with products they don't sell in the first place?.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.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"?
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.
Homosexuality violates people's religion. That's the problem. I can't force a Jihadi Butcher to sell me bacon or butcher a hog either.
He's entitled to his Heathenistic beliefs, just as the Oregon bakers are entitled to follow their Christian beliefs.
Let me guess....you voted for trump.....
They are what I call homo-voyeurs.Would someone please explain why right-wingers are so obsessed with what other people, who they don't know, are doing in their bedrooms? It has only been since "Christian" protestant fundies came on the scene that the American people's private sexual lives have become a topic. Let us get our right to privacy back!
So...you are so confused that you think this is about forcing businesses to provide you with products they don't sell in the first place?.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.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"?
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.
Homosexuality violates people's religion. That's the problem. I can't force a Jihadi Butcher to sell me bacon or butcher a hog either.
He's entitled to his Heathenistic beliefs, just as the Oregon bakers are entitled to follow their Christian beliefs.
Don't follow business law when you get your business license, lose your license. Simple solution.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.
"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."
That's not the same thing at all!
WInterborn said "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."
In YOUR narrative you MADE the gun seller complicit by TELLING him your intention.
In the ORIGINAL narrative the gun seller did NOT know the intention.
The bakers were told the intention of the cake they were asked to create. If the homosexuals just asked for a plain cake that they would decorate themselves, or even bought flour, sugar and eggs to make their own from scratch, it would have been a different story.
Don't follow business law when you get your business license, lose your license. Simple solution.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.
"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."
That's not the same thing at all!
WInterborn said "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."
In YOUR narrative you MADE the gun seller complicit by TELLING him your intention.
In the ORIGINAL narrative the gun seller did NOT know the intention.
The bakers were told the intention of the cake they were asked to create. If the homosexuals just asked for a plain cake that they would decorate themselves, or even bought flour, sugar and eggs to make their own from scratch, it would have been a different story.
.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.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"?
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.
Homosexuality violates people's religion. That's the problem. I can't force a Jihadi Butcher to sell me bacon or butcher a hog either.
He's entitled to his Heathenistic beliefs, just as the Oregon bakers are entitled to follow their Christian beliefs.
.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.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"?
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.
Homosexuality violates people's religion. That's the problem. I can't force a Jihadi Butcher to sell me bacon or butcher a hog either.
He's entitled to his Heathenistic beliefs, just as the Oregon bakers are entitled to follow their Christian beliefs.
You are trying to force people outside your religion to practice yoiur religion. That is the problem.This "anti-gay" religion is not my religion. I do not adherent what religion you adhere to.
'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.
'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.
Why do you and your Boyfriend need the blessing of the State? Just get married.
'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.
Why do you and your Boyfriend need the blessing of the State? Just get married.
The govt offer hundreds of benefits exclusively to married couples. They want those benefits.
(A link I posted earlier in this thread talk about 1,100 benefits)
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.Equal treatment under the law stands under the 14th Amendment.Obergefell did not overstep any bounds of constitutionality. Please review the 14th Amendment.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.
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.
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"?
'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.
Why do you and your Boyfriend need the blessing of the State? Just get married.
The govt offer hundreds of benefits exclusively to married couples. They want those benefits.
(A link I posted earlier in this thread talk about 1,100 benefits)
A marriage, by definition, is between one man and one broad. Not a housekeeping arrangement between Butt Buddies.
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.Equal treatment under the law stands under the 14th Amendment.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.
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"?
You totally evaded the sum and substance of his post, either that or you did not understand it.... or perhaps its over your head ? - Quite probable that it's over your head ... given your intellectual caliber one would have to assume that Sesame Street is more your level .... so lets do it this way ... why should big bird have to bake cookies for the cookie monster when all the cookie monster really wants is to fuck big bird up the ass ... does that simplify things for you ?
