Because a Liberal Judge would not beak up a family simply because he/she disagrees with their lifestyle, you sick, racist, homophobic Vermin. Show me an example of such. A Liberal judge, even the large majority of law abiding Conservative judges, and everything in between follow the law. This sicko didn't.
John Roberts dissent on the sham that is gay "marriage":
On the proper role of the federal judiciary:
On the proper role of the federal judiciary:
[T]his Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.
Nowhere is the majority’s extravagant conception of judicial supremacy more evident than in its description—and dismissal—of the public debate regarding same-sex marriage. Yes, the majority concedes, on one side are thousands of years of human history in every society known to have populated the planet. But on the other side, there has been “extensive litigation,” “many thoughtful District Court decisions,” “countless studies, papers, books, and other popular and scholarly writings,” and “more than 100” amicus briefs in these cases alone. What would be the point of allowing the democratic process to go on? It is high time for the Court to decide the meaning of marriage, based on five lawyers’ “better informed understanding” of “a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.” The answer is surely there in one of those amicus briefs or studies.
The truth is that today’s decision rests on nothing more than the majority’s own conviction that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry because they want to, and that “it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.” Whatever force that belief may have as a matter of moral philosophy, it has no more basis in the Constitution than did the naked policy preferences adopted in Lochner.
On the constitutional basis for a right to same-sex marriage:
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.
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 Constitution itself says nothing about marriage, and the Framers thereby entrusted the States with “[t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife.”
Stripped of its shiny rhetorical gloss, the majority’s argument is that the Due Process Clause gives same-sex couples a fundamental right to marry because it will be good for them and for society. If I were a legislator, I would certainly consider that view as a matter of social policy. But as a judge, I find the majority’s position indefensible as a matter of constitutional law.
On the natural and historic basis of the institution of marriage:
The premises supporting th[e] concept of [natural] marriage are so fundamental that they rarely require articulation. The human race must procreate to survive. Procreation occurs through sexual relations between a man and a woman. When sexual relations result in the conception of a child, that child’s prospects are generally better if the mother and father stay together rather than going their separate ways. Therefore, for the good of children and society, sexual relations that can lead to procreation should occur only between a man and a woman committed to a lasting bond.
On how the majority opinion basically requires legalization of polygamy/plural marriage:
Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one. It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.
When asked about a plural marital union at oral argument, petitioners asserted that a State “doesn’t have such an institution.” But that is exactly the point: the States at issue here do not have an institution of same-sex marriage, either.
On what our Founders would think about five unaccountable oligarchs in robes deciding what does and doesn’t constitute marriage:
Those who founded our country would not recognize the majority’s conception of the judicial role. They after all risked their lives and fortunes for the precious right to govern themselves. They would never have imagined yielding that right on a question of social policy to unaccountable and unelected judges. And they certainly would not have been satisfied by a system empowering judges to override policy judgments so long as they do so after “a quite extensive discussion.”
Of course they don't you dumb fucker.
Since when is the Supreme Court part of the "legislative" branch of the government you sick twisting lying shit-stain maggot sewer rat kapo bitch?
http://ryoc.us/the-u-s-supreme-cour...sex-marriage-issues-so-says-our-constitution/
http://patriotupdate.com/the-supreme-court-has-no-authority-to-re-define-marriage/
http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/06/s...ce-approving-should-be-immediately-impeached/
- The Supreme Court does not make law. Article I, Section 1 clearly states that all legislative authority rests with Congress.
- Congress, who does have the authority to make law, has no authority over marriage. It is not within their 18 enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8.
- Any marriage regulations/laws (e.g. bigamy, polygamy, incest, etc.) are the State government’s jurisdiction. See Amendments 9 & 10.
- Many states have passed Defense of Marriage Acts - DOMA – their citizens voting to define marriage as being a union between one man and one woman. The federal government has no authority to overrule State governments and their citizens in this regard. Once again, see Amendments 9 & 10.
Silly FZ...the Constitution (fully amendable) is for "radical Right Wing Extemists"...we liberals simply know better. Of course nine unelected judges on the Supreme Court can do whatever the hell they want and the 320 million people who have to live with consequences of those decisions can go pound sand.
Get with the times - "this is how the system works"
face)(*^%
Get with the times - "this is how the system works"
face)(*^%
This issue by itself isn't enough to trigger a rebellion but anyone who doesn't live in the libtard bubble can see where this is going.
If a tiny minority Ruling Class keeps trampling on people's constitutional rights and liberties, at some point a significant portion of the population will decide they've had enough.
What if the government starts imposing its immoral agenda on churches, clearly a violation of the First Amendment?
Look out...
You're expanding the argument. Let's keep it simple.
My opinion: Gays are born that way and cannot alter their sexual inclinations as that is how they're wired. However, it is also natural for both gay and straight people to fall in love and seek a life partner. For a long time many hid in shame out of fear of exposure. Some tried to go straight. Others isolated themselves. Some committed suicide. Others turned to drugs and multiple partners. Others though decided to go a different route: BRAVERY. Feeling they deserved every right straight people enjoy they said no more hiding, no more shame. And here we are.
Your opinion: Instead of seeking the easy natural hetero lifestyle gays decide to be attracted to the same sex (yeccchhh!!!) for whatever reason, seeking attention, mental illness, etc. They can be repaired, so they become normal members of society. Religion says it's a sin and a perversion, and these people are damned to hell. And not only that, these people want to adopt children and turn them into gays, or God forbid change them into the opposite sex. And all gays want to shove their faggotty lifestyle down our throats.
I like mine better......
So now we have a new debate. The anti-gay coalition in this here thread claims the SCOTUS broke the law. I won't even get into that one. All I know is they made a decision and the decision was enacted as law. So now Michael Fitzpatrick and Patrick Fitzmichael and Amy and Jill can all go to the alter and join together in holy matrimony. And it is now ILLEGAL to deny them that right. As it should be, morally.
