Posted on 06/26/2015 7:51:23 AM PDT by mbarker12474
Amongst other upside-down thinking in the majority decision is this:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
"A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters , 268 U. S. 510. Without the recognition, stability, and pre - dictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the childre n of same-sex couples. See Windsor , supra, at ___. This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Prece - dent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate."
Aren’t the sodomites always arguing - IN COURT, no less - that issues of procreation are completely severed from marriage? Now, they use that as an argument?
Legal fiction, and a terrible twisting of the 14th by that jerk Kennedy. I won’t let it ruin my weekend, but SCOTUS is a sick joke.
Tortured reasoning.
Maybe we should elevate all deviant behavior adults choose to do “for the sake of the children.”
Up is down and down is up. Words mean whatever you want them to me. This is the Age of Emotion.
Can marrying children be far behind?
Kennedy claims the feelings of children make it a constitutional necessity to call up down and down up. Kids are better off facing truth head on rather than taking the liberal road of deciding “everything I want must be good because I want it.”
Lets face it men who put their things up each others rear ends should only be given whatever children come out.
Not handed other people’s kids to raise. But let’s all pretend gays are God’s gift to the planet.
Good God!
goofy.
What in God's name does the court have to do with this? It's not a 'right' it is simply the outcome of nature or choice.
Using it as a basis for equating two unequal things is more madness.
It's as if the judges simply adopted valid anti-gay-marriage arguments and negated them without logic involved.
Since children can NEVER result from a homosexual “marriage”, homosexuals should be forbidden to obtain children.
These people are insane.
Can you say "SHARIA"? I knew you could!
Ronald Reagan’s eight years in office delayed 1984 by thirty years. We are living it now.
Obama: “Today we can say, in no uncertain terms, that we’ve made our union a little more perfect.”
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.