Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire The Constitutional Right of Gays To Marry is Equally Fictitious

I have to agree that the Obergefell decision had very little basis in the constitution. I believe Justice Kennedy cited a right to dignity, which is clearly not in the constitution, as one of the main reasons for his opinion.

If the states or the federal government want to pass a gay marriage law so be it, but it's not a constitutional right.

Accepting the abnormal has become normal

And that is precisely the problem.

How about inter-racial marriage? How do you see the current court lining up on that one?

Marriage is a religious thing.
The government has no business being involved in a religious matter.

Your a moron.. Clarence Thomas is a black man, you watch too much BS liberal media and then come here and try to be relevant. We were founded upon Christian values in this country, not emotion and fads. But the question was about GHEY marriage. Try to stay on topic loser.

Every time conservatives have a chance of turning things around we wind up right back here, pushing stupid fugking social agendas based on religious belief.

The one reason Trump was successful, he didn’t waste time on this BS, and went after foreign policy, trade, the economy, etc…

Quit worrying about queers and start concentrating on the economy.

It should be, but since .gov had to involve marriage in taxes….
Get them out of the marriage game entirely and let folks do what their religions will allow.

Precisely where I am.

LOL.

Google a picture of Thomas's wife.

The constitution doesn't have anything to do with marriage of any kind. That's the bible and the IRS.

Including, perhaps, the right to secede?

These immoral acts don't occur in a vacuum.In part,it's due to some citizens apathy to immorality that allows these illegal judicial actions to remain in place IE homosexual marriage.

John Adams stated, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”


Clarence Thomas is on the case,he recently stated "in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell."

Have to add, every time the word “gay” is used to describe homosexuality the user has given in to the sodomites. Part of the game is changing the meaning of words in our language. ie make up word changes to glorify that which has always been denigrated. Turn sodomy into a more acceptable occurrence by calling it a nice, warm, attractive word like “gay” or “alternative lifestyle”. Remind those to whom you speak that homosexual men are homosexual. If we decide using slang terms is acceptable we then must allow negative connotations as well as positive. That is, your gay guys are now fraggits, mud pumpers, etc. Call them what they are. Homosexual.

"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."

There is no right of straight people to marry either.

Interracial marriage will never come us as a case for SCOTUS because almost everyone accepts it. And to put a finer point on it, Justice Thomas in in an interracial marriage.

The Constitutional right of "gays" to be left alive is fictitious.

Inter-racial marriage is consistent with the historic definition of marriage, which is a union of a man and a woman in matrimony. Therefore it falls under the 9th Amendment guarantee.

That's the smartest post you've made in a long time.

The legal tradition of marriage being both a religious and civil arrangement goes back to before the founding of our nation. Many times there's been no religious element to it at all, such as marriages performed by sea captains and the like.