DOMA struck down

[Esaias]

God has already ordained what marriage is, no legislation so called or court decision can change that.

[Nitehawk013]

Buckle up kids. Polygamy and incestual marriage is next. Once you use law to destroy traditional marriage and claim gays have the "right" to marry it is just a matter of time before some sicko sues fo rthe right to marry his sister or mom or some guy sues to have multiple wives, or heck...multiple husbands now.

Viva la perversions! Freedom for all deviant behavior. Strike down everything that is good, moral and traditional in the name of being tolerant to sexual perverts.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by MarcBee

Except not necessarily those (many) hetero christian couples who practice sodomy--we must overlook perversion in those cases.

It's none of my business what married couples do in bed.

[Pressing-On]

Majority opinion by Justice Kennedy.

2.
DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 13–26.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...2-307_g2bh.pdf

The Court struck down Section 3, which declares that the federal government cannot define marriage for its own federal policies and federal laws but must accept whatever the states decide about marriage. The Court’s ruling, however, does not affect Section 2, which provides that no state is required to give effect to another state’s recognition of same-sex marriages.

[odooley6985]

Originally Posted by Nitehawk013

It's a great day for those who celebrate perversion and sodomy.

Its a great for those who want small government and take the constitution at its word.

[MarcBee]

Originally Posted by Sam

It's none of my business what married couples do in bed.

Yep, although not long ago laws in some states did regard it the state's business--probably descending from Christian viewpoint, a la the "unnatural use" clause.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Majority opinion by Justice Kennedy.



The Court struck down Section 3, which declares that the federal government cannot define marriage for its own federal policies and federal laws but must accept whatever the states decide about marriage. The Court’s ruling, however, does not affect Section 2, which provides that no state is required to give effect to another state’s recognition of same-sex marriages.

Now does anyone not see the supreme court's decisions have little to no basis in reality anymore? Notice, they decide the Fed .guv cannot define marriage for it's own federal policies. BUT, how much else does the '.guv get to define, decide, etc for it's own policies?

It should be clear as daylight from AT LEAST the Obumblercare decision that the SCOTUS has lost any semblance of legitimacy.

Of course, their previous ruling that black people are property, and the later ruling that 'separate but equal is okay', followed by total reversals of those decisions, should have put everyone on notice the SCOTUS is practically useless as an 'arbiter' of what is constitutional and what is not - a power they claimed for themselves back in the beginning with no actual constitutional warrant, a power that has been abused for political purposes ever since...

[MawMaw]

Originally Posted by Esaias

God has already ordained what marriage is, no legislation so called or court decision can change that.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Now does anyone not see the supreme court's decisions have little to no basis in reality anymore? Notice, they decide the Fed .guv cannot define marriage for it's own federal policies. BUT, how much else does the '.guv get to define, decide, etc for it's own policies?

It should be clear as daylight from AT LEAST the Obumblercare decision that the SCOTUS has lost any semblance of legitimacy.

Of course, their previous ruling that black people are property, and the later ruling that 'separate but equal is okay', followed by total reversals of those decisions, should have put everyone on notice the SCOTUS is practically useless as an 'arbiter' of what is constitutional and what is not - a power they claimed for themselves back in the beginning with no actual constitutional warrant, a power that has been abused for political purposes ever since...

I couldn't agree more.

[Dichotomy Girl]

Originally Posted by Timmy

He's entitled to his opinion. (Even if he doesn't think of it as an opinion. )

Originally Posted by n david

You are entitled to your opinion, others are entitled to theirs; no need for you to throw rocks. Be tolerant. After all, isn't that what your side demands of us? Sadly, just as seen here with the rock-throwing icon, most of the time the least tolerant ones are those from your side.

LOL, I wasn't throwing rocks at you, I was taking your comment about celebrating "perversion and sodomy" as throwing rocks at me