Posted on 06/24/2015 10:03:09 PM PDT by hoagy62
Since homosexuals can’t procreate, why?
I assume it won’t be ruled that churches have to perform same-sex mirages. There will be other subjugation.
Or, when they march in to tear down the Alamo. Texas might not like that so much. We revere than shrine.
Like you, I hope for a narrow ruling that protects religious freedom. I’m not optimistic about that, but it isn’t out of the realm of possibility.
Within a month after the ruling gays will be approaching churches requesting to get married. All hoping they’ll be turned down. Then here comes the court again.
You may be right. The reason I think Roberts might vote to strike down the ban is because he is Chief Justice. As such, the legacy of “his” court might sway him. I have no facts to support that, of course. Just a gut feeling, bolstered in part by his ruling on the ACA mandates.
no but if that the fact, then monday is the King v. Burwell which will be five v four for Burwell with roberts posting minority opinion, waxing eloquent on state rights etc., like to see the supporting minority opinions. nuke em danno
government took over marriage for the sole purpose of incentivizing couples to get married and incentivizing them to have children - raised in NORMAL HEALTHY households so that they would become future TAX PAYERS who would financially continue to support the government
Since Gay people can NOT have children naturally- AND since children raised in gay homes are far more likely to become burdens on society- costing the government massive amounts of money- Then there is NO way the SCOTUS should approve of gay marriage simply because it violates the whole reason why government took over marriage in the first place
Probably tomorrow, yes.
There are two issues, and think there may be a split if that is possible. I’m not sure if it is. But if it is, I think this is the likely outcome:
The interstate recognition issue - recognizing marriages from other states - is a given, I think, with this court.
Whether or not all states have to allow gay marriage within their own borders - no idea and no prediction.
“government took over marriage” Whut?
“Incentivizing” I think I know what you’re trying to say, but the left does so much violence to the English language, I don’t think we should be making up words here.
“Children raised in gay homes are far more likely to become burdens on society.” Again, really?
Why don’t we just use an argument we know to be true: non-perverse Americans grudgingly agreed to not institutionalize homos, knowing that the only reason they wanted to be seen as actually married—like a man and woman—was for the moolah and benefits.
And we knew the next things would then be pedophiles, “polyamours” and (clearing throat) ‘animal lovers’—and perversions we haven’t even heard of yet—crawling out from under rocks.
There’s no need to make stuff up.
And you NEVER wore green that day!
And SCOTUS will bake them a cake.
Frankly, it’s best case scenario. No way they rule against the whole thing.
...and just as they did with bakeries, they will approach churches they know are opposed to gay marriage and prosecute them for discrimination.
I certainly agree he wants this to be his court not Kennedy’s. Still his vote on the health care mandate and his vote announced today on the subsidies each can be viewed as telling the voters they must live by their votes and his court is not going to bail them out.
I’m not making anything up- One of thwe justices, I believe it was Scalia- basically said the same thing— he’s said the same thing- Government ‘took over’ marriage- in the sense that by introducing incentives to have children, allowing justices of the peace to marry people etc- and by giving people money to have kids- Churches never did such things, because Churches don’t collect taxes- Government stepped in and granted themselves the right to grant and reward marriages and childbearing
The purpose of the government’s involvement was to incentivize parents ot have kids to raise them in healthy environments so that they will become productive future tax payers who support the government
[[Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it rejects these truths. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. The future of this country depends on the future of marriage. The future of marriage depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage. ]]
Not making anything up- you can find this info all over the net
[[Why don’t we just use an argument we know to be true: non-perverse Americans grudgingly agreed to not institutionalize homos, knowing that the only reason they wanted to be seen as actually married—like a man and woman—was for the moolah and benefits.]]
Obviously, but my points stand- Government originally ‘took over’ marriage for the reasons I pointed out- and so the ONLY ruling the SC SHOULD make is to declare gay marriage unhealthy and not beneficial for the creation of future tax paying citizens via conception and healthy lifestyle child rearing-
“The left is going to overstep its bounds. Perhaps when they come for the American flag.”
They’ve done a great job of destroying what it has always stood for already, why should they have a problem coming for the symbol itself? It would appear that there are no longer any bounds for the left to concern itself over. So far the American reaction to a left hook has been to fall down on the canvas and hope they will trip over us.
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.