Next on the Chopping Block - Same Sex Marriage

[Damaged Eagle]

I find it interesting that it is completely legal for a man/woman to marry but same sex marriage should be considered illegal by many which is illogical and contradictory since that is the business between two people who make the decision to share each other in life in a nation where everyone is supposed to be allowed the right to the pursuit of happiness.

I find it interesting that it is completely legal for a same sex couple to marry but other mature willing companions should be considered illegal by many which is illogical and contradictory since that is the business between two or more mature companions who make the decision to share each others in life in a nation where everyone is supposed to be allowed the right to the pursuit of happiness.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[night_son]

I know that but why do people think it is illegal when it is none of their freaking business!

Gay "marriage", which is not real marriage to begin with, is against human nature in all possible respects. Marriage as a sacred institution dates back tens of thousands of years . . . a union between a man and a woman. Thus, biologically, traditionally, biblically, morally and logically speaking same sex "marriage" has never been right or legal despite whatever the fucking supreme court had to say to the contrary. Justice Thomas is simply out to set the fifty thousand year old record straight. Further, on the contrary, who can legally marry who is everyone's business in a healthy society. Men and women marry for the prime purpose of perpetuating the fucking human race. Freak faggots adopt children made by straight couples as per their biological capability and imperative. Faggotry is simply someone's best stab at population control.

 

[task0778]

He can't remove anything from the constitution.

That wasn't what I was saying. They just ruled that abortion is not a constitutional right, and they can do the same thing for same sex marriage. No one removed anything from the Constitution, poor choice of words maybe.

I wish people would understand that things like abortion, same sex marriage, and contraceptives are just not in the purview of the Supreme Court because those things are not specified even remotely as constitutional rights in that document. And that is all that Alito and the rest of them said, there's NOTHING in our Constitution that allows the Supreme Court to rule as they did in Roe. They didn't say abortion is legal, and they didn't say it is illegal. What they did say is that it isn't in the Constitution and it isn't in any federal law, so it's actually none of our business to decide anything about it. AND they said that the Roe ruling was wrong and they overturned it purely for the reasons I listed. And they very well might say the same thing about same sex marriage.

 

[Flash]

God I hope so.

That would be sooooo satisfying to undo all those dumbass Libtard things the Court did in the last few years. They need to go back and also give the correct ruling on Obamacare. The Supreme Court really fucked it up last time.

 

[JoeMoma]

I know that but why do people think it is illegal when it is none of their freaking business!

Perhaps you should be asking why do people want it to be illegal (when it is none of their freaking business).

 

[JoeMoma]

I don't think SCOTUS will overturn same sex marriage because that horse has left the barn....the genie is out of the bottle.....Should I go on? Now that there are thousands of same sex marriages, not going to annul those marriages with a SCOTUS ruling.

 

[Coyote]

Not exactly. It's the same thing as abortion, Justice Thomas is only saying that same sex marriage is not a constitutional right, and if the US Congress cannot codify it into federal law then it falls to the states to do as they please. Same deal I think with contraceptives, Thomas is not going to make anything illegal but he is going to remove them as a constitutional right. Cuz it really isn't.

Is any marriage a Constitutional right?

 

[task0778]

Is any marriage a Constitutional right?

IMHO, no. I believe that the Constitution does not mention directly or indirectly anything to do with marriage, or abortion either. So, those social issues should reside at the state level, until the Constitution is amended or the US Congress legislates such matters. But not the Supreme Court, that is not their function.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Gay "marriage", which is not real marriage to begin with, is against human nature in all possible respects. Marriage as a sacred institution dates back tens of thousands of years . . . a union between a man and a woman. Thus, biologically, traditionally, biblically, morally and logically speaking same sex "marriage" has never been right or legal despite whatever the fucking supreme court had to say to the contrary. Justice Thomas is simply out to set the fifty thousand year old record straight. Further, on the contrary, who can legally marry who is everyone's business in a healthy society. Men and women marry for the prime purpose of perpetuating the fucking human race. Freak faggots adopt children made by straight couples as per their biological capability and imperative. Faggotry is simply someone's best stab at population control.

Marriage between a man and a woman isn't sacred because so many end up in divorce with attendant problems for years afterwards.

Homosexuality has existed for many thousands of years which means it will hang around to end of time it appears you will be unhappy for the rest of your life about it.

Thus, you work for the bedsheet inquisition to make sure there aren't two men under which would be hilarious since this is a SECULAR nation running on the idea YOU abhore the pursuit of happiness.

It is tragic when you want to make people unhappy because YOU don't like what they do well I don't like it either, but it isn't our freaking business!

 

[Coyote]

IMHO, no. I believe that the Constitution does not mention directly or indirectly anything to do with marriage, or abortion either. So, those social issues should reside at the state level, until the Constitution is amended or the US Congress legislates such matters. But not the Supreme Court, that is not their function.

Yet the Supreme Court stepped in on interracial marriage….

Marriage is a fundamental right, as is having children.

 

[Kosh]

No doubt SSM will be shot down SOON. Justice Thomas already talking about it.

MSN

www.msn.com

From the link:

Thomas agreed with the majority opinion’s statement, but said that the rulings in Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell relied on legal reasoning similar to the resolution of Friday’s abortion case — that it wasn’t protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment

 

[protectionist]

From the link:

Thomas agreed with the majority opinion’s statement, but said that the rulings in Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell relied on legal reasoning similar to the resolution of Friday’s abortion case — that it wasn’t protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment

Putting same sex marriage squarely on the chopping block.

 

[Canon Shooter]

and same sex marriage is mass insanity. Most people of all races agree with that.

I don't think so. I don't think too many people have a problem with same sex marriage and, when they do, it's almost exclusively borne from religious convictions...

 

[protectionist]

I don't think so. I don't think too many people have a problem with same sex marriage and, when they do, it's almost exclusively borne from religious convictions...

Everyone I know considers SSM to be totally nuts. I dont even know what their religions are, if they even have one.

 

[Kosh]

Putting same sex marriage squarely on the chopping block.

Then maybe things should be done via the Constitution than through rewriting the law at this level.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Everyone I know considers SSM to be totally nuts. I dont even know what their religions are, if they even have one.

Yeah, no one I know really gives a shit...

 

[protectionist]

Yeah, no one I know really gives a shit...

HA HA. I hear ya.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I am responding to this:

"No doubt SSM will be shot down SOON. Justice Thomas already talking about it.

Clarence Thomas says Supreme Court should reconsider rulings on gay marriage, contraception"

===

That is why I asked the question.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I don't think SCOTUS will overturn same sex marriage because that horse has left the barn....the genie is out of the bottle.....Should I go on? Now that there are thousands of same sex marriages, not going to annul those marriages with a SCOTUS ruling.

None of those marriages would be annulled. The matter would simply be sent back to the states to decide. States in which SSM is legal it would still be legal. In states where it was legal when the couple married, those marriages would still be legal. Even if no subsequent marriages were legal. Take it back to the Supreme Court to decide if all states had to recognize the legality of such marriage entered into in a state where it is legal. Bet they do. How about a destination wedding in Santa Barbara?

 

[task0778]

Yet the Supreme Court stepped in on interracial marriage….

Marriage is a fundamental right, as is having children.

I'll just say this: I believe that marriage is a fundamental right, whether it is same sex or not. But I will also say that the subject of marriage is nowhere found directly or indirectly in the Constitution, and as such the Court has to be very careful about declaring it to be a constitutional right. It is however a foundation factor in American society, indeed every society and as such IS a fundamental right and as such ought to be treated as a constitutional right. That being so, I do not see how any law that forbids same sex marriage can be allowed to stand in the face of the 14th Amendment, equal treatment before the law.

If Justice Thomas wants to review past court decisions regarding marriage, that's fine but I doubt that SSM will be overturned as a constitutional right even if it isn't specifically referred to in the Constitution. That's because the institution of marriage is in fact an integral part of American life and traditions and so is the requirement to equal treatment. IOW, I don't see how the court can say SSM should be treated any differently from traditional marriage if I may call it that. So, the Court may look at the issue again, but this time I suspect they will not declare that SSM isn't a constitutional right.

That said, the conferring of a constitutional right on a given issue ought not be up to 9 unelected people, if it is based on such flimsy logic as Roe was. I do not see any way in the world that a right to an abortion follows from a right to privacy, which itself is somewhat tenuous in itself. If the Court decides to look at future cases regarding SSM or contraceptives on the basis due process and the right to privacy, so be it. IMHO, it should fall to the US Congress to legislate such matters, including abortion, so that those issues are a matter of law without a Supreme Court ruling. Because otherwise it should fall to the states to decide for themselves, and that is exactly the way our system of gov't is supposed to work.