President Obama Says U.S. Constitution Guarantees Same-Sex Couples the Right to Marry

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I wondered why the president didn't just come out and say same-sex marriage should be legal!

Why say, "Constitutional"?

Because Obama is an idiot. LOL

ETA: unless he was signing a decree (executive order), which would be a whole different argument, then it was just his opinion. Which can be misstated if he wants. It just gives us something to talk about, and is intended for him to try to direct the national discussion. Which he seems to be doing quite well in this case.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
I don't think a church can refuse marriage based on race, national origin, or any other protected class.

Yes, they can.

Similarly, the Constitution allows denominations the freedom not to perform interracial marriages -- but these days, experts said, those that refuse to marry interracial couples are considered out of touch with the times.

Source

They can refuse to marry based on race, too.

White Mississippi Church Refuses to Marry Black Couple

This is precedent. Churches will NOT be forced to marry anyone.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

That actually shocks me, in this day.

I cant say tht I am actually happy to see it....but viva la freedom (i suppose....*spit*)

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Yes. People with opposite opinions having freedom sometimes sucks, but it's what real freedom is all about.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I wondered why the president didn't just come out and say same-sex marriage should be legal!

Why say, "Constitutional"?

In My Opinion;

It's an election issue and a general *Image* issue.

Obama is *Emphasizing* the "Constitution" because of all the negativity he has placed on the Constitution.

This is a very clever campaign tactic.

Damage.Control

President Obama Says U.S. Constitution Guarantees Same-Sex Couples the Right to Marry

Well...he's not wrong.

Show me some evidence that he is.

We have same-sex marriage here in Canada, nationwide, across the board.

There is not one single church, mosque, synagogue, or temple that has been forced to perform same-sex marriages against their will. Not one.

Why ?

Because the government does not have the legal right to do so, and that's exactly the way it's meant to be.

The only religious institutions here that do perform these ceremonies, are the ones that have voluntarily chosen to do so.



You guys are all worrying about unfounded non-existent 'what if' scenarios for no reason whatsoever.

I suspect it's this "fear of the unknown" thing that has everybody's panties in a bunch over nothing.

originally posted by: links234

President Obama Says U.S. Constitution Guarantees Same-Sex Couples the Right to Marry

Well...he's not wrong.

Show me some evidence that he is.

Makes me wonder why no court challenges yet.

The Justice Dept should have been all over this a long time ago you would think.

Election.Protection

originally posted by: CranialSponge
You guys are all worrying about unfounded non-existent 'what if' scenarios for no reason whatsoever.

I don't think marriage equality opponents are actually "worried" about it. They use it as the "reason" to deny equal rights to gay people, because they're afraid of being called bigots if they say the real reason. The religious right did the SAME thing with interracial marriage. Take their "reason" away, and they only have their bigotry as their real reason they don't want gays to marry. No argument against gay marriage makes any sense (marriage is only for reproduction, same-sex marriage will affect my marriage, etc.) So, the fantasy of government forcing churches to marry same-sex couples is their last bastion of bigotry, if you will.

a reply to: xuenchen

I think Obama has always supported marriage equality, but in the beginning, he said he didn't, so as not to piss off the religious among his voting base. I said that then, and I say it again. He didn't change his mind about gay marriage, he's just not lying about it anymore.

Why no court challenges? He just voiced his opinion. He's not making a national decree or anything. Let the states handle it. They're doing fine. Eventually all states will have marriage equality and we can move onto other issues and leave this one in the dust.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Sabiduria

I love how our politicraps love to used the constitution when they feel is in their best interest to further agendas but disregard the constitution when it doesn't work in their favor.

Sounds an awful lot like the gun owners, religious nuts, people who demand voter ID..and the republican/tea party.

The constitution is used to make a point in arguments from the right on here, but use the constitution in your argument and the right just disregards it.

Cherry picking the constitution is very popular on ATS

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Indeed. Nero married a man.

originally posted by: beezzer
Can a religion exist that has tenets that violate the Constitution?

What, like Islam?

But on a serious note, in practice marriage is an entirely legal function and should be considered separate from religious influence. Without the paperwork the government doesn't even recognize your marriage anyway, the priest and ceremony are only decorum.

a reply to: pirhanna

Under the first Amendment - Freedom of expression & religion is where same-sex marriage should be but as you are right that the U.S gov is taking away all your Rights & Freedoms, it's a bit wishy-washy.

a reply to: new_here

I agree with you. I dislike how this is being done under the guise of equality for same-sex marriage.

a reply to: macman

If it takes "bastardizing" the constitution so that humans get the same treatment as other humans, than that is what it takes.

Mind you the first Amendment: Freedom of Expression & Religion, LGBTQ+ people should be protected. After all, LGBTQ+ people are humans just like heterosexuals are human.

Face, you just don't want all humans to be treated equal.

a reply to: Wolvesandsheeple

If heterosexuals have permission from big daddy gov than why shouldn't homosexuals? A human is a human last time I checked.

I don't know why a married couple gets tax breaks when a single person doesn't, maybe it is because two people are paying taxes instead of one? The bottom line is it shouldn't matter if the married couple is heterosexual or homosexual, they should have the same rights.

Basically it is all about LGBTQ+ humans being treated as humans, the same as heterosexuals, African Americans, Caucasians, clowns, doctors, etc.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: ketsuko

But let me ask this, to play devils advocate: if a church thought it was sinful to marry a white person to a black person (or asian, latino, or any other "race"), would that be something we are ok with? There are quite a few churches who believe that "the races should not mix" due to scripture related to the tower of babel. How do we feel about that? Is equal opportunity really intended to be equal?

The federal government took care of that and bigamy a while back when some states used to prohibit interracial marriage.

(First Restatement of Conflicts on Marriage and Legitimacy s.121 (1934)). However, a state can refuse to recognize a marriage if the marriage violates a strong public policy of the state, even if the marriage was legal in the state where it was performed. (Restatement (Second) Of Conflict of Laws § 283(2) (1971).) States historically exercised this "public policy exception" by refusing to recognize out-of-state polygamous marriages, underage marriages, incestuous marriages, and interracial marriages. Following these precedents, nearly all courts that have addressed the issue have held that states with laws defining marriage as a one man, one woman union can refuse to recognize same-sex marriages that were legally performed elsewhere.

en.wikipedia.org...

I am citing already existing laws that define marriage.

The 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, which made bigamy a punishable federal offense in U.S. territories

Federal courts have interpreted the U.S. Constitution to place some limits on states' ability to restrict access to marriage. In Loving v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court overturned state marriage laws that barred interracial marriages on the basis that marriage is a "basic civil right..." and that "...the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

See how the Federal government can and will legislate against certain issues in references to marriage that could infringe on certain constitutional rights.

a reply to: marg6043

BFFT was talking about the CHURCH being forced to marry interracial couples, not the government's recognition of interracial marriage.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Thanks, does some the church still goes against interracial marriages? can they still in this days refuse?