Democrat voters are saying that 2 of the Supreme Court justices would overturn gay marriage based on their comments yesterday & it could/would happen under 4 more years of Trump & a ACB appointment.

I find this hard to believe that they'd vote to overturn it. I personally don't support a lot of the LGBTQ+ rights movement (first of all I think a lot of it's just pandering - look at that DNC position thread that someone posted & count how many times LGBTQ+ gets brought up even on topics that have nothing to do with it) but think the marriage ruling is a done deal & settled law at this point.

Are they blowing the justices comments out of proportion? What exactly did the justices say? I have a hard time understanding the articles on it TBH. It's hard to tell in the articles what's the reporter's opinion & what the justices comments are.

(10-07-2020 09:23 AM)Bronco14 Wrote:  Democrat voters are saying that 2 of the Supreme Court justices would overturn gay marriage based on their comments yesterday & it could/would happen under 4 more years of Trump & a ACB appointment.

I find this hard to believe that they'd vote to overturn it. I personally don't support a lot of the LGBTQ+ rights movement (first of all I think a lot of it's just pandering - look at that DNC position thread that someone posted & count how many times LGBTQ+ gets brought up even on topics that have nothing to do with it) but think the marriage ruling is a done deal & settled law at this point.

Are they blowing the justices comments out of proportion? What exactly did the justices say? I have a hard time understanding the articles on it TBH. It's hard to tell in the articles what's the reporter's opinion & what the justices comments are.

More fear mongering lies. there's no lie the Dems won't stoop to.

All they said was that the ruling left a lot of issues unresolved. Basically religious liberty issues. It had nothing to do with overturning the ruling.

It’s just another October day that ends in Y...every day is a new freak out leading up to the election.

I have a lesbian relative getting married in January because they are afraid they won't be able to get married later.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nationa...-more/amp/

(10-07-2020 09:34 AM)Claw Wrote:  I have a lesbian relative getting married in January because they are afraid they won't be able to get married later.

Tell her to seek psychological help for her TDS.

The argument to me is whether government at any level has a Constitutional justification for being in the marriage market to begin with.

Marriage is a religious issue.

Civil Unions are a government issue.

I have no issue with two (or more) people contracting Civil Unions, but defining it as a marriage is misuse of semantics.

Forcing people to acknowledge it as a marriage through government coercion is a violation of the First Amendment. So is letting people be sued for refusing services based on their religious beliefs.

(10-07-2020 09:36 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  The argument to me is whether government at any level has a Constitutional justification for being in the marriage market to begin with.

Marriage is a religious issue.

Civil Unions are a government issue.

I have no issue with two (or more) people contracting Civil Unions, but defining it as a marriage is misuse of semantics.

Government should get out of the marriage business.

(10-07-2020 09:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-07-2020 09:34 AM)Claw Wrote:  I have a lesbian relative getting married in January because they are afraid they won't be able to get married later.

Tell her to seek psychological help for her TDS.

At first they wanted to do it before the election. We talked them down from that and they agreed to January.

The only thing that could possibly even happen is the nationwide mandate for gay marriage legality would be overturned (it won't be). If that happens it's a state issue again (and Constitutionally it should be, if we assume government is Constitutionally allowed a stake in the marriage business [see my last post]). Then you can do what my lesbian friend did, go to a state that allows gay marriage, get married, come back home, get your marriage covered by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

(10-07-2020 09:36 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  The argument to me is whether government at any level has a Constitutional justification for being in the marriage market to begin with.

Marriage is a religious issue.

Civil Unions are a government issue.

I have no issue with two (or more) people contracting Civil Unions, but defining it as a marriage is misuse of semantics.

Forcing people to acknowledge it as a marriage through government coercion is a violation of the First Amendment. So is letting people be sued for refusing services based on their religious beliefs.

Church shouldnt be legally forced to marry anyone. Period.

Adults should be able to marry anyone the are dumb enough to marry.

Marriage is a money maker for church, most are gonna do it.

Fear mongering absolutely... same with 'take away your PEC coverage' BS.

The WORST that would happen with Gay Marriage is that you couldn't force a church to marry you... but plenty of churches have signed on and wouldn't reverse their positions... and of course you don't need the church to be married. Separation of church and state and all.

That's it

As for PECs, in addition to numerous times that has been specifically denied... even before the ACA you couldn't decline coverage for PECs with existing coverage in force... which everyone for whom this might be an issue currently has.

(10-07-2020 09:38 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(10-07-2020 09:36 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  The argument to me is whether government at any level has a Constitutional justification for being in the marriage market to begin with.

Marriage is a religious issue.

Civil Unions are a government issue.

I have no issue with two (or more) people contracting Civil Unions, but defining it as a marriage is misuse of semantics.

Government should get out of the marriage business.

Not a bad idea. Married people get to check the file jointly box on the tax return, about the only benefit. People could shack up together, do living wills, do regular wills prior to same sex marriage.

(10-07-2020 09:23 AM)Bronco14 Wrote:  Democrat voters are saying that 2 of the Supreme Court justices would overturn gay marriage based on their comments yesterday & it could/would happen under 4 more years of Trump & a ACB appointment.

I find this hard to believe that they'd vote to overturn it. I personally don't support a lot of the LGBTQ+ rights movement (first of all I think a lot of it's just pandering - look at that DNC position thread that someone posted & count how many times LGBTQ+ gets brought up even on topics that have nothing to do with it) but think the marriage ruling is a done deal & settled law at this point.

Are they blowing the justices comments out of proportion? What exactly did the justices say? I have a hard time understanding the articles on it TBH. It's hard to tell in the articles what's the reporter's opinion & what the justices comments are.

What they said is that Obergfell vs Hodges created a lot of problems that have led to violations of the 1st Amendment protections of freedom of religion. They also said that they predicted this in their dissent from Obergfell.

But that's very different from saying that they'd overturn Obergfell.

In fact, Thomas & Alito's statement says that the Court needs to fix the "scope" of Obergfell v Hodges. This implies keeping the primary ruling in place, and that the only changes will be clarifying the consequences of legalized gay marriage on other rights.


The final paragraph of Thomas' statement:

"This petition implicates important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell, but it does not cleanly present them. For that reason, I concur in the denial of certiorari. Nevertheless, this petition provides a stark reminder of the consequences of Obergefell. By choosing to privilege a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment, and by doing so undemocratically, the Court has created a problem that only it can fix. Until then, Obergefell will continue to have “ruinous consequences for religious liberty.” "

(10-07-2020 09:52 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Fear mongering absolutely... same with 'take away your PEC coverage' BS.

The WORST that would happen with Gay Marriage is that you couldn't force a church to marry you... but plenty of churches have signed on and wouldn't reverse their positions... and of course you don't need the church to be married. Separation of church and state and all.

That's it

As for PECs, in addition to numerous times that has been specifically denied... even before the ACA you couldn't decline coverage for PECs with existing coverage in force... which everyone for whom this might be an issue currently has.

I don't think that is the WORST that could happen. It might be the worst likely to happen.

The "worst" that could happen is the court ruling that the federal government has no authority to set policies on marriage and that all powers regarding marriage belong to the state.

A lot of Conservatives have ruled in favor of gay marriage since they trend towards the popularity of the nation. A lot of churches have been doing gay marriages in all 50 states now. It is money that they can get to help repair the churches and all that.

It is settled law in the land just like Roe vs Wade and Obamacare. A lot of conservative judges are more mind frame of Ronald Reagan as a compassionate Conservative. As long as it is to allow abbortions to the life of the mother and child, incest or rape is fine. Obamacare became popular after several years and that it just needs fixing There are a lot of Democrats and Republicans worked on to improve that act.

(10-07-2020 10:43 AM)Claw Wrote:  

(10-07-2020 09:52 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Fear mongering absolutely... same with 'take away your PEC coverage' BS.

The WORST that would happen with Gay Marriage is that you couldn't force a church to marry you... but plenty of churches have signed on and wouldn't reverse their positions... and of course you don't need the church to be married. Separation of church and state and all.

That's it

As for PECs, in addition to numerous times that has been specifically denied... even before the ACA you couldn't decline coverage for PECs with existing coverage in force... which everyone for whom this might be an issue currently has.

I don't think that is the WORST that could happen. It might be the worst likely to happen.

The "worst" that could happen is the court ruling that the federal government has no authority to set policies on marriage and that all powers regarding marriage belong to the state.

That is already the case. States all have their own laws regarding marriage. I think the end result of Obergfell was that States can't deny a marriage license to people of the same sex.

(10-07-2020 09:23 AM)Bronco14 Wrote:  Democrat voters are saying that 2 of the Supreme Court justices would overturn gay marriage based on their comments yesterday & it could/would happen under 4 more years of Trump & a ACB appointment.

I find this hard to believe that they'd vote to overturn it. I personally don't support a lot of the LGBTQ+ rights movement (first of all I think a lot of it's just pandering - look at that DNC position thread that someone posted & count how many times LGBTQ+ gets brought up even on topics that have nothing to do with it) but think the marriage ruling is a done deal & settled law at this point.

Are they blowing the justices comments out of proportion? What exactly did the justices say? I have a hard time understanding the articles on it TBH. It's hard to tell in the articles what's the reporter's opinion & what the justices comments are.

There is no such thing as settled law.

A law is either constitutional or it's not regardless of what the SCOTUS says.

If a SCOTUS decision meant settled law then slavery would still be legal according to Dred Scott v. John F.A. Sandford, March 6, 1857, ruled 7-2.

1. Living in a free state does not entitle freedom to a slave.
2. Slaves are not U.S. citizens and thus can't sue in federal court.
3. The Missouri Compromise is unconstitutional and no longer valid.
4. Congress has no standing to exclude slavery.
5. Black people can never become a U.S. citizen.

Quote:The Dred Scott decision was the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on March 6, 1857, that having lived in a free state and territory did not entitle an slaved person, Dred Scott, to his freedom. In essence, the decision argued that, as someone’s property, Scott was not a citizen and could not sue in a federal court. The majority opinion by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney also stated that Congress had no power to exclude slavery from the territories (thus invalidating the Missouri Compromise [1820]) and that African Americans could never become U.S. citizens.

Should that ruling have been considered "settled law"?

(10-07-2020 09:34 AM)Claw Wrote:  I have a lesbian relative getting married in January because they are afraid they won't be able to get married later.

You might want to share with her that if gay marriage does somehow become illegal again, then they can just as easily invalidate all gay marriages that took place prior to the ruling.

You know, if you want to mess with her.

(10-07-2020 11:52 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-07-2020 09:34 AM)Claw Wrote:  I have a lesbian relative getting married in January because they are afraid they won't be able to get married later.

You might want to share with her that if gay marriage does somehow become illegal again, then they can just as easily invalidate all gay marriages that took place prior to the ruling.

You know, if you want to mess with her.

That's what I was thinking