Obama And Gay Marriages

[StrictMasterD]

No Poll on this one
As everyoneshould know now, President Obmam today (Wednesday May 9, 2012) publicly Stated His Support For Gay Marriages and Gay Rights.
What are Your Felling Towards his Support of the Right For Gasys To Marry
It should be noted that he did say the Issue should be a States Issue and not a Federal One, lets States on thier own Decide wha tthe Residents of their own States wantt od o and do not make it a Federal Issue

[Punish_her]

I think people need to do a few things,
1) realize that a marriage and a civil union really aren;t the same thing: a marriage is, in my opinion, a religious ceremony that joins two or more people together in the name of something. A civil union is a legal contract whereby two parties agree to become one financial entity that can jointly own property, make decision for one another should something terrible happen, and be recoganized as "on the same team" so to speak
2) with that in mind, the fact that there is a seperation of church and state means . . . the gov't has no right saying gays can't marry, but that's a decision for the churches. on the flipside, there's no reason gays can't enter into a civil union.

[StrictMasterD]

I agree, th Governement needs to STAY OUT of this, let individual states decide, not quite sure what the Seperation of Church and State has to do with it
Myself I am Gender Nuetral when I posted this thread it was neither in Spport or in Critisim of what Obmam said
My personal feeling are simply, if 2 people love each other as long as they to not infringe on the rights of other, let them marry, letthem be happy, what busines is it of MINE, or The Governement what 2 consentingAdults do in the Privacy of their Home

[Punish_her]

because marriage is secular. obama cant force the pope to recognize gay marriage

[Thorne]

[QUOTE]1) realize that a marriage and a civil union really aren;t the same thing:
That's certainly true. A marriage gives certain legal benefits that a civil union may not.


a marriage is, in my opinion, a religious ceremony that joins two or more people together in the name of something. A civil union is a legal contract whereby two parties agree to become one financial entity that can jointly own property, make decision for one another should something terrible happen, and be recoganized as "on the same team" so to speak
Wrong! A marriage is a contract sanctioned by the state! Ever try to get married, even in church, without a marriage license? You HAVE to have a state issued license to be considered legally married. The church services are simply rituals imposed upon those members of that church.


2) with that in mind, the fact that there is a seperation of church and state means . . . the gov't has no right saying gays can't marry, but that's a decision for the churches.
Certainly the churches do not have to recognize gay marriages within their congregations! They can, in fact, excommunicate those who participate in such marriages. BUT, they cannot legally ignore such marriages, any more than a Catholic Church, for example, could ignore the legality of a Jewish wedding. If the State of New York licenses a couple as married, whether or not they get married in a church ceremony, they are legally married. The church cannot ignore that legality. They can only place their own moral stamp of disapproval upon it. Which means absolutely nothing to the married couple, unless they are silly enough to belong to a church which doesn't want them.


on the flipside, there's no reason gays can't enter into a civil union
There's no reason heterosexuals can't enter into a civil union, either. Problem is, some hospitals don't recognize the legality of civil unions, denying gay partners the right to make medical decisions for their partners, or even the right to visit!

But, since it is obvious that a marriage is a LEGAL contract, as evidenced by the requirement to obtain a marriage license from a state agency, why don't the churches just invent a new term for whatever it is that they do? There were civil marriages long before the churches stepped in. It's time to take them back from the churches. Let THEM redefine what marriage is, for THEM. And they can call it whatever they wish, and restrict it to whomever they wish. No one will really care.

[Thorne]

Sort of in line with my last post, I have a legal question which perhaps someone here might help me with?

This week, the voters in the state of North Carolina, in a fit of medieval extravagance, passed an Amendment banning gay marriages. Other states have done similar things in the past. I'm not too concerned with the legality of this, as that will eventually be determined in the courts. What interests me is how this would affect a couple who are married, legally, in another state. Could a gay couple from New York, say, be arrested while traveling through North Carolina? And what if they moved to North Carolina? Would they be forced to dissolve their marriage?

Personally, even as a heterosexual, I'm not eager to travel to or through North Carolina, since they have proven that some 80% of their population are bigots. Having to live in South Carolina is bad enough. (And yes, I could see the people of this state doing something equally idiotic.) I certainly won't be spending any of MY vacation money in NC! (Which, since I don't HAVE any vacation money, won't mean a damned thing. But my intentions are pure!)

[StrictMasterD]

Sort of in line with my last post, I have a legal question which perhaps someone here might help me with?

This week, the voters in the state of North Carolina, in a fit of medieval extravagance, passed an Amendment banning gay marriages. Other states have done similar things in the past. I'm not too concerned with the legality of this, as that will eventually be determined in the courts. What interests me is how this would affect a couple who are married, legally, in another state. Could a gay couple from New York, say, be arrested while traveling through North Carolina? And what if they moved to North Carolina? Would they be forced to dissolve their marriage?

Personally, even as a heterosexual, I'm not eager to travel to or through North Carolina, since they have proven that some 80% of their population are bigots. Having to live in South Carolina is bad enough. (And yes, I could see the people of this state doing something equally idiotic.) I certainly won't be spending any of MY vacation money in NC! (Which, since I don't HAVE any vacation money, won't mean a damned thing. But my intentions are pure!)

Thorne,
Your question was raised on TV last nigh,t it is my undertanding that a married couple from say Calirofnia moves to N. Carolina (why the hell they would do that beats the hello out of me) anyway if they move to a state like N Carloina, the state not only could refuse to honor their marriage but also descriminate again them in every way possibl,e jobs, health care etc the could be refused jobs if the employer did not want some gay workingfor them, it would also effecti f they had any children, their children would have no legal protction for ANYTHING and gays in gneral would have no leagal protection if a Hosptial did not wantto treat tehm because they were gay the Hosptial COULD of their own choisnf refuse to treat them thei ssue goes WAY beyond just no recognizingtheir marriage or Civil Union they would have NO Protction or ANY RIGHTS norwould their children if anty were involved

[Thorne]

That's about what I was expecting to hear, sadly. But isn't there a Federal Law that requires the states to honor licenses (such as for driving, or marriage) issued by other states? After all, we aren't required to file for a driver's license in every state we might pass through in our lives. We don't have to get married in every state we move to, either. How can this kind of discrimination, then, be justified? It could then be permissible to require every person from North Carolina to apply for a new driver's license, or marriage license, every time they cross the border into neighboring states. The result would be chaos!

In fact, wouldn't that be justly ironic? Have California pass an amendment that the state will not recognize marriage licenses from the state of North Carolina, requiring every couple from that state to apply for a new license before they can cohabit in a motel room.

[Punish_her]

a civil union provides all the same benefits of a marriage except they are only recognized in the state they're issued. if civil unions were made the primary secular way, then every state would adopt them, and the full faith and credit caluse would validate them everywhere in the us.

and you don't need a marriage license to get married in a church, it is a slightly seperate ceremony that does not provide the same legal benefits as a licensed marriage

[Punish_her]

In fact, wouldn't that be justly ironic? Have California pass an amendment that the state will not recognize marriage licenses from the state of North Carolina, requiring every couple from that state to apply for a new license before they can cohabit in a motel room.

unconstitutional

[Punish_her]

That's about what I was expecting to hear, sadly. But isn't there a Federal Law that requires the states to honor licenses (such as for driving, or marriage) issued by other states? After all, we aren't required to file for a driver's license in every state we might pass through in our lives. We don't have to get married in every state we move to, either. How can this kind of discrimination, then, be justified? It could then be permissible to require every person from North Carolina to apply for a new driver's license, or marriage license, every time they cross the border into neighboring states. The result would be chaos!

the full faith and credit clause only applies when there is an equivalent within the other states. hypothetically, if im from texas, and i get a permit for concealed carry, then i can do it in other states that have concealed carry regulations. i can't go to massachusetts, where concealed carry is illegal no matter what and get away with it.
no state bars heterosexuals from getting marriage licenses, so its okay to get it in any state, but if the other states have no such equivalent fro homosexuals, then they are free to ignore them

[ksst]

I think every marriage should be a little more gay. That means happy, right?


Seriously though, I'm in favor of gay marriage. I'm in favor of poly marriage. How other people want to marry just does not affect me personally in my marriage, and I think it's perfectly awful that people discriminate based on orientation.

[Punish_her]

I think every marriage should be a little more gay. That means happy, right?


Seriously though, I'm in favor of gay marriage. I'm in favor of poly marriage. How other people want to marry just does not affect me personally in my marriage, and I think it's perfectly awful that people discriminate based on orientation.

i agree with that 100 percent, but its not a matter of what you or i think is right, its a matter of what is legal and authorized

[StrictMasterD]

a civil union provides all the same benefits of a marriage except they are only recognized in the state they're issued. if civil unions were made the primary secular way, then every state would adopt them, and the full faith and credit caluse would validate them everywhere in the us.

and you don't need a marriage license to get married in a church, it is a slightly seperate ceremony that does not provide the same legal benefits as a licensed marriage

You are wrong, in a Civil Partnership, if 1 sposue is Hopitalized for any reason the other sposue can not legaly give authorization for ANY medical procedure, in a marriage they can, If one stets recognizes either a Civil Partnership or a Marriage and that couple moves ot another state that does not recognize either, the coupe is NOT protect under law in the state that does not recognize either a partnership or marriage, there are MANY, MANY difference over what a Civil Partnership alows as oppsed to what a Marriage LIscnce aloows,, child, support, Medical Care, Insurance Coverage etc if you are Gay and Married you have FULL protection in your state if you arei n only a Civil Partnership in your state you have no mdcai lcoverage for your spouse or children, you can not make ANY Financial or Medical Decsions for your Partner, in a Gay Marriage you can, the 2 Unions are entirrly diffetrent and are not recognized in all state

[StrictMasterD]

That's about what I was expecting to hear, sadly. But isn't there a Federal Law that requires the states to honor licenses (such as for driving, or marriage) issued by other states? After all, we aren't required to file for a driver's license in every state we might pass through in our lives. We don't have to get married in every state we move to, either. How can this kind of discrimination, then, be justified? It could then be permissible to require every person from North Carolina to apply for a new driver's license, or marriage license, every time they cross the border into neighboring states. The result would be chaos!

In fact, wouldn't that be justly ironic? Have California pass an amendment that the state will not recognize marriage licenses from the state of North Carolina, requiring every couple from that state to apply for a new license before they can cohabit in a motel room.

No there is NO Fedral Law, all States have their own laws regaurding whether they wil acknowlege Civil Partnerships or Marriages in their state but as of now therei s NO Ferderal Law Requrinig them to

[StrictMasterD]

This should answer Virtualy ALL Questions Raised or Posted Here:

Why Gay Marriage and Not Civil Unions?
The right to marry is not just about the actual legal ceremony, but an equal right to the extensive list of legal protections awarded to married couples. These benefits given to legally married couples range from tax relief to medical decision making. Civil unions and domestic partnerships may seem like equal unions, but the protections they give to registered couples is often far less than that of marriage.
This info is from: http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/f/civilmarriage.htm

Answer: So, why do we need gay marriage and not just civil unions? Here are a few reasons:

Number of Legal Benefits:
•Marriage: Over 1,049 federal and state level benefits (see list)
•Civil Unions: Over 300 state level benefits. *No federal protection (see benefit example)
Tax Relief:
•Marriage: Couples can file both federal and state tax returns jointly.
•Civil Unions: Couples can only file jointly in the state of civil registration.
Medical Decisions:
•Marriage: Partners can make emergency medical decisions.
•Civil Unions: Partners can only make medical decisions in the registered state. Partners may not be able to make decisions out of state.
Gifts:
•Marriage: Partners can transfer gifts to each other without tax penalty.
•Civil Unions: Partners do not pay state taxes, but are required to report federal taxes.
Death Benefits:
•Marriage: In the case of a partner's death, the spouse receives any earned Social Security or veteran benefits.
•Civil Unions: Partners do not receive Social Security or any other government benefits in case of death. In the case of the death of former Congressman Gerry Studds, his partner of 15 years was denied the government pension that would have gone to a legally recognized spouse.
Child/Spousal Support:
•Marriage: In case of divorce, individuals may have a legally-binding financial obligation to spouses and children.
•Civil Unions: In the case of dissolution , no such spousal or child benefits are guaranteed or required out of state.
Immigration Rights:
•Marriage: U.S. citizens and legal residents can sponsor their spouses and family members for immigration.
•Civil Unions: U.S. citizens and legal residents cannot sponsor non-legal spouses or family members. (more on gay immigration rights)

[denuseri]

Well what about when the Federal Government went in and over turned laws making it illegal in some states for a black to marry a white?

The precedent for federal involvement is imho already set.

[StrictMasterD]

Additionaly
http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-civil-union-and-gay-marriage/

Civil union vs Gay marriage

There is, undoubtedly, a lot of confusion surrounding the precise meaning of a civil union, as opposed to a gay marriage. The situation is not made any better when some politicians claim to be in support of one, say civil unions, and, at the same time, are against the other.
Marriage is defined as the legal status that is formally acknowledged by almost all the governments in the world. Just like the rights and protections it has, it also carries mutual obligations. Marriage means more than the totality of its legal elements. Culturally, it is an institution. Marriage itself is an essential foundation that conveys the mutual love and trust between two partners, and the commitment that each partner has dedicated to the other.

A civil union is defined as the legal status which provides legal protection for couples, at only the state level. It does not provide for other federal protections, elevated ranks, power and security, like the case of marriage. The state of Vermont was the first in the US to create civil unions in the year 2000. A few other states have followed suit, including Oregon and New Jersey.



There are wide ranging differences between a civil union and a gay marriage, because of the simple reason that a gay marriage, where it is allowed, is treated just like any other officiated union of two adults. There must be a legally binding document, which will provide for many protections that a civil union will not have. For instance, health care is commonly assigned to individuals who are married, although individual companies may include those in civil unions, except for states like Vermont, where individuals in a civil union have equal benefits, responsibilities and protections as those in a marriage. You can say that a civil union will carry fewer obligations at the separation time, because it will not be necessary to seek for divorce. This can also be a cause for conflict, because the law cannot be invoked.

Worth noting, is that in the gay community, the difference between civil union and a gay marriage is, most of the time, taken as a matter of semantics. It is seen as a method of causing stigma and isolation to an already disfavored type of relationship, between same sex individuals.

[StrictMasterD]

Well what about when the Federal Government went in and over turned laws making it illegal in some states for a black to marry a white?

The precedent for federal involvement is imho already set.

Times have changed since then and even your own post say the in SOME STATES not all states, again times have chagedsince then so have Social issues, I am NOT defending what the President said, but simply pointingout eh differencs between Civil Unions and Marriage they are 2 completely differentthings in terms of Protection and Civil rights
At that time Intergration almost was Non Exsisten, over the years Social Issues have changed with the times when that happenend you never heard of Gay Marriages, Civil Unions as a matter of fact when that happened it was not even Socialy Acceptable for Girl Friends or Boys Friends to even live together even if they were the same color, Socialty did not accept it. nor did Sociaiety accept Bblack Living in White Neighborhoods or even using the same Restroom Facilities or eating inthe same Resutrants

[denuseri]

I think you misunderstood me. What I meant by some states is that only some states made being mixed race marriages "illegal". Where as other ruled it was fine.

Eventually the full faith and credit cluase was applied and those "some" states were forced to recognize mixed race marriages.

[Punish_her]

Well what about when the Federal Government went in and over turned laws making it illegal in some states for a black to marry a white?

The precedent for federal involvement is imho already set.

i have no recollection of the federal government telling states they couldn't let blacks and whites marry

[StrictMasterD]

deneseri,
Thank you for that I correct myself If I misunderstood what you mean
Also please not e my posting on the difference between civil union and marriage with gays was for informationonly and was posted to reply to most of the quwats here i am Gender Neutral myself but the it was just for informationonly and does not represent my opnion one way or the other except what I said which is I am Gender Neutral

[StrictMasterD]

i have no recollection of the federal government telling states they couldn't let blacks and whites marry
I agree, if it did happy it was state mandated in the Deep South in the early years of the Civil Rights Movement but it would have been States that set those laws not the Federal Goverment but also rember before the Civil rights Bills was passed most Black especialy in the South had virtualy no rights anyway

[Punish_her]

I agree, if it did happy it was state mandated in the Deep South in the early years of the Civil Rights Movement but it would have been States that set those laws not the Federal Goverment but also rember before the Civil rights Bills was passed most Black especialy in the South had virtualy no rights anyway

right, either i misread it, or she said "there was a time when states allowed blacks and whites to marry, but the federal government stepped in and said they couldn't" but i am quite sure im just misunderstanding

[Thorne]

and you don't need a marriage license to get married in a church, it is a slightly seperate ceremony that does not provide the same legal benefits as a licensed marriage
Meaning you are not legally married. Just like a civil union.

[Thorne]

unconstitutional
You mean, like denying people equal rights under the law is unconstitutional?

And why would it be wrong for New York, for example, to declare North Carolina marriage licenses invalid in New York, but it's all right for North Carolina to declare LEGAL New York licenses invalid? What's good for the goose, and all that.

[Thorne]

i agree with that 100 percent, but its not a matter of what you or i think is right, its a matter of what is legal and authorized
Very true. And it has been shown time and again that it is illegal to discriminate. It is also illegal to use religious convictions to force laws into effect that will affect even those who do not subscribe to that religion. Which is what the controversy is all about!

[Punish_her]

You mean, like denying people equal rights under the law is unconstitutional?

And why would it be wrong for New York, for example, to declare North Carolina marriage licenses invalid in New York, but it's all right for North Carolina to declare LEGAL New York licenses invalid? What's good for the goose, and all that.

i dont follow

[Punish_her]

Very true. And it has been shown time and again that it is illegal to discriminate. It is also illegal to use religious convictions to force laws into effect that will affect even those who do not subscribe to that religion. Which is what the controversy is all about!

the goverment can't at least. i think a business should be allowed to be as discriminatory as it wants

[Thorne]

right, either i misread it, or she said "there was a time when states allowed blacks and whites to marry, but the federal government stepped in and said they couldn't" but i am quite sure im just misunderstanding
Yes, you misunderstood. There were some states (North Carolina was one, up until 1971) that made mixed-race marriages ILLEGAL. The feds declared these laws to be discriminatory and stepped in to force states to accept such marriages. The situation is exactly analogous to the rights for gays to marry. I would think that the feds would require ALL states to recognize gay marriages which were performed legally in another state. It might be possible for a state to prohibit such marriages from occurring in their state, but I cannot see them ignoring legal marriages from other states. Not without causing serious legal, and moral, issues.

[Thorne]

i dont follow
North Carolina has passed an amendment making gay marriages illegal. From what you said earlier, any gay couple from New York, legally married, could be arrested in North Carolina because the state does not recognize their marriage license. So why couldn't the reverse happen. Have New York declare that it will not recognize marriage licenses from North Carolina. How can one be legal, but not the other?

[Punish_her]

actually ri recognizes gay marriages in ma but does not issue licenses itself, in other words, its legal to be in a gay marriage, but you can't get married

[Punish_her]

double post, my bad

[Thorne]

the goverment can't at least. i think a business should be allowed to be as discriminatory as it wants
Except that it can't. That issue was settled more than 40 years ago. ANY public business must abide by federal anti-discrimination laws. That's why restaurants, or clothing stores, or bars, or any other business which deals with the general public, cannot refuse to serve someone based upon race, color or creed. And it's my opinion, an the opinion of an ever-increasing percentage of the US population, that sexual orientation should be included in that ruling. There is no valid, legal reason for denying gays equal rights. The ONLY reasons are religious, which cannot be used to justify law.

[Thorne]

actually ri recognizes gay marriages in ma but does not issue licenses itself, in other words, its legal to be in a gay marriage, but you can't get married
Yes, that I can understand. States may be able to get away with declining to issue such marriage licenses, but they cannot (or at least should not) be permitted to ignore LEGAL licenses from other states. The same applies to drivers licenses. If you are licensed to drive in one state, you are licensed to drive in ALL states, even if you are not legally old enough to obtain a license in a particular state.

[Punish_her]

Except that it can't. That issue was settled more than 40 years ago. ANY public business must abide by federal anti-discrimination laws. That's why restaurants, or clothing stores, or bars, or any other business which deals with the general public, cannot refuse to serve someone based upon race, color or creed. And it's my opinion, an the opinion of an ever-increasing percentage of the US population, that sexual orientation should be included in that ruling. There is no valid, legal reason for denying gays equal rights. The ONLY reasons are religious, which cannot be used to justify law.

if its my property, i should be able to do what i want with it. if i want to have a resteraunt that only employs and caters to whites, seeing as how its my property, that should be legal

[StrictMasterD]

And unless I missunderstood the News Tonight, some Organization, possibly even the Governor not sure which has asked the DNC to move it 2012 out
of North Carolina because of what Obama said about Gay Marriages but NC is SO out of touch with current times it is unreal

[Thorne]

if its my property, i should be able to do what i want with it. if i want to have a resteraunt that only employs and caters to whites, seeing as how its my property, that should be legal
Except that, even if it's your property, you cannot run a business without acquiring a permit from the city/county/state. To obtain that permit, and keep it, you must abide by all applicable laws, at least one of which requires you to be non-discriminatory. Certainly there are valid reasons for keeping a particular person out of your store, but keeping an entire class of people out is illegal, and will cost you your ability to do business.

[StrictMasterD]

Except that, even if it's your property, you cannot run a business without acquiring a permit from the city/county/state. To obtain that permit, and keep it, you must abide by all applicable laws, at least one of which requires you to be non-discriminatory. Certainly there are valid reasons for keeping a particular person out of your store, but keeping an entire class of people out is illegal, and will cost you your ability to do business.

Thorne,
I have a question, you are right with what you havesaid, but what happens in siutations and I have seen them when you go by or into a resturant and there is a sign up that says "We reservethe right to refuse to serve anyone"
I have seen those ans thoe arelegal, wil probably kll the business but they are legal to you you can refuse serve to anyone you want
As am atter of fact without getting of track to much there was recently a resutrant inthe news who have asign up that say they wil not serve anyone who speaks Spanish, or only English spoken here?

[Thorne]

Thorne,
I have a question, you are right with what you havesaid, but what happens in siutations and I have seen them when you go by or into a resturant and there is a sign up that says "We reservethe right to refuse to serve anyone"
I have seen those ans thoe arelegal, wil probably kll the business but they are legal to you you can refuse serve to anyone you want
You can try that, of course. If someone is abusive to the workers, or creating a disturbance, there's no problem. But if you refuse service because someone is black, or Hispanic, or oriental, or Muslim, you run the risk of losing your license should they complain.


As am atter of fact without getting of track to much there was recently a resutrant inthe news who have asign up that say they wil not serve anyone who speaks Spanish, or only English spoken here?
You cannot refuse to serve someone just because they speak Spanish. That is discrimination. You CAN, however, notify your customers that you have no one in your employ who understands Spanish. That is information which might be important to a customer. Assuming they can read English! (Might be smarter to put up the sign in Spanish. And you can add French, Russian, Greek, Urdu, Bantu, etc, etc, etc.)

But think about it for a bit. You run a business, lets say a small restaurant. You are located in an area where a significant percentage of the locals are Hispanic. Wouldn't it make good business sense to have menus printed in Spanish, and to hire at least some Spanish speaking staff? To my mind, it would take a particularly masochistic, and foolish, business man to turn away a large amount of business just because he doesn't like to hear Spanish.

[StrictMasterD]

You can try that, of course. If someone is abusive to the workers, or creating a disturbance, there's no problem. But if you refuse service because someone is black, or Hispanic, or oriental, or Muslim, you run the risk of losing your license should they complain.


You cannot refuse to serve someone just because they speak Spanish. That is discrimination. You CAN, however, notify your customers that you have no one in your employ who understands Spanish. That is information which might be important to a customer. Assuming they can read English! (Might be smarter to put up the sign in Spanish. And you can add French, Russian, Greek, Urdu, Bantu, etc, etc, etc.)

But think about it for a bit. You run a business, lets say a small restaurant. You are located in an area where a significant percentage of the locals are Hispanic. Wouldn't it make good business sense to have menus printed in Spanish, and to hire at least some Spanish speaking staff? To my mind, it would take a particularly masochistic, and foolish, business man to turn away a large amount of business just because he doesn't like to hear Spanish.
Thorne,
Again I agree with you, my question is how does that Resturant get away with putting that sign up NOBDY had told him he has to take it down, I am sure it effect his busienss but how does he legally get away even using that sign?

[Punish_her]

Except that, even if it's your property, you cannot run a business without acquiring a permit from the city/county/state. To obtain that permit, and keep it, you must abide by all applicable laws, at least one of which requires you to be non-discriminatory. Certainly there are valid reasons for keeping a particular person out of your store, but keeping an entire class of people out is illegal, and will cost you your ability to do business.

well obviously that's the law but the law itself is unconstitutional

[Thorne]

well obviously that's the law but the law itself is unconstitutional
Not according to the Supreme Court. Their the ones who, you know, decide what is or isn't constitutional?

[Thorne]

Thorne,
Again I agree with you, my question is how does that Resturant get away with putting that sign up NOBDY had told him he has to take it down, I am sure it effect his busienss but how does he legally get away even using that sign?
From your post it sounds like there are two signs. One claims the right to refuse service to anyone. Which technically he can do, if he has just cause. But if he should try to refuse service based on race, creed or color he'll wind up in court, and out of business.

The other sign, near as I can tell from your post, just lets his customers know that they do not speak Spanish in his store. In an area with a large Spanish population, I can speculate that he's 'politely' letting his customers know that he does not speak Spanish, so they will have to speak English to get proper service. Regardless of his motives, the sign only says that he can't speak Spanish. No law against that. Yet.

[denuseri]

Yes, you misunderstood. There were some states (North Carolina was one, up until 1971) that made mixed-race marriages ILLEGAL. The feds declared these laws to be discriminatory and stepped in to force states to accept such marriages. The situation is exactly analogous to the rights for gays to marry. I would think that the feds would require ALL states to recognize gay marriages which were performed legally in another state. It might be possible for a state to prohibit such marriages from occurring in their state, but I cannot see them ignoring legal marriages from other states. Not without causing serious legal, and moral, issues.

Thanking Sir for clarifying what I was trying to say.

[Thorne]

Thanking Sir for clarifying what I was trying to say.
You're welcome. It's nice to see that, despite some differences, we can find ourselves on the same side occasionally.