Really hard to respect the judiciary. The Federal courts are responsible for the carnage of abortion and the decadent permeation of homosexuality into American culture. Notice how tenaciously the black robed thugs defend and promote each of their evil interests.
And yes, another Roe v. Wade on 'gay' marriage would energize the progs' "enemies", too.
Visualise a picture of a can being kicked down the road. It is the iconic image of our so called government.
Will the homosexuals on the court be required to recuse themselves?
???? WTF is Cal Thomas talking about?
Federally appointed judges (mostly Dems) are forcing states to redefine marriage and marry same sex couples.
His arguments make no sense given that.
If social mores are changing then let the states democratic processes do that, not king-judges.
This is a bunch of state by state Roe decisions supported by the SCOTUS. Thomas sounds pro-gay here. Is he gay?
Those who regard same-sex marriage as more evidence of a decline in morality will see America following other great empires and nations that collapsed from within before they were conquered from without. Those working so diligently to attack structures that have preserved cultures for centuries have an obligation to at least tell us how far they intend to go and on what basis they would shout, “stop, no further.”
The liberals keep moving the goal posts, and will lie about their true intentions.
At the time of the 2003 Massachusetts court decision on homosexual marriage, the attorneys in the case said that this was just about Massachusetts, and there was no intention of challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
At one time, the activists were working towards civil union or domestic partner type laws in various states, which would have side stepped the whole controversy about how marriage is defined. They then changed their minds and went all-in for marriage. They had said initially that all they wanted was to live their lives and have legal protections, and that civil unions would work for that purpose. But they lied, and then decided to force a change in the definition of marriage.
The liberals have lied and obfuscated throughout about their true intentions. Their intentions all along were to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, impose 50 state homosexual marriage, and then move on to polygamy and group marriage. But they refused to tell us their full intentions up front.
The problem here is, in at least some instances, the Federal courts are overruling the state courts and forcing sodomy on citizens who are opposed to it.
Another reason they might have punted is they are waiting for the lower courts to rule on the MI case.
They may even know how that case will turn out, and they want a case where state voters put the queer marriage ban into their state constitution.
If that is the case they may be going to rule that marriage is a states rights issue.
And there will be a “next.” It might be polygamy or something else but there will be a next.
Somewhat, but not entirely, correct.
The Lib wing has already stated that they wanted to avoid ruling now if there was no conflict in the Circuits. The opposite of what is stated here. 4 Justices have almost assuredly given up on this issue.
When it is finally ruled upon (in either a FF&C or Cir conflict case) then it will be 5-4 approving gay “marriage”.
It’s not that America is becoming just a secular nation like so many say, it’s that America is becoming a determinedly anti-Christian nation. One in which in my own lifetime I’ve seen transform from where all that was once deemed virtuous and good is attacked and maligned, and all that was once deemed vile and debased is promoted and celebrated.
If there is any symbol that America has totally crossed the line and embraced evil, it’s this degenerate slide towards homo-marriage. It convinces me more than anything else that America has no future.
Nonsense. The main arguments are libertarian. There are three sources of authority in a society: Government, religion, and family. Judeo-Christianity exalts family. It produces structure for children of succeeding generations, a base upon which they can rely for guidance, instruction, and support. Families build confident productive future generations and that builds a society.
Family behavior cedes personal pleasure to the importance of child-rearing, building a future generation, while homosexuality exalts personal pleasure at the expense of all else, the next generation be damned. The latter breeds a culture of selfishness, greed, and therefore dispute. What does it take to settle dispute? Power. You can have power in the the family, the priesthood, and the king. If what you want is liberty, best it not be the king.
That is why Rockefellers funded Kinsey, to inculcate power to settle disputes for their use, because they want to own the king. The more strife the better as far as they are concerned, because there will then be more bureaucrats, judges, and politicians for sale. Buying influence is cheaper than buying the assets. Therefore the more influence for sale, the better.
There is absolutely no need to bring in religion, because as the author states flatly, it does not make a sale in the petulant and self-absorbed society we have today. The libertarian argument on the other hand is a clear pitch back to the principles of the founding, and makes a hash of the idea that homosexual license is a form of liberty. That is where we need to go in this debate: it is to get the public to understand why and how they've been had with this vicious gambit.
Weird how the queers win even when the “Supreme Court” refuses to hear their cases.
Demonstrably false. The states have determined, in most cases, that they do NOT wish to support homosexual "marriage", and the courts have taken that right away from them. States cannot "resolve" the issue, except to give full throated approval to state sanctioning.
Point 2: For strict constructionists, the nonruling allows the culture to sort out the arguments consistent with what clearly are changing social mores.
Again, demonstrably false. If there are no mechanisms acceptable to a given appellate court to deny homosexual "marriage", then there is no means to "sort out" this garbage.
Point 3: The main arguments against permitting same-sex couples to marry are moral and biblical.
Not really. The main arguments include freedom of religion, faithfulness to millenia-long definitions of the word marriage, and recognition that what once was described as a disorder remains disordered. the moral viewpoint is a personal viewpoint for each individual. The biblical viewpoint is clearly a religious freedom argument (as in first amendment).
Homosexuality is STILL a “disorder” no matter how many folks says it isn’t.
We all need to remember that God is still in charge and nobody can let evil in but you as an individual. No matter how small a group we are, we belong to The Lord and this transitory short life is just that. Pray friends, pray unceasingly from the moment you get up until you go to bed. I’m not worried. It’s a blessed thing to be able to stand up to this evil and sin even if I’m all by myself. God is watching
we need a set of NON-biblical logic talking points that demonstrate why the institution of marriage must be protected.
We have too many idiots like J. Mccain who simple say “who cares?” (per his vanity fair interview) DC lawmakers live in their little other peoples money hedonism bubble in the beltway.