Only Three States Approved Same Sex Marriage By "Popular Vote"

[LuisDantas]

To the best of my understanding, the claim that same sex marriage is somehow "forced" upon people comes from a significant mismatch of conceptions between various groups.

Many people, including a very high percentage of same sex marriage supporters, understand a marriage to be a commitment between willing adults with certain civil and legal consequences. As well shown in this thread, in that sense there can't be such a thing as a forced marriage, regardless of specific genders.

By and large, opponents of same sex marriage seem to have an alternative view of the meaning and role of marriage. By that view, marriage is not an entirely private matter, and married people have some degree of duty to conform to external expectations, including fulfilling some fairly rigid social roles.

While I think I can see the rationale of this second perspective and even sympathise with it somewhat, ultimately there is no moral defense of the denial of same sex marriage rights.

People must learn to be at peace with the existence of homosexual couples and their willingness to commit to married relatioships. There is simply no excuse to refuse that, although I do acknowledge that many a person has a hard time accepting the reality and legitimacy of homosexual relationships, to the point of sometimes attempting to hide their existence from their own children.

Whether the law acknowledges that is of decidedly minor importance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only 3 States Maine, Maryland, And Washington, Instituted same sex marriage by "Popular Vote", all the rest were court ordered by Liberal Judges, and approved by Liberal State legislators.

94% of the American States were forced to receive same sex marriage, without provisions in exercising the democratic process in the majority "Popular Vote".

The fact is there are no protections for any Americans afforded by the US constitution based upon "Sexual Preference"

The 5 Liberal Supreme Court Justices forced same sex marriage upon America, there is no provision or protection in the 14th amendment "Due Process Clause" it was 5 Justices and their prejudices and abuse of power.

The soon to be conservertavie Supreme Court will reverse Obergefell v. Hodges on the interpretation of original intent, try reading the minorty disent as it explains exactly what you are reading.

Obergefell V Hodges

As the 5 Liberal Justices Interpreted Life And Liberty To Include A Same Sex Marriage Liscense, 100% Abuse Of Power!

US Constitution14th Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Life=Death Penalty

Liberty=Imprisonment

Property=Confiscation, Seizure

Your own article disagrees with you. You forgot the right that passed it through the legislature.

 

[Jainarayan]

The soon to be conservertavie Supreme Court will reverse Obergefell v. Hodges on the interpretation of original intent, try reading the minorty disent as it explains exactly what you are reading.

Only if the SCOTUS has a legal challenge or reason to overturn their ruling, something they generally don't like to do. They don't on a whim go back and revisit their cases. They often decline to hear challenges. Like it or not you're stuck with us gays being married.

 

[Jainarayan]

To the best of my understanding, the claim that same sex marriage is somehow "forced" upon people comes from a significant mismatch of conceptions between various groups.

Yeah, no one is forced to marry a person of the same sex.

 

[Jainarayan]

Is there actually a real possibility of Obergefell vs Hodges being repealed?

Only if a case is brought before the SCOTUS, and they decide to hear it. They won't just overturn it.

 

[Jainarayan]

Very soon Same Sex Marriage and Roe v Wade will be reversed.

You really don't understand the US legal system do you?

 

[Jainarayan]

the activist judges

I did call the judge who married me and my husbear one of those "damn activist judges legislating from the bench" because I kept joking about being dragged there kicking and screaming. She burst out laughing and had to compose herself (several times) before she could continue with the ceremony. She was, however, warned about my sense of humor.

Anyway... let us continue.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, no one is forced to marry a person of the same sex.

This is one point that never seems to sink home. No one is forcing the OP to marry another man (yes I checked, he does state that he is male in his profile page). The argument amounts to this:



"I can't stand gay marriage!!"

"Then don't marry a man."

"Oh. Didn't think of that."

ETA: A real lol moment. An ad at the top of the page is from a wedding company and shows two guys. Priceless.

 

[Sunstone]

Is there actually a real possibility of Obergefell vs Hodges being repealed?

(@Sunstone, do you know?)

Let us preform the summoning ritual, so that he may appear.

@Sunstone, our lord, may you appear before us with your wisdom!
@Sunstone, is there a chance of Obergefell vs Hodges being repealed? Please, answer us m'lord.

Behold! I know not nor does any person know for certain what the Supremes might or might not decide...

However, three things:

The Donnie might not get his wish to pack the court with radical conservatives.

Repealing Obergefell vs Hodges would be extraordinary for at least two reasons. First, the Court tends not to outright repeal major decisions. It's a rarity. What they prefer to do is limit them in later rulings rather than outright repeal them.

Second, if the Court were to repeal the ruling, it would be the first time in American history that the Court had revoked an established Constitutional right. The long arc of American court rulings has always favored the discovery of more rights, rather than the rescinding of any.

Last, but who knows? We live in wacky times when radicals have taken over the conservative wing of American politics. Radicals who have little or no respect for the Constitution nor for American legal and political traditions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Discussing moderation is a no no on almost all forums.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not think that Gorsuch will be the conservative savior that some expect him to be. He has already ruled against Trump:

Now What Will Conservatives Say About Gorsuch?

I can't see him overturning the ruling on marriage equality and even Roe vs. Wade appears to be a bit of a stretch.

 

[Akivah]

This is why I've never really understood the religious objection to marriage equality, since there always occurred to me to be a very simple solution that allows any church or religious organization to retain the practice of traditional marriage as being between men and women without significantly impacting on the rights of others: allow churches to voluntarily rescind their capacity to conduct legally recognized marriage ceremonies. That way, the marriages they conduct can be under whatever rules they want, and presumably would still be recognized as official within the church and, therefore, presumably in the eyes of God. If the real issue with people who oppose marriage equality is that they feel such a union is not sanctioned by God (as many have said), this seems like the perfect solution to me.

It never works like that. When religious organizations conduct marriages in accordance with their rules, some one gets offended that they can't get their marriage done the way they want to do it. No more than bakery workers can make the cakes they want to.
It is a continuing assault on our religious liberties.

 

[Jainarayan]

some one gets offended that they can't get their marriage done the way they want to do it.

So what's new here? Someone always complains about something.

It is a continuing assault on our religious liberties.

No it isn't. What was the last case a religious institution lost in refusing to perform a same sex wedding? Hell, what was the last case brought against a religious institution refusing to perform a same sex wedding?

 

[Underhill]

It never works like that. When religious organizations conduct marriages in accordance with their rules, some one gets offended that they can't get their marriage done the way they want to do it. No more than bakery workers can make the cakes they want to.
It is a continuing assault on our religious liberties.

I understand your dismay. I remember having this same discussion 10 or 12 years ago and the number of people arguing for gay marriage was much smaller (as a percentage). It must be frustrating to see such a swing happen so quickly.

But get over it. Because it isn't going to change. Young people (to the tune of 85% or so) are even more likely to support the idea. So this change is permanent. Even if by some miracle (in your eyes) the supreme court were to throw precedent out the window, how long would that last with so many people supporting their right to marry?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It never works like that. When religious organizations conduct marriages in accordance with their rules, some one gets offended that they can't get their marriage done the way they want to do it. No more than bakery workers can make the cakes they want to.
It is a continuing assault on our religious liberties.

Religious organizations already have the freedom to do as they see fit on the issue of marriage. Now you also want people not to be offended by it? Since when does anyone have the right to be regarded positively?

 

[fantome profane]

Behold! I know not nor does any person know for certain what the Supremes might or might not decide...

However, three things:

The Donnie might not get his wish to pack the court with radical conservatives.

Repealing Obergefell vs Hodges would be extraordinary for at least two reasons. First, the Court tends not to outright repeal major decisions. It's a rarity. What they prefer to do is limit them in later rulings rather than outright repeal them.

Second, if the Court were to repeal the ruling, it would be the first time in American history that the Court had revoked an established Constitutional right. The long arc of American court rulings has always favored the discovery of more rights, rather than the rescinding of any.

Last, but who knows? We live in wacky times when radicals have taken over the conservative wing of American politics. Radicals who have little or no respect for the Constitution nor for American legal and political traditions.

Am I correct in thinking that someone needs to have standing in order to bring the case? And if so, who could that be?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The Supreme Court cases that legalized abortion and gay marriage are never going to be overturned. Politicians who campaign promising that they will be are just lying for votes. It's been almost 50 years for Roe vs. Wade. It's not going anywhere.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This is America. The majority do not get to tyrannically oppress the minority. If you don't like it, you are free to leave.

 

[Sunstone]

Am I correct in thinking that someone needs to have standing in order to bring the case? And if so, who could that be?

Yes, so far as I know, you are correct. And I don't see where anyone would have standing, but I'm not a lawyer.

 

[Sunstone]

It is a continuing assault on our religious liberties.

Your religious liberties end where other people's freedoms and liberties start, and vice versa. All too often, religious people are over-reaching and claiming greater liberties than is just and fair to all.