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.

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.

Interracial marriage came before the court in 1967.It was resolved with the Loving v. Virginia case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_in_the_United_States

The homosexual lobby tried to use the Loving v. Virginia case in their bid for homosexual marriage.This attempt was resoundingly rejected by several courts.

^^^^This,

The Constitution is silent on the “right to marry,” either same sex or other sex, or interracial.

Hence the argument for it or against it using the Constitution as a basis is nonsense.

These issues will follow the path of abortion.

It’s up to the states. Period.

Thomas’s comments, taken in context, mean that the Court will return the choices to the States.

No. In a criminal code written for the Commonwealth of Virginia Jefferson made Sodomy (male homosexuality) punishable by castration. In this he only followed the common law. Blackstone also made it a felony punishable by castration.

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."

They need to revisit the ruling in Brown v Board of Ed, too. That was based on pure legal fiction, too. Plessy v. Ferguson was based in actual law.

Absolutely.

Using that argument frees all others who are not Christians to do as they wish. Try again.