General Discussion

dickthegrouch

(4,502 posts)

32. Congress shall make no law

Thu Nov 26, 2020, 01:13 PM

Nov 2020

Respecting an establishment of religion. That does NOT read as "Respecting the establishment of a religion". As written in the language of the 1700's it means no underpinnings of religions can be legislated. Such as the communion rites, marriage, funeral, service content etc. cannot be legislated.
The whole 1200+ federal rights that go with a marriage are IMHO unconstitutional and should all be rescinded unless they are available under equal protection clauses to ALL.
The SCROTUS cannot use a religious argument to take away Same sex marriage, or their hypocrisy will be apparent in the very document that they write to achieve it. They should be forced to explain in their adverse ruling how they are not violating the initial clause I cited. It will be the most contorted explanation in history.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

53 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Same-sex marriage is now in jeopardy [View all] edhopper Nov 2020 OP

I don't think that will be overturned. MineralMan Nov 2020 #1

Not undo edhopper Nov 2020 #3

If any civil servant in the SS office can see Jesus tells me not to send that couple their check dsc Nov 2020 #7

+1, you can then say you see GIA and sent it anyway and not be fired according to the USSC. This ... uponit7771 Nov 2020 #26

I agree. I think marriage equality is settled law Buckeyeblue Nov 2020 #10

Alito and Thomas edhopper Nov 2020 #16

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has held repeatedly that the prohibition on ex post facto laws . . euphorb Nov 2020 #23

They wouldn't undo current marriages just allow discrimination against them which COULD make it uponit7771 Nov 2020 #24

I just saw that Indiana may be teeing up a case for them to at least weaken it. Proud Liberal Dem Nov 2020 #2

That is the link edhopper Nov 2020 #4

Loving v. Virginia... ProudMNDemocrat Nov 2020 #5

That was sarcasm edhopper Nov 2020 #6

Clarence Thomas also ruled against the VRA ProudMNDemocrat Nov 2020 #29

All you "but her email voters" must be so proud Demsrule86 Nov 2020 #8

The "she voted for AWR" voters too. NurseJackie Nov 2020 #13

As is the "She gave paid speeches on Wall Street" crowd StarfishSaver Nov 2020 #42

Paging the Bernie bro's and the Susan Sarandon crowd bottomofthehill Nov 2020 #14

My (very white, male) bro is one of those Ellen Forradalom Nov 2020 #18

This message was self-deleted by its author Ellen Forradalom Nov 2020 #19

Good grief Cracklin Charlie Nov 2020 #9

How so? edhopper Nov 2020 #20

The Roberts court would not want any part of this AmericanCanuck Nov 2020 #11

Roberts doesn't get to decide what cases the court hears SoonerPride Nov 2020 #12

The court should be brought into balance. barbtries Nov 2020 #15

It won't happen edhopper Nov 2020 #17

He might be persuaded barbtries Nov 2020 #22

Those issues edhopper Nov 2020 #34

it is not just Manchin, multiple other Dem Senators are against expansion too Celerity Nov 2020 #38

that's horrifying. barbtries Nov 2020 #45

It is basically the same for ending the filibuster, a few less perhaps Celerity Nov 2020 #46

Demonstrating, yet again, religion is amongst one of the most evil things wandering earth! n/t RKP5637 Nov 2020 #21

Yep, it really is the single most corrosive element in society Bettie Nov 2020 #27

I think Gorsuch and Roberts would side with the liberals Marius25 Nov 2020 #25

Not with the current edhopper Nov 2020 #35

Was before. As Sanders said at every appearance, the Hortensis Nov 2020 #28

With all the talk of civil war SlogginThroughIt Nov 2020 #30

The nation's geographically too mixed. But I often think of Hortensis Nov 2020 #37

Maybe, maybe not. intheflow Nov 2020 #31

That's an Interesting Argument That Might Appeal to Religious Oriented Justices Stallion Nov 2020 #33

Not even churches founded on the principle. intheflow Nov 2020 #43

That's a brilliantly clever approach. Mike 03 Nov 2020 #44

Congress shall make no law dickthegrouch Nov 2020 #32

And yet edhopper Nov 2020 #36

Gorsuch and Roberts? Orangepeel Nov 2020 #39

Gorsuch is a question mark edhopper Nov 2020 #40

yeah, but I don't think that will cost corporations a lot of money Orangepeel Nov 2020 #41

Do we really need to call it "gay marriage?" Piasladic Nov 2020 #47

I use "marriage equality", but in a situation like this, yes, I prefer, same-sex marriage. Behind the Aegis Nov 2020 #48

You make a good point edhopper Nov 2020 #49

I think we'll start to see an increasing split between what government considers a marriage and... Rstrstx Nov 2020 #50

Not do edhopper Nov 2020 #51

I'm a married gay man and am not worried at all. beaglelover Nov 2020 #52

They don't care about edhopper Nov 2020 #53