Respect for Marriage Act

[carmenjonze]

I accidentally just read something a con said, that is so disingenuous and ignorant that I'm astonished, that nobody wants to outlaw Gay or interracial marriage; jesus fucking Christ

Reads nothing, knows nothing, understands nothing…yes it’s a conservative man on the internet.

[gounion]

Reads nothing, knows nothing, understands nothing…yes it’s a conservative man on the internet.

Maybe he should bring back the Know Nothing party. He'd be a shoe-in.

New nickname: JoeKnowNothing.

[JoeMemphis]

Is your whole life an argument from ignorance? I think you revel in your total ignorance. It's the Respect for Marriage Act, not the Defense of Marriage Act. And the answer to all your questions is yes, the right IS going after gay marriage, hell, ALL gay rights.

And you prove with your posts and your votes you don't believe in gay rights, you don't believe in women's rights. If they banned all gay rights and abortion, you'd still be voting for them and very happy with your votes.

As a conservative I certainly don’t see the threat to gay or interracial marriage. I don’t see a movement to go after gay marriage or gay rights.

As far as what you think I believe, you are welcome to think what you please. That’s beyond my control. You have every right to your opinion. Everyone has a right to be wrong. A right you exercise with some regularity. Just because you believe it doesn’t make it true or relevant to anything or anyone beyond yourself. And in the larger scheme of things, what you think doesn’t amount to much.

[gounion]

As a conservative I certainly don’t see the threat to gay or interracial marriage. I don’t see a movement to go after gay marriage or gay rights.

You are welcome to blind yourself to reality. That's how the flat earth people do things.

As far as what you think I believe, you are welcome to think what you please. That’s beyond my control. You have every right to your opinion. Everyone has a right to be wrong. A right you exercise with some regularity. Just because you believe it doesn’t make it true or relevant to anything or anyone beyond yourself. And in the larger scheme of things, what you think doesn’t amount to much.

There's OPINION and there are FACTS. I deal in facts. And the FACTS are that the GOP wants to overturn Obergefell just like it did Roe.

And you make yourself into JoeKnowNothing.

[JoeMemphis]

You are welcome to blind yourself to reality. That's how the flat earth people do things.
There's OPINION and there are FACTS. I deal in facts. And the FACTS are that the GOP wants to overturn Obergefell just like it did Roe.

And you make yourself into JoeKnowNothing.

The facts in your mind are what you claim them to be. That doesn’t make them facts. There isn’t a groundswell in the conservative movement to outlaw gay marriage. SCOTUS has already ruled on the matter. I get that you would like to keep the issue. You are all about the politics of fear. That’s all you got.

[carmenjonze]

There isn’t a groundswell in the conservative movement to outlaw gay marriage.

Yes there is.

SCOTUS has already ruled on the matter.

You dumb country-ass hick.

303 Creative vs Ellis was heard just this week, I’m which some other country-ass hick is trying to reinstate discrimination against same-sex married couples.

You are such a stupid idiot.

[gounion]

The facts in your mind are what you claim them to be. That doesn’t make them facts. There isn’t a groundswell in the conservative movement to outlaw gay marriage. SCOTUS has already ruled on the matter. I get that you would like to keep the issue. You are all about the politics of fear. That’s all you got.

Now you're attempting to move the goalposts. First there was NO ONE in the movement, now you're demanding a groundswell. It's certainly CLOSE to a groundswell among the GOP, while America at large has accepted gay marriage, just not the GOP. You guys are always on the wrong side of history. But that's who you are voting for.

While the court DID rule on the matter, the ruling was 5-4, and here's what's funny, you just a few posts up, said:

How many decisions handled down by the courts are unanimous. How many court decisions are reversed? Quite a few.

Now you're pissing backwards. It's hilarious to watch. Now this is settled law that just NO ONE wants to overturn.

In Obergefell, there were FOUR written dissents. Each of the four felt so strongly against Obergefell they wrote their own dissents. THREE of those writers are still on the Court, along with three NEW ideologues, all anti-gay religious zealots from the anti-gay Federalist Society, the organization that is pledged to overturn decisions like Roe and Obergefell.

The Federalist Society is the far-right-wing legal organization the right has used for decades now to churn out far-right-wing judges, and they are the ones who give a list to Republicans Presidents to choose their judges from. Both Bush II and Trump chose judges from ONLY that list. Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett are all members.

And here's a page on the Federalist, the organization's website, with all the articles against Obergefell and their demands to overturn it. They're the ones with the cases lined up to overturn Obergefell. Thomas' Roe concurrence said that Obergefell and all other case based upon the Right to Privacy needs to be overturned.

And that's why 169 Congresspersons and 36 Senators refused to vote for the Respect for Marriage Act (BTW, JoeKnowNothing, since you don't know, the Respect for Marriage Act repealed the Defense of Marriage Act).

Because they want to overturn Obergefell.

[Toonces]

The facts in your mind are what you claim them to be. That doesn’t make them facts. There isn’t a groundswell in the conservative movement to outlaw gay marriage. SCOTUS has already ruled on the matter. I get that you would like to keep the issue. You are all about the politics of fear. That’s all you got.

Yes, SCOTUS had also ruled on another issue only to rule that a previous SCOTUS ruling was wrong.

I've always been of the mind that if your marriage (general 'your') is impacted by someone else's marriage, perhaps it's time for a self-evaluation. If my marriage was somehow 'different' because of other people who got married, the problem isn't with them, it would be with me.

[JoeMemphis]

Yes, SCOTUS had also ruled on another issue only to rule that a previous SCOTUS ruling was wrong.

I've always been of the mind that if your marriage (general 'your') is impacted by someone else's marriage, perhaps it's time for a self-evaluation. If my marriage was somehow 'different' because of other people who got married, the problem isn't with them, it would be with me.

Then you and I agree that gay marriage and interracial marriage is not a privacy issue but more an equal protection issue.

[gounion]

Then you and I agree that gay marriage and interracial marriage is not a privacy issue but more an equal protection issue.

Nope, we don't. I believe, and the Supreme Court says it's the law of the land, that the Constitution gives individuals a right to privacy. They government should not intrude into the private lives of consenting adults.

You may think the government has the right to tell us what to do inside our homes with consenting adults, but I do not.

[gounion]

Reality of the Right to Privacy:

MANY WILL BE QUICK to claim that it is not the government’s business to decide whether same-sex sexual conduct is immoral. But if that is true, it is not because doing so violates the right to equal protection. Again, claiming that same-sex sexual conduct is immoral does not imply or presuppose that those who engage in the conduct are morally inferior human beings. Therefore, if the government may not exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the grounds that same-sex sexual conduct is immoral, it is because the government’s doing so violates a constitutional norm other than the right to equal protection. Is there such a norm? The answer, as I shall now explain, is “Yes.”

The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage violates what the Court has called “the right of privacy”—a right the Court has protected as a constitutional right for half a century. A 1965 ruling and a 1972 ruling, read in conjunction with one another, establish that government may ban neither the use nor the distribution of contraceptive devices or drugs. In the 1972 ruling, the Court declared: “If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.” In 1973, the Court ruled that some restrictive abortion legislation violated “the right of privacy.” In 1978, in ruling that “the decision to marry [is] among the personal decisions protected by the right of privacy,” the Court explained:

It is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships…. It would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society…. When a statutory classification significantly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right, it cannot be upheld unless it is supported by sufficiently important state interests and is closely tailored to effectuate only those interests.

Finally, in 2003, the Court ruled that government may not criminalize consensual sex between adults, and that therefore a criminal ban on same-sex sexual intimacy was unconstitutional:

Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct…. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons to make this choice.

Quoting from an earlier decision, Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), the Court explained, “That the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice.”

The right of privacy, then, is best understood as a right that protects moral freedom: the freedom to live one’s life in accord with one’s fundamental moral convictions and commitments. And a core part of that freedom is the freedom to live one’s life in a marriage of one’s choosing—if one chooses to marry. As the Massachusetts Supreme Court stated in 2003, “the decision whether and whom to marry is among life’s momentous acts of self-definition.” So the policy of excluding same-sex couples from marriage clearly implicates the right to moral freedom—otherwise known as “the right of privacy.” The policy interferes with same-sex couples’ freedom to live their lives in a marriage of their choosing. But that this exclusion implicates the right does not entail that it violates the right. As our cases make clear, the right of privacy is not absolute but conditional: a policy violates the right if, and only if, it fails to serve a compelling government objective. As it happens, the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage does fail to satisfy that condition.

It's NOT about equal protection, it's about a right to privacy. I champion that. Now, you may be happy if the government decides it can tell you it'll illegal for citizens - even married ones - that they can't purchase or use contraceptives. That's your right to believe that, to champion that the government can regulate our private lives, but that doesn't make you much of a small-government conservative.

I believe we should have a right to privacy in our personal lives, and I believe the Constitution does so.

[Glennfs]

You are welcome to blind yourself to reality. That's how the flat earth people do things.
There's OPINION and there are FACTS. I deal in facts. And the FACTS are that the GOP wants to overturn Obergefell just like it did Roe.

And you make yourself into JoeKnowNothing.

Link please

[gounion]

Link please

Already did so.

[Glennfs]

Nope, we don't. I believe, and the Supreme Court says it's the law of the land, that the Constitution gives individuals a right to privacy. They government should not intrude into the private lives of consenting adults.

You may think the government has the right to tell us what to do inside our homes with consenting adults, but I do not.

Glad to see you are against the government telling us what guns we can keep inside our own homes

[gounion]

Glad to see you are against the government telling us what guns we can keep inside our own homes

You say you support gay rights but vote against it every time.

[Glennfs]

Already did so.

I thought opinion pieces weren't considered credible

[gounion]

I thought opinion pieces weren't considered credible

I’m talking about the article after article from the Federalist Society wanting to take down Obergefell.

Again, your Congressman and Senators vote against the Respect for Marriage Act. And you support them 100%. So explain why you say you support gay rights.

[Bludogdem]

Then you and I agree that gay marriage and interracial marriage is not a privacy issue but more an equal protection issue.

The Supreme Court agrees with you.

“ Syllabus

Virginia's statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications held to violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 388 U. S. 4-12.”

“ There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.

II
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

Loving v Virginia
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... on-1946731

It’s interesting that I can’t seem to find the word “privacy”. In the entire opinion.

[gounion]

The Supreme Court agrees with you.

“ Syllabus

Virginia's statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications held to violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 388 U. S. 4-12.”

“ There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.

II
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

Loving v Virginia
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... on-1946731

It’s interesting that I can’t seem to find the word “privacy”. In the entire opinion.

So let’s be clear: You don’t think that Americans have the right to privacy either, huh?

Well, if we don’t have a right to privacy protected by the Constitution, then we aren’t a free people.

[Bludogdem]

So let’s be clear: You don’t think that Americans have the right to privacy either, huh?

Well, if we don’t have a right to privacy protected by the Constitution, then we aren’t a free people.

I didn’t say that.

I’m simply pointing out that the Loving and Obergfell are equal protection, due process issues.

Joe seems to understand it.

[gounion]

I didn’t say that.

I’m simply pointing out that the Loving and Obergfell are equal protection, due process issues.

Joe seems to understand it.

JoeKnowNothing says that there is NO right to privacy under the Constitution of the United States.

Do you agree with him or not? You're sure arguing his case.

I disagree. The Constitution gives us a right to privacy from the government.

[gounion]

The Supreme Court agrees with you.

“ Syllabus

Virginia's statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications held to violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 388 U. S. 4-12.”

“ There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.

II
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

Loving v Virginia
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... on-1946731

It’s interesting that I can’t seem to find the word “privacy”. In the entire opinion.

What's hilarious is what you omit. More from the decision:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

Pretty damned clear, and one of the cases Obergefell was based upon. I agree with them, if we don't have the right to marry, then we aren't a free people. You and Joe don't, now, do you? You vote for those who refuse to support the right of gay people to marry.

So you tell me why FOUR Justices dissented from Obergefell, all of the so damned upset each one wrote their own dissent.

Three of them are on the current court. They and the new three right-wing members are members of the anti-gay Federalist Society and are likely interested in doing the same thing to Obergefell that they did to Roe.

169 GOP Congressmen and 36 Senators voted NO to the Respect for Marriage Act. So don't tell me they don't want to repeal Obergefell.

And don't tell me the GOP doesn't want to take it down.

[gounion]

Great Op/Ed in WaPo by E.J. Dionne Jr:

And in truth, opposition to marriage equality has not disappeared. Most Republicans voted against the Respect for Marriage Act. And the Supreme Court’s conservative majority seemed inclined during oral arguments last week to rule in favor of a graphic artist who is an evangelical Christian and does not want to create wedding websites for same-sex couples.

Most of the arguments over the case focus on what granting a religious exemption from an anti-discrimination law would imply. Allowing Lorie Smith, a Colorado designer, to decline the business of same-sex couples, Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted, would mark “the first time in the court’s history” that it permitted a commercial business open to the public to “refuse to serve a customer based on race, sex, religion or sexual orientation.”


Sotomayor and the other liberal justices are right that there is no obvious limiting principle for when religious convictions should allow exemption from anti-discrimination laws. If this exemption applies to same-sex couples, why not, for example, to interracial couples? Or to couples from different religions? Or for couples who opt for civil rather than religious marriages? Why not to other forms of discrimination that have nothing to do with marriage?

But such questions also invite us to examine the case from a different perspective: Why do conservative Christians want this exemption in the first place?

That question is neither naive nor rhetorical. Many traditionalist Christians view homosexual relationships as sinful. I think they are wrong, but I acknowledge that this is a long-held view. Yet many of the same Christians also view adultery as a sin. Jesus was tough on divorce. “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder,” he says in Matthew’s Gospel.

But unless I am missing something, we do not see court cases from website designers or florists or bakers about refusing to do business with people in their second or third marriages. We do not see the same ferocious response to adultery as we do to same-sex relationships. Heck, conservative Christians in large numbers were happy to put aside their moral qualms and vote twice for a serial adulterer. Why the selective forgiveness? Why the call to boycott only this one perceived sin?

What we are seeing in the opposition to same-sex marriage is less about religious faith than cultural predispositions. American attitudes toward homosexuality have certainly changed radically but so have our attitudes toward racial and gender equality. Are not these moves toward greater openness all expressions of the equal, God-given dignity of every person?

We hear from our conservative friends about the importance of family values, and I heartily agree. Healthy families are good for society, for children and for social justice. But we straight people have done a heck of a job of wrecking the family all by ourselves and, in any event, supporting same-sex marriage is to stand for, not against, stable, loving, lifetime relationships.

I hold religious freedom as a high value and see religion as, on balance, a positive social force. (Yes, the latter view is increasingly controversial among people who share my politics.) I support well-crafted legal exemptions to protect the autonomy of religious institutions and the free exercise of religion. But these cannot become a defense of discrimination — in the marketplace or in our legal system.

So I have a respectful suggestion for traditionalist Christians who run businesses that cater weddings: Joyfully do the work that same-sex couples hire you to do, and witness your faith by gifting them a copy of the New Testament. It teaches us that “God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him.”

Why are conservatives ALWAYS on the wrong side of history?

[Bludogdem]

What's hilarious is what you omit. More from the decision:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

Pretty damned clear, and one of the cases Obergefell was based upon. I agree with them, if we don't have the right to marry, then we aren't a free people. You and Joe don't, now, do you? You vote for those who refuse to support the right of gay people to marry.

So you tell me why FOUR Justices dissented from Obergefell, all of the so damned upset each one wrote their own dissent.

Three of them are on the current court. They and the new three right-wing members are members of the anti-gay Federalist Society and are likely interested in doing the same thing to Obergefell that they did to Roe.

169 GOP Congressmen and 36 Senators voted NO to the Respect for Marriage Act. So don't tell me they don't want to repeal Obergefell.

And don't tell me the GOP doesn't want to take it down.

It’s a reinforcement statement supporting “due process of law” for the case. It certainly isn’t a statement of “right to privacy”.

And Obergfell is an “Equal Protection “ ruling.

[Bludogdem]

JoeKnowNothing says that there is NO right to privacy under the Constitution of the United States.

Do you agree with him or not? You're sure arguing his case.

I disagree. The Constitution gives us a right to privacy from the government.

There are multiple aspects to a right to privacy in the constitution. Just nothing distinct.