• Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.

Supreme courts ruling on gay marriage

This seems to be heating up here. This was not my intention. I just don't understand why people get so worked up over two different people of sexual preference being married? I just can't understand why it infuriates the very own party I would rather vote for.
As for being extremely political and educated,I am not. But I do think people should have the same rights.

Oh and by the way, if anyone wants to see Donald Trump make an ass of himself defining marriage please google his comments.

- - - Updated - - -

Here it is, let's vote for this guy. He is very hard working!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-vVqvsCdhlI
 
Last edited:
The basic idea is that the Constitution provides for some individual rights (defined generally by the Bill of Rights). It also provides for certain powers of the federal government. And states are free to do what they like so long as they do not run up against those individual rights (because of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment) or federal powers (because of the Supremacy Clause). Obviously people have differences regarding what they consider to be an individual right and the Supreme Court has the final word over what rights the Constitution provides. The Court has now decided that a person has the right to marry another person without regard to the sex of the two people. A state cannot infringe that right. As the Court stated: "Of course, the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, so long as that process does not abridge fundamental rights."
 
The basic idea is that the Constitution provides for some individual rights (defined generally by the Bill of Rights). It also provides for certain powers of the federal government. And states are free to do what they like so long as they do not run up against those individual rights (because of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment) or federal powers (because of the Supremacy Clause). Obviously people have differences regarding what they consider to be an individual right and the Supreme Court has the final word over what rights the Constitution provides. The Court has now decided that a person has the right to marry another person without regard to the sex of the two people. A state cannot infringe that right. As the Court stated: "Of course, the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, so long as that process does not abridge fundamental rights."

Interesting jwmelvin. Well put, thanks for that. I think this ruling is here to stay so people may as well just get used to it and take it like a man. I have gay family members and tons of gay friends. They are extremely nice people and in my mind would make far better parents to children then my own parents could ever be. This is why I support it so much. Like stray animals, there are plenty of children who need love and care and hundreds of thousands of gay couples willing and ready to adopt these children and show them love. But without a strong ruling of same sex marriage they cannot go through due process of adoption in states other than the blue ones.Good deeds seem to rub off on people and I think this ruling is quite a good deed. Sure there will be people who abuse it, like my own family who remarried 3 times. But they deserve the acknowledgement as others did.
 
This is a great discussion and relatively civil. One thing I've learned over the years is that when it comes to politics and religion both sides can argue to eternity and won't change each other's views. As far as I'm concerned, gays aren't hurting anyone by having the right to marry. So what's the big deal. Wedding planners and businesses that benefit from weddings will have more work and I'm sure there will be other benefits as well. Now if they drive riced out cars with pop ups or bug eyes, that's another story. Nuke the Whales!
 
In your partial quote you conveniently failed to utilize my previous sentence : The Court, by ignoring the will of the people as expressed in over half the states, are trying to artificially push the culture in the direction they see as desirable. You do realize that 11 out of 50 does not signify "the will of the people?"

You repeatedly say this, but as I've repeatedly pointed out... The Supreme Court is not there to represent the "will of the people". The Supreme Court is there, to represent justice. What kind of argument is "the will of the people don't want gay marriage?".

It doesn't matter if everyone in the entire United States doesn't want something. If that something represents justice and fairness, it is the supreme court's job to hand that justice down to even one individual. It's a court, where people go to seek justice and fairness. It's not a place for a popularity contest. I hear this argument often when political groups or news stations with certain views want to push their agenda. One of their ways is to convince their followers that their idea is supported by a vast majority of "sane" people and therefore the right one. This is just political maneuvering and doesn't matter. Popularity, even if true, does not matter in the eyes of a judicial system that's there to administer justice.
 
Of course, as Jon Stewart pointed out, the same Justice had no problem overturning laws (I.e., the will of the voters) directed at campaign finance limitations (Citizens United) or racial entitlements (Shelby County). Whether a decision is "political overreach" seems to depend on what one wants for the outcome. I don't think that will ever change.
 
which makes me think we need AI for the scotus:eek:
 
Of course, as Jon Stewart pointed out, the same Justice had no problem overturning laws (I.e., the will of the voters) directed at campaign finance limitations (Citizens United) or racial entitlements (Shelby County). Whether a decision is "political overreach" seems to depend on what one wants for the outcome. I don't think that will ever change.

Pbly not good to cite comedians.. Shelby and Citizen's United are not political overreach because they deal with issues found directly in the constitution namely federalism vs. state sovereignty, and free speech, respectively. gay marriage is nowhere in the constitution so they needed to dig deep to create this right by using the 14th amendment. To this Justice Roberts said 'who do we think we are?'. He's not trying to be funny.
 
Last edited:
That was cute what you did there. Substituting federalism for campaign finance. I don't think you will find many people to agree that personal liberty is not an issue found directly in the Constitution. The point is that different people have different views on what rights are secured by the Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court is the institution that answers that question.

Also, there is a distinct difference between citing something as authority and giving credit to something.
 
glad we have at least one lawyer keeping us focused...:smile:
 
That was cute what you did there. Substituting federalism for campaign finance. I don't think you will find many people to agree that personal liberty is not an issue found directly in the Constitution. The point is that different people have different views on what rights are secured by the Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court is the institution that answers that question.

Also, there is a distinct difference between citing something as authority and giving credit to something.

Sorry. It was not my intent to conjoin them. Pls reread my post.

It's certainly more comforting when the supreme's deal directly with the language of the constitution now that they are polarized and political on both sides.
 
Then perhaps we agree. Obergefell v. Hodges was not political overreach because it dealt with an issue found directly in the constitution namely federalism vs. state sovereignty. ;)
 
glad we have at least one lawyer keeping us focused...:smile:

Well here's another lawyer with an opinion that will cause some to get upset.

I don't hide the fact that I am a "devout atheist". I have yet to meet someone who opposes same sex marriage who doesn't link their opposition to their "god" being against it.

I have yet to hear a rationale reason under the law to prevent same sex marriages. I am not against people practicing whatever religion doesn't behead people, blow people up, oppress non-believers or otherwise treats others in a harmful or disrespectful way.

But if you believe in a god then let that higher power deal with same sex couples in the "after life". However, give human and equal rights to all in this life.
 
Lol RSO bringing up the R and G words in ot......ban him...Ps Bob does believe in marriage:wink:
 
I am not against people practicing whatever religion doesn't behead people, blow people up, oppress non-believers or otherwise treats others in a harmful or disrespectful way.

Let me know what you find.

- - - Updated - - -

Pretty sure people have been killed in the name of every single religion... ever.
 
Well here's another lawyer with an opinion that will cause some to get upset.

I don't hide the fact that I am a "devout atheist". I have yet to meet someone who opposes same sex marriage who doesn't link their opposition to their "god" being against it.

I have yet to hear a rationale reason under the law to prevent same sex marriages. I am not against people practicing whatever religion doesn't behead people, blow people up, oppress non-believers or otherwise treats others in a harmful or disrespectful way.

But if you believe in a god then let that higher power deal with same sex couples in the "after life". However, give human and equal rights to all in this life.

Agree with this totally!!!
 
You repeatedly say this, but as I've repeatedly pointed out... The Supreme Court is not there to represent the "will of the people". The Supreme Court is there, to represent justice. What kind of argument is "the will of the people don't want gay marriage?".

It doesn't matter if everyone in the entire United States doesn't want something. If that something represents justice and fairness, it is the supreme court's job to hand that justice down to even one individual. It's a court, where people go to seek justice and fairness. It's not a place for a popularity contest. I hear this argument often when political groups or news stations with certain views want to push their agenda. One of their ways is to convince their followers that their idea is supported by a vast majority of "sane" people and therefore the right one. This is just political maneuvering and doesn't matter. Popularity, even if true, does not matter in the eyes of a judicial system that's there to administer justice.
While it's true that democracy is not mob-ocracy, or that the majority does not determine justice or fairness, my question to you is what does determine justice or fairness?

If you say "the Supreme Court", on what basis should the Court determine justice or fairness? And fairness for whom? Fairness only for gay couples? What about fairness for business owners who don't want to facilitate gay weddings? What about the children who are now coming forward testifying to the harm they suffered from growing up with gay parents? Do their feelings matter, or do only the feelings of gay people matter?

Secondly, where in the Constitution is the Court given the role of arbiter of justice and fairness? Since the Court's exclusive purpose is to interpret the Constitution the justices cannot use extra Constitutional reasoning to make their case. Just as there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution there is also no federal definition of marriage. Remember that conservatives were not asking the Court to mandate heterosexual marriage or impose a uniform definition of marriage on all 50 states. But this is exactly what the Court did. Rather than allowing states to decide the issue and leaving room for people with diverse opinions to peacefully coexist in the broader society the Court instead forced a one-size-fits-all policy on the entire nation. This is why people on both sides should be equally concerned about the problem of judicial activism. Imagine if the Court had decreed that heterosexual marriage, while not mentioned in the Constitution, must be the law of the land in all 50 states. Imagine the outcry. This is exactly what the Court did, in reverse. They did not simply allow gay marriage, they mandated it. I often hear liberals claim that conservatives and Christians want to impose their values on everyone else, but this is exactly what the Court is doing -- imposing liberal east & west coast values on a broader American population that does not embrace them. They have rights, too.

- - - Updated - - -

Well here's another lawyer with an opinion that will cause some to get upset.

I don't hide the fact that I am a "devout atheist". I have yet to meet someone who opposes same sex marriage who doesn't link their opposition to their "god" being against it.
I have news for you, only religious people are devout.
I have yet to hear a rationale reason under the law to prevent same sex marriages. I am not against people practicing whatever religion doesn't behead people, blow people up, oppress non-believers or otherwise treats others in a harmful or disrespectful way.
Ask, and ye shall receive:
Gay Marriage--Secular Reasons Against It

Here are 20 reasons which may help communicate to our secular friends that Gay Marriage is not only a moral issue for Christians, but a societal ill. All but a few of these reasons are secular rather than religious:


1. The whole fabric of gay rights disappears with this fact: There is no scientific evidence that people are born gay, and much evidence exists that proves the opposite. People leave the homosexual lifestyle and desire all the time. (See http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/gay-rights#born.)

2. Marriage is the fundamental building block of all human civilization, and has been across cultural and religious lines for 5000+ years. By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society. Society as a whole, not merely any given set of spouses, benefits from marriage. This is because traditional marriage helps to channel procreative love into a stable institution that provides for the orderly bearing and rearing of the next generation.

3. Contrary to the liberal and libertarian viewpoint, marriage is not merely an institution for the convenience of adults. It is about the rights of children. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. Every child has the right to a mom and a dad whenever possible. Numerous studies show that children do best with two biological parents. Here is just one study: Two Biological Parents.

4. Marriage benefits everyone because separating the bearing and rearing of children from marriage burdens innocent bystanders: not just children, but the whole community. History shows that no society long survives after a change that hurts the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman.

5. Law cannot be divorced from reality—from nature. The two sexes are complementary, not undifferentiated. This is a fact of nature, thus given by God. No government has the right to alter what is true by nature. (See America’s Declaration of Independence.)

6. Redefining marriage would diminish the social pressures and incentives for husbands to remain with their wives and BIOLOGICAL children, and for men and women to marry before having children.

7. The results of redefining marriage—parenting by single parents, divorced parents, remarried parents, cohabiting couples, and fragmented families of any kind—are demonstrably worse for children. According to the best available sociological evidence, children fare best on virtually every examined indicator when reared by their wedded biological parents. Studies that control for other factors, including poverty and even genetics, suggest that children reared in intact homes do best on educational achievement, emotional health, familial and sexual development, and delinquency and incarceration. In short, marriage unites a man and a woman holistically—emotionally and bodily, in acts of conjugal love and in the children such love brings forth—for the whole of life.

8. Studies show domestic violence is three times higher among homosexual partnerships, compared to heterosexual marriages. A large portion of murders, assaults, other crimes and various harms to children occur along with, or as a consequence of, domestic violence. Half of pedophilia attacks are homosexual, for example. Normalizing homosexual marriage also encourages non-marital homosexual activity, and thus the social pathologies associated with it.

9. Promiscuity is rampant among homosexuals, including those who are married. Various studies indicate that gays average somewhere between 10 and 110 different sex partners per year. The New York Times, among many other sources, reported the finding that exclusivity was not the norm among gay partners: “With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations. ‘Openness’ and ‘flexibility’ of gay relationships are euphemisms for sexual infidelity.” One study showed that only 4.5% of homosexual males said they were faithful to their current partner, compared to 85% of heterosexual married women and 75.5% of heterosexual married men. Promiscuity is a destabilizing influence on society.

10. The confusion resulting from further delinking childbearing from marriage would force the state to intervene more often in family life and expand welfare programs. If marriage has no form and serves no social purpose, how will society protect the needs of children—the prime victim of our non-marital sexual culture—without government growing more intrusive and more expensive? Without healthy marriages, the community often must step in to provide (more or less directly) for their well-being and upbringing. Thus, by encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. (Libertarians, do you see the importance of this? If you want the state to be less intrusive, get off the gay marriage idea!)

11. Promoting marriage does not ban any type of relationship: Adults are free to make choices about their relationships, and they do not need government sanction or license to do so. People are free to have contracts with each other. All Americans have the freedom to live as they choose, but no one has a right to redefine marriage for everyone else.

12. Law is a teacher. Just as many people, even some Christians, thought that slavery was okay when it was legal, will think that gay marriage is OK when it is legal.

13. Gay marriage is undeniably a step into other deviances. What will result are such things as plural marriages and polygamy. These things could not logically be turned back, and will initiate a further plunge of societal stability.

14. Only a small percentage of gays who are given the right to marry do so anyway (4% by one study). This proves that the gay marriage movement is not about marriage, but about affirmation.

15. Anal intercourse leads to numerous pathologies, obviously because the parts do not fit! Among items in a long list of problems listed by researcher and physician James Holsinger are these: enteric diseases (infections from a variety of viruses and bacteria including a very high incidence of amoebiasis, giardiasis, and hepatitis, etc.), trauma (fecal incontinence, anal fissure, rectosigmoid tears, chemical sinusitis, etc.), sexually transmitted diseases (AIDS, gonorrhea, simplex infections, genital warts, scabies, etc.). Anal cancer is only one of other medical problems higher in gay men that heterosexual men, especially monogamous heterosexual men. Society at large pays for these diseases. (Speaking to “Christian Libertarians,” unlike certain activities that also contribute to national health problems, such as obesity, homosexuality is morally wrong. Poor eating habits are not a moral issue; gluttony is not a sin.)

16. The ravages of the gay lifestyle are severe upon the gay community itself but also for society at large. The best available evidence shows that those practicing homosexual behavior have a 20% to 30% shorter life span. A much higher rate of alcoholism, drug abuse, sexually transmitted disease, domestic violence, child molestation and more occur in homosexual populations. (See http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/gay-rights#ravages.)

17. It is okay to discriminate. We discriminate all the time in our rules and laws. It is illegal to marry your parent. It is illegal to be a pedophile or a sociopath, no matter how strong the innate tendency might be.

18. Gay marriage and religious freedom are incompatible because it will marginalize those who affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The First Amendment is at stake! This is already evident in Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., among other locations. After Massachusetts redefined marriage to include same-sex relationships, Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to discontinue its adoption services rather than place children with same-sex couples against its principles. Massachusetts public schools began teaching grade-school students about same-sex marriage, defending their decision because they are “committed to teaching about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same-sex marriage is legal.” A Massachusetts appellate court ruled that parents have no right to exempt their children from these classes. Businesses that refuse to accept gay marriage as a legitimate institution will be penalized. It is a certainty that the church will at some point, be unable to preach the full council of God. It will be considered hate speech to speak of traditional marriage as right. Churches will begin losing their tax exempt status. Individuals who speak out against gay marriage will be penalized. This is only the tip of the iceberg. (Speaking again to "Christian Libertarians” who are OK with gay marriage: Do you see the issue here? This is important! Legalizing gay marriage nationally will lead to an assault on religion.)

19. Homosexual practioners cost more than they contribute via disproportionate diseases and disasters such as HIV, hepatitis, herpes, mental illness, substance abuse, suicide, assault, etc. The Center for Disease Control estimates that each HIV infection ALONE generates $700,000 in direct and indirect costs. (Source: Family Research Report, April 2014)

20. Homosexual activity and marriage robs our future by: having fewer children, poorly socializing the children they raise, commit about half of all child molestations recorded in the news. (Source: Family Research Report, April 2014)

The question is asked, why shouldn't two people who love each other be allowed to get married? ANSWER: Marriage is not about love. In many countries around the world, marriages are arranged. Marriage is about the rights of children and thus is about supporting the next generation. Anything that weakens the institution of marriage is an injustice to children and a travesty to the culture.
 
I often hear liberals claim that conservatives and Christians want to impose their values on everyone else, but this is exactly what the Court is doing -- imposing liberal east & west coast values
That statement is just plain ludicrous, because it totally mischaracterizes this Supreme Court. The fact is that the Roberts court, liked the Burger and Rehnquist courts that preceded it, has been consistently conservative in its opinions, although this particular term (year) has seen a mix of opinions, with a few noteworthy liberal decisions along with its many conservative ones. In other recent terms, the more publicized decisions (e.g. Citizens United) have been mostly conservative victories. The court's conservative slant is not a surprise when you realize that the majority of the current Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republican presidents.

This recent article in the Times talks about how this year has seen a mixed court, not quite as conservative as in its previous years. It analyzes and tabulates all the court's decisions, in a very informative chart that characterizes them based on the votes on which they were decided. Here's how it sums up the Roberts court (bold added for emphasis):

New York Times said:
The most conservative term since before the Warren court era was the fourth one of the court led by Chief Justice Roberts, in 2008, and the first term of the Roberts court was close behind. Conservatives certainly have many reasons to be happy with the Supreme Court’s recent work. On campaign finance, gun rights, race and abortion, the justices have delivered strongly conservative rulings. At the same time, the court does seem to have drifted slightly to the left since 2008, in part because of rulings on gay rights, health care and the environment.

on a broader American population that does not embrace them.
Wrong again. Recent polls show that the majority of that "broader American population" does indeed embrace the legality of same-sex marriage.

As for the rest of your endless diatribe, you seem to be full of hate for your fellow man. All I can say is, it's a shame to live life that way. Respect others and let them live their lives as they see fit, as long as they're not hurting anyone. And I can assure you that it doesn't hurt anyone if the couple next door does or doesn't decide to get married, regardless of whether they are a same-sex or opposite-sex couple.
 
Last edited:
While it's true that democracy is not mob-ocracy, or that the majority does not determine justice or fairness, my question to you is what does determine justice or fairness?

If you say "the Supreme Court", on what basis should the Court determine justice or fairness? And fairness for whom? Fairness only for gay couples? What about fairness for business owners who don't want to facilitate gay weddings? What about the children who are now coming forward testifying to the harm they suffered from growing up with gay parents? Do their feelings matter, or do only the feelings of gay people matter?

Secondly, where in the Constitution is the Court given the role of arbiter of justice and fairness? Since the Court's exclusive purpose is to interpret the Constitution the justices cannot use extra Constitutional reasoning to make their case. Just as there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution there is also no federal definition of marriage. Remember that conservatives were not asking the Court to mandate heterosexual marriage or impose a uniform definition of marriage on all 50 states. But this is exactly what the Court did. Rather than allowing states to decide the issue and leaving room for people with diverse opinions to peacefully coexist in the broader society the Court instead forced a one-size-fits-all policy on the entire nation. This is why people on both sides should be equally concerned about the problem of judicial activism. Imagine if the Court had decreed that heterosexual marriage, while not mentioned in the Constitution, must be the law of the land in all 50 states. Imagine the outcry. This is exactly what the Court did, in reverse. They did not simply allow gay marriage, they mandated it. I often hear liberals claim that conservatives and Christians want to impose their values on everyone else, but this is exactly what the Court is doing -- imposing liberal east & west coast values on a broader American population that does not embrace them. They have rights, too.

- - - Updated - - -


I have news for you, only religious people are devout.

Ask, and ye shall receive:
Gay Marriage--Secular Reasons Against It

Here are 20 reasons which may help communicate to our secular friends that Gay Marriage is not only a moral issue for Christians, but a societal ill. All but a few of these reasons are secular rather than religious:


1. The whole fabric of gay rights disappears with this fact: There is no scientific evidence that people are born gay, and much evidence exists that proves the opposite. People leave the homosexual lifestyle and desire all the time. (See http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/gay-rights#born.)

2. Marriage is the fundamental building block of all human civilization, and has been across cultural and religious lines for 5000+ years. By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society. Society as a whole, not merely any given set of spouses, benefits from marriage. This is because traditional marriage helps to channel procreative love into a stable institution that provides for the orderly bearing and rearing of the next generation.

3. Contrary to the liberal and libertarian viewpoint, marriage is not merely an institution for the convenience of adults. It is about the rights of children. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. Every child has the right to a mom and a dad whenever possible. Numerous studies show that children do best with two biological parents. Here is just one study: Two Biological Parents.

4. Marriage benefits everyone because separating the bearing and rearing of children from marriage burdens innocent bystanders: not just children, but the whole community. History shows that no society long survives after a change that hurts the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman.

5. Law cannot be divorced from reality—from nature. The two sexes are complementary, not undifferentiated. This is a fact of nature, thus given by God. No government has the right to alter what is true by nature. (See America’s Declaration of Independence.)

6. Redefining marriage would diminish the social pressures and incentives for husbands to remain with their wives and BIOLOGICAL children, and for men and women to marry before having children.

7. The results of redefining marriage—parenting by single parents, divorced parents, remarried parents, cohabiting couples, and fragmented families of any kind—are demonstrably worse for children. According to the best available sociological evidence, children fare best on virtually every examined indicator when reared by their wedded biological parents. Studies that control for other factors, including poverty and even genetics, suggest that children reared in intact homes do best on educational achievement, emotional health, familial and sexual development, and delinquency and incarceration. In short, marriage unites a man and a woman holistically—emotionally and bodily, in acts of conjugal love and in the children such love brings forth—for the whole of life.

8. Studies show domestic violence is three times higher among homosexual partnerships, compared to heterosexual marriages. A large portion of murders, assaults, other crimes and various harms to children occur along with, or as a consequence of, domestic violence. Half of pedophilia attacks are homosexual, for example. Normalizing homosexual marriage also encourages non-marital homosexual activity, and thus the social pathologies associated with it.

9. Promiscuity is rampant among homosexuals, including those who are married. Various studies indicate that gays average somewhere between 10 and 110 different sex partners per year. The New York Times, among many other sources, reported the finding that exclusivity was not the norm among gay partners: “With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations. ‘Openness’ and ‘flexibility’ of gay relationships are euphemisms for sexual infidelity.” One study showed that only 4.5% of homosexual males said they were faithful to their current partner, compared to 85% of heterosexual married women and 75.5% of heterosexual married men. Promiscuity is a destabilizing influence on society.

10. The confusion resulting from further delinking childbearing from marriage would force the state to intervene more often in family life and expand welfare programs. If marriage has no form and serves no social purpose, how will society protect the needs of children—the prime victim of our non-marital sexual culture—without government growing more intrusive and more expensive? Without healthy marriages, the community often must step in to provide (more or less directly) for their well-being and upbringing. Thus, by encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. (Libertarians, do you see the importance of this? If you want the state to be less intrusive, get off the gay marriage idea!)

11. Promoting marriage does not ban any type of relationship: Adults are free to make choices about their relationships, and they do not need government sanction or license to do so. People are free to have contracts with each other. All Americans have the freedom to live as they choose, but no one has a right to redefine marriage for everyone else.

12. Law is a teacher. Just as many people, even some Christians, thought that slavery was okay when it was legal, will think that gay marriage is OK when it is legal.

13. Gay marriage is undeniably a step into other deviances. What will result are such things as plural marriages and polygamy. These things could not logically be turned back, and will initiate a further plunge of societal stability.

14. Only a small percentage of gays who are given the right to marry do so anyway (4% by one study). This proves that the gay marriage movement is not about marriage, but about affirmation.

15. Anal intercourse leads to numerous pathologies, obviously because the parts do not fit! Among items in a long list of problems listed by researcher and physician James Holsinger are these: enteric diseases (infections from a variety of viruses and bacteria including a very high incidence of amoebiasis, giardiasis, and hepatitis, etc.), trauma (fecal incontinence, anal fissure, rectosigmoid tears, chemical sinusitis, etc.), sexually transmitted diseases (AIDS, gonorrhea, simplex infections, genital warts, scabies, etc.). Anal cancer is only one of other medical problems higher in gay men that heterosexual men, especially monogamous heterosexual men. Society at large pays for these diseases. (Speaking to “Christian Libertarians,” unlike certain activities that also contribute to national health problems, such as obesity, homosexuality is morally wrong. Poor eating habits are not a moral issue; gluttony is not a sin.)

16. The ravages of the gay lifestyle are severe upon the gay community itself but also for society at large. The best available evidence shows that those practicing homosexual behavior have a 20% to 30% shorter life span. A much higher rate of alcoholism, drug abuse, sexually transmitted disease, domestic violence, child molestation and more occur in homosexual populations. (See http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/gay-rights#ravages.)

17. It is okay to discriminate. We discriminate all the time in our rules and laws. It is illegal to marry your parent. It is illegal to be a pedophile or a sociopath, no matter how strong the innate tendency might be.

18. Gay marriage and religious freedom are incompatible because it will marginalize those who affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The First Amendment is at stake! This is already evident in Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., among other locations. After Massachusetts redefined marriage to include same-sex relationships, Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to discontinue its adoption services rather than place children with same-sex couples against its principles. Massachusetts public schools began teaching grade-school students about same-sex marriage, defending their decision because they are “committed to teaching about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same-sex marriage is legal.” A Massachusetts appellate court ruled that parents have no right to exempt their children from these classes. Businesses that refuse to accept gay marriage as a legitimate institution will be penalized. It is a certainty that the church will at some point, be unable to preach the full council of God. It will be considered hate speech to speak of traditional marriage as right. Churches will begin losing their tax exempt status. Individuals who speak out against gay marriage will be penalized. This is only the tip of the iceberg. (Speaking again to "Christian Libertarians” who are OK with gay marriage: Do you see the issue here? This is important! Legalizing gay marriage nationally will lead to an assault on religion.)

19. Homosexual practioners cost more than they contribute via disproportionate diseases and disasters such as HIV, hepatitis, herpes, mental illness, substance abuse, suicide, assault, etc. The Center for Disease Control estimates that each HIV infection ALONE generates $700,000 in direct and indirect costs. (Source: Family Research Report, April 2014)

20. Homosexual activity and marriage robs our future by: having fewer children, poorly socializing the children they raise, commit about half of all child molestations recorded in the news. (Source: Family Research Report, April 2014)

The question is asked, why shouldn't two people who love each other be allowed to get married? ANSWER: Marriage is not about love. In many countries around the world, marriages are arranged. Marriage is about the rights of children and thus is about supporting the next generation. Anything that weakens the institution of marriage is an injustice to children and a travesty to the culture.

Nice cut and paste from a religious website:

http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-an...e-christians-communicating-to-secular-friends

Sorry but it's time to stop believing in fairy tales and lies and start emerging from the dark ages to realize that human rights mean all humans and not just those who are born in certain parts of the world who subscribe to these beliefs. Your cut and paste is thinly veiled homophobia and religious rhetoric used to justify prejudice.

And citing to unnamed "studies" with suspect "statistics" is just plain fraud.

And, by the way, "devout" also means committed to a cause - and I am.

I was born and raised Catholic and remained so until I reached the age of reason......

- - - Updated - - -

And your internal cite in a cut and paste job referring to a report by the Family Research Institute is typical of their hate speech. You do realize that The Family Research Institute is designated an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center because of Cameron's discredited research and claims about LGBT people, don't you?
 
Last edited:
That statement is just plain ludicrous, and totally mischaracterizes this Supreme Court. The fact is that the Roberts court, liked the Burger and Rehnquist courts that preceded it, has been extremely conservative in its opinions, although this particular term (year) has seen a mix of opinions, with a few noteworthy liberal decisions along with its many conservative ones. In other recent terms, the more publicized decisions (e.g. Citizens United) have been conservative victories. The court's conservative slant is not a surprise when you realize that the majority of the current Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republican presidents.
Everything you say is irrelevant to the subject at hand. We're talkiing about the recent decision on gay marriage. All other Court decisions are irrelevant, unless you wish to cite other Court rulings on this topic. Unless you want to discuss Romer v. Evans, or the recent ruling striking down Prop.8 in California; both of these were activist decisions that showed an arrogant content for the average American citizen. In the first case Kennedy claimed to read minds by suggesting that those supporting Amendment 2 in Colorado did so out of "animus" toward homosexuals. Amendment 2 was a common sense measure denying civil rights protection to homosexuals. As I've stated previously gays are not analogous to blacks, and as a rule, make far more money than racial minorities. They are not oppressed or disenfranchised in any meaningful sense.

In the second case, Kennedy again shows his contempt for American citizens by claiming that California residents had no standing to appeal Prop.8 after it was struck down by a federal court. American citizens always have standing simply by virtue of the fact that they are citizens!
As for the rest of your endless diatribe, you seem to be full of hate for your fellow man. It's a shame to live life that way.
You are resorting to personal attacks that I have hatred towards my fellow man, even though I've demonstrated not an ounce of hate in any of my posts on this topic.

- - - Updated - - -

Nice cut and paste from a religious website:

http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-an...e-christians-communicating-to-secular-friends

Sorry but it's time to stop believing in fairy tales and lies and start emerging from the dark ages to realize that human rights mean all humans and not just those who are born in certain parts of the world who subscribe to these beliefs. Your cut and paste is thinly veiled homophobia and religious rhetoric used to justify prejudice.

And citing to unnamed "studies" with suspect "statistics" is just plain fraud.

And, by the way, "devout" also means committed to a cause - and I am.

I was born and raised Catholic and remained so until I reached the age of reason......

- - - Updated - - -

And your internal cite in a cut and paste job referring to a report by the Family Research Institute is typical of their hate speech. You do realize that The Family Research Institute is designated an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center because of Cameron's discredited research and claims about LGBT people, don't you?
I copy & pasted the whole article; there was no internal cite by myself, as you allege.

And do you realize that the Family Research Council was itself a target of a hate crime -- a young man influenced by SPLC hate literature shot a security guard at FRC headquarters after buying Chick-Fil-A sandwiches. So who now are the haters?

- - - Updated - - -

The constitution created the Supreme Court bud. So maybe you should follow up on what it means?
What it means, bud, is that according to the Constitution Congress has final jurisdiction over the Supreme Court, except in cases where the Court has original jurisdiction, such as those involving treaties, ambassadors, or disagrements between states.

Try reading Article III Section 2 of the very document you claim to support. Congress has the power to decide appellate jurisdiction over the Supreme Court:

"Both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."


Like I said earlier, it's time for court-stripping.
 
Back
Top