Why the Supreme Court is Set to Make History on Gay Marriage

Time ^ | January 16, 2015 | David Von Drehle

[catfish1957]

please stop this bullsht blackmail conspiracy theory about Roberts.

Okay, please provide proof that he wasn't blackmailed. All of Robert's previous decisions around this matter leading up to the Obamacare debacle contradicts his prior judicial philosophy. If you are such a bright bulb, what's your theory bub?

Otherwise, I can't help it that you buy into GOP(e) talking points.

[steve86]

Give control of DC over to Putin.

[Paladin2]

"The court is going to discover that something that has never existed has suddenly become a constitutional right."

Depending on the closeness of the scrutiny, those penumbras can be surprisingly broad....

[rollo tomasi]

This is not about the right to marriage (A lot of States have already legalized the abomination/forced down their throats), but a right that all the States due to the Full Faith and Credit Clause (That the State/Feds are bound to) *recognize* the “marriage”.

The sexual deviants have at least 6 SC Justices (Two on “our side” probably granted cert just to have this issue settled nation-wide) that will probably agree with forcing the State/Feds to *recognize* the “marriages” along the same line as the traditional heterosexual marriage.

[VRW Conspirator]

Traditionalist churches, institutions, and people will be forced into silence.

Worse.

There will come a day soon when a minister who came out of the closet will be refused a job at a church. He will sue and will win. Ultimately dividing and scattering a congregation.

There will come a day soon that a man wearing a dress and a mustache will be teaching 5th grade math and there will not be anything that parents can do or say. The administration will have their hands tied.

There will come a day soon that "gay" will be part of the protected class. Discrimination of any kind will result in lawsuits, job losses, business closures and finally affirmative action for gays.

And after all these, the perverts will push, hard, for lowering the age of consent to eleven and a half years old.

Now, have a nice day.

[highball]

"I don’t think any one has a right to get married."

The Supreme Court disagrees, going back a hundred years. If there was any doubt, Loving v. Virginia settled it:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival...."

[dbehsman]

That is correct. The issue however is not about civil rights, but the redefinition of the word marriage. Any homosexual man can marry any woman he wants, provided she agrees. Likewise any homosexual woman can marry any man she wants, provided he agrees.

The marriage rights between homosexuals and heterosexuals are EXACTLY the same.

[Diggity]

Marriage isn’t a right but if a state issues a license for marriage then it has to abide by the constitution.

However, nothing requires a state to issue a license to be married.

[highball]

I am not a lawyer, but it seems pretty clear that SCOTUS has said on a half-dozen occasions that marriage is indeed a fundamental right. Just because somebody is trying to abuse that right now and stretch it all out of shape doesn’t make it any less a right.

But you raise an interesting point - are states therefore required to license it? That I don’t know. Would a state be allowed to get out of the business?