same sadly ahahah

@@khaileenhernandez931 same here

yo same !

me too🚶🏽‍♀️

What is the primary purpose of a woman's breasts?

I know, I noticed that too!

And the dissenting judge of the 6th circuit has written: "Because the correct result is so obvious, one is tempted to speculate that the majority has purposefully taken the contrary position to create the circuit split regarding the legality of same-sex marriage that could prompt a grant of certiorari by the Supreme Court and an end to the uncertainty of status and the interstate chaos that the current discrepancy in state laws threatens."

@@MikeRosoftJH Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best. Individuals on both sides of the issue passionately, but respectfully, attempted to persuade their fellow citizens to accept their views. Americans considered the arguments and put the question to a vote. The electorates of 11 States, either directly or through their representatives, chose to expand the traditional definition of marriage. Many more decided not to. Win or lose, advocates for both sides continued pressing their cases, secure in the knowledge that an electoral loss can be negated by a later electoral win. That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work.

@@JonathanSterlingUSA Democracy is not just a dictatorship of the majority. It's the whole point of the constitution to establish the basic principles that all parts of the government have to comply with; when they don't, courts have a right and a duty to overrule them. States (or the federal government) can't grant titles of nobility, or pass retroactive laws, or impose cruel or unusual punishments, or deny blacks or women the right to vote. So likewise, the states or the federal government (in accordance with the 5th and 14th amendment) can't impose laws that, arbitrarily and without a legitimate purpose, restrict people's rights or treat people unequally. (That's what the 'due process' and 'equal protection' clause means.) The courts have ruled that to criminalize homosexuality, or to deny same-sex couples a right to marry, constitutes "deprivation of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" and "denial of the equal protection of the laws". (Previously, it has ruled the same for interracial sexual relations and marriage.) It's that simple.

@@JonathanSterlingUSA The meaning of the constitutional provision is not in dispute. It's obvious what it means - the rule of law, and equality before the law. (It's also long accepted that 'liberty' means not just 'lack of imprisonment', but human liberties in general; and that the 'due process' clause is violated not just when the state should restrict somebody's rights with no legal reason at all, but also when the law itself is completely arbitrary and serves no legitimate purpose.) So: if the state should, for no legitimate purpose, restrict people's rights or treat people unequally, this is a violation of the 14th amendment. What is a matter of dispute is the application of the amendment: is there a legitimate reason to restrict same-sex couples from marrying? You, and the minority of the court believe that the states are justified in defining marriage as an opposite-sex union only, apparently for no other reason than that it has "always" been so. The majority has ruled: no, there isn't such a legitimate reason; and it expressly rejected the contention that the law could be justified solely by its past acceptance. When you claim that the generation that framed the 14th amendment obviously didn't intend to legalize same-sex marriage, then it's possible to argue an exact opposite: the framers of the 14th amendment wanted to abolish all arbitrary and discriminatory laws. And because prohibition of same-sex marriage indeed is arbitrary and discriminatory, so the law has to be invalidated. So in a sense, the 14th amendment has always applied to same-sex marriage; it just took a while to realize. It's a rather dangerous line of reasoning: back when the 14th amendment was ratified, interracial marriage was a taboo, and many states had laws against it. (And indeed, in 'Pace v. Alabama' the court has unanimously ruled that laws against interracial marriage aren't contrary to the constitution; this ruling was famously overturned in 'Loving v. Virginia'.) And even stepping back from the question of constitutionality of the law, why are same-sex couples supposed to be excluded from being able to marry (except for that it has "always" been so - and the word "always" needs to be qualified a bit; same-sex unions have been historically recognized in a number of cultures)? Does this difference in treatment serve any legitimate purpose? (And you can stop shouting at me demanding to know what country I am from; as I have repeatedly told you, I'm not going to answer the question, because it has no relevance.)

@@MikeRosoftJH WHAT COUNTRY ARE YOU FROM??? The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sx marriages in 2003. They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds-minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly-could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their “reasoned judgment.” These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.

yes

so no societal interest in marraige? Is marriage just a private or it is also a social mattter?

@@gaguy1967 Deciding who you marry is private, being married is social and legal

Hodges was the Director of the Ohio Department of Health.

@@tylersmith9418 I've been trying to find the answer to that question for about twenty minutes now, you've just saved my assignment, thank you

@@kylaroser6455 No problem!

the dude obergefell didnt want to marry two years earlier

You google it

they’re old people

That’s not quite how a democracy works. Judges (who are NOT elected representatives of the people) changing the law is, in fact, undemocratic.

@@gabemcguire2463 Democracy is not just a dictatorship of the majority. That's the whole part of having a constitution in the first place - to establish some basic principles and rights that all parts of the government have to comply with. (Or else, the democratic process could be used to destroy democracy itself, as happened in pre-war Germany with the passage of an 'enabling act' which effectively gave the Nazis an absolute power.) There's no doubt that courts have an authority to declare laws to be invalid if they are contrary to the constitution. If you dispute that, then you are trying to re-litigate 'Marbury v. Madison' of more than 200 years ago.

@@MikeRosoftJH But of course all that depends on simplistic phrase "contrary to the Constitution".

@@gabemcguire2463 the Supreme Court did not change the law in any way. All they did was say that the due process clause and the equal protection clause includes same sax marriage. That is not legislating to the bench due to the clear discriminatory malice that states had when having same sex marriage bands. It you were to say that obergofeld v. Hodges was a threat to American democracy, you would have to include loving v. Virginia & brown v. Board of education.

no it is NOT how democracy works.

Why would the state obligated to recognize a mere declaration of love? Marriage is a contract between two people and the state to raise a family together and thus ensure the next generation of taxpayers and laborers. Everyone understood this. This is why historically annulments of marriage due to infertility were granted even in the age when divorce was illegal. Marriage outside the context of a heterosexual couple simply has no purpose other than a social fashion accessory. This is also why there were no bans on gay marriage historically, because the very idea of it was so bizarre that it didn’t warrant discussion.

@@TheNightWatcher1385 I see an error in your statement though. There are plenty of heterosexual marriages that never ended in them bearing children yet those were never seen as anything wrong. And we don't have to rely on historical statements for every single decision ever. Historically, people could own other people yet we don't allow that anymore cause it isn't right. So why not allow consenting adults to marry another consenting adult? This is the 21st century, get with the times.

literally. love shouldn’t be political.

I'm in love with my toaster, EVERYONE says "no"

@@jetjock8079 well, because a toaster cannot give its consent? Because it’s common sense that one should hold stable conscience to commit to marriage? What Justice Kennedy implied in this case is that right to love is a human right. And that to deny same-sex couples their right to marry and receive respective privileges provided by the State is to discriminate against this group, which is disallowed without objective and sufficient reasons. Can you really say that you as a citizen aren’t ashamed by segregation that was banned by Supreme Court because yes it was just that, wrong? I view Chief Justice Robert’s opinion only as a pretense to defend wrongs inflicted on gay couples. Human rights are inherent and fundamental, it shouldn’t be left for a gathering of state-level lawmakers from only two parties to decide whether they should be respected or not.

@@jetjock8079 You think same sex relationships are the equivalent to being in love with an object? Wtaf

@@maddieford7854 I get what you're going for, but that could be a very dangerous thing to say. Someone could claim they love a child, or another person who is not of willing or ability to consent to marriage, or even a relative. That is absolutely a political issue. Regarding gay marriage, honestly not the business of the government.

The reason for marriage is to promote a structured environment to produce and raise children, by the people who care most about them (their biological parents). The state has no interest in sanctifying any other relationship. Marriage provides great benefit to women who would otherwise be abandoned to take care of their little misfits all by themselves. That's why marriage was created.

@@JonathanSterlingUSA and there are numerous study saying that gay couples are not way below to straight couples when it comes to quality of parenting. Why is that? So, are you also saying we should prohibit adoption laws and other alternative child care for the reason no biological parents can readily take these children?

Justice Thomas is right the due process merely grants procedural protections (it’s in the name lol). But I can see a reasonable equal protection case being made against marriage laws.

and not a single baby is come out of it...

@@JonathanSterlingUSA We're not pro-births though.

@@rainb5987 But that's what the institution is for. Should tell you something... It's an illness I'm very glad I do not have.

@@rainb5987 But that's what the institution is for.

@@rainb5987 It's a problem I'm very glad I do not have.

You can. Marry someone of the opposite sex. Otherwise it won't be considered valid by the vast majority of human beings. Cope with it.

@@JonathanSterlingUSA Would you also tell Mr. and Mrs. Loving to marry somebody of the same race? How's that any different? And sure, back in 1967 when the U.S. Supreme Court legalized it, interracial marriage was unpopular, with perhaps one third of Americans supporting it. But how does it matter? To quote from the 'Obergefell' verdict (really citing another decision from back in 1943): "Fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." So if you continue to oppose same-sex marriage, then too bad for you - that boat has already sailed. Same-sex marriage is now legal in almost all of the western world. And some two thirds of U.S. people support same-sex marriage. You are free to believe otherwise; you can believe in whatever you want. You aren't free to act on those beliefs. You are entitled to your own opinions, not to your own laws.

@@JonathanSterlingUSA "cope with it" says the one raging about gay people being in love ☠

You’re off base. Marriage is the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship. By your definition if a married couple fails to produce offspring then their marriage is meaningless. Would their marriage then be meaningful if they adopted and instilled good moral values in their adopted children since it is consistent with facilitating the family formation?

@@123videos456 and why would a personal bond require legal recognition? Notice how even in the age where divorce was illegal, annulment was still permitted if a partner was found to be infertile. This was because everyone understood that marriage was about reproduction. A gay union only ever being able to adopt shows how they must still rely on the labor of straight unions in order to have any possibility of family creation.

@@TheNightWatcher1385 So are you for or against adoption?

@@123videos456 Marriage was created long before fertility tests. The reason marriage for thousands of years was accepted as a union of one man and one woman is because typically they could have children. The limitation of two partners was probably because that is the magic number that makes procreation possible. If marriage was okay until SSM came along (in fact, marriage became meaningless even before SSM came along), then Yes fertility tests would be better than making marriage meaningless. But in fact, SSM was just flies on a cadaver.

Or else: "By the power invested in me, I now pronounce you wife and wife. You may both kiss the bride."

Careful, you have just said that violation of the 14th amendment is awesome. :-)

MikeRosoftJH lol

Not according to the CDC.

Love is NOT love. If you think that storge is the same as eros, then you're a very sick person. Or if you think that mania is the same as pragma, you need to see a therapist. Love is absolutely not love.

The state has an interest in privileging reproductive people.

Sure, but Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document. The base of legal system is the Constitution and its amendments, not the Declaration of Independence.

If we created a standard like that, anything and everything that makes people happy would be legal. I'm sure I don't even need to begin to explain that, not only was that not the intent of the Declaration's author, but also that the adoption of an anything goes policy to the law would be an unmitigated disaster.

Religious people love to tell others what to do, even when those others aren't even part of that religion. It's bananas.

​@@Agent101g But you are not a scientist either. That's the problem. You are neither. You are void of any conviction. That's why you don't understand the real purpose for marriage. It's not to get your little thing off.

@@JonathanSterlingUSA Suggestion: read the verdict. It goes into the purpose of marriage in detail.

Obviously, you didn't understand one bit of the argument.

Tianyi Li he stated that the constitution doesn’t define marriage and that he believes the states should be able to define what marriage is. Sounds to me like he believes that interracial marriage should be back on the table for “states to decide.”

Technically the constitution does already prohibit racial discrimination however sexuality isn’t mentioned therefor no date would not have a right to ban interracial marriages even if Roberts option was used

@@asher8754 The 14th amendment doesn't say on what grounds one would be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" or "denied the equal protection of the laws". It prohibits this altogether. So if the state arbitrarily and with no legitimate purpose either restricts people's rights, or engages in unequal treatment, then such a law is unconstitutional and courts have a right and duty to invalidate it.

@@asher8754 I'm going to add to that that racial segregation (be it in marriage, or in public services) is unconstitutional is not as obvious as you might think. It's obvious to you and me, but that's a point of view of the 21st century. It wasn't obvious at the end of the 19th century; so previous Supreme Court verdicts (Pace v. Alabama, Plessy v. Fergusson) had upheld these laws, which later verdicts have overturned (Loving v. Virginia, Brown v. Board of Education). Just because something has "always" been so, it doesn't mean that it's right. And that's *precisely* the point this verdict is making: "The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times." and "If rights were defined by who exercised them in the past, then received practices could serve as their own continued justification and new groups could not invoke rights once denied. This Court has rejected that approach, both with respect to the right to marry and the rights of gays and lesbians." The court had made the same argument earlier in Lawrence v. Texas: "...times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress."

It's hard though to disagree with the majority and not think Loving v Virginia was wrong. If states can't discriminate on the basis of race, can they on the basis of sex?

Ho? Mukatte kuru no ka?

Same

It doesn't?

Because our judiciary is not supposed to make law. Unfortunately, they have been, for many decades.

@@JonathanSterlingUSA The judiciary is supposed to *interpret* the law. The basis of the U.S. law is the constitution, including its amendments. So it's definitely the job of the judiciary to determine, when so challenged, whether or not a particular law violates the constitution. If you want to dispute that, you are in effect trying to re-litigate Marbury v. Madison of more than 200 years ago.

@@JonathanSterlingUSA Interpret the law is different from making laws. The first one is based on the art of eliciting the meaning of the text and purpose of the Constitution while the latter is based on the majority's wishes.

@@rainb5987 You 3 posters pretending to be authorities on our US Constitution are not even Americans...

There is no federal ban on same sex. That's not in the constitution.

@@justanotherweirdo11 And one was never necessary because the very concept makes no sense.

@@TheNightWatcher1385 Why not? Even if we ignore the legal value, marriage has had romantic, sentimental value for hundreds of years now. Why stop them? But more than that, the 14th amendment has been interpreted to apply to this case. On what grounds can you say that it's invalid?

@@madcube1581 there’s no valid reason why a sentimental bond would require legal recognition, nor any reason why a same sex union would be entitled to benefits like tax breaks that are meant for easing the burden of producing children. Outside of wanting the social status or perceived prestige of being married, there’s simply no reason for it. The 14th amendment applying to gay marriage is illogical because gay marriage hasn’t been a thing for millennia like actual marriage has been and thus is not a traditional practice of the people that the state must recognize as an inherent right. A gay union can also never produce new citizens either in physical or principle. As such, the state isn’t obligated to give it the same recognition, as the primary reason the state is involved in marriage is because the state has a vested interest in encouraging the production of the next generation. Also, the gay marriage bans had been applied to everyone equally, and as such cannot be argued to have been a violation. A gay man couldn’t marry a man, and a straight man couldn’t either. Equal application. Now, if marriage is to be reduced to nothing more than a declaration of a loving relationship, then there’s again no reason for the state to recognize any marriage, which would mean it’s also not obligated to force individual states to do so either.

@@TheNightWatcher1385 While you’re point does have some validity, there is some inconsistency with its purpose. While you say the financial and tax benefits of marriage given to opposite sex couples are to remove the burden of raising children born of the opposite sex couple, you must also consider the idea and concept of opposite and same-sex couples adopting or raising a surrogate child. It must be true that the same implications of providing marriage and family benefits would apply to those raising a child they have either received through adoption or were given to by a surrogate mother, is that not correct? So in a way, if a same sex couple decided to raise an adopted children surely the legality of their marriage would suffice the requirement of bearing children to invest in the states encouragement of production for the next generation, and the same sex couple should be entitled to receive benefits to help remove the burden or raising the child, because they have decided to invest their care and their finances into raising it in the first place. Plus this argument I am making further rebukes your other statement of same-sex couples not being able to fulfill the states means of production because the court had outlines the fulfillment of same-sex marriages in points 3 and 4 of the video, number 3 being that “the same sex couple has the right to marry to protect children and families by giving legal protection to home building and childrearing” which the couple would do if they adopted a child, and number 4, being that “the same sex couple has a right to maintain a family unit with a reliable foundation, which is an important keystone of social order” so there would be more incentive for the state to do several things, allowing same sex couples to adopt children, to maintain social order, and provide the state with the means to encourage production.

Same-sex couples can adopt children. According to the US Census Bureau, nearly 15% of same-sex couples have children, compared to 38% for heterosexual couples. Same-sex couples are more likely to adopt than heterosexual couples.

@@ju571n_ Well yeah, of course they’d be more likely to adopt. It’s because they can’t reproduce with each other. This also is another good point because gay couples who desire children almost always must rely on the reproduction of other straight unions in order to get any, unless they go the route of surrogacy.

I totally agree we should also have fertility tests for women who want to get married! If they can’t form a family we don’t want tax payers to pay for a union that can’t produce children after all. These tests will also have to be repeated someway later in life as women go through menopause, and we can’t have those leeches mooching of the system either. This is also what you want by defending this position. Flawed argument. There is also so much more to marriage than family forming tax breaks, the video even gave an example. Being listed as a person’s spouse on a death certificate for instance.

@@MegaGrip13 Annulment was permitted if a partner turned out to be infertile, even in the age when divorce was illegal. Because everyone understood that the reason people got married was to have children.

@@TheNightWatcher1385 Yep! And people wonder why civilization is falling (again). It's happened before. It's a horrible thing, but it gets corrected.

gingergargoyle Actually, the full faith a credit clause in the constitution does require states recognize marriages and other contracts issued by other states

Amina J in reality, it does NOT - while it does cover BUSINESS contracts and the like marriage is actually NOT covered at all. If this were the case then Utah could allow polygamy and all other states would have to accept it - but like such marriages from other countries, only the FIRST marriage is recognized. It's muddy waters. This also means that marriages of 14-16yr olds (with parent permission) are recognized in states where 18yrs old is the absolute minimum age for marriage. Marital contracts are generally passed over by the Supremes - but I'm guessing they will have to rule on these things fairly soon

You need to stop watching pundits on TV talking about "legislating from the bench". If Congress would pull their head out of their ass then maybe the courts wouldn't be put in the position they are in to make these decisions. For those of us that value maximum freedom, the judicial branch is the most fair. Why anyone gives a fuck what 2 consensual adults do in the privacy of their own home is what's really ridiculous. The greatest thing about the Constitution is the right to be left alone.

@@NunYa953 "If Congress would pull their head out of their ass then maybe the courts wouldn't be put in the position they are in to make these decisions." Agreed- although there's NO clause *anywhere* in the Constitution that suggests the high courts get to take over and start legislating if another branch is dragging their feet. Nowhere. So yes- "legislating from the bench" is completely unwarranted, and must be stopped ASAP. "For those of us that value maximum freedom, the judicial branch is the most fair." You couldn't be any more self-unaware, could you? Are you really OK with the idea that the Supreme Court can overstep it’s boundaries to make a decision on something that wasn’t their decision to make in the first place? You don’t ever see that going bad or sideways? Do you really believe that all decisions made by the Supreme Court are flawless and agreeable? Is it in the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to define anything for the rest of us- or should some things be defined through popular vote or legislation? The bottom line is this: An *UNELECTED* committee of nine (the Supreme Court) should *NOT* be making decisions for the rest of the country. "Why anyone gives a fuck what 2 consensual adults do in the privacy of their own home is what's really ridiculous." Agreed- which is why GOVERNMENT. SHOULDN'T. CREATE. LAWS. ON. IT. "The greatest thing about the Constitution is the right to be left alone." The greatest thing about the Constitution is the guarantee of the freedom to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- not that you'll be left alone.

@@SPQR7117 The points you just made are not very educated.

Then, should it be a state matter whether or not to allow interracial marriage? What do we even have the constitution for? The 14th amendment says that states can't "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" or "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". The court has ruled that to prohibit same-sex marriage constitutes "deprivation of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" and "denial of the equal protection of the laws". Therefore, states can't do that. (Under the 5th amendment, nor can the federal government.) It's that simple.

@@MikeRosoftJH How does it deprive someone of life, liberty or property? Like Thomas said, no one here is at risk of capital punishment, incarceration or confiscation of property. The Supreme Court was never meant to have the authority to invent new rights under due process clause.

@@torakossin7872 But the court *did not* invent any new right - that marriage is a constitutionally protected right has been established in many court verdicts. The constitution protects not just liberty as in lack of imprisonment, but human rights and liberties in general. (For example, the court has ruled that to prohibit prisoners serving their sentence, or men who had failed to pay child support, from marrying violates the 14th amendment.) If you interpret the 14th amendment this strictly, do you think it would have been constitutional for the states to not criminalize interracial marriage (or sexual relations), but still not to allow it within the state and not to recognize it when performed elsewhere?

yes it shouldn't be a federal matter. it also shouldn't be a state matter. Government

@@MikeRosoftJH How is preventing interracial marriage discriminatory? It's "discriminatory" only if you believe whites are superior.

Your feelings are IRRELEVANT. What matters is the CHILDREN, not your FEELINGS. Fortunately, the Catholic Church which you fake association with disagrees with you 100%. And that's the way it will be after this generation is done away with. Marriage is NOT to make 2 people feel better. It's to produce and NURTURE babies, you moron.

@@JonathanSterlingUSA doesn't the pope support gay people?

@@JonathanSterlingUSA Big news to you: one can be a member of an organization and disagree with its policies. And indeed, in a number of countries there's a complete disconnect between the official church teachings, and actual opinions of the believers; to put it bluntly, many Catholics believe that their church is behind the times. And so a number of traditionally Catholic countries have legalized same-sex marriage (regardless of the official church teachings), including Spain, Portugal, Mexico, as well as several other Latin American countries. In fact, Spain was among the first countries that did.

I don't think the "bear children" argument makes any sense. There are gay couples who adopt, opt for ivf, or just don't want kids, just like infertile straight couples. I don't think there's any real moral argument against homosexuality anyhow, because if your argument rides on "producing children" then you also must agree that straight couples unable to conceive are equally immoral. And I don't understand your argument that "love" is not love. Certainly two men or two women who have been in a monogamous sexual relationship for years are probably going to genuinely care about each other at some point. Sure sexual love is not the same as being a dependable supportive partner, but it does follow much of the time.

@@JonathanSterlingUSA What children?

Gay couples can get kids via adoption, artificial insemination, or surrogate. So yes it does give a future of society.

@@ranelgallardo7031 lol sure...they cannot create life

@@gaguy1967 So what?! What about the other infertile married heterosexual couples? Should they not get married?

@@ranelgallardo7031 that is usually the response. Id say those are the exception not the rule and we dont legislate based on exceptions.

@@gaguy1967 Now why would they be the exception?

Oh yes, the infamous separate but equal doctrine. Do you think Mr. and Mrs. Loving would have accepted for states to refuse to recognize their marriage, but offer them civil unions instead? Civil unions were an attempt to have their cake, and eat it too - to give same-sex couples some or all rights of heterosexual marriage, without giving them marriage proper. It didn't please either conservatives, who opposed any recognition of same-sex unions; nor proponents of gay rights, who demanded full marriage equality, and wouldn't settle for anything else except as a stepping stone. As a matter of fact, the definition of marriage has changed over the courts of history. In the past marriage was arranged by families for economic or political reasons, and the couple themselves had little say in it. That has changed. In the past man was head of marriage, and woman was subject to him. That has changed. In the past marriage between people of a different race (or the like) was illegal. That has changed. And in the past marriage between people of the same gender was illegal, and that has also changed. If you believe that the court has overstepped its authority and that it should have been left up to states whether or not to allow same-sex marriage, do you believe the same for interracial marriage, or for laws that codified inequality of men and women in marriage? Just because something has always been so, it doesn't mean that it's right. (Though the word "always" needs to be qualified; same-sex unions have historically existed in a number of cultures.)

Marriage doesn't need to be defined. its a choice of the people. If a state is gonna try and regulate it thats a matter for the supreme court to fix

@@MikeRosoftJH

@@JonathanSterlingUSA and? It’s not ur business who marry who

@@JonathanSterlingUSA And fortunately, the teachings of the Catholic Church or any other religion have no bearing on the law. That's what separation of church and state means: just like state can't force religions to recognize same-sex marriage, so religions can't impose their doctrines on the state.

Sorry, but when you're restricting people's rights, that's when the courts step in. It's the reason for their existence. Last I checked this country isn't called SuperJesus Christland, it's called the United States of America. Lots of people who live here don't worship a dead fictional character from a 2000 year old book of poorly translated fairy tales, and we deserve rights as well.

Its an overstep of state authority. Therefore its the supreme court's job to tell them they cannot overstep that authority

@@Agent101g Problem is, you aren't a scientist either. You are a "me first" degenerate concerned only with your immediate gratification.

​@@danielsolomon3794 That might be how it is in your country, but not here in America.Our Constitution says nothing about the redefinition of marriage. That redefinition of marriage would've been laughed at by our founders.

Cry about it

Except not everyone has the same God or interprets it in the same way... So why should your interpretation of your God be thrust upon everyone else?

@@xavierharrison1223 Everyone came from the same God, its just other say and want their god to be lucifer. From lucifer/satan comes homosexuals and transgenders btw. Its inversion of naturality

Are you from the tribe of Levi? Have you read the New Testament? In the NT Jesus explicitly tells different things to different groups of people. Leviticus was meant for the tribe of Levi, not the USA.

What about it? The U.S. law is expressly not based on any religion or holy book; the 1st amendment specifically precludes this possibility. So religions are free not to recognize same-sex marriage (or, if they so decide, to recognize it - some religions, including some protestant churches, reform Judaism, Unitarian Universalism, and so on do recognize same-sex marriage); but that has no bearing on the law.

@@madcube1581 Actually Jesus is clear on this subject when he quotes the Old Testament... Mark 10:7 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife..." Four references to gender in one short sentence.

too bad stay mad

What "punishment" are you talking about? Same-sex marriage was legalized in the Netherlands 23 years ago, in Canada 19 years ago, in the United States 9 years ago, and in Austria 5 years ago; observe a distinct lack of rains of fire and brimstone over any of these countries.

It depends on your religion. But state law is secular. Separation of Church and State.

cry, homophobe, cry. and is a cultist and deluded as well. not surprised