Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Thomas on same sex marriage

It isnt "law" at all and neither were any other rulings. Thomas is throwing the onus back to the people or forcing the representatives to do their jobs.

Congress shall make law....

Striking down an un-Constitutional law doesn' t make the opposite a law by fiat, unless youre a liberal hack.

It still needs to go through the legislative process.

This.

Marriage of any kind or definition, like abortion, is not a constitutional matter. Whether you agree in principle or not. Neither are guaranteed by the constitution. These are religious matters and not legal matters and are exclusive of each other as our country is rightfully bound by the premise of the separation of church and state. That is absolutely why these issues were purposely left out of the constitution by the founders. Therefore, it is not up to the federal government or federal courts to police it. These are State issues.

The right to keep and bear arms is clearly defined by the constitution, but somehow in the left winger world those words don't matter. They are somehow, open to interpretation in their view.

However, they want protection for their views from the supreme court for things that aren't even addressed in the constitution. It's really F'd up how they view the purpose and duty of the court.

I swear, the liberal left wing dems can't fu kin read. If they would actually read the fu ckin thing they would understand all this.

In fact, I don't even think most people in this country understand that the Supreme Court are the constitution police and are bound by the words that are and ain't in it. For the justices these are (or at least should be) questions of law, not morality. Whether they or anybody else agrees or not is immaterial. The founders left us with a process to amend the constitution. It can be amended to change with the times. Unamended, then we got what we got. The constitution is only thing that is currently holding our democracy, all be it currently by a thread, together. Thank God the founders gave us a supreme court to police the legislative and executive branch, or God help us all.

Where do you draw the line when ceding power to the federal government to "regulate civic order?"

Anything put back to the States to decide is a victory for Conservatives. After seeing the last decade of gay rights developments, legalizing gay marriage has done us zero favors.

I was agreeing with you hence my reference to roe vs. wade.

Governments SOLE legitimate purpose is to promote the welfare of the people.

Therefore, it is well within the bounds of good government to support the institution (marriage) that promotes the continued welfare of the people. Homosexual unions only enhance the power of the government through vote pandering while it destroys the people. Immoral people, that same-sex marriage promotes, require immoral, totalitarian government.

Where does it say that in the constitution?

Don't confuse your morals or religious beliefs with constitutional law.

The difference between a constitutional conservative and a pie in the sky libertarian is that a constitutionalist recognizes some limits on behavior in the interest of society. Not allowing Prostitution on street corners, drug use ect.

Finding that exact thin line between individual liberty and complete societal anarchy is the tricky part. The left has wildly bent public policy to their ends for decades. If they can read gun control and a right to an abortion into the Constitution to name just two hot topics. I can absolutely read Tyrone’s view into it. There has to be a balance on some issues for a society to function libertarians refuse to acknowledge that and liberals feed off of it. We’ve errored way to far to the left.

Our founders envisioned a nation of mostly rural Caucasians of various Christian backgrounds that would adhere to excepted social norms and minimize the need for government involvement. That was the ideal situation and why John Adams said what he said. Without that there has to be a minimal amount of public policy. Even at our founding it wasn’t a free for all to do anything that you wanted. Our two biggest mistakes have been way to much public policy and allowing it to lean heavily to the left.

Every State legislature looks at every issue through the lens of "Will it cost us Fed money if we do
this?"

Anyone who denies this has not the smallest understanding of the power grabbing that is government. We have just lost sight of the fact it is our money to start with, but the pigs want a spot at the feed trough so they can take local money to buy local votes with.

The constitution very clearly does guarantee the right to keep and bear arms.

It does not guarantee abortion or define marriage. The liberals want it to guarantee abortion and not define marriage. The conservatives want it to protect against abortion and define marriage as a union between men and women. It does neither. You can't pick and choose what you want the constitution to say based on your political and/or religious/moral beliefs, regardless of which side of the fence you stand on. It says what it says.

Anybody that wants to can open a joint checking account. Anybody that wants to can form a legal partnership that defines rights and responsibilities. Why not just let people get married in any fashion they choose including gay, polygamy or whatever as long as all are adults and no violence or involuntary servitude is involved. As with divorce a partnership can be dissolved in court if the parties can't dissolve it themselves. In the case of children courts could step in as they do even now with unmarried parents and make orders for the financing and custody of the minor children and property division. DNA can end any controversy over who watered that garden nowadays.

In short, if you have religious beliefs that lead you to believe you should have a marriage ceremony by all means have one and if you want to file your partnership with the county, go do it.

The state probably got mixed up in it for the protection of joint property and to insure children are cared for and that could be done without a state/county licensed marriage certificate.

You guys realize that if the decision was whether a state could pass a law legalizing gay marriage, Thomas would vote in favor of it???



Thomas is my favorite SC justice, but conservative judicial philosophy and conservative political views don’t always line up ….

The definition of marriage was assumed. NOBODY would have given any other definition then.
Go back and read you some Blackstone - our entire legal system is based on his writings.

The only heads that will explode are the heads of people who worry and make comments about it.

Except mine.

I used to take Teal’s more libertarian stance on this as well but have come to see that there are few institutions more foundational for the peace and prosperity of a culture than the family.

How therefore can marriage and it’s veneration NOT be central to the business of a just govt?

I leave that up to the Church - my POV. I agree, strong marriages are critical to a society - I just don't want the .gov involved at all with it because I've yet to see a .gov do ANY good when it comes to it. It's simply getting worse - everywhere. Insanity is doing it over and over and expecting a better result. VERY little of what the .gov gets involved with gets BETTER. Especially when it's about people.

The 10th amendment,

If you believe the ruling on RvW what makes you think marriage should be handled by the federal government?

Marriage is a religious ritual that has nothing to do with the constitution. Keep your religion out of the government.

Thomas Jefferson, The guy wrote the constitution.

Divorce lawyer lobby was happy when homo marriage was legalized I imagine. New customer base.

Money, time, resources wasted on a tiny fraction of the overall population. Meanwhile, we have very serious threats being overshadowed.
In Pfizer We Trust, comes to mind.