Socratease on December 13, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Gun carry laws always depend on your physical location: you either are present here in possession of a gun or you are not. Whether you are married or not based on your geographic location is far more abstract a concept.

Well, interracial marriages were not accepted by a lot of states till the Supreme Court ruling in 1967 I believe.

peter_griffin on December 13, 2012 at 3:54 PM

No one ever filed suit arguing that their interracial marriage in one state had to be recognized in another. That norm no longer exists, and the suits have already been filed, which was the impetus for the 2004 wave of constitutional amendments.

The difference is that women’s group haven’t pushed the ordain issue. Gay groups will SUE and will PUSH the religious issue.

melle1228 on December 13, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Women have pushed and when they do they lose in court. One example being EEOC vs Catholic University, brought by a Catholic nun in 1992 who was excluded from a canon law position. The Court found against her on 1st Amendment grounds. Gays would lose as well.

In the case of Hosanna Tabor SCOTUS found 9-0 that religious freedom from the state superseded the state’s equal protection arguments. That was a hiring decions. When church doctrine regarding its sacraments are at issue, equal protection has even less weight. Otherwise the RCC would have lost in court to the feminists over the male criteria for priesthood.

Churches haven’t been forced to ordain women. They aren’t being forced to marry gays.

dedalus on December 13, 2012 at 5:10 PM

And yet Catholic charities refused to adopt to single moms and they weren’t put out of business. It was only the gay lobby and their refusal to adopt to same sex couples that put them out of business. The difference is that women’s group haven’t pushed the ordain issue. Gay groups will SUE and will PUSH the religious issue.

It is not going to be a free speech issue, it will be an equal protection issue. Very different jurisprudence there.

rockmom on December 13, 2012 at 3:47 PM

In the case of Hosanna Tabor SCOTUS found 9-0 that religious freedom from the state superseded the state’s equal protection arguments. That was a hiring decions. When church doctrine regarding its sacraments are at issue, equal protection has even less weight. Otherwise the RCC would have lost in court to the feminists over the male criteria for priesthood.

Churches haven’t been forced to ordain women. They aren’t being forced to marry gays.

Who knows what Just-Us Benedict Roberts’ sleazy marketable motivations will be this time?

Mandate or tax?

the Episcopal Church USA has already decided to welcome you and perform your marriages. But I know that isn’t going to stop the activists from suing every other church and synagogue in the country that doesn’t.

Of course it won’t. Actually getting married was never the goal, it was to force approval of their relationships from anyone who declined to do so. Tolerance will not be tolerated.

The states’ rights conflict with the full faith and credit clause of the US constitution. The circle cannot be squared without DOMA.

Why does marriage, which is not a constitutional right, have to be equalized under full faith and credit, but gun ownership and carry laws, which are protected under the 2nd Amendment, don’t? There are all sorts of things that are different from state to state, like whether or not you can marry your cousin, and that’s the way the founders of this country wanted it.

And you know that instead of going to florists, bakers, photographers and churches who would be more than supportive, they will shop around till they find those who are not and sue them. These people do not have a live and let live attitude, rather they have a support us or suffer attitude.

rockmom on December 13, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Ok – just for the record – in the future I will read every post you submit – you are clearly someone I can learn from.

Just wanted you to know that you are the type of person I come to HotAir to engage with.

SMART