Tweet
Actually, the rules were changed by the SCOTUS, but they do not write law, they enforce and clarify existing law. The federal gay marriage law is not a legally written law by Congress therefore it is Constitutionally not enforceable.
-
-
If not enforceable, she shouldn't be in gaol.Originally posted by Beowulf View PostG U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Comment
-
That is right! The law is that the SCOTUS is not the writer of the law but the enforcers of existing laws. Congress passes the law.
There has been no law passed by Congress as yet to make gay marriage legal. Most of the states where same-sex marriage is legal came after the Supreme Court overturned a key portion of the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013. Judges across the country decided the reasoning of the ruling meant that state bans on gay marriage were unconstitutional.
The problem is this.Last edited by Beowulf; 09-03-2015, 10:18 PM.Comment
-
Just thought : one usually hears about gay marriage, but have there been any refusals to perform gay baptisms? (this would be a church thing rather than a legal thing)Comment
-
Plenty or forOriginally posted by Robert View Post
Single parents
or non members
or a variety of other reasons.G U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true. Comment
-
I'm sorry Beowulf but you misunderstand the law. There doesn't need to be a law written to make gay marriage legal. Gay people are now allowed to benefit from the laws already in place on marriage. Just like there is no law saying gay people can vote, or can drive a car or can get a passport.
Scotus decided that the laws of the land in regard to marriage applied to gay people as well. There is no need for a separate law, they are covered under the existing one.
So she should be in jail, because she took an oath to uphold the laws of the state and country and she is violating them purely for her own fame and ego.
And don't tell me she's doing it for religious reasons, because I guarantee you she's given marriage licenses to divorcees which the Bible says is a no-no.
Let all Oz be agreed;
I need a better class of flying monkeys.Comment
-
I heard about a church that normally did baptisms during regular services, refusing to do one for a lesbian couple unless it was on a weekday, not during a service. This was of their baby, not one of them.Originally posted by Robert View Post
The US has laws forbidding discrimination on the basis of sex, and I think the argument the lawyers used in front of the Supreme Court was that by allowing only opposite sex couples to get marriage licenses, the local license branches were discriminating based on sex.
I have not read the opinion, though, so I don't know how the court actually came to the decision.Comment
-
Isn't it funny that here in the U.S most of the people who are fighting these issues because of Jesus.. and I guess Jesus trumps the constitution ( read the F***king 1st amendment!!).....are the most "Anti-Muslim pro America" folks out there.. and they don't see trying to inforce this " religious liberty" defense is the same thing as Sharia law.
Plus if they can use this Religious Liberty defense for everything, well as a non-Christian the fact that they try to inforce Christian laws infringes upon my Religious Liberty...or for my brother who is an Atheist, his “non-religious” liberty eh? But I guess that doesn't matter....after all to them only Christians count....funny, how the most peaceful and inclusive teachings spawned such bigotry and hatred... really crazy that these fringe Christians seem to do the exact opposite of what Jesus would do....
Steadmund Brand"The truth is what is, and what should be is a fantasy. A terrible, terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago."- Lenny BruceComment
-
Oh yeah these same people who trumpet their religious liberty to flout the law would absolute lose their minds if some muslim clerk in some town decided not to let two people get married because they didn't have parental consent or some other vagary of muslim marriage law.
Let all Oz be agreed;
I need a better class of flying monkeys.Comment
-
Hi Steadmund,Originally posted by Steadmund Brand View Post
It reminds me of one of the sharpest anti - American Revolution comments made in Great Britain. Dr. Samuel Johnson commented something to the effect, "Isn't it fascinating that some of the strongest voices for liberty and freedom there also are the largest owners of slaves!" I'm afraid that hypocrisy always gets some covering up by outspoken individuals.
Not that Johnson was free of this. He was the recipient of a royal financial gift every year in honor of his work as a scholar and writer - at the same time that he was attacking the colonists. In a sense he was a royal propagandist. Also, there were plenty of loyal colonists in the Caribbean colonies, and even the British isles of the 1770s who had slaves as well. It was just the breast beating of the likes of Patrick Henry, or Jefferson, or Madison, or Washington about fighting for freedom sounded questionable due to the sizes of their plantations.
During the American Civil War Southern plantation owners or slavery defenders pointed out the hypocrisy of Northern industrialists who worked their employees harshly to squeeze as much out of their work as profit as possible (and would continue doing so up to the Progressive Era). The slave owners pointed out that they at least fed, clothed, and housed their slaves, unlike the Northern industrialists. Of course this overlooked that 1) slave owners used more corporeal punishment for recalcitrant or difficult slaves, and 2) the slave owning Chief Justice of the U.S. Roger Taney (in the Dred Scott decision) declared slaves not people but property.
So this issue is not an entirely new one - the cause of the collision is different now.
JeffComment
-
Hi Ally,Originally posted by Ally View Post
Even more so if the Islamic clerk insisted he (it could not be a she, as really religious - old time religious Muslims - have to be men to hold any job), could not, in good conscience, marry anyone who was not Muslim. Imagine if the lady in the Kentucky jail was present when she heard that!!
Not only gay couples, but Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodoxy, Jews (of all sects), Hindus, Buddhists, Confuscians, Zoroastrians, Taoists, even Mormons and Scientologists, would be refused marriage by that clerk. So would athieists, agnostics, and believers in Baal (but then they already know their reception - their temple at Palmyra was just raised!) be denied. And who knows - if the Islamic clerk would be a Sunni he might not consider a Sh'ite as a REAL Muslim, or if he were a Sh'ite he might not think he could grant any license to a Sunni!
In short the clerk would be able to limit his work to just the ten or twenty million Islamics (my guess of their population numbers here - it may be more) in the U.S., and it may only be to a portion of them.
At least the cleric would grant licenses to African-Americans who were Black Muslims, as long as they were of his version of Islam - it's nice to see this hypothetical Islamic American clerk is so liberal!!
JeffComment
-
Deputy clerks have now started issuing licenses to same sex couples. The chief clerk remains in jail.
c.d.Comment
-
Even more so if the Islamic clerk insisted he (it could not be a she, as really religious - old time religious Muslims - have to be men to hold any job), could not, in good conscience, marry anyone who was not Muslim. Imagine if the lady in the Kentucky jail was present when she heard that!!
Well I guess I won't be converting any time soon. I need a religion where only the women work. Now that is a religion I could get behind.
c.d.Comment
-
CD, is your name perchance Harry Mudd?Comment
-
I am afraid that that one went right by me, Robert.
c.d.Comment
Comment