SCOTUS Mandates Same Sex Marriage Nationally (UPDATED)

 

shutterstock_141934102From the the syllabus in Obergefell v. Hodges:

The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486. Courts must exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. History and tradition guide and discipline the inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.

More:

Four principles and traditions demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples. The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. This abiding connection between marriage and liberty is why Loving invalidated interracial marriage bans under the Due Process Clause. See 388 U. S., at 12. Decisions about marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make. See Lawrence, supra, at 574. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation.

A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. The intimate association protected by this right was central to Griswold v. Connecticut, which held the Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception, 381 U. S., at 485, and was acknowledged in Turner, supra, at 95. Same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association, a right extending beyond mere freedom from laws making same-sex intimacy a criminal offense. See Lawrence, supra, at 567.

A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. See Windsor, supra, at ___. This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate.

Finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order. See Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190, 211. States have contributed to the fundamental character of marriage by placing it at the center of many facets of the legal and social order. There is no difference between same and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle, yet same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage and are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would find intolerable. It is demeaning to lock same-sex couples out of a central institution of the Nation’s society, for they too may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage.

From Kennedy’s decision (joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan; starts on p. 6):

The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity. The petitioners in these cases seek to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex…

From their beginning to their most recent page, the annals of human history reveal the transcendent im- portance of marriage. The lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life. Marriage is sacred to those who live by their religions and offers unique fulfillment to those who find meaning in the secu- lar realm. Its dynamic allows two people to find a life that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater than just the two persons. Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations.

From Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent (joined by Scalia and Thomas; starts on p. 40):

Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex couples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex.

But 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.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered).

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.

Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. 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.

From Justice Scalia’s separate dissent (joined by Thomas; starts on p. 69):

I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion in full. I write sepa- rately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.

The substance of today’s decree is not of immense per- sonal importance to me. The law can recognize as mar- riage whatever sexual attachments and living arrange- ments it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance.

Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. 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. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected commit- tee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

From Justice Thomas’s dissent (joined by Scalia; starts on p. 78):

The Court’s decision today is at odds not only with the Constitution, but with the principles upon which our Nation was built. Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not enti- tlement to government benefits. The Framers created our Constitution to preserve that understanding of liberty. Yet the majority invokes our Constitution in the name of a “liberty” that the Framers would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect. Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government. This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it.

From Justice Alito’s dissent (joined by Scalia and Thomas; starts on p. 96):

Until the federal courts intervened, the American people were engaged in a debate about whether their States should recognize same-sex marriage.1 The question in these cases, however, is not what States should do about same-sex marriage but whether the Constitution answers that question for them. It does not. The Constitution leaves that question to be decided by the people of each State…

To prevent five unelected Justices from imposing their personal vision of liberty upon the American people, the Court has held that “liberty” under the Due Process Clause should be understood to protect only those rights that are “‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradi- tion.’ ” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 701, 720–721 (1997). And it is beyond dispute that the right to same-sex marriage is not among those rights.

Published in Law
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 362 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. user_331141 Member
    user_331141
    @JamieLockett

    Merina Smith: Again, in your dreams.  The repercussions are endless.

    I’m not denying that there will be repercussions (especially from a judicially imposed SSM), but the hyperbolic reactions to this are a little much.

    To paraphrase a wise sage:

    Life in the wide world goes on much as it has this past age, full of its own comings and goings, scarcely aware of the existence of SSM.

    • #91
  2. user_517406 Inactive
    user_517406
    @MerinaSmith

    Tommy De Seno:Is there a list of which churches will be stormed first?

    Tommy, here’s what I see Mormons doing.  We call our temple marriages sealings–as in sealing people together, in our belief system for eternity.  I think we’ll probably just drop the word marriage altogether for what used to be a temple marriage.  Now it will simply be a sealing that is just a religious act that is unrelated to the state in any way.  Marriages will be performed at city hall.  In other words, religious people will separate civil and religious marriage.  We have done that in the past, but now we will formalize it.

    • #92
  3. Midget Faded Rattlesnake Member
    Midget Faded Rattlesnake
    @Midge

    Merina Smith:

    Jamie Lockett:

    Merina Smith: In your dreams this won’t be an issue if 5 years. It will be even more of an issue. This will never go away. It will tear the country apart and destroy every freedom.

    Merina, step back from the ledge, neither the country nor the world will end over this.

    Again, in your dreams. The repercussions are endless.

    However monumental the repercussions, I take comfort in this:

    icarus
    Musee des Beaux Arts, Auden

    • #93
  4. user_517406 Inactive
    user_517406
    @MerinaSmith

    Jamie Lockett:

    Merina Smith: Again, in your dreams. The repercussions are endless.

    I’m not denying that there will be repercussions (especially from a judicially imposed SSM), but the hyperbolic reactions to this are a little much.

    To paraphrase a wise sage:

    Life in the wide world goes on much as it has this past age, full of its own comings and goings, scarcely aware of the existence of SSM.

    Jamie, I guess time will tell, but I think you have always underestimated the depth and importance of marriage to culture and family.  Your co-arguers here have time and time again told me that this is not big change, no big deal.  It ought to already be clear that this is a very big deal and that I have been right about that all along.  Trust me, it gives me no pleasure to predict the horrible consequences beyond the already horrible consequences, but I don’t see how we can avoid them, and I am not an hysterical person by any stretch of the imagination.

    Among them:

    No obstacles to creating children deliberately intending to remove them from their parents.

    Aggressively teaching the virtues of homosexuality in schools, and that means advocacy and recruitment.

    Viciously going after churches who disagree.

    Forcing people to support this regime.

    Government intrusion into every aspect of family life.

    No freedom of association.

    No religious freedom.

    Churches losing tax exempt status.

    And that’s the tip of the iceberg.

    • #94
  5. Midget Faded Rattlesnake Member
    Midget Faded Rattlesnake
    @Midge

    Merina Smith:

    Tommy De Seno:Is there a list of which churches will be stormed first?

    Tommy, here’s what I see Mormons doing. We call our temple marriages sealings–as in sealing people together, in our belief system for eternity. I think we’ll probably just drop the word marriage altogether for what used to be a temple marriage. Now it will simply be a sealing that is just a religious act that is unrelated to the state in any way. Marriages will be performed at city hall. In other words, religious people will separate civil and religious marriage. We have done that in the past, but now we will formalize it.

    It sounds like your church has a time-tested plan, then!

    • #95
  6. Tommy De Seno Member
    Tommy De Seno
    @TommyDeSeno

    In other news, today the Democrats lost a wedge issue and the media lost a “gotcha” question. That’s a plus.

    • #96
  7. Casey Inactive
    Casey
    @Casey

    Merina Smith:

    Tommy De Seno:Is there a list of which churches will be stormed first?

    Tommy, here’s what I see Mormons doing. We call our temple marriages sealings–as in sealing people together, in our belief system for eternity. I think we’ll probably just drop the word marriage altogether for what used to be a temple marriage. Now it will simply be a sealing that is just a religious act that is unrelated to the state in any way. Marriages will be performed at city hall. In other words, religious people will separate civil and religious marriage. We have done that in the past, but now we will formalize it.

    Whoa, whoa, whoa… you seem to be implying that there is some sort of inescapable, underlying reality that cannot be redefined by government…

    I shall notify the authorities.

    • #97
  8. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    Which poem launched the famous comeback, What are ya, a horse!

    • #98
  9. Frozen Chosen Inactive
    Frozen Chosen
    @FrozenChosen

    The federalist system set up by the founding fathers is dead.  States no longer have any right to legislate as they see fit in areas clearly left to them by the constitution.  We now have an imperial Washington DC government – backed by the supreme court – that dictates what we will do.

    Time for the states that wish to go back to the system established by the founders to secede and form a new country based on federalist principles.

    • #99
  10. Tommy De Seno Member
    Tommy De Seno
    @TommyDeSeno

    Merina Smith:

    Tommy De Seno:Is there a list of which churches will be stormed first?

    Tommy, here’s what I see Mormons doing. We call our temple marriages sealings–as in sealing people together, in our belief system for eternity. I think we’ll probably just drop the word marriage altogether for what used to be a temple marriage. Now it will simply be a sealing that is just a religious act that is unrelated to the state in any way. Marriages will be performed at city hall. In other words, religious people will separate civil and religious marriage. We have done that in the past, but now we will formalize it.

    Interesting.

    I at one time proposed (but never followed up on) that we invent something called “Marriage Plus.”   It is no different than the usual marriage, but this one is just for opposite sex couples.

    I wondered if gays would insist upon Marriage Plus rights (the plus is meaningless –  it’s just the name for no reason).

    They’ve taken marriage.  Let them have it.  We will move on to Marriage Plus.

    Will they follow?

    • #100
  11. user_517406 Inactive
    user_517406
    @MerinaSmith

    Frozen Chosen:The federalist system set up by the founding fathers is dead. States no longer have any right to legislate as they see fit in areas clearly left to them by the constitution. We now have an imperial Washington DC government – backed by the supreme court – that dictates what we will do.

    Time for the states that wish to go back to the system established by the founders to secede and form a new country based on federalist principles.

    Yes.  I agree, and it is what I see happening in the next 20 years.

    • #101
  12. user_517406 Inactive
    user_517406
    @MerinaSmith

    Tommy De Seno:

    Merina Smith:

    Tommy De Seno:Is there a list of which churches will be stormed first?

    Tommy, here’s what I see Mormons doing. We call our temple marriages sealings–as in sealing people together, in our belief system for eternity. I think we’ll probably just drop the word marriage altogether for what used to be a temple marriage. Now it will simply be a sealing that is just a religious act that is unrelated to the state in any way. Marriages will be performed at city hall. In other words, religious people will separate civil and religious marriage. We have done that in the past, but now we will formalize it.

    Interesting.

    I at one time proposed (but never followed up on) that we invent something called “Marriage Plus.” It is no different than the usual marriage, but this one is just for opposite sex couples.

    I wondered if gays would insist upon Marriage Plus rights (the plus is meaningless – it’s just the name for no reason).

    They’ve taken marriage. Let them have it. We will move on to Marriage Plus.

    Will they follow?

    They’d never allow it.  It goes against the whole point of their campaign.

    • #102
  13. user_331141 Member
    user_331141
    @JamieLockett

    Merina Smith: No obstacles to creating children deliberately intending to remove them from their parents.

    This is a separate issue from SSM and already occurs. I don’t share your belief on this, but fight that fight don’t conflate it with something else.

    Aggressively teaching the virtues of homosexuality in schools, and that means advocacy and recruitment.

    Nonsense. Also bordering on the homophobic. There will not be roving bands of gays recruiting schoolchidren.

    Viciously going after churches who disagree.

    Perhaps, and you and I can fight them together.

    Forcing people to support this regime.

    What do you mean by this?

    Government intrusion into every aspect of family life.

    This is already occurring and is not a consequence of SSM.

    No freedom of association.

    We can fight that fight together.

    No religious freedom.

    Hyperbolic nonsense.

    Churches losing tax exempt status. And that’s the tip of the iceberg.

    Why should Churches have tax exempt status in the first place? What makes them so special?

    • #103
  14. Tommy De Seno Member
    Tommy De Seno
    @TommyDeSeno

    Merina Smith:

    Tommy De Seno:

    Merina Smith:

    Tommy De Seno:Is there a list of which churches will be stormed first?

    Tommy, here’s what I see Mormons doing. We call our temple marriages sealings–as in sealing people together, in our belief system for eternity. I think we’ll probably just drop the word marriage altogether for what used to be a temple marriage. Now it will simply be a sealing that is just a religious act that is unrelated to the state in any way. Marriages will be performed at city hall. In other words, religious people will separate civil and religious marriage. We have done that in the past, but now we will formalize it.

    Interesting.

    I at one time proposed (but never followed up on) that we invent something called “Marriage Plus.” It is no different than the usual marriage, but this one is just for opposite sex couples.

    I wondered if gays would insist upon Marriage Plus rights (the plus is meaningless – it’s just the name for no reason).

    They’ve taken marriage. Let them have it. We will move on to Marriage Plus.

    Will they follow?

    They’d never allow it. It goes against the whole point of their campaign.

    I wouldn’t ask them to allow.

    We would just declare it.

    • #104
  15. kmtanner Inactive
    kmtanner
    @kmtanner

    I hope this BS is over. There no less important issue.

    • #105
  16. Matede Inactive
    Matede
    @MateDe

    Jamie Lockett:

    Why should Churches have tax exempt status in the first place? What makes them so special?

    Well, what makes them special is the first amendment, but also much of the charitable and community work that churches do and provide. The welfare state would be much bigger if churches were not able to maintain their tax exempt status.

    • #106
  17. Matede Inactive
    Matede
    @MateDe

    This may kick off the convention of states that Mark Levin writes about in his book the Liberty Amendments. What do you guys think?

    • #107
  18. Frank Soto Member
    Frank Soto
    @FrankSoto

    Jamie Lockett:

     Merina Smith:  Aggressively teaching the virtues of homosexuality in schools, and that means advocacy and recruitment.

    Nonsense. Also bordering on the homophobic. There will not be roving bands of gays recruiting schoolchidren.

    How is that bordering on homophobic?

    • #108
  19. Midget Faded Rattlesnake Member
    Midget Faded Rattlesnake
    @Midge

    Merina Smith:

    Jamie Lockett:

    Merina Smith: Again, in your dreams. The repercussions are endless.

    I’m not denying that there will be repercussions (especially from a judicially imposed SSM), but the hyperbolic reactions to this are a little much…

    Jamie, I guess time will tell, but I think you have always underestimated the depth and importance of marriage to culture and family.

    But what makes marriage and family deep and important also makes them robust.

    Your co-arguers here have time and time again told me that this is not big change, no big deal. It ought to already be clear that this is a very big deal and that I have been right about that all along.

    What disconcerts me, though, Merina, is rhetoric that argues, on the one hand, that the ties of blood and family run so deep that they are the defining ties in life, and on the other hand, that the traditional family is so very fragile that it’s likely to crumble to dust in the face of such perturbations.

    Arguments like the quoted appear to trust the traditional family above all else – except when they don’t. It can get rather confusing. I guess my lower level of worry means that I trust the strength of traditional family more than you do?…

    • #109
  20. Herbert Woodbery Member
    Herbert Woodbery
    @Herbert

    They’d never allow it. It goes against the whole point of their campaign.

    I wouldn’t ask them to allow.

    We would just declare it…….

    Isn’t there such a thing as Covenant marriage performed by some religious folks? Has anyone ever sued to be included? Do you really think there will ever be any such suit?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_marriage

    • #110
  21. user_331141 Member
    user_331141
    @JamieLockett

    Frank Soto: How is that bordering on homophobic?

    Claiming that gays are going to recruit through schools? That is 1950s era homophobic nonsense.

    • #111
  22. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @

    Merina Smith:

    Frozen Chosen:The federalist system set up by the founding fathers is dead. States no longer have any right to legislate as they see fit in areas clearly left to them by the constitution. We now have an imperial Washington DC government – backed by the supreme court – that dictates what we will do.

    Time for the states that wish to go back to the system established by the founders to secede and form a new country based on federalist principles.

    Yes. I agree, and it is what I see happening in the next 20 years.

    So in the service of preserving and promoting Traditional Marriage, the state of Utah (for example) and its elderly citizens are going to voluntarily waive their claims to Social Security and Medicare? Or, more likely, the state of Utah is willing to see the moving vans filled with elderly head out on I-80, I-15, I-70, etc.?

    I realize there are some who will tell me I should let folks like Merina blow off steam in the wake of this decision. However, I will not do so in the face of such hyperbolic nonsense.

    • #112
  23. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    The fifties were a good time.

    • #113
  24. Midget Faded Rattlesnake Member
    Midget Faded Rattlesnake
    @Midge

    Herbert Woodbery:They’d never allow it. It goes against the whole point of their campaign.

    I wouldn’t ask them to allow.

    We would just declare it…….

    Isn’t there such a thing as Covenant marriage performed by some religious folks? Has anyone ever sued to be included?Do you really think there will ever be any such suit?

    Hi Herbert! Would it be possible for you to include some sort of marking (italics, line of underscores, row of asterisks) to differentiate quoted material from your reply?

    I know how hard it can be to reply from phone or tablet, but in a melee thread like this one, some sort of mark would be really helpful to other readers, since there’s so much to absorb.

    Like maybe this:
    _______________________

    or this:
    ********************************

    • #114
  25. user_331141 Member
    user_331141
    @JamieLockett

    Mate De: This may kick off the convention of states that Mark Levin writes about in his book the Liberty Amendments. What do you guys think?

    No. The convention of the states is an utter fantasy.

    • #115
  26. user_517406 Inactive
    user_517406
    @MerinaSmith

    Jamie Lockett:

    Merina Smith: No obstacles to creating children deliberately intending to remove them from their parents.

    This is a separate issue from SSM and already occurs. I don’t share your belief on this, but fight that fight don’t conflate it with something else.

    Aggressively teaching the virtues of homosexuality in schools, and that means advocacy and recruitment.

    Nonsense. Also bordering on the homophobic. There will not be roving bands of gays recruiting schoolchidren.

    Viciously going after churches who disagree.

    Perhaps, and you and I can fight them together.

    Forcing people to support this regime.

    What do you mean by this?

    Government intrusion into every aspect of family life.

    This is already occurring and is not a consequence of SSM.

    No freedom of association.

    We can fight that fight together.

    No religious freedom.

    Hyperbolic nonsense.

    Churches losing tax exempt status. And that’s the tip of the iceberg.

    Why should Churches have tax exempt status in the first place? What makes them so special?

    This makes it nearly impossible to fight third party reproduction.  Marriage was the thing that said that a child’s own father and mother were important.  This vacates that.  I have told you all along that marriage and family are completely intertwined. They are. There is no way around it.

    DO NOT roll out that homophobic slur against me ever again. Kids are extremely vulnerable to what they are taught in school. When they get high fives and lots of kudos for saying they are gay, many more will say that.  Were you ever an teenager?  Homosexuality might be inborn for some,  but people can be socialized to just about anything.

    Well, I’m glad you’ll support churches, but if I may say so, you didn’t support them when it mattered, so your support now will do no good.

    Government intrusion into family life has also happened as a result of NFD and other deplorable things, but this is a nail in the coffin of family.

    I take it you are not religious and therefore don’t have your finger on the pulse of religious freedom.  I am, and trust me, it is very far gone.

    Churches are special because conscience is special.  If there is no freedom of conscience, there is no freedom.  In addition, churches are the main source of social services outside of government, and it is service provided on a personal, not bureaucratic level, which is much more effective.  In this past week my husband and I alone have provided social services to several people, including a suicidal man that my husband talked back from the brink.  So yes, churches are very, very special.

    • #116
  27. user_517406 Inactive
    user_517406
    @MerinaSmith

    Brad2971:

    Merina Smith:

    Frozen Chosen:The federalist system set up by the founding fathers is dead. States no longer have any right to legislate as they see fit in areas clearly left to them by the constitution. We now have an imperial Washington DC government – backed by the supreme court – that dictates what we will do.

    Time for the states that wish to go back to the system established by the founders to secede and form a new country based on federalist principles.

    Yes. I agree, and it is what I see happening in the next 20 years.

    So in the service of preserving and promoting Traditional Marriage, the state of Utah (for example) and its elderly citizens are going to voluntarily waive their claims to Social Security and Medicare? Or, more likely, the state of Utah is willing to see the moving vans filled with elderly head out on I-80, I-15, I-70, etc.?

    I realize there are some who will tell me I should let folks like Merina blow off steam in the wake of this decision. However, I will not do so in the face of such hyperbolic nonsense.

    Do you know the history of Utah?  Mormons are perfectly capable of this.

    • #117
  28. user_998621 Member
    user_998621
    @Liz

    Jamie, re: #112, do you have kids in public school?

    • #118
  29. user_517406 Inactive
    user_517406
    @MerinaSmith

    Frank Soto:

    Jamie Lockett:

    Merina Smith: Aggressively teaching the virtues of homosexuality in schools, and that means advocacy and recruitment.

    Nonsense. Also bordering on the homophobic. There will not be roving bands of gays recruiting schoolchidren.

    How is that bordering on homophobic?

    Thanks Frank.

    • #119
  30. user_331141 Member
    user_331141
    @JamieLockett

    Merina Smith: This makes it nearly impossible to fight third party reproduction.  Marriage was the thing that said that a child’s own father and mother were important.  This vacates that.  I have told you all along that marriage and family are completely intertwined. They are. There is no way around it.

    We had third party reproduction before SSM. When have I ever denied that marriage and family are intertwined. I support SSM for this very reason. 

    DO NOT roll out that homophobic slur against me ever again. Kids are extremely vulnerable to what they are taught in school. When they get high fives and lots of kudos for saying they are gay, many more will say that.  Were you ever an teenager?  Homosexuality might be inborn for some,  but people can be socialized to just about anything.

    Then don’t say homophobic things. Your rantings on this basically amount to this:

    Homosexuals as predators. Give me a break.

    • #120
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.