Ex-Judge Roy Moore Files Supreme Court Brief to Urge End to Marriage Equality

[Bob Blaylock]

You people are beyond bizarre. I have nothing more to say to you.

Says the degenerate freak who openly sides with bizarre and dangerous sexual perverts.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Lost an excellent preacher because he would not let a gay couple join the Church. Church politics. It eventually cause the Church to split. IMHO it was not worth keeping them in the Church.

Whatever church that was, it sure sounds like time for you to leave it and find another—one that holds to God's standards, and doesn't betray them in order to pander to worldly evil.

Paul warns of us this in 2 Timothy 4:3, of ministers and churches who will preach the lies that their audience wants to hear, rather than the truth that they need to hear.

 

[JoeMoma]

Gay marriage does create a slippery slope. Now that gay marriage is the law, should two gay adult brothers or two gay adult sisters be able to marry? To be consistent, the answer should be yes! They are not going to make babies together, so recessive genes and birth defects are not an issue. Should two same sex siblings not have thew right to marry simply because others consider it immoral?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Gay marriage does create a slippery slope. Now that gay marriage is the law, should two gay adult brothers or two gay adult sisters be able to marry? To be consistent, the answer should be yes! They are not going to make babies together, so recessive genes and birth defects are not an issue. Should two same sex siblings not have thew right to marry simply because others consider it immoral?

OK, maybe they should be able to marry. But that does not mean that same sex marriage as we now know it creates a slippery slop to sibling marriage or anything else.

A central concept of marriage is the creation of a new family unit. Obviously that would not be the case with sibling marriage.

In addition, there would be different social issues to consider, and perhaps different legal implications. In short, it would be a separate issue. If there are siblings out there -same sex or not- who want to marry, they can attempt to make the case for through their legislative representatives, or the courts as gays have done. It would be incumbent upon the state to show that there is a compelling government interest in continuing to ban sibling marriage- something that the states failed to do with same sex marriage.

In conclusion, your attempt at an appeal to hypocrisy fails

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Lost an excellent preacher because he would not let a gay couple join the Church. Church politics. It eventually cause the Church to split. IMHO it was not worth keeping them in the Church.

Many churches have split over the issue. The Bible said it would be this way.

 

[JoeMoma]

Gay marriage does create a slippery slope. Now that gay marriage is the law, should two gay adult brothers or two gay adult sisters be able to marry? To be consistent, the answer should be yes! They are not going to make babies together, so recessive genes and birth defects are not an issue. Should two same sex siblings not have thew right to marry simply because others consider it immoral?

OK, maybe they should be able to marry. But that does not mean that same sex marriage as we now know it creates a slippery slop to sibling marriage or anything else.

A central concept of marriage is the creation of a new family unit. Obviously that would not be the case with sibling marriage.

In addition, there would be different social issues to consider, and perhaps different legal implications. In short, it would be a separate issue. If there are siblings out there -same sex or not- who want to marry, they can attempt to make the case for through their legislative representatives, or the courts as gays have done. It would be incumbent upon the state to show that there is a compelling government interest in continuing to ban sibling marriage- something that the states failed to do with same sex marriage.

In conclusion, your attempt at an appeal to hypocrisy fails

No it doesn't fail. The exact same arguments that resulted in the courts approval of same sex marriage apply. The 14th amendment applies.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Gay marriage does create a slippery slope. Now that gay marriage is the law, should two gay adult brothers or two gay adult sisters be able to marry? To be consistent, the answer should be yes! They are not going to make babies together, so recessive genes and birth defects are not an issue. Should two same sex siblings not have thew right to marry simply because others consider it immoral?

OK, maybe they should be able to marry. But that does not mean that same sex marriage as we now know it creates a slippery slop to sibling marriage or anything else.

A central concept of marriage is the creation of a new family unit. Obviously that would not be the case with sibling marriage.

In addition, there would be different social issues to consider, and perhaps different legal implications. In short, it would be a separate issue. If there are siblings out there -same sex or not- who want to marry, they can attempt to make the case for through their legislative representatives, or the courts as gays have done. It would be incumbent upon the state to show that there is a compelling government interest in continuing to ban sibling marriage- something that the states failed to do with same sex marriage.

In conclusion, your attempt at an appeal to hypocrisy fails

No it doesn't fail. The exact same arguments that resulted in the courts approval of same sex marriage apply. The 14th amendment applies.

Dude, In writing for the majority in Obergefell v. Hodges, Justice Kennedy made it clear that same sex couples would have the same rights as opposite sex couples in accordance with their respective state laws. No state allows opposite sex siblings to marry and therefore no state is obligated to alllow same sex siblings to marry.

Furthermore, the opinion determined that same sex couples were "similarly situated with respect to opposite sex couples and therefore, bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and discriminatory . Same sex siblings have no such argument

Again it is a different matter. Anyone who wants to marry their sibling, or their mother, their gun or a zoo animal is free to pursue the right to do so through the legislative or judicial process based on the merits of that particular issue.

In Obergefell, and most of the cases leading up to it, the states were unable to prove that there was a compelling government interest, or even a rational bases for bans on same sex marriage. They may or may not be able to do so in the case of sibling marige.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Gay marriage does create a slippery slope. Now that gay marriage is the law, should two gay adult brothers or two gay adult sisters be able to marry? To be consistent, the answer should be yes! They are not going to make babies together, so recessive genes and birth defects are not an issue. Should two same sex siblings not have thew right to marry simply because others consider it immoral?

OK, maybe they should be able to marry. But that does not mean that same sex marriage as we now know it creates a slippery slop to sibling marriage or anything else.

A central concept of marriage is the creation of a new family unit. Obviously that would not be the case with sibling marriage.

In addition, there would be different social issues to consider, and perhaps different legal implications. In short, it would be a separate issue. If there are siblings out there -same sex or not- who want to marry, they can attempt to make the case for through their legislative representatives, or the courts as gays have done. It would be incumbent upon the state to show that there is a compelling government interest in continuing to ban sibling marriage- something that the states failed to do with same sex marriage.

In conclusion, your attempt at an appeal to hypocrisy fails

No it doesn't fail. The exact same arguments that resulted in the courts approval of same sex marriage apply. The 14th amendment applies.

PS: It would be more accurate to say that the court disapproved of bans on same sex marriage because they were discriminatory. Band on same sex sibling marriage are not discriminatory because opposite sex siblings can't marry either. If someone were to bring a case for siblings to marry, it would make more sense for it to include all siblings, same or opposite sex. They could then try to claim that they are discriminated against in relation to non -siblings

 

[JoeMoma]

Gay marriage does create a slippery slope. Now that gay marriage is the law, should two gay adult brothers or two gay adult sisters be able to marry? To be consistent, the answer should be yes! They are not going to make babies together, so recessive genes and birth defects are not an issue. Should two same sex siblings not have thew right to marry simply because others consider it immoral?

OK, maybe they should be able to marry. But that does not mean that same sex marriage as we now know it creates a slippery slop to sibling marriage or anything else.

A central concept of marriage is the creation of a new family unit. Obviously that would not be the case with sibling marriage.

In addition, there would be different social issues to consider, and perhaps different legal implications. In short, it would be a separate issue. If there are siblings out there -same sex or not- who want to marry, they can attempt to make the case for through their legislative representatives, or the courts as gays have done. It would be incumbent upon the state to show that there is a compelling government interest in continuing to ban sibling marriage- something that the states failed to do with same sex marriage.

In conclusion, your attempt at an appeal to hypocrisy fails

No it doesn't fail. The exact same arguments that resulted in the courts approval of same sex marriage apply. The 14th amendment applies.

PS: It would be more accurate to say that the court disapproved of bans on same sex marriage because they were discriminatory. Band on same sex sibling marriage are not discriminatory because opposite sex siblings can't marry either. If someone were to bring a case for siblings to marry, it would make more sense for it to include all siblings, same or opposite sex. They could then try to claim that they are discriminated against in relation to non -siblings

You don't get it, but that's okay.

Other than moral arguments, the danger to people that are closely related marrying is birth defects because of the pairing of recessive genes. Same sex couples don't mix their DNA to make babies. Thus the one DANGER of marriage between same sex sibling does not apply. Thus the only compelling reason for government to not allow same sex siblings to marry is that people think it is icky.

So, if a same sex sibling couple wanted to bring a case to the courts, they could use practically the same arguments that won same sex marriage.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Gay marriage does create a slippery slope. Now that gay marriage is the law, should two gay adult brothers or two gay adult sisters be able to marry? To be consistent, the answer should be yes! They are not going to make babies together, so recessive genes and birth defects are not an issue. Should two same sex siblings not have thew right to marry simply because others consider it immoral?

OK, maybe they should be able to marry. But that does not mean that same sex marriage as we now know it creates a slippery slop to sibling marriage or anything else.

A central concept of marriage is the creation of a new family unit. Obviously that would not be the case with sibling marriage.

In addition, there would be different social issues to consider, and perhaps different legal implications. In short, it would be a separate issue. If there are siblings out there -same sex or not- who want to marry, they can attempt to make the case for through their legislative representatives, or the courts as gays have done. It would be incumbent upon the state to show that there is a compelling government interest in continuing to ban sibling marriage- something that the states failed to do with same sex marriage.

In conclusion, your attempt at an appeal to hypocrisy fails

No it doesn't fail. The exact same arguments that resulted in the courts approval of same sex marriage apply. The 14th amendment applies.

PS: It would be more accurate to say that the court disapproved of bans on same sex marriage because they were discriminatory. Band on same sex sibling marriage are not discriminatory because opposite sex siblings can't marry either. If someone were to bring a case for siblings to marry, it would make more sense for it to include all siblings, same or opposite sex. They could then try to claim that they are discriminated against in relation to non -siblings

You don't get it, but that's okay.

Other than moral arguments, the danger to people that are closely related marrying is birth defects because of the pairing of recessive genes. Same sex couples don't mix their DNA to make babies. Thus the one DANGER of marriage between same sex sibling does not apply. Thus the only compelling reason for government to not allow same sex siblings to marry is that people think it is icky.

So, if a same sex sibling couple wanted to bring a case to the courts, they could use practically the same arguments that won same sex marriage.

You keep saying that but your not actually explaining how

I believe that you are the one who does not get it for the reasons that I explained. But, hey I don't have a dog in the fight and am not taken a position on the issue so I'm not going beat a dead horse. You, on the other hand seem to have a need to show that same sex marriage will have unintended consequences.

If you think that same sex siblings can make a case for being denied due process and equal protection under the law under as per the 14th amendment in the same manner that unrelated gays did, go for it.

 

[initforme]

As a lifelong practicing Christian I denounce Moore. He should ride off into the sunset. He's a kook.

 

[luchitociencia]

The Genie is out of the bottle......we are not going back on same sex marriage.

It is too widely accepted

I disagree.

By law you are OBLIGATED to tolerate same sex marriage, but this is not an indication straight people have accepted it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The Genie is out of the bottle......we are not going back on same sex marriage.

It is too widely accepted

I disagree.

By law you are OBLIGATED to tolerate same sex marriage, but this is not an indication straight people have accepted it.

Oh please! Get over it. It's not even a matter of acceptance any more. It has been 5 years since Obergefell and it has been legal in some states for much longer. The sky has not fallen.

It is part of the fabric of society. Few people even think about it anymore. It is only a few whining bigots and homophobes who are still clutching their pearls and ruminating over it.

 

[luchitociencia]

Oh please! Get over it. It's not even a matter of acceptance any more. It has been 5 years since Obergefell and it has been legal in some states for much longer. The sky has not fallen.

It is part of the fabric of society. Few people even think about it anymore. It is only a few whining bigots and homophobes who are still clutching their pearls and ruminating over it.

Do not confuse "refuse" with "fear".

Straight people feel no fear to homosexuality but refuse.

If you were a man acting like a sissy, talking like a little girl, don't think others will "accept you". Of course in front of you they will act normally, but they will laugh and make jokes of you on your back.

You will live believing people are accepting you, but even your best straight friends are laughing of you.

This is the crude reality you can't see.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

This is sickening, disgusting and heart breaking ! There is something seriously wrong with people who think that they have the right to control the lives of other people in the name of their distorted and bastardized version of religious liberty.

Same sex marriage has been the law of the land since June of 2015. Five years. Same sex couples have actually been getting married much longer than that in some states. Society has not been undermined and the institution of marriage has not been destroyed. In fact, in my estimation, is stronger when there is inclusion and the base is broadened.

Furthermore, it is not even an issue for the vast majority of Americans. These same sex couple have just become part of the social fabric and are an integral part of the community like everyone else. They work, they pay taxes, they volunteer, the maintain homes and establish families. And now they and their children can enjoy the same legal protections , financial advantages and social status as the rest of us take for granted.

And what will happen if Obergefell is overturned. No doubt some states- and we could pretty much name then- would halt such weddings. But it is unknown if they would, or could void the marriages that have taken place already. Straight people should consider how they would feel if their marriage was somehow annulled for some bogus religious reason- such as not being married in a church. They should think about how their lives would be upended by a cascade of legal and financial issues thrown at them.

It is clear to me that people like Davis and Moore have serious problems and suffer from something bordering on a religious psychosis. They have absolutely no compassion or empathy for the people who would be devastated by this.

I can think of no time in the history of this nation that a right was established and then revoked. It would truly be a dark day in America if such a thing were to happen . My only hope is that John Roberts, a conservative to be sure- but one who is also concerned about his legacy, and that of his court-would not let this happen.

Ex-Judge Roy Moore Files Supreme Court Brief to Urge End to Equal Marriage

"The Foundation believes that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right to same-sex marriage," the briefing said.

www.newsweek.com

When Obergefell v. Hodges was decided in 2015, Moore ordered Alabama judges to ignore the ruling. Moore was suspended for that action.

Same-sex marriage was legalized in 2015 by the Supreme Court's decision in the Obergefell v. Hodges case in which justices found that the Fourteenth Amendment protects both opposite-sex and same-sex marriage.

"The Foundation has an interest in this case because it believes that religious liberty is the foremost gift of God," the briefing read, "and Kim Davis was deprived of her religious liberty because of this Court's decision in Obergefell."

"In addition, the Foundation believes that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right to same-sex marriage," the briefing continued.

so the mentally ill that dont like a government telling them who they can marry want that same government to say who they can marry,,,


wouldnt it be better to just get the government out of marriage???

Ding! Ding! We have the correct answer.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Oh please! Get over it. It's not even a matter of acceptance any more. It has been 5 years since Obergefell and it has been legal in some states for much longer. The sky has not fallen.

It is part of the fabric of society. Few people even think about it anymore. It is only a few whining bigots and homophobes who are still clutching their pearls and ruminating over it.

Do not confuse "refuse" with "fear".

Straight people feel no fear to homosexuality but refuse.

If you were a man acting like a sissy, talking like a little girl, don't think others will "accept you". Of course in front of you they will act normally, but they will laugh and make jokes of you on your back.

You will live believing people are accepting you, but even your best straight friends are laughing of you.

This is the crude reality you can't see.

You have no idea what you are talking about, or who you are talking to. And you do not speak for all, or even most straight people

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

This is sickening, disgusting and heart breaking ! There is something seriously wrong with people who think that they have the right to control the lives of other people in the name of their distorted and bastardized version of religious liberty.

Same sex marriage has been the law of the land since June of 2015. Five years. Same sex couples have actually been getting married much longer than that in some states. Society has not been undermined and the institution of marriage has not been destroyed. In fact, in my estimation, is stronger when there is inclusion and the base is broadened.

Furthermore, it is not even an issue for the vast majority of Americans. These same sex couple have just become part of the social fabric and are an integral part of the community like everyone else. They work, they pay taxes, they volunteer, the maintain homes and establish families. And now they and their children can enjoy the same legal protections , financial advantages and social status as the rest of us take for granted.

And what will happen if Obergefell is overturned. No doubt some states- and we could pretty much name then- would halt such weddings. But it is unknown if they would, or could void the marriages that have taken place already. Straight people should consider how they would feel if their marriage was somehow annulled for some bogus religious reason- such as not being married in a church. They should think about how their lives would be upended by a cascade of legal and financial issues thrown at them.

It is clear to me that people like Davis and Moore have serious problems and suffer from something bordering on a religious psychosis. They have absolutely no compassion or empathy for the people who would be devastated by this.

I can think of no time in the history of this nation that a right was established and then revoked. It would truly be a dark day in America if such a thing were to happen . My only hope is that John Roberts, a conservative to be sure- but one who is also concerned about his legacy, and that of his court-would not let this happen.

Ex-Judge Roy Moore Files Supreme Court Brief to Urge End to Equal Marriage

"The Foundation believes that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right to same-sex marriage," the briefing said.

www.newsweek.com

When Obergefell v. Hodges was decided in 2015, Moore ordered Alabama judges to ignore the ruling. Moore was suspended for that action.

Same-sex marriage was legalized in 2015 by the Supreme Court's decision in the Obergefell v. Hodges case in which justices found that the Fourteenth Amendment protects both opposite-sex and same-sex marriage.

"The Foundation has an interest in this case because it believes that religious liberty is the foremost gift of God," the briefing read, "and Kim Davis was deprived of her religious liberty because of this Court's decision in Obergefell."

"In addition, the Foundation believes that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right to same-sex marriage," the briefing continued.

so the mentally ill that dont like a government telling them who they can marry want that same government to say who they can marry,,,


wouldnt it be better to just get the government out of marriage???

Would you care to explain what that would actually look like in the real world?

 

[progressive hunter]

This is sickening, disgusting and heart breaking ! There is something seriously wrong with people who think that they have the right to control the lives of other people in the name of their distorted and bastardized version of religious liberty.

Same sex marriage has been the law of the land since June of 2015. Five years. Same sex couples have actually been getting married much longer than that in some states. Society has not been undermined and the institution of marriage has not been destroyed. In fact, in my estimation, is stronger when there is inclusion and the base is broadened.

Furthermore, it is not even an issue for the vast majority of Americans. These same sex couple have just become part of the social fabric and are an integral part of the community like everyone else. They work, they pay taxes, they volunteer, the maintain homes and establish families. And now they and their children can enjoy the same legal protections , financial advantages and social status as the rest of us take for granted.

And what will happen if Obergefell is overturned. No doubt some states- and we could pretty much name then- would halt such weddings. But it is unknown if they would, or could void the marriages that have taken place already. Straight people should consider how they would feel if their marriage was somehow annulled for some bogus religious reason- such as not being married in a church. They should think about how their lives would be upended by a cascade of legal and financial issues thrown at them.

It is clear to me that people like Davis and Moore have serious problems and suffer from something bordering on a religious psychosis. They have absolutely no compassion or empathy for the people who would be devastated by this.

I can think of no time in the history of this nation that a right was established and then revoked. It would truly be a dark day in America if such a thing were to happen . My only hope is that John Roberts, a conservative to be sure- but one who is also concerned about his legacy, and that of his court-would not let this happen.

Ex-Judge Roy Moore Files Supreme Court Brief to Urge End to Equal Marriage

"The Foundation believes that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right to same-sex marriage," the briefing said.

www.newsweek.com

When Obergefell v. Hodges was decided in 2015, Moore ordered Alabama judges to ignore the ruling. Moore was suspended for that action.

Same-sex marriage was legalized in 2015 by the Supreme Court's decision in the Obergefell v. Hodges case in which justices found that the Fourteenth Amendment protects both opposite-sex and same-sex marriage.

"The Foundation has an interest in this case because it believes that religious liberty is the foremost gift of God," the briefing read, "and Kim Davis was deprived of her religious liberty because of this Court's decision in Obergefell."

"In addition, the Foundation believes that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right to same-sex marriage," the briefing continued.

so the mentally ill that dont like a government telling them who they can marry want that same government to say who they can marry,,,


wouldnt it be better to just get the government out of marriage???

Would you care to explain what that would actually look like in the real world?

if you wanted to get married you go to a church of your choosing and get married,,,case closed,,,

or you could always go out into nature and profess your communion and end it there,,

marriage is between the two getting married and nobody elses business,,,

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

This is sickening, disgusting and heart breaking ! There is something seriously wrong with people who think that they have the right to control the lives of other people in the name of their distorted and bastardized version of religious liberty.

Same sex marriage has been the law of the land since June of 2015. Five years. Same sex couples have actually been getting married much longer than that in some states. Society has not been undermined and the institution of marriage has not been destroyed. In fact, in my estimation, is stronger when there is inclusion and the base is broadened.

Furthermore, it is not even an issue for the vast majority of Americans. These same sex couple have just become part of the social fabric and are an integral part of the community like everyone else. They work, they pay taxes, they volunteer, the maintain homes and establish families. And now they and their children can enjoy the same legal protections , financial advantages and social status as the rest of us take for granted.

And what will happen if Obergefell is overturned. No doubt some states- and we could pretty much name then- would halt such weddings. But it is unknown if they would, or could void the marriages that have taken place already. Straight people should consider how they would feel if their marriage was somehow annulled for some bogus religious reason- such as not being married in a church. They should think about how their lives would be upended by a cascade of legal and financial issues thrown at them.

It is clear to me that people like Davis and Moore have serious problems and suffer from something bordering on a religious psychosis. They have absolutely no compassion or empathy for the people who would be devastated by this.

I can think of no time in the history of this nation that a right was established and then revoked. It would truly be a dark day in America if such a thing were to happen . My only hope is that John Roberts, a conservative to be sure- but one who is also concerned about his legacy, and that of his court-would not let this happen.

Ex-Judge Roy Moore Files Supreme Court Brief to Urge End to Equal Marriage

"The Foundation believes that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right to same-sex marriage," the briefing said.

www.newsweek.com

When Obergefell v. Hodges was decided in 2015, Moore ordered Alabama judges to ignore the ruling. Moore was suspended for that action.

Same-sex marriage was legalized in 2015 by the Supreme Court's decision in the Obergefell v. Hodges case in which justices found that the Fourteenth Amendment protects both opposite-sex and same-sex marriage.

"The Foundation has an interest in this case because it believes that religious liberty is the foremost gift of God," the briefing read, "and Kim Davis was deprived of her religious liberty because of this Court's decision in Obergefell."

"In addition, the Foundation believes that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right to same-sex marriage," the briefing continued.

so the mentally ill that dont like a government telling them who they can marry want that same government to say who they can marry,,,


wouldnt it be better to just get the government out of marriage???

Would you care to explain what that would actually look like in the real world?

if you wanted to get married you go to a church of your choosing and get married,,,case closed,,,

or you could always go out into nature and profess your communion and end it there,,

marriage is between the two getting married and nobody elses business,,,

Brilliant! Now you just have to figure out how you will sell that I idea to the millions of people who would loose all of the financial benefits and legal protection that now go with marriage.

If it aint broken it don't need to be fixed. We are not going to throw the baby out with the bath water. Speaking of babies, how do you think that your scheme would effect parenthood?

 

[progressive hunter]

This is sickening, disgusting and heart breaking ! There is something seriously wrong with people who think that they have the right to control the lives of other people in the name of their distorted and bastardized version of religious liberty.

Same sex marriage has been the law of the land since June of 2015. Five years. Same sex couples have actually been getting married much longer than that in some states. Society has not been undermined and the institution of marriage has not been destroyed. In fact, in my estimation, is stronger when there is inclusion and the base is broadened.

Furthermore, it is not even an issue for the vast majority of Americans. These same sex couple have just become part of the social fabric and are an integral part of the community like everyone else. They work, they pay taxes, they volunteer, the maintain homes and establish families. And now they and their children can enjoy the same legal protections , financial advantages and social status as the rest of us take for granted.

And what will happen if Obergefell is overturned. No doubt some states- and we could pretty much name then- would halt such weddings. But it is unknown if they would, or could void the marriages that have taken place already. Straight people should consider how they would feel if their marriage was somehow annulled for some bogus religious reason- such as not being married in a church. They should think about how their lives would be upended by a cascade of legal and financial issues thrown at them.

It is clear to me that people like Davis and Moore have serious problems and suffer from something bordering on a religious psychosis. They have absolutely no compassion or empathy for the people who would be devastated by this.

I can think of no time in the history of this nation that a right was established and then revoked. It would truly be a dark day in America if such a thing were to happen . My only hope is that John Roberts, a conservative to be sure- but one who is also concerned about his legacy, and that of his court-would not let this happen.

Ex-Judge Roy Moore Files Supreme Court Brief to Urge End to Equal Marriage

"The Foundation believes that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right to same-sex marriage," the briefing said.

www.newsweek.com

When Obergefell v. Hodges was decided in 2015, Moore ordered Alabama judges to ignore the ruling. Moore was suspended for that action.

Same-sex marriage was legalized in 2015 by the Supreme Court's decision in the Obergefell v. Hodges case in which justices found that the Fourteenth Amendment protects both opposite-sex and same-sex marriage.

"The Foundation has an interest in this case because it believes that religious liberty is the foremost gift of God," the briefing read, "and Kim Davis was deprived of her religious liberty because of this Court's decision in Obergefell."

"In addition, the Foundation believes that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right to same-sex marriage," the briefing continued.

so the mentally ill that dont like a government telling them who they can marry want that same government to say who they can marry,,,


wouldnt it be better to just get the government out of marriage???

Would you care to explain what that would actually look like in the real world?

if you wanted to get married you go to a church of your choosing and get married,,,case closed,,,

or you could always go out into nature and profess your communion and end it there,,

marriage is between the two getting married and nobody elses business,,,

Brilliant! Now you just have to figure out how you will sell that I idea to the millions of people who would loose all of the financial benefits and legal protection that now go with marriage.

If it aint broken it don't need to be fixed. We are not going to throw the baby out with the bath water. Speaking of babies, how do you think that your scheme would effect parenthood?

so its all about the money to you,,,figures it would be something greedy,,,