Posted on 07/05/2022 7:17:00 AM PDT by redfog
Obergefell, like Roe, was a particularly arbitrary, extreme, and unjust imposition on the people. Like Roe, it had no basis in the Constitution’s text or American custom. It was simply dreamed up by a group of unelected judges who decided the time had come for them to impose a radically new understanding of the most fundamental institution of human society.
Like Roe, Obergefell took away from the people the power to decide the most basic moral questions and daily life in their communities. As Justice Scalia put it at the time, the Court was violating “a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.”
(Excerpt) Read more at amgreatness.com ...
How sexual revolution exploded (and imploded) across 1920s Russia
That said, a church, synagogue, or mosque that sued on the grounds that performing a gay marriage violated their 1st amendment "free exercise" of their religion would have the appropriate Constitutional standing. Societally, however, I can't see such a religious group withstanding the extremist activist outcry and targeting by making such a challenge.
-PJ
Yes, “traditional marriage” (which I would restore if I could) is enormously unpopular.
Traditional marriage means no divorce, sexual exclusivity (adultery is a crime), no child support for bastards.
Since what we have now is “gay marriage for straight people”, I almost have to concede the discrimination point.
I think it would require a legislative body to pass a law.
A county clerk refusing to sign a marriage certificate might work.
The Trouble here is that the Constitution requires that other states recognize things like "marriages" from other states.
It's all or nothing.
Many courts are just lying sacks of sh*t, and it's long past time we started treating courts with disrespect. They are garbage, and most conservatives know that the courts are garbage.
Liars, dirtbags and idiots. That's what many of the courts are nowadays.
And you pinged me to this because...? I already know how much you hate the judiciary. Very Confederate of you.
Not that I don’t agree, but, replace gay man with “woman”. Who then marries a straight man and you have to cover hubby, are you going to claim injury?
I think it has to be more about not the fedgov business is more and more
After the gaystapo has persecuted so many people, it is possible that it may be difficult to find people brave enough to stand up to them nowadays.
And again, thanks to the lying, sacks of sh*t courts.
Obergefell is just another crap decision from liars.
“are you going to claim injury?”
Not under Obergefell, since Obergefell didn’t cause that.
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.