which I showed was false. It has no effect what so ever on marriage between man and woman. Sex has nothing to do with marriage. Huh? Sex is irrelevant to marriage. no they can’t. The only way to overturn a Supreme Court ruling is with a constitutional amendment.
You did not show anything, you tried to divert the logic and push gay propaganda again. The reason is that you have no arguments. I am not sure, but I have heard that SC overturned many decisions. Benefits for gay sex may be one of them in the future.
I directly addressed your argument, and refuted it. the ink way to overturn a SC ruling is with an amendment. Nobody gets benefits for gay sex. Sex is irrelevant to marriage.
If sex and procreation are irrelevant to marriage then marriage laws should be changed. I hope Supreme Court will either get the law overturned or force states change the law to make access to marriage benefits universal, i.e. equal to any couple, including closely related couples.
Both sex and procreation has always been irrelevant to marriage. same sex marriage bans have been ruled on. No case can again go before the court. It’s settled law. If other couples wish to challenge bans on their marriage, they are free to take their case to court.
Marriage laws have numerous references to procreation and sex, one of them is a presumption of fatherhood if man is married. Why you are trying to alter well known fact? You probably have no arguments at all, you know that benefits for gay sex are illegitimate and you admitted it. Supreme Court has dictatorial power, they can change any law any way they want it, especially if law is unjust.
We don't think of marriage as part of the law. A law is able to be broken. However, marriage cannot be broken by two men or two women attempting to be married under God, because the Bible makes it clear that the marriage is between a man and a woman. Two men or two women can have a 'Christian' wedding without the wedding in itself being a violation of the law if the laws set forth in the OT were still applicable today. I assume that you meant, thus same sex marriage IS legit under Christianity since Christ didn't specify it wasn't. If you've heard of Christians making this laughable argument, then they are Christians who don't know the fundamentals of Christianity. Quite sad really. Well let's just say for the sake of argument that Jesus said that marriage is between a man and a woman. Maybe then you would agree that I could pose the following question to a non-Christian without any ambiguity: How would your position on same sex marriage change if you became convinced that Christianity was true? Well if they are providing for-profit services to club members, and therefore 'private', the club is still subject to taxes isn't it? State or federal taxes and laws? That's not how it works in Australia. A non-member wedding or funeral would not be subject to taxes and no more laws would apply than for a member wedding or funeral. Well some fund raisers are just for members. Perhaps you mean public fund raisers. I thought that you were saying that a church wouldn't treat a non-member wedding as religious, but only as a business transaction. I see now that you're talking about how the law sees it. Well being a religious ran organisation isn't the only way to avoid taxes is it. Aren't all not-for-profit organisations treated the same whether religious or not? Their congregation or their organisation? I doubt that would mean that their position is that God cannot be part of literally anyone's marriage unless they have been specifically baptised in their congregation or even organisation. That would mean that they think that there are very few people that have lived in the world that have ever had a Christian marriage! What's more likely to be the case is that people cannot be members of their congregation or organisation due to the lack of being baptised within it and they only marry members. And what's also likely is that if they DID do perform a non-member wedding, they would treat it as religious wedding ceremony. Well this is a reason that churches don't perform non-member weddings. It doesn't mean that if they DID ever perform one, that it wouldn't be a religious wedding ceremony. I'm a British born Australian living in Australia. Why did you guess European? If there have been no actual efforts, thoroughly unconstitutional, anti-First Amendment efforts, then I really can't see what churches have ever had to fear. How utterly pathetic of them if they feared "talk." How do you know that it is one of the reasons?
What does any of this have to do with whether or not they are actually accepting of Christ? Well when I say that polling can be way off, I'm not suggesting that this is because people are not being honest with regards to certain aspects of their lives. I'm saying that people who self identify as part of the group being surveyed/studied may not be someone who is a fair representative of that group.
Which is a paternity law, not a marriage law. I’m not. I’m correcting you. There are no benefits for gay sex, and you know that. No they can’t.
There are no legal benefits for any kind of sex. If you believe so, then cite the law that grants such.
You are wrong. There is always a chance it can be overturned. CNN Article Now whether it is likely to happen is a different issue. But it can.
There are laws that deal with how things are between being married or not. However, marriage is the precursor to those laws, not them making the requirements for legal marriage. Show a law that requires love, sex or procreation as a basis or requirement for legal marriage. Actually no they cannot. The case first has to make it's way to SCOTUS before they can rule on it. Then appropriate arguments would need to be made to show how the law is or is not following, first the Constitution, and then other laws as applicable. Only then can the court make a ruling.
it can’t be overturned. Nobody has standing to challenge a Supreme Court ruling. All lower courts are bound by the precedent and can’t rule in opposition to it. The only way to overturn it is via an amendment. no it can’t.
Which is all fine and well from a religious standpoint, assuming one interprets their religious text as such. However, marriage as a legal institution, especially in the US where religion is separate from the state, cannot be based upon any given religious definition. Thus the idea that marriage is only between man and woman because the Bible said so is admissible as a basis to the legal institution. That is pretty much the argument of one denomination about all the others, especially if they widely disagree. And a bloody good reason why civil law should never be based upon any given religious basis. And yes, that was a typo on my part. Your interpretation is correct. I thought that is the direction you might be going, but I would rather be sure than assume. With that said, a prime tenant of Christianity is that you choose to follow or not. You are not forced to choose Christianity or to follow its tenents. Thus civil law should not be based upon Christianity, for that is forcing one to follow, something the Christ never did nor advocated. With it being for in house members then it would be considered a for expense fee, and thus not not for profit. Just keep in mind that a lot of us here acknowledge how messed up our laws are and that they don't necessarily make sense, especially outside the US. Key words. See previous paragraph. I think frequency has a lot to do with it. If it's something that's available at anytime then it's essentially a business transaction. If it is only a few times a year, then it's a fund raiser. Again, I don't pretend to understand all of it. Apologies on that then, for not being clear. Yeah how the law sees a transaction between the church and a member, and between a church and a non-member can be different. And different circumstances can change how the event is viewed as far as taxable or not. Our income tax code is massive and frankly in some places, contradictory. I remember a story of one ex IRS employee who wrote a piece of the code, and then sometime after he left the IRS, that section applied to him, and he couldn't figure it out. There is a reason there are call for a flat tax and the Fair Tax act among other more simplified methods of income tax. Not as I understand it. A religious organization and a non-profit are two separate things legally speaking. And within non-profit there are different categories with different rule. So a Star Trek fan club would fall under a different category from a charity, and how much money they are allowed to have on hand. Furthermore, even as a charity, there are different rules, some federal based others state based. For example, I work for Goodwill, in a state with sales tax. Because of how we are structured, we have to charge sales tax. Some smaller local based thrift stores do not. Not sure why, but that is how it is. No, they actually believe that their version of Christianity is the only true one, and that others are false. They alone hold to the true ways and other have fallen away and are no longer under God's grace. We're talking Westboro Baptist levels of idiocy or worse. Playing the odds. Especially since a lot of Western Europeans learn English as a second language if it's not their first. It wasn't an intent to dismiss the possibility of Australia or NZ, or even some Asian countries Given that we have people who are actively trying to have the religious status revoked, such that all churches, synagogues, mosques and such run as business organizations or subject to non-profit laws, it's not a far stretch to worry that they might try a different route. We have had lawsuits over such things as pavilion rentals and other such "services" where churches who didn't want to rent to LBGT based or supporting groups were successfully sued. Hence the reason to go to member only use. These lawsuits have had varying degrees of success depending on the state. From the various incidents that have happened over my near half century of life.
Outside of God/Christ themselves, no one can say whether or not a person is truly accepting of the Christ as their savior, especially since multiple interpretation of scripture abound. They might not be to your interpretation, but you also might not be per theirs. And exactly how do you measure that with an umbrella religion that has so many different denominations?
Table of Supreme Court Decisions Overruled by Subsequent Decisions SCOTUS has overturned 236 previous SCOTUS decisions. That's not decisions of lower courts. It's own previous decisions. Let me guess. You didn't even bother to follow the previous link. Obergefell vs Hodges is itself an overturning of the SCOTUS decision on Baker vs Nelson in '72 which stated that a state could constitutionally limit legal marriage to opposite sex only.
Obergfell did not overturn baker. Baker was not a Supreme Court ruling. It went to scotus under mandatory review. The court did not rule on it. An amendment is required to overturn a Supreme Court ruling, as nobody has standing to challenge a Supreme Court ruling. All lower courts are bound by the precedent of the ruling, and can not rule in opposition to the Supreme Court ruling. There is no mechanism to allow a case to go before the Supreme Court that they have already ruled on. The rulings you are referencing are not on the same merits as the previous cases they ruled on. Which is why the complainants had standing.
So which of these are you claiming is not an actual SCOTUS CASE. Standford vs Kentucky which was overturned by Roper vs Simmons. There is a whole table there of SCOTUS cases overturned by SCOTUS itself. Are you seriously claiming that all of them are not examples of such? Over 200 wrong examples?
I’m not claiming any of them aren’t scotus cases. I pointed out the merits of the cases were different, which is why the complainant had standing. They were not ruling on the same issue as the prior case.
This is basic constitutional law. Nobody has standing to challenge a Supreme Court ruling. The only way it can be done, is via a co story too an amendment.
Pretty sure you typoed there and I am not sure what you wrote. Please redo, or reword as necessary, before I respond.
