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

The next judicial fiction that needs to fall is that the Constitution guarantees a right of same sex marriage. That notion is as fictitious as the the right to have an abortion.

Is any marriage guaranteed?

Kav’s boy wrote that Texas Opinion.. He also cut the Deal with Trump to seat Kav ..
No GeorgeTown Prep not going along with that One ..
You know Trump put two Prep’r on the Bench ..

Amen.

About this the Libs are correct; Lord willing we will be correcting the insanity of past court decisions that have sought to undermine the foundational institutions of western society.

Whether it’ll happen soon enough is doubtful…

Correct.

There's been LOTS of legislating from the Bench.

I frankly don't GAFF what gays do. Furthermore, I don't really care about abortion either. (Just look at who is more likely to get an abortion..)

What I DO care about is the U.S. Constitution.

If rights are not stated specifically in that document, then it doesn't fall under a constitutional issue. Therefore it's not a federal jurisdiction issue either. It's a state's issue.

Well, that's not actually true. The Ninth Amendment was designed to guarantee rights that have traditionally been understood as such, such as the right of men and women to marry, the right to travel, etc.. But the rule had always been that such claims of right are not protected unless you can demonstrate that it has deep roots in the American tradition. Gay marriage has exactly zero roots in the American tradition, and thus is not protected under the 9th Amendment. In fact, it has always been the American understanding that marriage is a state that exists only between men and women, that being central to the very definition of the word.

I dont care who you love, but don't force me to accept it or demand special privileges with your choice.

I was more referring to the 10th Amendment. It shouldn't be a federal issue at all, but rather passed to the state power to determine laws legislated by states, and not a court to say something is in the US Constitution, when it isn't.

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. It expresses the principle of federalism, also known as states' rights, by stating that the federal government has only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution, and that all other powers not forbidden to the states by the Constitution are reserved to each state.

I’m not a constitutional expert by any stretch, but I don’t think it addresses marriage of any kind.

Marriage is, and has always been, between two individuals, their church and God. Once upon a way back when the state saw the chance to get a windfall from nuptials in the form of licenses and fees. Then the govt had to decide what direction to wade in a stream it should’ve stayed the heck out of!

Gays have always had the same rights to marriage as heterosexual people. What they screamed for and got was special rights.

That and married people decided they wanted special tax breaks.

There you have it.

Perfectly stated

The first question I always ask. Who is paying for this KRAP. It normally winds up being ordinary taxpayers. Hasbeen

The state isn't supposed to recognize any marriage or give tax breaks because you had a kid.

Neither are insurance companies.

I think this is what the court is trying to do, reinforce the Constitution and correct past legislation from the bench. Justice Thomas is spearheading this effort with support from the four other conservative justices. If Congress wants to declare something a right they should go through the process of amending the Constitution to make it so.

I must have missed where gay marriage and abortion were included in the constitution or bill of rights. Seems that it should be adopted by a majority of the states as an amendment if they want to say the constitution offers protection for these activities.

Right or wrong we have some rules to follow.

Which should not be an issue either. The state’s and fed gov backed themselves into a corner.

Current generations are too far gone to really help with any of this, but if you care about future generations it would behoove them to stop using the term "gay marriage" in the context of government recognition.

The government has no reason to know if anyone is married to anyone. It is none of their fugking business. At all.