America is Now Sodom

[Omegaman 3.0]

Personally, I have no complaint about Gay marriages, I only object to same gender marriages.

 

If two heterosexual men or two heterosexual women want to marry each other, I object. If a homosexual man and a homosexual woman want to marry each other, I do not object.

[MorningGlory]

The gay rights thing doesn't bother me as much as how it was done. I'm sorry but homosexuality is already rampant as is other sins, we were at Sodom and gamorrah stage long ago, legalizing gay marriage doesn't make a difference one way or another as far as that's going to be concerned. Illegalizing it doesn't make gay couples any less gay, or any less sinful.

What bothers me is the way it was done. The supreme Court has no authority to make law, just to decide if what comes out of the other two branches is legal or not. This is something that should have either been left to the state-or if it had to be at a federal level, gone through Congress and signed by the President. The fact the supreme Court bypassed Congress and is making law is nothing short of tyranny.

 

Well, there it is.  Marriage has always been governed by the state you live in....there has never been a federal marriage license in the history of the U.S.  The SCOTUS has way overstepped and it's time we, the people, figure out what to do about them.  They're a bunch of old fossils anyway, IMO, and have WAY too much power over the country.  The Constitution specifcally states that any powers not granted explicitly to the Federal government by that document belong solely to the states.  Precedent can be found in history.....power given can be taken away.  This is NOT over. 

[Uncertain]

The gay rights thing doesn't bother me as much as how it was done. I'm sorry but homosexuality is already rampant as is other sins, we were at Sodom and gamorrah stage long ago, legalizing gay marriage doesn't make a difference one way or another as far as that's going to be concerned. Illegalizing it doesn't make gay couples any less gay, or any less sinful.

What bothers me is the way it was done. The supreme Court has no authority to make law, just to decide if what comes out of the other two branches is legal or not. This is something that should have either been left to the state-or if it had to be at a federal level, gone through Congress and signed by the President. The fact the supreme Court bypassed Congress and is making law is nothing short of tyranny.

 

Well, there it is.  Marriage has always been governed by the state you live in....there has never been a federal marriage license in the history of the U.S.  The SCOTUS has way overstepped and it's time we, the people, figure out what to do about them.  They're a bunch of old fossils anyway, IMO, and have WAY too much power over the country.  The Constitution specifcally states that any powers not granted explicitly to the Federal government by that document belong solely to the states.  Precedent can be found in history.....power given can be taken away.  This is NOT over. 

I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure before recently states did not refuse to honor the license issued by another state, even if they had differing rules. I have lived in many states and never once did one not honor my marriage. This is how the Supreme Court got involved.

Imagine this, a gay couple was legally married in NY and then was driving to SoCal via Texas. One partner has a heart attack while passing through Texas. As it stood before yesterday, the other partner had no legal rights to approve medical treatments or even be a visitor in the hospital.

Does that seem right to you?

[other one]

 

The gay rights thing doesn't bother me as much as how it was done. I'm sorry but homosexuality is already rampant as is other sins, we were at Sodom and gamorrah stage long ago, legalizing gay marriage doesn't make a difference one way or another as far as that's going to be concerned. Illegalizing it doesn't make gay couples any less gay, or any less sinful.

What bothers me is the way it was done. The supreme Court has no authority to make law, just to decide if what comes out of the other two branches is legal or not. This is something that should have either been left to the state-or if it had to be at a federal level, gone through Congress and signed by the President. The fact the supreme Court bypassed Congress and is making law is nothing short of tyranny.

 

Well, there it is.  Marriage has always been governed by the state you live in....there has never been a federal marriage license in the history of the U.S.  The SCOTUS has way overstepped and it's time we, the people, figure out what to do about them.  They're a bunch of old fossils anyway, IMO, and have WAY too much power over the country.  The Constitution specifcally states that any powers not granted explicitly to the Federal government by that document belong solely to the states.  Precedent can be found in history.....power given can be taken away.  This is NOT over. 

 

I think you are right....   it's far from over.

[MorningGlory]

 

 

The gay rights thing doesn't bother me as much as how it was done. I'm sorry but homosexuality is already rampant as is other sins, we were at Sodom and gamorrah stage long ago, legalizing gay marriage doesn't make a difference one way or another as far as that's going to be concerned. Illegalizing it doesn't make gay couples any less gay, or any less sinful.

What bothers me is the way it was done. The supreme Court has no authority to make law, just to decide if what comes out of the other two branches is legal or not. This is something that should have either been left to the state-or if it had to be at a federal level, gone through Congress and signed by the President. The fact the supreme Court bypassed Congress and is making law is nothing short of tyranny.

 

Well, there it is.  Marriage has always been governed by the state you live in....there has never been a federal marriage license in the history of the U.S.  The SCOTUS has way overstepped and it's time we, the people, figure out what to do about them.  They're a bunch of old fossils anyway, IMO, and have WAY too much power over the country.  The Constitution specifcally states that any powers not granted explicitly to the Federal government by that document belong solely to the states.  Precedent can be found in history.....power given can be taken away.  This is NOT over. 

I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure before recently states did not refuse to honor the license issued by another state, even if they had differing rules. I have lived in many states and never once did one not honor my marriage. This is how the Supreme Court got involved.

Imagine this, a gay couple was legally married in NY and then was driving to SoCal via Texas. One partner has a heart attack while passing through Texas. As it stood before yesterday, the other partner had no legal rights to approve medical treatments or even be a visitor in the hospital.

Does that seem right to you?

 

 

Your observation is valid but has no bearing on what I posted.  THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A FEDERAL MARRIAGE LICENSE. There has never been a law that any state has to recognize another state's marriages.  The S.C. is supposed to INTERPRET law.  In this case, there is no prior law to interpret. 

[ayin jade]

 

@ Ayin Jade, if that isn't an in your face insult to the majority who oppose gay marriage, I don't know what is.  That is an absolutely disgusting thing to do with public property.  The White House doesn't belong to Obama or the gay lobby.  It belongs to the American people. 

 

 

Definitely insulting to the majority of americans but even more so, I saw it as an in your face insult to God. He might as well have set up an altar to a false god on the white house lawn. It made me wonder if God was going to give the us a smack down over that. Especially since obamas goal is to spread this across the world.

[Uncertain]

As far as I am concerned, gay marriage is a complete sham, so the "partner" of the gay person should have no right to make any legal decisions.  That person is not family.  I won't recognize a homosexual couple as married whether they have a license or not.  There is no amount of laws the government can pass that will make me recognize gay couples as legitimate.  Does it seem right to me that the "spouse" of a homosexual who is of the same sex shouldn't be able to make medical decisions for their "spouse?"  Absolutely!

We will just have to disagree, I think an adult should be free to choose whomever they wish for such decisions. But I never was much one for telling people how to live their lives, there are more than enough people such as yourself to do that.

[Uncertain]

@ Ayin Jade, if that isn't an in your face insult to the majority who oppose gay marriage, I don't know what is.  That is an absolutely disgusting thing to do with public property.  The White House doesn't belong to Obama or the gay lobby.  It belongs to the American people.

 

Definitely insulting to the majority of americans but even more so, I saw it as an in your face insult to God. He might as well have set up an altar to a false god on the white house lawn. It made me wonder if God was going to give the us a smack down over that. Especially since obamas goal is to spread this across the world.

The majority of Americans support same sex marriage 61% to 35% against. Not sure the majority are upset.

[Uncertain]

The gay rights thing doesn't bother me as much as how it was done. I'm sorry but homosexuality is already rampant as is other sins, we were at Sodom and gamorrah stage long ago, legalizing gay marriage doesn't make a difference one way or another as far as that's going to be concerned. Illegalizing it doesn't make gay couples any less gay, or any less sinful.

What bothers me is the way it was done. The supreme Court has no authority to make law, just to decide if what comes out of the other two branches is legal or not. This is something that should have either been left to the state-or if it had to be at a federal level, gone through Congress and signed by the President. The fact the supreme Court bypassed Congress and is making law is nothing short of tyranny.

 Well, there it is.  Marriage has always been governed by the state you live in....there has never been a federal marriage license in the history of the U.S.  The SCOTUS has way overstepped and it's time we, the people, figure out what to do about them.  They're a bunch of old fossils anyway, IMO, and have WAY too much power over the country.  The Constitution specifcally states that any powers not granted explicitly to the Federal government by that document belong solely to the states.  Precedent can be found in history.....power given can be taken away.  This is NOT over. 

I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure before recently states did not refuse to honor the license issued by another state, even if they had differing rules. I have lived in many states and never once did one not honor my marriage. This is how the Supreme Court got involved.

Imagine this, a gay couple was legally married in NY and then was driving to SoCal via Texas. One partner has a heart attack while passing through Texas. As it stood before yesterday, the other partner had no legal rights to approve medical treatments or even be a visitor in the hospital.

Does that seem right to you?

 

Your observation is valid but has no bearing on what I posted.  THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A FEDERAL MARRIAGE LICENSE. There has never been a law that any state has to recognize another state's marriages.  The S.C. is supposed to INTERPRET law.  In this case, there is no prior law to interpret. 

There still is no Federal marriage license, the Supreme Court interpreted "equal protection under the law".

[Guest shiloh357]

I was talking today at Walmart to lawyer who  is a deacon at my brother's church and was a groomsman at his wedding.   He asked him about the SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage and he said that gay relationships and the previous civil unions have a short life expectancy, as he put it.  This guy handles divorces and other stuff and he said that gay marriages may turn out to be  very rocky and short lived.  So he said that some lawyers may find themselves inundated with requests to handle divorces.

 

This reminds me of what I had read some time back about gay relationships, that they are not monogamous and tend to be abusive.

 

This may be a case of, "forbidden fruit always tastes sweeter."   Once they get what they want, suddenly, and once the grinding day to day realities of  marriage relationship set in, they may find that they liked it better when they were simply dating instead of in a full blown marriage.