Technically speaking should this not have been left to the States?
Of course this was about a natural marriage.
Why hasn't someone brought up this decision before? I would say that it certainly makes the recent Federal Court decisions invalid.
I don’t have any faith in the supreme court. They seem more driven by politics then the constitution.
Unless we pass a Federal Marriage Amendment the Supremes will overturn this.
I really like the term “Natural Marriage”. Sounds like a polite retort to “Gay marriage”
Bosh. They "respect precedent" the way they "believe in science": as long as it serves the Revolution, and not one second longer. The destruction of the natural family serves the Revolution; therefore, all precedents "privileging" natural marriage can be ignored.
Indeed! Thanks for posting this Gonzo. Great article!
so Florida had marriage defined on the ballot a few years ago and we voted to uphold it between a man and a woman. Now, the courts are overturning here in certain counties.
How can we stop them? with this case going to the SC?
” it means that defining marriage is exclusively an issue for the states to decide. “
However that puts us in the position where a marriage could be legal in one state and not another.
Because we have allowed government to define “marriage” for its own purposes (such as taxation and regulation of estates), we have allowed government to define marriage as a social institution. That was fine as long as people in control of government were generally supportive of God’s original definition of marriage. However we have entered a time when a growing number of people in control of government want to redefine marriage for their own purposes, which in part is contrary to God’s definition.
Marriage is now far more a matter of politics and ideology than of private religious beliefs.
Therefore, for the sake of marriage as God defines it, it is time to remove from government the power to define who is married and who is not. Then people could form whatever relationships they please but they could not force those who disagree to be enablers for those relationships. And we would not have schools that must teach that homosexual “marriages” are just as legitimate as heterosexual ones. Nor would we have owners of wedding-related services being threatened with arrest and being convicted of a crime for merely declining to artfully photograph a “marriage” they find morally repugnant.
Bttt
Bttt
This news will deeply disturb (assuming they can get more deeply disturbed than they already are) the folks managing the penguins at the San Francisco zoo... who’ve been trying to pervert social cooperation among penguins into an image of their own un-natural perversion and abomination of nature.
Applause for the 6th Circuit on this.
bookmark
Hope all you want, but unless the states use their power to amend the Constitution to clarify the relationship between X and XIV, and to limit the authority of Federal courts over state constitutions, you’re wasting your time.
Moral abyss is one thing, the demographic abyss that inevitability results from a death loving sodomite endorsing couture is one from which there is no recovery.
Marriage and family is the foundation of any civilization for a good reason. Civilizations that abandon family are unable to continue being civilizations for all the resulting reasons. They stagnate and die replaced by the more healthy world around them just like sodomite unions there is and can never be a future there. Its just not in the card of nature.
This is why we thinking conservatives can know with absolute certainly that the homosexual sodomy movement will burn itself out. Its not a matter of power or prudent planning its simple biology and nature.