What a Good Democrat Christian Woman

[Steeltime]

The Supreme Court has always ruled on the state vs. federal government issue when it comes to rights of minorities. The same "state" argument used against gay marriage was used in the 60's for segregation. Back then, every southern states said the same thing you are saying. That federal government should stay out of it's business and if people don't like their state laws they can just move to a state that isn't segregated.

Oh for crying out loud, if our constitution had a 13th, 14th and 15th amendment guaranteeing rights to gays, I would not have written my comments. Comparing Federal intervention into race relations to gay rights conveniently ignores the fact that THE CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY SPELLS OUT PROTECTIONS ON THE BASIS OF RACE but has no such guarantees regarding sexual orientation.

You may want the constitution to protect sexual orientation, but it doesn't.

You can't have families recognized as married in one state, then move to another state and lose civil privileges. You can't file for dual income tax as a married couple in Oregon then move to Texas and not have that same right. You can't have different visitation rights in hospitals. You can't have different rights when it comes to adoption.

Of course you can. You don't know that states CURRENTLY have differing laws and analyses for property rights, and state income taxes, and adoption, and hospital visitation??? Seriously, you didn't know that California's distribution of marital property is completely different than that of Arizona, and Oregon, and on and on? And that while most states recognize "common law marriage," California does NOT?

And every state has different laws for income tax regarding spouses, and domestic partners, etc. Are you saying that the Supreme Court should jump in and mandate distribution of property, and state income taxes, and hospital visitation? You must be, because right now, every state is different in terms of personal rights and responsibilities in all such matters. In point of fact, states differ as to determining paternity.

Did you know that many states - including California - have what is called a "conclusive presumption" that any child born during wedlock is the child of the husband, DNA tests be damned? Didn't know that, did you??

I guess the Supremes need to jump in here since it is a violation of the 5th and 14th amendments to stick the husband with child support where the ***** ****** another guy ... right????

But see the way the law works in our land is that the Federal government has NO BUSINESS getting involved in paternity, and child support, and marriage.

This is clearly an issues that has ramifications for people "freedoms" that extends beyond State borders and that's why the Supreme Court was correct in their decision to finally intervene on this matter and makes one thing "Law of the Land" once and for all.

No, the simple fact is that you like the decision and think it's great - ignoring the fact that as I have detailed above, the Supreme Court has no goddamn business deciding this issue. Again, try and analyze this issue without a rooting interest. Look at the delineation of Federal powers, and the long history of the Supreme Court staying the hell out of matters involving marriage. I base this on the following:

10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." I also base my analysis on Supreme Court decisions, holding, "regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.” (Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393 (1975). Moreover, the court in Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U. S. 379 –384 (1930) held in part that the significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States.”

So other than the fact that you like the outcome, what do you have supporting your position?

 

[Ron Burgundy]

You can't have families recognized as married in one state, then move to another state and lose civil privileges.

Although widely abused, the Commerce Clause exists to cover things like this. It's why gay marriage HAS to be legal in all states. Whether you think it's right or wrong, Federal law ALWAYS supersedes state law and the Supreme Court in recent history has no interest in changing that.

 

[EdReed4Prez]

or we could have a smaller government that doesn't involve itself in whether people are married or not or who as visitation rights in hospitals. People, you know the ones who are supposed to be in charge, could decide those things for themselves. ..

Liked then unliked just so I could like it again.

 

[Steeltime]

Although widely abused, the Commerce Clause exists to cover things like this. It's why gay marriage HAS to be legal in all states.

The commerce clause will not cover interpersonal relationships like marriage. Arguably, the "full faith and credit" provision of the Constitution mandates that states recognize marriages deemed valid in another state, including gay marriage. That clause mandates, "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." Marriage would be deemed a "public act," triggering the full faith and credit clause.

However, the full faith and credit clause is not to be confused with the "supremacy" clause, which mandates that Federal law will prevail over state law, when Federal law is genuinely in conflict with state law and where the state law provides less protection than the Federal law. (I address the supremacy clause below.)

Whether you think it's right or wrong, Federal law ALWAYS supersedes state law and the Supreme Court in recent history has no interest in changing that.

In a manner of speaking, yes, but as noted, Federal courts try to avoid employing the supremacy clause to void state law. In fact, Federal courts have long followed a policy that seeks to avoid preemption, in deference to state rights, absent express Congressional mandate that the Federal law is to be the only law on a subject. (The Employee Retirement and Income Security Act ["ERISA"] is one such example.) Absent such express preemption (termed "occupying the field), where state law is susceptible to more than one plausible reading, courts ordinarily "accept the reading that disfavors pre-emption." (Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431, 449 (2005).)

Additionally, states are generally free to give citizens more protection than does Federal law or the Constitution, on the theory that such state law will not frustrate the purpose of Federal law and instead will further that purpose by granting even more protection.

The issue of preemption and the supremacy clause is one that I know only due to law school and first-hand experience in handling a case where I argued that Federal law governing chemical warnings (contained on material safety data sheets, or "MSDS" sheets) preempted California product liability law regarding "failure to warn." The trial court disagreed with my preemption argument, finding that California law provided more protection, and was not preempted despite a specific provision in the Federal law indicating that the Federal OSHA statute was designed to preempt state law.

Ladies and gents, the foregoing constitutes a lot of time and money Steeltime spent in law school and in practice learning about preemption, the supremacy clause, the full faith and credit act, occupying the field, and related topics.

 

[DBS1970]

Although widely abused, the Commerce Clause exists to cover things like this. It's why gay marriage HAS to be legal in all states. Whether you think it's right or wrong, Federal law ALWAYS supersedes state law and the Supreme Court in recent history has no interest in changing that.

No the Commerce clause was put into the Constitution to encourage trade and make it regular between the states. The 18th century definition of the word regulate was different than it is today.

That being said, sure gays have the right to marry whom they please. All people have an absolute right to free association. The real problem here is and always has been the government stealing rights from people and selling them back via licensing.

 

[Vis]

The other issue in this story:

To what extent should we allow people to break the law if their religious views are in conflict with it and to which religions does this apply?

 

[oneforthebus]

The other issue in this story:

To what extent should we allow people to break the law if their religious views are in conflict with it and to which religions does this apply?

Obviously in terms of things like wife beating or honor killing those people are committing crimes according to our legal code. Is refusing to do your job a crime? If she was any regular employee who refused to do her job, yes, she would be able to be fired but not jailed. Since she is an elected official the proper procedure for removing her would be impeachment, right? I know, she was jailed for contempt of court I just wonder if a court legally has or should have the ability to compel someone to do their job. Is there a legal basis for that?

 

[Ron Burgundy]

The commerce clause will not cover interpersonal relationships like marriage. Arguably, the "full faith and credit" provision of the Constitution mandates that states recognize marriages deemed valid in another state, including gay marriage. That clause mandates, "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." Marriage would be deemed a "public act," triggering the full faith and credit clause.

No the Commerce clause was put into the Constitution to encourage trade and make it regular between the states. The 18th century definition of the word regulate was different than it is today.

But like I said, it's widely abused. You've got to think like a Liberal bureaucrat where you don't want one state to have an advantage over another lest Liberalism be proven not to work, so every state has to do everything the same. That is the goal.

Whether or not one is married affects one's Federal taxes and therefore net income, therefore it affects interstate commerce. /Liberal court logic

 

[SteelChip]

 

[Vis]

Obviously in terms of things like wife beating or honor killing those people are committing crimes according to our legal code. Is refusing to do your job a crime? If she was any regular employee who refused to do her job, yes, she would be able to be fired but not jailed. Since she is an elected official the proper procedure for removing her would be impeachment, right? I know, she was jailed for contempt of court I just wonder if a court legally has or should have the ability to compel someone to do their job. Is there a legal basis for that?

Yes, the Judge always has the ability to enforce an Order of the court and in this case he waited until she lost every appeal. If the Court can be ignored without consequence we lose that branch. Remember that she isn't just refusing to do her job, she's instructing all others in the office not to do theirs. I think the test for religious accomodation in the workplace depends on whether it projects the individuals beliefs into the lives of others. She wants her beliefs to restrict the freedom of many.

 

[deljzc]

I'm not the one that made "marriage" a government defined term with privileges.

If we want to get rid of all that, go right ahead. No tax breaks. No joint returns. No laws defining who gets what in a divorce. No laws clarifying parental rights. Nothing anywhere, in any law, that mentioned the word "marriage".

But that's not what happened over the last 200 years of our country. Every time a wife sued a husband for alimony or child support, the courts got involved. And after a while it became advantageous to create uniform laws (to some degree) on these matters.

Then, to encourage marriage, the government created perks via the tax code to have a joint return.

Once the government got involved in these things it became a "right" that can't be denied to two people that form a union of association based on their sex. You can call it what you want, but in terms of law "marriage" is allowed for man-man, man-woman and woman-woman. As long as it's two consenting adults that are capable of making that decision, the court has simply ruled that it's all the same in the eyes of the courts/government.

No where in the ruling does it say churches have to recognize the marriage. No where does it say God has to recognize it. If you want to believe God gives a damn about homosexuality, go right ahead. You just can't discriminate based on it. You can't (and shouldn't) treat them any different. Let God be judge. Not people.

 

[EdReed4Prez]

Yes, the Judge always has the ability to enforce an Order of the court and in this case he waited until she lost every appeal. If the Court can be ignored without consequence we lose that branch. Remember that she isn't just refusing to do her job, she's instructing all others in the office not to do theirs. I think the test for religious accomodation in the workplace depends on whether it projects the individuals beliefs into the lives of others. She wants her beliefs to restrict the freedom of many.

That's the key phrase in all of this.

 

[Rod Farva]

Quote Originally Posted by Rod Farva View Post

The Constitution reserves ALL rights not enumerated in it to the states, not vice versa.

Or the people. The whole problem with the bill of rights is that people think it has to be there to be a right. That' was the debate in the Federalist Papers.

Don't ask me where is says the state can't stop gay marriage, tell me where it says anywhere they can.

Just as soon as she abdicates her personal beliefs in one God in favor of a power that would be.

Religion over law of the land. Sounds sharia-like to me.

When a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom. See, e.g., Waters v. Churchill, 511 U. S. 661, 671 (1994) (plurality opinion)

Gay marriage isn't an issue with me. Don't really care about it and has never been my point here........my point has been and is that the federal government putting this woman in jail is a huge over reaction.

 

[Vis]

Quote Originally Posted by Rod Farva View Post

The Constitution reserves ALL rights not enumerated in it to the states, not vice versa.

Or the people. The whole problem with the bill of rights is that people think it has to be there to be a right. That' was the debate in the Federalist Papers.

Don't ask me where is says the state can't stop gay marriage, tell me where it says anywhere they can.

Just as soon as she abdicates her personal beliefs in one God in favor of a power that would be.



Gay marriage isn't an issue with me. Don't really care about it and has never been my point here........my point has been and is that the federal government putting this woman in jail is a huge over reaction.

It was the Judge whose order she ignored. That and fines are the only stick they have and fines won't work in this case.

 

[IndySteel]

it projects the individuals beliefs into the lives of others. She wants her beliefs to restrict the freedom of many.

Teacher: Use dictate in a sentence.
Buckwheat: Darla say my dictate good.

 

[Rod Farva]

It was the Judge whose order she ignored. That and fines are the only stick they have and fines won't work in this case.

Okay.....she's out now. So what was gained?

 

[EdReed4Prez]

If a Muslim or a Jew becomes head of the FDA, I sure hope they can't impose their pork beliefs on me. #savemybacon

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Gay marriage isn't an issue with me. Don't really care about it and has never been my point here........my point has been and is that the federal government putting this woman in jail is a huge over reaction.

You mean like jailing the guy whose video didn't start the attack on our embassy in Benghazi?

 

[21STEELERS21]

I saw a story recently where a Muslim woman was fired from her stewardess job because she refused to serve
alcohol to passengers. She is suing for discrimination.

This religious freedom has gotten bizarre. Anyone should be free to worship and participate in any religion they so choose.
But they shouldn't take jobs whose responsibilities conflict with their religious beliefs and then force employers to alter their
responsibilities. There are plenty of other jobs to choose from.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

I saw a story recently where a Muslim woman was fired from her stewardess job because she refused to serve
alcohol to passengers. She is suing for discrimination.

This religious freedom has gotten bizarre. Anyone should be free to worship and participate in any religion they so choose.
But they shouldn't take jobs whose responsibilities conflict with their religious beliefs and then force employers to alter their
responsibilities. There are plenty of other jobs to choose from.

That's where you get where you have a problem catering to too many minorities and special interest groups. When I worked in ground transportation at the Pittsburgh Airport, one of the things in the employee agreement I had to sign was that I wouldn't discriminate against anyone based on age, race, sex, etc., including people with service animals. This is because Muslims consider dogs to be "unclean" and don't want to be in the same county with one, and well, we have a lot of Muslim cabbies and shuttle drivers. That probably wouldn't have been in there unless there had been a problem. So whose rights trump whose? Does the Muslim cabbie have a right to refuse a passenger with seeing eye dog or does the blind person have a right to get a ride from any cab?

 

[Troglodyte]

This is because Muslims consider dogs to be "unclean" and don't want to be in the same county with one...

And just when I thought I couldn't be any less trustful of Muslims...

 

[Vis]

Okay.....she's out now. So what was gained?

Her staff says they will defy her and keep issuing the licenses.

 

[Vis]

I'm an atheist and just because I took a job as a Priest my boss wants me to hear confession and give communion. That's against my beliefs and the Bishop should accommodate me.

 

[ark steel]

Her staff says they will defy her and keep issuing the licenses.

So, no one would, really, be denied anything? Much ado about nothing?

 

[Vis]

So, no one would, really, be denied anything? Much ado about nothing?

This is a new thing. Before the contempt the whole office refused. Davis could fire the clerks who defy her so it continues to be in the news until she gets that book deal.