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.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#528 Sep 12, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
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.:)
Racism is immoral. One cannot choose the color of their skin. Christian doctrine does not allow for racism in any form whatsoever.

Your comment makes not sense, and is not applicable to the topic at hand.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#529 Sep 12, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
This was my post:

"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."

Your reply makes no sense.

You do not need to be married to have babies.

Just as you do not need a business license to sell meth.

Or a driver's license to actually drive.

You can do all of these things without sanction from society.

But if you want the benefits of incorporation, marriage, or a driver's license, then you have to abide by the rules applicable to those.

Very simple concept. You want benefits, you play by the rules.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#530 Sep 12, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
What?
Pay attention.
Civil rights was based on an issue over which people have no choice ... the COLOR OF THEIR SKIN.
I did not say all laws, or "public accommodation laws" only. Public accommodation is a limit on GOVERNMENT discrimination anyway. No government has a right to discriminate against people based on anything.
An individual or group does, as they are not limited like the government is.
And no, your sexual orientation is not at all comparable to sexual CHOICE. To do so is a disgrace to the whole civil rights movement. Using the civil rights movement to benefit your perversion is very dishonest and very offensive to all of us.
No, civil rights are based on rights which are ensured by the civil government- hence the name civil rights.

Black civil rights, gay civil rights, women's civil rights, Asian's civil rights, Jew's civil rights- they're ALL civil rights.

No, public accommodation is a limit on private businesses open to the general public as well.

I couldn't care less if you're offended. If you weren't so ignorant, you likely wouldn't be offended.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#531 Sep 12, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
All of my statements are based on rational arguments. Your mere disagreement is not an argument.:)
No, there absolutely is a rational reason to deny same-sex marriage. As already presented. Marriage is a special kind of regulated institution evolved over many thousands of years for the purpose of procreation, education of the next generation, and continuation of culture and civilization.
All of my arguments are valid. None of yours are, as proven time and time again.
Hmmmm, and yet our argument keeps winning in court, while the anti-gay argument keeps losing.

It's only a matter of time now before we have marriage equality nationwide.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#532 Sep 12, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<Very simple concept. You want benefits, you play by the rules.
Actually we just keep getting the rules changed, state-by-state, court case by court case.....

There is absolutely NOTHING you can do to prevent marriage equality nationwide.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#533 Sep 12, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Ambiguous.

Freedom FROM what? Or, freedom to DO what? Freedom is not a word that, by itself, has any real meaning.

No living thing is free FROM the restrictions imposed by nature. Water and food is necessary.

Rights are universal, and require no institution at all to exist. They are not bound by national origin, culture, beliefs, religion, or anything else. The Declaration of Independence best describes this.

Liberty is simply a right. The right to be free from others and their restrictions, or the liberty to give up certain rights to participate in society and their institutions. Thus, you will be executed, and forfeit your right to life, if you refuse to defend the society you vowed to defend in times of war. You will be jailed, or forfeit your right to liberty, if you refuse to pay for public services via taxes.

Participation in any institution or interaction with other human beings is a FORFEITURE of rights. Rights (including the specific right of liberty) are merely the right to not participate in anything at all.

In other words, you give up some rights to gain some privileges.

You are screwing up simple meanings once again. Simple concepts.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#534 Sep 12, 2013
STILL no argument for anyone's opinion (including the Court's) as to why one believes marriage is a right and not a privilege.

A detailed argument is still pending ....

Anyone?

Anyone?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#535 Sep 12, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Your above response to this:
The SCOTUS has already ruled marriage is a basic fundament right.
Btw, you need PERMISSION to buy a gun too, thus according to you that can't be a right either.
Makes no sense.
Of course you need PERMISSION to buy a gun. Are you saying the right to bear arms implies that we can steal guns to satisfy such a right?
I ignore nothing, Willow, and you know it. In fact, instead of admitting when you are wrong, you are lying more and more. I have noticed this over the years. You really need to examine your position.
Pedophilia is a sexual orientation, thus, a choice. They are always comparable, just as foot fetishes is an orientation.
They are all subject to restraint and control by the will. Thus, they are choices. Are you claiming that those attracted to children have ALWAYS acted on it? No, they haven't. Most know that it is wrong, and do not act on it. Some even learn to realign their orientation, and live completely normal lives.
Same for homosexuals and heterosexuals. Regardless of the tug of nature, all orientations are choices ... period.
If you don't like these facts, then present a viable argument to convince us otherwise.
Except of course that those aren't the facts.

But keep thinking that's going to stop us from getting marriage equality across America by the end of the decade.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#536 Sep 12, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<
Homosexuality is a proven public health menace ... period.
.
Except of course that it's not.

But feel free to believe that's going to prevent us from getting marriage equality nationwide by the end of the decade.

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#537 Sep 12, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Good grief, Willow
Those are common definitions available in any dictionary.
No peer-reviewed evidence necessary for understanding basic concepts. Words are not subject to peer-review.
So, lets see whatever definitions that are available in dictionaries that you are alluding to...and you are right...evidence-based is too much.

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#538 Sep 12, 2013
Yankee Yahoo:
"Pedophilia is a sexual orientation, thus, a choice..."

Source, cite, peer review...or use your dictionary.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#539 Sep 12, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
You absolutely have the power and free will to choice who you are attracted to, or not.
And, it changes over time for a multitude of reasons, from natural procreative urges to kinky desires. or the fashion of the age.
You have no right to be happy. You have the right to PURSUE it, but no assurance that you will ever get it.
Homosexuality is never a "natural" orientation. It is a choice. So is being heterosexual, though nature tends to impose a great deal of influence for the sake of evolution.
Stop lying to yourself, and liberate your mind. You have more power than you realize.
Nope. People do not choose attraction.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#540 Sep 12, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
STILL no argument for anyone's opinion (including the Court's) as to why one believes marriage is a right and not a privilege.
A detailed argument is still pending ....
Anyone?
Anyone?
9th amendment.

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Until proven otherwise, marriage is a right retained by the people.

The onus is on YOU to prove it's not a right.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#541 Sep 12, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
STILL no argument for anyone's opinion (including the Court's) as to why one believes marriage is a right and not a privilege.
A detailed argument is still pending ....
Anyone?
Anyone?
SCOTUS says so, 14 times:

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.

Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,”

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965):“We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects."

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967):“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.”

Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971):“[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974):“This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977)(plurality):“[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”

Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977):“[I]t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978):“[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987):“[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[] of emotional support and public commitment.”

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992):“These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996):“Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003):“[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education.… Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cas...

Fundamental right come from being human. The courts have made it clear this right remains a right even when procreation is impossible, and even when sex is impossible. It is a fundamental right of the individual,(though you must find another willing individual).

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#542 Sep 12, 2013
Procreation is not a legitimate excuse for denial of the right of marriage. Neither is you prejudice about sexual orienation. Gill:

"But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA's passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it "prevents children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure, when afforded equal recognition under federal law.

Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country. Indeed, "the sterile and the elderly" have never been denied the right to marry by any of the fifty states. And the federal government has never considered denying recognition to marriage based on an ability or inability to procreate.

Similarly, Congress' asserted interest in defending and nurturing heterosexual marriage is not "grounded in sufficient factual context for this court to ascertain some relation" between it and the classification DOMA effects.

What remains, therefore, is the possibility that Congress sought to deny recognition to same-sex marriages in order to make heterosexual marriage appear more valuable or desirable. But the extent that this was the goal, Congress has achieved it "only by punishing same-sex couples who exercise their rights under state law." And this the Constitution does not permit. "For if the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean" that the Constitution will not abide such "a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group."

Neither does the Constitution allow Congress to sustain DOMA by reference to the objective of defending traditional notions of morality. As the Supreme Court made abundantly clear in Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans, "the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law..."

http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/dist...
davy

Albuquerque, NM

#543 Sep 12, 2013
This is one of your dumbest posts yet. For you that is really saying something. Basic human rights according to who? Attained by what means? The right to murder people for blasphemy during the inquisition? The right to lynch blacks in the antebellum South? The right to gas Jews in concentration camps. The right of pro-lifers to shoot doctors in the back? All those people thought they were in the right. You seem to be the only one stupid enough to realize that people don't always agree on what is right.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, duh!
Rights transcend the opinions of society and governments, who may or may not recognize basic human rights.
Otherwise, they are not "rights."
Gosh, you are one ignorant troll.
davy

Albuquerque, NM

#544 Sep 12, 2013
Sounds like you sucked a lot of dicks before you made your "choice".
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Mmm, sounds like your jealous you missed out on meeting me before I went straight, eh?
Too bad, I would have rocked your world.:)

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#545 Sep 12, 2013
"The Court finds that neither Congress' claimed legislative justifications nor any of the proposed reasons proffered by BLAG constitute bases rationally related to any of the alleged governmental interests. Further, after concluding that neither the law nor the record can sustain any of the interests suggested, the Court, having tried on its own, cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further."

"Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves."

Conclusion: DOMA, as it relates to Golinski's case, "violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution".(Golinski)

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#546 Sep 12, 2013
This case is being appealed to the SCOTUS. It will be interesting to see if they accept it.

Allowing a business open to the general public to use a "deeply held belief" to discriminate against their customers puts the 1st, 9th, 10th, 14th, 15th, 19th, & 26th amendments and all federal & state civil rights legislation in jeopardy.

Christians could use such a ruling to discriminate against Mormons, Athiests, Jews, and of course other Christians.

Whites could use it to discriminate against blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc.

Men could use it to discriminate against women.

Young people could use it to discriminate against old people.

Straights could use it to discriminate against gays.

Etc, etc, etc.

Essentially a majority could lock the minority out of participating in our society.

Ah, just like the "good old day" of the 18th century.......

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#548 Sep 12, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
SCOTUS says so, 14 times:
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,”
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965):“We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects."
Same type of posts he has seen numerous times. He ignores them. He has the holy grail of rights and no one else has.
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967):“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.”
Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971):“[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974):“This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977)(plurality):“[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977):“[I]t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978):“[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987):“[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[] of emotional support and public commitment.”
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992):“These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996):“Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003):“[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education.… Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cas...
Fundamental right come from being human. The courts have made it clear this right remains a right even when procreation is impossible, and even when sex is impossible. It is a fundamental right of the individual,(though you must find another willing individual).
This has been posted numerous times in various forms and he ignores it. He has the holy grail of rights.

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 9 min River Tam 15,107
News Alabama's chief justice defends his gay marriag... 1 hr Seperate Church N... 10
News Excited by Trump, gay Republicans struggle with... 2 hr Frankie Rizzo 265
Little Robbie's Nursery Rhymes 2 hr HAHAHAHA 2
Watching Over You by Greg Lake 3 hr Fa-Foxy 2
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 4 hr Respect71 38,688
News ABC's 'What Would You Do?' Depicts Man Cheating... 5 hr Conrad 4
News Austin Loses 'A Safe Space for Gay Men to Go Ha... 9 hr Mite Be 32
More from around the web