Posted on 07/23/2024 12:13:34 PM PDT by fwdude
It was NEVER about marriage. It was intended to creating a staging area for attacking Christians and Christian norms with new, powerful legal weapons. It was proven “effective” almost immediately with the vicious attacks on Kim Davis. Many other county clerks nationwide were threatened, and a Justice of the Peace in Texas is currently in a court case merely because she mentioned that she would not officiate such a “wedding,” even though that is not part of her job. She risks losing her law license and her livelihood because of the viciousness of the Gaystapo.
I’m skeptical of this story, but I hope it happens that way.
No, it's not.
MOST states which passed their state marriage amendments to their constitutions STILL have these Amendments, which become immediately effective if the USSC overturns Obergefell.
Was it too late to reverse Roe?
Your flippant attitude over this issue is what got us into this mess.
“It was NEVER about marriage.”
Years ago, when the gay marriage legalization hadn’t happened yet, I was having lunch with someone working directly under Pam Bondi in Florida. (I forgot his title.) He said, “It isn’t about marriage. It’s about normalizing pedophilia.” I thought that was a stretch. But it turns out, he was exactly correct.
But lives don’t depend on this...
Never too late.
A main problem with homosexual marriage is, it makes being a practicing Christian a legal liability.
(Also practicing Muslims and Orthodox Jews but they aren’t in the crosshairs so much)
Congress has no authority to do such a thing. When you get married, your marriage certificate is signed, sealed and filed in accordance with the laws of the STATE where you are married.
All Congress can do is establish a legal standard for “marriage” as it applies to things like federal tax law.
This is where that Judge Bunning was exposed as a dupe and a fraud. If “same-sex” marriage was so important to him in the Kimberly Davis case, he should have just signed the marriage certificate himself. But he knew damn well he could not do that, because a federal judge has no authority to sign a Kentucky marriage certificate. This is why the case never should have been in his courtroom in the first place.
gay marriages were already legal in about half of states.my point was really that states should decide, not the federal gov or scotus. SCOTUS rightly should have declined to hear the case.
Which state option would the federal govt. recognize for widow’s pensions and on base housing and such?
How would a family of 4 deal with transfers from one state to another?
Same as Roe...send it back to the states.
They couldn't decline. There were district appellate courts who came to opposite opinions on this issue. A definitive opinion was called for, and the Supreme Court blew it.
Thirty-one states had passed amendments to their state constitutions defining marriage as it had always been known, by popular referenda, by mostly very wide margins, which is where this should have ended. Other states had state laws which established the legal definition of marriage as that between a man and a woman. That's a strong consensus by the people, where the decision belongs.
The Supreme Court, after appellate courts, shat on ALL of that. That's reprehensible and anathema to constitutional principles.
The “definitive opinion” should have been to let state laws stand.... maybe they would have had to overrule appelate decisions if contradictory.
Make America Great Again?
Make Sodomy Illegal Again.
Thank sodomite Kennedy for kicking down the Christian values of sexuality in FOUR court cases, including Lawrence, which shot down all sodomy laws nationwide.
I could see it being shut down by ruling on it the same as they did to get rid of Roe v Wade-just say it is up to each state-I like that-if you want your state to be involved in marriage, then get a vote. Personally, I think marriage is a man and a woman-and it is the business of the pastors, priests, rabbis, imams etc-in other words, clergy-not govt. I don’t think most clergy will go for marriage between same sex individuals, or anything other than what is natural- a man and a woman...
The federal law DOMA allowed states to do whatever they wanted with the definition of marriage, in that state. Federally, only man-woman marriage relationships could be recognized.
He was probably dealing with cases of that type.
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.