Supreme Court Denies Request to Revisit Same-Sex Marriage Decision.

[Rogue AI]

Why don't you just say that you oppose the ruling that granted the right to same sex marriage because you believe that it was beyond the scope of what the SCOTUS should do..........creating a new right......in you own words. Please dispense with the AI generated , convoluted Gish Gallop

It should be opposed because that fraud Kennedy cited foreign laws without regard to the Constitution of this country. Also, the very same Court ruled the federal government did not have the authority to define marriage. The hypocrisy of this ruling defies all logic.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It should be opposed because that fraud Kennedy cited foreign laws without regard to the Constitution of this country. Also, the very same Court ruled the federal government did not have the authority to define marriage. The hypocrisy of this ruling defies all logic.

You know not what you speak of. I don't know what "foreign laws your talking about, but then you seem to be referring to the Windsor decision of 2013 , In that case, the court ruled that if a state recognized same sex marriage, the federal government must also do so. They never said that the court has not jurisdiction over marriage or that states rights were absolute . There have been many cases where states tried to unconstitutionally limit who could marry and were shot down by SCOTUS Are you also opposed to the Loving decision?

 

[johnwk]

Why don't you just say that you oppose the ruling that granted the right to same sex marriage because you believe that it was beyond the scope of what the SCOTUS should do..........creating a new right......in you own words. Please dispense with the AI generated , convoluted Gish Gallop

I have not used AI to generate squat. What I wrote about Justice Gorsuch I wrote in 2020, long before AI

See: Gorsuch condones usurpation of power in Civil Rights case, ignores oath of office

Stop making shit up.

 

[midcan5]

A good decision. We have family with same sex marriages. Probably happier than most. lol

 

[BULLDOG]

Four marriages?

Damn, she must have gave great helmet.

Like a black eyed pea rolling around in a mayonnaise jar.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I have not used AI to generate squat. What I wrote about Justice Gorsuch I wrote in 2020, long before AI

See: Gorsuch condones usurpation of power in Civil Rights case, ignores oath of office

Stop making shit up.

You're still evading an honest, plain English explanation of what you believe about same sex marriage and your reasons for those beliefs. Instead you're thrown a lot of dung at the wall hoping that something sticks while avoiding the actual question..

 

[johnwk]

A good decision. We have family with same sex marriages. Probably happier than most. lol

A "decision" not based on actual law.

 

[johnwk]

You're still evading an honest, plain English explanation of what you believe about same sex marriage and your reasons for those beliefs. Instead you're thrown a lot of dung at the wall hoping that something sticks while avoiding the actual question..

Justice Gorsuch’s opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, GA recognizing same sex “marriage” is not based on actual “law”

My feeling with respect to "same sex marriage" are irrelevant to what is and what is not constitutional.

The fact is, Justice Gorsuch, in writing a majority opinion, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, upholding "same sex marriage" has perpetuated a fraud upon the American people, usurped legislative power, and violated his oath of office to defend our written Constitution,

In the case Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, Justice Gorsuch begins by writing:

“Sometimes small gestures can have unexpected consequences. Major initiatives practically guarantee them. In our time, few pieces of federal legislation rank in significance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There, in Title VII, Congress outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender.”

Gorsuch then goes on to ignore historical facts which establish Congress usurped a power outlawing distinctions being made in the “workplace” based upon “sex”, and in so doing he condones, by his silence, this blatant usurpation of power engaged in by Congress, which not only has resulted in the loss of people being free to mutually agree in the contracts and associations _ which is a fundamental inalienable right of mankind _ but Gorsuch adds to the ongoing fraud by adding to the meaning of “sex” found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, protection for sexual deviant behavior, which most assuredly was not intended by those who authored and passed the Act.

In fact, Justice Gorsuch, and the majority members on the Court, decided to do for the people that which the people have rejected, and been unwilling to do for generations by adopting a constitutional amendment forbidding distinctions in the “workplace” based upon “sex”, which is our Constitution’s lawful method for change to accommodate changing times.

Now, let us review some historical facts proving there is no authority granted to Congress in our Constitution to forbid discrimination in the workplace based upon “sex”.

In 1866 Congress passes a “Civil Rights Act under the authority of the Thirteenth Amendment. The purpose of the Act, as stated by its author, Senator Trumbull, was to “break down all discrimination between black and white men.”

The Act goes on to declare:

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.” Keep in mind there is no mention of “sex” in the Act.

In 1870 the Fifteenth Amendment is passed prohibiting the right to vote to be denied based upon “race, color or previous condition of servitude”. Once again, “sex” is not mentioned in our Constitution.

After the passage of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments Congress passes the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which begins:

“An Act to Protect All Citizens in Their Civil and Legal Rights.

Whereas it is essential to just government we recognize the equality of all men before the law, and hold that it is the duty of government in its dealings with the people to mete out equal and exact justice to all, of whatever nativity, race, color, or persuasion, religious or political ; and it being the appropriate object of legislation to enact great fundamental principles into law: Therefore …”

Up to this point in time there is no constitutional protection afforded based upon “sex”. But in 1920, the American People decide to provide protection based upon “sex”, but specifically limit that protection to women so they may vote because of the adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment.

And in 1957 Congress passes another Civil Rights Act creating a Commission on Civil Rights. Its duties include investigating allegations that "certain citizens of the United States are being deprived of their right to vote and have that vote counted by reason of their color, race, religion, or national origin."

Then, in 1964, without any constitutionally authorized power, Congress decides to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based upon “sex”. In fact, not only did Congress act without Constitutional authority to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based upon sex, but the American People, for generations, refuse to adopt an Equal Rights Amendment, the first appearing in the 1920s, and in the 1980s, the people specifically and purposely reject the Equal Rights Amendment, which was intended to prohibit discrimination based upon “sex”. One reason for its rejection by the American people was that it would lead to and grant particular rights to homosexuals, such as homosexual marriage.

So, here we are today, in a situation where a majority on our Supreme Court ignore historical facts when rendering an opinion; embrace Congress’ usurpation of power; perpetuate a fraud being perpetrated upon the American People; and even add to the fraud by adding to the meaning of “sex” found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, protection for sexual deviant behavior, which most certainly was not intended by those who authored and passed the Act ___ an Act which in its first instance violated our Constitution in that no authority had been granted to Congress by our Constitution to prohibit distinctions being made in the workplace based upon sex.

Justice Gorsuch and the Majority, in doing for the people what they have refused to do for themselves under Article Five of our Constitution, have not only used and abused their judicial power, but usurped legislative power as well, and this borders on judicial tyranny as described by Madison:

”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

 

[frigidweirdo]

Kim Davis, a Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses, had asked the court to reconsider its landmark 2015 opinion. The Supreme Court on Monday turned down a request that it consider overturning its landmark decision to legalize same-sex marriage a decade ago.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/10/us/politics/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20251110&instance_id=166143&nl=breaking-news&regi_id=82070660&segment_id=210322&user_id=0be3b67ae7031af55ebcbfadb31786d5

The court, without comment, declined the petition, filed by Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who gained national attention in 2015 when she defied a court order and refused to issue same-sex licenses because of her religious beliefs.

She had asked the Supreme Court to reverse an order that required her to pay more than $300,000 to a couple denied a marriage license — and to overturn the same-sex marriage ruling from 2015.

Ms. Davis was really had no standing to bring this case. She continues to make a fool of herself. The law is the law. She has zero rights to decide who can and cannot be married. If for no other reason than her own FOUR MARRIAGES.

She didn't stand a chance. Your religious right doesn't trump other people's rights. Otherwise people would start making religions which said they can do whatever they want, which would mean everyone could do whatever they want and nobody could stop them

 

[johnwk]

She didn't stand a chance. Your religious right doesn't trump other people's rights. Otherwise people would start making religions which said they can do whatever they want, which would mean everyone could do whatever they want and nobody could stop them

Actually, this has nothing to do with religion. We are talking about our country's rule book and our Supreme Court misrepresenting that rule book, and acting as if it is a super legislative body with power to impose its personal views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice, as the rule of law.

JWK


"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

 

[frigidweirdo]

Actually, this has nothing to do with religion. We are talking about our country's rule book and our Supreme Court misrepresenting that rule book, and acting as if it is a super legislative body with power to impose its personal views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice, as the rule of law.

JWK


"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

I think the Supreme Court could be better, but in this case, they made the right decision. It was a no brainer, anyone who understands rights will understand this.

 

[johnwk]

I think the Supreme Court could be better, but in this case, they made the right decision. It was a no brainer, anyone who understands rights will understand this.

Our Supreme Court acting as if it is an authoritarian super legislative body with power to impose its personal views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice, as the rule of law is not "the right decision."

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

 

[Leo123]

Homosexuals have fake marriages, even if they are ‘legal.’ Mareiage has always been between men and women.

 

[johnwk]

Homosexuals have fake marriages, even if they are ‘legal.’ Mareiage has always been between men and women.

This is the same shit as men pretending to be females and women pretending to be males.

Seems that this type of mental disorder has also infected a majority on our Supreme Court.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Ms. Davis was really had no standing to bring this case. She continues to make a fool of herself. The law is the law. She has zero rights to decide who can and cannot be married. If for no other reason than her own FOUR MARRIAGES.

Why don't you just report the facts and cut the commentary.

We suspect you are a moron.

Why do you spout commentary and remove all doubt.

 

[initforme]

Homosexuals have fake marriages, even if they are ‘legal.’ Mareiage has always been between men and women.

The marriage rate is falling. Less people are getting married. Perhaps a positive trend.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Our Supreme Court acting as if it is an authoritarian super legislative body with power to impose its personal views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice, as the rule of law is not "the right decision."

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

It followed the law.

 

[johnwk]

It followed the law.

No. The Supreme Court's opinion is not based on actual law.

Justice Gorsuch’s opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, GA recognizing same sex “marriage” is not based on actual “law”


The fact is, Justice Gorsuch, in writing a majority opinion, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, upholding "same sex marriage" has perpetuated a fraud upon the American people, usurped legislative power, and violated his oath of office to defend our written Constitution,

In the case Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, Justice Gorsuch begins by writing:

“Sometimes small gestures can have unexpected consequences. Major initiatives practically guarantee them. In our time, few pieces of federal legislation rank in significance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There, in Title VII, Congress outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender.”

Gorsuch then goes on to ignore historical facts which establish Congress usurped a power outlawing distinctions being made in the “workplace” based upon “sex”, and in so doing he condones, by his silence, this blatant usurpation of power engaged in by Congress, which not only has resulted in the loss of people being free to mutually agree in the contracts and associations _ which is a fundamental inalienable right of mankind _ but Gorsuch adds to the ongoing fraud by adding to the meaning of “sex” found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, protection for sexual deviant behavior, which most assuredly was not intended by those who authored and passed the Act.

In fact, Justice Gorsuch, and the majority members on the Court, decided to do for the people that which the people have rejected, and been unwilling to do for generations by adopting a constitutional amendment forbidding distinctions in the “workplace” based upon “sex”, which is our Constitution’s lawful method for change to accommodate changing times.

Now, let us review some historical facts proving there is no authority granted to Congress in our Constitution to forbid discrimination in the workplace based upon “sex”.

In 1866 Congress passes a “Civil Rights Act under the authority of the Thirteenth Amendment. The purpose of the Act, as stated by its author, Senator Trumbull, was to “break down all discrimination between black and white men.”

The Act goes on to declare:

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.” Keep in mind there is no mention of “sex” in the Act.

In 1870 the Fifteenth Amendment is passed prohibiting the right to vote to be denied based upon “race, color or previous condition of servitude”. Once again, “sex” is not mentioned in our Constitution.

After the passage of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments Congress passes the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which begins:

“An Act to Protect All Citizens in Their Civil and Legal Rights.

Whereas it is essential to just government we recognize the equality of all men before the law, and hold that it is the duty of government in its dealings with the people to mete out equal and exact justice to all, of whatever nativity, race, color, or persuasion, religious or political ; and it being the appropriate object of legislation to enact great fundamental principles into law: Therefore …”

Up to this point in time there is no constitutional protection afforded based upon “sex”. But in 1920, the American People decide to provide protection based upon “sex”, but specifically limit that protection to women so they may vote because of the adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment.

And in 1957 Congress passes another Civil Rights Act creating a Commission on Civil Rights. Its duties include investigating allegations that "certain citizens of the United States are being deprived of their right to vote and have that vote counted by reason of their color, race, religion, or national origin."

Then, in 1964, without any constitutionally authorized power, Congress decides to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based upon “sex”. In fact, not only did Congress act without Constitutional authority to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based upon sex, but the American People, for generations, refuse to adopt an Equal Rights Amendment, the first appearing in the 1920s, and in the 1980s, the people specifically and purposely reject the Equal Rights Amendment, which was intended to prohibit discrimination based upon “sex”. One reason for its rejection by the American people was that it would lead to and grant particular rights to homosexuals, such as homosexual marriage.

So, here we are today, in a situation where a majority on our Supreme Court ignore historical facts when rendering an opinion; embrace Congress’ usurpation of power; perpetuate a fraud being perpetrated upon the American People; and even add to the fraud by adding to the meaning of “sex” found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, protection for sexual deviant behavior, which most certainly was not intended by those who authored and passed the Act ___ an Act which in its first instance violated our Constitution in that no authority had been granted to Congress by our Constitution to prohibit distinctions being made in the workplace based upon sex.

Justice Gorsuch and the Majority, in doing for the people what they have refused to do for themselves under Article Five of our Constitution, have not only used and abused their judicial power, but usurped legislative power as well, and this borders on judicial tyranny as described by Madison:

”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

 

[frigidweirdo]

No. The Supreme Court's opinion is not based on actual law.

Justice Gorsuch’s opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, GA recognizing same sex “marriage” is not based on actual “law”


The fact is, Justice Gorsuch, in writing a majority opinion, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, upholding "same sex marriage" has perpetuated a fraud upon the American people, usurped legislative power, and violated his oath of office to defend our written Constitution,

In the case Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, Justice Gorsuch begins by writing:

“Sometimes small gestures can have unexpected consequences. Major initiatives practically guarantee them. In our time, few pieces of federal legislation rank in significance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There, in Title VII, Congress outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender.”

Gorsuch then goes on to ignore historical facts which establish Congress usurped a power outlawing distinctions being made in the “workplace” based upon “sex”, and in so doing he condones, by his silence, this blatant usurpation of power engaged in by Congress, which not only has resulted in the loss of people being free to mutually agree in the contracts and associations _ which is a fundamental inalienable right of mankind _ but Gorsuch adds to the ongoing fraud by adding to the meaning of “sex” found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, protection for sexual deviant behavior, which most assuredly was not intended by those who authored and passed the Act.

In fact, Justice Gorsuch, and the majority members on the Court, decided to do for the people that which the people have rejected, and been unwilling to do for generations by adopting a constitutional amendment forbidding distinctions in the “workplace” based upon “sex”, which is our Constitution’s lawful method for change to accommodate changing times.

Now, let us review some historical facts proving there is no authority granted to Congress in our Constitution to forbid discrimination in the workplace based upon “sex”.

In 1866 Congress passes a “Civil Rights Act under the authority of the Thirteenth Amendment. The purpose of the Act, as stated by its author, Senator Trumbull, was to “break down all discrimination between black and white men.”

The Act goes on to declare:

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.” Keep in mind there is no mention of “sex” in the Act.

In 1870 the Fifteenth Amendment is passed prohibiting the right to vote to be denied based upon “race, color or previous condition of servitude”. Once again, “sex” is not mentioned in our Constitution.

After the passage of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments Congress passes the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which begins:

“An Act to Protect All Citizens in Their Civil and Legal Rights.

Whereas it is essential to just government we recognize the equality of all men before the law, and hold that it is the duty of government in its dealings with the people to mete out equal and exact justice to all, of whatever nativity, race, color, or persuasion, religious or political ; and it being the appropriate object of legislation to enact great fundamental principles into law: Therefore …”

Up to this point in time there is no constitutional protection afforded based upon “sex”. But in 1920, the American People decide to provide protection based upon “sex”, but specifically limit that protection to women so they may vote because of the adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment.

And in 1957 Congress passes another Civil Rights Act creating a Commission on Civil Rights. Its duties include investigating allegations that "certain citizens of the United States are being deprived of their right to vote and have that vote counted by reason of their color, race, religion, or national origin."

Then, in 1964, without any constitutionally authorized power, Congress decides to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based upon “sex”. In fact, not only did Congress act without Constitutional authority to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based upon sex, but the American People, for generations, refuse to adopt an Equal Rights Amendment, the first appearing in the 1920s, and in the 1980s, the people specifically and purposely reject the Equal Rights Amendment, which was intended to prohibit discrimination based upon “sex”. One reason for its rejection by the American people was that it would lead to and grant particular rights to homosexuals, such as homosexual marriage.

So, here we are today, in a situation where a majority on our Supreme Court ignore historical facts when rendering an opinion; embrace Congress’ usurpation of power; perpetuate a fraud being perpetrated upon the American People; and even add to the fraud by adding to the meaning of “sex” found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, protection for sexual deviant behavior, which most certainly was not intended by those who authored and passed the Act ___ an Act which in its first instance violated our Constitution in that no authority had been granted to Congress by our Constitution to prohibit distinctions being made in the workplace based upon sex.

Justice Gorsuch and the Majority, in doing for the people what they have refused to do for themselves under Article Five of our Constitution, have not only used and abused their judicial power, but usurped legislative power as well, and this borders on judicial tyranny as described by Madison:

”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

You're allowed to be wrong.

But you need to understand that you can't use your religion to take people's rights away from them.

 

[Leo123]

The marriage rate is falling. Less people are getting married. Perhaps a positive trend.

Or, perhaps the fall of our society. Heterosexual marriage and raising families has been the 'glue' that holds societies together. In addition, the purposeful degrading and denigration of women staying home, handling the home front, raising children, making sure everyone has good food to eat and making sure the kids learn how to be good human beings is tragic. That is the most important job in our society and should not be trashed as it is today. Just my opinion, chill.