Skip to comments.
SCOTUS: same-sex marriage decisions - Live Thread (Decisions at 97, 194, & 217)
Free Republic
| 06/26/2013
| BuckeyeTexan
Posted on 06/25/2013 9:54:04 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360, 361-380, 381-400 ... 441-459 next last
To: EternalVigilance; Outraged At FLA
"your little book written by sheep herders says to." Hmmm. I distinctly remember seeing the Bible described in those words by someone at the now nearly-defunct and deserted True Blue site.
361
posted on
06/26/2013 9:00:08 AM PDT
by
CatherineofAragon
((Support Christian white males----the architects of the jewel known as Western Civilization).)
To: BuckeyeTexan
Since there are over 350 posts, I'm sure someone stated that given this decision, polygamy is now legal.
5.56mm
362
posted on
06/26/2013 9:01:00 AM PDT
by
M Kehoe
To: mbarker12474
No, the 9th Circuit’s decision was overturned and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of standing. The decision that stands is Judge Walker’s from the U.S. District Court, which is the court immediately below the 9th Circuit.
363
posted on
06/26/2013 9:01:04 AM PDT
by
BuckeyeTexan
(There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
To: PapaNew
The feds have been defining marriage for themselves since at least 1780.
364
posted on
06/26/2013 9:01:18 AM PDT
by
ansel12
(Libertarians, Gays = in all marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws.)
To: mware
Wonder when the government is going to insist that ALL religious group comply with their decision, and allow anyone who wants to, to get married in church.
I've been accused of being a Cassandra on gay marriage, but that's something I just don't see happening.
Nobody has yet forced a Catholic Church to marry divorcees. And that's far more commonplace.
I have no doubt that we'll see civil gay marriage mandated in all states, but there's no logical reason to suggest that churches will be forced to participate. County clerks, yes. Judges even, yes. But churches? Only if they choose to.
365
posted on
06/26/2013 9:01:50 AM PDT
by
highball
("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
To: 1010RD
I thought the purpose of the Constitution was to reign in any infringements of the federal government. I’ve never heard your interpretation before.
To: OneWingedShark
No, your posts really don’t make sense, you clearly don’t support protecting marriage, I get that part, and I recognize that gay marriage and polygamy will happen as long as there is enough momentum on your side.
367
posted on
06/26/2013 9:05:00 AM PDT
by
ansel12
(Libertarians, Gays = in all marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws.)
To: caww
If, as appears to be the case, the SCOTUS is saying that SSM is a state issue and not a federal one, then abortion is also a state issue and not a federal one. Roe ruled abortion a right, but abortion is a state regulated activity.
Under this reasoning couldn’t a state restrict abortion?
I’m still waiting a better analysis of this decision. For instance, it isn’t clear to me that the litigants standing issue is occuring only at the federal or the state level. CA has a law permitting proponents leading a proposition to defend it in court.
Did this ruling undo that law in CA or not? That’s my question.
368
posted on
06/26/2013 9:05:43 AM PDT
by
1010RD
(First, Do No Harm)
To: ansel12
I know. It was allowed because it seem harmless. Government outside its constitutional limits is never "harmless."
(Gee, we took the leash off the fox yesterday and it left the hen house alone. Wonder why it ravaged the hens today? Answer: the fox was being a fox. Same with unleashed government.)
369
posted on
06/26/2013 9:06:29 AM PDT
by
PapaNew
To: ansel12
I do NOT believe there is a right to gay marriage ... in Sodom and Gomorrah or elsewhere. You are twisting my words. Please stop.
What I believe is that God gave individuals the free will to make their own choices. I don’t have to agree with or support those choices because I ALSO have free will.
Homosexuality is an abomination to God. Nevertheless, homosexuals are free to choose it.
370
posted on
06/26/2013 9:07:56 AM PDT
by
BuckeyeTexan
(There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
To: 1010RD
Replace SSM with abortion and then see what you think. We are actually watching a victory for state's rights and the undoing of Roe
This is nonsense.
Roe will not ever be overturned.
There's too much money to be made from sales and research.
I'm not upset about DOMA (which was bill Clintons way to advance gay marriage to the supreme court.
I know, and you should too that no ones vote matters any more.
To: caww
"Now they will use this to litigate in states which deny same sex marriage...saying look what the supreme court says.... They are energized now to take the rest of the states down this road."
You're exactly right. It's already begun:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3035869/posts
372
posted on
06/26/2013 9:08:27 AM PDT
by
CatherineofAragon
((Support Christian white males----the architects of the jewel known as Western Civilization).)
To: caww
373
posted on
06/26/2013 9:08:54 AM PDT
by
CatherineofAragon
((Support Christian white males----the architects of the jewel known as Western Civilization).)
To: M Kehoe
Well, there's been much discussion about the fact that it will become legal. Scalia told us so in Lawrence v. Texas.
374
posted on
06/26/2013 9:09:49 AM PDT
by
BuckeyeTexan
(There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
To: BuckeyeTexan
375
posted on
06/26/2013 9:12:12 AM PDT
by
M Kehoe
To: BuckeyeTexan
We always lose by bad USSC decisions from Republican-appointed Justices. (Roberts- Bush, Souter- Bush41, Kennedy- Reagan).
To: 1010RD
Did this ruling undo that law in CA or not? Thats my question. No, it did not. See post 217 for the explanation. Standing was denied at the federal level.
377
posted on
06/26/2013 9:12:58 AM PDT
by
BuckeyeTexan
(There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
To: highball
“Nobody has yet forced a Catholic Church to marry divorcees. And that’s far more commonplace.”
Civil divorce and remarriage wasn’t framed as a civil right. ‘Gay marriage’ is. I don’t think it is beyond the pale today, in my opinion. And it would be punishing them for not doing it, not forcing them to, because they wouldn’t no matter what the state said about it.
In any case, what about renting halls to gay couples who declare themselves married? Or businesses who don’t buy into whatever impossibility the state is calling marriage at the time? I mean I think that’s what this is all about, punishing those who they know aren’t going to buy into it.
Freegards
To: 1010RD
Under this reasoning couldnt a state restrict abortion? Yes and they are doing so. Late last night Texas passed a law restricting abortion to less than 20 weeks of pregnancy. The bill included restrictions on who can perform abortions and where. Those restrictions will close 37 out of 42 abortion clinics in Texas.
379
posted on
06/26/2013 9:17:24 AM PDT
by
BuckeyeTexan
(There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
To: KevinDavis
That would be Ronald Reagan.
380
posted on
06/26/2013 9:18:59 AM PDT
by
Coronal
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360, 361-380, 381-400 ... 441-459 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson