Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 49
Like Tree7Likes

Thread: Supreme Court: Same-sex couples can marry in all 50 states

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #21
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    99,040
    Same-sex couples to get big Social Security bonus

    Robert Powell, Special for USA TODAY3:45 p.m. EDT June 26, 2015

    The Supreme Court's ruling on whether same-sex marriages should be recognized will have wide-ranging economic impacts for same-sex couples. Time


    (Photo: Carlos Osorio, AP)


    Heterosexual married couples have long been able to use Social Security claiming strategies such as file and suspend, and restricted claim to maximize their household's benefits.

    But since Friday's historic Supreme Court decision recognizing same-sex partners' marriages as a constitutional right, those couples will be able to use the same benefit-boosting strategies including benefits for spouses, ex-spouses and survivors of deceased workers as straight married couples.



    USA TODAY
    Supreme Court strikes down bans on same-sex marriage

    And the financial benefits could be immense, according to a report by Financial Engines, a Sunnyvale, Calif.-based investment advisory firm. In fact, the ruling could add anywhere from $20,000 to more than $250,000 in lifetime benefits to same-sex couples, says Christopher Jones, chief investment officer at Financial Engines.

    Others agree.

    From a Social Security-claiming perspective, "these unions ... will be no different than traditional marriages," says Stephen Stellhorn, president and CEO of MSM Capital Management in Tampa. "The rules of Social Security and the benefits it provides will apply to both spouses as well as any children they may have. And not understanding the basics of Social Security could cause you to leave thousands of dollars on the table over your lifetime."

    In a case study, Financial Engines examined how much in additional benefits one same-sex couple would be eligible for.
    In one scenario, Financial Engines profiles a fictitious couple Henry, age 64, (current salary $80,000), and Logan, age 62 (who has had a lower-paying job interrupted by taking several years off). If Henry dies at 84 and Logan dies at 90 they would receive total Social Security benefits of $797,280 as two single people if they start collecting benefits at ages 64 and 62.

    But if Henry and Logan claim Social Security as a married couple, their lifetime benefits would grow to $938,112, an increase of $140,832. That's because Logan can now receive spousal and survivor benefits based on Henry's higher earnings history.


    And if Henry and Logan optimize when they claim Social Security they would get more than $1.1 million, some $202,176 more than if they claimed at ages 64 and 62.


    How would they do that? With the "file-and-suspend" claiming strategy. According to Jones, Henry, at age 68, would file for earned benefits and immediately suspend not take them. That would let Logan receive spousal benefits while Henry's earned benefits continue to grow. At 66, Logan files for spousal benefits, but also files a restricted application to exclude earned benefits. At 70, Henry starts collecting earned benefits. And at 70, Logan switches to earned benefits.



    USA TODAY
    First Take: Kennedy's the key to unlocking door to gay marriage


    So given all that, what advice do experts have for same-sex couples?

    Learn what's at stake. Same-sex married couples should learn what Social Security benefits are available to them and start analyzing how to optimize their household's overall benefits, says Jones.


    Visit the government's website. Visit the Social Security Administration's website for same-sex couples: ssa.gov/people/same-sexcouples/. That site offers information about Social Security, Supplemental Security Income and surviving spouse claims.


    Don't rely only on Social Security. Kurt Czarnowski of Czarnowski Consulting in Norfolk, Mass., says he would give any married couple the same advice: "Recognize that Social Security provides a base of financial protection that was never intended to be someone's sole source of income in retirement."


    Use the planning tools that are available to help understand what Social Security will provide, and then take steps to supplement what the program will provide. For the average worker, the Social Security payment is only intended to replace about 40% of pre-retirement earnings.


    Keep on working. According to Czarnowski, Social Security retirement benefits are calculated by averaging someone's highest-earning 35 years of work regardless of when they occur.


    "As long as someone continues to work and pay into the system, and their earnings are higher than the lowest of the 35 years that Social Security had been using to calculate their benefit, then the person's benefit will increase," he says.


    "And after full retirement age, work never hurts, because additional earnings at a low amount will not cause a reduction in the benefit amount."


    Robert Powell is editor of Retirement Weekly, contributes regularly to USA TODAY, The Wall Street Journal and MarketWatch. Got questions about money? Email Bob at rpowell@allthingsretirement.com.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...rity/28699323/

    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #22
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    Conservative groups have been bracing for the ruling for months—developing legal strategies to carve out religious exemptions and ramping up fundraising to pay for them. Those groups said they expect to continue to fight for religious exemptions from legal mandates to accept same-sex marriage in courts, at the federal level, and state by state.

    Catholic bishops and Southern Baptists are throwing their support behind federal legislation introduced last week that would ban the federal government from revoking tax-exempt status or otherwise penalizing religiously affiliated organizations, like schools, over a refusal to accept same-sex couples.

    “The decision makes it all the more important that Congress move to protect the religious liberty of those who believe in traditional marriage,” said U.S. Rep. Raul Labrador, a Republican from Idaho who introduced the legislation, known as the First Amendment Defense Act.

    Giggles. Oh yes, it's all about that 501 C 3 tax deduction for "fundraising" isn't it? What a bunch of hypocrites. Now tell me please why I should pay more federal taxes so you buffoons can raise tax free money using my money to make up the difference? You want religious liberty? That means paying your own way to have it.

    Pass the FairTax and put an end to this 501 C 3 tax fraud scam.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  3. #23
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    99,040
    Conservative Republicans question what's next after gay marriage ruling


    By Andy Sullivan1 hour ago

    Related Stories

    1. Gay marriage a done deal as political issue? Not so fast Christian Science Monitor
    2. Republican Presidential Candidates Criticize Supreme Court Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Huffington Post
    3. U.S. evangelicals draw battle lines against same-sex marriage Reuters
    4. Gay Marriage Ruling Ends U.S. Debate, Unlike Health Care MarketWatch
    5. Q&A: What the Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling means Associated Press


    DENVER (Reuters) - While some Republican presidential candidates urged action to counter the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling legalizing gay marriage, grassroots activists at a conservative conference this weekend said they preferred to focus on limiting the damage.

    Several presidential hopefuls at the Western Conservative Summit in the swing state of Colorado called for constitutional amendments or civil disobedience to turn back the Court's landmark ruling on Friday.


    But Christian conservatives who have been on the front lines of a battle to stop the advance of gay marriage indicated it was time to cut their losses. Rather, they would prefer to ensure that the ruling would not restrict their ability to practice their religion as they saw fit.


    "Our first response is moving at a federal and state level to protect religious freedom," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a Christian conservative group. "You have to secure your base camp."


    The calls for action against the ruling came from presidential candidates keen to show their conservative credentials as they compete in a crowded Republican field for the party nomination for the November 2016 election.


    Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum blamed his fellow Republicans for not banning gay marriage nationwide, as he tried to do a decade ago in Congress.


    "We have been bullied into silence," Santorum said on Friday. "We're losing because we're not trying to win."


    Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee said states that disagreed with the decision could prevent it from taking effect,
    even though conservative states like Texas and Kentucky began issuing same-sex marriage licenses after Friday's ruling.


    Civil disobedience is also an option, Huckabee said.


    "In all of our lives there comes moments where have to decide whether we obey God or we obey a decision we believe is unlawful," he said.


    'LIVE AND LET LIVE'

    Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, a likely presidential candidate who was due to speak at the conference later on Saturday, wants a constitutional amendment to let states decide whether or not to legalize gay marriage. Texas Senator Ted Cruz said in Iowa on Saturday that the constitution should be amended so voters could recall Supreme Court justices.

    Those ideas would seem to find fertile ground at the Western Conservative Summit, where attendees can find pamphlets advertising "conversion therapy" for gays and lesbians.


    But the head of the group that organized the conference said that while many people attending are disappointed by the ruling, they respect the right of gays and lesbians to live their lives.


    "Live and let live has been said repeatedly, and that is part of the genius of America," John Andrews, director of the conservative Centennial Institute, told Reuters.


    Some said the ruling was irrelevant so long as it did not interfere with their religion.


    "Our federal laws will be enforced now for a little while, but God's law will be enforced eternally by the one who will judge us all in the end," Colorado state representative Gordon Klingenschmitt told Reuters.


    The head of a Republican gay rights group that was denied a booth at the conference said his party should stop fighting a battle it has already lost.


    "Now this is the law of the land, what can we do to ensure that there is religious freedom for all and there is equality of marriage under the law for all?" said George Gramer, president of the Colorado Log Cabin Republicans.


    Others said their party should move on entirely.


    "The gays aren't trying to take away our country," said retiree Carol Beckler, a former state legislature candidate.


    "They're good people."

    http://news.yahoo.com/conservative-r...013722006.html

    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  4. #24
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    Others said their party should move on entirely.
    Absolutely. There is no basis for our party to be opposed to same sex marriage. If we have members who disagree with same sex marriage, then they are free not to participate in same sex marriage, they are free to live their lives as they are. This ruling doesn't affect anyone except gay couples who were deprived in 13 states of being able to marry their partner. Now they can, and that's the way it should be in our little land of liberty.

    The obsession with this liberty by members of our Republican Party makes no sense. There is nothing to fear, there is no harm that will come to you, there is no impact at all on you, so why in the world do you want to create divide, tension, hatred, discrimination and threaten becoming lawbreakers yourselves to try to stop something that has no impact or effect on you? It makes no sense.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  5. #25
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    99,040
    Candidate Donald Trump talks immigration, gay marriage and ISIS

    By Eugene Scott, CNN
    Updated 10:15 AM ET, Sun June 28, 2015
    | Video Source:CNN

    Washington (CNN)Presidential candidate Donald Trump touched on a wide range of issues in an interview aired Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union," including his continued support for traditional marriage, immigration issues with Mexico and his desire to bring outsourced jobs back to the U.S.
    Trump's recent comments on undocumented immigrants from Mexico has led to Univision deciding not to air the Miss Universe pageant, which is co-owned by Trump and NBC Universal. Trump has since said he intends to sue Univision.

    On Sunday, Trump doubled-down on his plan to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border.


    "I like Mexico. I love the Mexican people. I do business with the Mexican people, but you have people coming through the border that are from all over. And they're bad. They're really bad," he told CNN's Jake Tapper.


    "You have people coming in, and I'm not just saying Mexicans, I'm talking about people that are from all over that are killers and rapists and they're coming into this country," he maintained.


    RELATED: Jeb Bush touts record on guns


    The real estate mogul revisited his socially conservative views on abortion and marriage with awareness that they are difficult for many to understand given his personal history.


    "I'm (for) traditional marriage," he said.

    When asked how Trump reconciles the notion of "traditional marriage" with his personal history of being married three times and divorced twice, Trump conceded the point.

    "I have a good wife now," Trump said. "My (first) two wives were very good. And I don't blame them, but I was working ... 22 hours a day."


    Trump, who in his presidential announcement said he'd be the "best jobs president that God ever created," emphasized the need to get more Americans back to work.


    "You have to bring in jobs, you have to take the jobs back from China, you have to take the jobs back from Mexico," he said.


    But he argued that producing his own brand's clothing in China doesn't make him hypocritical on outsourcing.


    "They've manipulated their currency to such a point that it's impossible for our companies to compete with them," he said. "It's very, very hard to have anything in apparel made in this country."




    Real estate mogul and billionaire Donald Trump attends golf legend Jack Nicklaus' Congressional Gold Medal ceremony on March 24, 2015, in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda. Trump announced on March 18 that he has launched a presidential exploratory committee.

    "I don't care about the government of Iraq. They're corrupt. The government of Iraq is totally corrupt," he said.

    But Trump maintains he's a serious candidate.


    "It's something that I've looked at over the years, I looked at it very seriously, as you know, four years ago," he said.


    Trump has surprised some by polling second behind former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in a recent CNN/WMUR New Hampshire Primary poll.

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/28/politi...marriage-2016/

    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  6. #26
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    99,040
    Mike Huckabee Expects Civil Disobedience in Response to Gay Marriage Ruling

    Jun 28, 2015, 12:00 PM ET
    By BEN GITTLESON
    BEN GITTLESON Assignment Editor


    Mike Huckabee: Supreme Court Case Was About 'Marriage Redefinition'
    NEXT VIDEOHow Will Supreme Court Decisions Change 2016 Race?


    Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee suggested Sunday that Christians opposed to the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of gay marriage will carry out civil disobedience in response to it -- and that, if elected president, he might put up a nativity on the White House lawn.

    "I don't think a lot of pastors and Christian schools are going to have a choice," the a former governor of Arkansas and Baptist minister said on ABC's "This Week." "They either are going to follow God, their conscience, and what they truly believe is what the scripture teaches them or they will follow civil law."


    The Supreme Court ruled Friday in a 5-4 decision that gay and lesbian couples had a constitutional right to marry.


    Sen. Bernie Sanders Predicts He'll Win the White House

    Five Stories to Watch in Politics
    The Week 1 Flag Went Down and Another Went Up

    Huckabee, who has long opposed gay marriage, said Christian business owners, university presidents and school administrators could be inspired by how Martin Luther King Jr. pushed back during the civil rights movement, and that county clerks shouldn't have to carry out the Court's decision and issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples.


    "If they have a conscientious objection, I think they should be excused," he said.


    Huckabee stopped short of saying that, as president, he would refuse to enforce the ruling, explaining he would wait to respond to any "enabling legislation" Congress passed.


    "I'm not sure that every governor and every attorney general should just say, 'Well, it's the law of the land,' because there's no enabling legislation," he said.


    Huckabee also took issue with the rainbow-colored lights that lit up the White House on Friday night.


    "If I become president, I just want to remind people, that please don't complain if I were to put a nativity scene out during Christmas and say, 'You know, if it's my house, I get to do with it what I wish despite what other people around the country may feel about it,'" he said.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mike-...ry?id=32080744

    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  7. #27
    Senior Member ReformUSA2012's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Judy View Post
    [COLOR=#000000][FONT=Helvetica Neue][SIZE=2]

    Absolutely. There is no basis for our party to be opposed to same sex marriage. If we have members who disagree with same sex marriage, then they are free not to participate in same sex marriage, they are free to live their lives as they are. This ruling doesn't affect anyone except gay couples who were deprived in 13 states of being able to marry their partner. Now they can, and that's the way it should be in our little land of liberty.

    The obsession with this liberty by members of our Republican Party makes no sense. There is nothing to fear, there is no harm that will come to you, there is no impact at all on you, so why in the world do you want to create divide, tension, hatred, discrimination and threaten becoming lawbreakers yourselves to try to stop something that has no impact or effect on you? It makes no sense.
    I gotta agree. I support same sex marriage, just not how it was accomplished.

    My issue is that the SCOTUS is redefining the Constitution to include things it was never intended to. This is the real threat and the liberals used Gay Marriage which most Americans support to make a new precedent that its fine for the SCOTUS to just change a law as it see's fit to include new agenda's. However I am betting that if in 2008, 2009, 2010 if there was a bill to legalize same sex marriage it would have passed with strong bi-partisan support except from a few who hail from extreme religious states. But it was never attempted even before DOMA was thrown down because this was all about winning future elections and establishing a precedent that allows the SCOTUS to simply redefine the Constitution as it wants. I'm a believer the Constitution is a written dead document. Any living part is only through Amendments.

  8. #28
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    Quote Originally Posted by ReformUSA2012 View Post
    I gotta agree. I support same sex marriage, just not how it was accomplished.

    My issue is that the SCOTUS is redefining the Constitution to include things it was never intended to. This is the real threat and the liberals used Gay Marriage which most Americans support to make a new precedent that its fine for the SCOTUS to just change a law as it see's fit to include new agenda's. However I am betting that if in 2008, 2009, 2010 if there was a bill to legalize same sex marriage it would have passed with strong bi-partisan support except from a few who hail from extreme religious states. But it was never attempted even before DOMA was thrown down because this was all about winning future elections and establishing a precedent that allows the SCOTUS to simply redefine the Constitution as it wants. I'm a believer the Constitution is a written dead document. Any living part is only through Amendments.
    I understand that some people don't like to see our courts used to protect civil rights, and they usually don't, but that is the whole purpose of our Constitution and the Courts it created with regards to our citizens, and in particular the 14th Amendment.

    Civil rights aren't addressed without people demanding them, and that is how courts are used. They don't unilaterally dictate anything, and they usually refuse to review cases, but when they do review cases, it's part of due process of law under the Constitution in response to someone or a group of people bringing the abuse to the attention of the courts to correct.

    People who are opposed to civil rights call that "judicial activism" when the courts rule in favor of the victims of civil rights abuse, but no, it's not activism, it's their job, and one they rarely fulfill. This time they did, and good for them. We don't want federal laws governing marriage or anything like that. It should be left up to states to decide such things along with a host of other matters, but our States are bound by the US Constitution and the foundation upon which it is based including the Declaration of Independence, which is all people are created equal with due process of law, liberty, justice and equal protection under the law.

    So when states pass laws or Constitutional provisions that don't meet those simple standards, those state laws are unconstitutional under the US Constitution, and have always been so. It's not the courts or the Constitution that change, it's our people who over-time get fed up with being mistreated, abused and discriminated against, and decide to take legal action. It takes years of cases, suits, money and effort to get a civil rights case to the US Supreme Court, secure a review, and then win a ruling.

    Everyone needs to remember that the primary obligation and duty of our courts is to protect the individual, civil and equal rights of our citizens, not the latest policy statement out of the Southern Baptist Convention or the US Council of Catholic Bishops or the discriminatory state laws they pushed through state legislatures.

    At least this time, 5 members of the court remembered that, and shame on the 4 who didn't.
    Last edited by Judy; 06-29-2015 at 01:21 AM.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  9. #29
    Senior Member ReformUSA2012's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,305
    I see Equal Rights as pertaining to race, age, religion, and sex. Sex is not the same as sexual orientation or gender identity. Equal Rights states that based on the 4 things I listed everyone should be able to do the same thing everyone else can. I saw that as the ability to marry someone of the opposite sex matter if they are male or female. Sexual orientation is about *feelings* not genetics/dna.

    With your idea on *civil rights* one can keep expanding it through the courts and with the same argument marry many partners and even marry children. Its a slippery slope when one starts adding new civil rights through the court because it becomes 1000 times harder to argue against the next claim.

    My point is just that such things should be handled through legislature creating laws, expanding civil rights, and so forth. Courts to me should only read the letter of the law and how it pertains to the letter of the Constitution. Courts shouldn't be on expanding the meaning of an already established idea or law to suit new interests that were never intended as written. To me that is the key to keeping the courts pure and why the court system is failing more and more every year.

  10. #30
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    Oh geez, look at this:

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/28/politi...age/index.html

    Republicans pivot from gay marriage to religious liberty fight
    By Eric Bradner, CNN
    Updated 6:02 PM ET, Sun June 28, 2015
    | Video Source: CNN


    Story highlights


    • Some Republicans are turning to a religious freedom fight in wake of gay marriage ruling
    • Indiana Gov. Mike Pence was burned by business when he took up that fight


    Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court's decision Friday to legalize same-sex marriage everywhere offered the GOP a way out of a debate that national polls show has turned into a loser for their candidates. But some Republican presidential contenders are ready for another cultural and civil rights battle — this time over religious liberty.

    On Sunday, several 2016 hopefuls sought to court evangelical Christians who make up much of the base Republicans must win over to advance out of the primary election, signaling that they're willing to deal with the accusations of discrimination that states like Indiana have faced in order to protect religious rights.

    Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee channeled Martin Luther King, Jr. calling for non-violent resistance to the court's ruling.

    "May I ask, are we going to now discriminate against people of conscience, people of faith, who disagree with this ruling?" he said on ABC's "This Week." "I'm not sure that every governor and every attorney general should just say, 'Well, it's the law of the land' because there's no enabling legislation."


    GOP hopefuls denounce marriage equality ruling 01:36

    RELATED: How the GOP won on same-sex marriage
    Texas Sen. Ted Cruz went even further in the wake of the ruling, telling an Iowa crowd that "the last 24 hours at the United States Supreme Court were among the darkest hours of our nation."

    And Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal predicted the fight over religious liberty would persist through the 2016 election.

    "Here's where the next fight's going: I think the left is now going to go after our First Amendment rights," Jindal said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

    "I think it is wrong for the federal government to force Christian individuals, businesses, pastors, churches to participate in wedding ceremonies that violate our sincerely held religious beliefs," he said. "We have to stand up and fight for religious liberty. That's where this fight is going. The left wants to silence us, Hillary Clinton wants to silence us, we're not going away."

    The issue thrust Indiana into the national spotlight -- and ended any hope Gov. Mike Pence had for a dark-horse presidential campaign -- three months ago when the Republican-dominated Legislature there passed a "religious freedom" law that critics said would have allowed businesses to turn away gay customers.

    It was Pence's struggles to explain the move, capped by a widely panned interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC's "This Week," that led Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson to order changes to a similar bill in his state and led others, including Georgia, to drop their legislative pushes for "religious freedom" measures altogether.

    Pence's debacle also attracted the attention of some presidential candidates, who tried to to both rally to the cause but not risk alienating any powerful -- think business -- interests.

    Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said Pence, in "fixing" the law had done "the right thing."

    Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said Christian photographers shouldn't be punished for refusing to shoot a same-sex wedding.


    S.E. Cupp tears up over same-sex marriage ruling 01:29

    And former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum said at the time he stands for "religious liberty and real tolerance."

    The issue -- similar to immigration -- is a conundrum for Republicans. Their primary electorate opposes same-sex marriage, while national polls show the general public is much more supportive of allowing gay and lesbian couples to wed. The Supreme Court's ruling has evoked fears that religious rights are poised to be trampled if a liberal president succeeds President Barack Obama and appoints more Supreme Court justices.

    Cruz has even called for a constitutional amendment judicial elections for Supreme Court justices in the wake of the Court ruling.

    "I am proposing an amendment to the Constitution to subject #SCOTUS justices to periodic judicial retention elections #BelieveAgain," he tweeted on Saturday.

    Some GOP contenders weren't eager to start a new fight over religious liberty on Sunday, though.

    "I think we need to take a deep breath," Ohio Gov. John Kasich said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

    "Look, I believe in traditional marriage, but the Supreme Court has ruled, and it's the law of the land, and we'll abide by it," he said. "And I think everybody needs to take a deep breath to see how this evolves."

    South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that Republicans should "fight for the religious liberties of every American."

    But he used much less stark language than other contenders, saying the ruling was a "transformational moment."

    "There are a lot of upset people who believe in traditional marriage. They're disappointed, they're down right now," he said.

    Graham said he would, as president, protect the tax-exempt status of religious institutions that refuse to participate in same-sex weddings.

    "If you're a gay person or a gay couple, if I'm president of the United States, you will be able to participate in commerce and be a full member of society, consistent with the religious beliefs of others who have rights also," he said.

    Meanwhile, Democrats like Hillary Clinton, who only years ago said she opposed same-sex marriage, have celebrated the Supreme Court's ruling. It's provided a perfect opportunity to demonstrate a stark partisan difference on an issue where broad public opinion favors the Democrats.

    A CNN/ORC poll from April showed 57% of those surveyed felt businesses such as caterers or florists should be required to serve gay or lesbian couples just as they would heterosexual couples, compared to 41% who said they should be allowed to refuse service for religious reasons.
    Religious liberty to discriminate on the basis of religion. Hmmmm. So what now? People with a different religious belief than you can deny you service? Really? Will they have questionnaires for you to fill out as a potential customer? Can Jewish owned banks discriminate against Christian customers? Can Christian owned real estate companies discriminate against Muslims? Can Southern Baptists discriminate against Black Baptists? Can Catholic owned businesses discriminate against Protestants? Can Atheists discriminate against all religious people? Can gay people discriminate against straight people?

    I guess things aren't bad enough around here in our little land of liberty as we steadily work our way to becoming the World's Largest Banana Republic, so we might as well become the Middle East of the Western Hemisphere, too.
    Last edited by Judy; 06-29-2015 at 03:19 AM.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. US supreme court denies review of states' immigration cases
    By JohnDoe2 in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-04-2014, 01:26 PM
  2. No, Mr. President, Same-sex Couples Cannot Marry
    By kathyet in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-29-2012, 02:21 PM
  3. 26 States Take Obamacare To Supreme Court
    By CCUSA in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-26-2012, 09:31 PM
  4. CA Supreme Court Rules States Have Right To Enforce Immigrat
    By SusanSmithNAG in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-21-2009, 10:31 AM
  5. U.S. Supreme Court - All States CAN Require Voter I.D.
    By bordersoldier in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-30-2008, 08:14 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •