Obama: I won’t make churches conduct gay marriages

[AlaskanInTexas]

I worry less about being sued for not performing a wedding than being sued for not hiring an openly homosexual individual as my church secratary or maintenance worker or whatever, and refusing to offer benefits to their "spouses" should an employee later reveal their sexual orientation.

Us Mormon folk have already been down that road (to some degree) and won at the Supreme Court: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/483/327

[jayinsat]

I worry less about being sued for not performing a wedding than being sued for not hiring an openly homosexual individual as my church secratary or maintenance worker or whatever, and refusing to offer benefits to their "spouses" should an employee later reveal their sexual orientation.

Us Mormon folk have already been down that road (to some degree) and won at the Supreme Court: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/483/327

That's wonderful but the expense of defending such cases pose an undue burden, especially on smaller congregations.

[cb1000rider]

Only the left is allowed to mis-quote and play cut and paste with actual facts and pick what portions they deem important, when they do it I guess it is not mud slinging.

I have a child. Sometimes he says to me when he did something wrong, "but Bobby did it too!"
To me, that's exactly what I'm hearing here from an adult.

It matters not to me what spot of the political spectrum you're on. If you're intentionally sensationalizing and misquoting, you'll get called out by me. There is no excuse for anyone to do it.

What seems reasonable to me is to let the people decide, not a political party and puppet who is in the white house who has an obvious anti religion bias (with the exception of protecting Muslims) and agenda to force the beliefs of the radical left upon the rest of the country. Obama and Holder have trampled all over States Rights and will continue to do so as long as they have a single iota of power.

I'm generally in agreement with you on letting the people decide, but I can point out in history where letting the people decide resulted in some very inappropriate decisions that include:
1) Slavery
2) Not allowing minorities to vote at all
3) Providing inferior educational systems to minority taxpayers
4) Not allowing people of color to own property

These were all decisions that the people supported. So clearly, the people tend to get it wrong from time to time.

In regard to states rights, in my view it's actually California that tried to trump federal constitutional rights here.
California also has a history of legalizing things that the federal government says are illegal.. Support it or not, we need a superior set of rules and right now the feds win.

[The Annoyed Man]

Support it or not, we need a superior set of rules and right now the feds win.

Amendment 10:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I see nothing in DOMA that is constitutional. Neither do I see anything in a "DOMA" at the state level being unconstitutional. The Constitution does not grant the power to regulate marriage to the federal government. The 10 Amendment ensures that any such authority is either in the hands of the States, or The People.

Neither do I see anything in the Constitution which gives Obama any authority whatsoever to state whether he will or he won't force churches to perform gay marriages. The very fact that he is (for now) choosing not to, implies that he believes that he has the authority to do it if he wants to. It's kind of like if he said "I'm not going to beat my wife." Why would he feel the need to even say that? The only reason he would feel the need to say that is if he either A) had a record of it and was defensive about it, or B) believed that it was his choice not to..........but that he could if he wanted to.

If Obama had correctly stated it, he might have said "The Constitution forbids me from forcing churches to perform gay marriages." He could have even have been honest (and transparent) and said, "As much as I would like to force churches to perform gay marriages, the Constitution forbids me from doing so." Either of those two statements would reassure his critics that he understands the constitutional limits on his power.

People worry about what Obama said because his past actions have shown that he might just do that—sic the JD and IRS on any church which will not perform gay marriages—and it's his defensive statement against what he knows his critics will say. So it doesn't matter that the Mormon Church prevailed and there has been ever since a SCOTUS principle against forcing churches to hire people who do not share the principles of their faith. Obama has repeatedly demonstrated that he is no guardian of the culture, nor of the Constitution, nor of SCOTUS precedent.

We hope for a conservative Court (only because a truly Libertarian court would be too much to hope for), but even they have shown that they are not necessarily defenders of the People's interests. So whenever people say that they trust SCOTUS with the preservation of liberty, I remember decisions like those in:

• Dred Scott v. Sandford, Court rules that all African Americans are property, and are to be counted as 3/5 of a human.....
• Kelo v. City of New London, Court approves eminent domain grab, giving away family homes on the beach to a corporation that did not have funds to complete construction of their project. Now the taken land is barren, and the homeowners who lived there for generations no longer do......
• The Slaughterhouse Cases, Court eviscerates the 14th Amendment, permitting states to cancel out the Bill of Rights anyway those states see fit. (Explains CA, MA, & NY gun laws....)
• Katzenbach v. McClung, Court gives Congress the power to use the Commerce Clause to justify any kind of depredation it wants.......Obamacare as an example....
• West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, Court allows states to violate economic rights...
• Plessy v. Ferguson, Court rules that "separate but equal" is OK and refused to strike down any Jim Crow laws for years and years....and for those of you with short memories, Jim Crow is how we got gun-control.....
• Korematsu v. United States, Court rules that any American of Japanese ancestry can be interred in prison camps without due process and without compensation for loss of property, on a justification of military necessity. To put it in perspective, the same was not done to Germans concurrently, and the modern equivalent would be to round up every single Muslim and put them into concentration camps without due process or compensation.

The fact is that the Court has been political for well over a century and a half. How could it not be, when the process of appointing and confirming justices is so political?

We are screwed.

[baldeagle]

1. I usually post whatever title an article has, instead of writing my own, in order to make it easier for others who might want to post the same, to spot something already posted. Sometimes I don't, but most of the time.
2. I posted the link to the article expecting people to read it. It's not my problem if someone can't be bothered to read an article in its entirety.
3. The headline doesn't quote Obama --note the absence of quotation marks-- so it is obviously the writer's interpretation of his remarks. Again, it's not my problem if the subtlety of the English language escapes some readers.
4. I'm not recruiting people to lean towards my position on anything. I discovered a long time ago that I cannot change anyone's mind on anything. A mind changes over time in a process unique to every individual, and it happens only rarely. One look at the support Obama still has after everything he's done and every lie he's told, is pretty demonstrative proof that virtually nothing is going to change the mind of an Obama supporter. I post primarily so that people with similar beliefs see something they otherwise might have missed.
5. I think you missed the point of my post and the juxtaposition of title and quotes. Anyone reading the article can see exactly what he said. Obama is a pathological liar, so in the first place, his promises mean nothing. In the second place, as the article points out, he has already interfered with how Churches practice their beliefs, and singled out some beliefs for special treatment, so his statement is hypocritical. In the third place, there was no reason to make the statement, if it is truthful, since he can't do anything to make Churches marry homosexuals without violating the Constitution. So the only reason to say it is because enough people see his contempt for the law and the Constitution that he thinks an attempt at mollification is necessary, and it gives his supporters a talking point.

Finally, if we still lived under the rule of law, Obama, and many of those in his administration, would be in prison instead of ruling over us. As far a fear-mongering and mud-slinging go: if you're not afraid you're not paying attention; and suggesting that a narcissistic pathological liar leading a criminal cabal (though lead/follow is up for debate) is arrogant and can't be believed or trusted, is not mud-slinging, it's common sense.

100%. I would add that those of us on the so-called "right" are no longer trying to convince anybody of anything. We're trying to wake up the populace so that those with eyes to see and ears to hear aren't blindsided by the coming disaster.

If anyone thinks Obama is a wonderful leader they're either blinded by partisanship or pigheadedly stupid. Neither one is going to be convinced by logic, evidence or anything other than a mallet to the forehead.

[Tecumseh]

I do believe that churches conduct weddings and not marriages. Marriage is the institution and marrying is the act of entering that institution while a wedding is nothing but a ceremony that we attribute significance to. Hopefully one day the nation will allow people the freedom to enter a marriage of their own choice.

It is silly to think that Obama is going to force churches to conduct marriages.

[Dadtodabone]

A wedding is the ceremony, whether religious or civil, that in our society joins two people in marriage.
Marriage itself is indeed a contract, between the two people and the state.
Don't forget the state!
Does the state have a compelling interest in promoting and supporting opposite sex marriages?
Does the state have a compelling interest in promoting and supporting same sex marriages?

[alvins]

well your not legally married until you got get your marriage license at the court house so i don't see the big deal. ofcourse i think anything but having a judge or one of those drive through vegas weddings is a huge waste of money and time.

[chasfm11]

well your not legally married until you got get your marriage license at the court house so i don't see the big deal. of course i think anything but having a judge or one of those drive through vegas weddings is a huge waste of money and time.

Many people seem to share your perspective. And many of those same people in very short order after the short "ceremony" are looking to cancel the marriage. Quick in and out. Repeat. Many also choose to skip any ceremony all together.

Our son was married two weeks ago. It was a wonderful ceremony. The minister who conducted it did many things to remind the couple that they were making life-long vows to each other, to God and to the rest of the community. For me, marriage is a sacrament, a holy union that is not just between the couple. Some of the so called "trappings" which surround a wedding are intended to stick in the minds of the couple themselves and all of the attendees about what marriage means. In the chaos of daily living, sometimes people forget about about that. The stronger the memories of the event, the more likely that the meaning of that event will remain in difficult times.

I would venture to say that no one left our son and his new wife's ceremony without the feeling of having received a renewal of their own marriage. My wife and I have been married for 43 years and both of us felt our renewed commitment to each other. Hearing the words again is a reminder of the commitments that we made and have kept. I submit that a constant cycle of new and complete wedding ceremonies helps to remind our society of what marriage is supposed to be and provides a stabilizing effect. When a marriage is just a piece of paper issued by the county clerk, it is easily torn up. It takes more than a piece of paper to sustain a marriage through the difficult times that it will face.

Not important? Perhaps. But look around at the parts of our current society at places where 70% of children are born outside of marriages and think about the overall stability of those parts of our communities.

As long as our church meets the requirements of the law for conducting weddings, there should be no governmental interference. When those "requirements" include things that undermine what our church believes about weddings, they have gone too far. Do what you will separately. Just don't ask me to be a party to it.

[Tecumseh]

Why didn't everybody get up in arms when other POTUSes had the same policies that Obama has? Why didn't they get angry and why didn't the Teabaggers rise up and wear their little try-corner hats and parade around with Gasden flags while the Bush Regime was bankrupting the nation? Why didn't they vote in Teabagger politicians and oppose that administration which might have prevented the current national depression? What is so different about Obama from other Presidents? What is it that makes him the ire of the right wing? What is the difference? If only there was something significant that separates him from every other US President that we could see? Anybody got any ideas?

[03Lightningrocks]

Why didn't everybody get up in arms when other POTUSes had the same policies that Obama has? Why didn't they get angry and why didn't the Teabaggers rise up and wear their little try-corner hats and parade around with Gasden flags while the Bush Regime was bankrupting the nation? Why didn't they vote in Teabagger politicians and oppose that administration which might have prevented the current national depression? What is so different about Obama from other Presidents? What is it that makes him the ire of the right wing? What is the difference? If only there was something significant that separates him from every other US President that we could see? Anybody got any ideas?

Wow! There are just some folks who are beyond help. Click... Ignore!

Oh darn! I think he got banned before I could ignore him. Bummer!

[cb1000rider]

If you're going to "ignore" someone, I don't see a need to announce it... Doing it like that just tells me that you don't like the questions that he's asking.

The folks that "don't get it" and are asking questions, they're the ones that you should make an effort to educate. Maybe you can help them "get it" and influence the next election, eh?

[gthaustex]

Why didn't everybody get up in arms when other POTUSes had the same policies that Obama has? Why didn't they get angry and why didn't the Teabaggers rise up and wear their little try-corner hats and parade around with Gasden flags while the Bush Regime was bankrupting the nation? Why didn't they vote in Teabagger politicians and oppose that administration which might have prevented the current national depression? What is so different about Obama from other Presidents? What is it that makes him the ire of the right wing? What is the difference? If only there was something significant that separates him from every other US President that we could see? Anybody got any ideas?

Some here might find that term offensive. It also gives me insight as to where your point of view lies....

And by the way, I think you were looking for tri- as a prefix for three, not try.

[chasfm11]

It doesn't surprise me at all that when ideas are challenged, attacks follow. I frankly get tired of the "but he did it" rational for subsequent actions.

I was not a supporter of DOMA when it was passed because I do not believe the Federal government should have any involvement in what is clearly a State matter. There just was not much public outcry at that time. It seems that many of those who supported and even signed DOMA (are you listening Slick Willy?) at the time now decry it. That type of hypocrisy goes unchallenged in the attacks, however. The "now I'm enlightened" excuse is easily accepted.

I hope that some day soon, we will get past the GOP vs. Dem, Liberal vs. Conservative rhetoric . In fact the politicians have muddied the water so badly on both of those conflicts that it is hard to tell who stands for what. I would much rather frame the conflicts as Elites vs. population. There have been very few politicians who have consistently backed marriage as a State item. The Elites on both sides of the Federal isle seek to expand the Federal involvement on marriage and it is wrong when that happens, regardless of who is sponsoring it. It is even more wrong when that involvement seeks to undermine the church and the principals it has maintained since before there was a Constitution.

[03Lightningrocks]

If you're going to "ignore" someone, I don't see a need to announce it... Doing it like that just tells me that you don't like the questions that he's asking.

The folks that "don't get it" and are asking questions, they're the ones that you should make an effort to educate. Maybe you can help them "get it" and influence the next election, eh?

Oh. Well, allow me to help you better understand. Trolls like that one hate it when they are told they have been put on ignore. It is similar to poking a stick in their eye.

One more comment I will add. I don't believe that poster wants to "get it". I 100% believe, based on the posting history of that person, the poster is trying to stir up trouble and disrupt the forum. There really is no point in trying to "explain" anything to a poster like that. JMHO.

I sure hope I was able to assist you. This is challenge number two or three from you to me on different threads.Do you have a problem with me you are trying to repress? Maybe I am misunderstanding your posts to me???