TexasCHLforum.com

A Montana man has now applied for a marriage license to legally marry a second wife.

Nathan Collier says he was inspired by last week's Supreme Court ruling.

C-dub wrote:There is one other thing that is bothering me about this ruling today.

Roberts, in his dissent of today's ruling, said that we are a nation of laws, but used the exact opposite reason in his ruling about obamacare yesterday. Same Roberts, right? Is he schizophrenic or have a split personality disorder or something?

cb1000rider wrote:

LeakyWaders wrote: I disagree that striking it down would impact a a "huge" part of the population. I work in emergency departments in Houston. Since the law was enacted I see the same population of patients utilizing the ER as their primary care provider now ,without providing proof of insurance, as before the ACA was passed. What that tells me is that those who abused the system before the ACA will continue to abuse the system because there is no disincentive.

I don't know what the basic demographic is for the Houston ER. Obamacare doesn't subsidize people who aren't here legally (despite what opponents say).

The part of the population that it would impact is 6-7 million people. Apparently that's the number of government subsidized health insurance plans.


Like VM, I don't understand why this wasn't decided as a legal issue on the writing of the law.

AG Paxton calls it a flawed ruling, says next fight will be over religious liberty: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/oa ... hp?id=5142" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; #ssm

Middle Age Russ wrote:Yes. The slippery slope angle of inclination just increased significantly, though the ruling was not unexpected.

TVGuy wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

TVGuy wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

TVGuy wrote:

bigity wrote:SCOTUS is full of disappointment this week, this and the other decision just now.

I personally have no problem with all Americans having equal protection under the law. Whether you agree with it or not, their right to have equal protection outweighs your right to perceived harm done to "the sanctity of marriage". I may get flamed on this, but it's the way our current society regards this no matter what the past has been. It's a freight train and it's not going to stop.

Additionally with this wedge issue off of the table, it will be easier for Republicans to compete with Dems in the minds of some independent voters.

Do you agree the same equal protections extend to religious liberties for those deciding not to participate in activities which go against their religious beliefs?

Absolutely. A Catholic church won't marry a Methodist and a Catholic, they shouldn't have to and won't have to marry two men or to two women either.

I promise you this will be the next step. If baking cakes or taking pictures is an issue, then conducting and officiating marriage ceremonies will be also.

Not a chance... Big difference between a private business open to the public and a religious institution.

TVGuy wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

TVGuy wrote:

bigity wrote:SCOTUS is full of disappointment this week, this and the other decision just now.

I personally have no problem with all Americans having equal protection under the law. Whether you agree with it or not, their right to have equal protection outweighs your right to perceived harm done to "the sanctity of marriage". I may get flamed on this, but it's the way our current society regards this no matter what the past has been. It's a freight train and it's not going to stop.

Additionally with this wedge issue off of the table, it will be easier for Republicans to compete with Dems in the minds of some independent voters.

Do you agree the same equal protections extend to religious liberties for those deciding not to participate in activities which go against their religious beliefs?

Absolutely. A Catholic church won't marry a Methodist and a Catholic, they shouldn't have to and won't have to marry two men or to two women either.

TVGuy wrote:

bigity wrote:SCOTUS is full of disappointment this week, this and the other decision just now.

I personally have no problem with all Americans having equal protection under the law. Whether you agree with it or not, their right to have equal protection outweighs your right to perceived harm done to "the sanctity of marriage". I may get flamed on this, but it's the way our current society regards this no matter what the past has been. It's a freight train and it's not going to stop.

Additionally with this wedge issue off of the table, it will be easier for Republicans to compete with Dems in the minds of some independent voters.

In a 6-3 opinion (King v. Burwell) written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court rejected a challenge based on a four-word phrase that said tax credits would be available only on an exchange “established by the state” and thus should not be available to the states that use the federal exchange for purchasing insurance. Only 16 states have their own exchange.

However, the court found that the phrase, which it acknowledged is ambiguous, should be read in the broader context of the entire statute and not in a way that limits the availability of the subsidies. Reading it narrowly “would destabilize the individual insurance market in any State with a Federal Exchange, and likely create the very ‘death spirals’ that Congress designed the Act to avoid,” the court said.

The court said Congress made the guaranteed issue and community rating requirements applicable in every state, but those requirements only work when combined with the coverage requirement and tax credits. “It thus stands to reason that Congress meant for those provisions to apply in every State as well,” the court said.