Supreme Court Strikes Down DOMA as Unconstitutional
The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, enacted in 1996, as unconstitutional; paving the way for gay and lesbian couples to recieve full rights and benefits as all married couples.
To be honest, I define marriage as one man and one woman, as has been documented for thousands of years. But since U.S. states have legalized gay marriages, I don't see how this wasn't the law since then anyway.
President Obama, for his part, "promised" (yes in quotes, since he'll undoubtedly break this one as well) not to force churches to conduct gay marriages.
As for Proposition 8 in California, the Supreme Court ruling apparently has no bearing on it.
To be honest, I define marriage as one man and one woman, as has been documented for thousands of years. But since U.S. states have legalized gay marriages, I don't see how this wasn't the law since then anyway.
President Obama, for his part, "promised" (yes in quotes, since he'll undoubtedly break this one as well) not to force churches to conduct gay marriages.
As for Proposition 8 in California, the Supreme Court ruling apparently has no bearing on it.
posted by Northern Exposer at 19:39
5 Comments:
Obama will force churches to perform gay marriages the same way they've been legally required to perform mixed-race ones since 1955.
Or the same way Christian churches have to perform Jewish weddings.
Or how Greek Orthodox weddings now must allow non-Greek visitors.
Or Catholic churches must allow female priests.
Oh wait, none of those have happened. Churches are free to legally discriminate under seperation of church and state.
Unfortunately for your argument, there is no such thing in the Constitution as "separation of church and state." Twist facts and history all you want. I dare you to try and find it.
My entire argument is that the government still allows mixed race marriages to be denied (as well as the other things listed) which makes it very unlikely Obama will do anything.
Churches in the states are extremely free to do what they want on their own property.
I know it isn't in the Constitution and never stated that, but feel free to "twist facts and history all you want" because you read something that doesn't come from your echo chamber.
Churches have a ton of control over who they will and will not marry and have had it for centuries.
There's ZERO evidence Obama will change this.
"Seperation of Church and State" doesn't exist in the Constitution under that name, no, but the First Amendment pretty much covers it.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I'd love to see Obama try and make churches perform gay marriages. It would be a clear First Amendment breach and possible grounds for impeachment.
Picking and choosing a slight irrelevant wording in his post instead of what he's actually talking about.
Good job being a typical pundit, Northern Exposer. Actually try presenting a logical argument next time.
"Seperation of Church and State" and "First Amendment" are interchangeable in the first comment's post.
Try disputing the actual facts he brought up. Churches ARE allowed to decide who they will marry and who they will not, but the marriage under law is determined by the state and granted to the church.
So a church cannot be forced to perform a marriage they object to, but the state must recognize a marriage performed by a legally recognized authority (which includes churches, synagogues, wedding chapels, etc.)
Obama has no power to force churches to recognize gay marriages. Just as no President has the power to force a Church to marry mixed-race couples.
Try actually approaching an argument next time Northern Exposer. Otherwise you come across as a brainless pundit and there are plenty of those to go around on all sections of the political spectrum.
Post a Comment
<< Home