Alabama chief justice orders halt to same-sex marriage licenses.

Cisero said:

Help ! The Government is not letting me oppress other people ! OPPRESSION !!!

Click to expand...

The government is not allowed to pass laws that oppress religious practice. It is here the oppressor and the bigots that desire such oppression are not only repulsive. They are very poor citizens for a liberal democracy in propagating that the government break the Constitution.

joG said:

That we have let the institution of marriage devolve into a no longer sensible societal instrument is true. But I do not see that that has anything relevant to do with the position I just stated. That does not mean that it is interesting and that the impact should be researched and policies adjusted. But that is another topic.

Click to expand...

The question was what "force" is being directed at the religious minority. You sidestepped the entire issue.

And if 'marriage' has devolved into a "no longer sensible society instrument", gay marriage has at worst almost nothing to do with that. And I'm sure more than 99% of all marriages are still between a straight man and woman. It's ludicrous to assert that allowing gays to join in have harmed 'traditional' marriage. At best it's a very poor excuse and exercise in shifting the blame from where it actually belongs - to straight couples.

My marriage of 24 years is something I value tremendously and it's not affected in the slightest by someone else, straight or gay, also getting married. It's just a complete mystery how anyone could see my friend or my gay neighbors getting married as somehow imposing a 'force' on them or affecting their own marriage in any way other than reaffirming why it's such a valued arrangement for themselves.

JasperL said:

The question was what "force" is being directed at the religious minority. You sidestepped the entire issue.

And if 'marriage' has devolved into a "no longer sensible society instrument", gay marriage has at worst almost nothing to do with that. And I'm sure more than 99% of all marriages are still between a straight man and woman. It's ludicrous to assert that allowing gays to join in have harmed 'traditional' marriage. At best it's a very poor excuse and exercise in shifting the blame from where it actually belongs - to straight couples.

My marriage of 24 years is something I value tremendously and it's not affected in the slightest by someone else, straight or gay, also getting married. It's just a complete mystery how anyone could see my friend or my gay neighbors getting married as somehow imposing a 'force' on them or affecting their own marriage in any way other than reaffirming why it's such a valued arrangement for themselves.

Click to expand...

You don`t recognize that taking a woman's job or a man's existence is force? You're funning me.

joG said:

You don`t recognize that taking a woman's job or a man's existence is force? You're funning me.

Click to expand...

I really don't have any idea what you're talking about. You'll have to be more specific.

joG said:

You have a majority demanding that the person that practices her religion be punished. She is the minority.

Click to expand...

First no one is stopping her from practicing her religion, she is free to attend the Church of her choice, no Star of David like badge on her blouse- they are stopping her from using some odd manipulation of the Good Book to attempt to justify her bigotry and blocking good law abiding citizens from practicing their CONSTITUTIONAL Rights...

Second- to extend your odd take on this- so too are KKK members 'punished' for not being allowed to claim the Bible says the races shouldn't mix and attack interracial marriage and desegregation.

Third- how much flip flopping will those who support SSM bigotry do? First those who defend her actions claim a MAJORITY support not allowing SSM and it is a MINORITY who demands compliance- now to play the victim card it is just one woman against 'The World'... :doh

Again, you can't use your religious beliefs to disguise bigotry and deny others their Constitutional Rights... eace

joG said:

The government is not allowed to pass laws that oppress religious practice. It is here the oppressor and the bigots that desire such oppression are not only repulsive. They are very poor citizens for a liberal democracy in propagating that the government break the Constitution.

Click to expand...

That is false.

A couple of examples:

1. Fundamental Mormon's who believe polygamy is a religious practice still can't enter into Civil Marriage with more than one spouse at a time.

2. Those who claimed religious exemptions to be allowed to discriminate against interracial couples based on religious grounds lost.

3. Judge Roy Moore himself claimed religion when placing a religious monument on government property, he lost, and was fired for the action.



And as Employment Division v. Smith points out (authored by Conservative Justice Scalia) religious beliefs do not exempt people from laws of general applicability.

>>>>

Anagram said:

Didn't he already try this when the ruling came down? Feels like I remember Moore doing this before.

Click to expand...

Moore was also the guy who insisted upon the Ten Commandments be carved in stone at the county courthouse some years back. He lost then and he will lose now. Religious fundamentalists are so silly.

joG said:

But only for cases, where the situation is identical or very close. And so you need all the details to justify a demand for the use of the decision as precedence.

Click to expand...

LMAO. For gay marriage, the facts and issues are identical or very close in every case where a same sex couple applies for a marriage license. The SC ruled states cannot prohibit them from marrying. Where is the gray area? The decision only applies if one member of the gay has blue eyes or something? :roll:

joG said:

When two Constitutional rights conflict with each other you cannot enact a law the blocks one of those rights, but look for a measure that finds the most acceptable trade-off. This was not done and so the repressive law is unconstitutional. And the flippant way that the populists defend this miserable suppression of the minority is repulsive bigotry.

Click to expand...

ya no ones religious rights are violated by other people being treated equally under the law you dont have to get married to any one you dont have to help any one get married

people are free to do things that are not ok in your religion

bigots may find this repulsive but rejecting bigotry is not bigotry

gay marriage is not bigotry because some religious people dont approve of it it trying to stop gay marriage because of faith is bigotry and a violation of peoples religious freedoms as well as equal protection under the law

deal with it

joG said:

The government is not allowed to pass laws that oppress religious practice. It is here the oppressor and the bigots that desire such oppression are not only repulsive. They are very poor citizens for a liberal democracy in propagating that the government break the Constitution.

Click to expand...

The government is also not allowed to establish religion by passing laws. Thus, using religion as the basis for passing laws should be prohibited. I say should be because we definitely have such religious based laws e.g. Christmas (Christ mass?) as a national holiday (holy day?) and many "blue laws" which treat Sunday (the Christian sabbath?) as a special day.

joG said:

It is here the oppressor and the bigots that desire such oppression are not only repulsive.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

joG said:

No. What I am saying is that Congress is not allowed to pass laws that interfere with religion or its free practice. One of the most severe ways to interfere is to take a woman's job away from her or destroy a person's existence, if he is not willing to put her soul in Hell, as the religious might say.

Click to expand...

um no one passed a law forcing people to get married to the same sex you keep missing that

and you are free to not perform marriage ceremony's or hand out marriage licensees at all

religious approval has no relevance on who can get married in are nation that would be unconstitutional and a violation all of are rights

deal with it

joG said:

That is a false and probably willfully false example, considering that your other input in the forum can at times be quite good.

Click to expand...

nope its true but you seem to be handling the

false and probably willfully false example

fine all on your own

joG said:

You have a majority demanding that the person that practices her religion be punished. She is the minority.

Click to expand...

nope we demand that people dont get to punish others by right of their religion

which protects the rights of every one

racists and bigots Against heterosexuality be they religious or not dont have to marry people they are protected in that way

people of different races and the sames gender can get married they are protected in that way

no ones faith can bind other people without out the consent of every individual we are all protected in that way

joG said:

No. What I am saying is that Congress is not allowed to pass laws that interfere with religion or its free practice. One of the most severe ways to interfere is to take a woman's job away from her or destroy a person's existence, if he is not willing to put her soul in Hell, as the religious might say.

Click to expand...

Of course they are. If my religion says I am to stone my child for disobedience, it's obviously acceptable for Congress to pass a law that interferes, bans, jails offenders, for engaging in that religious practice.

So the argument is really terrible on its face, but in my opinion it's more than that because buried in it is an assumption that it is Christian religion or free practice that deserves special rights. One need only have a cursory knowledge of history or religion as it's practiced elsewhere today to understand why laws in fact MUST at least often be in direct conflict with deeply held religious beliefs of some members of society. Point is, when someone claims that laws cannot interfere with religious practice, either they haven't given the idea any real thought, or they're only imagining their own religious practices and asserting it is those practices that must be protected, because they'd obviously be in favor of outright banning some of the religious practices of others.

joG said:

No. What I am saying is that Congress is not allowed to pass laws that interfere with religion or its free practice. One of the most severe ways to interfere is to take a woman's job away from her or destroy a person's existence, if he is not willing to put her soul in Hell, as the religious might say.

Click to expand...

You basically said the same thing I paraphrased. I don't see how granting a license for a same sex couple to have a state sanctioned secular marriage is a sin on her part. But even if I grant that assumption, why would she continue to hold that job? Resigning with righteous indignation, showering guilt upon any who meet her eyes on the way out, would seem to be the proper christian thing to do. Or at least request a transfer or something.

But nope, I'm entitled to my job and my religion, even if it's impossible to do the former while maintaining the latter. My religious beliefs shouldn't exclude me from holding a job that my religious beliefs prevent me from doing.

joG said:

The government is not allowed to pass laws that oppress religious practice. It is here the oppressor and the bigots that desire such oppression are not only repulsive. They are very poor citizens for a liberal democracy in propagating that the government break the Constitution.

Click to expand...

no 1 did so with gay marriage

gay barrage being legal gives all of us the freedom to choose you dont have to do it or like it or help others do it

what your religion forbids dose not effect what every one else can legally do or the responsbailtys of your job

calling out people for being repulse boots only worcks when your potions are sound

so it dosent worck for you hear

you are repulsed that bigots can not force their will on others in this case

deal with it

joG said:

You don`t recognize that taking a woman's job or a man's existence is force? You're funning me.

Click to expand...

i dont get how gay barrage has yachting to do with that

you might loose your job if you job is to marry people and you refuse but that your choice no one is making you fail to live up to your responsibility's but you

you cant deny people services because of their faith or yours when you worck for the people

shagg said:

You basically said the same thing I paraphrased. I don't see how granting a license for a same sex couple to have a state sanctioned secular marriage is a sin on her part. But even if I grant that assumption, why would she continue to hold that job? Resigning with righteous indignation, showering guilt upon any who meet her eyes on the way out, would seem to be the proper christian thing to do. Or at least request a transfer or something.

But nope, I'm entitled to my job and my religion, even if it's impossible to do the former while maintaining the latter. My religious beliefs shouldn't exclude me from holding a job that my religious beliefs prevent me from doing.

Click to expand...

Yeah, in Tennessee after the SC decision, several clerks resigned their position rather than issue marriage licenses to gay couples. I don't at all agree with their decision, but I've said many times I do admire their conviction, as misplaced as I think it is. It's their life and their religious conscience, so good for them for standing up for what's important to them. What I don't admire is someone like Kim Davis demanding that she be able to keep her taxpayer funded job AND discriminate against couples she doesn't want to marry. That's not principled - it's selfish. And as a government official, she has no right to discriminate, period. Not ever. If she can't do that job, resign or get fired. No gray area, especially when she represents and is paid by taxpayers, the public. Serve the f'ing public or find another line of work.

IMO it's similar but not quite the same with photographers and caterers doing weddings. If you live in a state that prohibits discrimination against gays, don't whine when your job requires you to occasionally serve the gays. Frankly, IMO, in almost all cases where an acceptable alternative vendor is available, I'd prefer that as a matter of common courtesy and respect for the beliefs of others that we respect the wishes of those folks and not force them to do jobs they feel violate their beliefs. But as a matter of law, I'm fine with non-discrimination rules because on the whole they serve an important purpose and the trade-off seems obviously to weigh in favor of those laws. But I don't have the same disrespect/contempt (if any) for people in the private sector as I do for public servants claiming their religion provides them an excuse to discriminate.

joG said:

1.) The government is not allowed to pass laws that oppress religious practice.
2.) It is here the oppressor and the bigots that desire such oppression are not only repulsive. They are very poor citizens for a liberal democracy in propagating that the government break the Constitution.

Click to expand...

1.) correct this is why the states were stopped from doing it
2.) correct this is why equal rights won and is winning

Captain Adverse said:

And the band keeps trying to play the same sad tune...



Alabama chief justice orders halt to same-sex marriage licenses - Yahoo News

Exactly WHAT "clarification" does the State of Alabama need?

Marriage is marriage, and the issue is clear. Let them MARRY!

Click to expand...

Ill say the same thing in this thread i did in the other . . .

LMAO, what a bigoted buffoon!!!

I love it, I hope as many of these nutters come out of the wood work as possible. It saves time when they put their bigoted and anti-rights views on full display for all to see. The best part is all they do is HELP equal rights! In the end their moronic actions only help further cement and secure equal rights for us all and the law makes examples out of their stupidity and more precedence is set AGAINST their views and for rights and the constitution.

Its amazing they dont see it, they actually help and arent even smart enough to realize it. its awesome!

AGENT J said:

Ill say the same thing in this thread i did in the other . . .

LMAO, what a bigoted buffoon!!!

I love it, I hope as many of these nutters come out of the wood work as possible. It saves time when they put their bigoted and anti-rights views on full display for all to see. The best part is all they do is HELP equal rights! In the end their moronic actions only help further cement and secure equal rights for us all and the law makes examples out of their stupidity and more precedence is set AGAINST their views and for rights and the constitution.

Its amazing they dont see it, they actually help and arent even smart enough to realize it. its awesome!

Click to expand...

I agree. Having a buffoon like Roy Moore arguing against you is, at least with rational people, helpful to your cause.

JasperL said:

I agree. Having a buffoon like Roy Moore arguing against you is, at least with rational people, helpful to your cause.

Click to expand...

I know these people are desperate, they WANT to deny others rights, they WANT to treat others as lessers but how does thie bigotry make them so blind that they dont see they are helping equal rights spread? In recent history without these imbeciles and others like them equal rights would have been HARDER to achieve.

Its sweet sweet irony!

Cisero said:

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Click to expand...

you nailed it the 1st time

Help ! The Government is not letting me oppress other people ! OPPRESSION !!!

if you dont support oppressing other people based on religion, then your oppressing those religious people who want that, and therefore you are repulsive to jog, and are being a bigot towards people who want to oppress others based on their own personal faith


it brings some classic cinema to mind