Supreme Court extends same-sex marriage nationwide

[Onyx Z]

This is only the beginning. Give them an inch and they'll want a mile.

[austinN4]

SCALIA: The Supreme Court is a 'threat to American democracy'
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/scali...#ixzz3eBHR366J

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...4-556_3204.pdf

[Alex V]

Oh my god. Come one guys, how does this effect you? Who cares. This is the least of our worries. Live and let live on this one, I say. The constitution does not say anything forbidding it, there is no reason to prevent it.

[jpmuscle]

Roberts dissented on this one.

And he said they court isn't a legislative body in the process... To hell with him.

[Belloc]

Oh my god. Come one guys, how does this effect you? Who cares. This is the least of our worries. Live and let live on this one, I say. The constitution does not say anything forbidding it, there is no reason to prevent it.

Some honest questions.
1. Have you have ever taken even a few moments to actually ever bother studying the issue?

2. Since you clearly support the government having the power and authority to redefine the term "marriage" to mean anything it wants, do you also support the government having the power and authority to redefine the term"assault-weapon" to mean anything it wants?

3. Why do you think any of the lunatic leftist agenda of Obama, Hillary, Cuomo, Feinstein, and Boxer, is something you should support or turn a blind eye too.

The Audacity of the State
It’s Bent on Bringing Down the House on the Family & the Church

"..Replaced by a kaleidoscope of transient sexual and psychological configurations, which serve chiefly to make children of adults and adults of children, the declining family is ceding enormous tracts of social and legal territory to the state. At law, parent-child relationships are losing their a priori status and privilege. Crafty fools ask foolish fools, “What harm does same-sex marriage do to your marriage, or to your family?” The truthful answer is: Same-sex marriage makes us all chattels of the state, because the state, in presuming to define the substance rather than the accidents of marriage, has made marriage itself a state artefact."

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archive...id=23-01-028-f

Why Fight Same-Sex Marriage?
Is There Really That Much at Stake?

A Tool of the State

Six years ago, when same-sex marriage became law in Canada, ...consequential amendments section, Bill C-38 struck out the language of “natural parent,” “blood relationship,” etc., from all Canadian laws. Wherever they were found, these expressions were replaced with “legal parent,” “legal relationship,” and so forth.

That was strictly necessary. “Marriage” was now a legal fiction, a tool of the state, not a natural and pre-political institution recognized and in certain respects (age, consanguinity, consent, exclusivity) regulated by the state. And the state’s goal, as directed by its courts, was to assure absolute equality for same-sex couples. The problem? Same-sex couples could be parents, but not parents of common children. Granting them adoption rights could not fully address the difference. Where natural equality was impossible, however, formal or legal equality was required. To achieve it, “heterosexual marriages” had to be conformed in law to “homosexual marriages.” The latter produced non-reproductive units, constituted not by nature but by law; the former had therefore to be put on the same footing, and were.

The aim of such legislation, as F. C. DeCoste has observed in “Courting Leviathan” (Alberta Law Review, 2005),
is to de-naturalize the family by rendering familial relationships, in their entirety, expressions of law. But relationships of that sort—bled as they are of the stuff of social tradition and experience—are no longer family relationships at all. They are rather policy relationships, defined and imposed by the state.

Here we have what is perhaps the most pressing reason why same-sex marriage should be fought, and fought vigorously. It is a reason that neither the proponents nor the opponents of same-sex marriage have properly debated or thought through. In attacking “heterosexual monogamy,” same-sex marriage does away with the very institution—the only institution we have—that exists precisely in order to support the natural family and to affirm its independence from the state. In doing so, it effectively makes every citizen a ward of the state, by turning his or her most fundamental human connections into legal constructs at the state’s gift and disposal.

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archive...id=25-01-024-f

[Digital_Damage]

Who cares, no harm no foul.


I would like to know how this will effects the tax base however.

[Digital_Damage]

As there's no Constitutional basis for it being banned, an obvious outcome. Too bad so much time and effort had to be wasted getting to an obvious conclusion. I'll actually be interested to read what the dissenters had to say on the matter. Maybe we can move onto topics that actually matter?

Here's my real Q: what does the state or Feds have any business in marriage at all?

Would like to know as well... Eliminate the tax break and call it a day. Let individuals decide what it means to be married.

[Koshinn]

The best outcome for GOP candidates. Now it's not an issue for debate as it's "settled" and they might finally be able to draw some of the moderate and independent votes, especially among the younger folk.

If SCOTUS decided it was a states' rights issue, I'd bet a lot of money on another liberal sitting in the White House in 2017.

[Digital_Damage]

The best outcome for GOP candidates. Now it's not an issue for debate as it's "settled" and they might finally be able to draw some of the moderate and independent votes, especially among the younger folk.

If they could only shut up about this and choice they would actual make progress...

[Alex V]

Some honest questions.
1. Have you have ever taken even a few moments to actually ever bother studying the issue?

2. Since you clearly support the government having the power and authority to redefine the term "marriage" to mean anything it wants, do you also support the government having the power and authority to redefine the term"assault-weapon" to mean anything it wants?

3. Why do you think any of the lunatic leftist agenda of Obama, Hillary, Cuomo, Feinstein, and Boxer, is something you should support or turn a blind eye too.

Who should define the meaning of the word? A fictional book written about a magical deity?

Why can two dudes in Cali get married, move to another state and not have their union be recognized? I have the same problem with states not recognizing CCW permits from other states. All states recognize all US drivers licenses, why not marriage licences?

I see your point regarding definition of terms and "Assault Weapon" as being another one. I get your point, but I still feel that homos should be able to do as they wish when it comes to getting married in any state they wish.