” This case isn’t about how to define marriage,” he said. “It’s about who gets to decide that question. Is it the people acting through the democratic process, or is it the federal courts?”
Isn’t it interesting that in the case of obamacare Roberts scolded us by telling us, hey don’t expect us to bail you out from your dumb political choices, in a case where he actually had the obligation to do so, yet in this case they’re going to tell us your political choice doesn’t matter.
Sotoscarmeyer, how about reading the first amendment in its entirety please?
The supreme court does not exist to write law, but to make certain laws are constitutional.
And the first amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That means that anything forcing adherents of a religion to violate their conscience is wrong.
She is the farthest thing from an unbiased judge as you can get. Her mind was made up years ago.
She is creating a more dangerous culture.
Not a peep at the court about the dangerous lifestyle of homosexuals.
Okay.
By that argument no one has taken away the liberty of homosexuals, either.
After all, they were never forced to marry normal people.
Don’t like killing Jews? Don’t work at Auschwitz.
Same argument.
She claims this but they will try to force pastors to marry gays.
Not only that but I have heard a gay activist say that not participating in gay sex is anti gay bigotry.
So yea get ready for that evevtually when they get their way.
Wise-ass latina.
Homosexual marriage is discrimination. Same-sex heterosexuals won’t be able to marry. People can’t marry their pets, or their cars. What if whole families want to marry each other? /s
With her and Kagan, Obama has appointed twin terrors who will be trouble for us for the next few decades. Imagine Hillary adding two or three more to the mix. *shudders*
But you will be forced to accommodate gay weddings. Your child will be indoctrinated on the virtues of homosexuality in public schools. You will lose tax exempt status for your churches and other organizations if they do not bow to demands. You will be sued for everything you own if you criticize or refuse to accommodate us. On and on.
What started as freedom for them in the privacy of their own bedrooms is ending as freedom for us only if we lock ourselves in our bedrooms.
And we won’t take away anyone’s liberty by forcing a gay to marry a heterosexual.
Can you beam me up to a planet with no wise Latinas? BTW I have met a few (the wise ones) and they are not so wise. Just have a lot of folkloric bs to run by silly whites.
When Brain Cavities Implode
SotoMayor.. Deep in thought.
Should they Federalize Gay Marriage, then all State Laws regarding Incest, Polygamy and Age of Consent must meet a Federal Standard as well.
That is, Incestuous Marriage and Polygamous Marriage between consenting Adults must be Legalized once a Federally mandated Age of Consent is established.
When the Dam bursts, everyone drowns.
We’re just forcing you to bake cakes for them.
am going back to the land to get my soul free ... I’ve come to lose my ‘smile’
"No one's forcing .." NOT YET! Wait.
I wouldn't be so sure she doesn't consider it her prerogative to mandate sodomy too. Maybe she just means that the court is not mandating it YET.