Supreme Court formally asked to overturn landmark same-sex marriage ruling

[markdc]

Beto O’Rourke was the sole ‘20 Dem candidate to say he’d seek to penalize any churches that refused to recognize/accept gay marriages.

Was he really the only one? I thought there were more, but I may have been mistaken. Btw, I despise Beto O’Rourke. I would never vote for Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, but I respect them. Beto is nothing but an obnoxious poseur. If memory serves me correctly, he’s the same idiot who vowed to confiscate people’s AR-15’s. Even if you support this (I don’t), it was politically stupid to say something like that in public.

Biden, at no point in time, ever threatened the tax exempt status of any churches for simply being opposed to same sex relationships or marriages.

Well, I did acknowledge that he didn’t do anything like that when he was president.

I tend to agree that there are some on the far left that would penalize churches for opposing same sex relationships or marriages, but doubt that they will be in positions in the foreseeable future to put into federal law, penalties against churches that oppose same sex relationships or marriage. Federal courts, including SCOTUS, would block/strike down any such legislation as clearly unconstitutional.

I hope you’re right.

Mark

 

[Argent]

but given the younger Far-Left radical Progressives who make up the next generation of Democrats, once they gain power, it's only a matter of time before the Federal Government takes measures to coerce churches, synagogues, and mosques to go against their teachings and perform same-sex marriages.

I'd vote against that if all of those religious institutions' adherents gave up the right to refuse to bake cakes or dispense prescriptions or provide medical care or any other right of refusal they've gained because it violates their religious beliefs.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Was he really the only one? I thought there were more, but I may have been mistaken. Btw, I despise Beto O’Rourke. I would never vote for Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, but I respect them. Beto is nothing but an obnoxious poseur. If memory serves me correctly, he’s the same idiot who vowed to confiscate people’s AR-15’s. Even if you support this (I don’t), it was politically stupid to say something like that in public.

I agree. Beto is a douche.

Well, I did acknowledge that he didn’t do anything like that when he was president.

Almost there.

I hope you’re right.

I believe my take is reasonably well supported.

 

[Jezcoe]

For the record, I support same-sex marriage. I voted against a same-sex marriage ban here in Michigan during the 2004 election and will do so again if SCOTUS overturns Obergefell.

However, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention that when gay marriage was being debated, Progressives claimed nobody would be adversely affected by gay marriage being legal and “of course” religious institutions wouldn’t be forced to recognize gay marriages, which would already be allowed by government institutions. But during the 2020 Democrat primary, a number of candidates said they would use the power of the State to pressure religious institutions into recognizing gay marriage (for example, by threatening to take away their tax-exempt status if they refused). Now so far as I know, Biden didn’t do that when he was president, but given the younger Far-Left radical Progressives who make up the next generation of Democrats, once they gain power, it's only a matter of time before the Federal Government takes measures to coerce churches, synagogues, and mosques to go against their teachings and perform same-sex marriages.

Mark

That is just hot nonsense.

Churches don’t have to perform marriages that they don’t want to.

It’s like saying that there is a danger of the Catholic Church being forced to marry an Atheist couple.

It’s a made up fear.

 

[roguenuke]

So governmental acceptance?

The same way government accepts birth certificates and adoption records, possibly other court documents to recognize parent/child relationships and even sibling relationships, and this affords certain benefits to them as well as per government laws.

One main one is the FMLA. There are many, many more.

 

[roguenuke]

Sure, then Govt force placed her ass in jail. Did she do it all wrong. Yes. Recusing herself would have been a far simpler solution for everyone.

But she chose to throw a tantrum, including in court so she ended up being found in contempt.

 

[roguenuke]

Rights to abortion, Rights to Marriage but dammit get rid of that Right to own a gun, right ?

The only way to get rid of any of those should be to change the Constitution.

Are you drawing assumptions about my feelings on guns? There's a gun safe in my home, a few actually. And they're being used for the purpose of keeping guns secured.

 

[roguenuke]

show me in the Constitution where it talks about marriage

Ill wait

Show us in the Constitution where it recognizes family relationships, kinship at all as being recognized.

However, this statement itself shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how the Constitution works. It doesn't work upon the basis that only those things within the Constitution are protected. In fact, that's the very reason for the 9th and 10th Amendments. The 10th Amendment does not just give such things that are missing to the states to decide either. Plus, again, we have the 14th Amendment that grants equal protection including when it comes to state laws.

 

[roguenuke]

For the record, I support same-sex marriage. I voted against a same-sex marriage ban here in Michigan during the 2004 election and will do so again if SCOTUS overturns Obergefell.

However, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention that when gay marriage was being debated, Progressives claimed nobody would be adversely affected by gay marriage being legal and “of course” religious institutions wouldn’t be forced to recognize gay marriages, which would already be allowed by government institutions. But during the 2020 Democrat primary, a number of candidates said they would use the power of the State to pressure religious institutions into recognizing gay marriage (for example, by threatening to take away their tax-exempt status if they refused). Now so far as I know, Biden didn’t do that when he was president, but given the younger Far-Left radical Progressives who make up the next generation of Democrats, once they gain power, it's only a matter of time before the Federal Government takes measures to coerce churches, synagogues, and mosques to go against their teachings and perform same-sex marriages.

Mark

As has been pointed out to you, that was not the position of most of the Democratic Primary candidates. Pretty sure it was only one who said that. Most politicians, even those who would advocate for taking tax exemption away from churches do so based on political involvement or simply as so many have become a business.

My son is part of the Gen Z. He'll graduate HS this year. He's definitely a progressive, likely further left than I am, but he doesn't specifically support removal of tax exempt status from churches for that denial. He, like so many other within his generation support taxing churches who, at the least, involve themselves in politics, endorse political candidates, have their material and videos in public schools or being used as a government test, etc. That's who they support taxing in connection to the church.

 

[Ikari]

Sure, then Govt force placed her ass in jail. Did she do it all wrong. Yes. Recusing herself would have been a far simpler solution for everyone.

Yeah, when one abuses their position and power, there can be consequences. She should have just quit, that would have been proper since she couldn't fulfill the duties of the position.

 

[hecatmoggie]

I’m not the one claiming being gay is a choice people make.

being gay is a choice ........its called bi-sexuality, choosing tonight who to sleep with .....

 

[hecatmoggie]

The only way to get rid of any of those should be to change the Constitution.

considering there is no Right to abortion or marriage in the Constitution .... there are rulings/decisions

those can change

 

[hecatmoggie]

Show us in the Constitution where it recognizes family relationships, kinship at all as being recognized.

However, this statement itself shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how the Constitution works. It doesn't work upon the basis that only those things within the Constitution are protected. In fact, that's the very reason for the 9th and 10th Amendments. The 10th Amendment does not just give such things that are missing to the states to decide either. Plus, again, we have the 14th Amendment that grants equal protection including when it comes to state laws.

Rulings and interpretations change - that's how Roe and legalized abortions popped into existence and then its also how it died a glorious death as well

 

[HenryChinaski]

being gay is a choice ........its called bi-sexuality, choosing tonight who to sleep with .....

Being gay is no more of a choice than the color of the eyes and hair that you were born with.
They are inherit traits.

 

[hecatmoggie]

Being gay is no more of a choice than the color of the eyes and hair that you were born with.
They are inherit traits.

then how can a man be married to a woman for years then divorce her and marry a man ? (or women doing the same like Sheryl Swoopes, Anne Heche, Anna Paquin etc etc)

choice

 

[Boots]

The same way government accepts birth certificates and adoption records, possibly other court documents to recognize parent/child relationships and even sibling relationships, and this affords certain benefits to them as well as per government laws.

One main one is the FMLA. There are many, many more.

It's not the acceptance of the record, it's the acceptance of the status of the relationship that triggers the benefits. The record is simply a document memorializing the relationship.

 

[jaeger19]

I don't think it will be overturned

However ... its also a license granted by a State only and therefore its not so much unlike a gun license. One state allows people to buy guns, others don't. Different rules and regulations apply and even different rules/regulations apply in marriage licenses too from State to state and who can get them and when etc

So like abortion, it might be left to States

Remember Arkansas voted to be same sex only state and the Fed Govt / Judges stepped in and said no no no the Will of the People doesn't matter

So if the state decides that only people of the same race can marry that’s fine by you.?
What if you marry in one state that allows gay marriage and then have to move to a state that doesn’t?
Do you then does you thirty year marriage become null and void?
States rights are simply code for discrimination.

 

[Boots]

then how can a man be married to a woman for years then divorce her and marry a man ? (or women doing the same like Sheryl Swoopes, Anne Heche, Anna Paquin etc etc)

choice

Choice to accept their reality? Do you know any gay people? Have you talked to them about how they came to "choose" being gay? It could be enlightening for you.

 

[Peter]

I don't think it will be overturned

However ... its also a license granted by a State only and therefore its not so much unlike a gun license. One state allows people to buy guns, others don't. Different rules and regulations apply and even different rules/regulations apply in marriage licenses too from State to state and who can get them and when etc

So like abortion, it might be left to States

Remember Arkansas voted to be same sex only state and the Fed Govt / Judges stepped in and said no no no the Will of the People doesn't matter

If a state voted to legalise slavery would you also be upset at the government for overruling them?
How far should states rights be allowed to go.

 

[roguenuke]

It's not the acceptance of the record, it's the acceptance of the status of the relationship that triggers the benefits. The record is simply a document memorializing the relationship.

That is the record that establishes that relationship with the benefits and responsibilities and privileges. It is just like a birth certificate. There can be more obscure ways to set up the relationship, such as utilizing common law marriage when applicable, but that is much more limited and not as positive in how it works. Having that certificate is when, for the vast majority of people, that recognition starts, as it did with me. I changed my name and paperwork with the military only after I could show that legal document.

There's no reason to change the marriage license/certificate as it is currently used, but who is able to get it should not be based on anything related to religious objections or even personal objections.

 

[roguenuke]

then how can a man be married to a woman for years then divorce her and marry a man ? (or women doing the same like Sheryl Swoopes, Anne Heche, Anna Paquin etc etc)

choice

Choice of partner is not the same as choosing to be attracted to someone or even marry them. Also, bisexual people exist.

 

[roguenuke]

Rulings and interpretations change - that's how Roe and legalized abortions popped into existence and then its also how it died a glorious death as well

Roe was changed because of bigoted religious assholes on the SCOTUS who only care to implement their feelings, not the actual law. The same will be true if they overturn same sex marriage being legal.

 

[AZRWinger]

Why can't conservatives just leave people the **** alone and let them live their lives?

It costs them nothing, NOTHING to let gay people get married but they just have to interfere.

It's Democrats that cheered as the SCOTUS commanded a Federal takeover of marriage with 2 decisions in the same year. This was after the gay Democrat Federal judge overturned the California referendum defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Who cares about democracy when an imperial judiciary can just issue decrees.

 

[HenryChinaski]

then how can a man be married to a woman for years then divorce her and marry a man ? (or women doing the same like Sheryl Swoopes, Anne Heche, Anna Paquin etc etc)

choice

Because some people unfortunately realize later in life what their inherent preferences are.
No one chooses to be gay anymore than anyone choses to be straight.

 

[roguenuke]

considering there is no Right to abortion or marriage in the Constitution .... there are rulings/decisions

those can change

Technically the Constitution can change too, be changed by enough people. The problem is that politics and religious nutjobs have invaded our courts and government. We are going towards a theocracy because people in this country are easily fearmongered and can't understand complications or compromise of most any kind, including when and on what such compromise should be made.