SCOTUS has come down on the side of the sodomites. We need to recognize this and understand that, outside of a constitutional amendment, this particular battle is over. Does anybody really think that we can get a groundswell of support sufficient to ensure votes for such an amendment in 38 US states? (Not even discussing the possibility of a 2/3 both Houses of Congress to propose such an amendment...or 2/3 of states to propose a ConCon to consider such an amendment). I'm in favor of such a thing, but, politically, I don't see it happening these days in even 50% of our states, much less the 2/3 to propose and 3/4 to ratify. (I would imagine between 21 and 25 states would want nothing to do with such an amendment)
The next battle will be a requirement for clergy to conduct these perverted unions. Since clergy are authorized to sign official state records (marriage licenses), that leaves a great big gaping hole that some libtard simply needs to jump through to assert that a church marriage is not merely a religious ceremony, but is an extension of a State Government function...and, as such, public accommodation laws must apply. Just a matter of time...
I guess the 10th Amendment doesn’t mean anything anymore.
Screw you. Liberty or death!!
Actually, SCOTUS had no choice: they come in when there is conflict between circuits, and so far, all of the delivered verdicts at the Federal Circuit level have come down FOR Gay Marriage.
The Sixth Circuit is LIKELY to come down against, but hasn’t, and until it does, there is no conflict in interpretations for the Supremes to adjudicate. . .
Surrender monkeys can KMA!!
I guess we are for states’ rights until we are against them.
This is extremely troubling as the Justices have chosen again to be an Activist Supreme Court by abandoning their responsibility to uphold the Constitution and the First and 10th Amendment.
This formerly great country is rapidly turning into nothing more than a wayward chunk of real estate. What made it stand above the rest of the world is essentially gone.
I guess it’s just the normal passage of events... hell, there’s not even a reference to the USA in the book of Revelations.
So where’s Roberts with his “it’s not our job to overturn bad laws” crap?
No doubt.
Republicans running for office want nothing to do with this fight so Dems win by default.
There is no one on OUR side making the convincing arguments why the courts should NOT be ramming this down the states throats.
Billy raised by two mommies?
It is very sad.
If the court ruled water cannot be wet or fire can't burn does that make it so ?
The definition of marriage was decided some 5000 years ago as far as written history goes and this is confirmed by people around the world so who thinks they can redefine it.....This is such arrogance from fools.
One good thing that will come from the ruling is that churches will have to take a stand. Churches that embrace same-sex marriage will force people out of the pews into more conservative churches.
I suspect my church will see a sharp decrease in membership very soon. We have a new pastor who doesn’t know how to keep his politics out of the pulpit.
On what grounds can you argue that queer marriage is a civil right?
Whatever you use for your argument would also automatically include plural marriage, because you couldn’t exclude bisexuals from marriage, and that means one of each.
Since none of the sodomite unions could result in children, you might as well add animals to the mix.
Don’t try to argue that animals couldn’t consent, the donkeys in those ‘donkey shows’ seem pretty willing!
Nothing less than the future of our society and the course of constitutional government in the United States are at stake.
The elites have decided that the family unit is no longer relevant to society. They have likewise decided that the "constitution" is anything they prefer it to be. End of story. End of country.
Gay marriage is unconstitutional for the following simple reason imo. The states have never amended the Constitution to specifically protect so-called gay “rights,” such as gay marriage. This means two things under the Constitution.
The Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution’s silence about things like marriage means that such issues are uniquely state power issues.
Since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay marriage, gay marriage is not a constitutionally protected right.
Also, regardless what the corrupt media wants everybody to think about the Supreme Court's decision concerning DOMA, Section 2 of DOMA is still in effect. Section 2 is reasonably based on Congress's Article IV, Section 1 power, the Full Faith and Credit clause, to regulate the effect of one state's records in the other states, and gives the states the power to ignore gay marriages recognized in other states. But Section 2 is wrongly being ignored by both judges and justices imo.
DOMA Section 2. Powers reserved to the statesNo State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
So the states are free to make 10th Amendment-protected laws which discriminate against constitutionally unprotected gay “rights,” such as gay marriage, as long as such laws don’t unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.
Again, the troubling question is why are legal professionals who are supposed to be protecting state laws prohibiting gay marriage evidently not arguing the above points in defense of such laws?
Federal employees in black robes have been at the very heart of Federal lawlessness for 50 years. Why they should suddenly change direction and become lawful is beyond me. Theses men are anything but honest or accountable.
They are ideologically driven Dictators in black robes just as they have acted for over 50 years now. There is no law or justice among them, only the will of corrupt men. Hand picked by the very powers that most benefit from their unbridled corruption.
As for marriage, we may have to accept that what the State calls marriage is nothing more than an almost pointless contract, in so much that it represent nothing more than extremely expensive and ultimately non-binding bond. This isn’t marriage in any of its essencal respects.
No-falt divorce proved that this contract doesn’t even do the one thing you would expect of a contract. The Redefinition of its bounds further proves that it has nothing to do with marriage except the name for which it has userpted.
Marriage is dead so long as we define it as the Government defines it, an extremely expensive and ultimately pointless contract that no longer serves much meaningful propose.
Keep putting the issue on state ballots. If the majority keeps voting it down, keep reminding the citizens that specific courts and the whim of judge are usurping the will of the people.