Mississippi’s Anti-LGBT Law Is the Most Dangerous One Yet

http://www.thenation.com/article/why-mississippis-new-anti-lgbt-law-is-the-most-dangerous-one-to-be-passed-yet/

If you are religiously opposed to other people having non-marital sex, Mississippi's "religious freedom" law could be the law for you.


Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.

Really the whole supreme court allowing gay marriage was unconstitutional. Because the federal government has no say when it comes to marriage. That's why we have states that decide this.

Not to say a state can pass any bill they want. Obviously they couldn't allow slavery, because slavery was abolished and is federal, as in all states have to abide by it. But whenever it is not within the federal government's power, it's up to the states.

Otherwise, why even have states to begin with, if you're going to make something legal everywhere or illegal everywhere. If you didn't like the state laws you could move.

Let's play a substitution game. Does this still make sense? Where do you draw the line at who is protected by the federal government from discrimination by state/municipal governments?

Really the whole supreme court legalizing women's suffrage was unconstitutional. Because the federal government has no say when it comes to women's rights. That's why we have states that decide this.

or

Really the whole supreme court allowing desegregation was unconstitutional. Because the federal government has no say when it comes to racial equality. That's why we have states that decide this.

Also:

If you didn't like the state laws you could move.

I hate my state laws. You may have heard of a recent one that bans municipality-level anti-discrimination laws, among other things. But I have no money. So I cannot move. I also really like where I live. I know a lot of good people here that I would hate to leave behind. No one should be forced out of their home simply so they can enjoy the respect and dignity they deserve as a human being.

Yabuturtle wrote: Really the whole supreme court allowing gay marriage was unconstitutional. Because the federal government has no say when it comes to marriage. That's why we have states that decide this.

Not to say a state can pass any bill they want. Obviously they couldn't allow slavery, because slavery was abolished and is federal, as in all states have to abide by it. But whenever it is not within the federal government's power, it's up to the states.

Otherwise, why even have states to begin with, if you're going to make something legal everywhere or illegal everywhere. If you didn't like the state laws you could move.

You are a bit incorrect here. As per the Federal Constitution people have freedom of association and freedom to enter into contracts as they please. Thus technically that would cover marriage. Further the laws MUST apply equally to all people and if you bar a particular set of people from marriage that is not equal application of the law. Finally where do the states have power over marriage? Because as per the tenth amendment the powers not delegated to the federal government are left to the states or the people and guess what shows the powers of the states? The state constitutions which rarely have anything mentioning marriage.

MadHatter wrote:

Yabuturtle wrote: Really the whole supreme court allowing gay marriage was unconstitutional. Because the federal government has no say when it comes to marriage. That's why we have states that decide this.

Not to say a state can pass any bill they want. Obviously they couldn't allow slavery, because slavery was abolished and is federal, as in all states have to abide by it. But whenever it is not within the federal government's power, it's up to the states.

Otherwise, why even have states to begin with, if you're going to make something legal everywhere or illegal everywhere. If you didn't like the state laws you could move.

You are a bit incorrect here. As per the Federal Constitution people have freedom of association and freedom to enter into contracts as they please. Thus technically that would cover marriage. Further the laws MUST apply equally to all people and if you bar a particular set of people from marriage that is not equal application of the law. Finally where do the states have power over marriage? Because as per the tenth amendment the powers not delegated to the federal government are left to the states or the people and guess what shows the powers of the states? The state constitutions which rarely have anything mentioning marriage.

Um...no marriage is not part of the federal government's power. Never was and shouldn't be to begin with. Anything that is not within the federal government's power is up to the states and even the founding fathers made that pretty clear. Where does it say that the feds have a say in marriage. Not once is it ever mentioned yet they did anyway. It's also illegal for them to ban. a federal ban on lots of drugs, too. Again, not within the feds' power yet they did anyway.

Why do you think there were states to begin with? So there wouldn't be so much power for the federal government to have. If you centralize everything, it's easy for them to get corrupt with it and go over board and pretty soon you're going to have a federal government trying to make you follow good habits. They had this problem with Britain back then and kind of didn't want a repeat of the same thing.

If you want all of those laws to apply everywhere, whether something is illegal or legal, again I must ask, why even have states to begin with? All states follow the federal laws but anything that is not within the federal government's power, it is up to the states, whether it is gambling, fireworks, drugs, marriage ect.

But then again, people seem to be comfortable with the presidents signing "Executive Orders" which are basically laws that he can sign in anytime, even though that is NOT how executive orders work. Executive orders are orders made by the executive branch, it does not mean they can legislate. Only congress can legislate yet we have a president that just pass any law they want without even having congress' approval. Kind of sounds like a dicatorship or monarchy move, not a presidential move. I mean, do you really think it's right for some fed to go up to your church and demand that you wed a gay couple, even though it is YOUR church and it violates the beliefs of your system? If you did not want to sell pork or alcohol and you're Muslim, would it be right for some fed to say that you have to sell it, even though it is your business? Why not do something much better? Like move to another state that does allow it instead of trying to cram laws down everyone's throats? At least then, the person's beliefs are protected and the gay couple can go somewhere else and be wed.

I'm not surprised. Quite a few are ignorant of how our Constitution actually works or are even aware of what is being passed. You pretty much have to research it yourself to know what's going on. I know what I'm saying is not popular, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. It's pretty crystal clear in the Constitution and all you have to do is read it.

Yabuturtle wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

Yabuturtle wrote: Really the whole supreme court allowing gay marriage was unconstitutional. Because the federal government has no say when it comes to marriage. That's why we have states that decide this.

Not to say a state can pass any bill they want. Obviously they couldn't allow slavery, because slavery was abolished and is federal, as in all states have to abide by it. But whenever it is not within the federal government's power, it's up to the states.

Otherwise, why even have states to begin with, if you're going to make something legal everywhere or illegal everywhere. If you didn't like the state laws you could move.

You are a bit incorrect here. As per the Federal Constitution people have freedom of association and freedom to enter into contracts as they please. Thus technically that would cover marriage. Further the laws MUST apply equally to all people and if you bar a particular set of people from marriage that is not equal application of the law. Finally where do the states have power over marriage? Because as per the tenth amendment the powers not delegated to the federal government are left to the states or the people and guess what shows the powers of the states? The state constitutions which rarely have anything mentioning marriage.

Um...no marriage is not part of the federal government's power. Never was and shouldn't be to begin with. Anything that is not within the federal government's power is up to the states and even the founding fathers made that pretty clear. Where does it say that the feds have a say in marriage. Not once is it ever mentioned yet they did anyway. It's also illegal for them to ban. a federal ban on lots of drugs, too. Again, not within the feds' power yet they did anyway.

Why do you think there were states to begin with? So there wouldn't be so much power for the federal government to have. If you centralize everything, it's easy for them to get corrupt with it and go over board and pretty soon you're going to have a federal government trying to make you follow good habits. They had this problem with Britain back then and kind of didn't want a repeat of the same thing.

If you want all of those laws to apply everywhere, whether something is illegal or legal, again I must ask, why even have states to begin with? All states follow the federal laws but anything that is not within the federal government's power, it is up to the states, whether it is gambling, fireworks, drugs, marriage ect.

But then again, people seem to be comfortable with the presidents signing "Executive Orders" which are basically laws that he can sign in anytime, even though that is NOT how executive orders work. Executive orders are orders made by the executive branch, it does not mean they can legislate. Only congress can legislate yet we have a president that just pass any law they want without even having congress' approval. Kind of sounds like a dicatorship or monarchy move, not a presidential move.

I'm not surprised. Quite a few are ignorant of how our Constitution actually works or are even aware of what is being passed. You pretty much have to research it yourself to know what's going on.

*Sigh* Ok lets try this again. I listed several things that are basically what marriage is which is freedom of association, freedom to enter a contract, and equal application of the law that are all reasons for the federal government to rule on this. Secondly I asked where are the states given power of marriage? Because as I said the tenth amendment clearly states that the powers not given to the fed are given to the states or people. How do we know what resides with the states vs what powers remain with the people? The state constitutions which RARELY ever mention marriage. So over all its a matter of contract law and freedom to associate in the manner you wish which are something the federal government can rule on. Further I never mentioned the POTUS and do not like executive orders personally. I am fairly well versed on state and federal constitutions and you failed to answer my challenges to your statement.

Yabuturtle wrote: Really the whole supreme court allowing gay marriage was unconstitutional. Because the federal government has no say when it comes to marriage. That's why we have states that decide this.

Not to say a state can pass any bill they want. Obviously they couldn't allow slavery, because slavery was abolished and is federal, as in all states have to abide by it. But whenever it is not within the federal government's power, it's up to the states.

Otherwise, why even have states to begin with, if you're going to make something legal everywhere or illegal everywhere. If you didn't like the state laws you could move.

What's your view on Loving v. Virginia ?

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), is a landmark civil rights decision of the United States Supreme Court, which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage. In 1967, 16 states, all southern States, had such laws.

The case was brought by Mildred Loving, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, who had been sentenced to a year in prison in Virginia for marrying each other. Their marriage violated the state's anti-miscegenation statute, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which prohibited marriage between people classified as "white" and people classified as "colored". The Supreme Court's unanimous decision determined that this prohibition was unconstitutional, reversing Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

I really think the government - Federal or State - has no place in the bedroom. And if it is a matter of contract, I want my next contract to have a term limit and option to renew built in.

Then make Marriage purely a religious thing, and anything dealing with the marriage on a government level obsolete.

Let's see what would happen.

Taxes would all have to be filed separately.
No benefits for joint taxes.
No such thing as immediate family visits in the hospital unless you could prove a DNA test. So basically your kid or parents could see you, but not your spouse. Unless the medical teams wanted to do away with that as a thing- then they would simply have to restrict how many people are in the room with you.
Pension Benefits
Military personnel would not be able to obtain family units because there's nothing contractually binding them to the other person.
Suing for a wrongful death
If your spouse dies without a will, the assets will not necessarily go to the surviving spouse, but could go to brothers and sisters or children.

There are benefits to the marriage being filed with the government that you don't get if you just build a religious marriage. The federal government made a law back in the late 1700s called the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which is meant to recognize the contracts regardless of what state holds the original contract- so if someone had a gay marriage in Colorado, it should be recognized by Texas anyway. All the Supreme Court ended up doing was stating- "We're just cutting out the battle to have this recognized and stating that you're going to end up having to recognize it anyway if someone challenges based on the Full Faith and Credit Clause, so here- everyone can get married."

So not illegal, it was bound to happen based on something completely different.

Taliveth wrote: I really think the government - Federal or State - has no place in the bedroom. And if it is a matter of contract, I want my next contract to have a term limit and option to renew built in.

Taliveth for President!

Living in Mississippi, it's been incredibly daunting to see the amount of support this bill has gotten from my neighbors and co-workers. Historically, we're a state built on the discrimination of the minority, and it's upsetting that we haven't learned from the past.

The upside is, numerous different officials from cities throughout the state are standing up against it and trying to find ways to fight it. I'm hoping the demolition of this bill doesn't take as long as California's Prop 8.

What's to prevent people from entering a marriage-like legally binding contract?

ren wrote: What's to prevent people from entering a marriage-like legally binding contract?

Nothing. All the rights granted by marriage are able to be granted by other legal forms. Its just an easy method to cover several things including wills, power of attorney, medical choices etc.

ren wrote: What's to prevent people from entering a marriage-like legally binding contract?

You could not grant many spousal benefits and privileges by a contract such as those granted by federal and or state law in The US at least. Otherwise a contract could cover many things but not all of them and not some very important ones.

Br. John wrote:

ren wrote: What's to prevent people from entering a marriage-like legally binding contract?

You could not grant many spousal benefits and privileges by a contract such as those granted by federal and or state law in The US at least. Otherwise a contract could cover many things but not all of them and not some very important ones.

Which items are you thinking could not be granted? Because as far as I know anything you can do via marriage you can do via contract. Might take more then one bit of paper but it can be done to the best of my knowledge

Instead of marriage people could even incorporate. As long as they end up paying royalties to a conveniently-placed offshore company they also own they'll be prosperous. And in the event of "divorce" the benefits of a fair, just and family-court-free deal would be unparalleled.

I totally feel like I'm onto something here.

On thing I can think of beyond the ability of any contract, power of attorney or will in The US is Social Security Survivors Benefits. They can only go to your children, spouse, and in some cases former spouse, but nobody else.

Br. John wrote: On thing I can think of beyond the ability of any contract, power of attorney or will in The US is Social Security Survivors Benefits. They can only go to your children, spouse, and in some cases former spouse, but nobody else.

Not something I had thought of. Thank you. I am in paralegal studies so learning things like this are good for me. Might be worth something to fight for this to be a thing you can will to anyone you wish. I mean its your money. Dont know the traction it would get but something to consider.

Br. John wrote:

ren wrote: What's to prevent people from entering a marriage-like legally binding contract?

You could not grant many spousal benefits and privileges by a contract such as those granted by federal and or state law in The US at least. Otherwise a contract could cover many things but not all of them and not some very important ones.

Besides the legal benefits of marriage, there is a very strong implication of LGBT being second class citizens, similar to when Black people were "separate but equal".

is this the law that says that preachers cannot be forced to perform marriages for same sex couples?

because if it is, while i disagree with the spirit that it was written in, by and large i do support the law itself, and imo so should you

i dont believe the law should require a religious leader to perform a ceremony he (or she, if that ever happens) sees as contrary to the mandates of their religion

it would be basically saying "the law demands that you actively violate your religion" and thats just not something any american should agree with

i support lgbt rights, ive easily done several hundred hours of fundraising and letter writing campaigns for hrc when i worked for telefund and i believe in freedom for all americans and all people

but i understand that freedom means accepting that some people will choose to use their freedom in ways that i dont like

thats the part that i dont see anyone on any side of nearly any issue really recognizig, but as far as i can tell it is THE MOST IMPORTANT PART of what it means to believe in a free society

people are going to use their freedom in ways that you dont like, but still you have to support freedom itself, because no matter what you want to do there is someone out there who wont like it

so we either work to ensure that everyone has the right to choose for themselves how to live, or else we are just squabbling over which groups get to impose which of their own personal sensibilities on the whole

dont decease personal choices and individual capabilities - promote general increase in individual education and personal competence

thats my general position and i apply that standard to pretty much everything, because imo thats what will make for the strongest (diverse) society, ultimately