View Single Post
  #16  
Old 04-08-2009, 03:21 AM
Buzzard
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris F
I already explained how it affects me. Reread my post. It infringes on my right to religion by forcing me to accept via force of law. Since marriage i more then civil union it changes the laws. As a minister I could be sued for refusing to marry gays. It has already happened. Get your head out of the sand.
Exactly what section and article of the CONUS are you saying is violated if gays get married? Seriously, I would like to hear the specific parts and have a chance at a rebuttal, and why you think that. It doesn't infringe on your right to religion, as you still get to practice your religion, and it doesn't force you to accept it. As a minister, you could also be sued for refusing a service to an interracial couple. Do you have a problem with that too?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris F
A business owner would be forced to give insurance and such to gays even tho it violates their principals. This too has already happened in several states
As a business owner you could also be sued if you refused to give insurance to an employee who is a single gay person if you discriminated against that person based on sexual orientation too, so I don't really think that you have a case on this part.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris F
What constitutional rights are they being discriminated against?
"The marriage ban works a deep and scarring hardship on a very real segment of the community for no rational reason. The absence of any reasonable relationship between, on the one hand, an absolute disqualification of same-sex couples who wish to enter into civil marriage and, on the other, protection of public health, safety, or general welfare, suggests that the marriage restriction is rooted in persistent prejudices against persons who are (or who are believed to be) homosexual. "The Constitution cannot control such prejudices but neither can it tolerate them. Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect." Limiting the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the basic premises of individual liberty and equality under law protected by the Massachusetts Constitution...."

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...Goodridge.html

Granted, this is from
Quote:
Hillary GOODRIDGE & others vs. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH & another.
SJC-08860
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
, but I think that it also will or should hold ground in every other state.

In addition, it violates the provision in the DOI of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Quote:
The phrase "pursuit of happiness" appeared in the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court case, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)[3], which focused on an anti-miscegenation statute. Chief Justice Warren wrote: "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."

The phrase was also used in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)[4], which is seen as the seminal case interpreting the "liberty" interest of the Due Process clause of the fourteenth amendment as guaranteeing, among other things, a right to the pursuit of happiness, and, consequently, a right to privacy.
From the wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_l...t_of_happiness If you find the wikipedia source to be incorrect, please let me know.
Reply With Quote