GOP Lawmaker Denounces Supreme Court's Landmark Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

Newsweek via MSN ^ | April 24, 2024 | Mandy Taheri

[fwdude]

Oklahoma State Senator Dusty Deevers, a evangelical pastor, said that the Supreme Court's Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, is not "settled law," arguing that there is "no right to gay marriage."

Why It Matters

Deevers' comments come amid a broader conservative push in several red states to challenge the legal foundations of same-sex marriage. Conservative lawmakers in five states have introduced various measures encouraging the Supreme Court to strike down Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark 2015 decision that established the nationwide right to same-sex marriage. Conservative Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have previously signaled in a court dissent that the case should be reconsidered.

---

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: chat; deevers; homosexualagenda; intercession; mandytaheri; newsweak; obamalegacy; obergefellvhodges; sodomandgomorrah

[fwdude]

This needs to be pushed by many more conservatives in legislatures everywhere.

Begone, shouts of "too late." We can do anything if enough support is demonstrated, and quickly.

[Kleon]

The defeatist attitude I see from conservatives on this issue is truly disheartening. I don’t think we can truly make America great again without the solid foundation of marriage. The damage this decision caused can be felt everywhere.

[Dilbert San Diego]

In 2022, Congress passed the Respect for Marriage Act, which legalized same sex marriage in federal law.

If the Supreme Court overturned its decision on same sex marriage, it would mean that there’s no constitutional right for same sex marriage. But that federal law would still be there. Same sex marriage would still be legal in this country because of that federal law.

[reed13k]

Let me say 1) it’s a sin and 2) it’s a religious matter and I firmly disagree with same sex marriage.

However....the 10th amendment has been abused beyond believe in my mind on a lot of things and I think it applies here as well.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Everyone assumes that means that it should automatically resolve to the States and I disagree I think it should resolve to the people and then they can decide for themselves if they will be sinners.

That doesn’t mean, of course, that the States have to recognize it.

I’m not happy with the States stepping in and assuming they get to decide they have the power vs the people all the time.

[fwdude]

I think the fight went out of conservatives just before the 2015 decision. It was disheartening to see the courts stacked against the clear will of the people - 31 states with constitutional amendments enacted by overwhelming majorities of their people, and other states with clear prohibitions against it in law.

The overturning of Prop 8 by an openly homosexual federal judge in California was the last straw.

[Racketeer]

I do not care what a government of human beings define as marriage. I do know what my God has ordained. That is all that matters to me.

Government needs revenue. Hence, the marriage penalty and before long, marriage with a beast will be promoted. After all, government needs revenue and will destroy society, if needed, for revenue.

[jeffersondem]

“Same sex marriage would still be legal in this country because of that federal law.”

Get rid of that law too.

The current Congress would not repeal it so get rid of them too.

[fwdude]

Federal laws could easily be overturned, though. Just like DOMA was overturned by the DISrespect for Marriage Act.

All of this could have easily been avoided by a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage when the iron was still hot in the 1990's. Republican leaders promised us this route if the courts "got out of hand." Well, we're way past that point. We've been betrayed.

[Persevero]

100% with you. This insane ruling has opened the floodgates to all the current abuses esp is women and children as per usual.

[Resolute Conservative]

As much as I am firm believer i marriage between men and women (XX & XY) I have a different take.

I don’t support government having any say in marriage at all. It should be removed from the tax code and everything from the government. Modern day shysters can draw up a contract for anyone to enter into a union of some sort. Marriage is a church institution and the government needs only to recognize two people are in a legal contract (make sure and denote only people qualify for the contract) and all it a “union” not a marriage that is a cultural term. I am against same-sex marriage, but I also realize in this era of every religion is equal we cannot dictate that to other beliefs (you have people that marry their dogs etc...). Just take it out and let the churches handle it as far as their doctrine demands.

That defangs the lawsuits immediately and people can exercise their right to acknowledge whatever sickness they want, but they cannot hi-jack the language and call it marriage when we take the government out of it.

[circlecity]

Where does the constitution give the Fed the power to legislate on marriage?

[fwdude]

This insane ruling has opened the floodgates to all the current abuses esp is women and children as per usual.

What same-sex "marriage' has done to Massachusetts

"Most people don't know what really happens when "gay marriage" comes — and how its effects permeate society."

[bankwalker]

I agree with you about 100%

[Dilbert San Diego]

There is nothing in the constitution about marriage.

Legally SPEAKING , you would have to make the case that it IS unconstitutional for the federal government to make any law regarding marriage.

[fwdude]

If you're against the "marriage penalty" (it's only a penalty if both partners have equitable income,) then you should be attacking the real villain, the federal tax code, not marriage.

Repeal the 16th Amendment. We should be working our tails off just to do that. So much good would emanate downstream from this.

[bankwalker]

So true

[iamgalt]

Like the 19th amendment the decision was catastrophic but inevitable We are stuck with both.

[bobbo666]

And, bitching about such a court ruling is misdirection. A court can rule only on what is law in that state. Change the state constitution.

Awww. Is that difficult? Well, apparently your willingness to work for what you feel is RIGHT is onlyskin deep.

[FlingWingFlyer]

SCOTUS has got to go. It won’t work with four females on the bench. That’s way too much idiocy. Look at the mess all the skanks are making in the “district” courts. Geez. The RATs want to expand the Supremacist Court bozos. We need to cull the herd if you ask me.

[fwdude]

I don’t support government having any say in marriage at all. It should be removed from the tax code and everything from the government.

That's where you are dead wrong, and such an argument is far, far from conservatism.

Myths about marriage and the government:
- "the government is 'in the marriage business'." It is not.
- "Churches and Christian groups can defined marriage as it has always been defined." Tell that to numerous christian groups who have, and are now, being sued over this issue.
"You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."
- "We can continue to teach our children what marriage really is." Surely you jest.