Next on the Chopping Block - Same Sex Marriage

[Zincwarrior]

The Obergefell decision in June 2015 invalidated these state constitutional amendments insofar as they prevented same-sex couples from marrying, even though the actual text of these amendments remain written into the state constitutions.

California put same sex marriage on the ballot. I voted against it. Same sex marriage was defeated. One gay judge overturned the will of the people.

I doubt that there will be an actual decision overturning obergefell. There should be.

Agreed. If it's overturned, it reverts to state law/ courts.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Agreed. If it's overturned, it reverts to state law/ courts.

As it should be. Creeping federalism should be stopped.

 

[hjmick]

You failed to answer the question, here it is again:

What makes same sex marriages illegal?

His abject fear of anything and anyone not like him.

 

[hjmick]

View attachment 662309

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*****

What other "other mature willing companions" coupling is considered illegal

 

[Faun]

One of the reasons that Democrat popularity with Hispanics (90% Catholic) is collapsing is because of abortion and LGBT. Most blacks are Christian, and they aren't too happy with Democrats lately either.
Abortion is mass murder, and same sex marriage is mass insanity. Most people of all races agree with that.

Democrats are losing Hispanics on culture - Washington Examiner

President Joe Biden isn’t very popular with Hispanic Americans.Although Biden won the majority of Hispanic voters in the 2020 presidential election, his approval rating with them is abysmal. It's just 26%, according to a newly released Quinnipiac poll. The poll also found that just 12% of...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Democrats are losing Hispanic voters: Why? Listen and learn

If Democratic party leadership doesn’t shake up its strategy and listen to Hispanic voters, they are in for a red November.

www.yahoo.com

LOLOLOLOL

Holy fuck, you're posting polling data again?? After YOU said polls are unreliable?

...the polls have not only been wrong in the recent past, they have been wrong by a lot.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Sad that you can't see the clear distinction between con-sent and the inability to con-sent...stay away from children and animals.

What part of mature don't you understand?

And if the old woman across the street loves her German Shepard seeing-eye dog and the dog loves her who are you to judge their relationship?

*****SMILE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

What other "other mature willing companions" coupling is considered illegal

What makes procreation a requirement for a marriage arrangement in your mind?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[hjmick]

View attachment 662553

What makes procreation a requirement for a marriage arrangement in your mind?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Nothing at all.

And Silverado is a great fucking western!

 

[Damaged Eagle]

All mature willing companions deserve the right to marry as they choose if we take this to it's logical conclusion and the supreme court justices have no choice but to agree or be considered bigoted.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[protectionist]

Maybe you should stop doing it then.

Maybe you are doing it - the thought came from you.

 

[protectionist]

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

As was stated in the previous post "No one is suggesting they are illegal."

And I think it IS the business of everyone in the country. It's a matter of what kind of a country do we want to have. One of sanity or one of INsanity ?

 

[protectionist]

According to your link Alito says that abortion is different from same-sex marriage because abortion involves the life or death of potential life.

I don't think he's going to get a positive outcome.

About 90% of Supreme court decisions have nothing to do with life or death of potential life. That has nothing to do with the SSM question.

 

[protectionist]

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.

And, as with abortion, once that happens, most states will make it illegal. That's what I meant.

 

[protectionist]

View attachment 662566

All mature willing companions deserve the right to marry as they choose if we take this to it's logical conclusion and the supreme court justices have no choice but to agree or be considered bigoted.

*****CHUCKLE*****

The bigot card can be flashed if one sees fit to flash it, but just because a certain activity is banned, that doesn't = bigotry. It will be banned for a reason, > because it's nuts and we should not allow ourselves to be a nation of nuts.

 

[protectionist]

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

That's been answered multiple times on this thread. Nations have responsibility to uphold mental health. Homosexuality is insanity.

 

[protectionist]

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.

But as with they just did with abortion, the SCOTUS can refer the question of SSM legality to the states, many, if not most, of whom will chose to ban it.

 

[protectionist]

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!

Yes it is.

 

[protectionist]

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.

Nothing is a fundamental right if the SCOTUS decides it its validity is questionable, Not even freedom of speech which has numerous exceptions.

 

[protectionist]

View attachment 662474

Sounds like you're making bigoted excuses to keep mature willing companions from participating in what single sex and heterosexual couples already enjoy.

*****SMILE*****

There is no need for "excuses" to do what keeps society healthy, and prevents it from being unhealthy.

 

[protectionist]

View attachment 662477

Which is why all mature willing companions should be allowed to marry as they choose.

Anything less makes it just a bigoted institution supported by a bigoted and corrupt government.

*****SMILE*****

Everybody isn't jumping out the window just because you use the word "bigoted". One could say you are being bigoted, against those who wish to live in a homosexualess society.