Posted on 06/26/2013 7:12:46 AM PDT by The Sons of Liberty
Edited on 06/26/2013 7:25:51 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Headline only
Text of decision here.
Dunno probably now but now they will sue sue sue until either the Supremes rule on it or the States cave under the pressure.
“Not sexually consummating a marriage does not make them less married “
Actually it does in at least 13 states...
The cultural free fall continues, with no end in sight.
I know to what you are referring. Still the fact remains, marriage and the sanctity of same has nothing to do with the sex act. It is so much more.
Is anybody really surprised by this decision from the Øbama Supreme Court?
My husband and I know two couples who have been married almost as long as we have been married...47 years in Dec..neither have ever consummated their marriage. We also know a young couple who have been married for several. Because of injuries the husband suffered in Iraq, they will never consummate their marriage. These three couple’s marriages are ever bit as valid as mine. Sex does not a marriage make.
Next, no denying freebies to people married to their dogs or horses, or in polygamy or to family members.
This isn’t about marriage, never was. It was about homosexuals wanting in the early 1980’s to get free medical coverage from employers for their AIDS infected butt buddies.
Fact of the matter is, though, the states do have some degree of differing laws as to the requirements to get a state issued marriage license.
And WTF do you get off telling me I don't care of tradition and that I "care alot about sex." What kind of twisted jerk are you? There is zero, nada, zilch, nothing in anything I posted here on this thread (or in my entirety of being here on FR) that would back up any of the frivolous allegations you laid at my feet.
My first interaction with you was in regards to your post to another Freeper: "What’s your brilliant plan with spousal visas?'
To which I simply replied:
"I would assume, that the feds would handle a spousal visa the same way they currently handle a spousal visa.
If a state say's someone is married, then the feds go with that."
Shame on you for twisting what I said into some kind of degenerate filth.
Indeed they do have ‘some degree’, but they do not have the authority to change the definition of marriage.
This is not a states right issue - the federal government does have the authority to regulate the definition of marriage.
The reason why visas are important is because they help to demonstrate why state definition of marriage is inadequate. It’s a loophole that Obama is going to exploit through abuse of the immigration system.
I apologize for going off on you. I’m just annoyed and aggravated to find myself arguing with the liberaltarians here cheering on this horrific decision.
You did not deserve to be treated that way.
Actually it does in at least 13 states...
===========================================================
Is a law, a law, if it's not enforceable? I mean, pick any one of those states that has that law. How does the state know if people are consummating their marriage (as required by their state law)?
Excellent point, rxsid. And, whose business is it, really? Thank you for your reply.
“Is a law, a law, if it’s not enforceable? I mean, pick any one of those states that has that law. How does the state know if people are consummating their marriage (as required by their state law)?”
In the context of same sex marriage they will know, because the plumbing won’t fit...
This is not a states right issue - the federal government does have the authority to regulate the definition of marriage. To "some degree", otherwise, there would be no difference in marriage law from state to state are there exists now.
Thank you. I accept your apology.
I'm against the "state" (be it federal or state) siding with homosexual marriage not only because it's immoral (based on my religious belief), but it also goes against biology (mother nature) as it's a genetic dead end which is anti-natural.
That, of course, doesn't touch on the issue that has also been brought up here...in that this is a slippery slope. If two men are allowed to "marry", then there is nothing that would stop 5 men from marrying, or a father marrying his (of age) daughter. People would say, well, you can't do that because you might produce a genetically compromised offspring. Who says the marriage has to be about producing offspring? Obviously, that's God's will...but there are plenty of heterosexual marriages that are viable that don't produce offspring (for a variety of reasons). So, since offspring isn't (nor cant) be a requirement for marriage...what's is now to stop a father from marrying his daughter?
As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, the reason we had this decision today stems from the fact that the elected representatives (& courts) in the state of CA did not defend the will of the people of that state when they voted to ban same-sex marriage.
/rant off.
Cheers (& I mean it).
Thank you. Like I said earlier there were many folks cheering this on because, ‘it got the government out of marriage’. No, no, it didn’t.
SCOTUS clerks are very powerful these days. Evidently, Kennedy has a few on his ... staff that support SSM.
Keep in mind that any proposed Amendment requires a 2/3 majority vote in both houses of Congress before going to the states. That’s a pretty difficult hurdle to clear at present.
Back to the states?
But God isn’t happy.
I mean how do these politicians get there? The people vote for them. How do the judges get there? One way or the other, it's the people either either directly or indirectly. The judges are either voted for or appointed by elected officials. It's up to the people of a locality or state to throw the bums out and see to it that trustworthy and honorable take their place.
Either the people are in charge of the states (and this country) or we've got bigger problems than this "gay marriage" oxymoron nonsense.
People who say they're against big government don't seem to mind when the government directs their unconstitutional power in a direction they agree with. These people want big government to solve their local problems. Just like the Left.
What happened to the ideas of a free constitutional republic? Got lost in the shuffle I guess.
Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.