Top Republicans urge court to support gay marriage

[martybegan]

That is ridiculous.

Not at all. Its the view that the government is forced consitutionally to be "race-blind" when it comes to government interaction, and this is carried through to all levels of local government.

Where the government overreached, to me, (and to dave i think) is to force private entities of all types to follow the same regulations. I think this was needed during the breaking of the Jim Crow era, as racism was so entrenched in southern society, but now any organziation that practices racism in hiring or services would probably be out of business rather quickly.

What we are seeing is the same thing in some states where wedding photographers and bakers are being sued for discrimination for not wanting to do gay weddings. This goes beyond government acceptance, and enters into the realm of forced private accptance.

Marriage equality and public accommodation laws are two completely different issues.

One is a follow through to another. Its one thing to say the state can recognize same sex marriage, its another to say you can force a baker to make a cake for one.

 

[whitehall]

A handful of rino former republican politicians? Why is this news?

 

[Avatar4321]

So? Republicans can be wrong too

 

[WorldWatcher]

Not at all. Its the view that the government is forced consitutionally to be "race-blind" when it comes to government interaction, and this is carried through to all levels of local government.

Where the government overreached, to me, (and to dave i think) is to force private entities of all types to follow the same regulations. I think this was needed during the breaking of the Jim Crow era, as racism was so entrenched in southern society, but now any organziation that practices racism in hiring or services would probably be out of business rather quickly.

What we are seeing is the same thing in some states where wedding photographers and bakers are being sued for discrimination for not wanting to do gay weddings. This goes beyond government acceptance, and enters into the realm of forced private accptance.

Marriage equality and public accommodation laws are two completely different issues.

One is a follow through to another. Its one thing to say the state can recognize same sex marriage, its another to say you can force a baker to make a cake for one.

In many States public accommodation laws have come before Same-sex Civil Marriage laws.

The famous "photographer" case? That didn't involve Same-sex Civil Marriage, it involved a commitment ceremony as there was no Same-sex Civil Marriage in the State (IIRC Nevada).

Public Accommodation laws cover more then just sexual orientation they include things like religion, sex, ethnicity, national origin, age, etc. So if you run a Christian bakery and will normally supply wedding cakes, you are violating the law if you refuse to sell a wedding cake to a Jewish couple.


>>>>

 

[martybegan]

Marriage equality and public accommodation laws are two completely different issues.

One is a follow through to another. Its one thing to say the state can recognize same sex marriage, its another to say you can force a baker to make a cake for one.

In many States public accommodation laws have come before Same-sex Civil Marriage laws.

The famous "photographer" case? That didn't involve Same-sex Civil Marriage, it involved a commitment ceremony as there was no Same-sex Civil Marriage in the State (IIRC Nevada).

Public Accommodation laws cover more then just sexual orientation they include things like religion, sex, ethnicity, national origin, age, etc. So if you run a Christian bakery and will normally supply wedding cakes, you are violating the law if you refuse to sell a wedding cake to a Jewish couple.


>>>>

And I still think that is wrong. If it is not an industry with regards to necessities, you shouldnt be able to force someone to enter into a contract (which is what a business transaction really is) with someone you don't want to. Let the market handle bigots and get government out of it.

In fairness, laws like this were needed right after the Jim Crow era as racism was so entrenched in the government and society that a big push was needed. Now, it is just an excuse for lawyers to have a lawsuit when someone gets butthurt.

 

[JoeB131]

It is not surprising that there are liberal leaning republicans or who they are. Republicans don't demand the same rigid scope of opinion that democrats do. These liberal republicans do not signal a fundamental shift in the opinions of most republicans.

Seriously? So all those republicans who got voted out by teabaggers who went on to lose were really respected for their out of the box opinions.

Here's the thing. Gay marriage for the whole country is inevitable. Mostly, because there really isn't an argument against it that is really rational.

Probably this issue helped Bush get a second term (and look how well that turned out) but now it's a loser for Republicans, and they know it. They are fighting the inevitable and they look like a bunch of rubes doing it.

Probably quietly hoping the SCOTUS resolves this issue for them so they don't have to talk about it anymore.

 

[Qball]

Here's the thing. Gay marriage for the whole country is inevitable. Mostly, because there really isn't an argument against it that is really rational.

I'd disagree with both parts of that. It's doubtful the SCOTUS will ever make a broad ruling to legalize gay marriage nationwide. I think the backlash if they did would be worse than if they left it up to states to "come around" on the issue.

 

[rightwinger]

What? No Dick Cheney?

 

[Qball]

The RNC might be trying to change its spots, but conservatives are still holding strong to their homophobia. GOPRoud and Log Cabin...not invited to CPAC again.

Were they not invited because CPAC hates gay people? I've never seen that used as their rationale...

 

[JoeB131]

Here's the thing. Gay marriage for the whole country is inevitable. Mostly, because there really isn't an argument against it that is really rational.

I'd disagree with both parts of that. It's doubtful the SCOTUS will ever make a broad ruling to legalize gay marriage nationwide. I think the backlash if they did would be worse than if they left it up to states to "come around" on the issue.

I don't think it would be that broad of a ruling.

If the court remains consistant with the Lawrence decision (outlawed the remaining "sodomy" laws) and Romer (outlawed job discrimination against gays), they really wouldn't have much choice but to uphold Judge Walker's ruling in Perry. Walker specifically couched his ruling in such a way that it mirrored Justice Kennedy's arguments in those two prior cases.

Also, frankly, at this point, the anti-gay marriage crowd is an angry and shrinking minority.

 

[Seawytch]

The RNC might be trying to change its spots, but conservatives are still holding strong to their homophobia. GOPRoud and Log Cabin...not invited to CPAC again.

Were they not invited because CPAC hates gay people? I've never seen that used as their rationale...

Then by all means, what is their rationale for excluding the group GOProud?

 

[DiamondDave]

Say what?

I may not like if I am, for example, looking to rent a basement of Grandma X, but she don't want to because she don't want an interracial couple in her house.. SO BE IT.. that is her freedom to discriminate against my choice... if some privately owned business decides to refuse me service because they don't want my kind in there (being a white who did not marry within his race), I may not like it but SO BE IT... not that EITHER of these would happen often whether it is my situation or the situation of the gay person(s), but I respect the freedom to discriminate against the CHOICES and chosen actions of others

That is ridiculous.

It is ridiculous to discriminate against he choices and actions of others.. then you best welcome a pedo into your daycare center for employment.. rent your available room to a felon... let the habitual vulgarity yeller hang around your kids....

We have discrimination against action and choice ALL THE TIME... and it is fine to do so.,.. it is just when you have one that you PERSONALLY do not like, you want to force others to act as you would

 

[Seawytch]

One is a follow through to another. Its one thing to say the state can recognize same sex marriage, its another to say you can force a baker to make a cake for one.

In many States public accommodation laws have come before Same-sex Civil Marriage laws.

The famous "photographer" case? That didn't involve Same-sex Civil Marriage, it involved a commitment ceremony as there was no Same-sex Civil Marriage in the State (IIRC Nevada).

Public Accommodation laws cover more then just sexual orientation they include things like religion, sex, ethnicity, national origin, age, etc. So if you run a Christian bakery and will normally supply wedding cakes, you are violating the law if you refuse to sell a wedding cake to a Jewish couple.


>>>>

And I still think that is wrong. If it is not an industry with regards to necessities, you shouldnt be able to force someone to enter into a contract (which is what a business transaction really is) with someone you don't want to. Let the market handle bigots and get government out of it.

In fairness, laws like this were needed right after the Jim Crow era as racism was so entrenched in the government and society that a big push was needed. Now, it is just an excuse for lawyers to have a lawsuit when someone gets butthurt.

You might not like public accommodation laws, but they still have nothing to do with marriage equality and are not a reason to keep me from the rights, benefits and privileges associated with civil marriage.

 

[martybegan]

In many States public accommodation laws have come before Same-sex Civil Marriage laws.

The famous "photographer" case? That didn't involve Same-sex Civil Marriage, it involved a commitment ceremony as there was no Same-sex Civil Marriage in the State (IIRC Nevada).

Public Accommodation laws cover more then just sexual orientation they include things like religion, sex, ethnicity, national origin, age, etc. So if you run a Christian bakery and will normally supply wedding cakes, you are violating the law if you refuse to sell a wedding cake to a Jewish couple.


>>>>

And I still think that is wrong. If it is not an industry with regards to necessities, you shouldnt be able to force someone to enter into a contract (which is what a business transaction really is) with someone you don't want to. Let the market handle bigots and get government out of it.

In fairness, laws like this were needed right after the Jim Crow era as racism was so entrenched in the government and society that a big push was needed. Now, it is just an excuse for lawyers to have a lawsuit when someone gets butthurt.

You might not like public accommodation laws, but they still have nothing to do with marriage equality and are not a reason to keep me from the rights, benefits and privileges associated with civil marriage.

They are related vis a vis the inevitable lawsuits that will spring up when certain establishments start saying "we don't do gay weddings because of our religous convictions" and butthurt people start going to the courts.

 

[Seawytch]

And I still think that is wrong. If it is not an industry with regards to necessities, you shouldnt be able to force someone to enter into a contract (which is what a business transaction really is) with someone you don't want to. Let the market handle bigots and get government out of it.

In fairness, laws like this were needed right after the Jim Crow era as racism was so entrenched in the government and society that a big push was needed. Now, it is just an excuse for lawyers to have a lawsuit when someone gets butthurt.

You might not like public accommodation laws, but they still have nothing to do with marriage equality and are not a reason to keep me from the rights, benefits and privileges associated with civil marriage.

They are related vis a vis the inevitable lawsuits that will spring up when certain establishments start saying "we don't do gay weddings because of our religous convictions" and butthurt people start going to the courts.

Bullshit. We already have access to religious marriage so we don't need the legal status in order to have a ceremony so keeping us from a fundamental right isn't going to stop lawsuits when companies violate public accommodation laws.

You're using it as an excuse to keep a group of people from marriage equality. Would it pass the Constitutional smell test if we were to keep all Jewish people from legal marriage?

 

[martybegan]

You might not like public accommodation laws, but they still have nothing to do with marriage equality and are not a reason to keep me from the rights, benefits and privileges associated with civil marriage.

They are related vis a vis the inevitable lawsuits that will spring up when certain establishments start saying "we don't do gay weddings because of our religous convictions" and butthurt people start going to the courts.

Bullshit. We already have access to religious marriage so we don't need the legal status in order to have a ceremony so keeping us from a fundamental right isn't going to stop lawsuits when companies violate public accommodation laws.

You're using it as an excuse to keep a group of people from marriage equality. Would it pass the Constitutional smell test if we were to keep all Jewish people from legal marriage?

I would actually vote for a marriage equality law. What I fail to find is the consitutional right to it, and the ability to force a state government to accept it via consitutional argument.

That rolls right into my belief that accomodation laws that go past governmental and/or critical private services, while not unconsitutional, are not mandated by the consittuion either.

The "keep jewish people from marrying" argument is a strawman, as there has never been a case of banning marriage WITHIN a group since before slavery was banned.

 

[Seawytch]

They are related vis a vis the inevitable lawsuits that will spring up when certain establishments start saying "we don't do gay weddings because of our religous convictions" and butthurt people start going to the courts.

Bullshit. We already have access to religious marriage so we don't need the legal status in order to have a ceremony so keeping us from a fundamental right isn't going to stop lawsuits when companies violate public accommodation laws.

You're using it as an excuse to keep a group of people from marriage equality. Would it pass the Constitutional smell test if we were to keep all Jewish people from legal marriage?

I would actually vote for a marriage equality law. What I fail to find is the consitutional right to it, and the ability to force a state government to accept it via consitutional argument.

You'll have to take that up with the SCOTUS. It was them that decided marriage is a fundamental right. You'll also want to look into the 14th amendment.

That rolls right into my belief that accomodation laws that go past governmental and/or critical private services, while not unconsitutional, are not mandated by the consittuion either.

Then fight those, not marriage equality. Good luck though.

The "keep jewish people from marrying" argument is a strawman, as there has never been a case of banning marriage WITHIN a group since before slavery was banned.

Within a group? What are you talking about? Would a law saying that only Protestants were not allowed to legally marry pass the Constitutional smell test? Why does it if it's "the gheys"?

 

[martybegan]

Bullshit. We already have access to religious marriage so we don't need the legal status in order to have a ceremony so keeping us from a fundamental right isn't going to stop lawsuits when companies violate public accommodation laws.

You're using it as an excuse to keep a group of people from marriage equality. Would it pass the Constitutional smell test if we were to keep all Jewish people from legal marriage?

I would actually vote for a marriage equality law. What I fail to find is the consitutional right to it, and the ability to force a state government to accept it via consitutional argument.

You'll have to take that up with the SCOTUS. It was them that decided marriage is a fundamental right. You'll also want to look into the 14th amendment.

That rolls right into my belief that accomodation laws that go past governmental and/or critical private services, while not unconsitutional, are not mandated by the consittuion either.

Then fight those, not marriage equality. Good luck though.

The "keep jewish people from marrying" argument is a strawman, as there has never been a case of banning marriage WITHIN a group since before slavery was banned.

Within a group? What are you talking about? Would a law saying that only Protestants were not allowed to legally marry pass the Constitutional smell test? Why does it if it's "the gheys"?

All marriage is really is a government sanctioned contract. That contract has been by precedent and tradition in this country between 1 man, and 1 woman. Now all of a sudden you want to change said contract to make it basically two of either, which has no precedent, and no tradition in western culture outside small enclaves.

If you want to convince people to change the law, fine. What does not exist is a consitutional "right" to it. A marriage between people of two races that is betweem people of different sexes does violate equal protection, as there is no difference between a same race couple, and a mixed race couple.

There is a difference between a same sex couple, and a heterosexual couple no matter how much doublethink a person applies to make it seem not so.

Again, if you want to change it, do it in the legislature (the constituion is neutral on the subject) or if you really want to make it protected, go via an amendment. Remember that most racial civil rights laws have a strong contitutional basis on the recontruction amendments, and it was only the misbehaviour of the very courts you place so much trust in that led to the Jim Crow era and all those shennanagans.

I find people's reliance on the decsion of 5 of 9 appointed for life lawyers to preserve and create thier liberites disturbing. Its a cheap and quick method, and leads itself to autocracy. If someone really believes in something, they should fight it in the legislatures, not in the courts, especially if it involves "made up" rights.

 

[WorldWatcher]

And I still think that is wrong. If it is not an industry with regards to necessities, you shouldnt be able to force someone to enter into a contract (which is what a business transaction really is) with someone you don't want to. Let the market handle bigots and get government out of it.

In fairness, laws like this were needed right after the Jim Crow era as racism was so entrenched in the government and society that a big push was needed. Now, it is just an excuse for lawyers to have a lawsuit when someone gets butthurt.

You might not like public accommodation laws, but they still have nothing to do with marriage equality and are not a reason to keep me from the rights, benefits and privileges associated with civil marriage.

They are related vis a vis the inevitable lawsuits that will spring up when certain establishments start saying "we don't do gay weddings because of our religous convictions" and butthurt people start going to the courts.

They can do that now, weddings do not have to have a civil component. As with the photographer case, there was no Same-sex Civil Marriage in the state but they were still having a "gay wedding".


BTW: Personally I agree, Public Accommodation laws have outlived their usefulness as applied to private entities, but that is a different discussion.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

They are related vis a vis the inevitable lawsuits that will spring up when certain establishments start saying "we don't do gay weddings because of our religous convictions" and butthurt people start going to the courts.

Bullshit. We already have access to religious marriage so we don't need the legal status in order to have a ceremony so keeping us from a fundamental right isn't going to stop lawsuits when companies violate public accommodation laws.

You're using it as an excuse to keep a group of people from marriage equality. Would it pass the Constitutional smell test if we were to keep all Jewish people from legal marriage?

I would actually vote for a marriage equality law. What I fail to find is the consitutional right to it, and the ability to force a state government to accept it via consitutional argument.

Actually there is...

United States Constitution

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That rolls right into my belief that accomodation laws that go past governmental and/or critical private services, while not unconsitutional, are not mandated by the consittuion either.

Yes they are not mandated by the Constitution, however Public Accommodation laws exist at the State level so you wouldn't expect them to be mandated in the federal Constitution.


>>>>