cavyrunsbarrels - 2015-06-27 2:58 PM I didn't read through all these, but I'm extremely disappointed in the Supreme Court. I have nothing against gay people at all, but it is written in the bible, the very definition of marriage is BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. Creating "gay marriage" is completely redefining an institution that has been around for thousands of years. It's not even that that worries me the most, because as we were given free will some choose not to follow God's laws, and don't feel that they apply to them. Sad but true, and it is not my place to condemn them. That is God's job. BUT the left won't be happy with "gay marriage" just being legal. Now they will attack our religious freedom. Just like they did with the christian bakers, they will demand that churches go against the law of God and provide the same services to gays that they do to real marriages. As a Christian, I will be labeled as a bigot and homophobe simply for acting out my RIGHT to Religious freedom. 

Three 4 Luck - 2015-06-27 7:41 PM  Since churches can refuse to marry heterosexual couples, I don't see how they could be forced to perform a gay marriage service.  That's what JPs are for. 

musikmaker - 2015-06-27 2:52 PM We forget that the States created the federal government....not the other way around!

I support same sex marriage...I do not support judicial legislation.



So...the Eisenhower Report (1962) clearly shows the jurisdiction of marriage is state held...every state has varying rules/regs, remember when some states required blood tests? A waiting period?  How about 'common law' marriage? It, too, varies by state...I see a lot of issues with the fed getting involved in marriage, a religous institution that, because of taxation, is now a government institution. Just wow.



Its not love. Its money. Or rather, 'Love of money'.

(Strange isn't it? One day an old battle flag is deemed offensive...the next day a rainbow flag lights up the white house...lmao...!)

 

TXBO - 2015-06-27 9:25 PM

 Guess who's next to demand equal rights?  Two phycologists from Canada declare pedophilia a sexual orientation. 

http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/that-was-fast-yesterday-it-was-gay-marriage-now-look-who-wants-equal-rights/

 

jbhoot - 2015-06-27 9:57 PM I said back on page 2 that this decision left the door wide open.

foundation horse - 2015-06-27 12:27 PM

To further support this issue (same sex marriage) as being a States Rights Issue covered by The Tenth Amendment vs. The Fourteenth Amendment, the language of The Fourteenth Amendment SPECIFICALLY spells out it is addressing Race Issue(s) which do NOT include Sexual Orientation or mention Marriage. While States have focused upon the Sexual Issue of Same Sex Marriage which is NOT Defined in ANY Legal Document in The American Legal System and therefore falls under The Tenth Amendment. Again, this decision is one of MANY un-Constitutional Rulings of late by a Rogue Group of un-elected non accountable activists Judges.

America as We know it is has been voided!

jbhoot - 2015-06-27 9:57 PM


I said back on page 2 that this decision left the door wide open.

musikmaker - 2015-06-27 2:52 PM

We forget that the States created the federal government....not the other way around!
I support same sex marriage...I do not support judicial legislation.

So...the Eisenhower Report (1962) clearly shows the jurisdiction of marriage is state held...every state has varying rules/regs, remember when some states required blood tests? A waiting period?  How about 'common law' marriage? It, too, varies by state...I see a lot of issues with the fed getting involved in marriage, a religous institution that, because of taxation, is now a government institution. Just wow.

Its not love. Its money. Or rather, 'Love of money'.
(Strange isn't it? One day an old battle flag is deemed offensive...the next day a rainbow flag lights up the white house...lmao...!)
 

Chandler's Mom - 2015-06-27 10:11 PM


You would be surprised at the number of younger people that I thought could care less about this who cannot fathom that the Confederate flag is under fire yet the gay flag colors light our White House. It is at federal ground zero, yet for those that find it offensive (same as some do the Confederate flag), where is the recourse there? The C flag needs to come down yet those colors and what they represent are crammed down others' throats.

Itsme - 2015-06-27 9:01 PM


Wide open for what?

musikmaker - 2015-06-27 2:52 PM

We forget that the States created the federal government....not the other way around!
I support same sex marriage...I do not support judicial legislation.

So...the Eisenhower Report (1962) clearly shows the jurisdiction of marriage is state held...every state has varying rules/regs, remember when some states required blood tests? A waiting period?  How about 'common law' marriage? It, too, varies by state...I see a lot of issues with the fed getting involved in marriage, a religous institution that, because of taxation, is now a government institution. Just wow.

Its not love. Its money. Or rather, 'Love of money'.
(Strange isn't it? One day an old battle flag is deemed offensive...the next day a rainbow flag lights up the white house...lmao...!)
 

SKM - 2015-06-28 7:50 AM


 With the way they interpreted the law, it opens the door for pedophiles to say that pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality so it shouldn't be against the law and child porn should be okay because without it, pedophiles are being denied the right to happiness.

Bear - 2015-06-28 10:37 AM

This has been a great thread. I've learned a thing or two, plus it has forced me to examine my own reaction to this ruling. The truth is that I must confess I know nothing about the specifics of the case on which this ruling was made. My own reaction probably typifies the reaction of a great many fellow citizens. While I am still eager to see the gay rights issue put behind us so we can focus on other matters, I have essentially tacitly approved of a process that contradicts our constitution. It goes to show that popular opinion can basically enable our government to ignore the US Constitution....and get away with it. Shame on me for falling into this trap. It's interesting that Governor Scott Walker has been talking about a constitutional amendment allowing states to determine for themselves the legality of gay marriage. It's a serious proposal, but I think ultimately all states will allow gay marriage.....even Texas. What I find a little troubling is how we can be talking about an amendment that defines a state's right on a specific issue, when, supposedly that is already enumerated.

Do we need to divide this country in two.....one espousing the idea that the Constitution is a "living, breathing document" subject to the whims of a given ideology, and the other strictly adherent to the Constitution as written?

Frodo - 2015-06-27 8:46 PM


What this person said...............

 

foundation horse - 2015-06-27 1:28 PM I am still awaiting on the satisfactory answer as to just where SCOTUS and The Federal Government derives the authority to regulate marriage? Or where the word(s) marriage or healthcare are mentioned or defined in The United States Constitution which DOES authorize The Federal Government to exist?

JBjbhoot - 2015-06-28 10:59 AM Doc in a sense the Constitution is a "living ,breathing document" the founders gave us several ways to change it. I am not against change I was happy to let the issue of gay marriage work it's way thru States (the people) it was more than apparent it soon would be the law the way the founders intended from the people. My main objection is the way the ruling came down. SCOTUS just shoved a square peg thru a round hole. To me they ruled on emotion not law. Thru emotion they found a way to contort the 14th amendment while ignoring the rest of the Constitution. The ruling it self is way to broad it opens way to many doors to be abused. It essentially puts all state laws on marriage at risk. The ruling essentially states that if you are humane and in love you now have a Constitutional right to marry GREAT. Now stop and think of how many possibility's you can cram in to that. And to those that say that will never happen REALLY!!!!! To me it comes down to do you want to be ruled by emotion or laws that work their way thru the states as intended in the Constitution. I WILL ALWAYS CHOOSE THE LATTER.