Should the legality of gay marriage be reviewed, as these two Supreme Court justices recommended?

[mr4435669]

For me yes, making abortion illegal is more important, but gay marriage should not be a right.

[Dargil]

Although the Constitution does not consider marriage one way or the other, defense of it can be understood. The first section of the 14th Amendment says this. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 that same-sex marriage is a right protected by the Constitution. Gay couples’ fundamental right to marry is protected by the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment as it is with Heterosexual Marriage. I think it should not be considered. If it is, it will come up short. The Supremes are NOT renegade conservatives. Roberts will not vote for it.

[bamesjond0069]

The issue i have is that gays have always had a right to marriage... with a woman. Its nobody elses problem but theirs if they dont want to marry a woman. The whole point of marriage is generally about making kids. Gays cannot make kids so gay marriage seems nonsensical. But they never were discriminated against, a gay man could marry a straight woman and have kids... in fact many gays have done this for a long time.

[hahahmm]

Yes. Society has been headed downhill because people want to run a bunch of social experiments while claiming that they know what's best when really they have no clue about the long term impact. Our ancient ancestors were smart enough to limit marriage to biological men & women.. or in cultures with an exception, you still had to 1000% take on the role of the gender you claimed to be. You didn't get to wing it and be a dude in a dress or a woman when it suits you and a man when it suits you.

Of course if you ignore any responsibility to future generations and building/maintaining society and just focus on personal gratification then it makes sense to do something, that if everybody did it, population would fall to zero in a short time.

[laurieluvsit]

It is OK if gays and Lesbians want to join together but it needs to have it's own unique word, as the definition for Marriage is the joining together of a Man and a Woman.

The crazies in the communist inspired LGBTQ political cram-it-down-your-throat movement need to stop changing the definitions of words and come up with their own.

Is black no longer black? ... now the new definition is white?

Do you want to buy a bridge? I have a cheap one for you... lol

[Sirenboobzilla]

Here's my question to you in regards to gay marriage: is your opinion fueled by your own moral beliefs, or are they fueled by religious beliefs?

[OlderAndWiser]

The issue with these issues before the Supreme Court is not whether such things should be recognized/legal, but whether the federal government should mandate how the states decide these issues. It is a question of pulling back th reach of the federal government into our lives.

[SmokinAces2000]

How exactly is the federal government recognizing gay marriage reaching into your life whatsoever

[OlderAndWiser]

@SmokinAces2000 The overreach is the federal government telling the states that this is no longer a question for each state to decide, but the federal government will make the decision for everyone. It is a mater of understanding federalism as it was intended to be implemented.

[SmokinAces2000]

Basic human rights and decency shouldn’t be up to the states because if that’s the case we should make everything up to the states, maybe Nevada wants to make murder legal or maybe Washington wants to make rape legal where do we draw the line

[OlderAndWiser]

@SmokinAces2000 Some people want decisions made at a more local, and some people want one centralized control. It is just a matter of preference, but inevitably, people want whatever alternative leads to decisions consistent with their basic political ideology.

[SmokinAces2000]

What does it matter if someone wants something at a local decision when it has no affect on their lives, there is no logical reason why gay marriage should be at a state level

[OlderAndWiser]

@SmokinAces2000 In our system of federalism, the federal government is intended to be a government if limited power. Do you anything about the history of the Constitution and the debates as it was being considered?

[SmokinAces2000]

Giving every citizen the right to marry isn’t unconstitutional or giving the federal government too much power, there is not a single shred of logic in these arguments, the truth of the matter is this is just an attempt to integrate religious beliefs into American laws which is not ok

[OlderAndWiser]

@SmokinAces2000 The question is limiting the power of the federal government to be involved in such issues at all. It's not okay to give the federal government unlimited power because you agree with the decisions that are being made right now. Eventually, the tides turn and you hate those decisions, and then you say "that's none of the government's business."

[Avicenna]

@SmokinAces2000: But every state already has jurisdiction (where federal jurisdiction doesn't exist) over rape, murder and many other crimes. It isn't the federal government criminalizing them that makes them crimes, and neither would the federal government permitting murder or rape make it legal in any of the states where state jurisdiction exists (only federal). And it beggars belief to suggest that any state or the federal government would make rape or murder legal.

[SmokinAces2000]

OlderAndWiser If that’s truly how you feel then why are you targeting gay marriage if that’s the case shouldn’t the right for anyone to get married be up to the states?

[SmokinAces2000]

Avicenna that doesn’t mean that any state could just make anything they wanted legal “now” but the way things are going I don’t know what the future holds

[OlderAndWiser]

@SmokinAces2000 Yes, that absolutely is my position. And, at present, the legal recognition of marriage between a man and a woman is regulated entirely by the states.

[SmokinAces2000]

OlderAndWiser I know that in some states the age you can get married differs but I’ve never heard of a state than banned marriage between a man and a woman

[Avicenna]

@SmokinAces2000: The key concept here is that the Constitution explicitly gives certain powers to the federal government and reserves the rest for the states (specifically, the Tenth Amendment). For example, driver's licenses and the laws of the road within individual states are handled by the states, not the federal government, which regulates "interstate commerce". You would not want the federal government deciding and regulating everything for a country as large as ours.

[Avicenna]

And complete trust in the federal government to do the "right thing" is not something I'd recommend.

[SmokinAces2000]

Avicenna like I keep saying everything should not and does not need to be up to states if that’s the case why don’t we just break up the United States and make 50 countries

[OlderAndWiser]

@SmokinAces2000 No states ban marriage between a man and a woman, but ntil the fairly recent Supreme Court opinion, most of them defined marriage as a legal relationship between one man and one woman, and they established the minimum age at which a person could marry.

I'm not sure what the question is about the state control of marriage.

[OlderAndWiser]

"everything should not and does not need to be up to states if that’s the case why don’t we just break up the United States and make 50 countries"

Study the history of what happened between 1783 and 1789 and you will understand.

[SmokinAces2000]

Why should you or any other person have the right to make important live decisions such as marriage for any two adults

[OlderAndWiser]

@SmokinAces2000 "maybe Nevada wants to make murder legal or maybe Washington wants to make rape legal" They don't. Trying to make a point with possibilities that don't exist is silly.

"Why should you or any other person have the right to make important live decisions such as marriage for any two adults" The state does not tell you whether you can live together. It recognizes marriage, if you choose that option, and then you have certain legal rights as a result.

[SmokinAces2000]

like talking to a wall

[Avicenna]

@SmokinAces2000: DO you understand what I said about the Tenth Amendment? If you don't, you don't understand why the states have jurisdiction over a lot of things.

"Why should you or any other person have the right to make important live decisions such as marriage for any two adults"

What about bigamy? Should that be illegal or legal? It's marriage between two adults. Or what about marriage between someone who doesn't have the mental capacity to consent to it and another adult?

[SmokinAces2000]

@Avicenna your comparisons really aren't valid

[Avicenna]

@SmokinAces2000; Sure they are- they show that you're wrong, unless you want to say that you support bigamy or people marrying those who don't have the mental capacity to consent to marriage, and I very much doubt that you do.

[SmokinAces2000]

You didn’t prove me wrong at all, anyone can make a bogus claim and believe they somehow won an argument

[Avicenna]

@SmokinAces2000: You’ve proven that you have no understanding of the Constitution and you think things should just be the way you want simply because you want them. And you’re not even honest enough to admit you haven’t even thought these issues through.

[Avicenna]

And you actually thought you were having an argument, not a discussion.

[SmokinAces2000]

I have great understanding of the constitution which is why I oppose leaving gay marriage up to the states and also we are both arguing our points that isn’t an argument?

[Avicenna]

@SmokinAces2000: OK, so what’s the constitutional basis for it not being regulated by the states when states issue marriage licenses and the Constitution doesn’t delegate it to the federal government?

[SmokinAces2000]

What you just said doesn’t make sense

[OlderAndWiser]

@SmokinAces2000 @Avicenna 's comments made perfectly good sense to anyone who understands Constitutional law. How much education and training do you have on that subject?

[Avicenna]

@SmokinAces2000: Im just shaking my head.

[SmokinAces2000]

The wording is all over the place, if you are saying what I think you’re saying then when something isn’t delegated to to the federal government then it is ultimately up to the state however no state has ever tried to ban marriage between a man and a woman so why should they have the option to ban it between a man and a man or a woman or a woman

[OlderAndWiser]

@SmokinAces2000 We give up. You can't argue with someone who doesn't care about logic.

[SmokinAces2000]

I agree because there is no logic in what you two are saying

[OlderAndWiser]

@SmokinAces2000 And you avoided answering my question about how much education you have on Constitutional law.

[SmokinAces2000]

I already answered it, I’m well versed in constitutional law

[OlderAndWiser]

@SmokinAces2000 That is a response that avoids answering the question. I am tired of this nonsense.

[SmokinAces2000]

OlderAndWiser I’m tired too

[DirkCoenen]

This is not about gay marriage itself, it is about whether or not the supreme vourt had the right to legislate from the bench. If gay marriage should be legal, then Congress should passa law legalising it. The courts don't have that authority, but they have assumed it in the past. The SC wants congress to legalise it, rather than itself.

[NewsReader]

My question is: Why can't we just leave the way things are? Like 99% of Americans have not complained or even thought about this stuff for decades which means they are cool with it. Why not leave the things majority of the people accept? Why get into this mess? It's only creating additional problems.

[Chazmatazz269]

Marriage is not a right for anyone. If you’re prepared to deny the privilege of marriage to anyone, then you better be prepared to deny that privilege to everyone. The 14th amendment to the US Constitution guarantees equal protections under the law for ALL citizens. In as much as marriage is a legal contract recognized and endorsed by government entities, it will be unconstitutional to permit any one person to marry while preventing any other person to marry for any reason or no reason at all.

[AviatorTom]

SCOTUS doesn't have the power to make gay marriage illegal. SCOTUS could rule, as it did in the Roe v Wade ruling, that there is no Constitutional right to same-sex marriage, which would leave the determination of the legality of same-sex marriage up to each individual state. We'll have to wait until the next SCOTUS session to see if that happens.

[joeldalton]

Jesus Christ. How are people still this fucking ignorant on the SCOTUS' authority here? They didn't make abortion illegal. They won't make gay marriage illegal. What they are doing is stating that the previous rulings on the respective issues stated that the rights to these two things are in the constitution and a reversal is stating that 'no', they aren't rights in the constitution and it's for state legislatures to decide.

[joeldalton]

@BarryLiverstone this isn't the "blaze", it's the "blade" in the screenshot

[mr4435669]

Idiot. I didn't say it was made illegal, I said "ILLEGALIZING ABORTION IS MORE IMPORTANT."

[joeldalton]

You literally just typed "illegalizing" (which isn't even a word) Abortion. Moron.

[mr4435669]

It's not my problem, it's the translator's, I'll delete your answer in a while.

[BarryLiverstone]

The asker is Colombian. But believes that the USA influences his culture

[WhiteSteve]

Why do you feel gay marriage should be illegal? I guess my problem is primarily anything about Christianity (or really any religion, but Christianity in our case) influencing our laws and society, that’s not supposed to happen in this country.

[MCheetah]

At this point, I don't care anymore. You're all dumbasses and America is burning to the ground. I'm done trying to talk sense into people. Let the radical left and sanctimonious right tear each other apart like Schwab and company want.

[VanillaSalt]

No. Gay marriage don’t effect society while abortion destroys family’s and allows an unfair balance of power in the family. Taking abortions a step in the right direction of making things more equal.

[Wade12345]

Ban gay marriage and ban the very acts of homosexuality.

God made us male and female to procreate with the opposite gender, a nd there are only TWO genders: MALE and FEMALE.

[SmokinAces2000]

“God” shouldn’t have a say in laws

[Wade12345]

@SmokinAces2000

You're a moron.

God is the one Being who's laws are true and just.

[SmokinAces2000]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, you can’t make laws based around a being that no one knows is real, that’s like Britain making laws based on Harry Potter books

[UCrayCray]

@Wade12345
Not everybody believes that. Why should people have to live their lives based on your beliefs?

[Wade12345]

@SmokinAces2000

The existence of God is scientifically proven fact.

Self assimilation of life is impossible.
Spontaneous Generation si impossible both for life and the Universe itself.

6 of the 10 commandments are derivable from the Silver Rule and 3 of the other 4 are derivable from the Golden Rule.

[Wade12345]

@SmokinAces2000

This nation's founding document says Law comes from God.

[Wade12345]

@UCrayCray

My beliefs have nothing to do with it. Nothing in nature is homosexual except Jellyfish and Corals, and they have an excuse: God made them Tri -sexual, so they are meant to be that way.

You aren't a Jellyfish nor a Coral.

[UCrayCray]

Same sex pair bonding crosses many species. The fact the you don’t know that, or just simply refuse to acknowledge it, goes to show that you will only accept the information that support your preconceived notions.
Proves that you’re not really the person to be saying how other people should live.

[Wade12345]

@UCrayCray

I've watched an awful lot of animal videos in my life, and I've never seen any homosexual animals except Jellyfish and Corals.

You can't seriously believe God intended two men to be together and screw one another up the ass.

[Wade12345]

@UCrayCray

We should not "normalize" the deranged behavior of deviants.

"Liberty" in the Declaration of INdependence does not give you a "right" to pursue just any perversion imaginable.

[UCrayCray]

@Wade12345
You watched animals videos? Good for you. You should look up ones that cover same sex pair bonding. You might learn something you didn’t know before.
You call it deviant, I don’t. I don’t really care what consenting adults to with each other behind closed doors. But here we are, at odds again. So explain to me why your opinion should be the prevailing one? Allowing SSM has little to no affect on your everyday. Banning SSM will have a massive effect on many established families around the country. So yeah, I’d really like to know why your opinion should be the standard.

[Wade12345]

@UCrayCray

It's not my opinion. It's natural law and it was the standard for thousands of years. Not too long ago, homosexuals were considered INSANE and incarcerated for everyone else's safety. It's homosexuals who like to rape little boys and girls.

There is no legitimate "homosexual family".

You need to educate yourself. A family consists of one male parent and one female parent. That's what the term "family" means.

[Wade12345]

@UCrayCray

By the way, evidence AGAINST the validity of homosexual "marriage".

The World Health Organization just admitted MOnkeypox is caused by homosexuals. 98% of all cases so far have been caused by homosexual men spreading to one another.

How did the first case start? A homosexual man had sex with an animal then had sex with another homosexual.

[SmokinAces2000]

Wade, how is anything you said scientific, you grew up in the 80s not the 40s but somehow you have the mindset of a geriatric

[Wade12345]

@SmokinAces2000

At least I'm not going to burn in Hell for eternity for denying the authority of God.

[SmokinAces2000]

Wade12345 I go through my life trying to be the best person I can be, if God is going to make me burn in hell because I think two consenting adults should be able to marry and do what they want then I really wonder if that God is really all loving and holy

[Wade12345]

@SmokinAces2000

Love does not accept wrong-doing.

Your definition of "Love" is perverted.

And you don't want to see what HOLY even means, because HOLY means to be "set apart from that which is evil" a similar word "Sanctified" means to be "set apart from that which is evil for the purpose of doing God's work".

Homosexuality is abomination. The opposite of love or holy. It's disobedience to God, and I'm going to testify against every one of you suckers that I strove and debated with you daily and you rejected the truth.

[Wade12345]

@SmokinAces2000
YOu can't make an excsuse for it. Monkeypox is caused by homosexuality. AIDS originally got started the same way. They used to have a different name for AIDS, it got changed because it wasn't "politically correct" even though it was scientifically accurate: Gay Related Immune Disorder.

[Wade12345]

YOu know what needs to be banned besides just homosexuality?

Atheists and Agnostics need to be banned.

We've already proven there most certainly is an Almighty God, and it's been proven since the beginning of Time. So stop with your vicious LIES.

[Wade12345]

@SmokinAces2000

It's possible to determine the existence of God, Heaven, and Hell through a very simple Truth Table.

There are four possibilities:

1) God exists and Heaven and Hell exist. You Obey God and you Go to Heaven.
1b) You disobey God and you go to Hell.

2) God doesn't' exist, but you live your life as though there is a God, you lose nothing.
2b) God doesn't' exist, you live like there is no God, you gain nothing.

One can see that 1a is the only rational choice. So you should live your life as though there is an Almighty eternally righteous God just in case there actually is an Almighty Eternally Righteous God.

[SmokinAces2000]

You just keep saying that god had been proven without stating any factual evidence to support this

[Wade12345]

And I didn't make up the science about monkeypox. The World Health Organization just made a statement about it a few hours ago. There's an article on MSN right now, but the link to this site doesn't work, otherwise I'd post it.

[SmokinAces2000]

I’m not talking about the monkeypox but I’m not arguing anymore because it very clear that you are extremely brainwashed

[Wade12345]

@SmokinAces2000

ad hominem doesn't make an argument. It just makes you wrong on two counts instead of just one count.

[Wade12345]

@SmokinAces2000

YEah, well that HOLY LOVING GOD sends STDs to punish sexual deviants, such as homosexuals, who are spreading the Monkeypox between one another.

[SmokinAces2000]

I’m just stating the obvious, no ad hominem at all

[Wade12345]

@SmokinAces2000

No, you're first of all al liar, and secondly you're dodging the issue.

Typical Atheist tactics I've come to expect. I've encountered literally two honest atheists in my lifetime, and the rest of you can burn for all I care.

[UCrayCray]

…the rest of you can burn for all I care…Yup. You sound just like most other Bible believes.
Full of that Christian Love. 🙄
It’s okay. I know you have an excuse as to why you don’t actually HAVE to love your neighbor.

[Wade12345]

@SmokinAces2000

You're the one who's brainwashed by all the demonic pro-homosexual atheistic lobbying in the media in the United States and especially in the Democratic party, but even the Republicans are to blame.

You're the one who thinks your ways are above God's ways. That's your fault, and you're going to find out the hard way how wrong you really are.

You've been warned.

[Wade12345]

@SmokinAces2000

Life itself is all the evidence I need. You need to go back to the THIRD GRADE kid. Spontaneous Generation of LIfe was disproven by Louis Pasteur a long time ago.

I already told you that. You simply chose to ignore the facts and then lie about it again.

[Wade12345]

@UCrayCray

"Open rebuke is better than secret love."

"Neighbor" is defined in the Bible as someone who saved another person's life.

I'm not required to love people who are ungodly, and God himself said that HE HATES EVERY FALSE WAY, so if it's okay for God himself to hate homosexuals it's okay for everyone else to hate homosexuals.

Thats what ABOMINATION means. GOD HATES HOMOSEXUALS.

That's what ABOMINATION means. It's something GOD HIMSELF HATES WITH A PASSION: HOMOSEXUALS.

UNDERSTAND THAT AND TRY LEARNING SOMETHING TRUE IN YOUR LIFE INSTEAD OF THE BULLSHIT YOU LIBTARDS FEED ONE ANOTHER EVERY DAY.

[Wade12345]

And God made everything, so He alone has the authority to tell everyone how to live, and since you two have clearly rejected God under any circumstances anyway, you can burn in Hell.

Hey, I already know God's thoughts on it because Natural Law is derivable. He judges everyone by the same standard and you refuse to even acknowledge the standard exists, so I can safely say you're going to bust Hell wide open when you die.

[Wade12345]

You can't argue with that. 98% of all cases of Monkypox are godless homosexuals spreading it around, according to the World Health Organization, which is pretty damning evidence since ordinarily they're about the most liberal organization other than democrats themselves.

That proves homosexuality is WRONG.

[SmokinAces2000]

like I said you are brainwashed

[UCrayCray]

@Wade12345
I’m gonna tell you something I don’t think you know wade.
Cap locks don’t make you right.
I know, I know, it makes you wanna😱. But it’s true.
Either way, it’s all still nothing more than your opinion, and is easily dismissed as such. But you keep saying you live a godly life. You might actually convince someone it’s true
Not today of course, but one day.
Maybe

[Cubus]

This should be repeled on the same reason Roe vs Wade was repeled - there's nothing in constitution about it, even indirect, so it should be left for states to decide, following the 10th amendment. Current mandate is unconstitutional.

[Astarlessnightsky]

No. If people want to get married they should have the right to do so.

[EnglishEuropean]

Thomas and Alito are a disgrace to the Supreme Court. They are twisting the law to fit their personal agenda. Unfortunately that's now true of the majority of judges on the Supreme Court.

Send your complaints to Moscow Mitch McConnell.

[RedThread]

Around 70% of Americans support same-sex marriage. They really want to just shit on the majority of Americans, huh? What is their agenda here?

[Anonymous]

If I have no moral, spiritual, financial, or legal responsibility for another person's decisions, then let them make it. What effect does it have on me?

[Anonymous]

Same sex marriage makes sense to me. Marriage to the government should be a contractual tax profile so pulling gays into the same profile makes a lot of sense.

[SmokinAces2000]

No, at first I thought it was just a democrat talking point but republicans are really trying to bring us back to the 60s smh

[888theGreat]

Yes, and outlawed , but I will settle letting states decide

[shortster]

Marriage should be removed from the perview of the government as it is a religious sacrament.

[NathanDavis]

I don't hate gay people

[BarryLiverstone]

Abortion wasn’t made illegal.

[mr4435669]

I didn't say it was made illegal, I said "ILLEGALIZING ABORTION IS MORE IMPORTANT." Fool.

[mr4435669]

In a while I delete all your comments.

[BarryLiverstone]

It’s your fear that motivates you to delete my comments. And I have pity for you.

[mr4435669]

😹😹😹😹 Fear.

[BarryLiverstone]

Glad I don’t live in Columbia. I enjoy the freedoms of the USA.

[mr4435669]

😹😹😹😹 Write everything you want and I'll keep deleting comments.

[BarryLiverstone]

Guess you are that bored

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Yes and banned.

[fireforeffect]

Yes.