Skip to comments.Gay Couples May Soon Have to Choose Between Getting Married and Not Getting Fired
Posted on 07/06/2014 5:10:26 AM PDT by Salman
The U.S. Constitution protects gay peoples right to marry the person they love. It does not, however, protect them from getting fired for doing so. Throughout the first decade of marriage equality, most states that legalized gay marriage also proscribed anti-gay employment discrimination, rendering this legal dissonance moot. But as more and more states find marriage equality foisted upon them by a judicial mandate, this discordance in rights presents something of a ticking time bomb for the LGBT movement.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Um, I couldn't find that article in the constitution. I'll keep looking.
The gay couple that ran a company I worked for fired me one month to the day after my son was born. Proving I was a breeder was a bad career move...
It is right next to the word "musket".
I consider myself very lucky. I went to read the article but Salon crashed my iPad1.
> never happy
^ this. They will never ever be satisfied because they know they are broken and want everyone else to be the same. They understand they are not normal and can’t change the laws of nature andit makes them very bitter and angry so they take it out on straight normal people.
“The U.S. Constitution protects gay peoples right to marry the person they love.”
Could someone point out where in the constitution that is found?
Where does it say that in the Constitution?
Maybe if you had offered your child to them as a sacrificial lamb they would have kept you on.
Sure... now the government is a Pope and is going to tell our churches who to hirend our families what kind of baby sitter to hire.
Forget about it. America has become the worst nation on Earth.
If it does not vote for them while poor or does not make immediate pedophile sexual gratification or money for them, they are not interested.
And not just gays. I remember a few girl friends jealous of my first children too. That was a quick dump decision for me.
“Sure... now the government is a Pope and is going to tell our churches who to hire and our families what kind of baby sitter to hire.”
Even the Pope doesn’t do that!!!
Yes it has; I never thought I would agree with the sentiment, but it has.
Your post doesn’t make any sense.
2 men or 2 women can live with and sodomize each other till the cows come home (cow-man relationships being the next thing the courts will legislate as marriage)
But marriage is between a man and woman and for the purpose of procreation and no perverted judge can convince me differently.
Vicious little cycle they put themselves in. At some point hopefully they’ll tire of it. Meanwhile leave me the hell alone!
RE: The U.S. Constitution protects gay peoples right to marry the person they love.
Does it not also protect devoutly religious people from NOT recognizing or celebrating this “marriage”?
It is in the penumbra somewhere.
Even the perversions of Ancient Rome did not recognise a gay relationship as a legal marriage. We have outdone the most perverse societies of yore.
Author needs to check his premises.
“The U.S. Constitution protects gay peoples right to marry the person they love.”
I stopped reading at the first line.
Amazing how today’s authors will flat out lie in their attempt to distort reality around their perverse proclivities. This author is a liar, willfully and knowingly trying to deceive others. Dismiss him.
Homosexuality is a judgement on America.
This needs to be pointed out consistently - homosexuality will not just bring judgement upon our country; homosexuality IS the judgement. Romans 1:26 starts with For this reason and continues God gave them up to vile passions. ..men with men committing what is shameful; so this is a judgement upon our society.
It also continues and says that they give approval to others for more and more evil acts. We see this today with our legislatures accepting
homosexual marriages and the teaching of it as acceptable in the schools.
Note also that Romans 1:32 points out that those who approve of such conduct are just as guilty as those who engage in it.
The liberals have there own Constitution it’s the only place you can find it.
Ignoring this erroneous claim about "The Constitution", a person may marry the person "they" love PROVIDED THAT:
-They aren't closely related
-They are of legal age to consent
-They are not already married
-They are of opposite gender
There are plenty of marriage partners who are available to others and just not "you".
Very disturbing article, a true window into the homofascist mindset. “one we impose gay marriage on them” “we achieved or ends through the courts”
“Mark Joseph Stern is a writer for Slate. He covers science, the law, and LGBTQ issues”
He doesn’t understand basic biology or law, but he’s got the pink power issues covered!
The Supreme Court never said that homosexuals had a “Right” to marry. It only said that states could not deny federal benefits to homosexuals that were legally married in other states.
This entire chain of events started in 2004 when three judges in Massachusetts “ordered” the state legislature to approve homo marriage. Thousands of degenerates from other states flocked to Massachusetts to get married then went back to live in their own states. They returned home filing lawsuits against their state to legally recognize the sham marriage. So now this is where we are with this mess.
They are NOT “gay”, they are filthy homosexuals, and they should be referred to as such.
“Thousands of degenerates from other states flocked to Massachusetts to get married then went back to live in their own states.”
And now they’re having troubles getting divorced in their home states.
Yeah well ... our “Conservative” SCOTUS (no they aren’t. Corporate is NOT Conservative) will soon make them a protected class and it will be unconstitutional.
Does anybody really believe that homosexual couples will get fired from a job for marrying a same sex partner????
If this ever happens, a lawsuit will be filed, and the courts will rule such an action to be illegal. Punitive damages will result.
Technically, maybe this could happen. Author is scare mongering. I’m saying that realistically, in this politically correct culture of ours, no employer would dare fire a homosexual employee who married a same sex partner. It just wouldn’t happen.
In fact, few employers dare fire minority peoples due to fears of a civil rights violation. The same is true of homosexuals nowadays.
A man “married” to another man just indicates that my expenses related to providing health insurance are likely to go through the roof. Providing HIV treatment is VERY expensive, and homosexual men have lots of other long-term health issues.
After all, what's good for the goose should be good for the gander, IF they're going for "EQUAL rights."
Scarlett J. is great, as long as she keeps her yap shut, or is only repeating those things screenwriters have drafted for her. Once she tries talking for herself, she gets silly (unintentionally) very quickly.
On the other hand, unless an animal rights whacko is on the court, human/animal marriages probably aren't in our future, as there's no way for an animal to give informed consent or agree to the contractual portions of the "marriage.
However, I do disagree with your point on procreation. I believe a man and a woman should be allowed to marry, even if they're NOT able to procreate, either due to biological reasons or age.
But for societal good, then yes, I do agree with you that for the good of society, and humanity in general, that a two parent (M&F) family is the preferential way to go.
It reminds me of the Monty Python bit in Life of Brian, where Eric Idle wants the right to have a baby. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R79yYo2aOZs Mark
But let's not say the opposite "gender," because "gender" means a fluid, intermittent and transient state of mind which drives you to present yourself publicly in a certain way (via dress, mannerisms, hairstyle, given name, cosmetics, demeanor, gait, voice, and pronoun preference), shaped by as well as shaping a set of social expectations.
How I lament the day that the word "gender" mutated and jumped out of the Basic Grammar Box and started roaming the city at large, waving its paws and threatening people at the intersection of Psychology and Sociology.
As far as possible, I don't use the word "gender." I use the word "sex."
"Sex" is actually what you mean: being an XY or an XX, a male or a female in a species which manifests binary sexual reproductive differentiation.
What’s the problem? The state does not recognize their marriage, they are free to dissolve the relationship as anyone who’s shacking up does.
And if they want the courts to decide, they can get their divorce in the state what married them...
Even if the people in question are tidy, hygienic, and sweetly scented homosexuals, it ought to be recognized that the drive to express endearment by sticking your wedding tackle into somebody else’s anus, is Not. A. Good. Thing.
Whether that person is the same or the opposite sex, rank or tidy.
Well, yes, if your employer happens to be a Catholic School or Church.
Thanks be to God.
I think everybody agrees with that. From the standpoint of law, the actual ability to have children cannot be the point. What counts is the ability to consummate the marriage, which is (or was) defined as the act of coitus by which the male's organ enters and deposits semen into the female's genital tract.
They had to discuss this in the UK, where of course none of the SS couples could legally consummate a marriage unless Her Majesty's Government redefined intercourse. There was no one definitive act that was "The Marriage Act," by which marriage is legally consummated.
Likewise they had to redefine "Adultery," since there was no one defining act which was "The Adulterous Act."
As BJ Clinton taught us 16 years ago, we've got to the point that we not only don't know what "sex" is, we don't even know what "is" is.
I guess I should have said, will any homosexual be fired from any secular business nowadays. I think that is doubtful.
Agree with that statement.
I also think there will always be sad silly queens out there. I don't begrudge them the right to cohabit. Just keep it quiet and behind closed doors. But (addressing them) Don't ever think you can or should ever call it marriage. It is an aberration.
Sums the issue in as succinct and common sense manner as anything I’ve seen in a good while.
Passing a law makes it legal thus a good thing. They have parental (gubment) permission.
Here’s the article about gays being forced to get “married.” Fools that they were.
This author is referring to states where "the gay mirage" is legal (because forced by the Federal courts) but the state laws do not have anti-discrimination clauses on the grounds of gender identity or sexual orientation. Thus, as soon as they get married, they are publicly identified as gay, and therefore those who wish to discriminate against them, could.
It's saying marriage might not be advantageous in states that don't have "gay" as a legally protected minority.