Wonder what's next? The Feds Forcing Christians(Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Lutherans, etc) Muslims and Jews to marry homosexuals by withholding tax exempt status
This had nothing to do with that. It relates only to state involvement. Big difference under the constitution This is legally the correct decision under the 14th amendment and shouldn't have been an issue
Is this final? Can each state file against this ruling?
The states remaining can pout and stomp their feet but this is final. ONLY thing that can change the SCOTUS ruling is a Constitutional Amendment that puts a definition of marriage which won't happen...ever.
Even though the court says homosexuals can marry, in my eyes, as well as million of others, it's fake, and an abomination. Not even equal to that of a man and woman.Homosexual marriage is like calling Catlyn Jenner a girl.
see, that's the thing. I disagree with you, but defend your right to believe it and to live your life according to what you believe. What the court said is that governments cant discriminate with respect to rights and privileges granted by the government. churches don't have to marry anyone they don't want to.
And this is a victory for the Republican party. How? Because the Republican nominee for president won't have to defend an indefensible position that was a loser for the Republicans. This takes the issue off the table, whether or not the candidate likes the decision.
This POTUS is such a phoney. He speaks of equality and that evrryone is created equal and that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, but he refuses to take steps to end affirmitive action and quotas.
Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State?s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.
Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority?s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens?through the democratic process?to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept
The majority?s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court?s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial ?caution? and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own ?new insight? into the ?nature of injustice.? Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?
"If you are among the many Americans?of whatever sexual orientation?who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today?s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. [b]But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it." [/b]