Breaking...Same-sex marriage now legal in all 50 states

mbrown1219

Heaven's Stables
OK so 4 Justices dissented, and Roberts was one of them. Looks like the 4 dissenters are as disgusted as we are! Can you imagine having to work FOREVER with 5 judges you can't stand? Is there any hope that several of the Judges who should have recused themselves can have their votes dismissed by some legal maneuver? :idunno Probably not.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...75a120-1b6d-11e5-bd7f-4611a60dd8e5_story.html

The Washington Post
Politics
Supreme Court rules gay couples nationwide have a right to marry
How people outside the court reacted to the gay marriage ruling

View Photos
A sea of cheering, rainbow flag-waving people filled the sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court to celebrate the decision.
By Robert Barnes June 26 at 11:51 AM Follow @scotusreporter

The Supreme Court on Friday delivered a historic victory for gay rights, ruling 5 to 4 that the Constitution requires that same-sex couples be allowed to marry no matter where they live and that states may no longer reserve the right only for heterosexual couples.

The court’s action marks the culmination of an unprecedented upheaval in public opinion and the nation’s jurisprudence. Advocates called it the most pressing civil rights issue of modern times, while critics said the courts had sent the country into uncharted territory by changing the traditional definition of marriage.

[Live updates: Reaction outside the court, analysis and more]

“Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. He was joined in the ruling by the court’s liberal justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

All four of the court’s most conservative members — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — dissented and each wrote a separate opinion, saying the court had usurped a power that belongs to the people.
 

It Is Well

Well-Known Member
We often hear of scoffers who lament the slowness of prophecy, wondering if Jesus will ever come. They often insist "more needs to happen" before the Rapture can take place. Never did understand this attitude or where they get that information. :scratch Perhaps they suffer from the "frog in the pot" syndrome, not realizing how HOT the water has become!

Consider the lightening-fast degeneration of America in this {non-exhaustive} timeline to get a clear picture of how close we are to Heaven:

*Israel reborn in May 1948, a miracle God made possible by using the USA to win WW2 -- Satan begins a vicious assault on our country in vengeance

*1963 Supreme Court bans prayer/bibles in schools
* President assassinated followed by other high-profile assassinations
*"The New Morality" springs to life mid-60s celebrating drugs, promiscuity, rebellion among the youth {we never recovered}
*Gay rights groups and the Womens Movement begin mocking marriage and family
*Soldiers no longer honored but spit upon
*Rise in New Age religions/UFO hysteria
*Racial unrest leading to horrible riots that destroy cities
*1973 abortion becomes the law of the land
*Godless people known as "progressives" infiltrate leadership positions in all walks of life, indoctrinating new generations with their evil through media, TV/movies, music, revisionist history in schools etc
*Marxist POTUS who vowed to take a wrecking ball to the America he hates, succeeding on many levels, including legalized Sodomite "marriage" today


.........all within a mere 70 years. No one can tell me God will string this out for another century or two. :tsk
This is excellent, thank you for this timeline. I was born in the early 60s, so I have, unfortunately, witnessed a lot of this firsthand. I turn it all over in my mind frequently, going through the 'list', just like you documented. If all of that wasn't orchestrated by Satan, I don't know what was.

The thing that truly stuns me about all of this is just how obvious it is to us (believers) what is happening and why, yet how completely and thoroughly blind the world is.

I always get a mental image from the movie, "Independence Day". A bunch of people are standing on the roof of a skyscraper waiting for the aliens overhead to open up their spaceship. They are all happy and excited, holding signs of welcome; there is a real party-like atmosphere, resembling Times Square on New Year's Eve. We - the audience - know that they are doomed, but the people in the movie are completely oblivious; that is, right up until the doors of the ship open up and the aliens unleash a massive streak of bluish light causing an explosion that destroys the building and everyone on/in it. That is how I see our society now... :(
 
Last edited:

lynnjcksnjck

Well-Known Member
OK so 4 Justices dissented, and Roberts was one of them. Looks like the 4 dissenters are as disgusted as we are! Can you imagine having to work FOREVER with 5 judges you can't stand? Is there any hope that several of the Judges who should have recused themselves can have their votes dismissed by some legal maneuver? :idunno Probably not.

No I don't think so..these things must happen..We have to go down this path to get to our destination. This is what I tell myself everyday...we are on the path that the Lord put us on...
 

mattfivefour

Administrator
Staff member
Scalia: Supreme Court now a 'threat to American democracy'

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia savaged the Court's 5-4 decision on Friday that said same-sex marriage is a constitutional right in all 50 states, by saying it makes the Supreme Court a threat to democracy in the country.

"I write separately to call attention to this Court's threat to American democracy," he wrote in a dissent, just a day after he dissented in a decision that upheld a key part of Obamacare.

Scalia said he didn't care about the substance of the ruling, but said the way the Court ruled means the nine justices are now essentially in charge of Americans.

"Today's decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court," he wrote.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/scalia-supreme-court-now-a-threat-to-american-democracy/article/2567108?custom_click=rss&utm_campaign=Weekly+Standard+Story+Box&utm_source=weeklystandard.com&utm_medium=referral
AMEN!!!
 

Círeth

Well-Known Member
:agree Let's just stand aside and let them get on with it. I think Satan is just about done now with the LGBT lot. They've done what he wanted so he'll axe them soon. Poor beggars. :(

I hope some of them see it coming, get away and come to Christ but I'm not very hopeful. They are very deliberately deaf and blind to the truth wanting to believe they can save themselves.
 

Hol

Worships Him
Had a feeling those two justices that Bush put on the supreme court were and are in league with the NWO.
Well we all knew it was coming.
I'm praying that the Lord not turn us over to the hands of man (1Chron when King David was under judgement for numbering the children of Israel).

This nation has a unique experience with wealth. Destitute pilgrims came, loving scripture, but with them 'business' interests. Under centuries of feudalism in Europe, folks did not even have a right to go into the woods for subsistence hunting / gathering. North American Indians couldn't stand to see them starve, so taught them of nature's bounty. This led to conquest of the Indians, for lands they naively understood were only loosely held from the Creator.

Bountiful wealth soon overtook the humility of the early settlers, and universities where studies of inerrant scripture caved to desires for procuring properties & wealth.

Truly the wealthy in today's US hold the reigns. They may not support homosexuality, but they enjoy control over any who challenge their plans, so today's Christians who uphold Christ in His Word are their threat.

"Is it not the rich who oppress you and drag you into court?" James 2:6

This battle may be a judgement on the wealthy US church who have become fat & forgotten the Lord who redeemed us.

May He shed kindness on those of us who put Him first, and of us, many are not wealthy or wise, yet our voice confronts the wealthy in their deceits.
 

ShilohRose

Well-Known Member
Justice Scalia is a sane voice in the Supreme Court. :thumbup

Too few others!!! :thumbdown

IMPEACH is a perfectly good word which is bobbing up in my mostly nonpolitical soul these days. Suppose that is not even possible regarding Supreme Court Justices though... they are appointed up to time of their death if I recall correctly. :(
Supreme Court justices can be impeached.
 

It Is Well

Well-Known Member
As Adrian has stated and others followed In God We Will Trust.

7 Some trust in chariots, and some in horses;
But we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
8 They have bowed down and fallen;
But we have risen and stand upright.
9 Save, LORD!
May the King answer us when we call.
Psalm 20:7-9

I am not afraid of living among the heathen-the mockers-nor the immoral. We have been oppressed with that conduct for decades.
This day God is asking the church for whom will you stand.

That will be my opening statement tonight at Barnes and Noble when I speak before the crowds at the book promotion of The Sifted Generation.
Some of you have read this book, many have not. But it is more relevant today than it was yesterday.

I need your prayers and support, for this to go over without disruption.
Blessings to all, and for the Sake of the Lord Jesus Christ--Stand Firm! Do not back down.
If God be for us who can be against us! Right?
Amen!

P.S. I am reading your book on my Kindle. It is excellent! You will be in my prayers tonight... :)
 

Arlo

Well-Known Member
I remember on 9-11-2001, I was asleep in bed and my wife woke me up and turned the TV on. I watched the 2nd plane strike the other tower live and the 1st thing I said was "We're at war." I woke up today, turned on the computer and I saw the news that the SCOTUS had ruled gay marriage legal. The 1st thing I thought was "America is dead, God's judgement is coming upon the USA soon!" A sad day, but I knew it was coming.
 

mattfivefour

Administrator
Staff member
Here, quoted from foxnews.com are some key comments from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States as he savaged the five justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage.

"A day after Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts sided squarely with the Obama administration on the health care overhaul, the same jurist came out swinging against the court's ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.

In his dissenting opinion -- which he read from the bench for the first time in his nearly 10 years as chief justice -- Roberts charged Friday that the court had no right to intervene in what should be a democratic debate by the people, at the state level, over same-sex marriage.

"This court is not a legislature," he wrote. "Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be."

As for the state's role, he said: "The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage."​
 

mattfivefour

Administrator
Staff member
Here is an excellent reaction to today's ruling, as appears on the SCOTUS blog website. It is based on the four "harms" that Cheif Justice Roberts sees as resulting to America from today's ruling.

Symposium: Judicial activism on marriage causes harm: What does the future hold?
Ryan T. Anderson is the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and the author of the forthcoming book Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom.His amicus brief was cited in Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissenting opinion in Obergefell.

As the four dissenting opinions make abundantly clear, today’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges had nothing to do with the Constitution. This ruling is perhaps as clear of an example of judicial activism as any we have seen in recent years – or are likely (hopefully) to see in the future. The majority of the Court simply replaced the people’s opinion about what marriage is with its own. Nothing in the Constitution supplies an answer to the question What Is Marriage? And none of the purported rationales can justify the Court redefining marriage everywhere.

This ruling will likely cause harm to the body politic: to constitutional democratic self-government, to marriage itself, to civil harmony, and to religious liberty. Because of space constraints, I highlight these four harms with quotations solely from Chief Justice John Roberts’s dissent. (Needless to say, they could be amplified with quotations from Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.)

First, the ruling will cause harm to constitutional democratic self-government. As Roberts notes, “this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise ‘neither force nor will but merely judgment.’” Roberts continues:

Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.

Indeed, Roberts repeatedly argues that in Obergefell the Court has simply Lochner-ized – “the majority’s approach has no basis in principle or tradition, except for the unprincipled tradition of judicial policymaking that characterized discredited decisions such as Lochner v. New York.”

Second, the ruling will cause harm to marriage itself. Roberts notes that marriage “arose in the nature of things to meet a vital need: ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and father committed to raising them in the stable conditions of a lifelong relationship.” But redefining marriagemakes it more about the romantic desires of the consenting adults involved than about the needs or the rights of children involved to a relationship with their mother and father.

Indeed, the judicial redefinition of marriage to exclude the marital norm of male-female sexual complementarity raises the question of what other marital norms may be excluded. Roberts writes: “One immediate question invited by the majority’s position is whether States may retain the definition of marriage as a union of two people.” Roberts continues:

Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one.

It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships?

For marriage policy to serve the common good it must reflect the truth that marriage unites a man and a woman as husband and wife so that children will have both a mother and a father. Marriage is based on the anthropological truth that men and woman are distinct and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children deserve a mother and a father.

Redefining marriage to make it a genderless institution fundamentally changes marriage: It makes the relationship more about the desires of adults than about the needs – or rights – of children. It teaches the lie that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.

Third, the ruling will cause harm to civil harmony. When fundamental policy changes are made by Court rulings that have no basis in the Constitution, it makes change harder to accept – because it casts doubt on the change itself. As Chief Justice Roberts points out,

Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.

Yet in the middle of such a robust debate, the Court “seizes for itself a question the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that question. And it answers that question based not on neutral principles of constitutional law, but on its own ‘understanding of what freedom is and must become.’” This will make the redefinition of marriage less accepted – more contested – in the United States. Roberts elaborates:

The Court’s accumulation of power does not occur in a vacuum. It comes at the expense of the people. And they know it. Here and abroad, people are in the midst of a serious and thoughtful public debate on the issue of same-sex marriage. … This deliberative process is making people take seriously questions that they may not have even regarded as questions before.

When decisions are reached through democratic means, some people will inevitably be disappointed with the results. But those whose views do not prevail at least know that they have had their say, and accordingly are—in the tradition of our political culture—reconciled to the result of a fair and honest debate.

But today the Court puts a stop to all that.

The Court had no reason – no basis in the Constitution – to short-circuit the democratic process. No reason to put a stop to the national discussion we were having about the future of marriage. Roberts continues, “There will be consequences to shutting down the political process on an issue of such profound public significance. Closing debate tends to close minds. People denied a voice are less likely to accept the ruling of a court on an issue that does not seem to be the sort of thing courts usually decide.” Just so.

Fourth, the ruling will cause harm to religious liberty. As Roberts notes, the decision “creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority—actually spelled out in the Constitution.” When marriage was redefined democratically, citizens could accompany it with religious liberty protections, but “the majority’s decision imposing same-sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations.”

Most alarmingly, the majority opinion never discusses the free exercise of religion. Roberts notes, “The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to ‘advocate’ and ‘teach their views of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to ‘exercise’ religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.”

Indeed, as Roberts notes, “Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.” Why can they take no comfort? Because “the most discouraging aspect of today’s decision is the extent to which the majority feels compelled to sully those on the other side of the debate.” Over and over and over again, the majority attacks the Americans who stand for marriage as the union of husband and wife. And as Robert notes, “These apparent assaults on the character of fair minded people will have an effect, in society and in court. Moreover, they are entirely gratuitous.”

Indeed, “t is one thing for the majority to conclude that the Constitution protects a right to same-sex marriage; it is something else to portray everyone who does not share the majority’s ‘better informed understanding’ as bigoted.”

http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/symposium-ryan-anderson/#more-229717


What excellent comments by Chief Justice Roberts and what sound reaction by Ryan Anderson.
 
Top