After the Civil War gave rights to African-Americans, local governments and states continued to stack juries and enforce discriminatory voting practices. Within 30 years, they had destroyed much of the benefit gained from the war. So no thanks - states are not intelligent enough, nor humane in character to treat all peoples fairly. They do not deserve to override better law.
9
Oh, great, yet another reason to be proud of being from South Carolina! I am sure that there are numerous "lawmakers" in my state who will fall over backwards to denounce same sex marriage (knowing that whatever they do will be overturned by either the SC Supreme Court of the Federal Courts. However, Lee Bright does not represent Greenville AND Spartanburg County; he represents a small section of Spartanburg County, and quite honestly, he is not quite taken seriously even there.
6
I've been to two gay weddings, once as a guest and once as a player in a band. I can say with absolute authority that these were two of the best parties I've EVER been to. These hyper-religious homophobic people are missing out on a good thing. But, they're probably the ones who never dance at weddings because they think it's a sin. What chumps.
11
these ridiculous proposals to prevent same sex marriages on the basis of religious freedom are the 21st century equivalent of governor wallace standing in the school house door.
8
Suppose I have a particular religious view. Suppose it doesn't match everyone's. Suppose I think it is ok to force my views on someone else.
Is this freedom? Is this equal rights?
Conservative christians would balk loudly if (for example) Jewish legislators were to make it a law that the Sabbath is Saturday for everyone because it is so written in THEIR hold book. What would Senator Bright think then?
Is this freedom? Is this equal rights?
Conservative christians would balk loudly if (for example) Jewish legislators were to make it a law that the Sabbath is Saturday for everyone because it is so written in THEIR hold book. What would Senator Bright think then?
7
Is amazes me that the religious zealots in my country (USA) feel that it's acceptable to tell other fellow citizens how to run their life based on a religious belief, but that is considered "radicalism" when other religious zealots do such in other countries, such as those in the middle east...
I struggle to see the difference with the religious right in the USA and say Sharia law? They are both attempting to follow a male dominated and controlling vision of their religion.
I struggle to see the difference with the religious right in the USA and say Sharia law? They are both attempting to follow a male dominated and controlling vision of their religion.
10
This is an excellent example of the answer to the questions Thomas Edsall raised in his recent editorial, "How Did Politics Get So Personal?" Edsall explored the divisiveness in politics today as being more pronounced than ever before.
Here is why, speaking as a Democrat, that divisiveness is perfectly understandable to me: Republicans do not seem to ever present or support legislation that promotes the common welfare, but instead targets marginalized groups--who are only seeking the same rights as held by the majority--for punitive measures.
Who is hurt if marriage equality is the law of the land?
Here is why, speaking as a Democrat, that divisiveness is perfectly understandable to me: Republicans do not seem to ever present or support legislation that promotes the common welfare, but instead targets marginalized groups--who are only seeking the same rights as held by the majority--for punitive measures.
Who is hurt if marriage equality is the law of the land?
9
"Sincerely held religious belief.”
As soon as you develop the instrument able to measure these sincerely held religious beliefs we can talk about you being able to discriminate against those you deem unworthy.
I write this because the "Christians" (by far the largest group opposed to two people of the same sex gettin' hitched) I've known, met and debated wouldn't know Matthew, Mark, Luke or John from John, Paul George or Ringo.
All this is it yet another, in a seemingly endless display of southern petulance.
So, Dear, Dear South, until can develop said machine to measure and chart your side's “sincerely held religious beliefs" please sit down and shut up.
It just t'ain't that cute anymore.
As soon as you develop the instrument able to measure these sincerely held religious beliefs we can talk about you being able to discriminate against those you deem unworthy.
I write this because the "Christians" (by far the largest group opposed to two people of the same sex gettin' hitched) I've known, met and debated wouldn't know Matthew, Mark, Luke or John from John, Paul George or Ringo.
All this is it yet another, in a seemingly endless display of southern petulance.
So, Dear, Dear South, until can develop said machine to measure and chart your side's “sincerely held religious beliefs" please sit down and shut up.
It just t'ain't that cute anymore.
9
Isn't this the same R Moore who got in trouble because he posted the 10 Commandments in the courtroom, and who is clueless about the separation of church and State? Only in the uneducated deep south... And he hasn't even read his Bible well enough, 'cuz it has 12 commandments that the Christians don't like to mention: the other 2 are killing those who work on Sun and who abuse their parents. The first would take care of any preacher and NFL player...
9
Can they opt out of marrying interracial couples? How about couples of differing faiths?
Let's stop scapegoating gays, shall we?
Let's stop scapegoating gays, shall we?
11
Ohhhhhh, the irony. "In a letter Tuesday that cited Thomas Jefferson and the Bible, the chief justice of the State Supreme Court, Roy S. Moore, said he intended to continue recognizing Alabama’s same-sex marriage ban, in part because “nothing in the United States Constitution grants the federal government the authority to redefine the institution of marriage.”" Apparently good ol' Justice Moore doesn't realize Jefferson wrote the act on Freedom of Religion, often attended Unitarian churches, and would likely be pro-marriage-equality if he were alive today. Maybe Moore has never read the Jefferson Bible.
7
Looks like the right to choose: abortion or marriage -- is being challenged using the exact same tactics. No reason to think the "personal religious objection" excuse for dereliction of duties will be any more valid for issuing marriage licenses than it has been for dispensing birth control.
2
So if it against your religion to grant gays marriage license, I also assume you will not be granting licenses to those divorced, wearing tattoos, those who eat shrimp, those who are not virgins, those who wear two types of cloth, etc.
If you cherry pick just one of those things, what religion are you practicing exactly?
If you cherry pick just one of those things, what religion are you practicing exactly?
7
I am not rally a conspiracy nut, but these efforts may be part of a 'dog whistle" strategy to rally the "values voters" in the lead up to 2016 elections. By keeping this issue out front in defiance of court decisions they get to keep the base fired up, maybe even influence the SCOTUS decision. Just a thought.
4
This must be the wing of the Republican Party dedicated to the election of another Democrat in 2016, because that is what they are likely to accomplish.
7
Religious beliefs were used to outlaw inter-marriage. The trial judge, Leon M. Bazile: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
6
After the Supreme Court ruled that blacks and whites could not be segregated in schools in Brown vs. Board of Education, some southern school districts just closed all their schools rather than comply.
This allowing states to opt out is the modern-day version of that bigotry.
This allowing states to opt out is the modern-day version of that bigotry.
5
Comparing racial segregation to homosexual marriage is a blatantly false and disingenuous equivalence.
"Don't compare my skin to your sin".
"Don't compare my skin to your sin".
3
Deluded in LA - You're wrong. Discriminating against a person for something they were born with is wrong and our laws don't allow it. End of story.
5
Why should those who have religious dogma dictating their lives be allowed to abridge the civil rights of others. One reason we have a legal system and courts is to provide a pathway to basic rights that voters and legislatures arbitrarily restrict for reasons that do not justify such actions. These misguided efforts by legislatures will not stand up in court. Civil rights come before religious ones.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
4
Religious freedom can never trump civil and human rights. Every person should have the right to exercise their religious liberty, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. The same goes for free speech too by the way, (you know in that same first amendment).
6
"He compared his situation to that of a Sikh soldier, with whom he served in the United States Army, who was allowed to wear a turban and grow his beard because these were central to his religion. 'Does not the federal government allow for different people to have different religious beliefs?' he asked."
I think a better analogy would be if that Sikh soldier had asked to be allowed to fight only against certain enemies. There is a difference being having certain religious beliefs, and acting on those beliefs when it affects other people or your job performance.
I think a better analogy would be if that Sikh soldier had asked to be allowed to fight only against certain enemies. There is a difference being having certain religious beliefs, and acting on those beliefs when it affects other people or your job performance.
9
These lawmakers and court clerks are getting uppity. Time to knock them down a rank, apply personal financial sanctions and hold them liable for triple attorneys fees.
3
Mr John Callum was quoted in the article , “Does not the federal government allow for different people to have different religious beliefs?”
My answer to that is simple: You can hold any personal religious belief you want, but you CANNOT deny others their civil rights based on your personal beliefs. In other words, keep your religion to yourself. There are plenty of folks, like myself, who are sick of this mixing of religion and civil matters. What part of separation of church and state do they not understand?
My answer to that is simple: You can hold any personal religious belief you want, but you CANNOT deny others their civil rights based on your personal beliefs. In other words, keep your religion to yourself. There are plenty of folks, like myself, who are sick of this mixing of religion and civil matters. What part of separation of church and state do they not understand?
13
I do understand religious conviction and the need to live your life according to your beliefs. But a “sincerely held religious belief” does not let you "opt out" of our constitutional democracy.
Likewise, asking citizens to obey the law, as defined by our courts, is not a "limitation of religious freedom". If you truly believe otherwise, feel free to found a theocracy outside of our national borders.
Likewise, asking citizens to obey the law, as defined by our courts, is not a "limitation of religious freedom". If you truly believe otherwise, feel free to found a theocracy outside of our national borders.
4
The Supreme Court will end all of this nonsense this summer ( Justice Kennedy's views on gay rights are well documented). And not a moment too soon.
2
How many times does one have to be reminded that the "will of the voters" does not super-cede the constitution.
The Train has left the station. Get used to it.
The Train has left the station. Get used to it.
7
There is no reference in the constitution to marriage. Those who continually misusing the term "violation of constitutional rights" are clutching a straws.
Any right not given to the federal government directly, reverts to the states, and the federal government should stay out of this issue.
Any right not given to the federal government directly, reverts to the states, and the federal government should stay out of this issue.
3
Nothing in the United States Constitution grants the federal government the authority to redefine the institution of marriage.” If you want to create something above and beyond that of a marriage which inherently has been addressed as a man and a woman no court and person has the right to change the premise. Thats my spin!
3
The US Constitution clearly says that citizens must be treated equally. This is not about marriage as much as it is about ensuring everyone, even gay partners, have the same civil rights.
5
Okay, so why do you have to use a word for those rights that already means something else? The government should quit issuing marriage licenses to anyone. They should create civil partnerships--an appropriate name for a secular contract--and leave marriage to religious bodies, where it belongs.
2
Wow - this is just too nosy on its face!
Why does anyone think they have the right to impose their religious benefits on everyone else? Isn't that one of the talking points against fanatical Islamists?
What would happen if I had a religion that prohibited marriage between the sexes? How would these characters feel if I demanded they not marry someone of the opposite sex because it offended my religious ideals?
Other than being mean and nosy, what possible motive could anyone have for butting into the personal cornerrs of someone else's life - especially stragers they have never met and will never meet?
The Supremes, I think, will have to say there is no justification for these bans and so they are not legal.
Last and most important, if you think it's such a big deal if two people of the same gender marry, just don't do it!
Why does anyone think they have the right to impose their religious benefits on everyone else? Isn't that one of the talking points against fanatical Islamists?
What would happen if I had a religion that prohibited marriage between the sexes? How would these characters feel if I demanded they not marry someone of the opposite sex because it offended my religious ideals?
Other than being mean and nosy, what possible motive could anyone have for butting into the personal cornerrs of someone else's life - especially stragers they have never met and will never meet?
The Supremes, I think, will have to say there is no justification for these bans and so they are not legal.
Last and most important, if you think it's such a big deal if two people of the same gender marry, just don't do it!
3
The Left's War On Faith continues as liberal judges continue to invent "rights" to promote their agenda.
It will be entertaining to see how the Supreme Court rules homosexual marriage to be a right but denies the same right to incestuous couples and polygamists.
"The Constitution means anything 5 Justices say it means".
It will be entertaining to see how the Supreme Court rules homosexual marriage to be a right but denies the same right to incestuous couples and polygamists.
"The Constitution means anything 5 Justices say it means".
4
SCOTUS has already ruled a number of times that polygamy has no protection in the Constitution. It has never done so for gay marriage.
If you are worried about incestuous and polygamous marriages, perhaps you should blame the entire concept of marriage, not just gay marriage.
If you are worried about incestuous and polygamous marriages, perhaps you should blame the entire concept of marriage, not just gay marriage.
3
On what Constitutional basis can the Supreme Court give marriage rights to homosexuals but not to polygamists??
If same-sex marriage becomes a "right" how can it be denied to close relatives of the same sex?
If same-sex marriage becomes a "right" how can it be denied to close relatives of the same sex?
2
"The Left's War On Faith continues . . . ." The only war on faith by the left as set forth in these comments is to keep one person's faith from being practiced on some other person who does not share that same faith. It's just basic, human equality. Your faith stops where my nose begins.
4
Isn't it punishment enough to have to live in Alabama, Texas or South Carolina?
7
@WillB A lot of men from those states have spilled blood and had their blood spilled so you can write that. Knock them down, you are Charlie Hebdo.
WillB - Alas, you and I must be getting punished as well, living here in Florida. Bondi may not have risen to quite the same level of hysteria and ridiculousness as Roy Moore and his fellow travelers, but neither she nor most of the rest of Florida's lawmakers (starting with Gov. Voldemort at the top) have behaved in an admirable way when it comes to this issue and many others.
3
Whether it's Social Security, Medicare, the Affordable Care Act or same-sex marriage, the right/GOP continues to fight battles it has already lost. This is so because it has no viable agenda of its own to offer the American people.
10
The South. Bigotry has no end. Compassion has no beginning in the land of Dixie.
CA made the mistake early on re: gays and marriage. Then we collectively woke up and moved on. Afraid that's not going to happen anytime soon in the land of the confederacy.
Gays that want to be free are going to have to find the nearest railroad and move north.
CA made the mistake early on re: gays and marriage. Then we collectively woke up and moved on. Afraid that's not going to happen anytime soon in the land of the confederacy.
Gays that want to be free are going to have to find the nearest railroad and move north.
2
Happily there are still states, where it's not shameful to be 'homophobic'. If there are states where ss-marriages are legal, so there should be states where ss-marriages are illegal
Isn't it interesting that those are the very same states which are also--proudly--racist, misogynistic, anti-semitic, etc. etc., etc. The very same states which are constantly trying to inflict their nasty, hateful laws/opinions on the rest of us.
5
Hug? If there are states where same sex marriage is legal, there should also be states where it is not legal or permitted? What on earth does that mean??
And while I'm no constitutional scholar, or lawyer, or historian, I seem to recall the pertinent matter of equal protection under the law, and certain inalienable rights bestowed upon Americans. While there are some issues in which states' rights are perfectly valid and sensible, I can't envision having America, for an indefinite period of time, permit same sex marriage in certain states and ban it in others. Loving v. Virginia, for example, would hardly be the important and life-changing case it is today if the justices ruled that, say, Virginia could not forbid interracial marriage but Colorado, Wyoming, and Rhode Island could forbid it. What a ridiculous ruling that would be! Some issues simply cannot be hodge-podge - especially such an important issue as this - and inconsistent across the country.
As for homophobia - well, you're entitled to your beliefs and have the freedom to say your piece. But I suspect you'll find that marriage equality will only continue to gain acceptance - not go backwards and experience waning support.
And while I'm no constitutional scholar, or lawyer, or historian, I seem to recall the pertinent matter of equal protection under the law, and certain inalienable rights bestowed upon Americans. While there are some issues in which states' rights are perfectly valid and sensible, I can't envision having America, for an indefinite period of time, permit same sex marriage in certain states and ban it in others. Loving v. Virginia, for example, would hardly be the important and life-changing case it is today if the justices ruled that, say, Virginia could not forbid interracial marriage but Colorado, Wyoming, and Rhode Island could forbid it. What a ridiculous ruling that would be! Some issues simply cannot be hodge-podge - especially such an important issue as this - and inconsistent across the country.
As for homophobia - well, you're entitled to your beliefs and have the freedom to say your piece. But I suspect you'll find that marriage equality will only continue to gain acceptance - not go backwards and experience waning support.
1
"In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."
George Wallace, ca. 1963
George Wallace, ca. 1963
3
It always struck me as nuts for the right to get so worked up in the defense of marriage by railing against same sex marriage, rather than against divorce among opposite genders...a much more widespread threat to the institution. Oops...but that would alienate a big chunk of their base, their representatives...and talk show hosts.
7
I'm sure the plaintiff's bar is encouraged by these expressions of dogged resistance. It shouldn't be too hard to frame a 1983 action, which would result in payment of attorney fees.
Pointless defiance is one thing. Pointless defiance which is profitable to your opponents doesn't last long.
Pointless defiance is one thing. Pointless defiance which is profitable to your opponents doesn't last long.
government should get out of the marriage business. Marriage is a religious rite. civil unions should be the basis of all legal concerns. then each church can decide for itself if it wants to wed same sex couples or not.
4
Marriage is more than a religious rite. If you don't want to get married, nobody will ever force you to, just like none of the opponents of gay marriage can be forced to get gay married. The word "civil union" is merely a construct to call marriage by another name.
2
Funny how no one mentioned that government should get out of the marriage business until gays brought it up.
4
Yes, but I think you would find that a good bit of the opposition and resentment would evaporate if the government would make that distinction. Those of us who bear no animus toward gay people but can't wrap our minds around a redefinition of the millennia-old institution of marriage by government fiat would be able to meet in the middle.
What hypocrisy I find on this forum by those who promote gay marriage! 30 years ago when sodomy was a crime they were screaming the government has no right to tell them what to do in the bedroom. Now that they have some power they are all in favor of denying people of faith their desire to obey their conscious and not bake wedding cakes or issue marriage license to gay couples. I am against gay marriage but if the supreme court does allow it I would accept it as a fait accompli. What I will not accept is government telling me to deny my right to exercise my religious beliefs and obey my conscious before God. Why can't you people understand that? If one judge is unwilling to issue a marriage license, I am sure you will be able to find another who will. You are not satisfied with that - now that you have the power you want to ram this business down everyone's throats!
You're comparing what happens in someone's marriage with a public business? You really are confused.
2
You seem to have an odd concept of what freedom is. These are government officials, they don't get to apply their private prejudices to their job. No matter what the law becomes, you'll always be free to not get gay married.
6
Your rights end when they intrude on the rights of others. If you don't want to issue a marriage license, quit your job and go to work for ISIS or Chick-a-fil.
Frankly, I'm not interested in ramming this issue or anything else down your throat. Why don't you just tend to your own miserable marriage and leave everyone else alone.
Frankly, I'm not interested in ramming this issue or anything else down your throat. Why don't you just tend to your own miserable marriage and leave everyone else alone.
7
They are fighting for the right to resegregate lunch counters and water fountains, history has obviously passed them by.
4
Denotative terms matter. The photo caption identifies the Alabama plaintiffs as "Cari Searcy, left, and her wife, Kim McKeand." If Kim is the wife, does that make Cari the husband? Or are they both wives? Or can they style themselves whatever they please in absurd ways that the Supreme Court will force the various States to recognize? The war on distinctions and objective reality continues to yield risible outcomes.
1
The lesbian couples I know both go by "wife." Some of the straight couples I know refer to their partner as "that nutjob I married." What do you care? It has no impact on you whatsoever.
10
I've been reading these comments with tears in my eyes. I usually read the comments section on stories of this nature with great trepidation, but my curiosity was greater than my fear, and I am so grateful. Thank you so much to all of the kind, reasonable, thoughtful people who took the time to comment on this story. Please know that my home state of Alabama is not inhabited solely by narrow-minded, bible-thumping bigots. Unfortunately, Roy Moore and his ilk love the spotlight and have monopolized it for far too long. Alabama is a wonderful place to live, and I hope now - as I have never dared to do in the past - that if my gay 19-year-old daughter and gay 18-year-old nephew choose to continue living here as they get older, then they will have the same opportunities to marry, adopt children, etc., as will be available to the other children in our family.
6
Your daughter is lucky to have a Mom like you. There is lots of support out there for you both. Hang in there.
4
The cultures of the states in question include issues regarding racism, extra-racial marriage, and other rights that involved conflict.
Uninformed voters, as well as political despots, may try to rule the day, but our history of "freedom from oppression" could prevent that. So isn't time for this minority view to join the rest of us?
Uninformed voters, as well as political despots, may try to rule the day, but our history of "freedom from oppression" could prevent that. So isn't time for this minority view to join the rest of us?
Gee, and I thought the Republicans were all about jobs and the deficit. Here I was expecting all these great jobs bills and proposals for lowering the taxes on the middle class. And all I see are attacks on gays and bill after bill limiting abortions. Who woulda thought??
6
" Mr. Kallam resigned after nearly 12 years on the job. “I felt, and still feel, that that is stepping on my right of religious freedom,” he said."
Kallam has this completely backwards. He's a judge. He's not supposed to let his religious beliefs step on the Constitutional rights of those who's cases he's overseeing. He was correct to quit his job but he did it for all the wrong reasons.
Kallam has this completely backwards. He's a judge. He's not supposed to let his religious beliefs step on the Constitutional rights of those who's cases he's overseeing. He was correct to quit his job but he did it for all the wrong reasons.
7
I'm glad that some people understand that the notorious gay rights is just a fiction, and fashion trend. We must understand that same-sex marriages break down the traditional foundations of society in the country.
1
Where's your proof of this? There are several countries where same sex marriage is legal and they're doing just fine. I live in a state where same sex marriage is legal and life is quite nice here. The majority of the participants in our local gay pride parade were clergy and members of several of our churches.
4
Marriage (being defined as the joining of two people of opposite sex for the purpose of procreation) is nothing to do with our constitution and our supreme court. Period.
Laws governing the business relationship when two people form a permanent relationship and get married apply to opposite sex marriages because marriage by definition is of opposite sex couples.
Forming a permanent relationship with some or something else besides an opposite sex partner is not marriage, it is a civil union - same legal rights, different name. Problem solved. End of story.
To force married couple to bear the same label as everyone and everything else that wants to form a permanent relationship is an affront to marriages and violates sanctity of marriage.
Take all of the legal rights that come with marriage and form a civil union with your sibling, your dog, your office chair, who cares? Just don't insult the rest of us by using the same label.
To do otherwise is to further the degradation of the institution of marriage.
Laws governing the business relationship when two people form a permanent relationship and get married apply to opposite sex marriages because marriage by definition is of opposite sex couples.
Forming a permanent relationship with some or something else besides an opposite sex partner is not marriage, it is a civil union - same legal rights, different name. Problem solved. End of story.
To force married couple to bear the same label as everyone and everything else that wants to form a permanent relationship is an affront to marriages and violates sanctity of marriage.
Take all of the legal rights that come with marriage and form a civil union with your sibling, your dog, your office chair, who cares? Just don't insult the rest of us by using the same label.
To do otherwise is to further the degradation of the institution of marriage.
1
It must be wonderful to have so much time on your hands. Have you thought of taking up a hobby? Something like basket weaving would be a lot more fun than prying into the personal lives of others.
5
No one is prying. Do what you want with whomever you want, if it's not a member of the opposite sex for purposes of procreation, just don't call it marriage. It's not.
1
Nope, you're still wrong. If marriage was only for procreation then we wouldn't allow elderly or infertile people to get married. Nice try though.
BTW, same sex couples often raise families, some of them give birth to their children like my lesbian friends did, some of them adopt children which is what many straight couples do.
BTW, same sex couples often raise families, some of them give birth to their children like my lesbian friends did, some of them adopt children which is what many straight couples do.
4
Perhaps my brethren in the South should acknowledge that they really do support Sharia law. As long as they are the imam deciding what is and isn't the proper interpretation of their religious scripture. And then imposing it on those of other faiths even on secular issues.
7
Per the article: "The bills would also strip the salaries of employees who issued the licenses."
That's not about one's personal beliefs about what marriage should or should not be. That is about petty vindictiveness which pretty well describes those who are more interested in their neighbor's bedroom than they are their own. They are good Christians in Name Only. I call theme ChINOS.
As s far as Judge Kallam's stepping down because “I felt, and still feel, that that is stepping on my right of religious freedom,” I say: Mr. Kallam should have been removed if he did not step down because he clearly put his personal religious beliefs ahead of the concept of what this country is supposed to be all about but too often is not because religion gets in the way.
You can take Obama's speech about red and blue American and apply it to religions. We are not just Christian Americans, or Jewish American or Muslim Americans or Buddhist Americans, or Agnostic Americans or Atheist Americas, we are all Americans regardless of our religion. That means America's govt. of We the People is to insure we are not only free to practice our individual religions but are also protected from having another's religious dogma forced on us by the force of law unless it clearly threatens one's own freedom to worship as one pleases.
I guess the good people of fundamentalist Chistianland have no respect or understanding about what this issue is all about. Kind of like abortion but even more obvious.
That's not about one's personal beliefs about what marriage should or should not be. That is about petty vindictiveness which pretty well describes those who are more interested in their neighbor's bedroom than they are their own. They are good Christians in Name Only. I call theme ChINOS.
As s far as Judge Kallam's stepping down because “I felt, and still feel, that that is stepping on my right of religious freedom,” I say: Mr. Kallam should have been removed if he did not step down because he clearly put his personal religious beliefs ahead of the concept of what this country is supposed to be all about but too often is not because religion gets in the way.
You can take Obama's speech about red and blue American and apply it to religions. We are not just Christian Americans, or Jewish American or Muslim Americans or Buddhist Americans, or Agnostic Americans or Atheist Americas, we are all Americans regardless of our religion. That means America's govt. of We the People is to insure we are not only free to practice our individual religions but are also protected from having another's religious dogma forced on us by the force of law unless it clearly threatens one's own freedom to worship as one pleases.
I guess the good people of fundamentalist Chistianland have no respect or understanding about what this issue is all about. Kind of like abortion but even more obvious.
5
I am female, and I have lived with a woman for fourteen years. Her mother died yesterday, and at this very moment my partner is looking over the obituary her mother wrote for herself to be sent to the local paper in this very conservative area--where gay marriage has been legalized by the court, but there was also a law passed against it in this state some years ago, so the general atmosphere towards same-sex relationships is far from congenial. My partner's mother showed her the obituary months ago, and it didn't include the last paragraph that appears there now listing the survivors. It specifically mentions my partner's sister's husband and stepdaughter. It does not mention me, even though I have lived with and loved my partner for considerably longer than the husband has even known the sister. To learn of this now, the way she wanted to write me out of the story altogether for the sake of the local bigots, also showing immense disrespect to her own daughter, who served her faithfully through her final illness, is incredibly painful. Who could call inflicting that kind of cold-blooded insult a matter of "religious belief"? Increasingly the notion of religion in America is nothing at all but an excuse for behaving badly, stupidly, cruelly. I had my funeral clothes ready to show my respects to this woman. I'm putting them back in the closet, where my partner's mother obviously thought I belong too.
10
Giving spouse privileges and legal rights to only those spouses who are of opposite sex is downright discriminatory. Anyone with half a brain ought to see it for what it is.
4
The law is the law. The Federal government and the courts have to slap these people down like they did with the segregationists. These kinds of responses by judges no less are further evidence of the complete lack of decorum that has followed upon 6 years of disrespect to this President and the office he holds. There don't appear to be any limits anymore. Nobody stops to think about whether they're about to cross a line. They simply stand and say "You lie!" at the State of the Union address.
3
Supreme Court Kagan rejects churches and faith based groups who inject their religious beliefs......however, it seems perfectly correct for Kagan with an Adolph Hitler arrogance to inject her homosexual beliefs in her rulings as a judge in the highest court in the land and demand that more than 300 million Americans do as she decrees or go to jail. Churches who refuse to stage a pretend union of two homosexuals will have to shut down.
We thank the law for allowing homosexual pedophiles to walk the streets, and also for giving little 12 yr old girls the "morning after pill", and free abortions....no questions asked, and for legalizing recreational marijuana, and soon to follow.....legalizing recreational heroin and recreational cocaine. Question: Instead of regular brand cigarettes, will prison inmates in Colorado prisons be able to purchase and smoke recreational marijuana in their jail cells? After all, it is no longer a crime, right?
Most Americans believe that they can do whatever they wish because the constitution gives them permission....no matter if what they do is moral or immoral, decent or indecent, or right or wrong. With this kind of total freedom the future will have no need of prisons, law enforcement agencies, nor law books. Why? Because if the law allows you to do what you want, then there is no wrong you can do.
We thank the law for allowing homosexual pedophiles to walk the streets, and also for giving little 12 yr old girls the "morning after pill", and free abortions....no questions asked, and for legalizing recreational marijuana, and soon to follow.....legalizing recreational heroin and recreational cocaine. Question: Instead of regular brand cigarettes, will prison inmates in Colorado prisons be able to purchase and smoke recreational marijuana in their jail cells? After all, it is no longer a crime, right?
Most Americans believe that they can do whatever they wish because the constitution gives them permission....no matter if what they do is moral or immoral, decent or indecent, or right or wrong. With this kind of total freedom the future will have no need of prisons, law enforcement agencies, nor law books. Why? Because if the law allows you to do what you want, then there is no wrong you can do.
Time to go back on those meds.
There is no such thing as "homosexual beliefs" people are born gay and a growing number of people don't believe that's a problem.
Churches are as free as they ever were to be as bigoted and narrow minded as they like, no one is stopping them.
There is no such thing as "homosexual beliefs" people are born gay and a growing number of people don't believe that's a problem.
Churches are as free as they ever were to be as bigoted and narrow minded as they like, no one is stopping them.
6
I respect the fact that people hold different religious beliefs. Even within a religion, it seems people disagree (e.g. christianity - protestants, luthrens, catholics; Islam - sunni, shiite, etc.). I respect that as well. Until it makes an effort to influence the individual lives of others.
People that follow the bible to the letter seem to believe that God is against homosexuality. Fine, I don't see it, but okay. Just about every 'religion' is against homosexuality (consider what happens in the middle east to gays). But even the non-religious countries (e.g. Russia and China) do not accept gays, much less gay marriage.
I'm not sure why all of these religious or non-religious people feel they have the right to tell someone what they can do. I would disagree with that stand, as long as marriage and the laws that come with it are adhered to, it doesn't matter if it's two guys, two gals, or another combination of two people that want to enter into a contract of committment.
It was christians that fled persecution from their countries that initially populated the US. I've no problem with that fact, nor do I have a problem saying 'under God' or seeing 'God' on my currency. But I do care when someone tells someone else they are doing something wrong OR that their desire to enter into a contract is wrong because they love someone of the same sex.
We have the right to practice our beliefs until they interfere with law, but laws also change. It's time.
People that follow the bible to the letter seem to believe that God is against homosexuality. Fine, I don't see it, but okay. Just about every 'religion' is against homosexuality (consider what happens in the middle east to gays). But even the non-religious countries (e.g. Russia and China) do not accept gays, much less gay marriage.
I'm not sure why all of these religious or non-religious people feel they have the right to tell someone what they can do. I would disagree with that stand, as long as marriage and the laws that come with it are adhered to, it doesn't matter if it's two guys, two gals, or another combination of two people that want to enter into a contract of committment.
It was christians that fled persecution from their countries that initially populated the US. I've no problem with that fact, nor do I have a problem saying 'under God' or seeing 'God' on my currency. But I do care when someone tells someone else they are doing something wrong OR that their desire to enter into a contract is wrong because they love someone of the same sex.
We have the right to practice our beliefs until they interfere with law, but laws also change. It's time.
Is a pacifist civil servant authorized to deny handgun licenses?
Is a PETA civil servant authorized to deny hunting and fishing licenses?
Is a PETA civil servant authorized to deny hunting and fishing licenses?
27
The price of entry into a democracy sometimes means one must participate in a system that is not perfectly aligned with one's beliefs.
- I believe war is a horrific wrong, but I still pay my taxes even though they help fund war.
- My taxes are higher because religious institutions are untaxed, yet I still pay them even though many organized religions are active in compromising my civil rights.
- I find many tenets of organized religion to be abhorrent, yet I will always defend their right to freely pursue their beliefs as long as they do not trample my freedom.
No one in the opposition of marriage equality has shown that it compromises opposite-sex marriages in any way whatsoever. Why the far-right is not using their time and energy to improve their own marriages from within is beyond me. The spiritual definition of marriage has always been made by the individuals participating in the institution. As we are perfectly comfortable with differing religions co-existing in the U.S., we should be comfortable with civil marriage that does not perfectly align with some religions' viewpoint.
- I believe war is a horrific wrong, but I still pay my taxes even though they help fund war.
- My taxes are higher because religious institutions are untaxed, yet I still pay them even though many organized religions are active in compromising my civil rights.
- I find many tenets of organized religion to be abhorrent, yet I will always defend their right to freely pursue their beliefs as long as they do not trample my freedom.
No one in the opposition of marriage equality has shown that it compromises opposite-sex marriages in any way whatsoever. Why the far-right is not using their time and energy to improve their own marriages from within is beyond me. The spiritual definition of marriage has always been made by the individuals participating in the institution. As we are perfectly comfortable with differing religions co-existing in the U.S., we should be comfortable with civil marriage that does not perfectly align with some religions' viewpoint.
24
In the case of the six judges who resigned rather than follow the law, I applaud them. At least they did not expect the law to accommodate their own narrow perspectives. If your religious views interfere with the law, the law wins - especially if your job is to enforce the laws!
Remember, church and state are separate entities in this country, for good reason. Religion is an individual choice, but until a law is changed, laws aren't. We have the freedom to choose to believe anything we want about God. Isn't that wonderful? What a country! But my beliefs are bound to differ with yours in some respects, and I am not free to force them on you. Lucky you!
Remember, church and state are separate entities in this country, for good reason. Religion is an individual choice, but until a law is changed, laws aren't. We have the freedom to choose to believe anything we want about God. Isn't that wonderful? What a country! But my beliefs are bound to differ with yours in some respects, and I am not free to force them on you. Lucky you!
9
With all the problems and government failures facing our country a myopic minority are still focused on preventing the happiness and fulfillment of a large segment of our society. Its the civil rights movement all over again. People seem to forget that marriage is only a covenant in the church. Civilly it is a contract to guarantee marital rights legally. What are these throwbacks to the 18th century afraid of anyway?
7
Does this mean pharmacists can opt out of selling birth control pills because of their religious beliefs?
How is this different than Shariah law imposing its beliefs on others? If Shariah law says pork may not be touched, therefore, one who believes will not work in a butcher shop where pork is served rather than the butcher removing all the pork from his shop. If these clerks cannot follow the law because of their religious beliefs, they should not be working in places issuing legal licenses to marry.
It is time for some of our own states to come out of the dark ages and stop inflicting their religious beliefs on others.
How is this different than Shariah law imposing its beliefs on others? If Shariah law says pork may not be touched, therefore, one who believes will not work in a butcher shop where pork is served rather than the butcher removing all the pork from his shop. If these clerks cannot follow the law because of their religious beliefs, they should not be working in places issuing legal licenses to marry.
It is time for some of our own states to come out of the dark ages and stop inflicting their religious beliefs on others.
8
The persistent inability to use logic and reason, combined with xenophobia of fanatic proportions, at once both terrifies and entertains me, though it really shouldn't, since religion has no reason to teach much less promote either logic or reason.
6
Wow, this is great news! I think I will move to Texas and get a job in the marriage license office so I can refuse a marriage license to straight couples based on my "sincerely held religious belief" that owning guns and killing animals for sport is wrong! Hmm, I also wonder how many marriage licenses should be denied to straight people based on their commission of acts the Bible refers to as "sodomy". Such unbelievable hypocrisy. I knew the Hobby Lobby decision would cause irreparable damage
16
Once again a shrinking segment of our society keeps trying to impose their religious based mythology on the rest of us by codifying it into law. That's not how a secular government works. Worse yet much of what is being spouted is based on a convoluted interpretation of the mythology on which the religion is based. Much of it has to do with the desire for power and control over others.
16
"The bills would also strip the salaries of employees who issued the licenses." But "A second South Carolina bill would give some government employees the ability to opt out of issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples if they objected on the basis of a 'sincerely held religious belief.'"
How could you argue that this is not about imposing one's own view on everyone else? Believe people who are different than you should have equal rights? Too bad. Believe those people should be excluded from "normal" society? Well, that's your right!
I'm so disgusted by this bigotry and hypocrisy.
How could you argue that this is not about imposing one's own view on everyone else? Believe people who are different than you should have equal rights? Too bad. Believe those people should be excluded from "normal" society? Well, that's your right!
I'm so disgusted by this bigotry and hypocrisy.
12
Leaving aside the question of who or what God is (I've been a practicing Christian all my 64 years and I still haven't heard a definitive answer on that one) or what "he" wants for "his" creation (because none of us really knows), using a document of faith to run a secular country strikes me as absurd.
The Bible contradicts itself all over the place. My mother claimed to take it literally and objected to my homosexuality on that basis. I suggested that we have a shrimp cocktail for dinner, followed by some pork loin. I then opened to the appropriate stricture, and she laughed. Both on civil and religious grounds then, I object to using any tenets of faith to determine law. Practice your faith as you will, then, but don't force your practice on the rest of us.
The Bible contradicts itself all over the place. My mother claimed to take it literally and objected to my homosexuality on that basis. I suggested that we have a shrimp cocktail for dinner, followed by some pork loin. I then opened to the appropriate stricture, and she laughed. Both on civil and religious grounds then, I object to using any tenets of faith to determine law. Practice your faith as you will, then, but don't force your practice on the rest of us.
16
This is just typical prejudice and ignorance on the part of Republican lawmakers who think it is their business to interfere in relationships between two consenting adults. If you have religious beliefs that forbid gay marriage then don't marry them in your church, otherwise myob.
14
It's fine if a priest or pastor refuses to perform weddings for same-sex couples. However, taxpayers' money pays judges' and registrars' salaries, so they can't pick and choose which taxpayers they're going to serve. If their salaries are paid, in part, by gay people's taxes, then they had better serve them in every single way their duties mandate.
15
As long as the economy is improving, health care is working, both things that the repubs hoped to derail, they now have to get their base riled up about social issues. Women, guns, gays and abortion. This is a smart way for there rebus to keep everyone busy while they work on the real important issues like tax cuts for the rich, less regulation in the financial sector i.e. Dodd Frank, tax cuts for big business especially the polluters, think (Koch brothers) to name just one. I mean there is 900 million to play with there. I could go on but you know what I mean. This whole religious thing is just a smokescreen for their real agenda. And heaven help this country if they succeed.
8
"I have seen [my master] tie up a lame young woman, and whip her with
a heavy cowskin upon her naked shoulders, causing
the warm red blood to drip; and, in justification
of the bloody deed, he would quote this passage of
Scripture—"He that knoweth his master's will, and
doeth it not, shall be beaten with many stripes." Frederic Douglass
"You know, many Christians believe the biblical design..." Lee Bright
Just a reminder that some American slaveholders found Biblical justification for their ownership and treatment of slaves. Students of both testaments know well how scripture can be cherry-picked and manipulated to validate almost any action.
a heavy cowskin upon her naked shoulders, causing
the warm red blood to drip; and, in justification
of the bloody deed, he would quote this passage of
Scripture—"He that knoweth his master's will, and
doeth it not, shall be beaten with many stripes." Frederic Douglass
"You know, many Christians believe the biblical design..." Lee Bright
Just a reminder that some American slaveholders found Biblical justification for their ownership and treatment of slaves. Students of both testaments know well how scripture can be cherry-picked and manipulated to validate almost any action.
19
While article includes Oklahoma and Utah, four of the six states mentioned were part of the Confederacy - Alabama, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas. Expect the Republican super majority in Florida's state legislature to follow suit. Ain't the south grand...
11
How can a government employee use that reasoning? They are being paid by the taxpayer......this should not even be an issue..if they CHOOSE to work for the government they must leave their religious beliefs at home..that's a very bright line
21
The state must take into account the opinion of citizens first and foremost. I don't think that many people want their children to see the promotion of homosexuality. This has a negative impact on the child's psyche.
Patrick Wilson - You couldn't be more wrong. People's opinions have nothing to do with civil rights.
Acceptance of same sex marriage is steadily growing and there's no evidence whatsoever that children are harmed by knowing gay people. There's a lot of evidence however that children are harmed by exposure to hate speech and bigotry.
Acceptance of same sex marriage is steadily growing and there's no evidence whatsoever that children are harmed by knowing gay people. There's a lot of evidence however that children are harmed by exposure to hate speech and bigotry.
2
Resistance to same-sex marriage is performing one useful function. It is exposing the hypocrisy of the patriotism and Christianity. Resisters have no respect for equality under, and due process of, the law of the land. And they have no regard for the Christian injunction to love not only one's friends, but also one's enemies. Fundamentalist Christians and Catholics are making religion the refuge of bigotry--which explains why so many young people especially find their moral and spiritual values outside of religion. Dawkins and Maher should just keep quiet and bide their time; their Christian opponents are ushering in the atheistic time a-coming.
15
I can name that tune in one note: it's called nullification. Nullification was a bad idea in the 1850s, it was a bad idea in the 1960s, and it's a bad idea now. Hatred of homosexuals is no better basis to ignore the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution than hatred of African-Americans was.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
12
If you and your partner have to be of opposite sexes to get married, what about people who are biologically bi-sexual? And does the state just take the word of license applicants that they are opposite sexes? What is the legal definition of a male and a female?
If this issue was clear-cut, why do women's sports have such a difficult time with this?
If this issue was clear-cut, why do women's sports have such a difficult time with this?
1
A large number of Americans remain opposed to same sex marriage on religious grounds, so that justifies the unequal treatment of homosexuals; therefore, given that a large number of southerners opposed integration, that justified the unequal treatment of black people. Religious beliefs trump morality every time!
8
The religious conservatives constant push to put "religion" and "God" into what should be a secular government is a major threat to our country. A good portion of this country speak about Bibles and Guns with the same reverence.
It is a Christian Sharia Law being pushed into our government. The arrogance is astonishing. Newsflash- we aren't all Christian in this country. It is the same group who put down credible scientific research as in climate change, birth control and evolution. The last time the Church ruled with such power, and there was such income inequality- they called it the Dark Ages!
It is a Christian Sharia Law being pushed into our government. The arrogance is astonishing. Newsflash- we aren't all Christian in this country. It is the same group who put down credible scientific research as in climate change, birth control and evolution. The last time the Church ruled with such power, and there was such income inequality- they called it the Dark Ages!
14
All of the human rights amendments to the Constitution have not been the granting of 'new" rights. They have been the recognition of rights previously denied. Marriage, regardless of gender is not a states rights issue any more than slavery, interracial marriage or voting. In Oklahoma, the governor has moved to deny National Guard members the right to claim marriage benefits or survivor benefits for same sex marriages performed in other states. Those members are required to go to another state to apply for those benefits, something not required of the heterosexual marriages performed in Illinois or Texas or any other state. Clearly discriminatory.
10
Label those legislators and Justice Moore as BIGOTS. Call them that loudly, publicly and clearly. Repeat it often. Give them no quarter in that regard. Their bigotry merits no respect and should be treated with the contempt it deserves.
Theirs is the worst form of bigotry, for they couch it in religious doctrine, letting the bigots think their bigotry is righteous rather than evil.
Theirs is the worst form of bigotry, for they couch it in religious doctrine, letting the bigots think their bigotry is righteous rather than evil.
17
A thousand times this. Never let up. Make it clear that they are stains on humanity. Every time they open their mouths. Do not relent.
Bigots. Plain and simple. Bigots.
Bigots. Plain and simple. Bigots.
5
Gays do not qualify for a marriage license issued to one man and one woman. So, set aside the religious and constitutional arguments and find out why gays are not content with legal unions granting benefits they say they seek. Ah, there's the rub. They want their unnatural act of 'consummation' to be given the Good Housekeeping Seal. Never happen. These are called 'reproductive organs' for the obvious reason.
Oh friend. Nobody cares what you think. We're just going to politely walk right around you and do what the Constitution allows us. Bye!
7
So, by your reasoning, straight people who are infertile, should not get a marraige license, since their "reproductive organs" are not working? And, when did gay people lose their reproductive organs? Does that happen when you "go gay"?
5
Never happen? You do realize it DID happen, right? Pretty much everywhere in the US. Many other countries.
4
Suggestion. The word marriage has developed into a battleground. Take the word marriage out of the civil legal code. The only definition of the word will be a religious one. All persons will then have to get a civil union. Essentially we do that now as the state requires us to get a license. This will provide all the legal entitlements formerly granted with the word marriage. Then any person who wants to get married will have to get one from their religious institution and abide by their associated legal code. The religoious institutes will then have to decide if same sex unions are allowed by their belief system. It would then be a religious question not a civil one. This separates the two issues, legal and religious. It does nothing for one of the homosexual community's greatest desires - acceptance and approval. That can only be granted by individuals. The state, having to represent all, should not offer a sign of approval because of the various standards held by the individuals comprising the state. If approval is granted by any religion then that is their prerogative and there should be now problen from the civil authorities because the union is a civil matter. It just will not be called a marriage in the civil arena. An added benefit is this proposal removes an entanglement of church and state. Religous institutions will no longer have to involve themselves with the state on this issue.
2
Completely unnecessary. Marriage is a civil term and works just fine. This comment comes up regularly as a "separate but equal" fix. Thanks but no thanks, nothing is broken and nothing needs fixing about nomenclature, the only thing that needs to be done is to extend civil rights equally to all everywhere. And BTW, this notion that anyone is seeking "approval" is merely in the minds of those that disapprove.
5
These people think that they should correct God's nature. And also think there is no problem with their faith, and mental health.
1
How about a constitutional amendment to change the name of our species from homo sapiens to hetero sapiens. Now that's something that all state and federal republican politicians could really get behind.
2
Why bother with upholding the law when you disagree? What's next, women put to death for having an abortion? It's high time to end the hypocrisy of only obeying and recognizing laws you agree with. How un-American these extremists are.
8
The hypocrisy of claiming religious freedom is somehow compromised by allowing same sex marriage would be laughable if it weren't so Taliban-like.
No one mandates that people enter into same sex marriage, but the right wing religious zealots expect the entire citizenry to comply with their interpretation of a 2,000 year old compilation of myth and anecdote put into writing after generations of word of mouth distortions. We do not like in a theocracy, thank god!
No one mandates that people enter into same sex marriage, but the right wing religious zealots expect the entire citizenry to comply with their interpretation of a 2,000 year old compilation of myth and anecdote put into writing after generations of word of mouth distortions. We do not like in a theocracy, thank god!
17
There is one word that has changed forever the political landscape of this debate for the demographic segment of the general population that votes, and is usually identified with Republican base issues as dictated by free cable news. This word is by no means operable in all same sex marriages any more than it is in those of either gender. But, it is integral to the obsessions and hopes of a significant core of voting seniors across the political spectrum: grandchildren.
Social conservatives want to threaten that? They want to invalidate that? They want to rip loving families apart? Subject children to the cruelty of other children learned through their parent? Really?
One of the best segments of the John Stewart show involved traveling to the deepest South,to the most middle America Towns they could find, and having a gay couple hold hands get up from a table and announce how in love they were and proposing to one another. The diners always applauded. See ''Last Gay Standing.''
Campaigns against loving couples and possible grandchildren to brag about at poolside in the retirement community don't go over too well in the long run. It's an easy way for a red-meat conservative to lose their job if it's elective, without quite ever figuring out what happened. It's not a 'gay conspiracy' to borrow and modify John Kennnedy Toole: ''It's A Conspiracy of Dunces'' that will destroy the right on this one by attempting to impose their immoral intolerance on the electorate.
Social conservatives want to threaten that? They want to invalidate that? They want to rip loving families apart? Subject children to the cruelty of other children learned through their parent? Really?
One of the best segments of the John Stewart show involved traveling to the deepest South,to the most middle America Towns they could find, and having a gay couple hold hands get up from a table and announce how in love they were and proposing to one another. The diners always applauded. See ''Last Gay Standing.''
Campaigns against loving couples and possible grandchildren to brag about at poolside in the retirement community don't go over too well in the long run. It's an easy way for a red-meat conservative to lose their job if it's elective, without quite ever figuring out what happened. It's not a 'gay conspiracy' to borrow and modify John Kennnedy Toole: ''It's A Conspiracy of Dunces'' that will destroy the right on this one by attempting to impose their immoral intolerance on the electorate.
8
The ignorant and the backward will be dragged into the 21st century. Even if they kick and scream. Suffering fools is not the job of government.
6
Charles Frederick Tolbert EdD
For United States Senate Florida 2016
(Amendment 14 – Rights Guaranteed:
This article is being written to explain the rights of citizens in United States of America as written in the U.S. Constitution and the enforcement of (Amendment 1) and (Amendment 14). It is important that the reader completely understands both articles prior to reading the reasons Ministers and Religion object to the term (SAME SEX MARRIAGES). There are several scriptures which also should be read in order for the reader to conclude when amendment one has precedence over amendment 14.
The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the laws”.
Article XIV (Amendment 14 – Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection
The meaning of the Equal Protection Clause has been the subject of much debate, and inspired the well-known phrase “Equal Justice Under Law”. This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954
The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices
For United States Senate Florida 2016
(Amendment 14 – Rights Guaranteed:
This article is being written to explain the rights of citizens in United States of America as written in the U.S. Constitution and the enforcement of (Amendment 1) and (Amendment 14). It is important that the reader completely understands both articles prior to reading the reasons Ministers and Religion object to the term (SAME SEX MARRIAGES). There are several scriptures which also should be read in order for the reader to conclude when amendment one has precedence over amendment 14.
The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the laws”.
Article XIV (Amendment 14 – Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection
The meaning of the Equal Protection Clause has been the subject of much debate, and inspired the well-known phrase “Equal Justice Under Law”. This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954
The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices
4
In response to Charles Frederick Tolbert EdD
If one's religion were to condone homosexual marriage, this wold be a restriction on his/her religion. If one has no religion, this would be a restriction on their equal rights.
It is disingenuous to reinterpret the constitution when we know the writers' intent from other writings by the founders.
If one's religion were to condone homosexual marriage, this wold be a restriction on his/her religion. If one has no religion, this would be a restriction on their equal rights.
It is disingenuous to reinterpret the constitution when we know the writers' intent from other writings by the founders.
1
As has been said an untold number of times, if you don't want to get gay married, don't get gay married. Otherwise, mind your own business. It's just not that difficult.
34
This is simply the South using its preferred tool for resisting Federal law -- local laws and authorities.
The movie "Selma" reminds us that the South used courthouse registrars and local/state ordinances to deny Blacks the right to vote. (Yes, they're at it again with their Voter ID laws).
Some Southern states resisted interracial marriage for nearly 50 years after the 1966 Supreme Court ruling that banned laws allowing local registrars and justices to refuse interracial marriages based on their personal or religious beliefs. The Alabama legislature overturned such a law only a decade ago, and it's notable they were reluctant stating fear of such a ruling opening the door for Gay marriages.
There are more examples, such as "Jim Crow" laws, so this latest attempt should be no surprise -- other than it discriminating against a different group of people.
The movie "Selma" reminds us that the South used courthouse registrars and local/state ordinances to deny Blacks the right to vote. (Yes, they're at it again with their Voter ID laws).
Some Southern states resisted interracial marriage for nearly 50 years after the 1966 Supreme Court ruling that banned laws allowing local registrars and justices to refuse interracial marriages based on their personal or religious beliefs. The Alabama legislature overturned such a law only a decade ago, and it's notable they were reluctant stating fear of such a ruling opening the door for Gay marriages.
There are more examples, such as "Jim Crow" laws, so this latest attempt should be no surprise -- other than it discriminating against a different group of people.
16
One person's sincerely held religious beliefs do not provide the basis for depriving another person of his or her fundamental rights as a human being. How would anti-same sex marriage supporters view an Islamic fundamentalist who exercised his sincerely held religious belief that all Christians are infidels by murdering Christians? Would that be okay? It is one thing to say that you cannot get married in this church. It is a far different thing to say you cannot marry the person you love in any church or courthouse. Let's try to remember that the primary purpose of government is to protect peoples' rights, not take them away.
19
"...in part because “nothing in the United States Constitution grants the federal government the authority to redefine the institution of marriage.”
Right! First and foremost, nothing in the Constitution of The United States grants the various States the authority to legislatively exempt specific groups of U.S. citizens from the Constitution's protections, quit the opposite in fact, and the Constitution does empower federal statutes to trump state statutes. Second, and of equal pertinency, every single one of the various States, even including Utah, has already - de facto and de jure redefined the "institution of marriage" - by criminalizing the Bible's storied polygamy marriage model, making that one also a hollow argument.
Right! First and foremost, nothing in the Constitution of The United States grants the various States the authority to legislatively exempt specific groups of U.S. citizens from the Constitution's protections, quit the opposite in fact, and the Constitution does empower federal statutes to trump state statutes. Second, and of equal pertinency, every single one of the various States, even including Utah, has already - de facto and de jure redefined the "institution of marriage" - by criminalizing the Bible's storied polygamy marriage model, making that one also a hollow argument.
12
This country has already redefined marriage.
"The last time the Supreme Court took up a case on marriage equality was 46 years ago when about one-third of all states in the country still had laws that banned people of different races from marrying each other."
In 1967 the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia "The Court unanimously overturned Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law, rejecting the state’s defense that the statute applied equally to both blacks and whites. It held that drawing distinctions based on race were generally “odious to a free people,” and should therefore be subject to “the most rigid scrutiny” under the Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia law, the Court stated, had no legitimate purpose except blatant racial discrimination as “measures designed to maintain white supremacy.”
So to argue that we cannot "redefine marriage" is ... inaccurate.
"The last time the Supreme Court took up a case on marriage equality was 46 years ago when about one-third of all states in the country still had laws that banned people of different races from marrying each other."
In 1967 the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia "The Court unanimously overturned Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law, rejecting the state’s defense that the statute applied equally to both blacks and whites. It held that drawing distinctions based on race were generally “odious to a free people,” and should therefore be subject to “the most rigid scrutiny” under the Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia law, the Court stated, had no legitimate purpose except blatant racial discrimination as “measures designed to maintain white supremacy.”
So to argue that we cannot "redefine marriage" is ... inaccurate.
11
I seemed to have the missed the part in the constitution that defines the "institution of marriage", judge.
7
You need to learn some U.S. history. Read Federal court decisions during the 1960s.
Mr.. Kallam,the Sikh soldier was exercising his personal religious rights WITHOUT discriminating against another person. The right you spuriously claim is to be allowed to discriminate against other people and to deny them civil rights. If you are unable or unwilling to separate church and state,or to respect the lives of others you disagree with,then good riddance to you Sir. A magistrate is a civil,not a religious position.
7
"He compared his situation to that of a Sikh soldier, with whom he served in the United States Army, who was allowed to wear a turban and grow his beard because these were central to his religion. “Does not the federal government allow for different people to have different religious beliefs?” he asked."
Difference being, of course, that the Sikh soldier's exercise of his religious rights doesn't interfere with anyone else's rights. As the old saying goes, "Your free exercise of religion ends at the tip of your nose." Preventing the exercise of a constitutional right for an entire group based upon other's beliefs isn't free exercise of religion, it's encoding religion into law. And also bigotry.
Difference being, of course, that the Sikh soldier's exercise of his religious rights doesn't interfere with anyone else's rights. As the old saying goes, "Your free exercise of religion ends at the tip of your nose." Preventing the exercise of a constitutional right for an entire group based upon other's beliefs isn't free exercise of religion, it's encoding religion into law. And also bigotry.
8
Strongly held religious beliefs? As opposed to weakly held ones?
Since when does religious liberty trump liberty ? Those folks whose religious beliefs interfere with their performance of their jobs should seek another livelihood.
Since when does religious liberty trump liberty ? Those folks whose religious beliefs interfere with their performance of their jobs should seek another livelihood.
13
The Sikh soldier with the beard wasn't discriminating against others like the right wing haters who want us all to live by their beliefs. I am an atheist and I do not acknowledge the right of deist to dictate to anyone what they believe. Since I do not believe in the existence of god then I believe these people are foisting their fantasy on us all.
9
So 78 percent of South Carolinians voted against same sex marriage. I wonder what the vote would have been in 1860 concerning slavery? My guess is, since blacks couldn't vote, it would have been closer to 100 percent in favor. It seems that the arguments for state's rights always boil down to those that support bigotry and discrimination. BTW I'm a 1965 graduate of The University of South Carolina.
11
At the end of the article, the former Army chaplain doesn't seem to understand that part of his job was to perform marriages. As long as the type of marriage is legal, then he has no option but to perform them.
This is about his official responsibilities, not his personal beliefs, so he was obliged to perform all types of weddings.
This is about his official responsibilities, not his personal beliefs, so he was obliged to perform all types of weddings.
3
"no marriage equality today . . . no marriage equality tomorrow . . . and no marriage equality FOREVER!"
We know how that attitude worked out for George Wallace. It's sad to see his type alive and well today. But a new generation is coming up that will see this kind of bigotry waft into history. A hundred years from now, people will look back at these people and wonder what they were thinking.
We know how that attitude worked out for George Wallace. It's sad to see his type alive and well today. But a new generation is coming up that will see this kind of bigotry waft into history. A hundred years from now, people will look back at these people and wonder what they were thinking.
10
I truly don't know why these folks are so intent of declaring what level of freedom others are allowed to enjoy. You don't have to advocate same sex marriage to let people make their own choices, nor do their private choices really have any impact on the lives of others. This is the one place where government must truly get out of the way.
9
I think Jesus would be horrified at how his followers are treating lesbians and gays. He, himself, hung out with the "outcasts" of society and I don't recall him having any religious tests when he distributed the loaves and fishes.
4
You've got it wrong. Some people who profess to be Christians are using it to support their bigotry. I'm one Christian who believes that Jesus would be appalled but the hate that is spewed in his name. As the song says: "not in my name."
1
There is no way anyone can obey ALL of the commandments in the Bible. For the past 2000 years there have been tens of thousands denominations, sects and cults, all claiming to have the unique, correct interpretation of the scriptures. They have one thing in common. They use the Bible as a tool to justify their favorite prejudices.
11
Is Mr. Kallam telling me that if a member of the Aryan brotherhood was in a position to register voters he could refuse to register black voters because of his sincere beliefs and reading of the Bible ?
6
Thomas Jefferson wrote that "all men are created equal". At the time he wrote that he was a member of the landed gentry and a slave-owner to boot. That non-property owners (let alone women) could vote was a non-issue. America's lesbian and gay citizens (with the possible exception of the Revolutionary War hero Baron von Steuben) remained in their closets. America's history since the 18th century recounts the gradual acceptance of Jefferson's statement that "all men are created equal"into an American reality.
That is - "almost" - an American reality. Those opposed seem to be those who call themselves "American" but are un-American at the core as well as those folk who call themselves "Christian" but are non-Christian at heart.
The promulgation of the Civil Rights Act caused the Solid South Democrats to turn Republican overnight. Alas, the term "Republican" still seems cover those unprogressive bigots who call themselves Christian Americans and who think Jefferson's dictum refers only to them.
I like to think that Jefferson's dream of a society of truly equal citizens will come to fruition. Alas, there is still much to do to make that a reality.

That is - "almost" - an American reality. Those opposed seem to be those who call themselves "American" but are un-American at the core as well as those folk who call themselves "Christian" but are non-Christian at heart.
The promulgation of the Civil Rights Act caused the Solid South Democrats to turn Republican overnight. Alas, the term "Republican" still seems cover those unprogressive bigots who call themselves Christian Americans and who think Jefferson's dictum refers only to them.
I like to think that Jefferson's dream of a society of truly equal citizens will come to fruition. Alas, there is still much to do to make that a reality.

8
We all have the right to worship as we please, the issue is when we demand others to allow our faith. When Christians read the Bible with an open mind it is hard to find anything some sex marriages.
3
"A second South Carolina bill would give some government employees the ability to opt out of issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples if they objected on the basis of a “sincerely held religious belief.”
So if a person had a sincerely held religious belief that she/he should not interfere with a woman's right to an abortion, should that person not have the right to ignore local law and provide the abortion?
These laws would allow people to get away with violating any laws they disagreed with by claiming a religious exemption. They are a recipe for chaos patterned on the recent Hobby Lobby religious exemption granted by the Supreme Court. What hath the Supreme Court wrought?
So if a person had a sincerely held religious belief that she/he should not interfere with a woman's right to an abortion, should that person not have the right to ignore local law and provide the abortion?
These laws would allow people to get away with violating any laws they disagreed with by claiming a religious exemption. They are a recipe for chaos patterned on the recent Hobby Lobby religious exemption granted by the Supreme Court. What hath the Supreme Court wrought?
8
the United States may be dividing between the rich and the poor But an even more dramatic division is between the flow of mainstream American culture, which is becoming more diverse, less traditional and much more open --and the viscous backwardness of mst of the States of the former Confederacy. the legendary Civil War historian Alen Nevins had no doubt that illliteracy was par tof the reason for the badkwardness of the South and the rise of the secessionists. Little seems ot have changed over more than 150 years.
7
The Bible also says: "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder". Does that mean that divorce is no longer going to be allowed? What about all those legislators who are divorced? What happens to them?
Better watch out - a lot of them are "living in sin".
Better watch out - a lot of them are "living in sin".
6
Mr. Kallam, there ia a prevision that allows freedom of belief--it's called separation of church and state. The state will never force you personally to marry anyone you do not believe to be an appropriate spouse, but neither will it keep you, or anyone else, from marrying a single partner of legal age who consents despite disagreement by others with your choice. Remember the "with liberty and justice for all" part? "All" does not mean only people just like you. To protect your rights, you must protect the rights of others.
12
Putting the burden on public employees to stop a marriage between two people who love each other, by not allowing those workers to issue a marriage license. Taking away paychecks from public employees who do not "obey" their conservative obsessions. Bullies, that's what these Republican legislators are!!!
Excuse me - we are going back to slave days. From Republicans: If we can't do the dirty work ourselves, put it on someone else to do it! And make 'em go hungry if they don't do it! Take away their jobs, their livelihoods, we'll show 'em which side to be on! The likes of this is the same likes of those who thought lynching was ok.
Scary and despicable!
Excuse me - we are going back to slave days. From Republicans: If we can't do the dirty work ourselves, put it on someone else to do it! And make 'em go hungry if they don't do it! Take away their jobs, their livelihoods, we'll show 'em which side to be on! The likes of this is the same likes of those who thought lynching was ok.
Scary and despicable!
10
No kidding. Not to mention the fact that it shouldn't be anyone else's business if I'm gay, straight, or otherwise, when filling out forms at the town clerk's office. Sheesh.
4
I think it is about time for politicians to wake up and maybe do the right thing. And that would be to listen to their constituents. And not just the large vocal ones, that are well funded. Get out and do a grass roots canvas. READ your email and snail mail. If they do not want to do this simple thing of listening to the people, VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE.
2
Republicans ran on nothing in the 2014 midterms. Now we know what they are going to spend the next two years on. Anti gay, anti marriage, anti voting, anti abortion and various other laws, instead of road construction and wage growth and efficient government services.
13
It is about time that we not accord religious beliefs any more currency than any other belief. The fact that one's religious beliefs can trump equality is at once stunning and obscene. Religious belief, whether it is in the existence of a Divine, the claim that Torah or the Gospels are the inerrant word of G-d, should guide those who are members of the religious group that make such claims. Moreover, religious claims carry no more and perhaps much less weight than claims that Democrats or Republicans have a better political platform. And longevity neither proves nor disproves its civil worthiness-religious beliefs are merely opinion...not fact.
To allow an expansion of Hobby Lobby is to put our imprimatur on chaos. Let's imagine for a moment that a clerk in a marriage license bureaucracy has a deeply religious belief that the Jews killed Christ, a belief that many Fundamentalist Christians hold. Should that person have the right, either morally or legally, to withhold a marriage license for an inter-religious couple? Or what about a belief that races shouldn't be "mix" because of some antediluvian notion that "scripture" tells us so ( wha claim made by proponents of anti-miscegenation laws) -- should that "religious" belief trump equality or liberty interests of civil society?
A religious belief is only one form of expression and it pales in the face of denial of equality or liberty to any group of individuals because of who they are or who they love.
To allow an expansion of Hobby Lobby is to put our imprimatur on chaos. Let's imagine for a moment that a clerk in a marriage license bureaucracy has a deeply religious belief that the Jews killed Christ, a belief that many Fundamentalist Christians hold. Should that person have the right, either morally or legally, to withhold a marriage license for an inter-religious couple? Or what about a belief that races shouldn't be "mix" because of some antediluvian notion that "scripture" tells us so ( wha claim made by proponents of anti-miscegenation laws) -- should that "religious" belief trump equality or liberty interests of civil society?
A religious belief is only one form of expression and it pales in the face of denial of equality or liberty to any group of individuals because of who they are or who they love.
7
As usual it is the Republicans who stand in the way of America's progress in developing a nation that truly believes in, supports and relishes the notion that "all men are created equal". Why is it that so many folk who call themselves "American" display an attitude that is un-American at its core? Why is it that so many folk who call themselves "Christian" display an attitude that is un-Christian at heart? We are no longer a nation of wealthy white slave-owning white men. Or are we? Do you want milk, sugar or bile with your tea?
6
There is a long history in the United States of people trying to legislate other peoples' morality, for their own good of course. Usually these attempts are based in religion of some flavour.
The US purports to be a free country. Roughly speaking, that freedom consists of the right to go to hell in your own way, as long as you do not cause harm to others while you do it.
How then does same sex marriage cause harm to the people driving this fight? If it causes them no harm are they not abrogating the rights of others for their own purposes?
And if we let them get away with it can we call ourselves a free people?
The US purports to be a free country. Roughly speaking, that freedom consists of the right to go to hell in your own way, as long as you do not cause harm to others while you do it.
How then does same sex marriage cause harm to the people driving this fight? If it causes them no harm are they not abrogating the rights of others for their own purposes?
And if we let them get away with it can we call ourselves a free people?
6
If you signed up to do a job, and you know that the job involves marrying people (just because it has until that time been a man and a woman doesn't mean that is the only marriage you will do - you just assume that) and then can't do it, then you step down. That's religious freedom - the freedom to BELIEVE what you want - not to DO what you want.
9
This all sounds like the actions and attitudes of those who did not want people of different races to marry each other. They even used Scripture to back up their biases and bigotry. It's not a difficult issue: everyone should be guaranteed the same rights and no employee or any government should be able to deny those rights for any reason. Aside from that, why is it any of these folks' business that two people in love want to get married? It's not. Perhaps we should start scrutinizing all applicants for marriage licenses for their fitness for marriage?
4
Actually, we (ALL voters) should do a MUCH better job of scrutinizing all the "applicants" running for elective office, to determine their fitness to represent us. Overall, we do an extremely lousy job in that regard, as evidenced by the current Congress and the majority of State houses.......
1
This nation has some very basic principles and we do not lend weight to any religious beliefs. The founders wisely determined religion was bound to be corrosive, unresponsive, prejudiced and would become a negative to the country were it to find and favor. They gave us a chance to live well and accomodate other beliefs without impinging the rights of anyone who claimed a belief.
Those forced behind the new objections to equality are simply ignorant or manipulative and must be ignored.
Those forced behind the new objections to equality are simply ignorant or manipulative and must be ignored.
1
The courthouse ceremony my husband and I had a year and a half ago was completely secular, with absolutely no religious overtone. The marriage certificate quite simply serves to legally protect and solidify our 32 year relationship, and gives us the same legal protections that our straight friends and relatives have long enjoyed.
Our marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone else's religious beliefs, and for us to go back to second-class citizen status because of someone else's supposed religious conviction is beyond ridiculous.
Our marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone else's religious beliefs, and for us to go back to second-class citizen status because of someone else's supposed religious conviction is beyond ridiculous.
12
There is a marriage crisis in America, and it is not the marriage of human beings of the same gender. Rather it is the lack of marriage, and the divorce rate, which are a major driver of inter-generational poverty and especially the extreme poverty of many of our nations children.
Marriage, and its consequences for parenting, are the real issue that is worth discussing. Lets be thankful any time two people commit to love and care for another for a lifetime.
Marriage, and its consequences for parenting, are the real issue that is worth discussing. Lets be thankful any time two people commit to love and care for another for a lifetime.
56
It seems that "religious freedom" has turned into an "I can do anything I want " license. Of course they are parroting the same line because they are simple like that.
Do your job or get fired. Problem solved.
Do your job or get fired. Problem solved.
5
One might ask Senator Bright exactly what bible he is referring to in which it is laid down that marriage is between "a man and a woman", because the one that Christians generally adhere to doesn't say anything of the kind. There is a prohibition on men having sex with each other in the Jewish holiness code (mostly Leviticus) but not a word about women, and nothing that I recall defining marriage. There are no examples of two women marrying each other, but the biblical examples show one man and at least one woman, normally more than one woman.
In other words, any reliance these bigots make on The Bible comes from their imagination, not the text.
Van
In other words, any reliance these bigots make on The Bible comes from their imagination, not the text.
Van
53
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Genesis 2:24 ESV)
Or from the mouth of Jesus Christ if you prefer:
But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Mark 10:6-9 ESV)
Or from the mouth of Jesus Christ if you prefer:
But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Mark 10:6-9 ESV)
1
You need to re-read the bible.
1
Haven't you read historical books and realized how the general people were most commonly referred to as "men?" The term "gay" is defined as two persons of the same gender loving each other, and nitpicking whether the scripture states "man and man" or "woman and woman" is a ridiculous stance. (Just an FYI: Marriage is defined countless times throughout the Bible) Do you need another definition of marriage?: In the beginning, God made man and woman. And the bottom line is, God denies and condemns same-sex love.
2
Let me re-state something from the above NYT article, and then comment: "In a letter Tuesday that cited Thomas Jefferson and the Bible, the chief justice of the State Supreme Court, Roy S. Moore, said he intended to continue recognizing Alabama’s same-sex marriage ban, in part because 'nothing in the United States Constitution grants the federal government the authority to redefine the institution of marriage.' ”
That is the NYT quoting a judge. Now, if you read that in a full context and read between the lines, as to exact and implied meanings, then I would posit that the "gay marriage" community should become very wary and concerned about where this whole issue will eventually be heading! Let me explain why:
1. The "gay marriage" group likes to contend separation of church and state and "the government has no right in my bedroom" and "equal rights under the law" when it debates this issue. Those are standard and basic tenets of their positions. So:
2. When the courts and legislatures finally realize that the government and the Constitution have no right (and had no right) to "re-define" marriage, then all this silliness will come to an end--though it make take many years. At that point marriage will take back it's original meaning: "between one man and one woman".
I urge you to read between the lines!
That is the NYT quoting a judge. Now, if you read that in a full context and read between the lines, as to exact and implied meanings, then I would posit that the "gay marriage" community should become very wary and concerned about where this whole issue will eventually be heading! Let me explain why:
1. The "gay marriage" group likes to contend separation of church and state and "the government has no right in my bedroom" and "equal rights under the law" when it debates this issue. Those are standard and basic tenets of their positions. So:
2. When the courts and legislatures finally realize that the government and the Constitution have no right (and had no right) to "re-define" marriage, then all this silliness will come to an end--though it make take many years. At that point marriage will take back it's original meaning: "between one man and one woman".
I urge you to read between the lines!
2
In what indisputable source is marriage defined as between a man and a woman? Or otherwise? There are none. Courts cannot prevent or reverse're'-definition of something that has not been defined.
2
Interesting, the secret code between the lines don't really exist and coming especially from a Judge that doesn't have the final say - well, not important. In a state, no less, that never got over losing their slaves and had good ole state troopers waterhose children. SO not excatly the high grounds, so to speak.
2
I can imagine a comment like this being made after the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Va. only then, you would have said the Constitution and government had no right to redefine marriage and that marriage will revert to its original meaning: "between one white(insert your choice of color here) man and one white (repeat your choice of color here) woman. The Constitution allows for the government to intercede when a person's civil rights are being violated. Neither the Tenth Amendment nor anyone's superstition (insert "religious belief" here) trumps that Constitutional responsibility.
6
Whatever happened to the Tenth Amendment?
3
The fourteenth.
The 14th Amendment...
1
One thing to understand is that other people's lives have no effect on us. The things they choose to do or not is irrelevant to the rest of us. So why should we object something they want to do? It makes no difference for us in any way. After all, this is about equality and it is part of being human. There is no wrong in marrying a person the same sex as you, if it was meant to be, then let it be. We should allow same-sex marriage in all states, and not just 36 of them. Either way, people living in a state opposed to same-sex marriage, they will fly to a state where it is allowed, and easily get married there. So taking away this privilege of having same-sex marriage in a state, does not stop one from getting married to their loved one.
29
I suspect when I read stories like this is that certain folks fear gays and gay rights because of ambiguity in their own sexual identity. I recall an elderly woman who called a radio talk show during the disputes about gays in the military during the Clinton administration. She said that her grandson, who was serving in the military at the time, was opposed to gays in the military because when he was in the shower with someone he suspected to be gay, he'd have an involuntary physical reaction to that person. Duh...
By the way, Sen. Bright looks fabulous in the picture accompanying the article...
By the way, Sen. Bright looks fabulous in the picture accompanying the article...
Mr. Kallam doesn't seem to understand distinctions. He had a job as a magistrate judge. The qualifications for that job did not include being a Baptist minister, but they did include taking an oath to carry out the duties of his office. If he can not follow the law because of his religious beliefs, then he indeed should have quit that job. There is a price we pay when we encounter a conflict between our conscience, which for some people is mediated by their religious beliefs, and something else in our life. So, fine, Mr. Kallam, if your religious beliefs prohibit you from performing civil marriages as part of your position, then indeed, please do quit. But I don't feel bad for you--that's a choice that you freely made. And, no, it's not the same thing as A Sikh soldier being allowed to wear a turban and grow his beard because those actions in no way affected his ability or his willingness to carry out his duties as a soldier. Actually, it's rather pathetic that a man in a position which presumes some wisdom on the part of the person holding that position--and in Mr. Kallam's case that includes both his job as a magistrate judge and his job as a Baptist minister--is unable to discern the difference between not carrying out the duties of your sworn oath and simply wearing a piece of clothing and a beard while nevertheless doing your duty.
57
The gay community has not done themselves any favor by suing bakers, florists and wedding planners over their right to force artists to perform personal services. It's not as if they are being denied essential services. And they are demonstrating that they are intolerant of anyone who doesn't agree with them. And proving that it's all about the money.
6
The "gay mafia" in America is terribly intolerant. Every mom and pop business they sue out of business will result in loss of support from people who were coming around to a more moderate stance toward gays. Personally, I would open a store specializing in gay marriage services and take their money to the bank regardless of how I feel about gay marriage but business owners should be able to make that choice for themselves.
The 'gay community' did not sue anyone, the lawsuits were by individual couples. They no more reflect on other gays than any random lawsuit by straight people reflects on you.
2
You are using the same argument your not so distant ancestors used to justify segregation. This line of thinking founded as it is in bigotry should have no legal standing in public discourse. You choose to offer a public service for payment & don't get to choose customers based on their religion, race, ethnic heritage or sexual orientation. Religious based exceptions are simply a cover for bigotry by another name.
7
exactly how do we go about getting equality for all in all aspects of our society if our government officials are opposed to across the board equality?
12
Exactly how is that equality?
1
When we start deciding which people may and may not be granted rights to documented association of two people, we will have already gone entirely against the constitution. The minute authoritative figures use their power for their religious agendas, and ignore the separation of church and state, the constitution has been violated.
Its not exactly understandable that there are not only such selfish but also closed minded people who are in such high ranking powerful positions.
Its not exactly understandable that there are not only such selfish but also closed minded people who are in such high ranking powerful positions.
17
I think it is absurd that government workers could opt out of issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples. If denying someone constitutional rights, such as the right of marriage, is one of your strong beliefs, then maybe working in the government is NOT the job for you. However, I can see this as a compromise, because I know people in America will never fully accept same sex marriage. If this is a way to still let same sex couples get married nationwide while allowing people to still express their religious freedom, then so be it. It's still a step in the right direction.
8
So if an Islamic doctor refuses to treat a Jew you're fine with that?
5
I suppose if someone did it under the guise of "religious freedom," you'd be okay with a government official refusing to issue a marriage license for a mixed-race couple as well, then? That is the logical extension of your argument.
5
Seems to me to be the equivalent of the "Governor in the schoolhouse door."
If it takes US Marshals to force Mr./Ms. XYZ Clerk of a County to issue a license, or face removal, then I foresee some (former) clerks being removed in handcuffs, for dereliction of their (sworn) duty.
If it takes US Marshals to force Mr./Ms. XYZ Clerk of a County to issue a license, or face removal, then I foresee some (former) clerks being removed in handcuffs, for dereliction of their (sworn) duty.
6
just one question - would allow anyone to tell you who you could or could not marry? i certainly wouldn't.
5
We are a nation of laws. This statement is as silly as saying I want to steal my neighbors car. Who's to stop me? After all it's my pursuit of happiness.
1
Wow, jacrane, you win the blue ribbon for most extreme false equivalency!
1
This is just another form of nullification, a 200+ year-old argument that was settled (in addition to other arguments) for all times by civil war. That these attempts should come from South Carolina and Alabama is of no surprise to anyone familiar with US history. They have obviously not learned the lesson. So, the Supreme Court will likely have to teach it to them AGAIN.
At stake here is the very structure of federalism. Don't fool yourselves into thinking it's just about whether a gay couple wants to marry.
What is behind it, in part, is a corrupt and uneducated view of "rights" that people have; i.e. Baptist minister John Kallam, Jr. thinking “I felt, and still feel, that that is stepping on my right of religious freedom."
He's conveniently forgetting the first half of Amendment I - what essentially boils down to freedom FROM state-sponsored religion. Not to mention the fact that marriage, in the context of a state-sanctioned legal association between persons, has NO religious association, any more than does incorporation. If Mr. Kallam wants to deny gay couples marriage within his church, he is free to do so.
At stake here is the very structure of federalism. Don't fool yourselves into thinking it's just about whether a gay couple wants to marry.
What is behind it, in part, is a corrupt and uneducated view of "rights" that people have; i.e. Baptist minister John Kallam, Jr. thinking “I felt, and still feel, that that is stepping on my right of religious freedom."
He's conveniently forgetting the first half of Amendment I - what essentially boils down to freedom FROM state-sponsored religion. Not to mention the fact that marriage, in the context of a state-sanctioned legal association between persons, has NO religious association, any more than does incorporation. If Mr. Kallam wants to deny gay couples marriage within his church, he is free to do so.
45
Seems we have conveniently forgotten the tenth admendment.
1
Time and time again, jacrane, the 14th amendment trumps the 10th. Loving v Virginia.
1
“Does not the federal government allow for different people to have different religious beliefs?” he asked.
Yes, it does.
But not when accommodating your religious beliefs gets in the way of doing your job.
Yes, it does.
But not when accommodating your religious beliefs gets in the way of doing your job.
64
Hey people, there is absolutely no evidence that same sex marriage is the doom machine that the small minded and fearful would have you believe. There are many places in this world, like Canada, where same sex marriage has a fairly long track record with no real negative social or economic downside and yet, some folks just can't relax and move on.
31
I would really like to know the origin of this misguided idea that religious freedom means that you can deny others their constitutional rights. The notion that a judge, who swears an oath to uphold the constitution, should not be compelled to perform a same-sex civil marriage ceremony is logically and legally absurd.
One can think of many situations where such a principle, if adopted as law, would cause enormous chaos. This is not law school, so I won't pose hypotheticals, but I think it's enough to say that we can't have judges in one courthouse saying they'll enforce the constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court and another saying they won't because their religion overrules the justices.
Okay, one hypothetical. Divorce is basically a constitutional right, since the document means that the state cannot compel people to remain married. The North Carolina magistrate cited in the article, if he opposes divorce on religious grounds, could refuse to enter a divorce decree if he takes a religious opposition to it seriously. Ridiculous and intolerable in a pluralistic democratic republic . . .there is no way anyone with a brain can take the argument of "religious freedom" to discriminate seriously.
One can think of many situations where such a principle, if adopted as law, would cause enormous chaos. This is not law school, so I won't pose hypotheticals, but I think it's enough to say that we can't have judges in one courthouse saying they'll enforce the constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court and another saying they won't because their religion overrules the justices.
Okay, one hypothetical. Divorce is basically a constitutional right, since the document means that the state cannot compel people to remain married. The North Carolina magistrate cited in the article, if he opposes divorce on religious grounds, could refuse to enter a divorce decree if he takes a religious opposition to it seriously. Ridiculous and intolerable in a pluralistic democratic republic . . .there is no way anyone with a brain can take the argument of "religious freedom" to discriminate seriously.
132
The Supreme Court has not ruled that there is a right to same sex marriage. That is why they are reviewing the cases.
Actually, the Supreme Court has ruled at least 14 times (since the 1880s) that the ability to marry the person of your choice is one of the most basic fundamental human rights. If that doesn't mean all people, including gays and lesbians, that it means nothing, so yes, same-sex marriage is just as much a right as opposite sex marriage.
2
The origin of this flawed understanding of "religious freedom" is the interlinked group of GOP/Tea Party "think tanks" (all subsidized by the taxpayer as 501(c)(3) or (4) organizations--such as Citizens United!) cooking up this story to sustain a "base" of people who need to hate somebody or some group of people so as to deny the fact they are being gamed by the politicians they elect. They would rather be lazy and self-entitled and blame someone else in turn. Some retrograde religious groups also thrive on a diet of hate to keep their flocks together.
The sources of this "religious freedom" doctrinei seem to have a flawed understanding of both Christianity and Jesus's single commandment (love one another) and 20th-century history, namely, the Nuremberg Race Laws of 1934. Those "laws" did not deny Jews or the offspring of Jews and non-Jews their marriages, although they encouraged divorce between Jews and non-Jews, nor did they specifically deny such people their right to live. But they served to constrict every other facet of their lives, including their employment as physicians, teachers, lawyers, and even as musicians in orchestras. It made Jews second-class citizens of Germany, to put it mildly.
The GOP/Tea Party of today--and their backers--still seem to think of LGBT people as second-class citizens, or worse. I still remember the long delay in dealing with HIV and some people speaking what they considered a mind, thinking that AIDS was "God's judgment."
The sources of this "religious freedom" doctrinei seem to have a flawed understanding of both Christianity and Jesus's single commandment (love one another) and 20th-century history, namely, the Nuremberg Race Laws of 1934. Those "laws" did not deny Jews or the offspring of Jews and non-Jews their marriages, although they encouraged divorce between Jews and non-Jews, nor did they specifically deny such people their right to live. But they served to constrict every other facet of their lives, including their employment as physicians, teachers, lawyers, and even as musicians in orchestras. It made Jews second-class citizens of Germany, to put it mildly.
The GOP/Tea Party of today--and their backers--still seem to think of LGBT people as second-class citizens, or worse. I still remember the long delay in dealing with HIV and some people speaking what they considered a mind, thinking that AIDS was "God's judgment."
2
Don't these legislators have any real work to do? Really, denying pay to clerks that issue same-sex marriage licenses? How petty, how small and how bigoted. Pity the poor clerks who have to negotiate between following the law and placating the Neanderthals in their state legislatures.
Note to red-state extremists: Get a life. Do your job and stop wasting everyone's time and money with silly legislation that will go nowhere.
Note to red-state extremists: Get a life. Do your job and stop wasting everyone's time and money with silly legislation that will go nowhere.
72
You're absolutely right. It much easier to take a high moral tone than to actually do the job for which they were elected. Always, always, be suspicious of religious and political leaders who clothe their actions in religion. All too often it means that they are distracting us from their own failings. It's the old magician's trick writ large.
2
I completely and utterly support same sex marriage and any other rights for any that are denied them but not to others.
Separate to this basic Right but also important is that in many areas of U.S law etc, many benefits, rights and transactional legalities are not recognized, available or exercisable unless a couple are legally married and thus the denial of same sex marriage becomes a financial impediment as well as an emotional and damaging consequence of this denial.
So these are also some very important cause and effect issues involved by a couples inability to marry each other...
Bottom Line...The right for ANYBODY to marry (in mutual consent/agreement ) MUST be made available to ALL who choose, want or even feel they "need it "
And NO ONE has the right to deny this Choice made between these 2 people.
The fact that some or many individuals even have the ABILITY to deny a couple this Right to have is frankly what's cause for concern and consternation...!
Separate to this basic Right but also important is that in many areas of U.S law etc, many benefits, rights and transactional legalities are not recognized, available or exercisable unless a couple are legally married and thus the denial of same sex marriage becomes a financial impediment as well as an emotional and damaging consequence of this denial.
So these are also some very important cause and effect issues involved by a couples inability to marry each other...
Bottom Line...The right for ANYBODY to marry (in mutual consent/agreement ) MUST be made available to ALL who choose, want or even feel they "need it "
And NO ONE has the right to deny this Choice made between these 2 people.
The fact that some or many individuals even have the ABILITY to deny a couple this Right to have is frankly what's cause for concern and consternation...!
20
What other public servants will be allowed to "opt out" of their duties due to their religious beliefs? Can a sanitation department decide it doesn't want to collect gay garbage? Can an individual policeman decide that the home of a same sex couple shouldn't be protected because protecting the home would make him a contributor to occupants' "gay lifestyle "?
And what religious beliefs merit these special considerations? If a clerk or judge's religion forbids divorced people from marrying? Shouldn't they be allowed to opt out? And don't just about all religions forbid interfaith marriage, why should a county clerk be forced to participate in that? Can a Muslim Judge refuse to marry Christians because they might produce more infidels?
And what religious beliefs merit these special considerations? If a clerk or judge's religion forbids divorced people from marrying? Shouldn't they be allowed to opt out? And don't just about all religions forbid interfaith marriage, why should a county clerk be forced to participate in that? Can a Muslim Judge refuse to marry Christians because they might produce more infidels?
55
Yikes! You may be giving these bigots some new ideas! My gay daughter and her spouse would certainly be annoyed if the garbage did not picked up at their house! Thanks for your comment. Very insightful! Good writing!
3
It seems to me that those favoring same sex marriage are mistaken in their position and the anti same sex marriage people are correct.
Marriage is a religious rite; therefore the state has no business in regulating marriage at all.
If it were up to me, I would amend all state and federal laws that discuss marriage or divorce to refer to civil unions. Precisely because marriage is a religious rite, the government may not regulate it, or have anything to do with it. Thus, same sex or different sex partners may enjoy civil unions under government regulation. No one may marry under government auspices.
Marriage is a religious rite; therefore the state has no business in regulating marriage at all.
If it were up to me, I would amend all state and federal laws that discuss marriage or divorce to refer to civil unions. Precisely because marriage is a religious rite, the government may not regulate it, or have anything to do with it. Thus, same sex or different sex partners may enjoy civil unions under government regulation. No one may marry under government auspices.
3
Marriage has never been exclusively a religious rite. Ever. The history of marriage is one of contractual relations between parties. A civil notary could solemnize vows in most Catholic nations for centuries. The word "marriage" is a legal term. Even civil unions are called "marriage" in law. To change this would be changing a thousand laws in every state. The idea that this could practically be done is absurd.
41
Family law developed over time to protect the rights of children and of women because both had inferior economic status to men. Same sex partners cannot assert that they have different economic status on the basis of gender, since both have the same gender.
But family law, in total, does not logically apply in the same way to same sex couples as it does to heterosexual couples. So it would be preferable to let those states in which the citizenry or the legislature has established same sex marriage to sort out the family law consequences, rather than have judges change the law based on their own prejudices.
But family law, in total, does not logically apply in the same way to same sex couples as it does to heterosexual couples. So it would be preferable to let those states in which the citizenry or the legislature has established same sex marriage to sort out the family law consequences, rather than have judges change the law based on their own prejudices.
ebmem -- marriage law has never been about the protection of women and children. (It's a recent development, for example, that a man has not been legally allowed to beat his wife or his children.) It's historically been about the inheritance of property, which is an issue no different for gay couples or lesbian couples than it is for heterosexual couples..
Therefore, the "family law consequences" are no different for gay families or lesbian families than they are for heterosexual families (even classifying families that way sounds ridiculous -- a family is a family).
As far as judges and their "prejudices" -- ruling in favor of the upholding of rights hardly constitutes being "prejudiced." In fact, just the opposite.
Therefore, the "family law consequences" are no different for gay families or lesbian families than they are for heterosexual families (even classifying families that way sounds ridiculous -- a family is a family).
As far as judges and their "prejudices" -- ruling in favor of the upholding of rights hardly constitutes being "prejudiced." In fact, just the opposite.
3
When religious zealots can prove to me that God exists, then I'll ever bother to entertain the notion that their religious beliefs trump the rights of all others whom don't conform to their beliefs. Until then, kindly go away.
21
Thank you, Katie!
1
There's a simple fix to this problem for public employees who don't want to be forced to fully perform their jobs pursuant to the laws of their state.
Quit. Better yet, someone fire them. Borrow a page from Reagan's playbook and give them a deadline to comply and fulfill the duties of their jobs, not just the parts they like, and if they fail...fire them.
Problem solved.
Quit. Better yet, someone fire them. Borrow a page from Reagan's playbook and give them a deadline to comply and fulfill the duties of their jobs, not just the parts they like, and if they fail...fire them.
Problem solved.
51
“Does not the federal government allow for different people to have different religious beliefs?” asks former North Carolina magistrate judge John Kallam. Of course they do, but if the duties of being a judge are in conflict with your belief system, then don't be a judge. The government does not have to promise you a job. Good lord, you are a judge, can you not figure this out?
50
Or more succinctly put, to have them, yes. To impose them through the instrument of government, never.
24
There is also a stark difference between a religious freedom that grants the ability to wear a turban/beard, which *does not restrict the rights of others* and wanting to ban same-sex marriage which *DOES restrict the rights of others*.
When your religious belief begins to encroach on others' rights, that is when it must be stopped cold and never become law.
When your religious belief begins to encroach on others' rights, that is when it must be stopped cold and never become law.
41
The Constitution grants freedom of religion. My question is, does this imply freedom from religion as well. Does a citizen have to believe in the existence of God to receive protection under the law? God, I sure hope not!
2
"...On Oct. 31, Mr. Kallam resigned after nearly 12 years on the job."
This is how one should behave when they belong to a church/faith that is so intolerant that they feel they can't abide the plural society in which we live. This being the case one should resign and otherwise remove oneself from the situation....Not demand that they be allowed to discriminate based on some religious notion.
This is how one should behave when they belong to a church/faith that is so intolerant that they feel they can't abide the plural society in which we live. This being the case one should resign and otherwise remove oneself from the situation....Not demand that they be allowed to discriminate based on some religious notion.
53
No this is how a person of faith stand up to his beliefs. While I don't agree with his belief system, I respect his belief that he can't serve two masters. I truly feel sorry for him because he has two jobs that are incompatible with each other and he had to resolve that conflict. He could have done each job and been a hypocrite or he could quit the job that paid him a good salary and benefits. He made the much more difficult choice.
It is fine that Chief Justice Roy S. Morre presents the ideology he does. Actually I'm glad to know what he thinks. He will become irrelevant in this discussion as this issue will over time become irrelevant.
11
Once again, Republicans show that they are against equality for all. Government employees who are responsible for marriages are not allowed to deny a couple just because they believe it isn't right for them. If they were part of a place of worship, that would be different, but that isn't the case. I can still remember shortly after same-sex marriage was legalized in NY, an employee resigned her position because she didn't feel that it was right to marry two people of the same gender, and she couldn't refuse to do so because of her job. When same-sex marriage is legal for a state, the marrying judges who issue the licenses have to allow for the marriage otherwise they can lose their jobs. Civil marriages are not affected by religious teachings nor should they ever be. Also, this could become a slippery slop in which all other sort of marriages will be denied especially in the south such as black or interracial couples that want to get married, and the south had a long history of denying such marriage and even used the same teachings they are against same-sex marriage. Overall, if a marrying judge doesn't want to marry a homosexual couple despite the fact that it's legal in their state, they can always choose to quit otherwise they will just have to accept the fact that they must give a license to that couple whether or not they accept such a marriage especially when they are getting paid to marry them by the state taxpayers.
15
From this fine article by Fausset and Blimder,
"A second South Carolina bill would give some government employees the ability to opt out of issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples if they object on the basis of a 'sincerely held religious belief.' "
Is this the same type of belief that South Carolinians held that John McCain had an illegitimate child in the 2000 GOP presidential primaries?
"A second South Carolina bill would give some government employees the ability to opt out of issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples if they object on the basis of a 'sincerely held religious belief.' "
Is this the same type of belief that South Carolinians held that John McCain had an illegitimate child in the 2000 GOP presidential primaries?
13
Sorry, but the States Rights issue was settled a long time ago. Time to move on and be on the Right side of history.
24
I have "sincerely held religious belief" that the majority of Republicans, and Roy Moore in particular, are bigots who should quit they're jobs if they don't feel like upholding the law or doing what they've been hired to do.
It's called separation of church and state... deal with it or find another career.
It's called separation of church and state... deal with it or find another career.
41
When, oh when will people learn which train has left the station and when.
Same-sex marriage left a long time ago.
Same-sex marriage left a long time ago.
17
This is not about belief, it is about equal right, and about courage of millions who suffer the humiliation of being told that they cannot do what the rest of us take for granted. And Mr. Kallam got it completely wrong, the Sikh soldier was not trampling on the rights of someone else. Why can't these religious people comprehend the fact that they are up against basic equality?
22
I don't get it, and I don't get all the ado about it. I don't understand wanting to get married in anyone's case, but if that's what these couples want to do, why should I or anyone else object? It certainly doesn't affect me. And who does it harm? I find it hard to believe that this is the sort of thing that any benevolent God would come down on hard.
Saying that it harms the institution of marriage itself is garbage. There are enough heterosexuals like me, married for all of five years, to do that. I've known very devoted couples of the same sex who have been together for 20 years. After all they've been through, I have no idea why they would want to get married. But what's the harm in it, if that's what they want?
I was reared in the Deep South. My parents didn't understand about the rights of blacks. The lesson that I took from that is that you don't have to understand. All you need to understand in this country is that you don't have the right to impinge on other people's rights. And if marriage is a right for me, why shouldn't it be a right for these folks?
Saying that it harms the institution of marriage itself is garbage. There are enough heterosexuals like me, married for all of five years, to do that. I've known very devoted couples of the same sex who have been together for 20 years. After all they've been through, I have no idea why they would want to get married. But what's the harm in it, if that's what they want?
I was reared in the Deep South. My parents didn't understand about the rights of blacks. The lesson that I took from that is that you don't have to understand. All you need to understand in this country is that you don't have the right to impinge on other people's rights. And if marriage is a right for me, why shouldn't it be a right for these folks?
126
Religious people only get what their religion tells them to get and nothing more.
9
Deeply religious people are Republican in nature. I don't want you to interfere in my life, but if I want to interfere in your life, that's ok!
2
Ideally, people want to get married for commitment and love.
Realistically, there are over 4000 legal circumstances in which non-married persons do not have the same rignts as married persons. Just one example is the event of one party being hospitalized or dying. The non-married persons are treated inequally under the law compared to married ones.
I'm also not wild about this difference to begin with, but that's the way it is, and it has caused a lot of suffering, as as we have seen, economic consequences as well.
Could you choose to file your taxes as married filing jointly if you are not allowed to marry?
Realistically, there are over 4000 legal circumstances in which non-married persons do not have the same rignts as married persons. Just one example is the event of one party being hospitalized or dying. The non-married persons are treated inequally under the law compared to married ones.
I'm also not wild about this difference to begin with, but that's the way it is, and it has caused a lot of suffering, as as we have seen, economic consequences as well.
Could you choose to file your taxes as married filing jointly if you are not allowed to marry?
Wait a minute.
A state employee can 'opt out' of performing his or her official duties (in a government job in a government founded on a the separation of religion and state) because of his or her religion?
This is Orwellian double-speak or part of a long-lost Abbott and Costello routine.
It is a state issued marriage license, not a religion issued marriage license. The government employee's opinions or feelings have no bearing any more than they would at the water department.
Republicans thunder on about the threats of Islamic Sharia law. Surely this Christianist Sharia law has no place in our country.
A state employee can 'opt out' of performing his or her official duties (in a government job in a government founded on a the separation of religion and state) because of his or her religion?
This is Orwellian double-speak or part of a long-lost Abbott and Costello routine.
It is a state issued marriage license, not a religion issued marriage license. The government employee's opinions or feelings have no bearing any more than they would at the water department.
Republicans thunder on about the threats of Islamic Sharia law. Surely this Christianist Sharia law has no place in our country.
47
Yes, it was "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein".
7
"This is Orwellian double-speak or part of a long-lost Abbott and Costello routine."
HAHAHA! Thanks for the laugh...your analogy to the bill where "state employees can opt out..." being part of a long lost Abbott and Costello routine is a Classic!
You really have to ask yourself in regards to these GOP representatives if they even have a clue about what it is they are there for and if they understand at all what it is all about and whether out of any of them... Who is on first Base and whether Anybody is at Home..
INDEED...Who is Who is on first Base? and Anybody is not at Home but on Third Base...NOBODY is at Home!*
*( Said with GREAT Apologies to Abbott and Costello's original Baseball "Who's on First Base" Classic Routine!)
HAHAHA! Thanks for the laugh...your analogy to the bill where "state employees can opt out..." being part of a long lost Abbott and Costello routine is a Classic!
You really have to ask yourself in regards to these GOP representatives if they even have a clue about what it is they are there for and if they understand at all what it is all about and whether out of any of them... Who is on first Base and whether Anybody is at Home..
INDEED...Who is Who is on first Base? and Anybody is not at Home but on Third Base...NOBODY is at Home!*
*( Said with GREAT Apologies to Abbott and Costello's original Baseball "Who's on First Base" Classic Routine!)
6
So the Supreme Court can elect (thank you, Anthony Kennedy!) George W. Bush president and ALL of us have to abide by that catastrophic decision, but Mike Huckabee & Co. can say with a straight (no pun intended) face that the courts -- even the Supremes (apologies to Diana Ross) -- should be ignored if marriage equality is upheld? I DREAM of the day when every homophobe wakes up to find the tables turned and they have to argue that they're not a threat to God and humanity. If you're straight -- and even if you're a straight person supportive of the LGBT community -- you have NO IDEA how exhausting it is to fight -- and fight, and fight -- for the right just to be your law-abiding, tax-paying, job-attending and possibly child-rearing self. When I read about people like Roy Moore (whose salary is paid in part by the very gay people he obviously despises) I'm afraid my head is finally going to explode.
25
No public servant paid whose paycheck is derived from the taxpayer has any right to pick and choose which of those citizens will be served and which will not.
I suspect that in a very simplistic way that opinion is the one which will drive any any and all legal challenges to the slackjaw view of the Constitution exhibited by these 'representatives of the people.'
I suspect that in a very simplistic way that opinion is the one which will drive any any and all legal challenges to the slackjaw view of the Constitution exhibited by these 'representatives of the people.'
26
Come on! The S. Carolina law allowing public employees not to perform acts that they are paid to perform due to religious reasons is silly. If they won't do that which is required of the job then either they should resign or be fired. I'm not for or against same sex marriage but once the supreme court decides we can't have state laws that allow individual public employees to negate the law of the land for personal reasons.
27
Roy Moore was removed from the Alabama Supreme Court. The village idiots that comprise the voters of Alabama "Heart of Dixie", as they used to refer to themselves, put him back in. The supremacy clause of the United States Constitution mandates that federal law trumps state law. Once a federal judge cites Judge Moore for contempt and incarcerates him, the others will think twice. We didn't destroy that cancer called the Confederacy for nothing.
39
So much for the rule of law. What a sad show of legal cynicism by Judge Moore. It illustrates how conservatives cherish the rule of law only when the results fit their ideology. And their willingness to deny rights to those they would dehumanize.
20
The same legislative bodies that have been so adamant in proposing legislation outlawing Sharia Law (a nonexistent threat) are eagerly proposing to institute "Christian Law" to continue to deny equal treatment under the Constitution to same-sex couples. Under that document, "marriage" refers to a civil contract, not a church-blessed ritual.
It is unfortunate that these politicians do not understand the difference. (Or perhaps they do, but making political points is of greater interest to them than adhering to the Constitution. Shame on them!
It is unfortunate that these politicians do not understand the difference. (Or perhaps they do, but making political points is of greater interest to them than adhering to the Constitution. Shame on them!
17
Mr. Bright should check the Bible a little more closely. It is rife with polygamy. Is THAT his end game?
14
It is sad to hear a judge compare the demand to wear a beard on religious grounds to the demand to discriminate against two people because their sexual orientation. Until not that long ago many people, judges included, claimed that interracial marriage was also against their religious beliefs. Then the Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition against interracial marriages was unconstitutional. And guess what, the world did not end and people continued to hold their belief, but what they could not do was use their sincerely held religious beliefs to continue discriminating. The same will be the case with marriage equality.
17
No other form of discrimination would be legally or morally justifiable on he basis of "sincerely held religious belief," and discrimination against gay people should be no different. It's ironic that Christians used to accuse LGBT people of seeking "special rights" when we tried to get discrimination bans in place so we wouldn't be fired from our jobs or kicked out of apartments for who we are. Yet now, it's Christians who are literally seeking special rights in their demands to be exempt from the law. These people are nothing but theocratic authoritarians who would gladly subject us all to a Christian version of Saudi Arabia if they had the opportunity.
28
why oh why do challenges to gay marriage continue?? can't we as a nation FINALLY (re)focus our legislative efforts on poverty/the environment/the economy ??
it is decency and respect for human rights that should drive legislation not the ever pervasive self righteousness of the bible brigades.
it is decency and respect for human rights that should drive legislation not the ever pervasive self righteousness of the bible brigades.
17
In the future, should a fundamentalist Muslim become Alabama's Supreme Court judge, will all Alabaman women be required to wear head scarf? Why should any Alabaman pay attention to the religious preference of its chief justice?
16
So much for the separation of church and state in these religious hotbeds of intolerance.
18
@ ex-judge Kallam: Individuals appointed as judges should have enough knowledge and intelligence to not express muddled thoughts. A Sikh soldier, allowed to wear a turban and grow a beard in deference to his religious beliefs, does nothing to infringe the rights of other citizens. A judge, ordered to marry persons regardless of gender but who arrogates to himself the right to refuse on the basis of what he claims are his own religious beliefs likely gratifies himself, an indulgence that has no Constitutional protection, but infringes the rights of others whom the Constitution is designed to protect. An intelligent judge will readily understand the distinction. A religious bigot who cannot or chooses not to understand the distinction cannot be a legitimate judge in the United States of America. Killam's resignation is most justified. Those who think not share more than they likely care to admit with religious extremists currently active in portions of Syria and Iraq. They have no right to enjoy any position of authority in any governmental authority in these United States of America.
11
This is the problem with the Supreme Court's ruling on Hobby Lobby. It gave people the right to use the religious belief card as a way to opt out of obeying laws. In the future the Supreme Court has to close all loop holes for religious beliefs as they have shown themselves to not be worthy of a special designation. Justice Alito and his ilk need to take notice as one day they will have destroyed our system of laws with their politicized rulings. Opening this Pandora's box has been a reckless oversight of justice.
14
A few years ago there was a minor scandal in which some Muslim employees of a major store chain objected to touching packaged pork, although the potential for this random contact was part of their job (they were assigned to alternative duties as a resolution, but pork was still sold).
At the time conservative Christian commentators/bloggers were screaming bloody murder about America being on the verge of Sharia law. And yet, it is undoubtedly these same conservative Christians who are objecting to do their state jobs on the grounds of religious faith. I wonder that they don't see that by refusing to obey laws that they just don't like due to religious objections that *any* religious objection can qualify. A nation simply cannot function this way.
At the time conservative Christian commentators/bloggers were screaming bloody murder about America being on the verge of Sharia law. And yet, it is undoubtedly these same conservative Christians who are objecting to do their state jobs on the grounds of religious faith. I wonder that they don't see that by refusing to obey laws that they just don't like due to religious objections that *any* religious objection can qualify. A nation simply cannot function this way.
18
What is it about the religious right that believes it has the right to impose its prescripts on those whom they can't convert? Seriously. Just because you choose to follow a pick-and-choose version of (your version) of the bible doesn't mean that you get to ensconce those prohibitions in civil law so the the rest of us have to play by your rules.
16
This sounds to me exactly like the movement against desegregation. Hard to make progress when a batch of states so stubbornly resists duly-enacted legislation and court rulings.
13
Does not the federal government allow for different people to have different religious beliefs?” Indeed, but this very point seems lost on the state officials who've declared their intent of obstructing and undermining the rights of same sex couples to marry in their states. Long overlooked in the debate about gay marriage are the religious rights of gay people, in concept an oxymoron to those who so readily view issues of religion and gayness as antipodal. Truth be told, the religious/gay social dichotomy is strictly an invention of our political/cultural wars. In other words, the real world usually has different ideas.. American conservatives seem to be telling gay citizens they have no religious rights, as though these are conceded when an individual declares him/herself gay. Conservatives are about to get a big shock.
10
A “sincerely held religious belief.” is not a reason to refuse to perform a legal duty like marrying a couple. We don't allow murder because of sincerely held religious beliefs. We don't let parents refuse medical care for their children because of sincerely held religious beliefs. If a person is so narrow minded that he can't make room in his mind for the idea or the fact that two consenting adults should be able to cement their commitment to each other with marriage no matter what their gender or sexual preferences are maybe he should take a closer look at his life. What two consenting adults do at home with each other is no one else's business but theirs. If marriage is on such shaky ground that same sex marriage threatens straight marriage, straight couples should look at their own problems, not try to exclude others from the blessings and problems marriage brings with it.
Furthermore, the fact that gays and lesbians want to marry shows how serious they are about their relationships. Unlike marriages arranged for land or money, most of today's marriages are for love and companionship. There are children, houses, pensions, health insurance, and other issues that, in order to be passed down, require marriage. It's hypocritical to say that we value marriage and then tell gays and lesbians that their relationships are not worth the value of a marriage.
Furthermore, the fact that gays and lesbians want to marry shows how serious they are about their relationships. Unlike marriages arranged for land or money, most of today's marriages are for love and companionship. There are children, houses, pensions, health insurance, and other issues that, in order to be passed down, require marriage. It's hypocritical to say that we value marriage and then tell gays and lesbians that their relationships are not worth the value of a marriage.
23
Well said, Hen3ry. Positions such as County Clerks are privileges, not rights. To deny the right to marry legally is no more a sincerely held religious belief than was George Wallace standing in the school house door.
7
"We don't let parents refuse medical care for their children because of sincerely held religious beliefs."
Um, actually, it does happen. An example:
"Religious exemptions can be granted when a parent or legal guardian objects to immunization because of religious beliefs. The parent or legal guardian shall sign a notarized form stating that the child has not been immunized because of religious beliefs."
-- http://www.dhhs.nh.gov/dphs/immunization/exemptions.htm
(I'm not saying I agree with this--just that one of your examples won't stand up to scrutiny.)
Um, actually, it does happen. An example:
"Religious exemptions can be granted when a parent or legal guardian objects to immunization because of religious beliefs. The parent or legal guardian shall sign a notarized form stating that the child has not been immunized because of religious beliefs."
-- http://www.dhhs.nh.gov/dphs/immunization/exemptions.htm
(I'm not saying I agree with this--just that one of your examples won't stand up to scrutiny.)
1
If marriage between a man and a woman were so perfect, so flawless, so desirable, these people wouldn't have to go legal extremes to force it upon everyone who wants to spend the rest of their life with another person. The truth is, there are more divorces, wrecked homes, and adultery in man/woman marriages than these folks care to talk about.
When you clean up your side of the street, and the days of the Ozzie and Harriott marriage return, then you can start talking God and virtue.
When you clean up your side of the street, and the days of the Ozzie and Harriott marriage return, then you can start talking God and virtue.
15
I remember the same kind of reaction from the same kinds of people in 1967 when the SCOTUS struck down laws prohibiting interracial marriage. (Loving v Virginia). The same kind of hateful "christians" were making the same appeals to religious rights then as they are now.
29
It's so tiresome to keep telling these so called religious folk that 1) we have separation of Church and State in this country 2) we have freedom FROM religion as much as freedom OF religion so no one can impose their religious beliefs on others 3) you can't cherry pick some parts of the bible to emphasize and ignore other parts without exposing yourself as a bigot 4) the Constitution protects minorities from the tyranny of majorities 5) the Constitution trumps state laws if they violate the Bill of Rights 6) close to 80% of those 18-29 years old support marriage equality so in the not so distant future the opponents of marriage equality today will look like the opponents of interracial marriage look to us now. Finally, to compare two commited adults who love each other and want equal rights to abortion is offensive and ridiculous and demonstrates the animus that drives the opposition to marriage equality.
190
All these folks can believe whatever they choose to believe. Fortunately their beliefs are irrelevant where it comes to the law. If they refuse to abide by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, I am sure there are plenty of their own gay and lesbian citizens who will be happy to drain them of all their financial resources in lawsuits to make sure they uphold the law.
20
Perhaps the most concerning thing about this trend is that it is being waged in a forum that most Americans will never be keyed into. Voters will follow the news from Congress and the Supreme Court, but imagine how far public attention drops off for issues that state legislatures consider, let alone their local county clerk. For proponents of marriage equality, this is probably another sign that the fight to make progress is only going to get harder in many ways as marriage equality expands nationwide and no longer commands huge attention.
5
Separation of Church and State.
Why is that so hard for these people to understand.
If a County or Court clerk's religion prevents them from doing their job, then they should find another. Clerks are not allowed to decide who gets a license and who doesn't. That is not their job. If a person meets the requirements, then they get a license. That is their job. And they should do it.
Hatred and bigotry are not protected by the Constitution.
Why is that so hard for these people to understand.
If a County or Court clerk's religion prevents them from doing their job, then they should find another. Clerks are not allowed to decide who gets a license and who doesn't. That is not their job. If a person meets the requirements, then they get a license. That is their job. And they should do it.
Hatred and bigotry are not protected by the Constitution.
23
So now it's OK for a state or county official to refuse to carry out the duties imposed upon him by law because of "sincerely held religious beliefs," and still get paid for it by the taxpayers? Great - now do I get refunded the money I'm paying him not to do the job he's supposed to be doing, all on account of beliefs that I don't share?
17
In Alabama "the chief justice of the State Supreme Court, Roy S. Moore,"
"Moore was elected chief justice in 2000, but a state judicial panel removed him three years later after he refused to obey a federal judge's order to remove a 5,200-pound granite Ten Commandments monument from the lobby of the Alabama Judicial Building."
The Ten Commandments judge won back his position in the last midterms and continues to espouse bizarre religious tenets. Although only 10% of the people of Alabama gave him a positive approval rating, he won because in Alabama you can pull a lever to vote a straight Republican ticket. In exit polls the 'Bama voters said they didn't even know that Moore was back on the ballot.
"Moore was elected chief justice in 2000, but a state judicial panel removed him three years later after he refused to obey a federal judge's order to remove a 5,200-pound granite Ten Commandments monument from the lobby of the Alabama Judicial Building."
The Ten Commandments judge won back his position in the last midterms and continues to espouse bizarre religious tenets. Although only 10% of the people of Alabama gave him a positive approval rating, he won because in Alabama you can pull a lever to vote a straight Republican ticket. In exit polls the 'Bama voters said they didn't even know that Moore was back on the ballot.
22
Same sex marriage has been an nation "issue" because of personal religion and internalized messages. Gay and Lesbian couples, I sure know it is a beautiful thing to get married through civil and through church though, what is the most beautiful thing is the love you have for one another. Regardless of religion, spend your life with the person you truly love knowing that life will bless you throughout the journey. Do you really need to get blessed by church or a priest? Or is it more of a want? In regards to this article, no one has the right to choose who can get married (referring to specially the government, officials etc.) Priest should not even have the right to deny same sex marriage because not once has god ever told any one on earth that is wrong to marry same sex couples. Until that day does not present itself, everyone has the right to marry.
2
Civil marriage has nothing to do with religion.
Say it ten times until you understand what that means.
No one here is making any case about what churches do or don't do and whom they will or will or will not do it for.
Finally, when it comes to religion, yes, some LGBT want the blessing of their church and some churches are more than happy to provide that.
Say it ten times until you understand what that means.
No one here is making any case about what churches do or don't do and whom they will or will or will not do it for.
Finally, when it comes to religion, yes, some LGBT want the blessing of their church and some churches are more than happy to provide that.
11
When government workers deny a service to a citizen for not complying with a religious doctrine, it can arguably be called religious persecution.
20
Let Judge Moore try to defy the federal courts. He is not god, and can lose his power and should.
11
I'm reminded of an episode of the West Wing in which President Bartlet confronts a radio talk show host who quotes Leviticus as her reason for calling homosexuality an abomination. President Bartlet's response: "I wanted to sell my youngest daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She’s a Georgetown Sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? . . . My chief of staff, Leo McGary, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? Or is it okay to call the police? . . . Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?" I leave you with Matthew 19:6: "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
177
Thank you for quoting one of my favorite episodes of The West Wing. This should be reprinted in every publication in this country. This is a MUST READ for ALL!
I had almost forgotten how much I miss Jed Bartlett--we could certainly use a bit of his acumen AND his brass at 1600 Penn right now...
Judge Kallam did one thing right -- he quit his job. The state and federal employees who can't do all the duties required of their job should also quit or be released. Religion should have no place in government.
The analogy with the Sikh solider does not stand. If the beard and turban of the solider interfered with him perfoming his duties, he should also quit or be discharged by the military. However, if accommodating those beliefs has no effect on his work or might even increase recruitment numbers/ the talent pool, then those accommodations should continue.
This is a no-brainer for those of us who believe in separation of church and state. Quoting the Bible has no effect on me.
The analogy with the Sikh solider does not stand. If the beard and turban of the solider interfered with him perfoming his duties, he should also quit or be discharged by the military. However, if accommodating those beliefs has no effect on his work or might even increase recruitment numbers/ the talent pool, then those accommodations should continue.
This is a no-brainer for those of us who believe in separation of church and state. Quoting the Bible has no effect on me.
107
EXACTLY. Presumably the Sikh still did his job as a soldier. In the case, the judge is refusing to do his job. No one is telling him he has to marry or a man, or that he can't oppose same sex marriage. But the law in North Carolina includes same sex marriage, and his job is to implement the law. If one can't do that, one should quit, as he did.
6
"The analogy with the Sikh solider does not stand."
The Sikh did not try to force others to conform to his beliefs. That is the difference.
The Sikh did not try to force others to conform to his beliefs. That is the difference.
Roy Moore is a traitor who does not believe in the constitution or in the governmental structure it creates. He should be removed from office immediately.
He is a modern day Bull Connor.
He is a modern day Bull Connor.
26
He was removed from office, after he tried to get the Ten Commandments displayed in the state supreme court building--and after defying a federal order. Then, he was re-elected as chief justice--with the help of lots and lots of outside-right-wing money. The problem isn't Moore, the problem is a society like Alabama that refuses to acknowledge the 21st century and never seems to learn from its own, miserable, past.
4
One moderately simple solution is fot the U.S. to emulate other countries, where all "legal" marriages are civil marriages. Then the application of a law allowing same sex marriage, were it to be the law of the land, would be a mandate to any and all civil officials, as with any other law that needs to be upheld regardless of one's religious beliefs or prejudices. If a couple then also wants to have a church or other religious wedding, that is their right as well, but it does not affect the legal status of their union in the eyes of governments or businesses. Separate church and state, as the Constitution states.
16
GR, you're right that people are confusing civil marriage and religious marriage, which is what I think you're saying (?). It's already true that in the U.S. all legal marriages are civil marriages. In fact, "legal marriage" and "civil marriage" mean the same thing. It's already true a church or other religious wedding does not affect the legal status of anybody's union. Perhaps the confusion arises from the fact that most (not all) religious figures who conduct religious marriages also sign the civil marriage documents as an "officiant" or "witness" and then file the papers for the couple. (I know this two-in-one deal is convenient for the couple, but I don't notice preachers acting as travel agents and presenting plane tickets to the couple at the altar - "By the power vested in me by the airline! - even though that would probably be convenient for the couple as well.) Personally, I'd like to see religious leaders stop this business of standing in their houses of worship at God's altar and exclaiming, "By the power vested in me by the State . . . " If couples getting Holy Matrimony in church also had to go by their local county office to register with the government for their civil marriage, there might be less confusion on this issue. And the county offices should handle paperwork only. After all, the office that hands out hunting licenses doesn't perform a little ceremony to celebrate the event - By the power vested in me by the State, I now pronounce you hunter and prey!
3
Religious belief was used to rationalize why races shouldn't mix in public schools or places. It's really quite simple. If you think marriage should only be between a man and a women, then only marry someone of the opposite sex and mind your own business.
112
Think like a bigot all you want. When you act like one, that's very different.
14
It makes no sense to say that state employees should be able to opt out of issuing same sex licenses on the basis of their religious beliefs. What happened to separation of church and state? As a state employee, they can't pick and choose what laws they will uphold. And if their job duties go against their beliefs that doesn't give them the right to discriminate against another citizen. They can opt to find another job.
91
Particularly in a world which is overpopulated and in which we have mechanisms for adoption, there is no scientific or sociological reason to restrict same sex marriage. The objection is purely religious in nature and thus should have no place in our legal discourse. We are a nation of laws, and whether we wish to claim that the basis of those laws is "Judeo-Christian" because the 10 Commandments happen to lay out several key rules for a civil society (not killing and not stealing are pretty basic rules), the application of religious mores as law is abhorrent or should be to anyone who claims to have American values.
With only the religious reasons remaining, the State has no authority to block this issue. Allow people of consenting age to marry and move on. Our ecosystem is collapsing around our ears - that's an issue that should inspire real fervor.
With only the religious reasons remaining, the State has no authority to block this issue. Allow people of consenting age to marry and move on. Our ecosystem is collapsing around our ears - that's an issue that should inspire real fervor.
17
It's disingenuous, anyway, to claim that we are a Judeo-Christian nation because there are ideas contained in the 10 commandments that seem to echo in our own legal system. A cursory reading of history would indicate that 10 commandment-type law systems have been around a lot longer than that and appear in other cultures and civilizations that had little or nothing to do with Judaism or Christianity.
6
Perfectly said.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the Supreme Court declares unconstitutional all laws that forbid same sex marriage (an echo of what happened to state interracial marriage bans). Then, to me, the interesting question is, what will happen to those self-righteous agents of the state who still would presume to impose their own bigoted marriage "laws"? Surely, some of those recalcitrants might end up in court, either for violating the law of the land, or to try to preserve their jobs, right? So . . . to whom do I write my checks to help throw the bums out?
15
I don't know which is more disgusting - that so many politicians are willing to pander to bigotry in order to get votes, or that there are so many bigots out there for them to pander to.
65
It's established law that one group cannot impose their religious views on the rest of us. It's in the constitution that all citizens are to be provided equal protection under the laws. So what's the argument? Is there something in the 14 amendment that I am missing? Also, where did Jesus say anything about gay marriage or homosexuals? Can't find that either. What a waste of public debate and court time.
20
These people going all "Schoolhouse Door" will indeed probably deep short to medium term political benefits, especially with their redneck constituents.
But this is a losing game and they know it.
The "establishment" GOP types in the Deep South and especially the Rim South states like NC must be privately going crazy over this. They know this is an unwinnable train wreck.
But this is a losing game and they know it.
The "establishment" GOP types in the Deep South and especially the Rim South states like NC must be privately going crazy over this. They know this is an unwinnable train wreck.
12
And so they should. The feds have been usurping States rights for decades. Enough is enough.
1
Yep, those pesky feds, constantly usurping states' rights on things like the right to own other people as property, or decide which people get to vote, all on account of something called the Constitution. What's up with that?
21
All rights specifically given to the federal government, should revert to the states.
I do not believe there is any reference to marriage in the constitution
I do not believe there is any reference to marriage in the constitution
Lots of issues are not discussed in the constitution.
That's why we need a superior court to decide. It's called the Supreme Court.
That's why we need a superior court to decide. It's called the Supreme Court.
2
Strange that Mr Kallam doesn't realize that refusing to marry someone is projecting your beliefs on someone else. Growing a beard and wearing a turban is projecting your beliefs on yourself.
20
I am scared to post anyting about Gay rights on this forum. Even the slight hint of being against gay marriage is likely to invoke a lot of angry or even hate responses. I personally believe in the santity of marriage, that it is a union of a man and a woman. If getting Married brings in financial & other benifits, then it is an issue of discrimination against those who are not married. All men are create equal, somehow married men are more equal ?
3
What exactly makes you scared? There are many uninformed responses on this forum, but few angry responses and even fewer hate responses.
Your own comment seems uninformed on two key issues.
1. You "personally believe in the sanctity of marriage," which is a religious or philosophical position. But why should state or federal law impose your religious or philosophical beliefs on others? That is not democracy, it is tyranny by a majority, if indeed it even is a majority. It is contrary to the guarantees in the U.S. Constitution, and contrary to the concept of secular rather than religious government.
2. You are right that marriage law brings financial and other benefits, but there are thousands of such laws. Gay people seeking equality should not have to challenge each and every such law, including brand new ones, in every federal, state and local venue, in order to achieve equality. That is a difficult and unconscionable burden to place on people, especially since it is motivated by the desire to impose your own personal religious beliefs on others.
I hope you don't consider this an angry or hateful response.
Your own comment seems uninformed on two key issues.
1. You "personally believe in the sanctity of marriage," which is a religious or philosophical position. But why should state or federal law impose your religious or philosophical beliefs on others? That is not democracy, it is tyranny by a majority, if indeed it even is a majority. It is contrary to the guarantees in the U.S. Constitution, and contrary to the concept of secular rather than religious government.
2. You are right that marriage law brings financial and other benefits, but there are thousands of such laws. Gay people seeking equality should not have to challenge each and every such law, including brand new ones, in every federal, state and local venue, in order to achieve equality. That is a difficult and unconscionable burden to place on people, especially since it is motivated by the desire to impose your own personal religious beliefs on others.
I hope you don't consider this an angry or hateful response.
14
You can believe in the sanctity of marriage all you want. No one, even the most liberal persons, would hate or despise you for that and no one is asking you to accept it as an individual. What we do ask for is that you do not impose your beliefs on us (by us, I mean people supportive or neutral about same sex unions), especially in a secular setting like a governmental office. What you believe in your own home/ church and whether your church chooses to marry same-sex couples or not does not concern me . That is what separation of church and state means.
And being married does bring numerous benefits, including tax-related ones, health insurance coverage, ability to see/ make decision for your partner in a medical crisis, etc. so it is an issue of discrimination in that way as well.
And being married does bring numerous benefits, including tax-related ones, health insurance coverage, ability to see/ make decision for your partner in a medical crisis, etc. so it is an issue of discrimination in that way as well.
10
Sunny: You do not need to be afraid of voicing your belief that marriage should only be between a man and woman, you just must not impose your beliefs on those who do not agree with you. See, very simple.
EW
EW
6
Overall, change is hard. And it's harder for some than for others. It's even harder in certain parts of our country than other parts. And the underlying reasons for that would be interesting to dig into and dig up. Regardless, the only acceptable personal reaction to being anti same-sex marriage is to marry someone of the opposite sex. Other than that whomever someone chooses to marry should be no one's business except the marrying couple. And regarding religious rights it's my understanding that right means the freedom to practice whatever religion we want, or none at all, on our own time. And that doesn't include the right to involve one's personal religious beliefs in civil, state, or federal matters regardless the issue or topic at hand.
21
That 'religious freedom' tactic is ingenious political theatre: it plays right into the persecution complex of the evangelicals. I just don't think it'll be enough to bring them out in sufficient droves to create the cynically desired electoral effect. It's awfully 2004 -- even most of them have moved on.
7
I am kind of glad to see this happening, because it is going to make the GOP repugnant to many people in this country. Well over 60% of the people in this country are in favor of same sex marriage, and more importantly, for those under the age of 40, it is much, much larger, and especially among the younger people there already is distaste for the GOP because of them catering to the religious bigots, and given that the GOP is primarily the party of older, white, rural and southern voters, it will kill them in the presidential election if these troglodytes are allowed free reign. The same people 40 years ago + claimed that Jim Crowe was legal because of their 'free right of association", so it is no big surprise they would try and claim religious belief trumps civic rights.
If judges like Roy Moore defy Scotus once it rules, it will be prime time to remove them from office, and if states attempt to not recognize same sex marriage, or of courts try ruling the marriage is invalid and thus for example a spouse has to testify against their mate, they should do what they did in the 50's, send in federal troops to enforce the law and arrest those refusing to recognize it. Defiance of the Supreme Court is the legal equivalent of secession, and should be treated the same way.
If judges like Roy Moore defy Scotus once it rules, it will be prime time to remove them from office, and if states attempt to not recognize same sex marriage, or of courts try ruling the marriage is invalid and thus for example a spouse has to testify against their mate, they should do what they did in the 50's, send in federal troops to enforce the law and arrest those refusing to recognize it. Defiance of the Supreme Court is the legal equivalent of secession, and should be treated the same way.
20
Look at the states where the legislators have introduced bills to prohibit government employees from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. As a resident of Oklahoma, and a 20 year resident of Texas, I can tell you that these are states that would still ban interracial marriage if they could get away with it. These states are like they are because they're decades behind the rest of the country. The state Republicans say they want the government to stay out of people's lives, but they try to dictate the most personal aspects of people's lives.
46
Amen. The only civil rights advances of the last 150 years I think these former-Confederates are mostly on-board with are ending slavery and letting women vote. In their hearts of hearts, they would roll back the clock to Jim Crow if they could (Rand Paul questions the most basic of the civil rights laws of the sixties). They've been on the wrong side of every civil rights battle for the entire history of this country. The "progressives" among them would ask gays to accept civil unions, hoping the country forgets they were against civil unions up until about five minutes ago. And as recently as the 70s they were vehemently anti-Catholic, until they found common cause on abortion. Sad.
10
"Although polls have shown growing support for same-sex marriage nationwide, there is still a large number of Americans who remain opposed on religious grounds..."
Please see:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
You won't have to look far, it's the first sentence of the first amendment to the Constitution.
Religious belief has NOTHING to do with this, and as such is irrelevant reporting.
Please see:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
You won't have to look far, it's the first sentence of the first amendment to the Constitution.
Religious belief has NOTHING to do with this, and as such is irrelevant reporting.
15
I'm not gay but I am human. People who are married live longer. They enjoy a wider spectrum of activities. They often work for their community projects in tandem. They care more about their property and neighbors. Being married doesn't mean a person is going to get a free pass into heaven. It is certainly not always easy being married but at times it is the most wonderful thing on earth. It can also be the worst thing a person will ever experience.
I was 2x divorced married at 19 divorced at 21, married at 24 divorced at 30. I swore I would never marry again. Since I never intended to have anymore children I really didn't see the sense of marrying. That was until I met the man I am married to now. I married him at 50. Why? I was happy not to marry and just live with him. Because 911 came and suddenly the French were no longer welcomed in the states. We married so that our stupid governments could not separate us. I have not regretted my decision on day nor has he.
It is nobody's business what draws 2 people together. If some invisible person finds it offensive then they can do whatever is in their power to do. But I believe that if there is a supreme being who was smart enough to form the universe then that supreme being doesn't make mistakes, ever. If another person believes they know better bring them their Thorazine.
I was 2x divorced married at 19 divorced at 21, married at 24 divorced at 30. I swore I would never marry again. Since I never intended to have anymore children I really didn't see the sense of marrying. That was until I met the man I am married to now. I married him at 50. Why? I was happy not to marry and just live with him. Because 911 came and suddenly the French were no longer welcomed in the states. We married so that our stupid governments could not separate us. I have not regretted my decision on day nor has he.
It is nobody's business what draws 2 people together. If some invisible person finds it offensive then they can do whatever is in their power to do. But I believe that if there is a supreme being who was smart enough to form the universe then that supreme being doesn't make mistakes, ever. If another person believes they know better bring them their Thorazine.
14
If only these oddly behind-the-times folk were as devoted to legislating against hate as they are against love, we could make some evolutionary progress.
33
It's very important that Republicans who are honestly opposed to gay marriage enunciate their position clearly including their reasoning. In this way people in the US can make an informed decision and there's no more nod nod wink wink stuff. It is important that the evangelical side make sure the libertarian side knows where it stands and that it won't be pushed around by the Koch's anymore on these key issues.
3
Sure, but none of that matters. We have the constitution to decide law. There is no need for "people in the US can make an informed decision" as we do not vote on civil rights. The fact that we HAVE done so did not make those votes legal, thus you are seeing all of those votes to deny rights being unwound. It was shameful those votes were ever on a ballot.
15
So government officials are allowed in these states to apply religious litmus tests to determine whether they'll provide services to the public they serve. I wonder if that will include preventing a marriage between atheists or people of different faiths.
27
You know, many Christians believe the biblical design, and that is that marriage is between a man and a woman.” So their belief trumps mine? See my church marries gays, lesbians, and their families. What about my 1st Amendment rights? Why do they believe their interpretation of our faith trumps mine. Anyone...please help me understand.
21
Let me see if I can try... essentially, the First Amendment doesn't protect just anybody, only them, and people who think and believe as they do. They believe this because the First Amendment was written by people who thought and believed as they do, which was all part of the grand design God. Whether or not that's true (it's not) is beside the point - it's their "truth," and that's all that matters. Besides, God's Law is ultimate, the First Amendment is only a means of implementing that law. If the First Amendment should happen to conflict with God's Law, well, you can guess which one must yield...
I suspect your question was rhetorical, and you already understand all this. But it's useful to try and understand the mindset you're dealing with.
I suspect your question was rhetorical, and you already understand all this. But it's useful to try and understand the mindset you're dealing with.
5
I seem to remember something about some old guys with numerous wives somewhere in that collection of stories sometimes called "The Bible". As far as I can determine, that is the only clue we have about what "god" had in mind regarding marriage. Can't find anything in that whole collection that defines marriage between only one man and one woman.
5
It all sounds reminiscent of the line from George Wallace's 1963 Inaugural Speech: "Segregation now, Segregation tomorrow, Segregation forever". Let's hope this hateful legal discrimination is as short-lived as that.
22
The rights of minorities are not subject to the will of the majority. It doesn't matter if that will is expressed by the legislature, by a state constitutional amendment or anything else. The rule if law you seek is embodied in the 14th amendment to the constitution, and the federal constitution trumps all state laws, no matter what.
States have the full right to define marriage any way they see fit, so long as they also fit that definition within the constitution. For example, they can set age and residency limits, but they cannot restrict marriage by race. What is happening now is that states are being limited to definitions that do not discriminate by gender, a principle accepted practically everywhere else in our society.
States have the full right to define marriage any way they see fit, so long as they also fit that definition within the constitution. For example, they can set age and residency limits, but they cannot restrict marriage by race. What is happening now is that states are being limited to definitions that do not discriminate by gender, a principle accepted practically everywhere else in our society.
2
Mr. Kallam is not being forced to be a county magistrate. Nothing is forcing him to perform marriages other than his desire to stay in his job. If he cannot perform the duties associated with his position in the civic government, then he has to step down for personal and indeed religious reasons. An observant Jewish butcher cannot insist that his place of employment stop selling pork because of hjs personal beliefs, nor can he refuse to perform the duties required of him and expect to keep his job. To pursue the metaphor, he would need to seek a job either with a Kosher butcher or choose another profession. Mr. Kallam is in the same situation.
52
I know several desperately unemployed people that would love his job and will promise not to discriminate.
26
Logically, the "sincerely held religious belief" these individuals espouse should lead them to decline to work for the state governments that are recognizing same-sex marriage. Their beliefs do not entitle them to rewrite laws. Their argument is nothing but a fig leaf to disguise the blatant hatred and discrimination they wish to have enshrined in law. I say let them resign their jobs and good riddance.
57
Amen brother! Would the argument work if county clerks across the South had refused to marry inter-raccial couples because it was their sincerely held religiously based belief that interracial marriage was a desecration of the institution.
PS-Where's all that Christian love I keep hearing about?
PS-Where's all that Christian love I keep hearing about?
22
I agree. I want them to have their beliefs but if it interferes with their ability to perform their duties then I hope the door does hit them in the bum.
10
Well-said! Thank you!
2
Fine fine there are thousands of ordained ministers who will get on buses to these places and perform same sex marriages. Call them today's freedom rider. In fact it is easy to become ordained so a friend can do the wedding. Becoming ordained is freedom of religion under the constitution. These bigots are painting themselves into a corner.
16
In the case of government workers who object to issuing same gender marriage licenses, their religious liberty can be easily accommodated. Simply assign the job to a coworker who can complete the task.
4
I think I'll try that tactic at my job the next time I receive an assignment. I'll tell my manager, "I don't want to do that ... please assign this one to someone else."
Her response? "You're fired."
Her response? "You're fired."
17
One thing that encourages me is that if you look at the majority of people who think this way ( and fortunately they are in the minority), they are generally older people. The younger generation, even trending Republican, are very open minded and non-Biblical on this issue. As time goes on, the unfortunately ignorant and biased ones will give way to more and more who think "What's the big deal?"
10
There has never been a credible argument against same sex marriage. Ever.
44
The argument that turns a positive right for one person into a limitation of someone else's religious freedom is pure sophistry. Another NYT article regarding attempts to overturn state constitutional bans on atheists holding office used the same trick.
The difference between permitting a Sikh soldier to wear a beard and turban and permitting a federal judge to refuse a couple marriage is manifest. One involves the individual alone, the other is an individual (acting on behalf of the state!) quashing the rights of another.
You can think it's wrong to be gay; no one can stop you. But if you are acting as an agent of the state, you must play by the non-discrimination rules of that state. You couldn't deny a marriage license to mixed race couples, even if you had a sincere religious conviction about that. End of argument.
The difference between permitting a Sikh soldier to wear a beard and turban and permitting a federal judge to refuse a couple marriage is manifest. One involves the individual alone, the other is an individual (acting on behalf of the state!) quashing the rights of another.
You can think it's wrong to be gay; no one can stop you. But if you are acting as an agent of the state, you must play by the non-discrimination rules of that state. You couldn't deny a marriage license to mixed race couples, even if you had a sincere religious conviction about that. End of argument.
31
"...John Kallam Jr., a Rockingham County magistrate [and] a Baptist minister, said he went to the judge who served as his supervisor to see if there was a way he could opt out of marrying gay couples, but was unable to work out a solution. On Oct. 31, Mr. Kallam resigned after nearly 12 years on the job.
“I felt — and still feel — that that is stepping on my right of religious freedom,” he said."
No Mr. Kallam, this is not about preserving your religious freedom, it is about preventing your idea of religious freedom from being used in a tyrannical manner.
“I felt — and still feel — that that is stepping on my right of religious freedom,” he said."
No Mr. Kallam, this is not about preserving your religious freedom, it is about preventing your idea of religious freedom from being used in a tyrannical manner.
44
Mr Kallum: there is no RIGHT to be a magistrate. It is a PRIVILEGE. With the privilege of being on the public payroll come responsibilities, such as upholding the laws of the land. If you can not do so, you did the right thing by resigning, before you end up removed from office for official misconduct.
3
I don't tell people what religious beliefs they can have, just like people shouldn't be able to tell me who I can marry. You would think that is simple, common sense.
16
But we are not dealing with common sense people. We are dealing with religious zealots who have misconstrued the freedom to practice ones faith into the freedom to evangelize their faith upon others by using their jobs and their votes as weapons.
16
Also, we are dealing with people who over the course of their lifetime have carefully trained themselves (and their spouses/children/friends) to do away with anything resembling logical thought. One is simply supposed to have "faith". Asking questions or challenging accepted beliefs means that you are lacking in faith, and thus a Very Bad Christian.
3
The issue is not whether folks have a right to their Christian belief about marriage; rather, the issue is whether we live in country that is defined as Christian. Since the Constitution defines the country as pluralistic with respect to religion, laws based on the beliefs of particular religions are unconstitutional on their face. Especially so when they violate other constitutional guarantees, like equal protection under the laws.
Christian clergy are entitled to refuse to marry same sex couples in private, Christian-based religious settings. Public servants who happen to be Christian in their private lives are not entitled to refuse to perform civil marriages as members of the government of a secular nation.
Christian clergy are entitled to refuse to marry same sex couples in private, Christian-based religious settings. Public servants who happen to be Christian in their private lives are not entitled to refuse to perform civil marriages as members of the government of a secular nation.
41
Kudos for a well written statement. But unfortunately, this is not how many religious zealots believe. They feel they are anointed to tell you how to live your life and how to believe in GOD. We need to place these people safely back in their homes and houses of worship where they belong. They do not belong in government or in the public square unless they can control themselves.
12
I would actually support a church's right to be selective about who they would marry in their church, or a pastor's right to choose who he would marry in his role as pastor. Government officials, however, including probate judges and justices of the peace, are employed to serve all the people. Their personal religious beliefs should be kept to themselves while they're on the clock.
236
Well of course. Churches can and do exercise that right all the time.
7
Thank you for adding your support to rights already awarded to a church and pastor. They do not have to marry anyone if they choose not to. These zealots are tossing red herrings on this issue. But I believe if any government official cannot fulfill the duties of his/her office, and I will be happy to point them to the door. Just like my boss would if I refused to do my job.
8
Churches and clergy, of course, already have that right. Many decline to marry interfaith couples, for example, or any couples outside of their own church - as they should be able to decline
4
re the statement 'It IS your right to not issue a marriage license if it goes against your beliefs" The person issuing the license is acting as an agent of the state, they are not issuing their own personal license. What they do or do not sincerely believe is immaterial as to the validity of the license. (They could always change jobs.)
26
Marriage is a human rights issue. Regardless of sexual orientation, people assume multiple roles in society, including, without limitation, community members, parents, caregivers to family members and others, leaders, workers, entrepreneurs, adherents to various religious beliefs, own property, sell property, vote, pay taxes at all levels, drive, attend social events, etc. Sexual orientation is a private matter and does not impact any or all the other roles a functioning member of society assumes. If two people are willing to assume the responsibilities and commitment of marriage, sexual orientation is irrelevant. Under the First Amendment, we ALL have the right to the free exercise of religion, but not at the cost of discriminating against others. This principle has been long-established, both in the courts and legislatures. These state officials, and their surrogates, are on the wrong side of history.
76
Their oath to support the Federal Constitution was an oath taken in vain and in jest.
He compared his situation to that of a Sikh soldier, with whom he served in the United States Army, who was allowed to wear a turban and grow his beard because these were central to his religion. “Does not the federal government allow for different people to have different religious beliefs?” he said.
* * * * *
Mr. Kallam is reaching here, as the Sikh soldier would still be able to carry out all his duties as a soldier. However, Mr. Kallam would be unable to carry out all his duties as a magistrate. This was a rather lame comparison on his part. His right to practice his religion is not being impaired in any way; he's confusing his job requirements with practicing his religion.
* * * * *
Mr. Kallam is reaching here, as the Sikh soldier would still be able to carry out all his duties as a soldier. However, Mr. Kallam would be unable to carry out all his duties as a magistrate. This was a rather lame comparison on his part. His right to practice his religion is not being impaired in any way; he's confusing his job requirements with practicing his religion.
58
Hey 'baggers, get this one through your thick skulls: "there is still a large number of Americans who remain opposed TO religious grounds" for any decision affecting this country.
27
Having lived in California my entire life, more specifically Long Beach and now San Francisco, I am always baffled to read of legislation like the proposed South Carolina bills. My initial reaction stems from the increasingly common blatant disregard of separation of church and state that seems to accompany this issue without fail. Perhaps I, an individual who has never considered himself religious, am more easily disgusted by the acceptance of the legally sanctioned practice of misinterpreted faith. To preserve the moral integrity of our nation, if nothing else, those in service of the nation and more importantly the people, who would allow such personal factors to influence and, in this case, prevent equal treatment before the law must, in agreement with Adam from Tallahassee, be driven from their posts and barred from the judiciary.
Legislation of this sort serves to accomplish one of two things: To spread out-dated, unjust messages of hate towards the LGBT community and to undermine the strength of a government that is, after decades if not centuries of unequal delegation of rights all of its citizens, attempting to move forward and fully embrace its founding principal of "Liberty and Justice For All." These judges and magistrates are hiding behind the veil of religious belief to mask the face of bigotry. I am optimistic, but not confident, that our SCOTUS will not allow such injustice. Let us all hope America makes a progressive decision in weeks to come.
Legislation of this sort serves to accomplish one of two things: To spread out-dated, unjust messages of hate towards the LGBT community and to undermine the strength of a government that is, after decades if not centuries of unequal delegation of rights all of its citizens, attempting to move forward and fully embrace its founding principal of "Liberty and Justice For All." These judges and magistrates are hiding behind the veil of religious belief to mask the face of bigotry. I am optimistic, but not confident, that our SCOTUS will not allow such injustice. Let us all hope America makes a progressive decision in weeks to come.
25
If tghe Supreme Court rules that prohibiting same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, how can any elected official (or an appointed one acting in a official capacity, such as a court clerk) opt out on permitting people to exercise a constitutional right? Lunacy.
14
These so-called "Christians" and state reps, in their delusional fanaticism, will not be satisfied until their form of "Sharia Law" is imposed on the rest of us.
47
A generation ago these same people would have argued that their religious beliefs should allow them not to grant marriage certificates to couples of different races. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now.
311
Not only that, several more generations ago many of these same people would have argued that they were morally entitled to practice chattel slavery.
10
"there is still a large number of Americans who remain opposed on religious grounds"
Yes, but you don't have to be a religious person to hold the opinion that state defined marriage should be between a man and a woman. The concept that the male-female relationship has unique capacities the state would be interested in is not a religious argument. This entirely rational view point is silenced in the discussion as this article so well illustrates. The "comments" bar here doesn't allow for the very important discussion of this here, but this general point must be made.
Yes, but you don't have to be a religious person to hold the opinion that state defined marriage should be between a man and a woman. The concept that the male-female relationship has unique capacities the state would be interested in is not a religious argument. This entirely rational view point is silenced in the discussion as this article so well illustrates. The "comments" bar here doesn't allow for the very important discussion of this here, but this general point must be made.
1
OK, give us a rational argument purely based on non-religious grounds that there is a valid reason to deny a segment of tax-paying citizens from being able to have the same rights. Make sure it is based on facts and not opinions, which hold no legal weight. Keep in mind that many LGBT couples raise children. Go ahead, do it. Do it right now, right here.
10
@guysmiley-
The only thing wrong with your argument about the male-female relationship having unique capabilities has been rejected by the courts, there is nothing rational about it. The idea that male-female couples can have children as the basis for marriage is illogical and specious, for the very reason that 1)married couples adopt children, and gay couples can do that, or have kids via surrogates and such and 2)that we allow couples to get married who don't have children, or can't because they are past the age of having kids. The whole "marriage is about procreation" is in of itself religious in nature, it goes back to the idea that married couples have sex, and said sex is 'always about procreation", which is a Catholic idea, not even shared by a lot of other faiths.For your argument to even have a chance, the state would need to deny marriage licenses to couples who don't want kids (and if they can't, take it away from them) or people past the age of having kids, then it would be equal criteria, but we don't.
More importantly, in the SCOTUS case that threw out Prop 8, the proponents of the ban admitted that there was no rational basis for the ban, that the argument was based in religious belief.
The only thing wrong with your argument about the male-female relationship having unique capabilities has been rejected by the courts, there is nothing rational about it. The idea that male-female couples can have children as the basis for marriage is illogical and specious, for the very reason that 1)married couples adopt children, and gay couples can do that, or have kids via surrogates and such and 2)that we allow couples to get married who don't have children, or can't because they are past the age of having kids. The whole "marriage is about procreation" is in of itself religious in nature, it goes back to the idea that married couples have sex, and said sex is 'always about procreation", which is a Catholic idea, not even shared by a lot of other faiths.For your argument to even have a chance, the state would need to deny marriage licenses to couples who don't want kids (and if they can't, take it away from them) or people past the age of having kids, then it would be equal criteria, but we don't.
More importantly, in the SCOTUS case that threw out Prop 8, the proponents of the ban admitted that there was no rational basis for the ban, that the argument was based in religious belief.
11
Same sex marriage does not harm or hinder man woman marriage, or its "unique capacities," in any actual way. Banning same sex marriage harms actual people. Yours is not an "entirely rational" argument anyway: it rests on ranking one value (procreation in wedlock, I presume) above others (every other positive value of being married). Although each of us is free to value one thing more than another, making these value judgments is not, fundamentally, a rational process. No, what you're offering is what's known as a "rationalization."
10
I'm not sure why they don't get it. The Church can ban it. The state can not.
If you are of legal capacity, you can contract. And marriage has a long history in common law of being a contract. If these states want to get around this, they'll have to make marriage available as a church ceremony only and not issue any state license. If they believe in Church so much, then do away with state issuance of marriage certificates all together. Give marriage no legal standing in the state.
If you are of legal capacity, you can contract. And marriage has a long history in common law of being a contract. If these states want to get around this, they'll have to make marriage available as a church ceremony only and not issue any state license. If they believe in Church so much, then do away with state issuance of marriage certificates all together. Give marriage no legal standing in the state.
9
And to extend your logic (?) those states would need to secede and form a new government, at which time they can declare theocracies and begin the process of deporting non-christians (presumably) to …. where?
I would sign on if it would mean getting rid of most of the deep south once and for all. Just think how the rest of us would be unburdened and could move forward!
I would sign on if it would mean getting rid of most of the deep south once and for all. Just think how the rest of us would be unburdened and could move forward!
4
Whenever I hear the word "Sinners'" I want to see the speaker apply that description to every living person on this Planet.
Otherwise, it is obvious that they are only raising to sacramental level something that is well-known to be nothing but ugly prejudice.
Otherwise, it is obvious that they are only raising to sacramental level something that is well-known to be nothing but ugly prejudice.
6
I wish there was as much energy behind anti-childhood poverty programs in these states as there is against same sex marriage. People claiming to be acting in service of their deeply held religious beliefs seem to be narrowly selective in what parts of the biblical mandate they choose to enforce. The willingness to do nothing for hungry children in underperforming schools abolishes any credibility these people might otherwise have in making their claims. They will be the ones whom Christ never knew.
92
@jack-
Or for that matter, claim to be Christian, then spread the GOP 'prosperity gospel', that Jesus blessed the rich, and the idea that the poor and those who have become economically marginalized are that way because of their own fault, and dance all over the place to show that the margin between the rich and everyone else growing is okay by Jesus...
Or for that matter, claim to be Christian, then spread the GOP 'prosperity gospel', that Jesus blessed the rich, and the idea that the poor and those who have become economically marginalized are that way because of their own fault, and dance all over the place to show that the margin between the rich and everyone else growing is okay by Jesus...
7
Is he the reincarnation of George C Wallace? This man is a sad reflection on Alabama and a relic of the past, destined for the scrap heap of history. A genuine menace to civil society.
17
Desperation is what this is all about. The war is over. Even if the Supremes make a colossally bad call, this issue will not go away. It will ultimately happen no matter how many crazy last ditch efforts are thrown in the path.
17
But the Sikh fellow never insisted that you wear a turban and grow a beard.
33
It IS your right to not issue a marriage license if it goes against your beliefs. I would have moral qualms as a baker serving cake to someone who is obese. Luckily, I'm not a baker.
And so it is the magistrate's right to resign if he refuses, in a secular/legal context, to carry out the duty of his sworn office based on his beliefs. The state must still prove a magistrate to carry out legal services on behalf of the citizens, regardless of the personal beliefs of its servants.
3
No. If you are a civil servant and you are tasked with issuing the marriage license, your duties ONLY extend to verifying that the couple meets the state's legal requirements -- like making sure they are old enough, are actually residents of the county/state, etc. It is never a civil servant's job to pass moral judgment on people requesting a marriage license.
Perhaps an officiant actually performing the wedding ceremony might have some leeway, but the civil servant's personal opinion has absolutely NO relevance. Imagine a teetotaler working in a civil service job, and has strong moral objections to people drinking -- would it be okay for such a person to deny a business license to someone wanting to open a bar, even if the business owner passes all the requirements to obtain a liquor license?
There is a limit to how far personal convictions can be imposed onto other people.
Perhaps an officiant actually performing the wedding ceremony might have some leeway, but the civil servant's personal opinion has absolutely NO relevance. Imagine a teetotaler working in a civil service job, and has strong moral objections to people drinking -- would it be okay for such a person to deny a business license to someone wanting to open a bar, even if the business owner passes all the requirements to obtain a liquor license?
There is a limit to how far personal convictions can be imposed onto other people.
16
Well you can SAY it is, but you can't prove it. You can't site actual law where it is legal to not perform government duties based on religious beliefs. Really, you can't.
4
Public officials at all levels must have priorities besides discriminating against constituents. It is such figures who should be called out, not those who assist in same-sex marriages.
6
Remember Kids: Islamic rules and Sharia law are evil horrible backwards things.
But laws based on ONE interpretation of the Christian (and Jewish) Bible is A-OK and Absolutely NORMAL. No backwards ultra-religious think here.
Move along. These aren't the backwards laws you are looking for.
But laws based on ONE interpretation of the Christian (and Jewish) Bible is A-OK and Absolutely NORMAL. No backwards ultra-religious think here.
Move along. These aren't the backwards laws you are looking for.
42
Would they also deny delivering mail to married gays by a postal worker who has such backwards beliefs?
Or allowing EMS workers to not get someone to the hospital?
It is entrenched bigotry and ignorance, not "belief" that drives these people.
Or allowing EMS workers to not get someone to the hospital?
It is entrenched bigotry and ignorance, not "belief" that drives these people.
82
Actually they probably would.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/michigan-house-passes-bill-allowing-health-c...
http://www.medicaldaily.com/michigan-house-passes-bill-allowing-health-c...
3
Since NONE of the county clerks, or wedding service vendors discriminated against SINNERS, their claims that this is a matter of their religious discretion is a blatant lie and always has been.
This is a means by which to only discriminate against gay citizens, and subject gay people to a religious test NO ONE is required to take, to get married or obtain goods and services.
Alabama, late to the party on mixed marriages and integrating schools, is late again on the social justice to which gay people are long overdue.
Shame on them, and shame on any person of supposed faith that thinks this should fool a court of law as to the purpose of such bills.
This is a means by which to only discriminate against gay citizens, and subject gay people to a religious test NO ONE is required to take, to get married or obtain goods and services.
Alabama, late to the party on mixed marriages and integrating schools, is late again on the social justice to which gay people are long overdue.
Shame on them, and shame on any person of supposed faith that thinks this should fool a court of law as to the purpose of such bills.
39
Who really wants to be governed by people who do not have even an elementary concept of equal protection of the law?
26
The answer to your question "Who really wants to be governed by people who do not have even an elementary concept of equal protection of the law?"
is those who share the same small minded bigoted attitudes.
That was easy.
is those who share the same small minded bigoted attitudes.
That was easy.
9
@stevebolger-
Easy answer, the great american hookworm belt and the farm belt, it is why they vote Republican time and again, a party that seems to have decided that the world was much better off when women, blacks and gays, "knew their place".
Easy answer, the great american hookworm belt and the farm belt, it is why they vote Republican time and again, a party that seems to have decided that the world was much better off when women, blacks and gays, "knew their place".
9
“You know, many Christians believe the biblical design, and that is that marriage is between a man and a woman.”
Dear Senator Bright,
Actually, I think the biblical design is that marriage is between a man and several women.
Dear Senator Bright,
Actually, I think the biblical design is that marriage is between a man and several women.
184
Amen to that. Bible fairy tale book is less useful than Aesops fables for teaching life lessons.
8
That's still "male/female" marriage -- many cultures have polygamy. However, NO CULTURE and no society in no era have ever had gay marriage before the present day -- even cultures like Ancient Greece which openly accepted homosexuality. They still realized that no matter how romantic, two men and two women are not a married couple.
Though there IS polygamy in the Bible, 99.9% of men never had more than 1 wife. It was something for the very rich. An ordinary man in the Bronze Age could never have supported more than one wife.
Only a man and a woman can ever conceive a child. But I guess you're mad at Mother Nature, too!
(BTW: I am not religious, and this is not a reflection of any religious ideology. I just believe that marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman.)
Though there IS polygamy in the Bible, 99.9% of men never had more than 1 wife. It was something for the very rich. An ordinary man in the Bronze Age could never have supported more than one wife.
Only a man and a woman can ever conceive a child. But I guess you're mad at Mother Nature, too!
(BTW: I am not religious, and this is not a reflection of any religious ideology. I just believe that marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman.)
@concerned citizen.
If your argument is that "no culture in no society in no era have ever had gay marriage before the present day", then you are on a shaky foundation. http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html
If your argument is that only a man and a woman can conceive a child, therefore marriage should only apply to them, then you are also using really weak logic. Marriage has less to do with procreation, and more to do with who you love and want to marry. If someone is sterile, should they not be allowed to marry? Who's to say a gay couple can't adopt (the science says they make great parents).
Your arguments are not very compelling, especially since you are trying to disenfranchise peoples wants.
If your argument is that "no culture in no society in no era have ever had gay marriage before the present day", then you are on a shaky foundation. http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html
If your argument is that only a man and a woman can conceive a child, therefore marriage should only apply to them, then you are also using really weak logic. Marriage has less to do with procreation, and more to do with who you love and want to marry. If someone is sterile, should they not be allowed to marry? Who's to say a gay couple can't adopt (the science says they make great parents).
Your arguments are not very compelling, especially since you are trying to disenfranchise peoples wants.
8
Last I heard, no public official has refused a portion of their salary for only believing in doing a portion of their job. If their job is to issue marriage licenses, dog licenses or receive payments for parking tickets, they should do that job. If they find parking tickets to be immoral since public parking is owned by the collective, then they should not be in a position to assess and receipt the fine therein generated. Same with any other function. Just leave.
42
Clearly some government officials are going to have to be jailed for contempt before this is all over.
38
They are the heirs to George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door. Now they stand in the County Clerk's door. What ever happened to "love thy neighbor as thyself?"
3
There is a clear, bright line between holding your own personal religious beliefs and trying to impose them on other people. Religions that embrace activist evangelism have a very hard time understanding this line, despite its clarity to the rest of us.
Fundamentalist evangelicals of all stripes believe that theirs is the only true interpretation of a Divine decree, that this decree trumps civil rules and multicultural respect, and that anyone who does not follow the decree will suffer Divine retribution at some point in time. Some of these evangelicals, like Boko Haram, the Taliban or Al Queda, bring the retribution in their bandoliers; others, like Scientologists, use brainwashing and extreme social and economic pressures; others still, like Southern Baptists or Mormons, threaten everlasting damnation.
I have met individuals who seem to truly worry about the spiritual implications of nonbelief/adherence, but it seems that the majority of these evangelists are primarily concerned with forcing their will on others. Their common enemy is civil society, which defends that bright line against their many-pronged attacks and upholds the right of the individual to follow their own conscience as long as it does not lead them to infringe on others.
One would think that Senator Bright, Justice Moore and their ilk would understand this fundamental principle even if they disagree with its every application.
Fundamentalist evangelicals of all stripes believe that theirs is the only true interpretation of a Divine decree, that this decree trumps civil rules and multicultural respect, and that anyone who does not follow the decree will suffer Divine retribution at some point in time. Some of these evangelicals, like Boko Haram, the Taliban or Al Queda, bring the retribution in their bandoliers; others, like Scientologists, use brainwashing and extreme social and economic pressures; others still, like Southern Baptists or Mormons, threaten everlasting damnation.
I have met individuals who seem to truly worry about the spiritual implications of nonbelief/adherence, but it seems that the majority of these evangelists are primarily concerned with forcing their will on others. Their common enemy is civil society, which defends that bright line against their many-pronged attacks and upholds the right of the individual to follow their own conscience as long as it does not lead them to infringe on others.
One would think that Senator Bright, Justice Moore and their ilk would understand this fundamental principle even if they disagree with its every application.
240
Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. The religious extremists are very consistent on this issue.
4
What an interesting article. The State of South Carolina was the birthplace of John C. Calhoun. Calhoun was perhaps the leading early American proponent of the doctrine of state nullification of federal laws and the concept of state secession. It is sad that today, Calhoun's intellectual descendents continue to advance his discredited theories in an effort to deny the equal protection of the laws to certain citizens.
30
@charles-
The only thing wrong with your post is calling these people the intellectual descendents of Calhoun..to claim that, you would need to think they have an intellect, which is obvious they do not, the way Calhoun lacked intellect.
The only thing wrong with your post is calling these people the intellectual descendents of Calhoun..to claim that, you would need to think they have an intellect, which is obvious they do not, the way Calhoun lacked intellect.
5
Are we also going to grant Catholic judges, county clerks, etc. the right to opt out from issuing marriage licenses to people who were previously married and did not get an annulment from the church?
Right, I didn't think so.
Life's so short. How terribly wasteful to devote any of it to trying to deny consenting adults the right to marry.
Right, I didn't think so.
Life's so short. How terribly wasteful to devote any of it to trying to deny consenting adults the right to marry.
127
Actually, Jen, I have no problem with that, even though I am not Catholic and not even a Christian.
I have no need to force anyone to perform my marriage who does not believe my marriage is valid -- FOR ANY REASON, even a reason I feel is stupid.
There is no shortage of people who will be very happy to solemnize your gay or lesbian "marriage'.
I have no need to force anyone to perform my marriage who does not believe my marriage is valid -- FOR ANY REASON, even a reason I feel is stupid.
There is no shortage of people who will be very happy to solemnize your gay or lesbian "marriage'.
@Concerned ... does that analogy extend to other parts of the law? Suppose a cop believes it's okay to kill certain people because his religion provides for that. Are you going to justify his murdering a citizen he doesn't like because his strongly-held beliefs permit that he do so? Or a judge to refuse to rule on a case where the victim is gay or lesbian, because his religion allows him to consider that person a second-class citizen? Why have laws at all if we can't depend on public servants to enforce them?
10
Well it's a very good thing you're not in charge of creating public policy, Concerned Citizen.
11
Seek out these vile individuals and drive them into the sea. Or at least take away their pensions. We should no more tolerate anti-homosexual political perspectives than we do any other platform predicated upon hateful bias or racism.
27
If the Supreme Court rules that discrimination is justified by religious belief it will be a pandora's box that makes Citizens United look like airline peanuts. This is what the 2O16 election is all about. Do you want a Supreme Court controlled for the next 25-3O years by Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts?
"I am sorry but my religion views you as a sinner, and the Supreme Court has ruled that I don't have to serve you. Please leave the premises or I will have to call security."
"I am sorry but my religion views you as a sinner, and the Supreme Court has ruled that I don't have to serve you. Please leave the premises or I will have to call security."
41
This would lead right to the next question: what is a valid religion? I would really like to see the Supreme Court deal with that one. If they don't I can see plenty of parody religions, in addition to the flying spaghetti monster, popping up to poke fun at non-parody religious folk.
11
I was married in an Episcopalian church. Isn't that a valid religion? I would like to see the SC say that RCC doctrine has greater standing.
5
It's okay for anyone to have their religious belief. Just don't try to enforce your religion on other people as law. I constantly hear politicians and interest groups quoting Bible as the reason to ban gay marriage. But what about me, who is gay and Buddhist and a US citizen that pays his tax dollars? According to Buddhist scriptures, all beings are equal and have the same divine nature in them.
40
Aren't social engineering courts and legislatures DOING JUST THAT -- forcing their lefty liberal views on the vast majority of voters who have voted to retain traditional marriage?
Ok, Concerned Citizen, please explain in a rational argument how "courts and legislatures DOING JUST THAT". I assume you mean that other folks being granted marriage rights somehow infringe on your right to impose your views on them, right? Otherwise you will need to prove personal harm. We will wait as you flesh-out that argument.
11
NO, that would be if they annulled those marriages and only allowed gay or lesbian marriages. Expanding the definition has not detracted in any way from the others.
5
"Republican state legislators in Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas have introduced bills this year that would prohibit state or local government employees from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples"
It is so disheartening to see elected officials waving their religious doctrines around all the while claiming to servants of the people. Aren't gay people part of the nation as well. don't they deserve to be treated like human beings? didn't these elected officials swear an oath to UPHOLD THE LAWS OF THE LAND?
What happened to the doctrine of separation of church and state? Shouldn't these members of congress face censure from their respective branches? Aren't their political actions depriving citizens of their rights expressed in the Constitution that these people have sworn to uphold?
It is so disheartening to see elected officials waving their religious doctrines around all the while claiming to servants of the people. Aren't gay people part of the nation as well. don't they deserve to be treated like human beings? didn't these elected officials swear an oath to UPHOLD THE LAWS OF THE LAND?
What happened to the doctrine of separation of church and state? Shouldn't these members of congress face censure from their respective branches? Aren't their political actions depriving citizens of their rights expressed in the Constitution that these people have sworn to uphold?
29
Mr. Kallam did the right thing, he quit his job as magistrate judge. He respected the separation of church and state. All state and federal employees with duties related to same-sex marriage, however, whom have a "strong religious belief" against same-sex marriage, should seek employment elsewhere.
39
So, could a Buddhist clerk opt out of issuing fishing and hunting licenses under the proposed South Carolina bill?
51
@ Greg Niwot, CO, USA
So, could a Buddhist clerk opt out of issuing fishing and hunting licenses under the proposed South Carolina bill?
Fishing and hunting - well yes, a whole deer season may be missed. But what of a hemorrhaging patient in a small town hospital, with a devote Jehovah Witness doctor on call?
So, could a Buddhist clerk opt out of issuing fishing and hunting licenses under the proposed South Carolina bill?
Fishing and hunting - well yes, a whole deer season may be missed. But what of a hemorrhaging patient in a small town hospital, with a devote Jehovah Witness doctor on call?
5
So if a county clerk has a sincerely held belief that attractive people shouldn't marry ugly people, then he should be able to veto these marriages? Since when has the county clerk been in a position of deciding who was worthy of marriage? Since when has that been the states business at all? Have the idiots in charge of these states heard of Loving vs. Virginia? Have they read the 14th Ammendment?
29
Uhhhhh, federal laws trump state laws, folks. If folks continue to follow state law after the Supreme Court rules in favor of same-sex marriage, I look forward to the federal courts being filled with civil rights suits that will go very quickly. One mighty way to get folks to change their mind is to sue them and break the bank. You better believe they'll learn real quick, religious beliefs or not, that they need to follow the LAW!
14
To John Kallam Jr., the Rockingham County, N.C., magistrate mentioned in the article:
The analogy you cite to a Sikh soldier being allowed to wear a turban is not apt. Nobody is forcing you to wear a turban or, for that matter, forcing you to marry another man. As a public official, you are being forced to permit your constituents to exercise their freedoms by marrying their same-sex partners. It is entirely appropriate that you be forced to do so.
You asked, “Does not the federal government allow for different people to have different religious beliefs?” The answer is yes, it does. You must also allow for your constituents to have different beliefs than you. You may not dictate their religious beliefs. How arrogant of you to think you can pick and choose which religious beliefs and whose beliefs are worthy of protection!
The analogy you cite to a Sikh soldier being allowed to wear a turban is not apt. Nobody is forcing you to wear a turban or, for that matter, forcing you to marry another man. As a public official, you are being forced to permit your constituents to exercise their freedoms by marrying their same-sex partners. It is entirely appropriate that you be forced to do so.
You asked, “Does not the federal government allow for different people to have different religious beliefs?” The answer is yes, it does. You must also allow for your constituents to have different beliefs than you. You may not dictate their religious beliefs. How arrogant of you to think you can pick and choose which religious beliefs and whose beliefs are worthy of protection!
49
My father is a Southern Baptist preacher, and he does not distinguish between religious law and secular. For him, and many Americans like him, we have an obligation to do right according to God, and that always trumps the Constitution. No matter how hard I try, I cannot convince him that Christians abide by laws that run contrary to their beliefs all the time--when, for example, they sell to customers who drink alcohol or when they pay taxes that fund warfare. Divorce is also frowned on in the Bible, but he wouldn't refuse someone a job because their marriage didn't work. I've also pointed out that even the teaching about homosexuality doesn't get the full vote from Christians--after all, the Bible says gays should be punished with death, and I don't see any respectable Americans calling for the death penalty for the LGBT community. Still, he won't budge. At a certain point I'll have to point out to him that his refusal to budge on this one issue--and this one alone, of all the many, many "laws" in the Old Testament--is how the rest of us know it's bigotry, not piety. Or that his understanding of God's law is not necessarily everyone's. It's something he needs to understand, but often understanding is the last thing to come to those like him. I feel sorry for him, and the ones he hurts with his misguided beliefs.
371
Your father is lucky that he lives in a country that will allow him to practice his beliefs, even if they are harmful to other people.
12
We must allow him to believe as he wishes. But if your Father lifts a finger to curtail the rights of other tax-paying, law abiding citizens then we must act with full vigor. I know it may be hard for him to believe but I am doing this for his own good. For when a finger is lifted against his religious beliefs I will be there to defend him with the same enthusiasm.
9
Great point. If he eats shellfish or mixes milk and meat he's violating the dietary principles laid down in the old testament. These folks get confused easily by the need the rest of us have to be at least mostly consistent in our beliefs.
11
While not doing a quick bit of research I am sure that the same kinds of obstacles to civil rights, to the end of slavery, to a woman's right to vote, the right of white and African American people to marry, were present then as now. How easy and convenient it is to hide behind the Bible.
53
The right for women to vote was not imposed on states that voted against.
Actually the exact opposite -- a 2/3rds majority of the states voted to RATIFY the 19th Amendment, giving women the vote.
In short: women got the right to vote because they convinced the vast majority that it was a good thing. Not because courts or legislatures wanted to impose THEIR OWN morality on everyone else.
Actually the exact opposite -- a 2/3rds majority of the states voted to RATIFY the 19th Amendment, giving women the vote.
In short: women got the right to vote because they convinced the vast majority that it was a good thing. Not because courts or legislatures wanted to impose THEIR OWN morality on everyone else.
Following your logic, then, it would have been necessary to RATIFY an amendment giving black Americans the right to marry white Americans. The morality that is being imposed here (as with miscegenation) is that of the Christian heterosexual portion of the populace; the law is fixing this imbalance and allowing those who are being imposed upon to live freely and with equal protection.
7
Well yes, Concerned Citizen (busy again today, as usual), and it was a sad day that women's civil right to vote was put to a vote. But even you can easily see how that would have been a fairly successful strategy for women to gain the vote, being slightly more that 50% of the population. Now, the likes of you usually like to claim that there are only a few of us gays, so can you imagine how successful a constitutional amendment process would have been for us? Chances of success? Close to zero. But here's the thing: we have other protections in the United States of America - it's part of what makes us great - and that means the majority does not get to determine the rights of a minority.
9
I bet the same or greater percentages of people in these states supported slavery before 1865 and cited the Constitution and the Bible for support. They also, before 1967, thought that blacks and whites shouldn't marry, based upon so called states' rights and the Bible. The 14th Amendment of the Constitution is part of the supreme law of this land and I believe the Justices will find for same sex marriage and they did for inter-racial marriage.
41
You mean states like Ohio? and California? which voted to preserve traditional marriage and only recently. In CA, they voted TWICE for this.
I guess the only thing that matters is COURTS imposing THEIR OWN morality on everyone else! why bother voting, when the courts will decide anyways?
I guess the only thing that matters is COURTS imposing THEIR OWN morality on everyone else! why bother voting, when the courts will decide anyways?
You are getting lots of "Recommend" votes for all your comments on this topic! Keep it up!
3
The good folks of Anywheresville are at this very moment writing up a proposition to place on the ballot that no self-professed non believers, as you have described yourself in other comments here today, Concerned Citizen, have the right to marry in Anywheresville. I assume you will be happy about that. Tomorrow they will be writing a proposition to vote on the rights of people with blue eyes.
7
Allowing government employees to opt out of issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples does not work because it allows such government employees to practice their religion on other people.
62
It is an interesting phenomena: when Liberals gain control over an institution, they have no qualms about exercising raw power. Conservatives need to learn to adopt this level of ruthlessness.
Examples?
The ACA. Despite the fact that the majority of Americans opposed this law from the outset, (and still do) it didn't stop Liberals from ramming it through--straining parliamentary rules--with not a single Republican vote. Ruthless.
Colleges and Universities. Completely dominated by Liberals--whose mission is to brainwash students, stifle debate, present the Liberal viewpoint of every issue, and shut opposing viewpoints completely out of the system--refusing to hire Conservative professors--or allow Conservative speakers. Ruthless.
Hollywood: completely dominated by Liberals. Conservative actors in fact feel compelled to hide their opinions--lest they never work again. Do Liberals discriminate? Of course--ruthlessly.
Gay Marriage. The majority of states--including California--when citizens have been given a vote, have rejected gay marriage. But Liberal judges have rammed through rulings codifying gay marriage--in some cases invalidating the referendums passed by voters. Ruthless--and shameless.
If I had any advice for the newly elected Republican House and Senate, it would be this: don't give an inch--be completely ruthless. Don't flinch, don't look back. After all, Liberals would do the same--if given the chance. They have proven it many times.
Examples?
The ACA. Despite the fact that the majority of Americans opposed this law from the outset, (and still do) it didn't stop Liberals from ramming it through--straining parliamentary rules--with not a single Republican vote. Ruthless.
Colleges and Universities. Completely dominated by Liberals--whose mission is to brainwash students, stifle debate, present the Liberal viewpoint of every issue, and shut opposing viewpoints completely out of the system--refusing to hire Conservative professors--or allow Conservative speakers. Ruthless.
Hollywood: completely dominated by Liberals. Conservative actors in fact feel compelled to hide their opinions--lest they never work again. Do Liberals discriminate? Of course--ruthlessly.
Gay Marriage. The majority of states--including California--when citizens have been given a vote, have rejected gay marriage. But Liberal judges have rammed through rulings codifying gay marriage--in some cases invalidating the referendums passed by voters. Ruthless--and shameless.
If I had any advice for the newly elected Republican House and Senate, it would be this: don't give an inch--be completely ruthless. Don't flinch, don't look back. After all, Liberals would do the same--if given the chance. They have proven it many times.
3
The United States has a long history of NOT voting on civil rights...if civil rights historically had been put to a popular vote, only white male land-owners would have the right to vote. Your post, when one looks past the bombastic nature, is unsurprisingly low of actual facts, relying instead on FOX and talk radio's 'interpretation' of fact...from your revisionist history of the ACA and "Hollywood liberals" to your Limbaugh-esque myopic view of higher education in America; which by the way, you seem to have no actual experience with.
Maybe you need someone to explain to you that no one is requiring you to marry someone of the same sex, and in the decade plus that it has been legal,there is absolutely NO evidence of any societal or personal harm done to anyone.
Maybe you need someone to explain to you that no one is requiring you to marry someone of the same sex, and in the decade plus that it has been legal,there is absolutely NO evidence of any societal or personal harm done to anyone.
28
Jesse:
For information on the gay marriage issue see:
http://www.angelfire.com/home/leah/
From the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution as described at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause
The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws".
"The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws".
A primary motivation for this clause was to validate and perpetuate the equality provisions contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guaranteed that all people would have rights equal to those of white citizens. As a whole, the Fourteenth Amendment marked a large shift in American constitutionalism, by applying substantially more constitutional restrictions against the states than had applied before the Civil War."
Rather than attack a group (liberals) why not simply research the facts.
Perhaps you might remember that the Constitution declared African Americans as Three-Fifths citizens or people in order to control seats in the legislature. Since slaves couldn't vote it seemed appropriate to count them as Three-Fifths.
Fox News is not a good source.
For information on the gay marriage issue see:
http://www.angelfire.com/home/leah/
From the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution as described at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause
The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws".
"The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws".
A primary motivation for this clause was to validate and perpetuate the equality provisions contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guaranteed that all people would have rights equal to those of white citizens. As a whole, the Fourteenth Amendment marked a large shift in American constitutionalism, by applying substantially more constitutional restrictions against the states than had applied before the Civil War."
Rather than attack a group (liberals) why not simply research the facts.
Perhaps you might remember that the Constitution declared African Americans as Three-Fifths citizens or people in order to control seats in the legislature. Since slaves couldn't vote it seemed appropriate to count them as Three-Fifths.
Fox News is not a good source.
17
You know - you don't get to vote on what is constitutional and what isn't; not even in a democracy. Why is this so hard to comprehend?
Gravity - it's not just a good idea - it's the law (unless 60 Senators vote against it - after all, they're not scientists, you know).
Gravity - it's not just a good idea - it's the law (unless 60 Senators vote against it - after all, they're not scientists, you know).
9
Those who want the law to exempt people from requirements incumbent upon all other citizens on the basis of "sincerely held" religious beliefs should be careful what they wish for. Otherwise, courts will soon be in the business of determining which beliefs are "sincerely held" and which are merely excuses for bigotry. No public official should ever be able to discharge his or her public duties or not based on personal belief. If they cannot square their beliefs with the requirements of their jobs, they should find another job. Period.
88
"courts will soon be in the business of determining which beliefs are "sincerely held" and which are merely excuses for bigotry."
...and which religions even have sincerely held beliefs.
...and which religions even have sincerely held beliefs.
8
Soon we will have some teachers at state schools refusing to have gay students in class because it offends their own religious beliefs. Or, those such as myself, who decline to recognize Jesus as my own personal savior. And on and on.
52
How can it possibly be legal to strip away a public servants salary for doing their job according to federal law?
35
Yikes! All these uses of "religious grounds" to allow discrimination against gays sounds like the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling is fueling an epidemic.
When these attempts are hopefully thrown out I'm sure God will forgive the devout baker who made "Happy Anniversary Chris and Les" cake, only to find out it is for a same sex couple. God is much more compassionate than his followers.
When these attempts are hopefully thrown out I'm sure God will forgive the devout baker who made "Happy Anniversary Chris and Les" cake, only to find out it is for a same sex couple. God is much more compassionate than his followers.
17
I would prefer same-sex marriage to be legal, but I think this is severe overreach on the part of the Federal Supreme Court. Between they and President Obama, there seems to be a growing consensus that federal leadership is "in charge" of the states. I always considered thought it should be more of a partnership with mutual respect. A system in which the local official makes more calls whenever possible is fundamental to the establishment of sensible government. Perhaps it is only because I come from a small town with incredibly proficient, selfless local government that I feel this way, but somehow I think people should be afforded the chance to make decisions in their own back yards - even if, in this case, they are clearly making a bad decision.
8
Would you have let states decide on segregation? Inter-racial marriage? If not then why is this any different? I don't see any difference between any of these. If one is a "in their own back yards" issue then they all are.
Convenient to rationalize when you aren't the one suffering...
Convenient to rationalize when you aren't the one suffering...
39
Oh, so the Supreme Court's enforcement of the 14th Amendment is a severe overreach? What is the Supreme Court supposed to be doing? Sitting politely aside while the states run roughshod over the rights of American (versus "local") citizens? We are citizens of the United States of America ... not citizens of Minnesota or wherever you happen to live.
20
I don't think the Federal Supreme Court ruling constitutionality of any law is a severe overreach. State, local and federal governments can not be allowed to make laws that violate the US constitution.
20
Can't these guys see that after this is all over they are going to be the butt of jokes like people who advocated for segregation, Japanese internment camps, and other horrors from out history?
26
These people ARE the folks who support segregation and xenophobia. It's in their DNA.
16
It's odd that these objectors are talking about their beliefs. Performing a civil marriage ceremony isn't a belief, it's an action. Nobody is trying to force them to change what they believe; they are merely expected to do their jobs. In the same way, in the 1960s, a white restaurant owner had no legal obligation to like black people; he merely needed to serve them in his restaurant.
246
I have no objection to their personal views. We all have a right to personal likes and dislikes. I do object to people trying to impose their religious views on the rest of us, and attempting to use the government as a kind of religious police. That is plainly unconstitutional, in my opinion, and reminds me of other governments dominated by religion, such as Saudi Arabia and ISIS.
187
I've never seen a Jewish TV show preaching immediate, pending, and unavoidable doom unless you send money, repent your sins and become Jewish. It makes me believe Jews are strong, respectful of others, and of independent spirit. I was brought up Catholic, so now, of course, I'm a hard over atheist.
Anyone who objects to same sex marriage on religious or other grounds does not have to marry someone of the same sex. However they may not decide for me what I would choose to do.
70
Yeah, they kind of do. They're not pastors, their state funded magistrates whose sole job is to marry people. There is no reason to be able to discriminate based on religious beliefs. Can't do your job? Go home and look for a new one? Want to discriminate against gays wanting to get married? see you in court
36
Zed, by "marry person of the same sex" I believe rrrick means "get married to," not "perform a marriage ceremony for."
4
And so the multiple meanings of words in the english language causes misinterpretations again. My bad.
3
The attempt of some government employees or elected officials to avoid marrying gay couples is not the same as a private closely-held company's owner not paying for abortions as part of health insurance coverage for his employees, even if both are based on religious beliefs.
One is a private business owner responsible to no other entity; the government official must treat all persons, or at least all citizens the same. For the State and its officials equality before the law is the rule, period. No exceptions.
One is a private business owner responsible to no other entity; the government official must treat all persons, or at least all citizens the same. For the State and its officials equality before the law is the rule, period. No exceptions.
138
So under you logic a privately held business can discriminate against any minority? Wonderful why not just go live in Saudi Arabia
2
I think Peter is merely deferring to Hobby Lobby, as it is the law of the land apparently. I'm not sure he indicates an endorsement, however, Bkldy2004
4
Agreed. I would actually support a church's right to be selective about who they would marry in their church, or a pastor's right to choose who he would marry in his role as pastor. Government officials, including probate judges and justices of the peace, are employed to serve all the people. Their personal religious beliefs should be kept to themselves while they're on the clock.
9
First the south and other states wanted slavery. Then Jim Crow laws. Then anti segregation laws.Then abortion limits. Now restrictions on gay people.
This segment of American society is is not in the mainstream of American history. This has been proven again and again. Why its it every divisive issue for this country emits from this region and these folks ? And they always loose in time.
This segment of American society is is not in the mainstream of American history. This has been proven again and again. Why its it every divisive issue for this country emits from this region and these folks ? And they always loose in time.
151
Every time one of these issues bubbles up from the morass we know as the South, I am left to wonder what might have been: if Lincoln had simply said to the Confederacy "OK, go your own way"...
My guess is that today's "America" would look much like Hispaniola--a Dominican Republic-like North and a Haiti-like South.
My guess is that today's "America" would look much like Hispaniola--a Dominican Republic-like North and a Haiti-like South.
2
Marriage being ruled a civil right on 14 separate occasions since the 19th century tells me that these guys are still stuck in the 19th century. This is no country for old men who wish to cling to our detrimental past. I just have a feeling that most of these same people who are fighting against SSM are the same people who fought to keep segregation and anti-interracial marriage laws in place.
98
alas, you are correct. The good news is that the spectre of old Dixie is slowly fading.
10
Nobody has ever ruled that marriage is a civil right, not even in Loving v Virginia. In fact, prior to last year, gay marriage had lost several times at the high court level.
Your civil rights are spelled out very clearly in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and marriage is not there, and neither is sexual orientation.
You are think of the ERA, and it never was ratified.
Your civil rights are spelled out very clearly in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and marriage is not there, and neither is sexual orientation.
You are think of the ERA, and it never was ratified.
"Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that: Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,"
Seems pretty clear you are just entirely wrong, Concerned Citizen
Seems pretty clear you are just entirely wrong, Concerned Citizen
16
“I felt — and still feel — that that is stepping on my right of religious freedom,”
....
He compared his situation to that of a Sikh soldier, with whom he served in the United States Army, who was allowed to wear a turban and grow his beard because these were central to his religion. “Does not the federal government allow for different people to have different religious beliefs?”
Did the Sikh soldier try to get everyone else to wear a turban?
Mr. Kallam is probably better off in a job that requires less intellectual horsepower. He is welcome to his religion and beliefs, but he is not welcome to compel others to share them.
....
He compared his situation to that of a Sikh soldier, with whom he served in the United States Army, who was allowed to wear a turban and grow his beard because these were central to his religion. “Does not the federal government allow for different people to have different religious beliefs?”
Did the Sikh soldier try to get everyone else to wear a turban?
Mr. Kallam is probably better off in a job that requires less intellectual horsepower. He is welcome to his religion and beliefs, but he is not welcome to compel others to share them.
301
Why does it not surprise me in the least that Alabama Supreme Court’s chief justice, Roy S. Moore has stated for the record that he intends to continue recognizing the state's same-sex marriage ban. Apparently the Constitution and its amendments are meaningless when you get that far outside the boundaries of American civilization.
125
Roy Moore should not be a judge on any level. He is an embarrassment. He appears not to understand that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, whether he likes it or not.
20
I think you could safely say civilization period.
8
Apropos of Roy Moore, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has just today filed a complaint with the Alabama judicial ethics commission over this. They contend that the Chief Justice of the state supreme court urging state officials to defy federal law is grounds for his removal. This same Moore was removed a few years back from the bench for refusing to take down a religious icon from his courtroom. Of course, the yahoos in Alabama then elected him to their supreme court.
35
The Sikh soldier John Kallam refers to was not refusing to do his duty as a soldier. The magistrate judge who declines to marry gay citizens in a state where those marriages are legal is in fact refusing to execute the responsibilities of his office. The parallel with hospital workers who refuse to perform abortions does not hold; they are not government employees, as the magistrate is.
130
@mg:
You are wasting your breath trying to use logic. An adult who believes in fairy tales, the tooth fairy, or the Easter bunny most likely has his logic circuits fried.
You are wasting your breath trying to use logic. An adult who believes in fairy tales, the tooth fairy, or the Easter bunny most likely has his logic circuits fried.
12
This seems like the 2015 version of George Wallace blocking the entrance to a school so black students can't enter saying "segregation now, segregation forever" and will look just as pathetic in the eyes of history.
252
Can you imagine how embarrassed their grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be? If you want to know go ask any Wallace descendant.
11
Oh look, the slippery slope exists! This is why "conscience laws" about abortion and birth control were always a terrible idea- they set the precedent that you can use your religion to avoid doing your job and to discriminate against people. Hey, look, it was a bad idea!
If you don't want to dispense legally prescribed medication, don't be a pharmacist. If you don't want to perform abortions, don't be an OBGYN or a doctor in an ER. If you don't want to marry gay people, don't be an official who hands out marriage licenses. If your religion is going to get in the way of you DOING YOUR JOB, then find another job. It is not society's place to accomodate your bigotry.
If you don't want to dispense legally prescribed medication, don't be a pharmacist. If you don't want to perform abortions, don't be an OBGYN or a doctor in an ER. If you don't want to marry gay people, don't be an official who hands out marriage licenses. If your religion is going to get in the way of you DOING YOUR JOB, then find another job. It is not society's place to accomodate your bigotry.
466
But...but...but...I want to tell you how to live your life, what to do with you body and most importantly how you believe in the Almighty. This is not about conscience laws...it is about controlling others. It always has been and always will be.
12
And if you are going to NOT perform your duties, please advertise it clearly to me so I can avoid being your customer.
8
These overly religious people keep fighting a losing battle. Some call that brave and heroic. I call it stubborn, stupid and plain sad.
266
It's also dangerous if not stopped.
4
This is the LGBT idea of "marriage":
New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners. (From the NYT January 29, 2010 “Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret by Scott James)
New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners. (From the NYT January 29, 2010 “Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret by Scott James)
1
Thom McCann - How can this study include lesbians if all the participants were men? That being said, let's have a study on heterosexual couples (to be comparable to the other study, all men), and see what kind of results turn up....or don't you think that hetero men have sex outside their marriages? Really?
13
Are these people ever going to give it a rest. "The basis of a sincerely helf religious belief," is why we established the seperation betwen church and state. Every clear eyed thinking person knows that religous people are a couple dollars short on the here and now, where, incidentally, it is happening.
80