Louisiana won't Recognize Same-Sex Marriages

[T3X4S]

In Granbury, TX (about 2 hours south of Dallas/Ft Worth) a county clerk refused to give out same sex marriage licenses... because its... wait for it.... wait for it.... against her relgious beliefs !

Her boss has said she has his full support, but now they are being sued by the couple who was trying to get married.

Now, the office is claiming, there is someone who will do it in their office, but it will take 3 weeks to get the forms....

[uPDATE ] 2 HOURS AGO

http://keranews.org/post/after-suing-hood-county-granbury-gay-couple-gets-marriage-license

They got their license.  Welcome to 2015 Granbury

 

[DefyTheOutcome]

Edit: Stupid me pressing the submit button before entirely writing the post ...

 

I believe homosexuality is a sinful life style. I do not support gay rights or marriage. Neither do I actively work or speak against them.

 

That is some premium top of the shelf cognitive dissonance there. How is it possible to align these two sentences???
 

In Granbury, TX (about 2 hours south of Dallas/Ft Worth) a county clerk refused to give out same sex marriage licenses... because its... wait for it.... wait for it.... against her relgious beliefs !

Her boss has said she has his full support, but now they are being sued by the couple who was trying to get married.

Now, the office is claiming, there is someone who will do it in their office, but it will take 3 weeks to get the forms....

[uPDATE ] 2 HOURS AGO

http://keranews.org/post/after-suing-hood-county-granbury-gay-couple-gets-marriage-license

They got their license.  Welcome to 2015 Granbury

 
Where did I said that? Oh, Yes! Post 362 on page 25

 

Also, I was wondering what would Jindal have done if he was not in the presidential race. The more I see it, it was a publicity stunt to try to appeal to the GOP base and try to have something slightly the 0% of votes he is currently credited ...

 

To finish, some extracts from http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/05/the-new-post-homophobic-christianity.html

 

The Episcopalian Church embraced gay marriage last week. Earlier this year, the Presbyterian Church (USA) affirmed its support for marriage equality, joining many other major Christian denominations that officially endorse LGBT rights. And according to an April 2015 poll, majorities of congregants within many Christian faith traditions support marriage equality

[Rippleman]

In God we trust is written on every 1 dollar bill, no? What God do you think they are referring to?  Vishnu? Maybe Thor?

 

It was initially to drum up patriotism when the cold war against the soviets.  You are correct in the question though of "which god?" I guess since it didn't clarify Yahweh, it can literally mean any god you wish.

[T3X4S]

The God of Money of course... back then it was Alan Greenspan - that is who they trusted.

[Taliseian]

And if you legislate from the bench, establishing new laws out of thin air purely through mandate, thereby stripping states of their rights, then you are going against many areas of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 

Last time I checked, anything not specifically listed in the Constitution or its Amendments is supposed to be handled by the States and given credit by Full Faith and Credit. Don't hear me wrong, I'm not saying that there are grounds to fight back against SSM, but that should have been done through the Full Faith and Credit clause, with respect to the rights of the States.

 

I'm just waiting now for the first openly LGBT person who applies for a job at a religiously affiliated institution file a discrimination lawsuit when they don't get hired. Poop, meet fan.

 

Funny, I didn't know that SCOTUS clarifying law and determining Constitutionality was "legislating from the bench"...

 

What they did was their job.  If there is a question about constitutionality or legality of a law, it the job of the SCOTUS to clarify and adjust.  They do not write law, that is the job of the Legislative Branch.  They do not enforce law, that is the job of the Executive Branch.

 

We do have a reason for the 10th.  However, and this is what most tenthers tend to forget, there are laws and events that have sprouted up since the writing of our Constitution that must be Federally mandated because the conditions and repercussions cross state lines, as just one example of many reasons why.  The heart of this case is a couple that were married in state that allows for SSM, then went back home to a state that doesn't.  SCOTUS ruled that their marriage, for several reasons, should be fully recognized in their home state.  Having a patchwork of laws in this case doesn't make sense and can been seen as discriminatory.  

 

 

T

[FloatingFatMan]

No, you are wrong. Northern Ireland is part of the UK and has NOT legalised same-sex marriage. Marriages from other parts of the UK are treated as civil partnerships, not marriages.

 

The UK still does not have marriage equality.

 

Most of us in the mainland of UK don't really tend to think of NI as part of us, due to them having separate laws so whilst technically you may be correct, when it comes down to reality, you're not.

[Taliseian]

In 1954 President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge.

 

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

 

So, while originally it was not planned like that, it absolutely have being like that for last 60 years.

 

In God we trust is written on every 1 dollar bill, no? What God do you think they are referring to?  Vishnu? Maybe Thor?

 

Those were added long after our Founding Fathers passed away...

 

IGWT, was added during the Civil War as almost a rallying cry to show that "god" was on the side of the Union.

 

For the Pledge, it wasn't officially added until 1954 - over 60 years after it was initially written and was the brainchild of a pastor.

 

Again, while people want to cry out we are a "christian nation", it was actually the christians time and time again forcing their beliefs upon Americans.

 

 

T

[Shadrack]

Definitely donating my money towards the plaintiffs of the law suits that this generates in order to fight the continued discrimination against homosexuals.

 

This discrimination has gone on long enough. Obama should send the Feds in to make sure that the law is followed. Civil servants that want to continue their hatred of others can do that from home and off of the tax payer's payrolls.

[TPreston]

Funny, I didn't know that SCOTUS clarifying law and determining Constitutionality was "legislating from the bench"...

Also courts make laws all the time, Its called case law.

 

Both sides are guilty of it, the supreme court decision was on a case that wasn't really about same sex marriage at all (imo a scapegoat to push the agenda onto the remaining states).

The new world order agenda

 

What qualifies as "imposing"? Both parties are guilty of pushing their ideals on others

I don't see anybody trying to make gay marriage mandatory, Just demanding that they not be discriminated in the same way the rest of society does.

 

The SCOTUS ruling has put a lot of the religious community on edge in a way they weren't expecting nor should they be necessarily okay with.

And yet they have not lost a single right they had before.

 

As far as I'm concerned, we should have left it to legislation and voting. There'd be a lot less controversy over something the majority decided, rather than something decided by a small group. Ireland should serve as an example here.

A lot of use it will be to these people when they are in their graves http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/meet-jim-obergefell-man-supreme-court-sex-marriage/story?id=30621574 by the time that would happen.

[Emn1ty]

I don't see anybody trying to make gay marriage mandatory, Just demanding that they not be discriminated in the same way the rest of society does.

 

A lot of use it will be to these people when they are in their graves http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/meet-jim-obergefell-man-supreme-court-sex-marriage/story?id=30621574 by the time that would happen.

 

It's not necessarily about making it mandatory. And to say that "people will be in their graves by the time it would happen" is quite the assumption. This civil rights issue was probably the fastest one in US history compared to racial equality and women's rights. I personally don't think a decade and a half is "slow", we had a majority of US states already agreeing to it in that time (many of which overturned their previous legal definitions in under 10 years).

 

 

The heart of this case is a couple that were married in state that allows for SSM, then went back home to a state that doesn't. SCOTUS ruled that their marriage, for several reasons, should be fully recognized in their home state.  Having a patchwork of laws in this case doesn't make sense and can been seen as discriminatory.

 

First, to highlight this particular part. Why did this couple not do their due diligence with this topic? Why is this the state's fault in the first place. Aside from the fact that the arguments provided by the state were complete crap (they should have mentioned that the situation was entirely preventable by the married couple if they'd actually done their homework). Yes, it sucks that it happened. But there are many legal avenues to grant the rights they were prevented from that marriage provides. This is again why I see this case as a scapegoat to do something unrelated. It wasn't about legalizing same sex marriage (the original case anyways).

 

But what did this case inevitably end up doing? Rather than solving this particular issue we have a landmark decision which effectively forces states to issue the licenses. It's not even about recognition anymore, but requiring them to be given out as well. A completely separate issue entirely. This is one of the things that annoys me about this ruling and makes me feel like it forced and issue that didn't need forcing to a group of people who shouldn't have made the decision. It should have been punted back to the state level courts, or ruled in a more specific manner (ie. something legislation could work out).

 

I don't care if one side is morally or ethically more sound, you cannot ignore the fact that this was an odd way to achieve a goal that was not part of the problem in the original case (and was also completely avoidable).

 

That being said, I certainly hope the result of this is to erase the word "marriage" from the state's power. We need to just officially rename legal marriage as a civil union across the board and be done with the terminology nonsense. That way the religious groups have no say in the matter. It's merely a legal contract to share assets in the eyes of the state / federal government.

[Stoffel]

It's not necessarily about making it mandatory. And to say that "people will be in their graves by the time it would happen" is quite the assumption. This civil rights issue was probably the fastest one in US history compared to racial equality and women's rights. I personally don't think a decade and a half is "slow", we had a majority of US states already agreeing to it in that time (many of which overturned their previous legal definitions in under 10 years).

 

 

 

First, to highlight this particular part. Why did this couple not do their due diligence with this topic? Why is this the state's fault in the first place. Aside from the fact that the arguments provided by the state were complete crap (they should have mentioned that the situation was entirely preventable by the married couple if they'd actually done their homework). Yes, it sucks that it happened. But there are many legal avenues to grant the rights they were prevented from that marriage provides. This is again why I see this case as a scapegoat to do something unrelated. It wasn't about legalizing same sex marriage (the original case anyways).

 

But what did this case inevitably end up doing? Rather than solving this particular issue we have a landmark decision which effectively forces states to issue the licenses. It's not even about recognition anymore, but requiring them to be given out as well. A completely separate issue entirely. This is one of the things that annoys me about this ruling and makes me feel like it forced and issue that didn't need forcing to a group of people who shouldn't have made the decision. It should have been punted back to the state level courts, or ruled in a more specific manner (ie. something legislation could work out).

 

I don't care if one side is morally or ethically more sound, you cannot ignore the fact that this was an odd way to achieve a goal that was not part of the problem in the original case (and was also completely avoidable).

 

That being said, I certainly hope the result of this is to erase the word "marriage" from the state's power. We need to just officially rename legal marriage as a civil union across the board and be done with the terminology nonsense. That way the religious groups have no say in the matter. It's merely a legal contract to share assets in the eyes of the state / federal government.

 

Clearly the states couldn't handle it themselves, that's why the SCOTUS did it in the end.

You had some backward states that where trying to inject religion in their law making and that is still illegal/wrong!

[Joe User]

But what did this case inevitably end up doing? Rather than solving this particular issue we have a landmark decision which effectively forces states to issue the licenses. It's not even about recognition anymore, but requiring them to be given out as well. A completely separate issue entirely. This is one of the things that annoys me about this ruling and makes me feel like it forced and issue that didn't need forcing to a group of people who shouldn't have made the decision. It should have been punted back to the state level courts, or ruled in a more specific manner (ie. something legislation could work out).

 

There is no way to reconcile laws prohibiting same sex marriage with the US Constitution as it is currently written. Exactly the same way there was no way to reconcile laws prohibiting interracial marriage with the Constitution as written. The courts ruled the only way they could have.

[Raonull]

Keep up the anti-Christian bullying!

[Stoffel]

Keep up the anti-Christian bullying!

 

It's funny what you call bullying other people call fighting for equal rights

Depends what side of the fence you are on.

[Emn1ty]

There is no way to reconcile laws prohibiting same sex marriage with the US Constitution as it is currently written. Exactly the same way there was no way to reconcile laws prohibiting interracial marriage with the Constitution as written. The courts ruled the only way they could have.

 

If you read the resulting ruling, the court found them unconstitutional because the laws only applied to whites. Interracial was actually whites marrying whites only. It would be akin banning same sex marriage but only between men. A bit different than this case (by a bit, I mean a lot).

[Raonull]

It's funny what you call bullying other people call fighting for equal rights

Depends what side of the fence you are on.

Equal rights has nothing to do with it.

I said I was for same sex marriage.

 

There are few places on the internet where you could get away with bashing one's religion and get away with it.

If I said the same kinds of things you have said - but instead against gays, Jews, women - I would have been kicked off.

Lots of little hate boys here.

[Joe User]

If you read the resulting ruling, the court found them unconstitutional because the laws only applied to whites. Interracial was actually whites marrying whites only. It would be akin banning same sex marriage but only between men. A bit different than this case (by a bit, I mean a lot).

 

Not at all. Equal protection means equal. There is (nearly) no way you can craft a law prohibiting an activity of just one group of adults while allowing the same activity for others and have it not violate the equal protection clause. (There are exceptions, none apply here)

 

To claim it's akin to banning SSM but only for men is absurd, since there is no legal distinction between same sex marriage and opposite sex marriage.  If a law was written to create a legal distinction, it would violate the equal protection clause. The same way if a law is written to ban same sex marriage, it violates the equal protection clause. There's no simple way around this, it's pretty straightforward.

[A Real American!]

 (by a bit, I mean a lot).

 

Then you could directly just say "a lot" than "by a bit".

[Taliseian]

There are few places on the internet where you could get away with bashing one's religion and get away with it.

If I said the same kinds of things you have said - but instead against gays, Jews, women - I would have been kicked off.

Lots of little hate boys here.

 

If you see this discussion as "bashing one's religion", then you obviously have the entire discussion wrong.

 

It wouldn't of mattered if it was christianity, islam, judaism, shinto, buddhism, or pastafarian -- if you use religion as a sword to make or enforce laws in America you are doing Freedom wrong!

 

The specific religion doesn't matter, it just happens that the one shoving its beliefs down everyone's throat this time is christianity.

 

 

T

[mudslag]

Keep up the anti-Christian bullying!

 

 

 

[Stoffel]

Equal rights has nothing to do with it.

I said I was for same sex marriage.

 

There are few places on the internet where you could get away with bashing one's religion and get away with it.

If I said the same kinds of things you have said - but instead against gays, Jews, women - I would have been kicked off.

Lots of little hate boys here.

 

This whole thread is about equal rights.

If people oppose those then they can expect some backlash

 

I don't know about you, but I run in enough hatred against gays/muslims/jews/.... just by reading replies on articles that pop up on FB.

So I don't think it's just directed at Christians.

[Raonull]

I just found someone mudslag would agree with.

 

"hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity."

[Taliseian]

I just found someone mudslag would agree with.

 

 

"hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity."

 

...and since you decided to epic fail the entire thread by going Nazi...

 

 

...sigh...

 

 

T

[mudslag]

I just found someone mudslag would agree with.

 

"hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity."

 

 

Godwin's Law

 

took 32 pages to get to this. Good job.

[Raonull]

...and since you decided to epic fail the entire thread by going Nazi...

 

...sigh...

 

 

T

 

 

Boo-hoo.

Your whole world is an "epic fail."