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.

[fwdude]

You’re a good example of how many conservatives have capitulated on the marriage issue for comfort and convenience.

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” — Samuel Adams

[Uncle Sham]

Marriage is not found in the Constitution, therefore it is a state by state issue. The Supreme Court had zero authority to rule one way or another on it. The federal government has zero authority to legislate one way or another on it. Only by passing an amendment to the Constitution can the issue of what constitutes “marriage” be taken from the states. We have a Constitution that protects us all. FORCE them to obey it.

[Wuli]

The error of the court in those decisions is that it did not “find”, in the Constitution, that a requirment that same-sex exists, it invented one; it wrote an amendment to the Constitution via judicial fiat.

[Engraved-on-His-hands]

I definitely fully support the overturning of Obergefelll.

[Glad2bnuts]

The Federal Govt has no say in marriage laws. Centuries of States having their own regulations and laws on the subject are proof of that. Put that Federal D^^K back in its holster, and abide by the spirit and the meaning of the clear writings of our Founding Fathers.

Libtard States can allow marriages of perverts, and sane States can ban it. Like abortion, it is a State issue.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

How the hell did government ever get involved in the tenet of “marriage” at all?

Who do they think they are...God?

[MikelTackNailer]

Government needs revenue. Hence, the marriage penalty and before long, marriage with a beast will be promoted.

We should ask someone who has firsthand knowledge of that:

Seriously though, the Federal intrusion on marriage (and too much else) stems from the implementation of the income tax. President Trump knows this so is trying to return to tariffs as the primary means of financing (a shrunken) government.

Hence the Democrats, utterly dependent on OUR incomes to support THEIR intrusions into OUR lives, cannot have the money slowed let alone stopped with every dollar accounted for.

[ViLaLuz]

America cannot be great as long as evil is legalized here.

[Svartalfiar]

The problem is what does the “to promote the general welfare” clause mean? Promoting good heterosexual marriage certainly falls under this.

No it doesn't. "Promote the general welfare" means here's a description of what this document does, keep reading and we'll explain how.

[BigB60]

The Constitution is a series of articles to do all the things that are listed in the prologue. Allowing states to have police forces would certainly be included in the 10th Amendment under the umbrella of “establish Justice.” So why wouldn’t the government have a vested interest in Christian marriage “to promote the General Welfare?”