Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 10/09/2025 6:37:04 AM PDT by Rev M. Bresciani
In a recent article, Emily Wood Hawley passionately remarks, “Marriage does not truly exist outside of what God established — a sacred union between one man and one woman for life — because the state cannot redefine an institution God ordained.” The redefinition Hawley is referring to is the Obergefell v. Hodges decision of 2015. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion which was handed down in a 5-4 vote stating that homosexual marriage was a Constitutionally legitimate right that belonged to all homosexuals in the USA.
Justice Kennedy gave three reasons in SCOTUS’ landmark decision why homosexual marriage is both legitimate and Constitutional. Let’s look at those reasons with a brief assessment of each:
(Excerpt) Read more at new.americanprophet.org ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
This was the highest level example of a court doing something trendy rather than a decision that makes any sense. Probably did irreparable harm to our society.
Obergefell was an attempt by the left to force the rest of us to call them "married". It was an infringement on our 1st Amendment rights, forcing us to condone (speak) what we otherwise wouldn't. All so they could push the slippery slope to more hedonism, including pedo.
Exactly right. People went to jail over this.
“Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion which was handed down in a 5-4 vote stating that homosexual marriage was a Constitutionally legitimate right that belonged to all homosexuals in the USA.”
So I wonder if SCOTUS aka Supreme Clowns of the US will ever rule in favor allowing Muslims to marry six year old girls or sanctifying marrying animals or making marriage of humans to AI generated images legal.
Revisiting Obergefell American Thinker, 5 October 2025
Interesting article. No where in the article did it say that SCOTUS provided reasons why 35 individual states were unconstitutional or wrong.
SCOTUS basically said that they were disenfranchiseing the wishes of the voters in 35 individual states. It only takes 33 states to change the constitution. 35 states saying NO to homo-marriage seems to be a pretty high bar for SCOTUS to overturn.
In other words States Rights only apply when SCOTUS says they do
Very good post. Cut right to the heart of the matter. Well done.
State is simply motivated by money. State lawmakers are primarily lawyers who see the money associated with increased tax revenue as well as additional divorce work from being able to define more relationships as a “marriage”.
Of course, it will not end well. Rinse and repeart.
State is simply motivated by money. State lawmakers are primarily lawyers who see the money associated with increased tax revenue as well as additional divorce work from being able to define more relationships as a “marriage”.
Of course, it will not end well. Rinse and repeat.
In a new case of Davis v. Ermold, Liberty Counsel will be asking SCOTUS to consider whether Obergefell v. Hodges should be overturned. The Court’s decision about whether to take the case will, according to Liberty Counsel, be made in the next few days.
I wonder how that's going to turn out.
As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death.
That is gobble de gook!
That they would prefer otherwise is legally meaningless. It's like saying, "I prefer to drive on the left side of the road."
The case was originally brought by plaintiffs who claimed that same-sex couples were subject to discrimination under some provisions of the Internal Revenue Code because not all states recognized "same-sex marriage" under their laws. The Supreme Court actually got it right when it agreed with them. That's because there are no marriage statutes under federal law; these are codified under the laws of the various states. It is simply not tenable for a federal statute to be predicated upon personal relationships that are not recognized in federal law.
The Supreme Court, however, went completely off the rails when it decided on the REMEDY to this problem. Instead of mandating that all states must alter their marriage laws to conform to some kind of nebulous uniform standard that is not rooted in anything more than the whims of a court, the Supreme Court should have stricken out any provisions of the Internal Revenue Code associated with married couples. So all personal tax returns should be filed as individuals with no provision for married couples, estate tax law should be based on contractual relationships rather than relationships through marriage and/or children, etc.
Government has no business regulating consenting adults’ personal relationships in any form whatsoever. How difficult a concept is that to grasp?
There is a place for civil unions in society, and nothing is wrong or bad about them. But, they are not marriages.
It takes 38 states to ratify an amendment to the Constitution, so it seems the traditional marriage position would be short a few states to get this done.
All I can say after reading (yes, reading) the source material is: “Huh???” Justice Kennedy makes no sense... at all.
His forcing of a human secularism belief into the American religious institutions violates our 1st amendment rights. He up and merged the homosexual belief that marriage includes “gay marriage” into all major belief systems theologies through the courts.
It’s remarkable to me that they didn’t see the awful places this would lead to and has led.
Thought it was 2/3 not 3/4. Oops
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.