Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Laws that permit a person to marry a person of the opposite sex do apply equally to all persons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
Laws about marriage are left to the states.
This is true - but SCOTUS seems to have ignored that fact, as evidenced by the fact that they granted cert and consolidated multiple 6th Circuit cases into Obergefell v. Hodges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
If sexual orientation is not immutable, then it is mutable - changeable.
Mutable =/= changeable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
no right for anyone to impose his own religious definition of marriage on the state.
What system of government do you live under? Here in the United States, we have a system of representative government, which Pres. Lincoln summed up nicely in the Gettysburg Address when he said "government of the people, by the people, for the people" (emphasis mine). It is a fundamental principle of representative government that the law reflect the will of the people, not the state.
The most glaring example was in post #1001 when you took it one step further and made it not just about sexual orientation generally, but about your sexual orientation specifically.
Loriinwa nailed it in post #1010, especially the part where she wrote:
Where did I mention the sexual orientation?
in states where SSM are legal two heterosexual females can get married. The state doesn't even ask for the couples sexual orientation. There is no box to tick off on the application in any state where you have to submit your sexual orientation.
Laws that permit a person to marry a person of the opposite sex do apply equally to all persons.
But they do not grant the same opprtunity to those who wish to marrry someone of the same sex. That is imposing a religious belief on someone who does not share that belief.
liable to change.
'the mutable nature of fashion'
synonyms: changeable, variable, varying, fluctuating, shifting, inconsistent, unpredictable, inconstant, fickle, uneven, unstable, protean; literary: fluctuant"
From the Latin mutare: to change.
Quote:
What system of government do you live under? Here in the United States, we have a system of representative government, which Pres. Lincoln summed up nicely in the Gettysburg Address when he said "government of the people, by the people, for the people" (emphasis mine). It is a fundamental principle of representative government that the law reflect the will of the people, not the state.
Yes, in the US the state is the people. One religious group cannot impose its beliefs on other people who do not share them.
The most glaring example was in post #1001 when you took it one step further and made it not just about sexual orientation generally, but about your sexual orientation specifically.
But they do not grant the same opprtunity to those who wish to marrry someone of the same sex. That is imposing a religious belief on someone who does not share that belief.
liable to change.
'the mutable nature of fashion'
synonyms: changeable, variable, varying, fluctuating, shifting, inconsistent, unpredictable, inconstant, fickle, uneven, unstable, protean; literary: fluctuant"
From the Latin mutare: to change.
Yes, in the US the state is the people. One religious group cannot impose its beliefs on other people who do not share them.
If laws against ssm are imposing religion, why hasn't a single court case used violation of the 1st Amendment to overturn those laws ? The answer is because they don't 'impose' religion on anyone.
If laws against ssm are imposing religion, why hasn't a single court case used violation of the 1st Amendment to overturn those laws ? The answer is because they don't 'impose' religion on anyone.
Because the equal protection argument was felt to be stronger.
Since those laws are based on religious concepts they do violate separation of church and state.
Plaaintiffs don't limit themselves to one argument if they think 2,3, or 4, might succeed. The 1st Amendment, religious clauses, have not been used because bans on ssm don't violate them.
I doubt you read the article you linked to, though even 1 law review article would hardly be support for your claim anyway. It doesn't come close to supporting your argument.
Plaaintiffs don't limit themselves to one argument if they think 2,3, or 4, might succeed. The 1st Amendment, religious clauses, have not been used because bans on ssm don't violate them.
I doubt you read the article you linked to, though even 1 law review article would hardly be support for your claim anyway. It doesn't come close to supporting your argument.
Actually, I did read it. All 32 pages, including the footnotes. I do not post links I have not read.
""We are thrilled by this clear victory for both religious freedom and marriage equality in the state of North Carolina,' said the Rev. J. Bennett Guess, a UCC [United Church of Christ] national officer. "In lifting North Carolina's ban on same-gender marriage, the court's directive makes it plain that the First Amendment arguments, made by the UCC and our fellow plaintiffs, were both persuasive and spot-on. Any law that threatens clergy who choose to solemnize a union of same-sex couples, and threatens them with civil or criminal penalties, is unconstitutional."
The suit, filed in April by the UCC and a coalition of clergy, same-sex couples and religious denominations, claiming that the state's marriage laws violate the First Amendment rights of clergy and the principle of "free exercise of religion."
But they do not grant the same opprtunity to those who wish to marrry someone of the same sex. That is imposing a religious belief on someone who does not share that belief.
Yes, in the US the state is the people. One religious group cannot impose its beliefs on other people who do not share them.
The current definition of marriage comes from the government, based on societal norms. NOT religion. Seeking to redefine marriage for special treatment (meaning you want marriage to include a relationship based on your (and a small minority of people's) relationship is not seeking equality under the law, it is seeking deference to a group based solely on "who they luv" and not because a gay individual has been denied the ability to marry like any other American citizen. It is about the relationship and not the individual.
""We are thrilled by this clear victory for both religious freedom and marriage equality in the state of North Carolina,' said the Rev. J. Bennett Guess, a UCC [United Church of Christ] national officer. "In lifting North Carolina's ban on same-gender marriage, the court's directive makes it plain that the First Amendment arguments, made by the UCC and our fellow plaintiffs, were both persuasive and spot-on. Any law that threatens clergy who choose to solemnize a union of same-sex couples, and threatens them with civil or criminal penalties, is unconstitutional."
The suit, filed in April by the UCC and a coalition of clergy, same-sex couples and religious denominations, claiming that the state's marriage laws violate the First Amendment rights of clergy and the principle of "free exercise of religion."
Makes sense that it would be a UCC church, the same denomination of that great orator and Obama mentor, Rev. G.D. Wright.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
