Posted on 01/16/2015 1:19:49 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Kennedy probably doesn’t want to be seen as being “on the wrong side of history” so I’m thinking it’s all over here. :-(
The Volunteer State will not concur.
Too bad this was a one sided battle. Can’t win when nobody fights back.
These clowns are wasting time and money. The Constitution DOES NOT “PROTECT” homosexual marriage. It’s not in there. Check it out!
I think you’re right.
This should be interesting. It’s almost certain to be a 5-4 decision no matter which way the court decides.
The black-robed morons who side with the deviants will regret this most bitterly. If not in this life, the next one for certain.
Drudge got it up.
Since these perverts are almost all athiests, what “right” are they hanging their hat on?
Kennedy has consistently been ardently in favor of Gay marriage rights.
My thought, it’s simple. Where the heck in the constitution does it say that our constitution supports it or doesn’t support it? How is different from ROe vs Wade?
Leave it a state’s issue where by the people vote on it. Like it should be.
Nice, but I don't care what he does on his own time.
Amazing, huh. They talk about “God given rights” as spelled out in the constitution but they don’t believe in God.
Anybody want to take bets on how this ruling comes down?
First SSM, then polygamous and incestuous “marriage” won’t be far behind. The same principles apply.
I’d like to know that the constitution protects voters from black robed dictators.
I and millions of others have already voted on this and made the decision.
It will be a 6-3 decision in favor of gay marriage.
Only Thomas, Scalia and Alito will vote for traditional marriage.
Roberts is compromised and Kennedy just wants to be liked.
Just think: Gay marriage is protected by the 1st Amendment.
Refusing to bake a cake for a Gay wedding is not.
Welcome to Obamaland. :)
In this case, there is no question how 8 of the 9 will decide (4 for homosexual marriage and 4 against), so the Constitution says whatever Kennedy says it says. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Does it give anyone the right to marry? I thought rather that it prohibited States from banning certain people from marrying because of artificial legal barriers set upon entering into marriage such as race.
Prohibiting the marriage of two people of the same sex or of close blood kin or of those underage is not just a social convention to meet local prejudices but a practice based on the natural definition of marriage and government’s interest in protecting true marriage and the children of that union.
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.