Posted on 10/06/2014 7:09:27 AM PDT by Citizen Zed
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up the hotly contested issue of gay marriage, a surprise move that will allow gay men and women to marry in five states where same-sex weddings were previously banned.
By rejecting appeals in cases involving Virginia, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin and Indiana, the court left intact lower-court rulings that struck down bans in those states.
Other states under the jurisdiction of appeals courts that struck down the bans will also be affected, meaning the number of states with gay marriage is likely to quickly jump from 19 to 30.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Say what they want, but homo “marriage” is still just an imitation of the real thing.
THERE IS
ANARCHY and LAWLESSNESS in the federal court system.
“Declines to intervene” in the above headline is legalistic doubletalk. Much better is BBC’s headline: US Rebuff to Gay Marriage Opponents
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29508566
I can not TELL you how much I appreciate your post. Well, I guess I can since I am. lol
That is why I cringe when I see Conservatives (not those playing Conservative) jump on the “privatize it” bandwagon. You know one of the biggest reasons this type of “marriage” is going to be recognized? There’s money in it. A LOT of money in it.
You know why the Tea party is being kicked to the curb? Because we disrupt Corporatist culture. Citizens United initiated the fire sale of America.
Embrace corporatism, privatization, etc. at your PERIL. That, even more than your local LibTard, will kill our Constitution faster than you could ever imagine.
I have always felt it wasn’t about benefits but more to force schools to push on kids as an alternative lifestyle.
Gaaaaahh!
Fixed it :)
This is a states’ rights case. Only states can issue marriage license, not the federal government.
This is not the worst outcome. Had the SC accepted the case and found there was no way to limit gay marriage under the equal protection clause, that would have been the end, as that would establish a national precedent.
Instead, while the gay marriage advocates will declare victory, the battle will go on in lower courts and at the state level.
Unless there is a clear constitutional reason for the SCOTUS to say otherwise, the conservative position ought to favor less national control and greater autonomy at the state and local level.
It’s spreading like Ebola.
I know this is a serious subject, but I had a good chuckle on your post.
Last week there was a post about a woman whose husband, after 10 years of marriage and two kids (LINK), decided to divorce her, got joint custody of the boys, and now has them living with his new "husband" and an ever-changing cast of friends-with-benefits.
Several fellow Freepers said he was perfectly within his rights, because as a gay it's OK for him to choose as he pleases to maximize his sexual gratification ("he has a right to be happy"), except --- except --- it's not OK to expect him to honor his own choice to marry his wife, the mother of his kids, his choice to undertake vows and natural obligations as a husband and father, because in that case his choice was regrettable, and it's all his wife's fault because she married him.
Go figure.
I am fully expecting to marry all of my children and grandchildren collectively, for the estate protections specifically. There is NO requirement that marriage partners engage in sex acts with each other. We have been told only that all committed, loving relationships deserve the sanctity of marriage. I’m in.
Marriage will be meaningless only if you let it be.
I pray the end comes quickly. Our Savior cannot return quickly enough. Hell, I would settle for a planet-killing asteroid to collide with us at this rate. I have lost all faith in humanity...
For the record regarding that case, I thought the two men should have been executed for their crimes. Just my take.
Wish the Republicans would have had the testicular fortitude to stand by Bork. Had they done so, we wouldn't be dealing with this now.
States don’t have rights anymore - particularly not about marriage. Read Loving v. Virginia if you think States have the right to define marriage according to community standards and values.
Yup. Marriage will only be meaningless if you rely on whatever mutating definition the state uses to define marriage for itself currently. Sad thing is, many have conditioned to do exactly that. To the state in the modern era it’s always only ever been what judges, pols, or the voting majority think about marriage at any one time. Thus banning interracial marriage at one time, civil divorce and remarriage, then easy civil divorce and remarriage and now ‘gay marriage.’
FReegards
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.