I do not support opposite sex marriage. It's twisted and wrong. I can't believe a man would hug a woman. God said it was Adam and Steve. Don't corrupt the Bible with this "Opposite Sex" bullshit. You'll never win. The supreme court will never allow you disgusting heterosexuals to disgust america and burn the bible apart one kiss at a time.
It's beginning to look as if the SCOTUS rules in favor of same gender marriage, it'll be the biggest ruling since Brown v the Board of Education of Topeka, KS. And it'll have the effect of businesses and government agencies using a most discriminatory classification NEVER MARRIED. There'll be absolutely no utility in such a category. You don't have to have the genes of Albert Einstein running through your veins to guess what NEVER MARRIED was really saying!
BYE BYE, MISS AMERICAN PIE… 2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; 6 if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly.
Being brought up in a house with a loving mom and dad I can honestly say that my family now, as an adult, really isn't that different.
The only difference is that I'm gay, married, and have one daughter that we adopted who is mentally ill because of her original parents.
I don't understand how people can be against gays adopting and/or getting married. I mean, it's not like we're robots sent from another planet. We learn how to love, how to be in healthy relationships, and unlike the people that give them away, we want to learn about what it's like to raise a child.
We WANT to. Doesn't that make a child's chance at life better when they know that their parents actually WANT them? Doesn't every child want to feel like they are loved by someone? A kid isn't going to give a shit about if they have two moms or two dads, they just want a family.
Guess some of you guys don't care about the children…
This whole country is pathetic and is totally messed up, and yet the nation's highest Court is thinking about homosexual "marriage"?!?!?! Pathetic, just pathetic!!! Is homosexual marriage constitutional?! What buffoons!
If you find any law enforcement, judges, prosecutors, or lawyers, just turn on your smartphone, and video record the f-ing crazy losers!
Most of the states that have accepted same sex marriages have it without a vote of the people or in spite of vote of the people. The issue is not whether the state or the federal government has the right to ban same sex marriages; but does God have a right to deny same sex marriage. The federal government has the responsibility to ban what would destroy our peace; they are to protect our nation from destruction, physically and morally. We cannot have equal rights when the rights of one tramples on the constitutional rights of others. There are other ways to handle hospital visits and inheritance without dividing our nation and ignoring God's wisdom..
At the point we reject God's wisdom on same sex marriage, we break the prohibition on marrying our son or daughter, our mother or father, our aunt or uncle, other relatives or even our pets. It is God who warned us about who not to marry. (LEVITICUS 18) IF we deny God's wisdom or right to judge or warn us on sexual relations, we deny His right to prohibit killing each other, or stealing, adultery, being a false witness, and more. All society breaks down, existing laws on other matters must be changed, and chaos and extinction follow. When we deny God's wisdom and right to make our rules, it confuses society, especially children as they try to plan their future and purpose in life. One of our purposes is to reproduce to keep our species and planet alive.
The US Constitution prohibits our government from making laws that prevent the freedom to exercise our religion. All holy books call homosexuality evil and an abomination; and caution us to fight against it. We are to separate from those who refuse to give up an evil lifestyle including homosexuality. We cannot rent to them or hire them, for that pollutes our goal of holiness "without which no man shall enter the kingdom of God."
All God's laws are for our good, to protect our body, mind and spirit and to give us an abundant life with no sorrow added. Open homosexuality blocks the peace of all mankind, creating division between believers in God as ruler of our nations and those who choose not to believe. The US Constitution protects our religious beliefs.
The counter to the procreation argument by Ginsberg and Kagan is simplistic. They say if marriage truly revolves around procreation then the infertile could be prohibited from marriage. By that very same logic, if marriage truly revolves around sexuality (which is what they claim) then the impotent could be prohibited from marriage. Consider the following.
Two siblings merely want to take advantage of the tax and insurance benefits of marriage. The state cannot tell them that marriage is a sexual union and that therefore they cannot marry, because the impotent can marry; or in other words, neither intercourse or a capacity for intercourse is a condition for marriage. So does this mean that marriage does not actually revolve around sexuality? Kagan and Ginsberg’s conception of marriage is destroyed by their own premise. It was never a very good argument, but we failed to refute it properly during the case..
John Bursch is a gay attorney PRETENDING to argue against gay marriage. He purposely asserted weak arguments that he knows has failed in the past. He also downplayed the strong argument against gay marriage while making the weak argument the center of attention. This is down right
Am I the ONLY person who thinks these pearls look ridiculous on this woman? Why on earth is that neckless that long? It should be much much much shorter. Come on lady. Btw- let gays get married, whats the fuss about!?
02:07 "This is one of the rare cases where they do allow audio recording." Apparently neither of those women are familiar with Supreme Court oral argument. In fact, Supreme Court oral argument has been regularly recorded for decades, since maybe 1950. You can listen to recent oral argument on the Supreme's website or listen to it from a large repository of Supreme Court oral argument on Oyez.
HERE'S HOW THE FOUNDING FATHERS SAW THINGS… . The first US President, George Washington, said, "It is impossible to rightly govern, without God and the Bible," And also "To the distinguished Character of a Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the most distinguished character of Christian.". . James Madison, the chief architect of the Constitution, said, "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it, we have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." . Alexander Hamilton, ratifier of the Constitution, said, "I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man." . . Patrick Henry, American revolutionary leader, said, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.". . Our sixth President, John Quincy Adams said "When we view the blessings with which our country has been favored, those which we now enjoy, and the means which we possess of handing them down unimpaired to our latest posterity, our attention is irresistibly drawn to the source from whence they flow. Let us then, unite in offering our most grateful acknowledgments for these blessings to the Divine Author of All Good." . WHAT A STARK CONTRAST TO THE CURRENT 'Traitor-in-Chief''… I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2014 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to eliminate prejudice everywhere it exists, and to celebrate the great diversity of the American people.
I do wish for the Supreme Court to rule in favor of same-sex marriage, but I have concerns for both outcomes.
I listened to the audio while reading the transcript of all the oral arguments, and I do understand the Justice's concern for allowing same-sex marriage so soon. If we look at Roe v Wade, abortion was decided in the courts, and even today it remains as one of the most controversial issues. The plaintiff is actually now a pro-life activist, and she regrets going to the Supreme Court and making abortion legal. (She never even got an abortion). While support for same-sex marriage is rising, Roberts may be right in that forcing the resolution now will stop debates, thus creating a large backlash in public opinion that will prevent support from progressing much more. Though, this might not be the case. When interracial marriage was legalized, most people were still opposed to it, but they learned to live alongside their interracial neighbors.
Now, if they rule against, they really sets the civil rights movement back a decade or two. We'd see a major rollback in states that allow same-sex marriage, and will probably go from 37 to 20 in months. Since states have constitutional bans against same-sex marriage, there's no expecting them to repeal such laws any time soon. That leaves hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples and their families being left as second class citizens.
I guess what I wish for was for the issue to progress a little more slowly. Federal courts have been striking down state bans on gay marriage back to back in 2014, and that really sped things up, perhaps too quickly. In 1986, the Supreme Court held in a 5-4 ruling that states can ban homosexual sex. Even after that, states continued repealing their sodomy bans (even the very conservative ones). In 2003, the Supreme Court revised their decision and struck down the bans. Since the issue was given so much time for debate, it was no issue at all when the final ruling came in.
The US Supreme Court, A Universal Lesson in Constitutional Right Jacques Coulardeau & Ivan Eve
This essay studies the Case of California's Proposition 8 from its adoption by the voters in November 2008 to the most recent US Supreme Court ruling on June 26, 2013. This essay is essentially centered on the legal and constitutional side of the case and the arguments dealing with Amendment 14 to the US Supreme Court, Article III of teh US Constitution, and the concepts of due process of law, equal protection of the laws, strict scrutiny, standing, all concepts that should be universal in all legal and judiciary systems in the world. The case then provides the world with a full demonstration of these judicial human rights that in fact should define the concept of Habeas Corpus. This case deals with same-sex marriage in California. The US Supreme Court refused to rule on the constitutionality of Proposition 8. They vacated and remanded the Federal Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit's ruling on the case because the people speaking for the State of California did not have the necessary standing. That ruling indirectly affirms the ruling of the Federal District Court that had declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional. Though it does not create a legal void in California, this ruling encourages the ProtectMarriage organization to start a new round of legal proceedings in the California Supreme Court. This long essay would not have been possible if the first and shorter version had not been encouraged by one of its first readers as follows: “I think your argumentation and logic is good. You shouldn’t be entering the rest of the discussion, maybe you can quote all the experts or send back to what was said in a footnote, but it is not your point. You are following the logic of the legal and constitutional system: Amendment 14, the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court. What will happen, we can’t be sure, but you can project yourself in the future, and you are already doing it, by saying that the Supreme Court, despite taking a lot of time (which can also be to get the “temperature,” the mood of the country within the next few months), is very unlikely to commit itself with such an important issue. And your logic shows just that . . . So, in short, your approach is the most valuable as the case starts in California (and its norms) and shifts to the federal level (multiple norms): they all thrive under the US Constitution and Amendment 14.” Paris, January 11, 2013
Amazon Kindle Sold by: Amazon Digital Services, Inc. Language: English ASIN: B00E24JTC0 US$ 4.12 (VAT included) EUR 3,15 (TTC)
I think it's time to approve it and be done with it. People deserve the right to be happy.
I do not support opposite sex marriage. It's twisted and wrong. I can't believe a man would hug a woman. God said it was Adam and Steve. Don't corrupt the Bible with this "Opposite Sex" bullshit. You'll never win. The supreme court will never allow you disgusting heterosexuals to disgust america and burn the bible apart one kiss at a time.
they wanna get married' let em get married. WTF, lets talk about gas prices instead.
Did Adam and Eve have a mother and father?
PBS is bais as hell.
It's beginning to look as if the SCOTUS rules in favor of same gender marriage, it'll be the biggest ruling since Brown v the Board of Education of Topeka, KS. And it'll have the effect of businesses and government agencies using a most discriminatory classification NEVER MARRIED. There'll be absolutely no utility in such a category. You don't have to have the genes of Albert Einstein running through your veins to guess what NEVER MARRIED was really saying!
Sure, and while were at it, let's force everybody to accept marriage between a woman and her dog. Apparently that's where we're heading.
BYE BYE, MISS AMERICAN PIE… 2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; 6 if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly.
time for the US to do the right thing and make it nationwide . Its basically done just let it be, let there be love.
Being brought up in a house with a loving mom and dad I can honestly say that my family now, as an adult, really isn't that different.
The only difference is that I'm gay, married, and have one daughter that we adopted who is mentally ill because of her original parents.
I don't understand how people can be against gays adopting and/or getting married. I mean, it's not like we're robots sent from another planet. We learn how to love, how to be in healthy relationships, and unlike the people that give them away, we want to learn about what it's like to raise a child.
We WANT to. Doesn't that make a child's chance at life better when they know that their parents actually WANT them? Doesn't every child want to feel like they are loved by someone? A kid isn't going to give a shit about if they have two moms or two dads, they just want a family.
Guess some of you guys don't care about the children…
This whole country is pathetic and is totally messed up, and yet the nation's highest Court is thinking about homosexual "marriage"?!?!?! Pathetic, just pathetic!!! Is homosexual marriage constitutional?! What buffoons!
If you find any law enforcement, judges, prosecutors, or lawyers, just turn on your smartphone, and video record the f-ing crazy losers!
Most of the states that have accepted same sex marriages have it without a vote of the people or in spite of vote of the people. The issue is not whether the state or the federal government has the right to ban same sex marriages; but does God have a right to deny same sex marriage. The federal government has the responsibility to ban what would destroy our peace; they are to protect our nation from destruction, physically and morally. We cannot have equal rights when the rights of one tramples on the constitutional rights of others. There are other ways to handle hospital visits and inheritance without dividing our nation and ignoring God's wisdom..
At the point we reject God's wisdom on same sex marriage, we break the prohibition on marrying our son or daughter, our mother or father, our aunt or uncle, other relatives or even our pets. It is God who warned us about who not to marry. (LEVITICUS 18) IF we deny God's wisdom or right to judge or warn us on sexual relations, we deny His right to prohibit killing each other, or stealing, adultery, being a false witness, and more. All society breaks down, existing laws on other matters must be changed, and chaos and extinction follow. When we deny God's wisdom and right to make our rules, it confuses society, especially children as they try to plan their future and purpose in life. One of our purposes is to reproduce to keep our species and planet alive.
The US Constitution prohibits our government from making laws that prevent the freedom to exercise our religion. All holy books call homosexuality evil and an abomination; and caution us to fight against it. We are to separate from those who refuse to give up an evil lifestyle including homosexuality. We cannot rent to them or hire them, for that pollutes our goal of holiness "without which no man shall enter the kingdom of God."
All God's laws are for our good, to protect our body, mind and spirit and to give us an abundant life with no sorrow added. Open homosexuality blocks the peace of all mankind, creating division between believers in God as ruler of our nations and those who choose not to believe. The US Constitution protects our religious beliefs.
The counter to the procreation argument by Ginsberg and Kagan is simplistic. They say if marriage truly revolves around procreation then the infertile could be prohibited from marriage. By that very same logic, if marriage truly revolves around sexuality (which is what they claim) then the impotent could be prohibited from marriage. Consider the following.
Two siblings merely want to take advantage of the tax and insurance benefits of marriage. The state cannot tell them that marriage is a sexual union and that therefore they cannot marry, because the impotent can marry; or in other words, neither intercourse or a capacity for intercourse is a condition for marriage. So does this mean that marriage does not actually revolve around sexuality? Kagan and Ginsberg’s conception of marriage is destroyed by their own premise. It was never a very good argument, but we failed to refute it properly during the case..
John Bursch is a gay attorney PRETENDING to argue against gay marriage. He purposely asserted weak arguments that he knows has failed in the past. He also downplayed the strong argument against gay marriage while making the weak argument the center of attention. This is down right
Matthew 19:4-6
Am I the ONLY person who thinks these pearls look ridiculous on this woman? Why on earth is that neckless that long? It should be much much much shorter. Come on lady. Btw- let gays get married, whats the fuss about!?
02:07
"This is one of the rare cases where they do allow audio recording."
Apparently neither of those women are familiar with Supreme Court oral argument. In fact, Supreme Court oral argument has been regularly recorded for decades, since maybe 1950. You can listen to recent oral argument on the Supreme's website or listen to it from a large repository of Supreme Court oral argument on Oyez.
HERE'S HOW THE FOUNDING FATHERS SAW THINGS…
.
The first US President, George Washington, said, "It is impossible to rightly govern, without God and the Bible," And also "To the distinguished Character of a
Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the most distinguished character of Christian.".
.
James Madison, the chief architect of the Constitution, said, "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it, we have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
.
Alexander Hamilton, ratifier of the Constitution, said, "I have carefully examined the
evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man." .
.
Patrick Henry, American revolutionary leader, said, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too
often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.".
.
Our sixth President, John Quincy Adams said "When we view the blessings with which our country has
been favored, those which we now enjoy, and the means which we possess of handing them down unimpaired to our latest posterity, our attention is irresistibly drawn to the source from whence they flow. Let us then, unite in offering our most grateful acknowledgments for these blessings to the Divine Author of All Good."
.
WHAT A STARK CONTRAST TO THE CURRENT 'Traitor-in-Chief''…
I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2014 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to eliminate prejudice everywhere it exists, and to celebrate the great diversity of the American people.
I do wish for the Supreme Court to rule in favor of same-sex marriage, but I have concerns for both outcomes.
I listened to the audio while reading the transcript of all the oral arguments, and I do understand the Justice's concern for allowing same-sex marriage so soon. If we look at Roe v Wade, abortion was decided in the courts, and even today it remains as one of the most controversial issues. The plaintiff is actually now a pro-life activist, and she regrets going to the Supreme Court and making abortion legal. (She never even got an abortion). While support for same-sex marriage is rising, Roberts may be right in that forcing the resolution now will stop debates, thus creating a large backlash in public opinion that will prevent support from progressing much more. Though, this might not be the case. When interracial marriage was legalized, most people were still opposed to it, but they learned to live alongside their interracial neighbors.
Now, if they rule against, they really sets the civil rights movement back a decade or two. We'd see a major rollback in states that allow same-sex marriage, and will probably go from 37 to 20 in months. Since states have constitutional bans against same-sex marriage, there's no expecting them to repeal such laws any time soon. That leaves hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples and their families being left as second class citizens.
I guess what I wish for was for the issue to progress a little more slowly. Federal courts have been striking down state bans on gay marriage back to back in 2014, and that really sped things up, perhaps too quickly. In 1986, the Supreme Court held in a 5-4 ruling that states can ban homosexual sex. Even after that, states continued repealing their sodomy bans (even the very conservative ones). In 2003, the Supreme Court revised their decision and struck down the bans. Since the issue was given so much time for debate, it was no issue at all when the final ruling came in.
Jacques Coulardeau at Amazon (9)
The US Supreme Court,
A Universal Lesson in Constitutional Right
Jacques Coulardeau & Ivan Eve
This essay studies the Case of California's Proposition 8 from its adoption by the voters in November 2008 to the most recent US Supreme Court ruling on June 26, 2013. This essay is essentially centered on the legal and constitutional side of the case and the arguments dealing with Amendment 14 to the US Supreme Court, Article III of teh US Constitution, and the concepts of due process of law, equal protection of the laws, strict scrutiny, standing, all concepts that should be universal in all legal and judiciary systems in the world. The case then provides the world with a full demonstration of these judicial human rights that in fact should define the concept of Habeas Corpus.
This case deals with same-sex marriage in California. The US Supreme Court refused to rule on the constitutionality of Proposition 8. They vacated and remanded the Federal Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit's ruling on the case because the people speaking for the State of California did not have the necessary standing. That ruling indirectly affirms the ruling of the Federal District Court that had declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional. Though it does not create a legal void in California, this ruling encourages the ProtectMarriage organization to start a new round of legal proceedings in the California Supreme Court.
This long essay would not have been possible if the first and shorter version had not been encouraged by one of its first readers as follows:
“I think your argumentation and logic is good. You shouldn’t be entering the rest of the discussion, maybe you can quote all the experts or send back to what was said in a footnote, but it is not your point. You are following the logic of the legal and constitutional system: Amendment 14, the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court. What will happen, we can’t be sure, but you can project yourself in the future, and you are already doing it, by saying that the Supreme Court, despite taking a lot of time (which can also be to get the “temperature,” the mood of the country within the next few months), is very unlikely to commit itself with such an important issue. And your logic shows just that . . .
So, in short, your approach is the most valuable as the case starts in California (and its norms) and shifts to the federal level (multiple norms): they all thrive under the US Constitution and Amendment 14.”
Paris, January 11, 2013
Amazon Kindle
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services, Inc.
Language: English
ASIN: B00E24JTC0
US$ 4.12 (VAT included) EUR 3,15 (TTC)