Equal marriage rights

I was refering to the fact that some states do not honor my 2A rights. The ruling by the SCOTUS is that all states must recognize gay marriage. Logically, if states can't refuse one federal thing, how would they be able to refuse another?

http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html

Due to HBT rules, I won't go into details, but many Conservatives are very excited about equality being enforced. A Pandora's box may have been opened, that liberals have not contemplated. Equality. Yes, we like that.

http://bearingarms.com/scotus-ruling-sex-marriage-mandates-nationwide-concealed-carry-reciprocity/

The future of rights and laws could get very interesting in the future.

:-D

 

One cause at a time, please?

 

LOL, but is not equality a cause?:-D

 

Yes, but the second amendment is not about equality, which is why I suggested one at a time.

Let the historical Supreme Court ruling have its day. You can bring your soap box back out tomorrow.

 

But I must disagree. All US citizens are:

http://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/

Equal is equal. If is very much about equality. We must be equal in all 50 states, so no state tires to regulate a right.

The SCOTUS ruling was Friday, I can use my soapbox now. If we are truely equal, many laws will not pass muster.

As I said, I think this has opened the Pandora's Box, that most liberals did not foresee. True equality is what the conservatives I know really seek.

I wonder if the liberals are truly ready for all people being equal.

:-D

 

The bottom line is that we have the separation of church and state in this country. That means it's unconstitutional for any religious institution to be "forced" to perform a ceremony.

As far as the wedding cake issue, that is a civil matter whereupon a verbal contract was negotiated and then reneged upon because of a purported personal belief. In such case it is not an ecclesiastical matter involving a house of worship.

 

Hmm, so should a Jewish baker be required to make a cake of hitler?

And what contract was negotiated if the baker said I will not do it. Seems that would negate a contract.

Should a Christian book store be required to sell the koran? Should a moose limb restaurant be required to serve pork?

 

The bakery had agreed to make a cake. Then they saw how it was to be decorated ex post facto, and refused to make it because the couple was homosexual.

Yet again, you're confusing civil matters of bigotry with business decisions. Mostly extreme examples...

 

Also one needs to consider that regardless of the position in the U.S., same-sex marriages will not be recognized in most countries. And if you go to somewhere like Uganda - its the death penalty, of all things....0_o
Also legal probs with Social Security, (folks normally considered single status will be paid married, (i.e. lower)), rates. The list goes on. Not saying they shouldn't be free to do their lovin' their own way, but there's a lot of cans of legal worms on this one.

 

Kudos, to the US supreme court. This is forward thinking with times. Sure there are countries in opposition in including India! Please pardon my french--- Screw the church or temple etc unwilling to Wed a same sex couple. Life and happiness is more important/bigger than religion, Get married in court if need be!

Cheers..

 

The best part of this thread has nothing to do with the title. We get to see our members post on a divisive issue. Some call names, some use logic, some use emotion.

Something to think about; you cannot call someone a bigot without being one. The definition is "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself".

 

Well said.
This thread is proof we can have a civil conversation without losing it. :major
I believe, while you don't have to respect the next person's political, religious, cultural, etc. beliefs... you should respect their right to choose. Afterall, you chose...

 

Civil?

Probably not safe for work:

http://shoebat.com/2014/12/12/chris...age-cake-denied-service-watch-shocking-video/

Yes, I know it is in Ireland.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cO-gRwMswg
Cheers..

 

So he's dead.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...c5cd30-ae2b-11e3-a49e-76adc9210f19_story.html

My partner and myself was hoping to renew are civil partnership vows there :-D BTW people, nice to see a civil 2 sided discussion on the matter :cool

 

Why should polygamy be illegal if all are consenting adults? Just my prediction, but I say there will be some interesting marriage attempts in the next couple of years. Like I said, Pandora's box has been opened.

LOL, some Texicans are talking about secession again. I can see their point, but they don't have much of a chance for that to happen.

 

Honestly? More power to them. I'm honestly not sure why polygamy is illegal in the first place. If some crazy person thinks they want to be married to more than one person at a time, and if all parties are consenting adults, who cares? Certainly doesn't affect me in the least, since there's not a snowball's chance I'd be one of them.

The only anti marriage laws that make any sense are those concerning close relatives or underage children. Other than that, why are we so flippin' concerned with what goes on in other people's families?

 

Want to make a bet that those restrictions on marriage will not be challenged in the next 5 years?

 

You mean the close relatives and underage children laws? Wouldn't surprise me in the least if there is a challenge. It would also not surprise me in the least for those challenges to get laughed out of court. Underage children cannot legally enter into a contract in this country. And science says marrying a close relative (and procreating) leads to often deadly birth defects and/or disease.

 

You do know that until the 1970's homosexuality was considered abnormal behavior. Pedophiles are already trying to get that defined as a preference. What is just an age?

http://standupforthetruth.com/2013/07/it-begins-pedophiles-call-for-same-rights-as-homosexuals/

 

I do know that. I also know that until a person under the age of majority is considered legally able to sign a contract (which a marriage license is), that won't matter. Consenting adults, and all that.

Edit to add...

This adult who was sexually abused as a child begs to differ. Most strenuously.

 

Seriously??? Have you read NOTHING else I wrote?

 

Darlin', if you actually read everything that follows the short part you chose to clip out, you would understand. But, since IIRC you sometimes have trouble understanding what some of us write, let me clarify for you.

The important part of what I said was not that I don't understand why polygamy is illegal. While true that I do not understand it, I then went on to say, " If some crazy person thinks they want to be married to more than one person at a time, and if all parties are consenting adults, who cares?"

You have evidently chosen to ignore the part where I said "if all parties are consenting adults", an assumption I make based on your posting an article about the forced marriage of an underage child, who also happened to be a cousin (which I addressed in the second paragraph): "The only anti marriage laws that make any sense are those concerning close relatives or underage children."

 

Oh, I agree with you, but when you redefine things... They are trying.

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ba...ing-wedding-cake-to-lesbian-couple/ar-AAcz0vm

One states answer to the wedding cake issue.

 

So, if someone has a belief that is not in line with yours, they should just let your freedom trump their religious beliefs? Does not seem very tolerant.

Baptist believe drinking is a sin. I have no desire to force them to go to a bar or to drink. If I went to their house, I would not demand they serve me beer.

Like I have said, I am a Conservative, but have no problem making signs for democrats, whatever. There money spends just as good as everyone else's. Heck, we did a lot of signs for a trany beauty pageant. Was pretty funny.

Should a Jewish baker be fined for not making a nazi flag cake? Should a muslim deli be required to sell pork?

How can a group (rightly) demand to be accepted as they are, but then want to fine someone who is following their own faith just because it is different from your belief?

I think the world would be a better place if we tried to love each other for who and what we are, and leave the judging up to God.


OK, putting the soapbox up for the day. :-D

 

And then they will make the haters hate more.

 

I don't think that is the point. We have a lot of county offices in Texas that are refusing to issue the marriage licenses based on religious beliefs, with the blessings of the idiots in charge of the state government. These people hold a government job, and are using their religious beliefs to justify not doing the paperwork and discrimination.

This is not a religious job, but a civil one.

So when does your religious beliefs trump my civil rights, because make no mistake, in spite of the court order for the name and gender marker change, the hormones, and the surgeries, many people consider me a man. It is a very close and personal issue for me.

 

Discrimination is not usually legal, but it happens. Don't confuse theory with facts, they don't always jive.

And the folks doing the discrimination are using religion as their pretext.

It is going to be interesting how this shakes out long term.

It took the National Guard to end the Jim Crow era, laws or no.

 

So, if I want to order a satanic bible from the local Christian bookstore, do they have to order it for me?

Of course, TimW may consider that a fair judgment as our cake expert, but, they awarded people over $100K, because someone would not make them a cake. What are they going to do when life really throws them a curve ball? :-D

I mentioned Pandora's Box earlier. Well...

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/polygamous-montana-trio-applies-wedding-license-32162748

 

On a larger scale, where do religious beliefs rights stop?
MARAD scheduled a fast deployment of 3 ships which means they have 5 days to go from skeleton crew and on shore power to fully operational at sea (at least 3 miles off shore, all equipment proven good). This requirement is part of the employment contract.
The deployment was in the middle of Ramadan and a handful of devout Muslims refused to come back to work. They had been granted leave. But according to the contract all leave can be cancelled at any time.
Should they be fired? Where do the rights end?

If marriage is defined by a state or county as between a man and woman they cannot legally issue a certificate of marriage until the wording is changed. The poor clerk has no choice.

These things take time to change.

 

No. the second the Supreme Court issued it's decision, those laws were null and void.

 

Never served in the military, but pretty sure if you voluntarily sign up, you agree to have a lot of rights suspended. Don't think you would last long in the Army if you were trashing your commanding officer or the pres on facebook.

I don't think you should be able to take a month off for ramadan... When they are out of the military, perhaps they can negotiate their holidays off. The military is obviously not always a 9-5 weekends off job.

 

MacArthur can testify to that.

I believe MARAD is a civilian agency.

 

If their marriage laws are no longer valid they can no longer issue marriage licenses?
Can't have it both ways, either the ability to issue a marriage contract is valid as defined or it is not. If it is not due to the Supreme Court saying their definition is unconstitutional then they have to litigate new wording. But I think they will continue to issue under their existing law until they can get the wording changed.

Yes, MARAD is civilian contracted to military.

 

No. Marriage law has not been invalidated. It has been expanded. States are still issuing valid marriage marriage licenses at this moment. Check for yourself. They now cannot refuse to honor marriages between homosexuals just as the Loving vs. Virginia decision prohibited states from refusing to honor interracial marriage.

 

Perhaps reading the text will help you understand. Federal proclamation does not magically change writing.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/FA/htm/FA.2.htm
The clerk has an obligation to up hold the statute.

I am not against gay marriage, but I am against the strident supporters that think force is the way to get it accepted by all. Patience and understanding is expected on both sides, don't you think?

 

When SCOTUS declares a state's law unconstitutional, it is immediately invalid as if it never existed. So yes, patience and understanding is required, but I'm curious as to when it became acceptable for one's religious beliefs to supercede one's duties as an elected official.

 

Allow me to share the situation in South Africa.
The Constitution only came into effect in 1997. Some laws included sections that contradicted the Constitution. But, the lawmakers didn't peruse every single law and ammended them. And the government did not instruct law professionals to do so. Simple because it's not something that can be done overnight.
Those unconstitutional chapters had to be challenged in the High, Supreme or Constitutional Courts. Only then would a ruling be made by a Judge to amended those laws. I don't necessarily agree with this, but that's how it works.

FYI Laws don't become null and void. They are either rescinded or ammended.

I agree with DOA.
Like a clerk can refuse to issue a marriage license based on the current unconstitutional law, the next clerk may decide to do so. And if the latter clerk is fired from his/her job, they could successfully challenge that in a court of law. Based on the unconstitutionality of the law, the clerk will win the lawsuit.

 

Rescinding the law is in effect making it null and void.

The law has been declared unconstitutional, therefore it is rescinded. Thus clerks are not allowed under current law to refuse to issue a marriage license.

South Africa does not work the same way the US does. This law has already been appealed through the Supreme Court...that was the decision handed down last week.

 

I may be totally wrong here, but my understanding is that the laws are still on the books. Some states immediately started issuing the license, some are waiting for a short period of time in case there is an appeal. Then, the states have to rewrite the marriage laws so they are Constitutional.

If the states do not change the laws, then they could be sued by citizens, and would most likely loose. When segregation was ended, it did not happen over night.

 

Exactly. No laws have become null and void. The various State laws have to be amended. Unfortunately in this bureaucratic world we live in...

"The job is not finished until the paperwork is done."

 

We are not making this stuff up. Perhaps it is different in South Africa, but that is how it works in the US.

 

United States Constitution came into force in 1789.

15th Amendment (Prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude) was ratified in 1870.

Where all black people allowed to vote after 1870?

What am I missing?

 

Under US law, they were entitled to vote. However, many of those who wanted to maintain the status quo of white supremacy abused their power and authority to illegally prevent black people from voting in some... well, a lot of instances.

Under the US Constitution, the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the meaning of the law. Their decision is final.

 

Unless things have drastically changed while I wasn't paying attention, there are no more appeals. Once the Supreme Court rules, that's it.

 

@Eldon - here is a link that will go into more details regarding voting rights regarding voting rights act.. http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/voting-rights-act

On topic: Pierre E. Trudeau, once our Prime Minister said that the government has no business in the peoples bedrooms. That was some decades ago. Don't remember the exact quote though but that's it in essence what he said.

 

I was speaking outside of my expertise, but pretty sure you 'can' appeal anything. Could be a subsection of the ruling.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/appeals-court-upholds-birth-control-mandate/

Now, those might be appeals to the SCOTUS from lower courts decisions. Not sure. But I am pretty sure the SCOTUS rulings can be apealed. How successful you might be at it...:-D