Thomas and Alito are far and away my favs. Gorsuch is all right on this, but he also voted to give us mandatory gay marriage, claiming the Constitution requires it.
Thomas and Alito are far and away my favs. Gorsuch is all right on this, but he also voted to give us mandatory gay marriage, claiming the Constitution requires it.
With apologies to those who disagree, I believe it was a correct constitutional decision. If you believe that being gay is innate and not a conscious decision, then it’s discriminatory to prevent them from marrying and the pursuit of happiness.
Understood, but if you agree with equal rights (NOT results!), there are legal benefits to what we still call “marriage.” Should we deny gays those rights and protections? Doesn’t seem right somehow, regardless of my personal beliefs.
I guess that depends on what one thinks a “correct” Constitutional decision is. If you think we should apply the words as they were meant to be applied, there’s no way they thought the Feds should force states to recognize gay marriage because it was illegal in all 50 states until the last few decades.
That surely would have warranted a mention, if not a full blown argument.
I, for one, think if we’re going to change the Constitution, it should be by the amendment process rather than by 5 black-robed, unelected masters.
Thomas and Alito are far and away my favs. Gorsuch is all right on this, but he also voted to give us mandatory gay marriage, claiming the Constitution requires it.
With apologies to those who disagree, I believe it was a correct constitutional decision. If you believe that being gay is innate and not a conscious decision, then it’s discriminatory to prevent them from marrying and the pursuit of happiness.
Admittedly, I still have my own issues with “two mommies” or “two daddies” in the children’s books.
US Army did a commercial with Emma and her two moms.
China and Russia did their recruiting commercials with men doing manly stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xy2CukYCN-w
Innate or not “marriage” is an institution where a man & a woman are joined together in holy matrimony. God ordained marriage.
He created male & female. Marriage is for procreation.
All has been a given in society for eons.
Then God was put aside in the daily hum of life. Government declared Him a pariah & not kosher to be involved in the affairs of men.
You know that church & state thing.
Two of the same sex can be partners or form a union but not a marriage. They can’t procreate. (Unless by unnatural means).
Understood, but if you agree with equal rights (NOT results!), there are legal benefits to what we still call “marriage.” Should we deny gays those rights and protections? Doesn’t seem right somehow, regardless of my personal beliefs.
I guess that depends on what one thinks a “correct” Constitutional decision is. If you think we should apply the words as they were meant to be applied, there’s no way they thought the Feds should force states to recognize gay marriage because it was illegal in all 50 states until the last few decades.
That surely would have warranted a mention, if not a full blown argument.
I, for one, think if we’re going to change the Constitution, it should be by the amendment process rather than by 5 black-robed, unelected masters.
But they do not seem to be applying Natural Law to Constitutional Rights any more. What’s with that?