However, many are framing their objections against gay marriage in regilious terms. I am referring not so much to a strategy bound in law, but a tactical one to use their opponent's position and rational against them. Legal judo, if you will.
Many religious communities recognize other religion's marriages as marriages. Some don't but most do.
As for the forcing of religious acceptance, how about the several lawsuits that have been filed to force venues to host gay weddings, including against some churches. It is about more than just some fictional rights of marriage. I would just like to see some honesty.
Non-establisgment clause is not really (legally) applicable in any way to marraige. Modern mariage is conceptionally dual. The secular side is a set of legal code (marriage liscense), and a religious side that may or may not be activated by the couple.
Many religious communities recognize other religion's marriages as marriages. Some don't but most do.
As for the forcing of religious acceptance, how about the several lawsuits that have been filed to force venues to host gay weddings, including against some churches. It is about more than just some fictional rights of marriage. I would just like to see some honesty.
Non-establisgment clause is not really (legally) applicable in any way to marraige. Modern mariage is conceptionally dual. The secular side is a set of legal code (marriage liscense), and a religious side that may or may not be activated by the couple.
2nd Circuit rules in favor of Edith Windsor. DOMA unconstitutional.
- 18/10/2012 08:37:12 PM
972 Views
Completely unsurprising since the Justice department refuses to defend the law.
- 18/10/2012 09:05:16 PM
560 Views
For a moment there I thought you were saying the Supreme Court had ruled it unconstitutional.
- 18/10/2012 09:10:16 PM
601 Views
Do you know if there's a case about DOMA and the "full faith and credit" clause?
- 18/10/2012 10:05:11 PM
672 Views
I don't know offhand, but my gchat friend will. If she pops on again, I'll ask her. But...
- 18/10/2012 10:37:09 PM
691 Views
I asked her about pending cases taking on Section 2. "None that I know of," she answered. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 12:46:21 AM
245 Views
I wonder about that one as well.
- 19/10/2012 12:39:54 AM
626 Views
Re: I wonder about that one as well.
- 19/10/2012 01:18:22 AM
612 Views
Either a ban discriminates against those affected more than those unaffected, or it does not.
- 19/10/2012 03:48:32 PM
507 Views
Gun control laws can equally affect everyone, though, is my point.
- 20/10/2012 10:52:41 PM
609 Views
I'm sure there is. The California case is likely to discuss it.
- 19/10/2012 02:48:02 PM
669 Views
I just have to note in passing that Ted Olsons memoires will make fascinating reading.
- 19/10/2012 04:44:15 PM
704 Views
Also, hooray! Let's hope SCOTUS adheres (if you use that term over there). *NM*
- 18/10/2012 10:59:14 PM
264 Views
As it should be; the DoMA was always a brazen affront to the Equal Protection Clause
- 19/10/2012 12:06:13 AM
750 Views
Not really
- 19/10/2012 02:16:04 PM
671 Views
Then by the "legal argument" you all propose I should have the "right" to marry a spoon...
- 19/10/2012 05:48:32 PM
589 Views
if your spoon or dog is capable of making power of attorney decisions then by all means do so *NM*
- 19/10/2012 06:41:43 PM
272 Views
How about I "marry" a corporation then. THAT is how stupid the entire arguement is. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 07:25:13 PM
263 Views
provide for us a legal reason why marrying a corporation should be recognized by the US gov't
- 19/10/2012 08:09:08 PM
663 Views
The argument above was that there was no jsutification it should not, thus it should be allowed.
- 19/10/2012 10:57:16 PM
666 Views
you are only offering your own emotional take on a legal decision there is no logic in your posts
- 19/10/2012 11:12:17 PM
571 Views
Wrong. I do not have an emotional stake in this, I am simply using logic. *NM*
- 22/10/2012 03:59:08 PM
276 Views
saying you should be able to marry a spoon or corporation is not logical reasoning. try again *NM*
- 22/10/2012 06:19:29 PM
258 Views
EXACTLY, and that was the point I was making. Congratualtions for figuring that out. *NM*
- 22/10/2012 11:34:46 PM
247 Views
you are obviously using some humpty dumpty definition of "logic" then *NM*
- 22/10/2012 11:40:12 PM
259 Views
No, you apparently failed reading comprehension in school.
- 23/10/2012 03:08:44 PM
593 Views
#1: fuck you. #2: you are still not using logic
- 23/10/2012 05:50:14 PM
558 Views
Ah yes, the fuck you argument... the height of all intelectual persuits... and you call ME emotional
- 23/10/2012 06:47:21 PM
627 Views
i see -- it's ok to be insulting as long as the "f-bomb" is not used. got it.
- 23/10/2012 10:27:54 PM
705 Views
Another good example of how corporations aren't the same as people. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 10:07:32 PM
267 Views
Would you be the bride? Would you wear white?
- 20/10/2012 07:58:52 PM
543 Views
You have obviously not read my posts very carefully
- 22/10/2012 04:23:22 PM
522 Views
Ah, the "I have Gay Friends" argument.
- 22/10/2012 09:33:41 PM
537 Views
No, I am not, try reading everything I have written on the subject before jumping to conclusions.
- 22/10/2012 11:41:05 PM
691 Views
It was only a matter of time.
- 19/10/2012 02:49:21 PM
597 Views
I do not understand why fundamentalists demand government dictate religion.
- 19/10/2012 03:22:54 PM
749 Views
Which is why the entire method of legal attack being mounted is dumb.
- 19/10/2012 05:53:12 PM
671 Views
the only ones forcing their beliefs down everyone's throats are people like yourself
- 19/10/2012 06:44:57 PM
637 Views
There is no right being denied...
- 19/10/2012 07:22:24 PM
603 Views
that is bullshit and you know it. or, alternatively, you do not understand legality in any way
- 19/10/2012 08:06:54 PM
669 Views
Re: that is bullshit and you know it. or, alternatively, you do not understand legality in any way
- 19/10/2012 11:11:55 PM
726 Views
nobody is arguing the legal right to marry, they are arguing about the legal rights marriage gives
- 19/10/2012 11:37:14 PM
563 Views
There are no "marriage rights" NONE, zip, ziltch, nada...
- 22/10/2012 04:18:15 PM
604 Views
why bother settling custody in a divorce then if there are no "marriage rights"?
- 22/10/2012 06:38:14 PM
504 Views
You are making one, huge factual mistake that is screwing up your entire argument:
- 20/10/2012 11:00:28 PM
623 Views
That is just it: Most US marriage laws are already areligious.
- 23/10/2012 05:08:38 PM
572 Views
Yes, the laws are 100% secular...
- 23/10/2012 07:01:08 PM
548 Views