Exactly, so then you see the problem with self-identification. With an INSANE amount of difficulty. This is the problem with polling, which doesn't apply to other types of polling such as polling racial groups. Although, BLEACH white people like Rachel Dolezal will self-identify as black, but I don't think there are too many crazies like that around.
I completely agree that the SCOTUS can and does overturn their decisions but to bring a case one would need standing to do so. Usually harm or constitutional infringement is required for a case to be revisited — who would bring such a case? The most I could see happening is “religious businesses” or individuals being allowed opening discriminate against same sex couples (or gay people in general), but who is harmed by a same sex couple being wed on the opposite end of the nation?
Distance and degree of separation was meant to highlight how they are not impacted. But yes, even right next door I do not see how anyone could claim they are harmed from a same sex union.
When a person enters the bank and robs it of a million dollars, I lost no money. I was not harmed. Should the criminal therefore escape justice?
People at the bank were likely injured, property was likely damaged, funds not insured are lost, funds that are insured are paid out by the tax payer. Again, this is not about you — an arrogant stance — it is about anyone. While you may have not been harmed by a bank robbery many others were. No one is harmed by allowing a same sex couple to wed. You didn’t think this one through.... Try again
Given that same sex marriage is not a crime, you cannot seriously use a criminal analogy. The law, in the case of a bank robbery, is not only applied if people are harmed.
In how many 'refusal-of-service-for-same-sex-wedding' cases have you heard the business state their reason as they would be harmed?
Did you think that I was saying that it CAN be based upon religious definition? All I was doing here is explaining why the 'old law vs new law' argument of Biblical same sex marriage is so outrageously stupid. I'm surprised that you have misunderstood to this level. The argument is that BIBLICAL marriage is only between man and woman because the Bible says so. I haven't once generalised in this discussion saying that, marriage (caveat free) is only between man and woman because the Bible said so. Are you saying that you've heard this argument coming from a particular denomination? If so, which one? Are you responding to the question, how would your position on same sex marriage change if you became convinced that Christianity was true? I'm not sure how your reply relates. Is "for expense fee" your own term? Google returns no results with the term. Independent churches or part of a denomination? Something to do with my use of the English language that made you think I might be a European whose first language isn't English? Are you able to cite any examples? Any decision against a religious organisation in a discrimination lawsuit is surely in violation of the First Amendment.
That is a reason for right to refuse service to make it’s way to the SCOTUS, not same sex marriage. I am talking about the signing of a civil document only — no services, no photographs, no cake, no employment law. Just getting married. Your scenario is like wanting to ban cars because a drunk driver hit you.
Opening discriminate against same sex couples by doing what exactly? Okay, so the relevant government office which administers marriage licenses? What scenario? I didn't create any scenario.
Refusing services, goods, medical treatment, employment, housing and many other things the religious right is claiming are “religious freedom” What about it? You brought up the “'refusal-of-service-for-same-sex-wedding' cases” a]to my question about how this would make it to the SCOTUS. I do not believe religious refusals have anything to do with SSM.
Now I really confused. You mention "services" above, but earlier you said that you are "talking about the signing of a civil document only — no services, no photographs, no cake, no employment law. Just getting married." Well that's how the "signing of a civil document" would take place isn't it?
You asked “Opening discriminate against same sex couples by doing what exactly?”, if that is not want you meant you can disregard it. What is your point?
The argument was that it couldn't be overturned. The reality is it can, by SCOTUS itself. I even noted that the likely hood of it happening was a different point altogether, but the fact remains is that it could. Just because you and I can't see it happening, doesn't mean it won't. Just a few short decades ago, no one really saw a ruling to allow SSM happening.
A same sex wedding in and of itself cannot cause harm to an outside party. Forced involvement can be argued to that point, if we are including violation of rights. Whether or not rights are actually being violated and which rights if so, is a whole separate topic. The argument that allowing SSM causes harm to someone, at least more so than a OSM, is patently false. The argument that a business being required to be involved, via business law, is harmful has merit, regardless of how much we disagree on base premises. But this later argument does nothing to show how SSM should be illegal.
The implication I got was that marriage is based, not could be, upon the Bible. You would not have been the first person to make such an argument, claiming the legal definition can't be different from their religious one. As far as old law vs new law, the fact remains that there are those who claim that same sex marriage is not a violation of the new covenant, and claim, just as much as their opponents, that theirs is a correct interpretation of the Bible. Now personally, I will only claim it is a valid interpretation, not necessarily a correct one. We won't know the correct interpretations until the afterlife. My point is that different people interpret the Bible differently, with vastly different results. Regardless of whether I agree with your point personally, I am noting that others see it differently and that there is no absolute way to prove one side or the other as to what was originally intended. It's all interpretation. It is one of the best and most frustrating aspects of any religion. Entire wars have been fought between denominations as to who is right and who is wrong. Catholics vs Protestant, Lutheran vs Catholics. Maybe it's not been clear as to what you are asking. Your question seems to imply how would one's position on legal same sex marriage change if they became convinced Christianity was true. Am I misunderstanding the question and/or context of it? Descriptive phrase to basically say a few to cover expenses, as opposed to making a profit. Both. Mind you, I've never heard such from the overall organizations themselves, 1) because I'm sure they are being rather politic about it and 2) I really don't pay attention anything part local levels. It's more important to me what WBC specifically does, that what the Baptist Church as a whole claims. No. Something you said made me realize you did not reside in the US. I dismissed a good use of the English language since it is widely used throughout Europe regardless on one's native language, as well as in several other countries. AU and NZ were certainly possiblities, but again, the odds were just greater that you were European. Of course now I get the au part of your user name. I don't claim to be quick on the draw on everything. Just to close out this response so I don't lose it all since I have to go to work.... I'll see if I can dig up some of those cases. The pavilion one stands out in my memory.
I would think that after 100,000 plus gay marriages, that if there was some way that an angry anti gay marriage nut could have come up with a legal case against gay marriage, we would have heard about the case by now. There just doesn’t seem to be any legal challenge to gay marriage that would interest the Supreme Court so I really doubt we’ll see it overturned, even if the Court becomes more conservative. Sorry, anti-gay dudes.
nobody has standing to challenge a SCOTUS ruling. We've been through that. No lower court can rule in opposition to a SCOTUS ruling. They are all bound by the precedent. The only way to overturn a ruling is via an amendment.
We can easily turn that around looking at pre turn of the century thinking. After 1M+ opposite sex marriages, that if there was some way that a pro gay marriage nut could have come up with a legal case for gay marriage, we would have heard about the case by now. Mind you, there was one in '72, but given I only learned about it recently, I doubt it is as front and center as Obergefell or Roe. It was a case that confirmed state's right to limit marriage to opposite sex. Just because we can't think of it now, doesn't mean it won't happen. They couldn't come up with the proper arguments then, but they did recently.
The claim was that a SCOTUS ruling cannot be changed except by amendment. The reality is, as stated by SCOTUS itself, a previous ruling can be overturned by a newer ruling by SCOTUS. I gave you the link to the SCOTUS website, where it explicitly stated such. Maybe you better write to SCOTUS and let them know they are not allowed to overrule their previous rulings as they have done over 200 times already.
Then you should be able to come up with a case you would present to the courts that show reason to outlaw gay marriage. Remember, the courts generally ignore the,”cause I don’t like it...” reasoning.
