I would be amazed if the first Obergfell challenges are not filed before the end of the year.
"These include not just the “right” to an abortion, but the right of gay people to marry each other, invented by the Court seven summers ago in Obergefell v. Hodges."Please include subject matter - not all of us know the legal case names.
The 4th-biggest overreach the court has ever made, so yeah, overturn it.
Why indeed!
One issue is who would have standing to challenge it?
If the decision on same sex marriage were overturned, then similar to abortion, the issue would go back to the states.
In the time from 2004 to about 2011, 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.
If same sex marriage were overturned, then the proponents of homosexual marriage would then make the case for that legal status, state by state. Some states would allow same sex marriage. Some would not.
Marriage is a commitment in front of God, our family, and our community.
From the “state’s” perspective it is a property contract.
We could just drop the state’s aspect on it altogether and I would be fine. The commonwealth of MA has no place in my marital vows.
The principle of “ standing” comes to mind. Now, how is someone “ harmed materially iot claim standing?
I agree that I obergefel is bad stuff, but I think there are artificial hurdles in place to protect such heathenism from attack. Just like vote fraud- no one is harmed.....
Bletch, choke vomit....
Not only did they make up the right for “gay marriage” they made up the idea that such a thing is even exists.
Hopefully each of these SC decisions drives progressives from red states to blue states for refuge. The sooner we separate, the better.
Hopefully each of these SC decisions drives progressives from red states to blue states for refuge. The sooner we separate, the better.
It would be interesting if this went back to the states - prog heads would all blow up first though. The last time gay marriage was on the ballot even in California in 2008 (Prop 8), voters approved a ban of it 52 to 47%.
I wonder how a vote today might go after a decade of non-stop pro-gay propaganda?
Please note that the original (February) Alito opinion included as basis that the Burger Court just made the opinion up with no constitutional foundation. If final, this would have exposed all “substantive due process” cases to reversal.
However, the FINAL opinion included language pointing out why abortion is DIFFERENT from all the other examples, which in a Constitutional way it really isn’t, but in an equitable way it certainly is, because two gays having a ceremony or buying rubbers at Walgreens doesn’t kill anyone.
I’m sure Roberts insisted on the altered language to prevent his bitter dissent and a 5-4 final vote.
Thomas filed a concurrence saying all the other substantive due process cases SHOULD be looked at, but none of the other 8 signed it, so the straw vote to undo the gay rights and birth control cases is 1-8 “no”.
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
So just like the Court had explained that, since women didn't have the express constitutional power to vote before 14A was ratified, they still didn't have the power to do so after it was ratified.
Likewise for post-17th Amendment ratification, politically correct gay marriage and "right" to murder unborn children imo.
Insights welcome.
Also, Trump's red tsunami of patriot supporters are reminded that they must vote twice this election year. Your first vote is to primary career RINO incumbents. Your second vote is to replace outgoing Democrats and RINOs with Trump-endorsed patriot candidates.
Again, insights welcome.
“The vanquished defenders of “traditional marriage” (a contrived term that signaled defeat the moment it arrived)”
Just like they’re now doing with “cisgender” and “cismale or cisfemale” , and all the redefinition of pronouns.
It’s a frontal attack on language, where words mean what one wants them to mean, which means you can’t have a rational discussion on anything. And the mere acceptance of the usage of those words implies your defeat.
It’s like two people talking different languages trying to debate a topic.
Two couples of women, neighbors of mine, claim to be married. Fir at least seven years.
To me, they seem to be happy, at leaxt as happy as hetero married couples I know.
Breaking them apart would devastate them.
What is right and what is arong in this cade?
Opinions please!
It began with easily available and legal birth control that broke the connection between sex and procreation.
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.
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.
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?