Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Alito renews criticism of Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling in rejecting Missouri jury case


OverSword

Recommended Posts

Quote

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito renewed his criticism Tuesday of the high court’s landmark same-sex marriage ruling, addressing it in a five-page statement as part of an order explaining why the court declined to hear a case involving a Missouri lawsuit.

And further down:

Quote

 

said it “exemplifies the danger” that he anticipated in the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges case.

“Namely, that Americans who do not hide their adherence to traditional religious beliefs about homosexual conduct will be ‘labeled as bigots and treated as such’ by the government,” he wrote.

 

Alrighty then. 

Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
5 minutes ago, docyabut2 said:

love is love no matter who :)

It's not about love.  Once the government is involved marriage is a legal arrangement not religious.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Separation of Church and State was to guarantee laws are made in the most inclusive way possible to be inclusive to as many groups of people as possible for various rights/maximum freedom.

Seems like these Supreme Court people can't be non biased

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, joseraul said:

Separation of Church and State was to guarantee laws are made in the most inclusive way possible to be inclusive to as many groups of people as possible for various rights/maximum freedom.

Seems like these Supreme Court people can't be non biased

First - there is nothing in the Constitution stating anything about the "separation of church and state".  The pertinent portion is the "establishment" clause:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"  

It was an activist court that used the loose concept of "separation" to effectively cancel Christian observances of any kind from the public square.  THAT is a direct violation of the second part of the text because it clearly acts to "prohibit the free exercise thereof"  While there may be examples of this kind of prohibition being used against Judaism and Islam, they are extremely few and far between.  It's obvious that the Left is increasingly targeting only Christianity and I think it's because they bridle at being forced to look into a moral mirror.  Since the ACLU and others managed to create this "separation" mythos, the country has gone steadily downhill and is nearly at the point of dissolution.  Heaven forfend that there still be some form of degeneracy that they haven't been able to mainstream, yet...

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, and-then said:

It was an activist court that used the loose concept of "separation" to effectively cancel Christian observances of any kind from the public square.  

The White House has a Christmas tree every year.  WTF Are you talking about?  The White House celebrates Easter with an egg hunt.  Just come out and say what you mean.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, and-then said:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"  

Exactly. None of which prevents the government from celebrating a religious holiday

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, joseraul said:

Separation of Church and State was to guarantee laws are made in the most inclusive way possible to be inclusive to as many groups of people as possible for various rights/maximum freedom.

Seems like these Supreme Court people can't be non biased

You’re confused.  The Supreme Court refused to hear the case. One judge has predicted the result of a previous ruling is religious people will be viewed as bigots in certain types of cases. He is probably right and in cases like this they should be and be filtered out during the jury selection process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, OverSword said:

It's not about love.  Once the government is involved marriage is a legal arrangement not religious.

It's always been about the governments involvement in marriage.  The government gives benefits to married couples. It recognizes married people. If the government steps back and treated married people the same as single people it would be diffferent. 

You want to solve the issues around polygamy, gay marriage, divorce, etc?  Get rid of any tax benefit or other benefit concerning marriage and any laws concerning it.

A guy wants  to marry his pillow?  None of anyone's business except for the guy and his personal religious beliefs.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gromdor said:

It's always been about the governments involvement in marriage.  The government gives benefits to married couples. It recognizes married people. If the government steps back and treated married people the same as single people it would be diffferent. 

You want to solve the issues around polygamy, gay marriage, divorce, etc?  Get rid of any tax benefit or other benefit concerning marriage and any laws concerning it.

A guy wants  to marry his pillow?  None of anyone's business except for the guy and his personal religious beliefs.  

There are other issues besides tax benefits too such as spousal rights. There were incidents before gay marriage where a lifelong gay partner was forbidden visitor rights in the hospital when the patient was unable to give permission and the family blocked the partner or where one died suddenly and the property did not go to the partner.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.