Supreme Court May Revisit Same Sex Marriage Decision

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Roughsoul1991

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2016
6,322
3,060
113
#1

mustaphadrink

Senior Member
Dec 13, 2013
1,381
229
63
#2
Decisions of that kind where you are going to completely change the face of society should be made by only one group that is Congress and the senate as it is going to change the law.

The courts are there to uphold the law, not change it or interpret it to say what it does not say.
 

stepbystep

Well-known member
Aug 31, 2020
613
487
63
#3
Agree with mustaphadrink. However, should the Court decide to revisit this, I doubt there will be any change due to the current makeup of the Court. Unless Trump gets his newest Nominee confirmed first.

Was it not the Supreme Court who brought all this about in the first place? I do not remember Congress passing any Legislation enacting same sex marriage. That's what comes from not being an expert I guess.

It is precisely because of the results of Supreme Court rulings like this same sex marriage one that drove me away from being actively involved in Politics. When those elected by the people can be overruled by 9 people appointed based on Political ideology, there is truly something wrong with the system.
 

Roughsoul1991

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2016
6,322
3,060
113
#4
Agree with mustaphadrink. However, should the Court decide to revisit this, I doubt there will be any change due to the current makeup of the Court. Unless Trump gets his newest Nominee confirmed first.

Was it not the Supreme Court who brought all this about in the first place? I do not remember Congress passing any Legislation enacting same sex marriage. That's what comes from not being an expert I guess.

It is precisely because of the results of Supreme Court rulings like this same sex marriage one that drove me away from being actively involved in Politics. When those elected by the people can be overruled by 9 people appointed based on Political ideology, there is truly something wrong with the system.
Shoot lol that is the time to stay in politics. You see today because of Christians and Conservatives we may return the court back to it's original design.
 

soggykitten

Well-known member
Jul 3, 2020
2,322
1,361
113
#5
https://www.postandcourier.com/ap/2...cle_3f65283c-071c-11eb-9a85-abac3b312393.html

Thomas suggested the court needs to revisit the issue because it has “created a problem that only it can fix.” Until then, he said, the case will continue to have “ruinous consequences for religious liberty.”

Basically, called it a unconstitutional decision back in 2015.
With regard to the gay marriage issue there is no Constitutional right to marry. In fact marriage is not a right it is a privilege that is sanctioned by the individual states that issue marriage licenses. This is why not everyone can marry anyone they choose or anything for that matter. Yes, there are some really weird people in this world.
In 2019 a former model married her dog. No kidding. She claimed her dating life wasn't fruitful so her dog was her best option. Not an exact quote.
Woof.

Maybe Thomas did this at this time just to shake up the landscape as a partisan effort to put fear into voters with regard to the Republican party winning the White House and the majority in Congress. (Please Lord let that happen.)
Because from my understanding it is rare the court reverses itself. Especially when the 14th amendment of the USC was cited as reason to legalize gay marriage.
And even though after the 2015 decision a majority of justices wrote opinions of dissent on the gay marriage decision.

We'll see. Can you imagine if the court did reverse itself and gay marriage, which would also translate to gay adoption rights, were repealed?
The response from the LGBTQ community would be huge! And not in a good way me thinks. When they send death threats to Christian florists and bakers, no I don't think it would be a good scene. I'd fear for the justices too.
 

Roughsoul1991

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2016
6,322
3,060
113
#6
With regard to the gay marriage issue there is no Constitutional right to marry. In fact marriage is not a right it is a privilege that is sanctioned by the individual states that issue marriage licenses. This is why not everyone can marry anyone they choose or anything for that matter. Yes, there are some really weird people in this world.
In 2019 a former model married her dog. No kidding. She claimed her dating life wasn't fruitful so her dog was her best option. Not an exact quote.
Woof.

Maybe Thomas did this at this time just to shake up the landscape as a partisan effort to put fear into voters with regard to the Republican party winning the White House and the majority in Congress. (Please Lord let that happen.)
Because from my understanding it is rare the court reverses itself. Especially when the 14th amendment of the USC was cited as reason to legalize gay marriage.
And even though after the 2015 decision a majority of justices wrote opinions of dissent on the gay marriage decision.

We'll see. Can you imagine if the court did reverse itself and gay marriage, which would also translate to gay adoption rights, were repealed?
The response from the LGBTQ community would be huge! And not in a good way me thinks. When they send death threats to Christian florists and bakers, no I don't think it would be a good scene. I'd fear for the justices too.
I could be surprised but I do not see them backing away from the decision other than adding religious exemption to the decision.

But he did say it was unconstitutional so that is a huge difference between we need to reword our decision. This is big news though especially as Barrett is in the process to confirmation. The Democrats want to by majority pass the un(equality) act that would basically make lgbt superior to those of faith and those faith could be fined or who knows face jail time. Obviously, with this court possibly leaning more towards actually upholding the Constitution then it could be ruled as unconstitutional.

They need to go back to Roe and every decision made against religion as well. I do not understand why we the people even listen to such nonsense. A unconstitutional decision isn't legally binding. Neither is the Supreme Court a legislator. Just typed up a new thread explaining all this and the multiple ways to go offensive against the court in legal standards.
 

soggykitten

Well-known member
Jul 3, 2020
2,322
1,361
113
#7
I could be surprised but I do not see them backing away from the decision other than adding religious exemption to the decision.

But he did say it was unconstitutional so that is a huge difference between we need to reword our decision. This is big news though especially as Barrett is in the process to confirmation. The Democrats want to by majority pass the un(equality) act that would basically make lgbt superior to those of faith and those faith could be fined or who knows face jail time. Obviously, with this court possibly leaning more towards actually upholding the Constitution then it could be ruled as unconstitutional.

They need to go back to Roe and every decision made against religion as well. I do not understand why we the people even listen to such nonsense. A unconstitutional decision isn't legally binding. Neither is the Supreme Court a legislator. Just typed up a new thread explaining all this and the multiple ways to go offensive against the court in legal standards.
Yes, I know Thomas said it wasn't Constitutional. Scalia had even more to say at the time of the ruling in 2015.
And yet, it was passed into law on Constitutional grounds and by the majority of 5 justices voting for that.
That is why I think it is going to be difficult for the court now to reverse itself.
The question being, how does it now become unconstitutional when it was deemed in majority under the 14th amendment constitutional in 2015?
The dissenting judges opinions were by Scalia, Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito Jr. and Justice Clarence Thomas.


2015 Obergefell v. Hodges - Supreme Court

With regard to the religious exemption, I don't know if SCOTUS can amend the decision to include that. If there is room in the Constitution for that to occur. Because SCOTUS cannot write law they can only interpret that which exists.
Of course they could maybe cite precedent in other cases with regard to civil rights legislation or something along those lines.

I just think it is high time someone realized that with that 2015 decision that allowed gays to come out of their closets and marry, that same community and sadly seemingly the American community of businesses and others, elected to put dissenters like Christians into a closet for holding that gay marriage is abnormal, against God, unnatural, etc...
 

Roughsoul1991

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2016
6,322
3,060
113
#8
Yes, I know Thomas said it wasn't Constitutional. Scalia had even more to say at the time of the ruling in 2015.
And yet, it was passed into law on Constitutional grounds and by the majority of 5 justices voting for that.
That is why I think it is going to be difficult for the court now to reverse itself.
The question being, how does it now become unconstitutional when it was deemed in majority under the 14th amendment constitutional in 2015?
The dissenting judges opinions were by Scalia, Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito Jr. and Justice Clarence Thomas.


2015 Obergefell v. Hodges - Supreme Court

With regard to the religious exemption, I don't know if SCOTUS can amend the decision to include that. If there is room in the Constitution for that to occur. Because SCOTUS cannot write law they can only interpret that which exists.
Of course they could maybe cite precedent in other cases with regard to civil rights legislation or something along those lines.


I just think it is high time someone realized that with that 2015 decision that allowed gays to come out of their closets and marry, that same community and sadly seemingly the American community of businesses and others, elected to put dissenters like Christians into a closet for holding that gay marriage is abnormal, against God, unnatural, etc...
Well in https://christianchat.com/christian-family-forum/supreme-court-history-law-lesson.195234/ The article explains how the judiciary’s rulings are not the supreme law of the land, even rulings from the Supreme Court. The judiciary is not the only or even final arbiter on the Constitution. It can be deemed unconstitutional by the other branches and we the people. It is by law and history provable to be unconstitutional.

The judges cited a violation of the Equal Protection clause under the 14th Amendment.

Equal protection forces a state to govern impartially—not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective.

Is marriage irrelevant to the health of society? I would say no. Marriage is absolutely relevant and has been for 1000s of years.

But that involves sociology, history, and data. It is unconstitutional because it violates the 1st Amendment. People of faith have been jailed, fired, or fined for this decision.

The Supreme Court should call it unconstitutional and send it to Congress to work out. They would need to fight it out in Congress. Let the people decide.
 

soggykitten

Well-known member
Jul 3, 2020
2,322
1,361
113
#9
Well in https://christianchat.com/christian-family-forum/supreme-court-history-law-lesson.195234/ The article explains how the judiciary’s rulings are not the supreme law of the land, even rulings from the Supreme Court. The judiciary is not the only or even final arbiter on the Constitution. It can be deemed unconstitutional by the other branches and we the people. It is by law and history provable to be unconstitutional.

The judges cited a violation of the Equal Protection clause under the 14th Amendment.

Equal protection forces a state to govern impartially—not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective.

Is marriage irrelevant to the health of society? I would say no. Marriage is absolutely relevant and has been for 1000s of years.

But that involves sociology, history, and data. It is unconstitutional because it violates the 1st Amendment. People of faith have been jailed, fired, or fined for this decision.
Excellent points. I'm so glad to know SCOTUS can't be the final word. Even when it appears of late they impart a desire to legislate from the bench.

The Supreme Court should call it unconstitutional and send it to Congress to work out. They would need to fight it out in Congress. Let the people decide.
When we have a majority Republican Congress. :)
 

Roughsoul1991

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2016
6,322
3,060
113
#10
Excellent points. I'm so glad to know SCOTUS can't be the final word. Even when it appears of late they impart a desire to legislate from the bench.


When we have a majority Republican Congress. :)
They only have the power if we allow it. And if we allow our governing officials to be ignorant of the law.

This is why adding Constitutional Originalist to the court is extremely important for our Republic.
 

soggykitten

Well-known member
Jul 3, 2020
2,322
1,361
113
#11
They only have the power if we allow it. And if we allow our governing officials to be ignorant of the law.

This is why adding Constitutional Originalist to the court is extremely important for our Republic.
Agreed. The loss of Scalia was a travesty in that regard. Though I remain convinced he was murdered. :(