Holy Moly - We've Got Nationwide Same Sex Marriage!

[KQ]

Justices Thomas and Alito lash out at the decision that cleared way for same-sex marriage

(CNN)Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, lashed out on Monday at the religious liberty implications of the Supreme Court's 2015 decision that cleared the way for same-sex marriage nationwide.

Thomas wrote that the decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, "enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss."

Thomas' strong opinion came down on the first day of the court's new term, and reflects the fact that critics of the landmark opinion from five years ago that was penned by now retired Justice Anthony Kennedy, are still infuriated by its reasoning. They believe the court should have left the decision to the political arena and have long said that it will infringe upon the rights of those who have religious objections to same-sex marriage.

Supporters of LGBTQ rights are fearful that the court is poised to continue a trend from last term, ruling in favor of religious conservatives in key cases.

The case that prompted Thomas' statement concerned Kim Davis, a former county clerk in Kentucky who gained national attention in 2015 and was jailed after declining to issue marriage licenses out of an objection to same sex marriages. The high court on Monday declined to hear an appeal in her case.

Thomas called Davis "one of the first victims" of the court's "cavalier treatment of religion" in the Obergefell v. Hodges decision but warned "she will not be the last." He said that her case was not properly presented before the court, but he urged his colleagues to revisit the religious liberty implications of the landmark opinion down the road.

He warned that the court had chosen to "privilege" a "novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment, any by doing so undemocratically, the Court has created a problem that only it can fix."

Thomas also noted that he agreed with the decision to not take up the case, writing that it did not "cleanly present" important questions raised about the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.
Steve Vladeck, a CNN legal analyst and University of Texas law school professor, said the opinion is a "telling and ominous" message for the justices to send.

"The opinion lays down a marker that at least some of the justices already view the court's recognition of a constitutional right to same-sex marriage as an affront to religious liberty, and so may well use the latter to scale back the former in future cases," Vladeck said.

"Especially at this moment in time, with major religious liberty cases already in the pipeline and in the middle of a contentious confirmation fight the result of which could move the court sharply to the right on these issues, it's a telling -- and ominous -- message for the court's two longest-serving conservatives to send," he added.

[The Reverend Floater]

I find it morbidly intriguing that we seem to be gravitating back to our ignorant, puritan roots, as if we had strayed into the devil's den with an ethically devoid President and a euro hooker for a first "lady." Pffffff.

[Dantheman]

I find it morbidly intriguing that we seem to be gravitating back to our ignorant, puritan roots, as if we had strayed into the devil's den with an ethically devoid President and a euro hooker for a first "lady." Pffffff.

History really looks kindly on Dred Scott, Plessy, and other decisions that restricted citizen's rights....

I have a feeling that Thomas' conception of "religious liberty" is narrowly confined to Christianity: https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme...on-11549633026

[Toadman]

The irony...

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/gay-l...064034823.html

[glademaster]

"Oh my..."

[old goat]

I think the issue of religious liberty is important. Not religious liberty as Alito and Thomas see it--freedom from having their religious sensibilities offended by people's actions that have no actual effect on them. I mean the freedom from having someone else's religious beliefs crammed down our throats. When the Constitution says the government may not establish a religion it means that the government may not require all people to adhere to the religious beliefs of some.

Kim Davis was not jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses. She was jailed for 5 days for contempt of court because she refused to allow her deputies to issue the licenses. She was released when she agreed to allow the deputies to issue licenses and to have her name removed from the licenses, which seems a reasonable accommodation to her beliefs.

The fact that two Justices of the Supreme Court (soon to be three) feel that the Constitution allows a particular religion's standard of morality to be imposed on the populace is frightening, and it makes a mockery of their claims to be strict constructionists.

[ill-advised strategy]

[hutash]

I think the issue of religious liberty is important. Not religious liberty as Alito and Thomas see it--freedom from having their religious sensibilities offended by people's actions that have no actual effect on them. I mean the freedom from having someone else's religious beliefs crammed down our throats. When the Constitution says the government may not establish a religion it means that the government may not require all people to adhere to the religious beliefs of some.

Kim Davis was not jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses. She was jailed for 5 days for contempt of court because she refused to allow her deputies to issue the licenses. She was released when she agreed to allow the deputies to issue licenses and to have her name removed from the licenses, which seems a reasonable accommodation to her beliefs.

The fact that two Justices of the Supreme Court (soon to be three) feel that the Constitution allows a particular religion's standard of morality to be imposed on the populace is frightening, and it makes a mockery of their claims to be strict constructionists.

This

This fuckwits are welcome to believe what they want, they just can't, or at least shouldn't, make the rest of us believe their shit. Nobody is forcing them to gay marry, so leave those who choose to alone.

I want my freedom from religion, and they are welcome to their freedom of religion.

[old goat]

This

This fuckwits are welcome to believe what they want, they just can't, or at least shouldn't, make the rest of us believe their shit. Nobody is forcing them to gay marry, so leave those who choose to alone.

I want my freedom from religion, and they are welcome to their freedom of religion.

Some of Trump's associates may be forced to gay marry unless he pardons them all.

[KQ]

wow... maybe the world is coming to an end......... this sure seems like a sign of the apocolypse.


Pope endorses civil union laws for same-sex couples

(CNN)Pope Francis has declared support for civil unions for same-sex couples for the first time, according to the Catholic News Agency.

The Pope made the historic remarks in a new documentary film, "Francesco," which was released in Rome on Wednesday.

"Homosexual people have a right to be in a family. They're children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out or be made miserable over it," the Pope said in the film, the Catholic News Agency reported.
"What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered," the Pope said.

Francis has suggested in past interviews that he is not against civil unions, but this is the first time as Pope that he has directly come out in favor of them.

As Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Francis advocated for same-sex civil unions as an alternative when Argentina was discussing whether to legalize same-sex marriage.

[XXX-er]

perhaps hell has frozen over ?

[frorider]

So can 2 priests enter a civil union?

[AK47bp]

So can 2 priests enter a civil union?

They stick their dicks in everything now, why make it official?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Dantheman]

Civil unions--a separate legal doctrine that confers the same legal protections and privileges as marriage, i.e. separate, but equal. Good luck with that.

[beer30]

Wow, the church seems to be very encompassing and peaceful as of late. Government not so much.
Interesting times....

[I've seen black diamonds!]

separate, but equal. Good luck with that.

Derrick Bell, who worked as an anti-segregationist lawyer in the '60's, who later become the first Black professor at Harvard Law School, and who might be described the central figure in the now interdisciplinary field of Critical Race Theory, came to believe that the enforcement of "separate but equal" would have been better for the education of Black children than the outcome of Brown v. Board of Education, which has left schools more segregated now than they were 50 years ago.

https://www.amazon.com/Silent-Covena.../dp/0195182472

[Dantheman]

Derrick Bell, who worked as an anti-segregationist lawyer in the '60's, who later become the first Black professor at Harvard Law School, and who might be described the central figure in the now interdisciplinary field of Critical Race Theory, came to believe that the enforcement of "separate but equal" would have been better for the education of Black children than the outcome of Brown v. Board of Education, which has left schools more segregated now than they were 50 years ago.

https://www.amazon.com/Silent-Covena.../dp/0195182472

Yeah, there's a Revisionist History episode about that: http://revisionisthistory.com/episod...-of-adjustment

There's no doubt that school desegregation was done poorly. I'm not sure that changes the basic legal doctrine that separate but equal legal institutions are inherently unequal.

[wooley12]

So can 2 priests enter a civil union?

No. Priests can't be married. Usually. The RC's would need to start with Deacons and work to allow it up the chain of command to Cardinal. Baby steps.

Wouldn't be surprised if the Holy Father was sending a message to the new SCOTUS RC.

[PNWbrit]

wow... maybe the world is coming to an end......... this sure seems like a sign of the apocolypse.


Pope endorses civil union laws for same-sex couples

(CNN)Pope Francis has declared support for civil unions for same-sex couples for the first time, according to the Catholic News Agency.

The Pope made the historic remarks in a new documentary film, "Francesco," which was released in Rome on Wednesday.

"Homosexual people have a right to be in a family. They're children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out or be made miserable over it," the Pope said in the film, the Catholic News Agency reported.
"What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered," the Pope said.

Francis has suggested in past interviews that he is not against civil unions, but this is the first time as Pope that he has directly come out in favor of them.

As Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Francis advocated for same-sex civil unions as an alternative when Argentina was discussing whether to legalize same-sex marriage.

While there's an argument that the Catholic church shouldn't have to perform same sex marriages.

Being "allowed" civil unions is a cop out.

[Lone Star]

Sublete message from the Pope to Amy Coney Barrett?

[old goat]

While there's an argument that the Catholic church shouldn't have to perform same sex marriages.

Being "allowed" civil unions is a cop out.

Religions can get away with discriminating against gay people--refusing to ordain them (or women in some religions), for example. What's to keep
religions from discriminating against Black people? The SCOTUS ruled that Bob Jones U couldn't ban interracial dating, but given the broadening definition of religious freedom that is another precedent that may be overturned.

I would really like to see the next lawyer that has to defend Roe v Wade use the religious freedom argument, rather than the implied right of privacy argument. Abortion is acceptable in a number of "mainstream" religions and opposed by others. (Mainstream in quotes because they're all cults AFAIC.) By favoring the belief of religions that oppose abortion over those that don't, not to mention on atheists, we would be imposing religious beliefs on those who do not accept them--the very definition of religious persecution and a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. As written. No legislating from the bench necessary.

[m2711c]

hear, hear!

[old goat]

While there's an argument that the Catholic church shouldn't have to perform same sex marriages.

Being "allowed" civil unions is a cop out.

Religions can get away with discriminating against gay people--refusing to ordain them (or women in some religions), for example. What's to keep
religions from discriminating against Black people? The SCOTUS ruled that Bob Jones U couldn't ban interracial dating, but given the broadening definition of religious freedom that is another precedent that may be overturned.

I would really like to see the next lawyer that has to defend Roe v Wade use the religious freedom argument, rather than the implied right of privacy argument. Abortion is acceptable in a number of "mainstream" religions and opposed by others. (Mainstream in quotes because they're all cults AFAIC.) By favoring the belief of religions that oppose abortion over those that don't, not to mention on atheists, we would be imposing religious beliefs on those who do not accept them--the very definition of religious persecution and a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. As written. No legislating from the bench necessary.