President Obama Says U.S. Constitution Guarantees Same-Sex Couples the Right to Marry

Hell yeah! Let's start going by everything in the Constitution. I should add though I don't believe it addresses marriage at all.
But moving on, Obamacare would be the first thing to go since the method it was introduced was not Constitutional.

a reply to: jjkenobi

I believe that is why he made the comment.

a reply to: Sabiduria

Nothing like bastardizing the Constitution to get your way.

Obama~ It's about freaking time! I've been saying this for YEARS!

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
The issue is that marriage has been the realm of the chirches, not the government.

CIVIL marriage in the US has always been a government contract. The religious aspect of marriage was (and is) left to the church.

The government needs to establish that marriage is a legal union, not a religious one.

Civil, legal marriage has always been a legal union.

Honestly, who cares! I really don't care what people do in the bedroom. I think that we should ban governments involvement in marriage period. Why should someone have to have permission from big daddy gov in the first place? And WHY should a married couple get tax breaks that a single person doesn't? Makes absolute zero sense.

Wolves and Sheeple

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Just like MJ has always been legal....with a tax stamp (that is impossible to get). LOL

Marriage has always been the definition. Its why without being married you were unable to cover your live in partner. Because there is no "live in partner" allowed. Which makes it really hard for a gay couple to pay for their funerals.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I guess I don't understand your point. Legal marriage (what we know as marriage) has always required a license from the government of the state. A church marriage is an "add on" of sorts. If you want the church to bless your marriage, you can add that, but you still need to have a license from the state. A church blessing has never been a requirement.

The 14th amendment is what makes gay marriage bans illegal. A state making a law that treats people unequally under the law is prohibited.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If a state has a contract they offer to citizens, called a marriage contract, they must offer it to all citizens equally. That's why the gay-marriage bans are being struck down, finally! Because they are state laws that protect only straight citizens.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
The issue is that marriage has been the realm of the chirches, not the government. That is the issue. The government needs to establish that marriage is a legal union, not a religious one.

There is suppose to be a separation of church and state. I guess excepting marriage, that is.

Exactly.... 'Marriage' predates even the Church, Christianity...'Marriage' was institutionalized for 3-4 thousand years,
but was sanctioned by religions, kings that followed those religions...
the gays-L-B-T all want to poach the 'Marriage' name & status

a legal 'Union', a household, a partnership, a merger-of-entities...should have every benefit of what a 'marriage' has...but the term 'marriage' is synonymous with a man-woman union only...there are several thousands of years of precedent

the Johnny-come-lately man-man or woman-woman Civil-Unions can qualify for everything a marriage contract has...
but cannot depict a fraudulent union because the term 'marriage' means a man-woman union..
call it a Merryage or anything they want, to separate that couple from the man-woman falsehood they want to smear

do gay unions get divorces for infidelity? or is that just in the man-woman domain
Say these gay marrieds were in a Sharia Law jurisdiction... which half of the team would get stoned for extramarital stuff...
if it were a woman-woman union then both would get stoned to death
but in a man-man relationship there would be no wife/woman to kill.... don't seem fair & equitable to me






govt issued marriage licenses are for the purpose of regulating the interbreeding of blood incompatible individuals
and preventing undesired incest mutated offspring- prone to genetic malfuntions
or from family ancestry being too DNA close...
not for any tax/social/political reasons

the govt elbowed its way into social engineering to deliberately pull the rug from religious authority.... the church became subordinate as a lesson to the Serfs that the States Taxing authority was even greater than God

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
This really is big. Obama admits to reading the Constitution!
We know he's been ignoring it for 6 years now it suddenly matters?
Can you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-I-t-e ?

Kind of how most religions pick and choose what parts of religious texts to follow and which to ignore?

Kind of like that right?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

The term "marriage" is a religious term.

From a legal standpoint, "marriage" needs to be divorced from "civil union".

I got married with a Justice of the Peace, because my wife is catholic and I wasn't about to jump through all those hoops (and neither was she). So our marriage isn't recognized by the Catholic church, which is fine since we haven't set foot in one in a decade.

If a civil union carried with it the same benefit as a marriage, that would be fine. But if marriage carries with it additional benefits, under the direction of Government regulation, then we have a problem. Because that is the government condoning a religion, which is counter to our Constitution.

We can't just say that gay folks have civil unions and that is good enough. Because it is just another episode of "separate but equal". Just a little less equal, in regards to protections under the law.

If same-sex marriage is determined to be Constitutional, then are religions that consider same-sex unions wrong, Unconstitutional?

To be fair I think he is right.

BUT

Religious institution also have the right to refuse to marry them too.

originally posted by: crazyewok
To be fair I think he is right.

BUT

Religious institution also have the right to refuse to marry them too.

Wouldn't religious institutions then be in violation of the US Constitution?

originally posted by: beezzer
If same-sex marriage is determined to be Constitutional, then are religions that consider same-sex unions wrong, Unconstitutional?

Nope. As long as marriage isn't the only legally recognized union, then a church should have the right to continue its religious tenets.

I don't see this as a problem with religion. It is a problem with government allowing a religious institution to define their law. It is a separation of church and state issue.

originally posted by: beezzer
Can a religion exist that has tenets that violate the Constitution?

No as the constitution applies to the government as the point is to restrict government powers. It would only apply is a member of that religion entered government on behalf of said religion.

How I view it anyway.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: beezzer
If same-sex marriage is determined to be Constitutional, then are religions that consider same-sex unions wrong, Unconstitutional?

Nope. As long as marriage isn't the only legally recognized union, then a church should have the right to continue its religious tenets.

I hope that remains.

I don't see this as a problem with religion. It is a problem with government allowing a religious institution to define their law. It is a separation of church and state issue.

It's government dictating morality.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: crazyewok
To be fair I think he is right.

BUT

Religious institution also have the right to refuse to marry them too.

Wouldn't religious institutions then be in violation of the US Constitution?

In my opinion no as its only the government that the constitution is meant to restrict.

So a church can ban gay marriages.

BUT the government can not ban a church or institution from opening that performs gay marriage.

As I see it the government has no right to say who can and can not marry if they are consenting adults its not the government business. Its up to the individual that performs marriages if they do them or not.

a reply to: beezzer

that is another way of looking at it.

but there is no shortage of that. Despite being designed to limit the mob rule mentality, our constitution still does not force a protection of the individual as effectively as it should.

To be honest, I want to see religious institutions continue to do things they way they do them. I am not interested in the least in seeing religion being attacked or reduced. Faith is important to people that I know and love, and I see the value of it for those who wish to pursue it. I just want to see religion continue to be divorced from government. This particular issue is a long time coming.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So you don't see faith-based organisations being coerced to perform same-sex marriages?

a reply to: crazyewok

Thank you.