Supreme Court - Same Sex Marriage & Kim Davis

  • Thread starter Thread starter aGDevil2k
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 77
  • Views: 2K
  • Politics 
rodoheel said:
Pedantic historical point: while some European countries predate the US, actually many (maybe even most) countries in Europe are younger than the US is; Germany, Italy, Greece, Finland, the Netherlands and most of Eastern Europe are examples. Countries like France, Switzerland, Sweden, and the UK (well, if you include when it was Great Britain, which I think is fair) are older, true.
Click to expand...
The United States of America has the oldest currently active constitution in the world. So, technically the USA is the oldest country in the world. It is certainly the oldest active government.
 
Also - expect the social conservative wing of the GOP to become far more active now that the tax cuts are passed. It'll get even worse after the mid-terms. There is already talk in congress of rescinding any family planning coverage from Medicaid.
 
Zoo_View said:
This Supreme Court will find whatever it needs to do whatever it wants.

I remember being assured by some legal beagles that precedence would hold sway.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.
Click to expand...
Who assured you that precedence would hold sway? It wasn't me. For one thing, I know the meaning of the word precedence.

Will you take back all those LOLs when the Supreme Court declines cert in this case? The only publicity on this case is coming from Kim Davis, as she's probably trying to gofund her attorneys' fees.

This is a terrible vehicle for overturning Obergefell because it doesn't even raise that issue. Even if Obergefell were overturned, it wouldn't save Kim Davis, who was being sued for not doing her duty. It was unambiguously the law in Kentucky that she had to issue the license; she refused; she was ordered by a court to do so; she refused; she was held in contempt; and now she's still attacking that whole process.

Anything the court would say about Obergefell is just dicta and not binding.
 
UNCatTech said:
Damn I hate it when the poster who i will not respond to writes something that stupid.
Click to expand...
You're clearly directing this toward me.
UNCatTech said:
The fucking church has no control over marriage in our modern world.
Click to expand...
Which is why all government should get out of the marriage business and find a different way to reference the legal recognition of a couple. "Marriage" ceremonies should be done in churches and government will stop giving out marriage licenses. They just call it something else so Christians don't get their panties in a wad.
UNCatTech said:
Why should atheist and other non believers have to look to the church to marry?
Click to expand...
They shouldn't have to. They get their legal union recognized, by the state, under something not called "marriage".
 
Marriage is a social construct in this country that is accepted to be a union between two consenting adults. Religion has no control or hold over it or the term. Because it is a legal state the government does have a role.

Our country shouldn't have to change the term for marriage for non religious people. Religion should practice the inclusion they like to preach but typically comes with conditions.
 
ZenMode said:
They shouldn't have to. They get their legal union recognized, by the state, under something not called "marriage".
Click to expand...
Oh STFU. Have you ever looked at a tax form? You can file single, or you can file HoH, or you can file married (in two ways). There's no option for "civil union."

"Civil union" language came because of homophobe right-wingers who wanted to keep the word marriage all to themselves. It was not needed before or after. I mean, I think you've been able to get a civil union for a long time if that's what you wanted, but it was very rare. Almost all non-religious people with permanent life partners are married.

I'm shocked that you've never heard of liberals who hold "spiritual" ceremonies on hills near the mountains and quote Pablo Neruda in their vows. Seems like the sort of thing you'd be all over. Invariably those ceremonies are marriages. I've been to a couple.
 
It's not like "religious" marriage hasn't traditionally been bartering off your sons and daughters to get the best business deal for the family unless you were too damned poor to have anything to barter. That's essentially how we got common law marriages. The sanctity of marriage only ever applied to women and only existed to keep the women from carrying bastards like their husbands were creating with anyone they could.

Christians need to keep their lies and hypocrisy to themselves and let rational people alone. It would be different if they practiced the love, tolerance, and humility the Bible teaches.
 
superrific said:
Oh STFU.
Click to expand...
No thanks.
superrific said:
Have you ever looked at a tax form? You can file single, or you can file HoH, or you can file married (in two ways). There's no option for "civil union."
Click to expand...
Right. There should be. If not "civil union", pick a different name that the government uses to legally recognize relationships - hetero and homo. "Marriage" is a religious thing and shouldn't be intertwined with anything government. Separation of church and state, right?

Marriage ceremonies - church
Legal recognition by gov't - something not called marriage
superrific said:
"Civil union" language came because of homophobe right-wingers who wanted to keep the word marriage all to themselves.
Click to expand...
Ok. Pick a different term.
 
ZenMode said:
No thanks.

Right. There should be. If not "civil union", pick a different name that the government uses to legally recognize relationships - hetero and homo. "Marriage" is a religious thing and shouldn't be intertwined with anything government. Separation of church and state, right?

Marriage ceremonies - church
Legal recognition by gov't - something not called marriage

Ok. Pick a different term.
Click to expand...
So...you want to FORCE a new name on state level legal contracts between adults because of religious reasons.

See 1st, 10th, and 14th Amendments.
 
Duke Mu said:
So...you want to FORCE a new name on state level legal contracts between adults because of religious reasons.

See 1st, 10th, and 14th Amendments.
Click to expand...
I want to take the state out of the marriage business. Churches can perform their marriage ceremonies for whoever they want, but that should be secondary and irrelevant to the legal recognition of any couple by the state.

Does it really matter what term is used by the state to say "You two are legally joined. You get half his shit and she gets half your shit from this point forward".
 
ZenMode said:
Does it really matter what term is used by the state to say "You two are legally joined. You get half his shit and she gets half your shit from this point forward".
Click to expand...
You're the one trying to change the term even though it supposedly doesn't matter. Go play with yourself. Such bad faith bullshit. Not that this thread ever had much purpose to it . . .
 
superrific said:
You're the one trying to change the term even though it supposedly doesn't matter. Go play with yourself. Such bad faith bullshit. Not that this thread ever had much purpose to it . . .
Click to expand...
Yes. If you're religious, the important part is the church ceremony, right? Surely God doesn't care that a) the state recognizes the union or b) cares how the state labels that union.

So, give Christians their marriage ceremonies. They can print off little certificates and wear their fancy clothes, etc and, when they want the state to legally recognize that union, fill out some paperwork at the local courthouse.

There's absolutely no reason that the state should be handing out marriage license or any such nonsense. The state part is transactional. It's for legal purposes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top