Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Ransomed

But you recall Roberts’ basis for calling the mandate a tax? He said the wanted to defer to Congress.

The people spoke. They voted. Let it be overturned by a different vote. DEFER to the voters.

Besides, I see the natural marriage group finally getting their act together. They know now why they don’t want this change. They realize now it will dramatically change the culture. It will make it more dangerous.
They know that natural marriage is better for children.
They know that natural marriage is the only arrangement that is potentially procreative.
They know that same sex marriage is debilitating to the sexual participants.
They know that the culture forbids all kinds of other arrangements that could be called ‘pursuit of happiness’, when they, too, simply endanger a healthy culture.

An argument for ANY behavior being a person’s personal quest for happiness will be strengthened by the court forcing same sex marriage down the culture’s throat.


25 posted on 02/12/2015 7:01:19 AM PST by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]


To: xzins

“The people spoke. They voted. Let it be overturned by a different vote. DEFER to the voters.”

I’m with you. But if things go as I think they seem to be, that would only be a delay. I think it is short sighted to ignore what the trends of the actual popular votes seem to be pointing to. And that is ‘gay marriage’ recognized in every state in the union in 20 years even if it is ideally left up to the voters and legislatures of the states. There are states who only passed their amendments in the 50-60% ranges in the middle of the last decade that probably couldn’t pass them again right now. The ones that only passed them in the low 50% ranges would definitely not be able to do so.

“Besides, I see the natural marriage group finally getting their act together.”

I don’t see any of those arguments changing whatever judges, pols, or the voting majority think about when they decide to define the state’s version of marriage. You would think no-fault divorce would have been reversed by now if those type of arguments were persuasive to those who decide the state’s definition of marriage. But I hope you are right and I am wrong.

Freegards


28 posted on 02/12/2015 7:36:05 AM PST by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson