Posted on 02/04/2015 9:23:08 AM PST by SeekAndFind
No, because the outcome is already determined.
Anybody really think the Gay lobby hasn’t leveraged everything on making this a win?
The court is a joke.
Feggetabowdit.
It’s only a matter of time until we just ignore them and dare them to do something about it.
In a word: “absurd”
I think Anthony Kennedy is influenced by his clerks.
Of greater influence than the clerks, though, can be prayers.
Only God knows how this Supreme Court decision will go.
One thing is certain, however: the ruling of a man will not abrogate the Holiness of God.
I am praying the hearts of these men and women are awakened to that holiness and rule in favor of the His truth.
How do gay parents have children?
As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, children of gay parents isn’t the issue is it? And, as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, moral viewpoints isn’t the issue either is it?
As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, the ONLY issue is the application of the original understanding and intent of the Constitution. By that standard, which is their only legal standard, the Supreme Court should send the case back to the state of origin because it is a states issue not a constitutionally-enumerated federal issue.
They buy someone else’s sperm or egg. Craigslist anyone?
Exactly right.
Homosexuals couldn't be any different than heterosexuals. Not just because the former is mentally ill and the later is not, but because the former is promiscuous as a rule and the later is not.
Among heterosexual women, 80% or more are faithful to one partner, among men, 70% are. The corresponding figures for homosexuals are 7% for women and 3% for men.
Even among the most promiscuous heterosexuals, the number of partners are counted in the low 10s or less. Among the most promiscuous homosexuals, the number of partners are counted in the 100s.
Sexual relations is something that heterosexual couples engage in. For homosexuals, it defines who they are.
Such an obsession is not healthy for children. Laws should not be rewritten to accommodate the most deviant subsets.
How is this an argument about gay marriage as opposed to gay adoption? The issue raised doesn’t change if the two adults aren’t married or have a civil union. How does this affect the case in a way that could sway an honest, unbiased justice? Not that we have 5 of those.
So true... for the normal, love is something that is way larger than sex.
For these sad souls, the sex is the only “love” (there is a whole lot of hate everywhere else) and it dominates everything else they do. The tail is wagging the dog, and one can take that at various levels of metaphor. But even the “love” is mean, as an objective look at it would tell you.
Sure is. The gay marriage/abortion decisions have shown us that neither laws nor constitutional provisions (real ones, in writing) mean anything at all to these jokers. All that counts is what their elitist friends think. Nothing - nothing - else.
And where is "how the Court will affect the children of gay parents" mentioned in the Constitution?
Will the adopted child of Frank Lombard be speaking? Probably not.
Where is MARRIAGE mentioned in the Constitution?
Something I have been trying to show to many of my conservative friends and liberal acquaintances is the LIE at the bottom of all same sex families. They raise the children saying they have two fathers or two mothers, but at some moment in their lives, the children realize this cannot be true. Then they approach the parents and ask who the other biological parent was, and the children are told again, no you have tow mothers (fathers).
This lie builds the problems in their life because they KNOW it cannot be true, and the hunger begins for finding the connection they are so desperately needing, i.e. Robert Oscar Lopez.
There are no children of gay parents.
The constitutionality of gay marriage is not a matter of the children of gay parents swaying the Supremes with a swing vote. The only thing that matters is that since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay agenda issues like gay marriage, the states are free to make laws which prohibit constitutionally unprotected gay marriage, as long as such laws don’t also unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated protections.
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.