Posted on 04/27/2015 12:37:01 PM PDT by Biggirl
The question before the U.S. Supreme Court tomorrow in Obergefell v. Hodges, dealing with the highly-anticipated same-sex “marriage” challenges, is very simple: Does the U.S. Constitution require same-sex “marriage” in every state in the nation?
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Neither is the “right to privacy” which was the basis for abortion, but they found it.
The Court seems heading to negate anything that impacts freedom or equality, religion regardless. Freedom and equality rules.
Those of us never thought that the government created for freedom of religion would be interpreted as freedom from religion. The remedy is a constitutional amendment similar to the first ten [to protect us from government]. The new ‘ten’ would be to make sure that government itself is not the destroyer of religion.
I suspect the Supreme Court will rule in favor of protecting the life style choices and special interests of the minority rather than defending the inalienable rights of all citizens.
As Franklin Graham recently stated... the storm is coming to America and Christians can expect persecution. Not a good thing for our children and future generations.
Did they not do this already with health care?
The fact the SCOTUS agreed to hear this case shows they do NOT understand the Constitution OR their role in STRICTLY INTERPRETING IT, NOT REWRITING IT.
They should protect the rights of the minority Christians.
Females, gays and emasculated males destroyed it.
ROGER THAT!!!
If marriage between same-sex members is allowed, then polygamy and marriage between sisters/brothers, mothers/daughters, fathers/daughters, marriage between two or more COUPLES, etc... MUST be allowed as well, right?
I mean, since birth issues are no longer the primary reason that marriage is sanctioned by the government, then doesn’t that mean they are no longer a valid reason to DENY them marriage? And since “love” will now be the main reason marriage is allowed, regardless of the gender, can’t someone fall in love with more than one person? So, shouldn’t their right to be in love be recognized?
This is a MUCH bigger can of worms than people think! If you think inheriting massive wealth is a problem now, wait until an octogenarian man marries his 19 year old great-grand daughter, so that everything in the family simply stays within the family! In some states, this ELIMINATES the inheritance taxes, in others, it drops it from the 15-20% rate down to 2-4%!
This is going to get MUCH uglier before it pans out. And it is NOT going to actually help anyone become “normal” in the eyes of those who see homosexuality as a serious sin!
Yes.
“In many of these cases, no real conflict existed (no hardship to any same-sex couple) but simply a desire from same-sex “marriage” supporters to bring about “test” cases to challenge laws or the insatiable desire of a reckless, sympathetic media to create a story. “
No, it’s to PUNISH those who disagree. The press and PR campaign is secondary.
Wow... someone finally stated the agenda of the left. Out loud.
Good for them.
People simply will not listen. They've already made up their minds. Homosexuality is now considered by them to be a race, and we're all bigots.
At the end of the day, I'm forced to conclude that the majority of the American people value their crotch more than their Creator.
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.