[NYer]

Ping!

[GreyFriar]

That is an interesting take. I heard someone discussing it and said that Justice Roberts could join the gay marriage advocates by saying that denying two men or two women to marry each other would be “illegal due to laws against sex discrimination.”

[who_would_fardels_bear]

The multinationals and oligarchs will not stand for different laws in different states especially since they have workforces that span those states.

How are they going to get the Indians working in HR to properly advise their workers about benefits when the laws are different depending on the state from which the employee is calling?

[Eagles6]

Mutual masturbation is dignified. Got it.

[oldbrowser]

The Supreme Court struck down the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act on the grounds that the federal government should not tell the states how to regulate marriage

If so, why did they even take this case?

[SoFloFreeper]

Truth?

[Jeff Chandler]

The Supreme Court struck down the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act on the grounds that the federal government should not tell the states how to regulate marriage

So now they are being asked to rule the federal government must tell the states to regulate marriage, forcing them to include sodomy.

[Secret Agent Man]

Regardles, it is time to start taking away government power at all levels.

These people think they are gods and we are their subjects. It is time for all this to change and these people never to be in any position of power over anyone else, ever again.

[ConservingFreedom]

Consider Justice Anthony Kennedy, who asked the third question: One ­­of the problems is when you think about these cases you think aboutwords or cases, and the word that keeps the word that keeps coming back to me in this case is—is millennia, plus time. First of all, there has not been really time, so the respondents say, for the federal system to engage in this debate.

… Even Justice Stephen Breyer got in on the act, noting that marriage understood as the union of a man and a woman “has been the law everywhere for thousands of years among people who were not discriminating even against gay people, and suddenly you want nine people outside the ballot box to require states that don’t want to do it to change … what marriage is to include gay people.” He concluded: “Why cannot those states at least wait and see whether in fact doing so in the other states is or is not harmful to marriage?”

Maybe they learned their lesson from Roe v Wade about the perils of preempting the democratic process.

[Salvation]

Please Pray This Week for Traditional Marriage – The Supreme Court Is in Session