Prediction: Same Sex Marriage Will be the Law of the Land

[Stephanie]

OH WELL now eh? they got what they wanted no you will live with it

SNIP:
15 Reasons ‘Marriage Equality’ Is About Neither Marriage Nor Equality
Don't fall for the 'marriage equality' sales pitch. It's a deception.
By Stella Morabito


By Stella Morabito
June 26, 2015




Same-sex marriage is a notion that contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. I doubt many have thought this through, with the ironic exception of the elites who have been pushing the agenda the hardest.

Most people are weary of it all and going along to get along, especially since dissent has become such a socially expensive proposition, almost overnight. That in itself should deeply concern anyone who values freedom of expression.


Sure, true believers scattered across the land really do think the entire project ends with allowing same-sex couples to marry. Most persist in the blind faith that a federal ban on the standard definition of marriage will have no negative effect on family autonomy and privacy. That’s a pipe dream.

The same-sex marriage agenda is more like a magic bullet with a trajectory that will abolish civil marriage for everyone, and in doing so, will embed central planning into American life. And that, my friends, is the whole point of it. Along with Obamacare, net neutrality, and Common Core, genderless marriage is a blueprint for regulating life, particularly family life.

The Rainbow’s Arc
Unintended consequences usually come about when we are ignorant or maybe lazy about a course of action. But we usually crash land after following an arc of logic, which in this case has gone largely undiscerned and unaddressed in the public square.

Americans are in a fog about how marriage equality will lead to more central planning and thought policing. This is partly because the media and Hollywood only provide slogans to regurgitate while academics and judges push politically correct speech codes to obey.

Let’s explore the fallout of that arc of faulty logic. Included below are some 15 of the gaping holes in the “marriage equality” reasoning that Americans have not thought through.


15 Reasons Marriage Equality Is About Neither

 

[Freewill]

Why do you quote Loving? It was a decision between a man and a woman. And there is no equivalence between a gay and being black.

Where is marriage mentioned in the COTUS?

The fact that it was a man and a woman is irrelevant. The point that Loving, like a number of other cases established that fact that there are limits to states rights in matters of marriage. The Constitution matters. You can agree that Loving was an appropriate decision, but that same sex marriage is strictly a state matter

If the SCOTUS rules as I know they will rule, then there is, in my opinion, no limit on who marries. Sister/brother, son/daughter, mother/son. How can you limit any of those?.

Well you are welcome to your opinion- but there is absolutely no evidence to support that opinion. Gays have been marrying in Massachusetts for over 10 years- and yet still sisters and brothers are not getting legally married. Incestuous marriage is a completely different issue- as different as gay marriage was from mixed race marriage- each has to be argued on its own merits.

What it boils down to is this: marriage is a right- repeatedly confirmed by the Supreme Court. States can deny that right- but only if the State can provide a demonstrable justification for denying the right. So far states have not been able to make an argument as to how denying same gender couples their marriage right serves some legitimate state interest.

You have to look at it from the opposite end, that in Loving, it was just race that was ruled a no go as a ban from marriage, the definition of marriage was not changed. Here is a radical change, and even Kennedy and Breyer noted it as such.

Sorry, wrong. In both cases the definition is being changed. Prior to Loving, it was defined as being between two people of the same race. Until now, it was defined as between two people of the opposite gender. In any case, it just semantics. The fact is that the states have failed pathetically to come up with a compelling government interest or even a rational basis to deny marriage equality. It is about to be OVER

The ruling is not surprising. I would think the will of the governed would be enough of a reason but no once again activism wins which really is no surprise. Personally I could care less it is just a talking point.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

SNIP:
15 Reasons ‘Marriage Equality’ Is About Neither Marriage Nor Equality
Don't fall for the 'marriage equality' sales pitch. It's a deception.
By Stella Morabito


By Stella Morabito
June 26, 2015




Same-sex marriage is a notion that contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. I doubt many have thought this through, with the ironic exception of the elites who have been pushing the agenda the hardest.

Most people are weary of it all and going along to get along, especially since dissent has become such a socially expensive proposition, almost overnight. That in itself should deeply concern anyone who values freedom of expression.

[iframe name="google_ads_iframe_/1011927/TFC_300_by_250_top_0" width="300" height="250" id="google_ads_iframe_/1011927/TFC_300_by_250_top_0" src="javascript:"[/iframe]
Sure, true believers scattered across the land really do think the entire project ends with allowing same-sex couples to marry. Most persist in the blind faith that a federal ban on the standard definition of marriage will have no negative effect on family autonomy and privacy. That’s a pipe dream.

The same-sex marriage agenda is more like a magic bullet with a trajectory that will abolish civil marriage for everyone, and in doing so, will embed central planning into American life. And that, my friends, is the whole point of it. Along with Obamacare, net neutrality, and Common Core, genderless marriage is a blueprint for regulating life, particularly family life.

The Rainbow’s Arc
Unintended consequences usually come about when we are ignorant or maybe lazy about a course of action. But we usually crash land after following an arc of logic, which in this case has gone largely undiscerned and unaddressed in the public square.

Americans are in a fog about how marriage equality will lead to more central planning and thought policing. This is partly because the media and Hollywood only provide slogans to regurgitate while academics and judges push politically correct speech codes to obey.

Let’s explore the fallout of that arc of faulty logic. Included below are some 15 of the gaping holes in the “marriage equality” reasoning that Americans have not thought through.


15 Reasons Marriage Equality Is About Neither

 

[rightwinger]

SNIP:
15 Reasons ‘Marriage Equality’ Is About Neither Marriage Nor Equality
Don't fall for the 'marriage equality' sales pitch. It's a deception.
By Stella Morabito


By Stella Morabito
June 26, 2015




Same-sex marriage is a notion that contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. I doubt many have thought this through, with the ironic exception of the elites who have been pushing the agenda the hardest.

Most people are weary of it all and going along to get along, especially since dissent has become such a socially expensive proposition, almost overnight. That in itself should deeply concern anyone who values freedom of expression.

[iframe name="google_ads_iframe_/1011927/TFC_300_by_250_top_0" width="300" height="250" id="google_ads_iframe_/1011927/TFC_300_by_250_top_0" src="javascript:"[/iframe]
Sure, true believers scattered across the land really do think the entire project ends with allowing same-sex couples to marry. Most persist in the blind faith that a federal ban on the standard definition of marriage will have no negative effect on family autonomy and privacy. That’s a pipe dream.

The same-sex marriage agenda is more like a magic bullet with a trajectory that will abolish civil marriage for everyone, and in doing so, will embed central planning into American life. And that, my friends, is the whole point of it. Along with Obamacare, net neutrality, and Common Core, genderless marriage is a blueprint for regulating life, particularly family life.

The Rainbow’s Arc
Unintended consequences usually come about when we are ignorant or maybe lazy about a course of action. But we usually crash land after following an arc of logic, which in this case has gone largely undiscerned and unaddressed in the public square.

Americans are in a fog about how marriage equality will lead to more central planning and thought policing. This is partly because the media and Hollywood only provide slogans to regurgitate while academics and judges push politically correct speech codes to obey.

Let’s explore the fallout of that arc of faulty logic. Included below are some 15 of the gaping holes in the “marriage equality” reasoning that Americans have not thought through.


15 Reasons Marriage Equality Is About Neither

Looks like the sky is falling

 

[Stephanie]

SNIP:
15 Reasons ‘Marriage Equality’ Is About Neither Marriage Nor Equality
Don't fall for the 'marriage equality' sales pitch. It's a deception.
By Stella Morabito


By Stella Morabito
June 26, 2015




Same-sex marriage is a notion that contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. I doubt many have thought this through, with the ironic exception of the elites who have been pushing the agenda the hardest.

Most people are weary of it all and going along to get along, especially since dissent has become such a socially expensive proposition, almost overnight. That in itself should deeply concern anyone who values freedom of expression.

[iframe name="google_ads_iframe_/1011927/TFC_300_by_250_top_0" width="300" height="250" id="google_ads_iframe_/1011927/TFC_300_by_250_top_0" src="javascript:"[/iframe]
Sure, true believers scattered across the land really do think the entire project ends with allowing same-sex couples to marry. Most persist in the blind faith that a federal ban on the standard definition of marriage will have no negative effect on family autonomy and privacy. That’s a pipe dream.

The same-sex marriage agenda is more like a magic bullet with a trajectory that will abolish civil marriage for everyone, and in doing so, will embed central planning into American life. And that, my friends, is the whole point of it. Along with Obamacare, net neutrality, and Common Core, genderless marriage is a blueprint for regulating life, particularly family life.

The Rainbow’s Arc
Unintended consequences usually come about when we are ignorant or maybe lazy about a course of action. But we usually crash land after following an arc of logic, which in this case has gone largely undiscerned and unaddressed in the public square.

Americans are in a fog about how marriage equality will lead to more central planning and thought policing. This is partly because the media and Hollywood only provide slogans to regurgitate while academics and judges push politically correct speech codes to obey.

Let’s explore the fallout of that arc of faulty logic. Included below are some 15 of the gaping holes in the “marriage equality” reasoning that Americans have not thought through.


15 Reasons Marriage Equality Is About Neither

typical Progessive/demcorat, you need to turn the DEBATE away from everything they said. Because it is TRUE
the people will NOW find out

 

[Syriusly]

SNIP:
15 Reasons ‘Marriage Equality’ Is About Neither Marriage Nor Equality
Don't fall for the 'marriage equality' sales pitch. It's a deception.
By Stella Morabito


By Stella Morabito
June 26, 2015




Same-sex marriage is a notion that contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. I doubt many have thought this through, with the ironic exception of the elites who have been pushing the agenda the hardest.

Most people are weary of it all and going along to get along, especially since dissent has become such a socially expensive proposition, almost overnight. That in itself should deeply concern anyone who values freedom of expression.

[iframe name="google_ads_iframe_/1011927/TFC_300_by_250_top_0" width="300" height="250" id="google_ads_iframe_/1011927/TFC_300_by_250_top_0" src="javascript:"[/iframe]
Sure, true believers scattered across the land really do think the entire project ends with allowing same-sex couples to marry. Most persist in the blind faith that a federal ban on the standard definition of marriage will have no negative effect on family autonomy and privacy. That’s a pipe dream.

The same-sex marriage agenda is more like a magic bullet with a trajectory that will abolish civil marriage for everyone, and in doing so, will embed central planning into American life. And that, my friends, is the whole point of it. Along with Obamacare, net neutrality, and Common Core, genderless marriage is a blueprint for regulating life, particularly family life.

The Rainbow’s Arc
Unintended consequences usually come about when we are ignorant or maybe lazy about a course of action. But we usually crash land after following an arc of logic, which in this case has gone largely undiscerned and unaddressed in the public square.

Americans are in a fog about how marriage equality will lead to more central planning and thought policing. This is partly because the media and Hollywood only provide slogans to regurgitate while academics and judges push politically correct speech codes to obey.

Let’s explore the fallout of that arc of faulty logic. Included below are some 15 of the gaping holes in the “marriage equality” reasoning that Americans have not thought through.


15 Reasons Marriage Equality Is About Neither

typical Progessive/demcorat, you need to turn the DEBATE away from everything they said. Because it is TRUE
the people will NOW find out

We all expected the Conservative meltdown.

 

[Stephanie]

Contact your Congress Representatives AND demand they get behind this.

snip:
Scott Walker responds to SCOTUS gay marriage decision, calls for NEW CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
Scott Walker has penned his response to the Supreme Court decision, calling it a grave mistake and calling for a constitutional amendment to reaffirm that the states have the ability to define marriage:

“I believe this Supreme Court decision is a grave mistake. Five unelected judges have taken it upon themselves to redefine the institution of marriage, an institution that the author of this decision acknowledges ‘has been with us for millennia.’ In 2006 I, like millions of Americans, voted to amend our state constitution to protect the institution of marriage from exactly this type of judicial activism. The states are the proper place for these decisions to be made, and as we have seen repeatedly over the last few days, we will need a conservative president who will appoint men and women to the Court who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our land without injecting their own political agendas. As a result of this decision, the only alternative left for the American people is to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage.



Read more: http://therightscoop.com/scott-walker-responds-to-scotus-gay-marriage-decision-calls-for-new-constitutional-amendment/#ixzz3eBlN8rMw


Read more: http://therightscoop.com/scott-walker-responds-to-scotus-gay-marriage-decision-calls-for-new-constitutional-amendment/#ixzz3eBkiG7xp

 

[mdk]

Good luck getting a Constitutional amendment passed. You'll certainly need it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fact that it was a man and a woman is irrelevant. The point that Loving, like a number of other cases established that fact that there are limits to states rights in matters of marriage. The Constitution matters. You can agree that Loving was an appropriate decision, but that same sex marriage is strictly a state matter

If the SCOTUS rules as I know they will rule, then there is, in my opinion, no limit on who marries. Sister/brother, son/daughter, mother/son. How can you limit any of those?.

Well you are welcome to your opinion- but there is absolutely no evidence to support that opinion. Gays have been marrying in Massachusetts for over 10 years- and yet still sisters and brothers are not getting legally married. Incestuous marriage is a completely different issue- as different as gay marriage was from mixed race marriage- each has to be argued on its own merits.

What it boils down to is this: marriage is a right- repeatedly confirmed by the Supreme Court. States can deny that right- but only if the State can provide a demonstrable justification for denying the right. So far states have not been able to make an argument as to how denying same gender couples their marriage right serves some legitimate state interest.

You have to look at it from the opposite end, that in Loving, it was just race that was ruled a no go as a ban from marriage, the definition of marriage was not changed. Here is a radical change, and even Kennedy and Breyer noted it as such.

Sorry, wrong. In both cases the definition is being changed. Prior to Loving, it was defined as being between two people of the same race. Until now, it was defined as between two people of the opposite gender. In any case, it just semantics. The fact is that the states have failed pathetically to come up with a compelling government interest or even a rational basis to deny marriage equality. It is about to be OVER

The ruling is not surprising. I would think the will of the governed would be enough of a reason but no once again activism wins which really is no surprise. Personally I could care less it is just a talking point.

63% want it, so the will of the governed is enforced by SCOTUS against the will of the wicked.

 

[Freewill]

Contact your Congress Representatives AND demand they get behind this.

snip:
Scott Walker responds to SCOTUS gay marriage decision, calls for NEW CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
Scott Walker has penned his response to the Supreme Court decision, calling it a grave mistake and calling for a constitutional amendment to reaffirm that the states have the ability to define marriage:

“I believe this Supreme Court decision is a grave mistake. Five unelected judges have taken it upon themselves to redefine the institution of marriage, an institution that the author of this decision acknowledges ‘has been with us for millennia.’ In 2006 I, like millions of Americans, voted to amend our state constitution to protect the institution of marriage from exactly this type of judicial activism. The states are the proper place for these decisions to be made, and as we have seen repeatedly over the last few days, we will need a conservative president who will appoint men and women to the Court who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our land without injecting their own political agendas. As a result of this decision, the only alternative left for the American people is to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage.



Read more: http://therightscoop.com/scott-walker-responds-to-scotus-gay-marriage-decision-calls-for-new-constitutional-amendment/#ixzz3eBlN8rMw


Read more: http://therightscoop.com/scott-walker-responds-to-scotus-gay-marriage-decision-calls-for-new-constitutional-amendment/#ixzz3eBkiG7xp

Blah, blah blah, another petition that won't go any where because the government no longer cares what the governed think.

 

[Freewill]

If the SCOTUS rules as I know they will rule, then there is, in my opinion, no limit on who marries. Sister/brother, son/daughter, mother/son. How can you limit any of those?.

Well you are welcome to your opinion- but there is absolutely no evidence to support that opinion. Gays have been marrying in Massachusetts for over 10 years- and yet still sisters and brothers are not getting legally married. Incestuous marriage is a completely different issue- as different as gay marriage was from mixed race marriage- each has to be argued on its own merits.

What it boils down to is this: marriage is a right- repeatedly confirmed by the Supreme Court. States can deny that right- but only if the State can provide a demonstrable justification for denying the right. So far states have not been able to make an argument as to how denying same gender couples their marriage right serves some legitimate state interest.

You have to look at it from the opposite end, that in Loving, it was just race that was ruled a no go as a ban from marriage, the definition of marriage was not changed. Here is a radical change, and even Kennedy and Breyer noted it as such.

Sorry, wrong. In both cases the definition is being changed. Prior to Loving, it was defined as being between two people of the same race. Until now, it was defined as between two people of the opposite gender. In any case, it just semantics. The fact is that the states have failed pathetically to come up with a compelling government interest or even a rational basis to deny marriage equality. It is about to be OVER

The ruling is not surprising. I would think the will of the governed would be enough of a reason but no once again activism wins which really is no surprise. Personally I could care less it is just a talking point.

63% want it, so the will of the governed is enforced by SCOTUS against the will of the wicked.

I do believe the majority, if not all, of the referendums where the people were asked said NO. Even in California. Yes, you can say the polls say anything you want both sides do it. But when the tire hit the road, gay marriage lost. Doesn't matter anymore any way, the deed is done.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ten years ago maybe. Not the last three years. And not in the polls this year. Times have changed, and you are bobbing along in the wake of USS America.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Well you are welcome to your opinion- but there is absolutely no evidence to support that opinion. Gays have been marrying in Massachusetts for over 10 years- and yet still sisters and brothers are not getting legally married. Incestuous marriage is a completely different issue- as different as gay marriage was from mixed race marriage- each has to be argued on its own merits.

What it boils down to is this: marriage is a right- repeatedly confirmed by the Supreme Court. States can deny that right- but only if the State can provide a demonstrable justification for denying the right. So far states have not been able to make an argument as to how denying same gender couples their marriage right serves some legitimate state interest.

You have to look at it from the opposite end, that in Loving, it was just race that was ruled a no go as a ban from marriage, the definition of marriage was not changed. Here is a radical change, and even Kennedy and Breyer noted it as such.

Sorry, wrong. In both cases the definition is being changed. Prior to Loving, it was defined as being between two people of the same race. Until now, it was defined as between two people of the opposite gender. In any case, it just semantics. The fact is that the states have failed pathetically to come up with a compelling government interest or even a rational basis to deny marriage equality. It is about to be OVER

The ruling is not surprising. I would think the will of the governed would be enough of a reason but no once again activism wins which really is no surprise. Personally I could care less it is just a talking point.

63% want it, so the will of the governed is enforced by SCOTUS against the will of the wicked.

I do believe the majority, if not all, of the referendums where the people were asked said NO. Even in California. Yes, you can say the polls say anything you want both sides do it. But when the tire hit the road, gay marriage lost. Doesn't matter anymore any way, the deed is done.

Quit moaning. It's over. The polls never mattered. The constitution matters. If rights were based public opinion, there would be places in this country where blacks and women couldn't vote

 

[WorldWatcher]

I do believe the majority, if not all, of the referendums where the people were asked said NO. Even in California. Yes, you can say the polls say anything you want both sides do it. But when the tire hit the road, gay marriage lost. Doesn't matter anymore any way, the deed is done.

The majority? Yep, the voting took place over a decade ago.

However the last 4 times that SSCM appeared on a General Election Ballot (2012), SSCM won all 4 times. (Maine, Maryland, Washington, and Minnesota if memory serves).


Times and attitudes change.


>>>>

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

OH WELL now eh? they got what they wanted no you will live with it

SNIP:
15 Reasons ‘Marriage Equality’ Is About Neither Marriage Nor Equality
Don't fall for the 'marriage equality' sales pitch. It's a deception.
By Stella Morabito


By Stella Morabito
June 26, 2015




Same-sex marriage is a notion that contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. I doubt many have thought this through, with the ironic exception of the elites who have been pushing the agenda the hardest.

Most people are weary of it all and going along to get along, especially since dissent has become such a socially expensive proposition, almost overnight. That in itself should deeply concern anyone who values freedom of expression.


Sure, true believers scattered across the land really do think the entire project ends with allowing same-sex couples to marry. Most persist in the blind faith that a federal ban on the standard definition of marriage will have no negative effect on family autonomy and privacy. That’s a pipe dream.

The same-sex marriage agenda is more like a magic bullet with a trajectory that will abolish civil marriage for everyone, and in doing so, will embed central planning into American life. And that, my friends, is the whole point of it. Along with Obamacare, net neutrality, and Common Core, genderless marriage is a blueprint for regulating life, particularly family life.

The Rainbow’s Arc
Unintended consequences usually come about when we are ignorant or maybe lazy about a course of action. But we usually crash land after following an arc of logic, which in this case has gone largely undiscerned and unaddressed in the public square.

Americans are in a fog about how marriage equality will lead to more central planning and thought policing. This is partly because the media and Hollywood only provide slogans to regurgitate while academics and judges push politically correct speech codes to obey.

Let’s explore the fallout of that arc of faulty logic. Included below are some 15 of the gaping holes in the “marriage equality” reasoning that Americans have not thought through.


15 Reasons Marriage Equality Is About Neither

15 Reasons ‘Marriage Equality’ Is About Neither Marriage Nor Equality


[Same-sex marriage is a notion that contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. I doubt many have thought this through, with the ironic exception of the elites who have been pushing the agenda the hardest.]

Seriously?? You people put this crap out there written by some delusional and hysterical nut job and you mindlessly endorse it as having some basis in reality. Let’s look at a few choice passages

[The same-sex marriage agenda is more like a magic bullet with a trajectory that will abolish civil marriage for everyone, and in doing so, will embed central planning into American life. And that, my friends, is the whole point of it. Along with Obamacare, net neutrality, and Common Core, genderless marriage is a blueprint for regulating life, particularly family life.]

Really? Can you explain in your own words how and why same sex marriage will lead to the abolition of civil marriage? Because a couple of blow hard politicians and vowed to do so if gays are allowed to marry? This is just paranoia and an appeal to ignorance and fear.

And what is this crap about central planning? Expanding marriage to include same sex couples is lessening the influence of government, not increasing it. It was those laws and amendments that needlessly excluded gays that over regulated marriage. That was central planning


Here is more crackpottery:

[The Kids Are Not All Right

Last month, six adult children from LGBT households filed amicus briefs opposing genderless marriage: see here, here, and here. You can read testimonials of many such children in a newly released anthology by Robert Oscar Lopez and Rivka Edelman, “Jephthah’s Daughters: Innocent Casualties in the War for Family ‘Equality]

Except that they are alright. Anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all:

In a project launched last month, a team I direct at Columbia Law School has collected on one website the abstracts of all peer-reviewed studies that have addressed this question since 1980 so that anyone can examine the research directly, and not rely on talking heads or potential groupthink. Even when we might not agree with a study’s conclusions—with how a researcher interpreted the data—we still included it if it went through peer review and was relevant to the topic at hand. Peer review, of course, isn’t perfect, but it’s one of the best ways the world has to ensure that research conclusions are at least the product of good-faith efforts to get at the truth.

The Columbia project is the largest collection of peer-reviewed scholarship on gay parenting to date. What does it show? We found 71 studies concluding that kids with gay parents fare no worse than others and only four concluding that they had problems. But those four studies all suffered from the same gross limitation: The children with gay parents were lumped in with children of family breakup, a cohort known to face higher risks linked to the trauma of family dissolution.


Even the notion that you try to put forth that there are no good studies is wrong...the studies, while not perfect do give us a very good idea on the conclusions and that is that gay homes are not better nor worse.

Here is a link to all the studies
http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/


I should add, the consensus that kids in gay homes do just as well as kids in straight homes is recognized
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting

And there are many, many children in the care of gay people and that is not because of marriage. They would be there regardless. Marriage can only help them provide a stable and secure home. To claim that you are against marriage to save the children is the height of hypocrisy and stupidity.

That is as much time as I’m going to waist for now. There may be more later

 

[Syriusly]

Well you are welcome to your opinion- but there is absolutely no evidence to support that opinion. Gays have been marrying in Massachusetts for over 10 years- and yet still sisters and brothers are not getting legally married. Incestuous marriage is a completely different issue- as different as gay marriage was from mixed race marriage- each has to be argued on its own merits.

What it boils down to is this: marriage is a right- repeatedly confirmed by the Supreme Court. States can deny that right- but only if the State can provide a demonstrable justification for denying the right. So far states have not been able to make an argument as to how denying same gender couples their marriage right serves some legitimate state interest.

You have to look at it from the opposite end, that in Loving, it was just race that was ruled a no go as a ban from marriage, the definition of marriage was not changed. Here is a radical change, and even Kennedy and Breyer noted it as such.

Sorry, wrong. In both cases the definition is being changed. Prior to Loving, it was defined as being between two people of the same race. Until now, it was defined as between two people of the opposite gender. In any case, it just semantics. The fact is that the states have failed pathetically to come up with a compelling government interest or even a rational basis to deny marriage equality. It is about to be OVER

The ruling is not surprising. I would think the will of the governed would be enough of a reason but no once again activism wins which really is no surprise. Personally I could care less it is just a talking point.

63% want it, so the will of the governed is enforced by SCOTUS against the will of the wicked.

I do believe the majority, if not all, of the referendums where the people were asked said NO. Even in California. Yes, you can say the polls say anything you want both sides do it. But when the tire hit the road, gay marriage lost. Doesn't matter anymore any way, the deed is done.

The last 4 times voters were asked about same gender marriage, the voters said yes.

But that is rather immaterial since same gender couples have the same right to marriage as my wife and I enjoy.

 

[Syriusly]

Contact your Congress Representatives AND demand they get behind this.
p

You have every right to petition your representatives for whatever bigotry you want.

 

[HenryBHough]

OK, now on to the next step.

Outlawing heterosexual marriage for a number of years equal to the number of years in which homosexual marriage was not allowed.

That, coupled with the liberal sport of abortion oughta fix the whole "human caused:" whatever problem!

 

[Freewill]

You have to look at it from the opposite end, that in Loving, it was just race that was ruled a no go as a ban from marriage, the definition of marriage was not changed. Here is a radical change, and even Kennedy and Breyer noted it as such.

Sorry, wrong. In both cases the definition is being changed. Prior to Loving, it was defined as being between two people of the same race. Until now, it was defined as between two people of the opposite gender. In any case, it just semantics. The fact is that the states have failed pathetically to come up with a compelling government interest or even a rational basis to deny marriage equality. It is about to be OVER

The ruling is not surprising. I would think the will of the governed would be enough of a reason but no once again activism wins which really is no surprise. Personally I could care less it is just a talking point.

63% want it, so the will of the governed is enforced by SCOTUS against the will of the wicked.

I do believe the majority, if not all, of the referendums where the people were asked said NO. Even in California. Yes, you can say the polls say anything you want both sides do it. But when the tire hit the road, gay marriage lost. Doesn't matter anymore any way, the deed is done.

The last 4 times voters were asked about same gender marriage, the voters said yes.

But that is rather immaterial since same gender couples have the same right to marriage as my wife and I enjoy.

Then why did there need to be a SCOTUS decision?

 

[Syriusly]

Sorry, wrong. In both cases the definition is being changed. Prior to Loving, it was defined as being between two people of the same race. Until now, it was defined as between two people of the opposite gender. In any case, it just semantics. The fact is that the states have failed pathetically to come up with a compelling government interest or even a rational basis to deny marriage equality. It is about to be OVER

The ruling is not surprising. I would think the will of the governed would be enough of a reason but no once again activism wins which really is no surprise. Personally I could care less it is just a talking point.

63% want it, so the will of the governed is enforced by SCOTUS against the will of the wicked.

I do believe the majority, if not all, of the referendums where the people were asked said NO. Even in California. Yes, you can say the polls say anything you want both sides do it. But when the tire hit the road, gay marriage lost. Doesn't matter anymore any way, the deed is done.

The last 4 times voters were asked about same gender marriage, the voters said yes.

But that is rather immaterial since same gender couples have the same right to marriage as my wife and I enjoy.

Then why did there need to be a SCOTUS decision?

Because one Appeals court did not agree with the other Appeals courts and did not agree that same gender couples have a right to marriage.

The Supreme Court resolved that dispute- affirming that the other Appeals courts were correct.