The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

#26
#26
volfan4lyfe said:
Amendment 1. Separation of Church and State. (Establishment and Free Exercise Clause). The Federal Government could never require churches to marry homosexual couples. Our government doesn't have that power.
Click to expand...

The government has made laws to bypass the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments. Right to free press? Nope, now the FBI is involved in the news process. We all know the issues with the 2nd. The NSA has destroyed the 4th. The supreme court has ruled that by not answering questions you can be implying guilt and the police can arrest you, so there goes the 5th. The right to due process and ability to keep your property until it has gone through the legal process no longer exists with civil forfeiture.

So tell me again why churches won't be forced to do something they don't agree with?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#27
#27
hog88 said:
The federal government and courts have misinterpreted that clause for the last 50-60 years or more. I wouldn't bet that they would get it right in this case either.

Remember the state is who grants preachers the ability to preform marriage ceremonies so they could take it away for non compliance.
Click to expand...

Scalia was actually making this point in today's arguments, saying he's not sure how to avoid that. I believe Kagan responded that some rabbis refuse to perform interfaith marriages without recourse. Still, seems like a tricky aspect.

For the record, none have been forced to wed a same-sex couple to this point. The potential constitutional component is the concern, however.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#29
#29
gcbvol said:
Scalia was actually making this point in today's arguments, saying he's not sure how to avoid that. I believe Kagan responded that some rabbis refuse to perform interfaith marriages without recourse. Still, seems like a tricky aspect.

For the record, none have been forced to wed a same-sex couple to this point. The potential constitutional component is the concern, however.
Click to expand...

I can see a lawsuit in the near future. And actually I'm fine with making it a condition of having the privilege.
 
#30
#30
hog88 said:
I can see a lawsuit in the near future. And actually I'm fine with making it a condition of having the privilege.
Click to expand...

Yep. It actually could result in an ipso facto legal/ceremonial distinction.
 
#31
#31
volfan4lyfe said:
Amendment 1. Separation of Church and State. (Establishment and Free Exercise Clause). The Federal Government could never require churches to marry homosexual couples. Our government doesn't have that power.
Click to expand...

Nope, but they could take away their tax exempt status. Or at least try.

Edit: I should read the entire thread first. Volskins beat me to it.
 
#32
#32
VolFan32 said:
Nope, but they could take away their tax exempt status. Or at least try.

Edit: I should read the entire thread first. Volskins beat me to it.
Click to expand...

Possible, but more likely is that they could no longer be agents of the state, making officiated weddings ceremonial only.
 
#33
#33
gcbvol said:
Yep. It actually could result in an ipso facto legal/ceremonial distinction.
Click to expand...

I agree. When you apply for the license you are married, the preacher just preforms a religious ceremony.
 
#34
#34
hog88 said:
I agree. When you apply for the license you are married, the preacher just preforms a religious ceremony.
Click to expand...

Government will charge more for a "covenant marriage" license for us bigoted religious folk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#38
#38
hog88 said:
While I think gay marriage should be legalized it's hilarious to see some here argue that its not a states rights issue but pot legalization is.
Click to expand...

I've never argued any such thing, so I assume you're referring to others.

However, smoking marijuana one can reasonably say is a lifestyle choice.

Being gay and having jackwagons like half the posters on this site constantly mock and ridicule you, however, one can say is not reasonably a lifestyle choice.

But perhaps nearly 10 percent of our populace is masochist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#40
#40
Judging from the questions from the judges, the SC is retarded and it will be another 5-4 decision keeping it a state issue.
 
#42
#42
From what I'm seeing it sounds like the court will side with the pro-state side which is surprising.
 
#45
#45
Burhead said:
From what I'm seeing it sounds like the court will side with the pro-state side which is surprising.
Click to expand...

Could be, but in listening to all the arguments I thought the justices had more issue with the pro-state side's case than that of the plaintiffs. Still, I agree it will be close but think it goes the other way.
 
#47
#47
Burhead said:
From what I'm seeing it sounds like the court will side with the pro-state side which is surprising.
Click to expand...

They pulled this with Obamacare and it seemed like they would strike it down. I think they are elitist and play coy like it's a game. I will be very surprised if they side with the states.
 
#49
#49
ToineMac said:
This and lack of term limits in congress are 2 of the biggest political issues we have in this country.
Click to expand...

One of the biggest problems our system of government has is how the two other branches have acquiesced all this power to nine unelected bureaucrats.
 
#50
#50
Grand Vol said:
No matter what kind of day I have, posts like these from you always bring a chuckle.
Click to expand...

I believe in laughter, so any time I can contribute to that end is a good thing.

Honestly, this current topic is very personal and emotional for me (quite a bit more than I anticipated). I'll try to keep it light but apologize in advance if I come across testy down the line.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top