US Supreme Court to Take on Gay Marriage

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
Thing I see most that the "against gay marriage" crowd is concerned about is wording that would end up forcing Pastors of churches to conduct same sex weddings against their religious beliefs.

Many religious adherents are frightened about that because they think marriage is a religious institution. Truth is, these discussions about LEGAL marriage and have absolutely nothing to do with what people do in their church. The first amendment protects religions from being legally forced to perform any marriage they choose. Marriage equality is about the legal institution of marriage only. But, unfortunately, the pastors know they can scare their flocks into voting against it using fear.

Additionally, I believe that religious people should keep their religious marriages completely out of the government, as it is a religious observance for the truly religious and not a matter for any government involvement. I believe in the privatization of marriage, for the religious (only)

Actually, a religious marriage is a separate thing from a legal marriage already. It's just that many people don't know that. When a person applies for a license to marry (with the state) and has witnesses sign it, that's the legal marriage part. The fact that they do it in a church and religious clergy performs the wedding, is the religious part. They do both. If they didn't get a LEGAL license and have witnesses to sign - if they just went to church and had their minister perform a ceremony, they wouldn't be legally married, and wouldn't get any tax or other benefits.

My marriage is legal only. We got a license and got married by a judge. No church or religious words were spoken. Look at the marriage laws of states. Religion isn't mentioned.

a reply to: OpinionatedB
That is the thing, a minister in a church can not be compelled to violate his or her own faith. There is no law on the books that state that. There is a law on the books called the ministerial exclusion. That is there and it allows for a minister, in a church, to be able to discriminate.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
Point is, the parameters and definition of marriage is whatever a culture makes it. It's never been set in stone. People can be so afraid of change, but in this case - they need to get over it.

Regarding the "definition of marriage" argument, I thought of this silly analogy to get the point across:

At some point in history, only white people bought houses, because only they could afford it. When black people started wanting to buy houses, it made white people uncomfortable, so they said, "Buying houses is for white people only. That's the definition of buying a house. A white person gives money in exchange for a house. Why change the definition of house-buying? Let the black people RENT a house. They get all the same benefits but they won't have our status as Home Owners".

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Annee
While the 14th may not apply, however Article III would apply to same sex marriage, and I believe that was what Scalia was trying to get at. The point on that is if a couple were married in say New York, and were to move to say Arizona, they are still married in the eyes of the law. And that is the crux of the second question in itself.

OK, thanks.

Scalia says some "off-the-wall" stuff on occasion. I would not want to guess what he means on anything.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I'll be honest, that is what confused me also. People like myself, we grow up thinking of marriage in solely religious terms.. I have never once viewed marriage as anything outside of a holy covenant before God.

So what confused me personally a couple of years ago, is why homosexuals would even want to get married, when according to all the religions God appears rather against it - since I saw marriage in only religious terms.

That one took a lot of talking out to actually get it all figured out in my head, and clearly understood. (not re-hashing an old discussion here, just stating it is something that is difficult for some people to actually wrap their heads around)

But I think once people like myself get it all figured out, straightened out, and clear in their heads, it is easier to separate a religious ceremony, from a secular one, or one where there is a religion which allows such a thing.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

Many religious adherents are frightened about that because they think marriage is a religious institution. Truth is, these discussions about LEGAL marriage and have absolutely nothing to do with what people do in their church. The first amendment protects religions from being legally forced to perform any marriage they choose. Marriage equality is about the legal institution of marriage only. But, unfortunately, the pastors know they can scare their flocks into voting against it using fear.

As I said, for me, when it comes to understanding legal jargon - - I don't even pretend to understand it clearly without assistance.

Some are questioning why Scalia would even bring this up. I think he's an idiot, but not stupid when it comes to what the Constitution says.

originally posted by: Annee
Some are questioning why Scalia would even bring this up. I think he's an idiot, but not stupid when it comes to what the Constitution says.

Did he have say something about pastors being forced to perform ceremonies?

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Annee
Some are questioning why Scalia would even bring this up. I think he's an idiot, but not stupid when it comes to what the Constitution says.

Did he have say something about pastors being forced to perform ceremonies?

In a laughable argument ignoring the First Amendment, Justice Antonin Scalia made a ridiculous argument pleading for the right of clergy members.

"They are not likely to change their view about what marriage consists of. And were the States to adopt it by law, they could make exceptions to what is required for same-­sex marriage, who has to honor it and so forth. But once it's ­­ it's made a matter of constitutional law, those exceptions ­­ for example, is it, is it conceivable that a minister who is authorized by the State to conduct marriage can decline to marry two men if indeed this Court holds that they have a constitutional right to marry? Is it conceivable that that would be allowed?"

www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com...

At the end of the article:

At that point, Justice Stephen Breyer had to step in as well, to defend Justice Kagan and Bonauto's argument.

"It's called Congress shall make no law respecting the freedom of religion..."

edit on 1-5-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)

dp

a reply to: Annee

OK, thanks. I KNOW he knows better. Clergy can and do refuse to marry anyone they want. He's simply playing politics... Something I though the Supreme Court wasn't supposed to do.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Annee

OK, thanks. I KNOW he knows better. Clergy can and do refuse to marry anyone they want. He's simply playing politics... Something I though the Supreme Court wasn't supposed to do.

Yeah, making sure his "people" know he "fought the fought" - - - even if marriage equality becomes law.

I'm really curious for this decision. I don't think marriage equality will get 100%. I think "they" think, they have to hold something back.

a reply to: Annee

You're exactly right. Let them add a (redundant and unnecessary) religious exemption into the law that supports the first amendment, then. That should put their minds at ease. Silly rabbits! (no offense, beez)

Good Article on The US's Long-Standing Protection of Church

Like we really need this kind of mentality being in control.

WATCH: Being Gay Is 'Death Worthy,' According to Georgia Church Sign

The church's pastor says he's merely quoting the Bible, and adds that 'people who deserve not to live' shouldn't have access to marriage.

www.advocate.com...

Texas Anti-Marriage Equality Bill Dies

Republican-backed legislation to put new blockades on same-sex marriage in Texas died in the statehouse on Friday after failing to win approval by a midnight deadline amid stalling tactics by the Democratic minority.

The bill, called the "Preservation of Sovereignty and Marriage Act," would block clerk's offices in the state's 254 counties from using tax money to issue licenses for same-sex weddings in the most-populous Republican-controlled U.S. state.

So, the GOP in Texas thinks "their" tax money shouldn't be wasted marrying the gays...

In Ireland, OTOH, they're ready to say YES to marriage equality! Source

Every country that votes down these archaic and judgmental religious laws is another bit of pressure on the Supreme Court to do the right thing.

What massively enraged me was the bow-tied twerp who argued before the Supreme Court that there had to be a biological component to marriage, that marriage was for procreation. He was then utterly obliterated by Justice Ginsberg, but his pathetic argument made me unbelievably angry. My wife can't have children. I knew that before I married her, but I love her and I married her anyway. According to that brainless little worm in the bow tie I shouldn't have married her. If I ever meet the man I'll tell him that he's a legal incompetent with the morals of a clam, before spreading his nose all over his face. Twit.

Didn't want to start a new thread. It keeps getting more bizarre.

Ala. Senate Passes Bill That Would End Marriage Licenses

Alabama Senate Passes Bill That Would End Marriage Licenses

The legislation seeks to address the 'chaotic state' that occurred after a federal court ruled the state must recognize same-sex marriage. BY DANIEL REYNOLDSMAY 27 2015

A bill that would get rid of marriage licenses in Alabama has passed in the state Senate.

Only three senators opposed Alabama Senate Bill 377, which seeks to replace licenses with a contract process that would not require a probate judge’s approval, reports AL.com, a website for several Alabama newspapers. Twenty-two senators voted in favor of the bill May 19.

www.advocate.com...

a reply to: Annee

Not to mention, Moore wants Ginsburg impeached for officiating at a same-sex marriage, because he considers that "commenting" on a case before the SC.

“I know that at least one motion for recusal’s been filed against these justices by the Foundation for Moral Law in Montgomery, Alabama,” Moore added, referring to the conservative organization that he founded and that his wife runs. “[Ginsburg] is doing it in the face of plain evidence that she’s violating the ethical rules for federal judges… If Congress is going to let these justices disobey the Constitution they’re sworn to uphold, then Congress has a check and a balance. It’s called impeachment.”

Source

Annee - From your source...

If the proposed legislation, now pending in the state House of Representatives, goes into effect, the signature of a notary, attorney, or member of the clergy as well as two witnesses would allow two adults to receive a marriage contract.

Does this mean a license isn't necessary, but a "marriage contract" would be given to ANY two adults who get these signatures? Or would they only give contracts to straight people?

I don't have a problem with them changing their laws, as long as they treat all citizens equally. Looks like this "fix" doesn't really do anything at all, except skip the licensing phase... I've read it several times and it doesn't make much sense to me...

Here's another source:

Now, the state’s senate has gone through with a version of that threat: they’ve eliminated marriage licenses. Oddly, this doesn’t actually change marriage much at all — it only means that a clerk or judge is no longer needed to sign off on a document permitting it.
...
The bill doesn’t prevent anyone from getting married — it merely means that no one has to apply for a marriage license first. A marriage must still take place with an accepted officiant, and two witnesses.
...
Since this legislation wouldn’t prevent same-sex couples from getting married, if marriage equality becomes American law, it’s clear that the goal isn’t to completely prevent same-sex marriage. Instead, perhaps Roy Moore and other Alabama justices are satisfied simply to feel absolved of ever giving permission for one.
Read more at www.inquisitr.com...

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Not really sure.

Bizarre gymnastics to disassociate having any connection to same sex getting "married".

It's how it can be misused that disturbs me.

originally posted by: Annee
Bizarre gymnastics to disassociate having any connection to same sex getting "married".

But this legislation does NOTHING to prevent gay people from getting married. It just skips the license. It's pretty insane... Of course, that pretty much describes Roy Moore...

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Annee
Bizarre gymnastics to disassociate having any connection to same sex getting "married".

But this legislation does NOTHING to prevent gay people from getting married. It just skips the license. It's pretty insane... Of course, that pretty much describes Roy Moore...

Not yet. It's bizarre. Yes insane.

Makes me wonder what they'll try to pull next.