SCOTUS upholds constitutional right to SSM, forces all states to recognize SSM

[Viligant_Warrior]

I was just watching Fox News when the decision came down. Link to follow.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Supreme Court upholds same-sex marriage

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, a decision that appears to strike down existing bans in 14 states and removes any legal clouds over those gays and lesbians who have already married their partners [ . . . ]

Previous prohibitions against same-sex marriage in both North Carolina and South Carolina were thrown out last year by federal judges. That quickly paved the way for thousands of same-sex marriages in the two states.

But the Supreme Court agreed to decide the issue after a separate federal court, in Cincinnati, upheld the bans in four states: Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio and Michigan.Read more here: Supreme Court rules in favor of same-sex marriage | The Charlotte Observer The Charlotte Observer

Was watching Fox News when the decision came down. Justice Roberts contradicted his own opinion from yesterday's ACA decision, calling the majority opinion "deeply disappointing" in that it chose not to contradict the legislatures of the SSM states. Yesterday he said SCOTUS shouldn't do exactly that in saving ObamaCare.

 

[KennethC]

Justice Roberts says after long deliberation on this for months he said they came to the conclusion that the constitution does recognize gay couples the right to marriage. Then he also said that religious institutions can still choose to reject to marry these couples......

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Justice Roberts says after long deliberation on this for months he said they came to the conclusion that the constitution does recognize gay couples the right to marriage.

No, he does not, Ken. Roberts wrote the dissenting opinion, i.e., that there is no right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution. It's a dissociative position from the one he took in the ObamaCare decision.

Then he also said that religious institutions can still choose to reject to marry these couples......

It was actually Kennedy who wrote those words, but as Fox News pointed out, the real test for that opinion comes with the first pastor who refuses to perform a gay marriage.

Also, there is a very, very small glimmer of hope. The decision doesn't take effect immediately. The Court is giving opponents three weeks for reconsideration, which is very nearly unprecedented.

 

[skipp]

No, he does not, Ken. Roberts wrote the dissenting opinion, i.e., that there is no right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution. It's a dissociative position from the one he took in the ObamaCare decision.

It was actually Kennedy who wrote those words, but as Fox News pointed out, the real test for that opinion comes with the first pastor who refuses to perform a gay marriage.

You just know that gay people will be trying to desperately find a pastor to refuse to marry them, just like they purposely targeted Christian bakeries. They want to punish anybody who disagrees with their lifestyle.

 

[kaylagrl]

A sad,sad day for America.Not longer a country founded on Christian principles.I fear God has taken his hand off the USA. No longer can we sing "God Bless the USA" for I believe he has turned his eyes away from us.Just how I feel today.We have become a socialist/communist country today. Truly a sad day.

 

[Desdichado]

The fight has only just begun.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

From Roberts' dissent, in which Scalia and Thomas joined:

ROBERTS, C.J. dissenting

But this 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.”

Note that he said here that "judges have the power to say what the law is, not what it should be." But he said yesterday in the majority opinion upholding ObamaCare:

The Opinion of the Court

Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter. Section 36B can fairly be read consistent with what we see as Congress’s plan, and that is the reading we adopt.

Clearly in the ObamaCare opinion, Roberts was justifying cleaning up what he said earlier in the opinion was "an inartfully drafted law," and deciding what Congress meant., He also said the wording regarding "State" was ambiguous, even though the "Definitions" section of the law clearly said that "State" is on of the 50, or if specified, the District of Columbia.

There is a disturbing inconsistency here, the motivation for which momentarily escapes me.

 

[3Scoreand10]

The train to the end just accelerated and the brakes removed!

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

You just know that gay people will be trying to desperately find a pastor to refuse to marry them, just like they purposely targeted Christian bakeries. They want to punish anybody who disagrees with their lifestyle.

Which is an arrogant, audacious stance for such a very, very small majority to take. I know polls show this is what the American people want, but the reality is, the LGBT community represents less than one percent of the U.S. population. Perhaps another two to three percent would militantly support their efforts to force acceptance, but I don't think the other 50 percent or so of their supporters would go that far.

 

[KennethC]

No, he does not, Ken. Roberts wrote the dissenting opinion, i.e., that there is no right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution. It's a dissociative position from the one he took in the ObamaCare decision.

It was actually Kennedy who wrote those words, but as Fox News pointed out, the real test for that opinion comes with the first pastor who refuses to perform a gay marriage.

Also, there is a very, very small glimmer of hope. The decision doesn't take effect immediately. The Court is giving opponents three weeks for reconsideration, which is very nearly unprecedented.

That is not what they said from the Justices, as they said that pastor's can still refuse to marry these couples do to their right to religious beliefs.

Don't get me wrong I do not agree with this decision, but at the same time we are in the end times and things like this will continue to grow and come to pass. I would also ploy you to please watch other sources besides just FOX, as that is a bias news source and people need to watch and read more then one source to get the whole true story on and issue.

 

[kaylagrl]

That is not what they said from the Justices, as they said that pastor's can still refuse to marry these couples do to their right to religious beliefs.

Don't get me wrong I do not agree with this decision, but at the same time we are in the end times and things like this will continue to grow and come to pass. I would also ploy you to please watch other sources besides just FOX, as that is a bias news source and people need to watch and read more then one source to get the whole true story on and issue.

If you believe pastors will not be forced to do this,the next step,I fear you have much more faith in the gov't than I do.A sad day for a country once founded on Christian values.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

That is not what they said from the Justices, as they said that pastor's can still refuse to marry these couples do to their right to religious beliefs.

Ken, I now that. I acknowledged that. I also said the real test comes when the first pastor refuses. If you don't think militant LGBTs will seek out such a pastor to "make an example" of him, you're being naïve.

I would also ploy you to please watch other sources besides just FOX, as that is a bias news source and people need to watch and read more then one source to get the whole true story on and issue.

I responded to you regarding that in the ObamaCare thread yesterday -- after which you disappeared without response. You watch who you want to watch, Ken, I'll watch who I want to watch. You're getting far more biased, distorted and just plain inaccurate information from the other cable news networks and any local daily newspaper than I am from Fox and The Wall Street Journal.

 

[crossnote]

The real issue is that SCOTUS is again exalting itself above the Legislature and Judge of Creation.

 

[KennethC]

If you believe pastors will not be forced to do this,the next step,I fear you have much more faith in the gov't than I do.A sad day for a country once founded on Christian values.

Well they would first have to get rid of right to religious beliefs in order to enforce this...

Plus in some places in the U.S. they already have apostate churches that allow s.s.m., so those types of churches will just grow now as that false new age movement is getting bad.
Queen Latifah has been ordained a pastor of this new age church and married gay couples;

Queen Latifah Marries Gay Couples At Grammys - Business Insider

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

The real issue is that SCOTUS is again exalting itself above the Legislature and Judge of Creation.

You're absolutely right. With these two landmark decisions that last two days, six justices have asserted that they are the law of the land, regardless of the will of the people as expressed through their duly elected representatives.

 

[KennethC]

Ken, I now that. I acknowledged that. I also said the real test comes when the first pastor refuses. If you don't think militant LGBTs will seek out such a pastor to "make an example" of him, you're being naïve.

I responded to you regarding that in the ObamaCare thread yesterday -- after which you disappeared without response. You watch who you want to watch, Ken, I'll watch who I want to watch. You're getting far more biased, distorted and just plain inaccurate information from the other cable news networks and any local daily newspaper than I am from Fox and The Wall Street Journal.

I did respond to you on the Obamacare as well as many others then I had to sign off to get things done, so don't say I just disappeared without responding because I did.

Second in post 15 I answered this as in order for them to force pastors to marry these people they will have to do away with freedom of religion. Plus there is already a false new age movement in the church who allow this s.s.m......

 

[crossnote]

God says "One man, one woman" these autonomous bozos say "otherwise".
I have no more respect regarding this %$@&¥€.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Second in post 15 I answered this as in order for them to force pastors to marry these people they will have to do away with freedom of religion.

What makes you think that isn't the next item on their agenda?

Plus there is already a false new age movement in the church who allow this s.s.m......

Don't say "the church" because it is not in "the church." There are organizations that claim to be churches, who claim to have pastors, who claim to teach God's word. All three are lies. New Age beliefs automatically disqualify any group from calling itself part of the Body of Christ.

 

[kaylagrl]

Well they would first have to get rid of right to religious beliefs in order to enforce this...

Plus in some places in the U.S. they already have apostate churches that allow s.s.m., so those types of churches will just grow now as that false new age movement is getting bad.
Queen Latifah has been ordained a pastor of this new age church and married gay couples;

Queen Latifah Marries Gay Couples At Grammys - Business Insider

​Any pastor saying they will not marry a gay couple will be treated as less than human,a bigot and worse.The news will "out" him or her.He will have death threats and fear for his life.Under those circumstances it will take a very strong person to stand against that.It wont take the govt to force it.