The key to the decision out of New Orleans is that homosexuals have never been classified as a suspect class therefore qualifying them for strict scrutiny. If a state has a compelling reason to impose a law limiting their ability to marry, the law must stand. This is not a due process argument where they are being denied a right. Some states see heterosexual unions as a compelling social necessity (procreation, mother and father raising a child etc.) But since homosexuals have never been classified as a suspect class they are not subject to strict scrutiny and equal protection arguments fail. The rush of many other courts to over rule the democratically established processes of many states belies any argument that homosexuals are the currently the victims of any institutionalized discrimination. At the end of the day the definition of marriage is constitutionally given to the sovereign powers of each state.

Of course, the same could be said about abortion. But that's never stopped the libs from forcing their agenda on everybody through the courts since they know they usually lose in the court of public opinion.

Keep in mind that the Courts have available to them a couple of other tests of constitutionality: heightened scrutiny and rational basis, the domain of which is not confined to 1st amendment issues.

Which means they can do whatever they want. The Constitution is either a living and breathing document or it isn't.

And I don't have a horse in this race. I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But if gays want to "marry" at City Hall, it doesn't bother me one bit. But if the day ever comes where the Government tries to force the Church's hand on the matter, then I'll have a BIG problem with it.

I think that one of the points that Ivy was trying to make is that we are now on a slippery slope. If man to man marriage is permissible, then next it will be man to child, or even man to animal....If you think that's impossible, well I thought gay marriage was impossible ten years ago. Watch for groups like NAMBLA (look it up), to pounce on this topic for their own purposes.....liberals have been waging war on society for the last 70 years..and their control of politics, academia, the media and law have done a damn good job...just ask ex-KGB agents who funded much of this onslaught throughout the 50s-70s.

Some guys just need a reminder.

Don't be surprised if/when it happens. The Catholic Church already had to get out of adoption because it wouldn't adopt out kids to homosexual couples.

Bingo!....no pun intended.

Scotus declines to review gay marriage decisions:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme...ases/ar-BB7PIb4

(CNN) -- A federal appeals court allowed four states to prohibit same-sex unions -- a decision that could force the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue.

In a 2-1 ruling Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed lower court rulings in Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee and Kentucky that struck down same-sex marriage bans.

Well, it should be left up to the individual states. The will if the people and all that.

I'd be for the legalizing of polygamy for the same reason I'm for same sex marriage. If you don't like those things, then you don't have to do them. If you're a man and want to marry another man? Knock yourself out. If you're a a man and can convince several different women to marry you? Personally, i think you're nuts, but whatever floats your boat. If you're a man who wants multiple gay marriages? Fuck it, who cares.

Which isn't to say I wouldn't think polygamists are weirdo's, but their weirdom has literally zero impact on my life.

And no offense, man, but "If man to man marriage is permissible, then next it will be man to child, or even man to animal." is just about the worst argument I've ever heard. Children and animals can't given consent, they don't make informed decisions; Same sex marriage is not some slippery slope to bestiality and child brides, claiming otherwise is just ridiculous.

Arkansas and Mississippi had their gay marriage bans declared unconstitutional by federal district judges.

I can't believe this shit is still in the news. The queers and lefties have won the cultural war on this issue. It's over. Time to move on.

What's that say about federal judges...they prefer "social justice" to the law....a disturbing trend in this country..but then again, the federal judgeships have been flooded by Clinton and Obama to promote their leftist ideals.

I don't disagree at all. But like I said, they won the culture war on this one. Conservatives should just let it go.

Now by all means, you should still teach your children what you believe is morally sound. Because no one can tell me that I can't tell my children that homosexuality isn't abnormal. That's my business and no one else's.

But as a matter of law, it's over. There are better ways to get even.

I would be interested in knowing what the suicide rate was for homosexuals in the 1950's as compared with it is today.

What would that prove...that they "feel" better about themselves today than in 1950? They're still gay...whether you believe that behavior to be aberrant or not, no one likes it shoved down their throat or that of their children. I think people are very tolerant to other people's behaviors as long as they don't impact on them personally. Keep it out of the schools and the constant barrage on television, and there would be much less furor.
The same held true for "gay marriage"...which by definition, is an oxymoron. They could have had civil unions..which they refused, though that entailed the same benefits of marriage...the reason being, that they must be "equal"..it just doesn't flush. And if you don't believe that we're on a slippery slope, you better look into NAMBLA and their efforts.

I bet the number is up today. Because they may have killed themselves more in the GOOD old days for being gay. But no one knew they were gay they kept it quit.

I wish they did that today. I don't mean kill them selves, but kept what they do in private.They should keep it private.

Do we care how many dicks they shove up thier ass or how many gerbils then put in their or how many coke bottle they shove up their NO we dont.

Did we go around sayING so everyone knows THAT WE LOVE PUSSY!!!!!!

Well if the dreaded Muslim hordes ever do take over the world. You probably wont be hearing about Gay rights or Gays any more.

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Gay couples began getting married in Alabama on Monday morning, despite an 11th-hour attempt from the state's chief justice — an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage— to block the weddings.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday morning refused to block the marriages and let a hold on the federal ruling striking the ban expire. Minutes later, Alabama became the 37th state where gays and lesbians can legally wed as probate judges began granting the licenses to couples, some of whom had been lined up for hours and exited courthouses to applause.

DIXIE, Louisiana just beat BAMA in something!!!!

Aside from the tax breaks and insurance, the gay community will regret pushing this equality crap for years.

All it would have taken was a will through a lawyer that says: "I so and so leave everything to so and so if i die"

Then guess what?? you break up and change the will!!!!! OMG OMG OMG!!!! now they get to experience divorce because a lesbian got drunk and tried penis and loved it (That is a true story), or a gay man found another gay man with a bigger penis and wants to play with that one now. Welcome to the heterosexual problems boys and girls!! Just cost yourselves thousands of dollars more to be "equal"

the supreme court decision is wrong. the states have rights according to the tenth amendment of the U.S. constitution.

it should be left up to the states as with the marijuana laws,and if you don't like that law that bans gay marriage, then go to a state where its legal.

gay marriage goes against god, he did not make adam and adam, and eve and eve. why can't anybody understand common sense.
and as for old schools post about man to child, man to animal, well, my position would be, ok fellas, lock and load! let's go get the bastards. a law like that would cause a revolution.

“Common sense is not so common.”- Voltaire

Discriminating against one class of citizens is wrong. Common sense.

You are saying homosexuality goes against God is common sense? Well common sense tells me that the bible is not the word of "God." Why? Because common sense also tells me God does not exist.

Common sense does not exist.



I'm not intentionally attacking your beliefs(if you are happy with Christianity go for it, same if you were Islam, Hindu and Buddhist) but I don't understand how you can take part of what the bible says as literal and then other parts metaphorical. It is the all the word of "God" which is literal or it is not. If you believe the bible is the word of "God" I suggest you reread Deuteronomy.

I understand, we can agree to disagree, and I am a Christian with a Christian upbringing, and I don't believe in persecuting anyone with different ideas than mine. however, the gay community should not force their ideas on anyone, just keep to themselves. my opinion.

Even if we take religion completely out of it, there is something wrong when a single judge can overrule the will of the majority of people in an entire state. As Justice Thomas recently said, at the very least all the judges in these recent cases should have allowed the bans on gay marriage in those states to hold until it could be heard by the Supreme Court. But, as we've seen, they are activist judges who are only interested in their own personal agenda. It's how liberals, including the gay movement, has always gotten their way - through corrupt lawyers and judges.

Unfortunately, I don't hold out much hope for the Supreme Court leaving it up to the states (as it should). Kennedy will, in all probability, go with the 4 liberal judges in ruling for gay marriage and it will be a 5-4 decision. We can thank Obama for a large part of that, considering who he has appointed to the court.

Contrary to the opinion of liberals and their nonsense about a "living Constitution," the Constitution says what it says. Not what judges (even on the Supreme Court) say it says. More to the point, it says something when these 9 people, reading from the same document, can come away with such divergent viewpoints. It suggests that one side is going by what the Constitution actually says or does not say while the other is going by their own whims.

It doesn't take a legal scholar to see which side couldn't care less about what the Constitution says. To quote Ruth Bather Ginsburg in 2012:

"I can't speak about what the Egyptian experience should be, because I'm operating under a rather old constitution. The United States, in comparison to Egypt, is a very new nation: and yet we have the olden written constitution still in force in the world...I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa."

That tells you all you need to know about Ginsburg, the other liberals on the Supreme Court, the judges who have overruled the will of the people in state after state, and their supporters in the gay movement. They don't give a hill of beans about what the Constitution says and will twist, pervert, and misinterpret it in order to push forward their agenda.

But they'll never be content to just live and let live. They have to shove it in everyone's face. And I personally don't give a shit what people do in their bedroom. Let them cornhole each other all they want. But it should be left up to the state.

And I'm Catholic, too. But my position is to paraphrase the great David Puddy: They're the ones going to Hell, not me.

I agree with this. I used to be neutral on the issue (even though never liked homosexuality but, if somebody is born like that, it's not their fault). However, after being insulted and, what's more important, PUBLICLY SLANDERED by some "homosexuality defenders" and accused of bullshit I never heard about in my life on a non better specified forum, from that moment, with all respect to human general and individual rights, I can't sympathize with homosexuals and will never lift a finger to help them with their agenda. It's personal after that case. However, I think the crazy and really "evil" ones aren't homosexuals themselves, but their "enforcers" who aren't homosexuals but despite this (or maybe precisely because of this) are much more aggressive with their push-down-the-throat methods than any homosexual would ever dream of. Shitty hypocrites: if they think they have the right to be belligerent, what's the difference between them and skinheads who beat up homosexuals? The methods and attitude are basically the same, they are 2 faces of the same medal.
I must say that before meeting those shitbags who pretended to be "human right defenders" for homosexuality freedom, but lowered themselves to such methods as slander, I had a generally better opinion of people on internet as a whole. That was the first case I wasn't only insulted, but unable to prove to the whole forum they were lying about me. Scumbags. If that's the way they use to defend their ideals, then there must be something wrong with the ideal in question or at least with the way it's enforced.

That's why "liberal" shouldn't be used to describe them anymore. The word "liberal" connotes tolerance. They are left-wing extremists, far left-wingers, left-wing hatemongers or whatever you want to call them. They only tolerate what they agree with and are intolerant of everything else. In other words, they're not tolerant at all. To tolerate something means to put up with something, whether an idea or behavior, that you disagree with. They are really fascistic, wanting to force their beliefs on others and are willing to lynch those who who don't agree with them.