Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Breaking: The US Supreme Court has agreed to take up the issue of same-sex marriage
Twitter ^ | 01/16/2015 | Pete Williams

Posted on 01/16/2015 12:35:49 PM PST by GIdget2004

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-103 next last
To: IronJack

That train pulled out of the station a while back. Most in the United States have silently indicated that they prefer living as slaves than dying free. Take my freedom! Just do not let my EBT Card expire.


61 posted on 01/16/2015 1:28:41 PM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Bubba_Leroy

The people can overrule the U.S. Supreme Court by way of a Constitutional Amendment!


62 posted on 01/16/2015 1:32:01 PM PST by Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok

Elimination of state recognition of marriage is a fall back position. It may be necessary to protect churches that will not perform homosexual “marriage”. I am not ready to go there yet, but the SCOTUS decision might change that.

One of the messy areas to deal with is adoption.


63 posted on 01/16/2015 1:32:55 PM PST by kidd (What we have now is the federal gruberment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: plain talk; All
Regarding the so-called constitutionality of gay marriage and abortion, let’s have a quick look at how activist justices and judges have been twisting the 14th Amendment (14A) to amend such “rights” to the Constitution from the bench.

Simply put, what activist justices don’t want citizens to know about 14A is following. Regardless that activist justices are now using 14A to create politically correct rights, 14A’s Equal Protections Clause (EPC) in the example of gay marriage, the Supreme Court had historically clarified that the 14th Amendment didn’t add any new rights to the Constitution. It only strengthens rights which have been expressly amended to the Constitution by the states.

“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.

In fact, the Court’s clarification of 14A reflects the official clarification of 14A by John Bingham, Bingham the main author of Section 1 of 14A where the EPC is found.

“Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution [emphasis added].” — Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)

So since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect either abortion or gay marriage, activist justices and judges actually have no constitutionally enumerated gay marriage or abortion rights to apply to the states via 14A.

Therefore, the states are actually free to make laws which discriminate against constitutionally unprotected abortion and gay marriage imo, as long as such laws don’t also unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.

Sadly, it is only because we haven’t been teaching our children the Constitution, particularly 10th Amendment-protected state powers versus constitutionally express personal rights, the absence of such rights in the case of abortion and gay marriage, that our corrupt judicial system has been able to get away with amending new rights to the Constitution from the bench.

64 posted on 01/16/2015 1:35:17 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

well, you know what I’m talking about. Redstates have morality . . IN blue states you could always marry your farm animals!


65 posted on 01/16/2015 1:36:05 PM PST by 2nd Amendment (Proud member of the 48% . . giver not a taker)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Seruzawa

No, there are some really big indicators this time. Oil crash being the key one. Economies do not expand forever.


66 posted on 01/16/2015 1:36:39 PM PST by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

I see the SCOTUS determining that marriage is entirely a States issue with no Federal involvement on both items. There is no basis for Federal involvement in marriage. 5/4 on both.

This would reverse all decisions made by Federal courts.


67 posted on 01/16/2015 1:45:39 PM PST by kidd (What we have now is the federal gruberment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

Romans 1:..
22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.

Note also that Romans 1:32 points out that those who approve of such conduct are just as guilty as those who engage in it.


68 posted on 01/16/2015 1:45:58 PM PST by ForYourChildren (Christian Education [ RomanRoadsMedia.com - a Classical Christian Approach to Homeschool ])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RetSignman

Which sex???


69 posted on 01/16/2015 1:49:13 PM PST by gov_bean_ counter (Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

They might even try it before they decide.


70 posted on 01/16/2015 1:57:44 PM PST by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, a Matter of Fact, Not A Matter of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok

Yes, states should cease to recognize or register marriages (period).
If you sit and think about it,
why is government (at any level) involved with marriage, anyway?


71 posted on 01/16/2015 2:03:51 PM PST by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy, and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004
Can you say; foregone conclusion.
72 posted on 01/16/2015 2:07:06 PM PST by Know et al (Keep on Freepin'!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

I need to go to the range...


73 posted on 01/16/2015 2:15:26 PM PST by TADSLOS (The Event Horizon has come and gone. Buckle up and hang on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004
There is a basic underlying decision that the court must make to decide this issue.

Is sexual preference a choice or is it innate?

There is no way that the court can avoid that question in it's ruling.

There are also a great many other issues, besides marriage, that will be effected by the courts determination of the above question. Such as medical coverage - the left believes that transsexuals are born that way, and sex change procedures should be covered, if it's ruled a choice then it's elective, and should not be covered. If the court rules that sexuality is a choice, then it's not discriminatory for the military to exclude gays, and transgenders.

This is a very important case, and gay marriage is only a small part. The larger issue is whether or not "sexual preference" is actually preference, or an uncontrollable effect of genetics.


74 posted on 01/16/2015 2:18:25 PM PST by MMaschin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greene66

I am 100% with you and like I have been saying the sooner the better.


75 posted on 01/16/2015 2:19:11 PM PST by Johnny_cash (10 out of 10 idiots support 0Bama!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: gov_bean_ counter

Which sex???
++++
Undetermined.


76 posted on 01/16/2015 2:29:42 PM PST by RetSignman (Obama is the walking, talking middle finger in the face of America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Genoa

This is just the beginning. Gay marriage is gone — done deal. It’s what’s next that frightens me. NAMBLA? The liberals will seize upon the victory of gay marriage to plot and scheme other crap they can condition to public to accept.


77 posted on 01/16/2015 2:30:30 PM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

When they pass this, watch for God to really unload on the U.S. In His judgment.


78 posted on 01/16/2015 2:37:23 PM PST by Old Yeller (Civil rights are for civilized people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/a-brief-history-of-marriage-licenses-in-the-us/blog-393357/

http://www.macquirelatory.com/Marriage%20License%20Truth.htm

it was a desperate act by Racist Democrats!


79 posted on 01/16/2015 2:41:14 PM PST by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: TADSLOS

bump


80 posted on 01/16/2015 2:51:53 PM PST by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-103 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson