Justices Express Skepticism In Oral Arguments For Gay Marriage Case

Huff Post ^ | 4/28/2015 | Riley

[VinL]

Members of the Supreme Court questioned on Tuesday whether now is the right time to force states to allow same-sex couples to marry, pointing to how quickly public opinion has shifted on the issue of marriage equality.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was a key figure in striking down the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013, suggested that he might be worried about the court moving too quickly to force states to marry same-sex couples.

“This definition has been with us for millennia,” Kennedy said of male-female marriages. The justice also said it would be very difficult for the court to say it knows better than the public on the issue.

[Dilbert56]

All this so that less than 3% of the people can be “happy.”

The subset of the 3% that want to get married. There are gay couples that are just fine living together and don't rush out to get married as soon as a state allowed it. I believe the latest estimates are about 700K SSMs with 60 million hetero.

[Slyfox]

I was being generous. From what I hear lots of gays think they shouldn't be engaging in marriage. So, the total is probably lower than either of us can imagine.

Which begs the thought - the Supreme Court are going to decide on gay marriage with really bad evidence from the gay side.

[mellow velo]

Yeah, good luck with that!

If Lou-Costello-in-drag ... I mean Justice Kagan ... didn't recuse herself during the Obamacare case after having done work in support of it during her time as Solicitor General, there's absolutely no chance that Ginsburg will do the honorable thing and recuse herself, either.

[Cheerio]

This definition has been with us for millennia, and ........

TRY ALL OF RECORDED HISTORY.

[generally]

Popular opinion is the latest version of “look, a squirrel.”

People who love to think of themselves as morally superior do-gooders will hop on whatever the latest bandwagon is that allows them to
1. feel self-righteously indignant about some perceived injustice
2. feel superior to those who don’t blindly jump on that same bandwagon
3. feel like they are sitting at the table with the “cool kids”
4. not have to actually “do” anything except run their mouths and vote D

[generally]

I stopped flying my American flag after that decision. I haven’t seen much occasion to put it back up yet.

.... maybe in 2016.

[Cheerio]

I also recall that the majority in Lawrence v. Texas said that decision would not open the door to homosexual marriage.

This will be by no means the end of the subject - the gay mafia will instantly move on to the next agenda item - PEDOPHILIA.



THE BIBLE ON PERVERTS

SODOMY – Leviticus 20:13 (KJV)
- If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

Up until 1962 - a mere 40 years ago - this was STILL a felony in EVERY STATE!

Since America has now been declared a Gay Marriage zone, these perversions must be included in the next wave of attacks on our Judea-Christian values:

INCEST – Leviticus 18:6 (KJV)
- None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover [their] nakedness: I [am] the LORD.

PEDOPHILIA – Matthew 18:6 (KJV)
- But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and [that] he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

BEASTIALITY – Exodus 22:19 (KJV)
- Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.

Now the perverts have one of their own lording over us as noted in Obama and male friend holding hands (count fingers in the blow-up insert)

This picture and the accompanying story ran in a NY Times blog back on January 20, 2009, the week before the inauguration of Barack Obama..

AND his TRANNY FLOTUS PARTNER darling of the wacko left.


While I am certainly not endorsing this site or it’s comments, some of them are quite interesting.

[dfwgator]

“Michelle is Finkle!!!!”

[Nervous Tick]

>> Last time gays were demanding their “rights” it did not end well for the gays.

Lot’s wife took it in the shorts, too, as I recall.

[Nervous Tick]

>> Ancient Rome, just before the fall?

Even the ancient homo-tolerant societies never went as far as allowing fags to “marry”.

[Nervous Tick]

>> the constitutional right to pursuit of happiness

The what?

Uh, can you tell me exactly where we find that in the constitution, Bob?

[jwalsh07]

Who the hell is the court to “force states” to do anything? Homosexual marriage is either a right embedded in the constitution or it is not. Hint: It is not.

[Bob434]

sorry, that should have read that the constitution protects the declaration of independence’s declaration of the right to pursue happiness- which is an inalienable right- the constitution protects liberty, liberty is the right to do within bounds, that which betters ourselves and our happiness

[Bob434]

the 14’th amendment to the constitutution was interpreted by McReynalds to mean the ‘orderly pursuit of happiness by free men’ in Meyer v. Nebraska

You are right, the actual constitution doesn’t say ‘pursuit of happiness- but the constitution DOES protect that right with restrictions- which is the crux of the post I made concerning gays trying to claim they have a right when they don’t- they claim the right to pursuit of happiness means unfettered unrestrained right to do anything they wish- they do NOT have that right- no more so than any other DEVIENT has a right to do whatever they wish- We are granted rights, and they are protected by the constitution, but they have criteria that we m ust meet before we are granted those rights-

[NELSON111]

>>>>Pray, pray, pray, pray.

Exactly. If Christians are worried about it enough to complain on social media (FB, Twitter, Free Republic, et al)...then they are worried enough about it to pray! If those who confess Christ want to complain about it but won't pray about it...then I have to question the depth of their concern.

[VideoDoctor]

I keep hearing this but they never seem interested in putting it up for another vote.

When they do, as in California, once the people rejected gay marriage the Higher courts stepped in and RULED that the VOTERS could not have what they voted for.

[VideoDoctor]

if they try to jam gay marriage down everyone’s throats.

If they DO, they will have managed to create a nationwide state of revolt and upheaval that will create MANY a problem..

My point: We'll see America in a state of DIVISIVENESS like never before.

[Rapscallion]

But, if you call it a "tax" that would be Constitutional. Right? /S

End marriage as we know it. End America as we know it. End the family as we know it.

May God have mercy on the Supreme Court and on America.

[Mechanicos]

This Supreme Court hearing is a sham and any ruling in favor of mandatory acceptance of sodomy is arguably void on its face.

First: No federal court has jurisdiction to judge marriage as marriage is neither a right nor a privilege. For proof of this fact try to marry your adult sibling. As such its not covered under the 14th’s jurisdiction, nor is it a civil rights claim.

Second: Marriage is an establishment of religion. The First Amendment bars the government from changing it.

Third: Kagan and Ginsberg by publicly advocating for forced public acceptance of sodomy have demonstrated a bias as well as conflict of interest requiring them to recuse themselves from the case. They have not done so.

The absence of the forgoing arguments in front of the court and the refusal to recuse themselves by the two who have shown the most conflict of interest in the case are proof the hearing today is a sham.

[Tennessee Nana]

Even the kings and nobility of the decadent 17th and 18th centuries didn’t marry their boys..

nor did they consider it...it just wasn’t done..

The homosexual bed fellows were lumped in with mistresses...just an extramarital sin and pastime, not a permanent relationship ...

yes the mistresses sometimes had the kings ear but not any homosexual partners and the mistresses were eventually replaced by younger women or fell out of favor...

Madame Pompadours were rare ..