With Our Victory Of Roe Being Overturned, Next Target--Same Sex Marriage!

[bodecea]

Nor does it prohibit the court from identifying unenumerated rights that flow from the rights stated in the written Constitution. If we were strictly bound by enumerated rights, we would be stuck-in many ways- in the 17th century

Which is what Republican White-wing toadies want.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

I oppose overturning Same Sex marriage because this is a secular nation in a nation that is supposed to FREE to pursue liberty.

I agree, even though there are secular reasons to be opposed to Same Sex marriage - Constitutional or ethical.

The Declaration of Independence says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

It's interesting that the 14th specifically mentions "citizens."

It is a Conservative position to support liberty for all. As long as people do not harm others, they should be free to pursue their happiness. All that should matter is if they are law abiding, including being here legally.

 

[gmeyers1944]

God is not on your side. You are not on the side of God. God gave women choice. You took it away.

I am a conservative. I am glad Roe v. Wade was overturned! I will never claim that
God is on my side, but I like to think that I am on God's side! I know that when I get to Heaven, I will meet all the souls of all the abortions that have been committed especially since 1973.

 

[DBA]

God is not on your side. You are not on the side of God. God gave women choice. You took it away.

God gives everyone choices everyday. You have the choice to murder your neighbor. You have the choice to kill your 6 month old that is totally dependent on you but is becoming a nuisance. God intentionally gave us free will, but that doesn't mean we won't be held responsible for our decisions.

The SC did not take away a women's right to abortion, the simply said they are not making call one way or another on it because it is not within their purview. They will leave abortion legislation up to the states. States will likely know better the will of the people in their states anyway. What DON'T you understand about that?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Not my concern. My concern is the court ruled the federal government cannot define marriage. That leaves only the states. The egregious federal overreach is my concern. It must be corrected.

You're not concerned about interracial marriage./ Well, if you're concerned about the courts redefining marriage you should be. If they redefined marriage with Obergefell, they do so with Loving as well. But the issue in both case is not redefining marriage, it is about correcting a discriminatory practice.

 

[Lesh]

Why are people even discussing these two issues in the same breath?

Roe v Wade TAKES AWAY the most vital right a person can possibly have - the right to even live.

Gay marriage EXTENDS rights, instead, by offering gay people the same opportunities as straight.

And yet this SCOTUS and these Republicans would take away both of those rights

 

[Lesh]

The SC did not take away a women's right to abortion,

They absolutely did. Prior to this vote women had the RIGHT to an abortion.

No longer

 

[Rogue AI]

Nor does it prohibit the court from identifying unenumerated rights that flow from the rights stated in the written Constitution. If we were strictly bound by enumerated rights, we would be stuck-in many ways- in the 17th century

All enumerated rights are identified. What's left falls to states. This ruling simply corrected a terrible error.

 

[MAGA Macho Man]

I agree, even though there are secular reasons to be opposed to Same Sex marriage - Constitutional or ethical.

The Declaration of Independence says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

It's interesting that the 14th specifically mentions "citizens."

It is a Conservative position to support liberty for all. As long as people do not harm others, they should be free to pursue their happiness. All that should matter is if they are law abiding, including being here legally.

The 14th was to make slaves citizens. Notice it doesn't say 'natural born Citizens" like in Article 2 Section 1, the presidential clause of the Constitution, the only document that uses that term.

 

[gmeyers1944]

God gives everyone choices everyday. You have the choice to murder your neighbor. You have the choice to kill your 6 month old that is totally dependent on you but is becoming a nuisance. God intentionally gave us free will, but that doesn't mean we won't be held responsible for our decisions.

The SC did not take away a women's right to abortion, the simply said they are not making call one way or another on it because it is not within their purview. They will leave abortion legislation up to the states. States will likely know better the will of the people in their states anyway. What DON'T you understand about that?

You make too much sense for these power-grabbing Left-wing extremists.

 

[g5000]

Governments reward behaviour they want. Marriage is the foundation of society. Couples having children are what allow us to go on so of course the government should be giving benefits to people having children. Your nation is in trouble because not enough people are having babies. You're not replacing your population.

All prosperous nations experience a decline in birth rates. This can easily be solved through immigration.

Government should not be deciding what they want us to do. That has led to nothing but more problems.

 

[eagle7-31]

And yet this SCOTUS and these Republicans would take away both of those rights

typical stone left wing gutless liar. Abortion is not abolished just returned to the states and people. BTW while I believe marriage is between a man and woman, its not a federal matter either and yes I opposed DOMA back in the day for the reason.

 

[Mac-7]

Like Dennis Hassert and Jerry Sandusky?

Sure

Do you think hastert and sandusky prevent me from objecting to pedophiles?

 

[g5000]

The US population has doubled in my lifetime.

White Deaths Exceed Births in a Majority of U.S. States

apl.wisc.edu

How Low Can America’s Birth Rate Go Before It’s A Problem?

The U.S. fertility rate hit a record low in 2020 — just as it did in 2019, and 2018. Although the COVID-19 pandemic seems to have accelerated this decline, the …

fivethirtyeight.com

The U.S. fertility rate hit a record low in 2020 — just as it did in 2019, and 2018. Although the COVID-19 pandemic seems to have accelerated this decline, the drop has been underway for years. The total fertility rate — the average number of children a woman is expected to have over her lifetime — now sits at 1.64 children per woman in the U.S. Not only is this the lowest rate recorded since the government began tracking these stats in the 1930s, but it’s well below the so-called “replacement-level fertility” of about 2.1.

 

[gmeyers1944]

They absolutely did. Prior to this vote women had the RIGHT to an abortion.

No longer

I live in New York State. Abortions were legal here before Roe v. Wade and you can still get an abortion in New York State since New York State (sob) will not outlaw abortion.

 

[Lesh]

typical stone left wing gutless liar. Abortion is not abolished just returned to the states and people. BTW while I believe marriage is between a man and woman, its not a federal matter either and yes I opposed DOMA back in the day for the reason.

Certainly not "to the people". The PEPLE are heavily in favor of allowing abortion.

Right wing legislatures in red states are catering to the religious right. 13 States had trigger laws in place that outlawed abortion the minute the SC did this

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Hey look, I don't understand it but gay people exist. Some of them fall in love and want to live together as a couple. That is their business, so they should be allowed CIVIL UNIONS which grants them all legal benefits, but please don't call it a "marriage," as that is a union of a man and woman before God. So I don't see anywhere SCOTUS can address the issue; each state must decide.

As an ally and supporter of gay and Lesbian people, I feel their pain when they are told that they should have been satisfied with civil unions as a compromise and that they are being “divisive” for having pushed for and won the right to marry.

Civil Unions are a Sham and a Failure - by Progressive Patriot 5. 7. 16
Long after Obergefell, I’m still hearing that gay people should have been satisfied with civil unions or domestic partnerships instead of pushing the issue of marriage. This is the familiar separate but equal argument reminiscent of the Jim Crow era. To begin with, the simple fact is that even if they are equal on paper, in reality they are not equal if for no other reason, because they are called by different names. “Marriage” is universally understood to mean a certain thing… a bond and a commitment between two people. “Civil Unions” carry no such instantly understood meaning. Now, I know that there are those who will say that marriage is understood to mean a man and a woman, but those people are living in a bygone era. Similarly, there are those who contend that marriage is a religious institution, but they too are living in a world that no longer exists, if it ever did. While there were times and places in history where it was-and for some still is -for the most part it is anything but religious. Therefore, neither heterosexuals nor the religious own “marriage”

I firmly believe that those who claim that they believe in equal rights for gays and lesbians but are against marriage in favor of civil unions are using that story line so as not to appear to be anti -equality while not really believing in equality at all. This may be conscious process that is deliberately deceptive, or a rationalization to make themselves feel good about how magnanimous they imagine themselves to be, but the motive, and the outcome is the same.

Words are powerful. Consider the word “Citizen” In this country anyone who is born a citizen -as well as those who are naturalized – are simply” citizens” They all have the same rights and responsibilities. But let’s say that we decided that naturalized citizen could not and should not be called “citizens” but rather they must be distinguished from those who were born into citizenship by calling them something like Permanent Legal Domestic Residents. Still the same rights and responsibilities but are they equal in reality? How many times will they have to explain what that means? For instance, will hospital staff understand when there is an issue with visitation or making a medical de
cision regarding a spouse?

Consider this:

Marriage is more perfect union: In gay marriage debate, separate but equal won't cut it .Civil unions are in no way a legitimate substitute for gay marriage.
They fail on principle, because - as America should have learned from racial segregation - separate is never equal.

And they fail in practice, because couples who enter into this second-class marriage alternative in New Jersey and elsewhere are constantly denied the rights and benefits that married couples take for granted.

Which brings up a third way in which they fail - verbally. Imagine getting down on one knee and saying, "Will you civilly unite with me?"

All kidding aside, semantics matters when it comes to labeling our most important and intimate relationships. Denying gay and lesbian couples the right - and the joy and the responsibility and the ordinariness - to use the M-word is a profound slap in the face.

"When you say, 'I'm married,' everyone knows who you are in relation to the primary person you're building your life with," says Freedom to Marry director Evan Wolfson. " 'Civil union' doesn't offer that clarity, that immediately understood respect."

Marriage is more perfect union: In gay marriage debate, separate but equal won't cut it


Monday, April 20, 2009, 5:00 PM

We had experience with civil unions here in New Jersey. It did not go well:
Since New Jersey’s civil union law took effect in February 2007, many employers across New Jersey have refused to recognize civil unions as equal to marriage, and therefore do not grant equal health benefits to partners of employees. Employers and hospitals say that if the legislature intended for the civil union law to be the same as marriage, the legislature would have used the same name.
Because these employers and hospitals don’t recognize civil unions as they would marriage, many same-sex couples go without adequate health insurance – a horror in this economy. And because of the real-world disparity between civil unions and marriage, some hospitals do not allow civil union partners to make medical decisions for one another, or even to visit one another in the emergency room. http://www.gardenstateequality.org/issues/civilunions/

Here is more:
Report: Civil union law fails to achieve goal of equality
This article first appeared in The Sunday Star-Ledger on Feb. 17, 2008.
When civil unions became available one year ago, Gina Pastino of Upper Montclair was "thrilled" to form one with her partner of a dozen years, Naomi Cohen.

But the couple are frustrated after a year of trying to explain -- at the bank, the passport office and repeatedly in hospitals -- that their civil union entitles them to be treated like spouses.
"People don't understand what civil unions are," said Cohen.
Judy Ford of Port Norris formed a civil union last April to add her partner to her health insurance plan. But the medical center that employs Ford used a loophole in federal law to deny coverage to her partner, Yvonne Mazzola.
Now, because of her civil union, she would be liable for her partner's uninsured medical bills. They might dissolve their civil union.

"It only puts us in a precarious legal situation," said Ford. "Now we have a civil union with no benefit and only detriment." Report: Civil union law fails to achieve goal of equality






And New Jersey is not the only state to experience a failure to achieve equality through civil unions:

Equality Illinois Says State Civil Union Law a Failure Equality Illinois Says State Civil Union Law a Failure | Chicago Illinois Family Law Blog





And let’s not forget that the federal government only recognizes “marriage “ for the myriad of benefits and privileges that are attached to that status. Change federal laws and regulations? Good luck with that. We can’t even get a none discrimination law in employmen passed. Back in New Jersey, a state judge ordered the issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples following the Windsor decision by SCOTUS for just that reason. Previously, the state supreme court had ruled that same sex couples must be treated the same as opposite sex couples but that it did not have to be called marriage. Once the section of DOMA that dealt with federal benefits for married same sex couple was overturned, there was no longer even a pretense of equality in same sex unions could be called marriage.

 

[g5000]

I'm only speaking the truth about homosexuals and their danger to innocent children in particular. Case in point:

Central Pa. drag queen, activist charged with 25 counts of child pornography​

Central Pa. drag queen, activist charged with 25 counts of child pornography: police

He is an HIV/AIDs awareness advocate who took a job last year working with LGBTQ+ youth in Harrisburg.

www.pennlive.com

Don't forget serial child molester Dennis Hastert. The Republicans elevated him to House Speaker.

And then there's pedophile enabler Gym Jordan who is endorsed by Trump and enthusiastically supported by Trumptards.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

All enumerated rights are identified. What's left falls to states. This ruling simply corrected a terrible error.

Because you say so? Appela to authority logical fallacy

 

[g5000]

You seem to think that all women are pro-abortion.
You would be wrong.

61 percent of woman are pro-choice. Only 33 percent are pro-life.

'Pro-Choice' or 'Pro-Life' Demographic Table

Americans' identification as "pro-choice" or "pro-life" on abortion is provided here in tabular form, with breakouts by key population subgroups.

news.gallup.com