Posted on 12/07/2012 12:37:02 PM PST by Alter Kaker
Edited on 12/07/2012 12:46:28 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Incorrect. They have always had the seme right to marry as heterosexuals. They can marry any member of the oppisite sex they choose, just like heteros.
Two huge problems that worry me big time:
1. Kennedy. If he doesn’t rule for gay marriage I will be stunned.
2. These two cases ruled on VERY narrow issues. Quite frankly I expect the Court to uphold them on those very narrow issues and not reach the bigger question(s).
True, but the 9th Cir case would only apply to the 9th Cir states.
Apparently the STATES have NO rights anymore. None. Zip. Nada! Obama and his people have effectively scrapped the Constitution.
Even if they make marriage a right, where do they get the right to redefine what marriage is?
I can’t believe it’s come to this. We really are doomed.
Yep. It’s a fee, or a tax the government charges us when we get married, so it’s up to us to vote in people who won’t screw us over. Doesn’t matter if it’s right or wrong. That’s all there is to it. /sarcasm
And are you just going to deem the conservatives living in those states chopped liver?
But even that won't contain the infection.
It's a fight worth fighting - for everyone.
They will rule in favor of gay marriage on 14th amendment grounds so that battle is lost. What we must now turn to is making sure that Christians are not forced to violate their religious liberties and accommodate gays.
Prop. 8 only passed by 52% in 2008. If our black robed masters don’t declare it unconstitutional, the homosexualists will simply try to repeal it with another popular vote. I doubt it would pass in Ca now.
Freegards
Reynolds v. United States, 1878...
It defined marriage as one man and one woman.
Reynolds v. United States in 1878 defined marriage as one man and one woman.
Nothing biased about that statement is there. Queers already have the same constitutional right to marry as Heterosexuals do, they can marry any person of the opposite sex that will have them. Actually there is nothing in the constitution about marriage either way, it is just accepted as common sense that a normal person wouldn't want a person of the same sex as a mate.
Like that will stop them. Sorry I am just not optimistic about this at all.
I believe the government should change the name of the services and legal relationship they record to a civil union. that's what it is really.
Now churches could perform marriages in the traditional sense.
Render to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's.
That is not necessarily going to solve the issue but it would help to use correct definitions going forward.
I didn't realize that any right to marriage was in the Constitution.
I am not optimistic because my conservative friends can only argue about their Biblical principles and NOT the case law...
I have been saying this for years about Reynolds v. United States.
I would have to look at that case. I don’t think marriage should only be argued on Biblical principle. I often argue as to why the State should give special status to the union of one man to one woman which is supposed to be for life and for the rearing of children. That this status came after the natural inclination to form such unions. That marriage is a natural right not a civil right and the place of government is to not create unions that define marriage but to protect marriage as it has been known throughout history and most cultures.
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.