Same-Sex Marriage Trumps Religious Li...

Same-Sex Marriage Trumps Religious Liberty in New Mexico

There are 1050 comments on the The Heritage Foundation story from Aug 22, 2013, titled Same-Sex Marriage Trumps Religious Liberty in New Mexico. In it, The Heritage Foundation reports that:

Earlier today, the Supreme Court of New Mexico ruled that the First Amendment does not protect a Christian photographer's ability to decline to take pictures of a same-sex commitment ceremony-even when doing so would violate the photographer's deeply held religious beliefs.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Heritage Foundation.

“Matthew 16:13 - 17”

Since: Mar 13

Vladville

#443 Sep 6, 2013
Rose Feratu wrote:
<quoted text>
To get the taste of Christians out of their mouths.
Huszar leave you in God's hands.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#444 Sep 6, 2013
Huszar wrote:
<quoted text>
Huszar leave you in God's hands.
Rose is not afraid of your imaginary friend's hands.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#445 Sep 6, 2013
Rose Feratu wrote:
<quoted text>
To get the taste of Christians out of their mouths.
Aaaak !!

LEAVE MY KITTIES ALONE !!!

Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#446 Sep 6, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Aaaak !!
LEAVE MY KITTIES ALONE !!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =ZDZaWgf_bk0XX
lol
JayC

Aromas, CA

#447 Sep 6, 2013
It seems if it bothers an individual to photograph something they feel is wrong, there would be plenty of other photo hags to replace....Doesn't seem right to force the Govts morality on all.
Land of the Free kinda thing.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#448 Sep 6, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
They most certainly are.
Let us examine.
They wish to impose the belief that being gay is normal. Free-thinkers disagree, they are not normal.
Neither are great artists. So what? Normal just means what most people are.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
They wish to make people provide services for them. That deprives others of their liberty. No one, not gays or anyone else, has a right to any service. Slavery is horrid.
Actually, they do. Has nothing to do with slavery. If they shot one of those fundies in the head, then kidnapped his wife, too her half way around the world, raped her and then worked her to death, that would be slavery. Paying someone a grand for a cake isn't slavery.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
Marriage is not a right. Neither is joining a union, creating a corporation, or making someone be your friend. Any kind of relationship whatsoever is subject to law, and is a privilege, not a right. You boneheads don't seem to know the difference. Being a member of society AT ALL, is a privilege, not a right. The only rights you have is to refuse to participate, and refuse to serve others. Thus, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness ... the power to say no to other humans beings that believe differently
than you do.
And equal protection under the law.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
The bigot is clearly the one that attempts to FORCE OTHERS to accept their world view ... which is exactly what you are doing. Shame on you.
IOW, those against gay marriage.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
And worst of all, shame on you for being so narrow-minded and arrogant that you will probably never even consider you might be wrong. YOU are the bigot, my friend, plain and simple.
There is no rational argument against gay marriage, it's a simple equal protection issue. So, I'm not wrong.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#449 Sep 6, 2013
JayC wrote:
It seems if it bothers an individual to photograph something they feel is wrong, there would be plenty of other photo hags to replace....Doesn't seem right to force the Govts morality on all.
Land of the Free kinda thing.
If some fundies refused to photograph my wedding because it was inter racial, I'd take my money somewhere else, then hack their web site and put interracial porn on it.:)

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#450 Sep 6, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage has nothing to do with love.
I loved my father, and we lived together for many years, just him and I.
But we were not married.
The WORD means, state of MOTHERHOOD, not what you think it means. It is a woman's word, first and foremost.
In fact, women should be very offended that gay men show some kind of uterus envy.
Love? Love is not, and has never been, the issue. Freedom of association for love and sex is equally legal for everyone.
But should society trust just ANYONE to bring new people, raise them, and educate them?
Is everyone equally qualified to be parents?
Nope.
Thus, marriage is regulated ... as it should be.
Stupid, people can reproduce without getting married. In fact, marriage has absolutely no effect on the ability to reproduce.
And people who marry don't have to reproduce.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#451 Sep 6, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Being that sexual orientation is not a race, but a choice, your question is meaningless, and your attempt to attach sex to race is disgusting and vile, and a disgrace to the civil rights movement.
It's not better than a criminal saying that he has no choice but to steal from other people, and trying to get protection under the same civil rights by claiming he had no choice but to be a thief.
Davy, you are the Queen of Trolls on Topix.
Are you a fundie?

“26.2”

Since: Feb 08

Santa Fe, NM

#453 Sep 6, 2013
Vincent wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey you nasty ass, big d!ck tranny I thought yuo died from AIDS!
Thanks for at least taking down that disgusting pic of your nasty pygmy stick legs.
Don't worry, it won't be long before the NM Supreme Court trumps all you homophobic religious bigots and rules that SSM is legal in the state. Then you can move to Iran where religious bigotry is legal, and they hang gays in the street. Just don't come back to the USA.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#454 Sep 6, 2013
Vincent wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey you nasty ass, big d!ck tranny I thought yuo died from AIDS!
Thanks for at least taking down that disgusting pic of your nasty pygmy stick legs.
Are you a fundie?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#455 Sep 7, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
I think Willow will be honest enough to know that is not true.
In fact, you are accusing me of the very thing you actually do.
Screw up the definition of things.
Specifically?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#456 Sep 7, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!!!!!
Our rights are defined in the USC?
Please show us where.
This should be VERY amusing.
It's not like every human being on earth has rights or anything ... evidently just Americans because of their super and all-powerful constitution.
Are you some kind of right-wing extremist with a twisted notion to defend special gay rights?
Weird.
Let's review ...

Freedom is absolute and innate for all life.

Rights are those aspects of absolute Freedom that we create Government to guarantee and protect.

Liberties are extra-legal elastic social contracts regarding unenumerated Rights.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#457 Sep 7, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
"Liberty is the value of individuals to have agency (control over their own actions). Different conceptions of liberty articulate the relationship of individuals to society in different ways— these conceptions relate to life under a social contract, existence in an imagined state of nature, and related to the active exercise of freedom and rights as essential to liberty. Understanding liberty involves how we imagine the individual's roles and responsibilities in society in relation to concepts of free will and determinism, which involves the larger domain of metaphysics."
The meaning of "liberty" does not appear to agree with your opinion.
Freedom, liberty, agency over our own bodies and movement?
Sounds like the same thing to me.
Thus, why are you against the photographers being deprived of the very ABSOLUTE rights you proclaim to defend?
Freedom is absolute. Rights, per se, are merely aspects of that absolute Freedom that we create Government to guarantee and protect.

You've provided a nice quote but failed to provide a link or citation of the source.

Actually, my definition of "liberty" is not far different from the one you provided, but it is based upon the historical record of it's usages by our founders. Mine is merely a severely pared-down statement. A real discussion of it would require a volume examining the details of it's evolution over time. This one is that currently used by our Department of State.

A great many years ago when I took my first PoliSci courses I was late to the first class meeting of Comparative Government. Yes, it was THAT long ago, and the reason for my tardiness was that my prior class was at the opposite end of the campus. Anyway, I missed the first 10 minutes of the lecture. When midterms rolled around, the first two questions (essay, no multiple guess in those days) were, "What is 'the law'?" and "What is a democracy?" I filled 50 plus pages analysing and describing the evolution of the concepts, with lots of quotes and citations. Both essays were marked wrong. What I had missed in the lecture were the Official U.S. Govt./Dept of State defs of these two terms. Know what they were, and remain down to this day?

"What is the Law?" - "Whatever the Court says it is."

"What is a democracy?" - "Any system of government in which two or more parties have a reasonable opportunity to be elected."

The Professor, a semi-retired colonel of U.S. Army Intelligence and multiple doctorate in PoliSci and Foreign Relations, had delivered these axioms in that first 10 minutes then never mentioned or referred to them again. I wasn't the only freshman to have overlooked them, but at least I can say that I hadn't been there to hear them, AND they were quite a bit older than I was. lol

I took my test results to him for clarification, and that began years of mentorship and, later, lifelong friendship till his passing.

Politicians, academics and even lawyers may engage in fuzzy definitions, but the Government itself may not. Such pared-down definition are in the service of precision, and are more amenable to analysis by symbolic logic and administrative policy heuristics.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#458 Sep 7, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope.
You attempted to dehumanize everyone that declaring that gays cannot change their sexual orientation.
No one has impeded on your, or anyone else's, freedom to associate with another person.
That freedom of association is NOT the institution of MARRIAGE.
Thus, you have a right to do business, and have sex with other people, in mutual consent.
You do NOT have the right to incorporate, or enter into a marriage, as THOSE are regulated UNIONS governed by society.
Your CONFUSION is self-evident, and very clear. When are you going to stop being so bigoted and narrow-minded?
That's one of your better syllogisms, but it fails due to GIGO.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#459 Sep 7, 2013
The NM Supreme Court will hear arguments on marriage equality Oct 23rd.

Significantly they did NOT issue an injunction preventing any more marriage licenses to be issued.

That sounds like their presumption is the marriages are legal.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#460 Sep 7, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
That's one of your better syllogisms, but it fails due to GIGO.
lol
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#461 Sep 8, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The SCOTUS has declared marriage to be a "fundamental right" over 14 times. Whine all you want, but it doesn't change that simple fact.
We have the right to marry, just as heterosexual do.
Not one of those declarations involved a same sex couple. Do you have the right to marry in Michigan, just as heterosexuals do?

“Sara for Fun (( M 2 F ))”

Since: Aug 10

Bahrain

#462 Sep 8, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Not one of those declarations involved a same sex couple. Do you have the right to marry in Michigan, just as heterosexuals do?
don't have neither in meddle east !!!

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#463 Sep 8, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Not one of those declarations involved a same sex couple. Do you have the right to marry in Michigan, just as heterosexuals do?
Yeah, and at one time in the not so distant past, a white and a black couldn't marry or cohabitate. Not one of those declarations involved black and white. Anti-miscegenation laws. APA wrote an amicus brief on behalf of SSM to the Supremes.

"Psychology will inform upcoming U.S. Supreme Court hearings on same-sex marriage with two APA briefs reporting that there is no valid scientific basis for denying same-sex couples the right to legal marriage, or to deprive them of the institution’s considerable benefits. APA filed two “friend of the court” briefs presenting empirical evidence in support of same-sex marriage, arguing that denying recognition to legally married same-sex couples stigmatizes them. The briefs were filed in the cases of Hollingsworth v. Perry, which challenges California’s Proposition 8, and U.S. v. Windsor, which challenges the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Both cases are slated to be argued in late March.
Years of rigorous scientific studies have demonstrated how “the psychological and social aspects of committed relationships between same-sex partners largely resemble those of heterosexual partnerships” and that “heterosexual and same-sex couples alike face similar issues concerning intimacy, love, equity, loyalty and stability, and they go through similar processes to address those issues,” the briefs state.
“The research shows that same-sex couples are similar to heterosexual couples in essential ways and that they are as likely as opposite-sex couples to raise mentally healthy, well-adjusted children,” said APA President Donald N. Bersoff, PhD, JD.

http://www.apa.org/pubs/newsletters/access/20...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Will Islam Inherit the Earth? 1 hr Newe Yokker 184
News Lesbian Methodist bishop faces challenge to her... 1 hr Rainbow Referee 2
News Bride of ISIS: From 'happily ever after' to hell 5 hr Silly 1
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 7 hr mentor 1 5,588
News Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 19 hr Retired teacher 31,984
News What to Watch: a JonBenet,a a Rodney King,a a E... Mon KCinNYC 1
News 'This is the Trump era': Sessions takes aim at ... Mon slick willie expl... 4
More from around the web