With Our Victory Of Roe Being Overturned, Next Target--Same Sex Marriage!

[okfine]

He is or used to be a Libertarian, live and let live. WTF happened? Read his bio he wasn't always a dick head. Uncle Tom's white wife got to him.

The timing on the decision is somewhat suspect. Thomas's wife was subpoenaed last week.

 

[surada]

“You are not a "living being" until you receive the "breath of life".

It sure appeared to me that she was from the quote above, albeit, via a complete misinterpretation of the intent of the biblical verse.

And you jump to the conclusion that she thinks you can kill a baby five minutes before birth.

 

[DBA]

And you jump to the conclusion that she thinks you can kill a baby five minutes before birth.

She is arguing that a baby is not a living being until they receive the breath of life, meaning they are delivered, their lungs are cleared and they breath air into their lungs. How is that jumping to conclusions?

 

[Care4all]

Yes, the people are now in charge of abortion as they should be.

Nope, the people is not the State imo.

And if there are no fundamental rights, and due process of those, then our rights on many many many things, can just disappear with a supreme court opinion on a party line vote.

Contraception, inter racial marriage, same sex marriage, the right to be the peop!e in charge of their own children, and marriage, and medical decisions, and our bodies, what kind of sex you are having, whether you can wear a rubber or not, liberty, etc etc etc..... All of the SC cases and their rulings of this kind of stuff stopped the States from their over reach to control our lives and thwart our liberty, can now all be over ruled and REVERSED because of this decision on Roe.... Is what I am reading up on it.....???

 

[BS Filter]

Is that definition in the constitution? If so, where?

It's right after the part that mentions abortion is a right.

 

[BS Filter]

There is no federal law regarding marriage for the court to overturn,

Same-sex marriage.

 

[debbiedowner]

I do believe women get breaks from work due to pregnancy conditions already.

Tax deductions? Answer the question put forth.

 

[debbiedowner]

Clarence holds no sway in Canada, where women are equal under our Constitution, and abortion is a medical matter between a woman and her doctor. It's even covered under our government funded health care - no copays.

Not only that but the Catholic Church also funds abortions for their employees when they remit their Employer Health Tax on behalf of their female employees, and they haven't even tried to avoid the payments.

The radical Supreme Court is interpreting "religious freedom" in a way that allows people to use their religious beliefs as a justification for bigotry and hate. This is what happens when you put religious cult members on the courts.

I forgot you're a Canadian.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The goal will be achieved. God will see to it. It will be returned to the states for the people to decide and they will then vote to end same-sex marriage/unions like they did before. It will be a MAGA moment in history.

How will America be better if gay marriage is ended?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Where is that in the Constitution?

It isnt. I dont agree with homosexuality but I will never support a ban on it or marriage. It simply is not my business nor anyone outside the families involved. I supported civil Unions before this all began but there is no going back on this. And NO Federal aw means the Supreme Court can not rule on it.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

Really? I would be interested to know what those reasons are. You might recall that during the protracted legal fight where the states tried to make a case against gay marriage, they failed miserably in their attempts to establish a compelling government interest or even a rational basis to ban the practice.

You snipped the last three words which would guide you to what are probably obvious explanations...

>I agree, even though there are secular reasons to be opposed to Same Sex marriage - Constitutional or ethical.

1. Constitutional - some would argue that the right to marry someone of the same sex is not prescribed in the Constitution. It's certainly not in there literally, but I would interpret the 14th to grant that right.

2. Ethical - Homosexuality is arguably unnatural and goes against the proper natural order where children are created from a loving relationship and are raised by a loving mother and father.

Note that these are not necessarily my personal opinions, but one does not have to be religious to be opposed to gay marriage or even homosexuality. I am surprised you might think otherwise.

Regards,
Jim

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Nope, the people is not the State imo.

And if there are no fundamental rights, and due process of those, then our rights on many many many things, can just disappear with a supreme court opinion on a party line vote.

Contraception, inter racial marriage, same sex marriage, the right to be the peop!e in charge of their own children, and marriage, and medical decisions, and our bodies, what kind of sex you are having, whether you can wear a rubber or not, liberty, etc etc etc..... All of the SC cases and their rulings of this kind of stuff stopped the States from their over reach to control our lives and thwart our liberty, can now all be over ruled and REVERSED because of this decision on Roe.... Is what I am reading up on it.....???

Wrong as usual ONLY FEDERAL Issues can go before the Supreme Court.

 

[MAGA Macho Man]

How will America be better if gay marriage is ended?

No more degeneracy. No more sexual abuse of children they adopt. No more of them flaunting their immoral lifestyles down our throats, especially on TV corrupting and confusing children's minds. Children will be a lot safer as society will as a whole with only heterosexual marriage between a man and woman, the way God intended it to be.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No more degeneracy. No more sexual abuse of children they adopt. No more of them flaunting their immoral lifestyles down our throats, especially on TV corrupting and confusing children's minds. Children will be a lot safer as society will as a whole with only heterosexual marriage between a man and woman, the way God intended it to be.

I do not believe that gay couples in total abuse children, sure like all people there will be some. But e dont deny heterosexual couples from children because some are criminals.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No more degeneracy. No more sexual abuse of children they adopt. No more of them flaunting their immoral lifestyles down our throats, especially on TV corrupting and confusing children's minds. Children will be a lot safer as society will as a whole with only heterosexual marriage between a man and woman, the way God intended it to be.

 

[Mac-7]

Liberal judges will do no such thing. How stupid are you ?!!

Thats what libs said before the court legalized gay marriage

I dont know how soon liberals will regain the majority in the SC

Even if it takes decades - or a century - your side will legalize pedophilia some day using the court system

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

"Marriage" is the union of a MAN and a WOMAN.
Let them be "joined" legally, but do not call it a "marriage"

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

1. Constitutional - some would argue that the right to marry someone of the same sex is not prescribed in the Constitution. It's certainly not in there literally, but I would interpret the 14th to grant that right.

There is nothing in the constitution about marriage at all. However, legal mariage has developed in a way that it is treated as a right. Before Obergefell, any two people of the opposite sex could request a marrige license that would be granted as long as they meet some basic requirements like being of a certain age and not being closely related. Aside from that sort of thing, being allowed to marry was taken for granted. Obergefell found that there was no compelling government reason or eational basis to not afford gay couples the same treatment. So no, there is no constitutional justification

 

[okfine]

It isnt. I dont agree with homosexuality but I will never support a ban on it or marriage. It simply is not my business nor anyone outside the families involved. I supported civil Unions before this all began but there is no going back on this. And NO Federal aw means the Supreme Court can not rule on it.

I'm with you. I learned long ago to be tolerant of others' sexuality. It's a shame others won't.

 

[Dragonlady]

I disagree. Being married has a few legitimate tax advantages, but the on the whole, it is actually more beneficial not to be married if basing your decision on benefits you may receive from the federal government. The largest is the cap on SS benefits for couples. If both people work and are set to receive the max. SS benefit, you are far better off being single or even getting “divorced” to collect SS and avoid the household cap.

That only applies to elderly married people, receiving SS. During your child raising years, when you have a mortgage and are filing joint returns, being married is a tax windfall. Especially for single income families.

Not to mention “family health insurance plans” which are open to married couples are a huge financial boon.

Are you saying that a women in labor could choose to have an abortion instead of delivering the baby? If not, then you don’t even believe your own argument. If so, you are a sick and twisted person.

Women in labour aren't demanding abortions. Stop being ridiculous. And since you don't know jack shit about me, your pronouncement that I am sick or twisted is laughable. I guess it's one way of dismissing an argument you cannot overcome.

Late term abortions are the ones where the woman's life, or that of the child are in danger. These aren't abortions for "convenience" or even financial reasons. These are abortions where lives are in danger.

Within a year, the entire maternity systems in the states which ban abortion, will overwhelm their child care systems. Especially caring for the disabled children born to women too poor to care for them.