Posted on 07/05/2022 7:17:00 AM PDT by redfog
It began with easily available and legal birth control that broke the connection between sex and procreation.
Many years ago - I'm talking back in the 60s - there were two female college professors who lived next door to my folks. They were a lesbian couple, but of course we kids didn't know or care about that.
Dad told me many years later that they came to him and asked him how he could regularize their position for inheritance, medical, etc. He worked up a partnership agreement that covered all of the things they wanted (inheritance (linked wills), ability to visit partner in hospital and make medical decisions, power of attorney, etc.) It even provided for possible divorce by dissolving the partnership.
The only reason a couple would "need" an actual marriage would be to reassure themselves and show that to the world. Those are not valid reasons to change the law.
Me too. That would be a wonderful thing. A commitment ceremony OK. A marriage, never. And no one has the right to tell Americans what to believe or to invent thought crimes. I hope that America is on a roll revising recent judicial over reach & errors.
Why? They suffer no justiciable loss
Your proofreading stinks.
That’s my opinion.
Why would they be broken apart? Their relationship would be unchanged whether it is called marriage or not. What has been destroyed is the concept of marriage & nuclear family, not their relationships.
Here in Texas, the vote to pass the amendment making marriage between one man/one woman passed by close to 70%. I have never seen my polling place as crowded on election day as I did that day.
“32 states passed state constitutional amendments defining marriage as a man and a woman. All of those amendments, plus a number of regular statute laws defining marriage, were obliterated by the Supreme Court.”
___
States should ignore the SC when they render opinions that are obviously not constitutional.
My husband and I(we are two men) have been in a monogamous relationship for 45 years. We got married as soon as our state allowed in 2003.
Why is our marriage such a threat?
Your relationship with your husband is no threat. I wish you a long and a happy life together.
Changing the term marriage to include relationships that do not fit the traditional and religious heritage by the sole action of the judiciary is a tremendous threat to all our freedoms, as is criminalizing dissent with legislative activism.
sorry. judicial activism. I was thinking legislating from the bench and made an error.
Y’all have fun ‘voting’. When the Demonrats ‘count’ your votes (or don’t count them, or dilute them), and the Demonrats keep control of the House and Senate, you’ll just have to vote harderer the next election.
No, the point is to not recognize them as a "married" couple for financial purposes. My state and many others passed Constitutional amendments for that purpose, but SCOTUS overrode them with its terrible Obergfell decision. My state, Alabama, responded by no longer issuing marriage certificates.
Homosexuality destroys nations, and the US of A will be no different.
Correct, contract-based civil unions did everything the homosexuals needed with respect to financial and health/death issues. But commie-libs are never happy with a separate peace— they feel compelled to force the rest of us to recognize homosexual “marriage,” which is what Obergfell supposedly did. Many states, like Alabama, just stopped issuing marriage certificates.
Because homosexuality destroys nations.
Although Obergefell is an arbitrary and lawless decision, it may be difficult to challenge in court because of "standing." If you try to sue saying that you find so-called homosexual marriage offensive, the courts are likely to say that is not an injury that they recognize.
The deep damage that so-called homosexual marriage causes society at large is subtle and diffuse. I would be glad to be proven wrong, but I think this is going to a tough row to hoe.
I suppose the most promising route would be for a State to outlaw so-called homosexual marriage and provoke homosexuals into suing to overturn the law. Or a State could refuse to recognize so-called homosexual marriage in matters of inheritance and taxation, and again provoke homosexuals to sue.
A baker or florist forced to provide services for a same sex marriage in violation of their religious beliefs.
The extremist activist response was not to move to legal recognition of domestic partnership, it was for full-on legal marriage as retaliation for society's initial reaction to them during AIDS.
From that perspective, I could see an attempt to challenge on the basis that Obergefell went too far in identifying the harm and the restitution. SCOTUS could have recognized a legal domestic partnership without upending thousands of years of civilization's definition of marriage and achieved the same result.
-PJ
Gay Marriage Ruling
The June 26, 2015, gay marriage ruling means legal protection now excludes tens of millions of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim believers who consider classical theology finds homosexual relationships separate people from God. The Bible continually speaks of the character, identity, and purpose of God; identifying Him as masculine and humans as feminine in relation to Him. After creating all things, He created the covenant of heterosexual marriage to example the unconditional love relationship He desires with humanity. Without disturbing marriages’ spiritual quality, equal protection could have been maintained by civil contract with the elegant, endless expressions legislators enjoy.
The First Amendment says and used to mean, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press….”
We are familiar with the term “speech or expression’, which seems an innocuous expansion of the above amendment. However, “expression” enables a nearly unbounded multibillion-dollar pornography industry.
Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion stated, “The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to advocate and teach the principles that are so fulfilling and central to their lives and faith”. Such language severely restricts religious freedom by excluding “free exercise thereof”.
The country has so departed from first principles that a woman can express her sexuality in the adult films but cannot own a bakery and express her religious convictions by refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.
The Formal End to Judeo-Christian America
http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2015/06/30/the-formal-end-to-judeochristian-america-n2018986/page/full
Wayne Cordeiro
https://www.facebook.com/pastorwaynecordeiro/posts/10153325310351210
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES GAY MARRIAGE
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Human Rights v. Civil Rights before the Supreme Court, Again
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/10/human_rights_v_civil_rights_before_the_supreme_court_again.html
That might work.
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.