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