Warning: Use of undefined constant REQUEST_URI - assumed 'REQUEST_URI' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in C:\xampp\htdocs\mbc1\wp-content\themes\jannah4\functions.php on line 73
Hearken to oral arguments in Supreme Courtroom homosexual marriage case – jj
ok

Hearken to oral arguments in Supreme Courtroom homosexual marriage case



Part 1 audio from April 28, 2015 oral arguments made before the U.S. Supreme Court on constitutional challenges to state gay marriage bans.

source

Tags

Related Articles

22 Comments

  1. One of the lawyers stated gays/lesbian had been afforded all the liberties of heterosexuals: they live out their lives openly, they contribute to the community, they raise families and etc (which they do) yet this alphabet mob today wants to paint the narrative that they face the same discriminations is not worse, that African American faced during the civil rights struggle… they are fighting for their behavior to be socially acceptable…. African American had to fight to be seen as HUMANS and then for civil rights (of which they still fight for today) in lieu of the alphabet adgenda whose ultimate goal is the silence the grievance and current plight of blacks today… the government wants the alaphbet addenda to me the prime "minority" agdena on their books

  2. States and society loves to place black children with gay couples because no one wants to adopt a black child and they are cheapest to adopt yet studies would show that this is the most detrimental thing you could do to black child

  3. THE RIPPLE effect is commencing, there are people suffering with "consensual incest desires" and they will be using the same arguments and rhetoric that the ones suffering with homosexual tendencies, you don't believe me, research it.

  4. Hey "dubhad" :
    1. You said: "queers were not excluded from marriage before"
    – Nope, that's the same idiotic non-argument that was already tried by those who opposed ending other types of unnecessary and unconstitutional restrictions in civil marriage laws. When the laws against interracial marriage were being challenged, those opposed said "they can just marry someone of the same race, just like us! It's not discrimination!" And the court made it very clear what they thought of that "argument". It's nothing but a specious word game. The right to marry includes the right to marry the consenting person you CHOOSE to marry, free of unnecessary restrictions and intrusions by the state and its laws. It is a "fundamental right", central to a citizen's capacity to autonomously direct their own life, and laws cannot interfere with such deeply personal and fundamental rights without a valid reason – and there was no such valid reason for laws to deny same sex couples the rights and protections of legal civil marriage.

    2. You said: "the only thing to be judged is whether the Constitution defines what marriage is"
    – Nope, that was not the legal question before the court in this case, nor in any of the other 50 + state and federal court cases which examined this issue. The question before the court was whether the specific state laws which denied the legal rights and protections of civil marriage to same sex couples had any legitimate reason to do so, or whether they harmed the affected citizens for no legitimate reason and amounted to nothing more than discrimination for it's own sake and therefore violated the Constitution.

    3. You said: "every legal source about marriage says marriage is a union between one man and one woman"
    – No, the legal definitions of which couples were legally eligible to enter into a legal civil marriage began including same sex couples over a decade ago, and even if that were not the case, your "argument" is a pointless "definitional fallacy" – simply stating that something has not historically been allowed by the law is not an argument that explains why it must not be allowed.

    4. You said: " so to change that it needs new state laws "
    – Nope, all that needed to be done in all of those rulings in various courts all over the country was to overturn the specific law that PREVENTED same sex couples from being allowed to legally marry, which then allowed then to go to City Hall or a county court house and get a legal "Certificate of legal Marriage" like other couples. No new laws were enacted.

    5. You said: "that needs the assent of the people through the democratic process."
    – nope, we can vote on lots of things but we do not subject constitutional rights of citizens to a vote by the general public. Where on earth did you ever get that idea?

    6. You said: "unelected judges attempting to impose their own personal political views on everyone, instead to doing their legal job. "
    – that entire comment was just pointless rhetoric. The Supreme Court did exactly what they were supposed to do, just like all of the various other state and federal courts who had previously ruled on this same question in the previous three years. They reviewed the arguments and evidence from both sides and examined the law to determine if it complied with the mandates of the Constitution. And, just as fifty+ other courts had already done, they found that laws which were enacted to deny the rights and legal protections of civil marriage to same sex couples were harmful to the targeted group of citizens, denied these citizens their rights and important legal protections, and failed to serve any legitimate purpose for a law in the process. When asked to explain why such laws were necessary, and why such harm and denial of equal legal treatment ought to be allowed to remain in effect, the state was entirely unable to offer an argument to justify this. Such laws failed to survive the most lenient level of judicial scrutiny for a law and were not even rationally related to a legitimate purpose for a law. They did nothing but allow one group to harm another group simply because they wished to do so. They were blatantly unjust and unconstitutional.

    I suggest you take the opportunity to actually read some of those 50+ rulings, which spell this all out in plain English.

  5. 5 supreme court justices, our president, practicing homosexuals, and those who support this sin, are all claiming that they know better than God does. The Word of God is clear – unless they repent, they cannot inherit the coming kingdom on earth.

  6. Man is living lower than beast. God word say, the nation that forget God will go down, America is so low she have to reach up, to touch the bottom. How can our President sing Amazing Grace, and defy and dishonor, along with the Supreme Court, and American's, the very God, that have so amazingly been so gracious to America.You all have caused the judgement of Almighty God upon America. I am ashamed to be called an American. God judged and destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, and He is going to do the same to America for her sin.

Leave a Reply

Back to top button
Close