It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If The U.S. Supreme Court ‘Goes Rogue’ ...

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: FarleyWayne I don't know of any churches that are against same sex marriage being asked to perform them. I think they are protected already. Why the need for this bill?




posted on May, 22 2015 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl


The government has no business recognizing that a State of Marriage exists


Supposedly the government had no business in interracial marriage in the 60s. They had no business in desegregation at the same time as well. They had no business in slavery as well. There alot of things surrounding basic rights of individuals that the Federal Government had no 'business' in.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer



If the Supreme Court states that churches have to marry people from the LGBT community


They can't.



there will be people celebrating it.


No.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Ok, The 'pastor protection' bill. Let us examine this from the standpoint of separation of church and State and right to contract.

'Marriage' in the civil statutory sense is a State sponsored protection [benefit] franchise. It is a three party contract between [currently] a man, a woman, and most States. Some States have extended this right to contract to other combinations of consenting adults.

A 'Civil Marriage' is officiated by a magistrate, a public officer, and signatory for the State. A magistrate cannot operate in anything other than a civil capacity.

'Rites of Matrimony' are the second half of most 'marriages'. This is what people visualize when they hear 'marriage'. These are what are performed at a church, by an ordained man of the cloth. In this sense 'Marriage' is a sacrament or covenant [depending on denomination] and is a contract between a man, a woman, and their creator.

Both can be conducted together, separately, or even singularly, i.e. a civil marriage only, or a rites of matrimony only.

I have touched on how a magistrate can only officiate in the civil capacity. An ordained man of the cloth can operate in both the civil and religious capacity. Performing the rites and ceremony, he is operating in his religious capacity. As soon as he officiates the marriage license application, he operates as an officer of the State.

The crux here is; Can an ordained man of the cloth, as recognized (licensed) by the State deny his religious capacity of preforming the rites of matrimony while simultaneously being obligated to officiate in a civil capacity if asked? I personally do not see them able to deny service in the civil capacity, should State law extend the contract to any combination of consenting adults. A magistrate could not deny right to contract.

My personal opinion on the matter is, the big stink being made is about 'civil marriage' and the protection [benefits] afforded. Men of the cloth are just easy scapegoats for throwing the 'discrimination' card.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
Texas is losing what little brains it had left. Two bills in short order that make what already is law... law again? double the pleasure, double the fun? Texas is so big it has to do everything twice?

Yeehaw y'all!
Correct. They are just looking for votes for themselves, in the meantime they are paid to do useless things.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

You hit the nail on the head.


I see this issue running along the same lines as the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It's a given ... and several words in the Bill of Rights are too often casually overlooked. Do the words "Shall Make No Law" and "Shall Not Be Infringed" carry so little weight?


When I bring up a statement like that. In reply often I hear people say the Constitution was written 200 years ago and is outdated and needs to be rewritten.

I have a response that never fails to infuriate someone that holds that position. I ask them is that the whole Constitution or just the parts you don't like?
edit on 22-5-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

The Boy Scouts didn't require the courts to intervene. Local gov'ts did it for them. They called the Boys Scouts of America "Bigoted' banned them from using schools and Community centers all over the country. marginalized them for their Christian basics.

It was adapt or loose out in the long run.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 08:06 PM
link   
I don't care who gets married, but I do see a problem if a pastor refuses to marry two people of the same sex, and the couple runs to the gubmint and cries that their civil rights have been violated.

In fact, I hope all gays get married. I want to see if they can make as much of a hypocritical travesty of it as the heteros have.

But leave the church out of it.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

How many times has the 2nd Amendment been "reinterpreted"?

How many here cheer those "reinterpretations"?



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: J.B. Aloha I am an ordained minister. If a gay couple came to me and asked to be married, I would say yes, but I could say no, even if legal. If a group of 3 people came to me and asked to be married, I would have to tell them it is against the law but I could perform some kind of spiritual ceremony, yet tell them it was not legally binding and I could not sign the marriage paperwork. If a straight couple came to me and asked me to perform the ceremony, I could say no-- for almost any reason. If the reason was that they were interracial, I might be on shaky ground there (though I would never use that reason). I can state that I simply don;t like the couple and they can seek another minister.


edit on 22-5-2015 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: FarleyWayne I would imagine the SC decision going in favor of ssm, if there is one, will apply to government officials like judges, city clerks, Justice of the Peace or any govt official who can legally perform marriage. You don't need a church, and if a clergy who does not have a govt paper marries a couple I doubt it counts in court. The marriage laws are civil laws. Churches have their own rules and certainly don't respect all of each others' now anyway. What am I missing?



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 08:12 PM
link   
We are on the same page then.


yet tell them it was not legally binding and I could not sign the marriage paperwork.



I wanted only rites of matrimony when my wife and I got 'married' knowing full well the above. I avoid government franchises like the plague they are. But, I acquiesced and we went the civil route.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Only humans can make sex and sexuality so #ing controversial. It's stupid and nauseating to be frank, as if people don't have other # to worry about in there life, they''d instead consume themselves with who's pecker is where, and how that pecker even though not touching you somehow violated your freedoms.

Does anyone really think any other living creature, be it dog or sheep, horse or frog is worried about such things?

I say # it. Right? I mean not literally, well maybe if that's your thing.


Mods...sorry.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBoomersRBusted
a reply to: FarleyWayne I would imagine the SC decision going in favor of ssm, if there is one, will apply to government officials like judges, city clerks, Justice of the Peace or any govt official who can legally perform marriage. You don't need a church, and if a clergy who does not have a govt paper marries a couple I doubt it counts in court. The marriage laws are civil laws. Churches have their own rules and certainly don't respect all of each others' now anyway. What am I missing?

In almost every state, 3 signatures are needed on paperwork from the municipality. 2 adult witnesses and a clergy member or a town clerk or judge (almost any clergy will do, the local pastor or a mail order minister- just not a Ship Captain in most places). Then the paperwork must be filed.
edit on 22-5-2015 by reldra because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-5-2015 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

You are talking about citizens' reactions. Communities of citizens have the right to boycott or speak unfavorably about anything. There were plenty of current Boy Scout members who left or threatened to leave because of the "no gays" policy. But the courts ruled that the Boy Scouts were within their legal rights as a private organization.

Is it possible that many church members will leave or threaten to leave any church that refuses to marry a same-sex couple? Sure. But don't blame that on the government.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 08:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: J.B. Aloha
We are on the same page then.


yet tell them it was not legally binding and I could not sign the marriage paperwork.



I wanted only rites of matrimony when my wife and I got 'married' knowing full well the above. I avoid government franchises like the plague they are. But, I acquiesced and we went the civil route.
If you meant same sex marriage, I can do that in NY state. It would be legally binding with 2 adult witnesses signing as well. If it is some other type of non-traditional marriage between more than 2 adults, that is when I state I cannot sign paperwork.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: kaylaluv

The Boy Scouts didn't require the courts to intervene. Local gov'ts did it for them. They called the Boys Scouts of America "Bigoted' banned them from using schools and Community centers all over the country. marginalized them for their Christian basics.

It was adapt or loose out in the long run.

The Boy Scouts were never a Christian organization. They were pulled into the present day, kind of kicking and screaming to allow gay scouts. But, they don;t allow gay scout leaders at this time, one day I believe they will.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

Yes, Same Sex Marriage, and in my understanding of how the 'pastoral hats' are juggled. I am all for freedom of contract [as inline with law]. Though, contracting with any government [for benefit or protection] is dangerous business to begin with, but I digress.
edit on 22-5-2015 by J.B. Aloha because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: J.B. Aloha
a reply to: reldra

Yes, Same Sex Marriage, and in my understanding of how the 'pastoral hats' are juggled. I am all for freedom of contract [as inline with law]. Though, contracting with any government [for benefit or protection] is dangerous business to begin with, but I digress.
I would have been happy to perform the ceremony
And sign papers if wanted...or not sign papers if not wanted.
edit on 22-5-2015 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Like it or not, the 2nd is ambiguous and only recently strongly defined. We can go back to ambiguous if you prefer but I don't think you'd like that very much.

The 1st is not ambiguous.




top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join