Gay Couples:Marriage is Not a Right

If the Supreme Court says it's civil right, it's a civil right.

They said it was a civil right for a man and a woman . It is more of a civil right to have polygamy than homosexual marriage .

MARRIAGE RIGHTS FOR POLYGAMISTS ! Its in the constitution .

Apparently the USSC disagrees with Anus.
All I can say to our LGBT members is "Welcome to the mainstream". with all its rights, privileges and bullshit PITA's.
Pretty soon the GOP will start recruiting gay couples to state
"See, we were with you all along"

Those mentioned in "OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL." got that constitutional right granted.

where is it in the constitution??

The court’s decision answered two questions – did the Constitution's 14 amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and did it require the state to recognise a same-sex marriage that was performed legally in another state.
The court ruled “yes” to both.

Justice Kennedy: "While the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, individuals who are harmed need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right."

Actually my question should have been addressed to Anu who stated that "polygamy is endorsed in the US Constitution"

I assumed that he was yanking our cranks but , after reading some of his other stuff. Im not sure any more.

Apparently Gomer can not count . Politicians rig the court and 5-4 decision does not make for an encouraging future .

Cant keep up can you Gomer ? That was the argument of homosexuals, I simply borrowed it to apply to ANY adult regardless of sex . After all, they have rights, right ?

when you make up hit, at least have the honesty to claim it.

% to 4, 6 to 3, it all works.

The Republlicans are falling all over themselves to "welcome" all these new constituencies .

Never go around making dumass predictions when you dont know a damn thing about what you speak.

This ruling goes far to advancing the argument that SCOTUS not now a legal body, but is rather a political body. We can argue whether it was ever a legal body but clearly it is the most political it has ever been. The extreme politicalization of the confirmation is a big part of why....these people know that they are on the court because of their politics rather than their legal expertise, and they act accordingly. Any talk of "the constitution says" based upon a SCOTUS ruling betrays the speaker as clueless, no matter the case or cause being referenced. .

did you say the same about Heller, or Citizens United? They were among several other 5 to 4 decisions?

Dont recall about Heller, but I did say that in Citizens United they supported the ruling classes control of the masses, which might be an argument that it was not a good political decision. Taking Bush v Gore was also not a good political decision, but that does not negate that they were political decisions.

With SCOTUS we see what we see almost everywhere else in this society, first deciding what they want to do or what they want to be true, and then back filling later with reasons or "proof". The idea of following truth where ever it may lead is rarely ever attempted.

If this were the case then Roberts is biting his master's hand. I think that the individual worldviews, in most cases show through.

Doesn't that sound very authoritative ? Pity I never made a prediction . Apart from that your post has the same senseless BS we have come to know and puzzle over .

You want a prediction Gomer ? He's one...polygamy will be a Marriage Right...see how that works if you just stick rights on the end of it ? Fools wont reason it through, they will just say well if it is a right then I guess its right . Its like saying someone is a misogynist or anti-green...no one will bother to check it out for themselves or to defend another's rights, its lynching time ! These are the same dumb arses who make good little Nazis or Communists or Religious devotees...they just go which way they think the crowd is going .

A SCOTUS that decides that gays can get married has to decide that polygamists can. It has been a form of intimate union for at least as far as history goes back, there are no grounds to deny their equality. The courts will love this at divorce time but too bad

BS hawkee. Try to follow some kind of reason here. Polygamy , where one man takes more than one wife, is illegal . However Polyandry, where one woman can take more than one husband, was never adopted by the religions where polygamy was encouraged. Therefore under the concept of "Equal Protection"alone, its a non starter.

I would think that the USSC would not even hear such a case.

See my above comment to Hawkeye.

Homosexual marriage was illegal too, now look . The obvious choice will be to approve polyandry as well as polygamy...after all, it is Marriage Rights !


That is such yesterday thinking . Today's modern world demands equality .