Maybe the SCOTUS is about to connect some more dots!

[hadit]

Who the **** are YOU to decide who can and cannot be married. Don't give me "God's Law" shit either. We are a secular nation. You do have any right to decide how other's live their own private lives. It does not matter that brain dead homophobic butt wad full of hate. Which is what you are.

That's quite simple to resolve. Simply allow the state to license and perform whatever secular procedure it wants to in order to grant a couple specific privileges for signing a contract to live as a couple and the Church takes its definition of marriage out of the picture. The state can then legalize any combination it wants to and the Church doesn't have to recognize any of it. Just to keep things separate, the state should not call it a marriage.

 

[Orangecat]

One more time, YOU don't get to decide who can and cannot marry. It is NOT up to you or anyone else. You choose hate. Which is NOT pro-life.

Let it go, drama queen.

 

[Couchpotato]

Agreed, which is what Obergfell should have been limited to.

If I had to guess if Obegfell is overturned and they dont write that into the decision another case will be brought before the court and that's the rulling they will make. Either that or Congres will pass a federal law. Which would be the preferred method. frankly.

 

[Couchpotato]

One more time, YOU don't get to decide who can and cannot marry. It is NOT up to you or anyone else. You choose hate. Which is NOT pro-life.

Where did you get that idea that the state doesnt get to decide who can and can not get married?

 

[martybegan]

If I had to guess if Obegfell is overturned and they dont write that into the decision another case will be brought before the court and that's the rulling they will make. Either that or Congres will pass a federal law. Which would be the preferred method. frankly.

I doubt Obergfell will be overturned. It isn't as egregious as ones like Roe, Plessey, or Chevron, and I think our political capital is best spent elsewhere.

Obergfell was bad due to be excessive, not due to the question at hand.

 

[Couchpotato]

I doubt Obergfell will be overturned. It isn't as egregious as ones like Roe, Plessey, or Chevron, and I think our political capital is best spent elsewhere.

Obergfell was bad due to be excessive, not due to the question at hand.

3 of the current justics on the court voted against it last time. Roberts, Thomas, Alito.. 2 for Kagen, Sotomayor. Assuming no one changes their minds on the case.

Uphold

Kagen
Sotomayor
Brown-Jackson

Overturn
Thomas
Alito
Roberts

That leaves Barrett, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

Do you think 2 of the 3 are going to vote to uphold? I dont. Now they may not take up that portion of the case but that's the only way it's not overturned and sent back to the states.

Best case scenario is they take up the case, over turn and send it back to the states, but stipulate that states can legally decide to limit marriage however they see fit but have to either recognize all out of state marriages or none of them.

 

[Couchpotato]

Obergfell was bad due to be excessive, not due to the question at hand.

I dont disagree, That said the court isn't the vehicle to make those societal calls.

 

[80zephyr]

They have taxes and insurance benefits for spouses

Which is right since they have families to protect.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Supreme Court Faces Decision on Case Urging Overturn of Same-Sex Marriage​

Today at nullToday at null; Supreme Court faces decision on case urging overturn of same-sex marriage

"The U.S. Supreme Court is facing a choice about whether to take up a case filed by former Kentucky clerk Kim Davis urging the overturn its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark case that guaranteed the right to same-sex marriage nationwide."

I hope the SCOTUS takes this case and (just as the SCOTUS did in Dobbs) kicks it back to the individual States to decide for themself what they will and will not recognize as a "marriage."

If it's Constitutional for "personhood" to vary State by State, why not a legal construct like "marriage" too?

Can't out anything past this corrupt court. There are few rules of ethics and jurisprudence that they have not already violated.

 

[Chuz Life]

Can't out anything past this corrupt court. There are few rules of ethics and jurisprudence that they have not already violated.

They aren't necessarily "corrupt" just because they reach a different conclusion. Especially along party lines. Now if you see a key justice jump party lines (yeah I know they are supposed to be apolitical but we all see it.) and we find out that justice was bribed. . . that is corruption. If it were anything like what you are suggesting, where are the calls for impeachment?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

irrelevant. Using this logic polygamy, marriage between siblings, mother and son should all be legal.

Also irrelvant.

It is your words that are irrelevant, as well as illogical. Obviously, you have no idea what the logic of polygamy or gay marriage is . The fact is that you are resorting to a logical fallacy known as a false equivalency which you must do because you have no actual argument based on logic.

If you had read the majority opinion in Obergefell you would know that the decision was based on the fact that same sex couples are….in the words of the court…”similarly situated” in relation to opposite sex couples. In other words, the only difference is their respective genders and therefor to exclude them from marriage is discriminatory

It cannot be said that those wishing to have multiple wives or marry a parent, offspring, or sibling is similarly situated to anyone because there is no one in our society who is allowed to engage in those practices.

At the end of the day, most Federal courts as well as SCOTUS remained unconvinced that there was any compelling or societal interest in barring same sex couples from marriage , recognizing the fact that it is just two people -unrelated consenting adults -which does not impact that nature of marriage in any significant way.

On the other hand, marriage to multiple spouses or close relatives will encounter a myriad of different social, legal, and cultural issues that are not applicable to simple same sex marriage. But if you want to try to make the case that marrying multiple people, or you sibling, or parent or your dog is no different than gay marriage, you are more than welcome to try. Meanwhile, spare the half-baked inane horseshit

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They aren't necessarily "corrupt" just because they reach a different conclusion.

Correct. They are corrupt because several of them intentionally deceived Congress and the American public in their confirmation hearings.

They are corrupt because they do not observe ethics guidelines and clearly take bribes.

They are corrupt because they happily violate the principle of Stare Decisis, in order to both please their political patrons and to cater to their personal religious fetishes.

They are corrupt because they are redefining executive power to allow it to be wielded corrupt with impunity.

So there is every reason to suspect they may take up a case they should not touch just to please their political patrons and their magical sky daddy patron.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The people decide what's in the state constitution. Over thirty states have already defined marriage through constitutional amendments. Not sure how you don't get this. If marriage is a state issue, the states must define it themselves, end of story, that falls well within equal application, same as concealed carry or abortion.

Marriage is a state issue

Equal protection under the law is a federal issue

So easy even a bigot can understand it

 

[Rogue AI]

Marriage is a state issue

Equal protection under the law is a federal issue

So easy even a bigot can understand it

Like concealed carry? Reconcile that first. The right to bear arms is actually in the Constitution, marriage is not.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Like concealed carry? Reconcile that first. The right to bear arms is actually in the Constitution, marriage is not.

Read the Constitution

Read the majority opinion
Connect the dots

Marriage is not in the constitution, but heterosexuals who are of age have always seen it as a right and it has always been treated as such by the government

There are numerous un-enumerated rights in the constitution that you take for granted every day, Rights that are fundamental rights but not explicitly listed in the U.S. Constitution but recognized as protected under the Ninth Amendment. Examples include the right to privacy, the right to travel, and the right to make personal decisions about one's health

Any more "gotcha" questions??

[td]

​

[/td]​

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Marriage is a state issue

The right to marriage is a protected, constitutional right.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Like concealed carry? Reconcile that first. The right to bear arms is actually in the Constitution, marriage is not.

Are you saying rights have to be enumerated in the Constitution to be held by the people?

WW

 

[Couchpotato]

Are you saying rights have to be enumerated in the Constitution to be held by the people?

WW

Are you saying marriage is a right?

 

[Chuz Life]

Correct. They are corrupt because several of them intentionally deceived Congress and the American public in their confirmation hearings.

They are corrupt because they do not observe ethics guidelines and clearly take bribes.

They are corrupt because they happily violate the principle of Stare Decisis, in order to both please their political patrons and to cater to their personal religious fetishes.

They are corrupt because they are redefining executive power to allow it to be wielded corrupt with impunity.

So there is every reason to suspect they may take up a case they should not touch just to please their political patrons and their magical sky daddy patron.

We can agree that the SCOTUS would be in the wrong to push a religious view.

That said, I think there are other CONSTITUTIONAL reasons to kick it back to the States, just as they did with Roe.

 

[Chuz Life]

The right to marriage is a protected, constitutional right.

Define personhood. . . .

Whoopsie.

I mean 'marriage'

Define marriage.