あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]Hormisdas -6ポイント-5ポイント  (10子コメント)

May God have mercy on us all.

Edit: reading up on the case last night, I did think that that was a bad defense by the "states should decide" side. I mean come on, this isn't education or some other lesser issue. Either marriage is to be between a man and a woman or it is not.

[–]balrogath 3ポイント4ポイント  (7子コメント)

They are interpreters of the law, not creators or new ones. The constitution does not expressly give marriage rights anywhere so the ruling according to the dissenters should have been to leave it to legislators.

[–]aliencupcake -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

The Constitution requires equal protection under the law.

[–]balrogath 9ポイント10ポイント  (4子コメント)

But if marriage is between a man and a woman, then there is already equal protection. Marriage is not defined in the constitution.

[–]Sang_dirty_old_town 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

Marriage is defined by law, not the constitution; if it were in the constitution then the court would have nothing to say about it. But the regarding law does not provide equal rights to gay couples as it does to straight couples, therefore that law fails the 14th amendment test. As such, marriage as defined by law cannot be restricted to simply heterosexual couples.

This isn't a judgement on sacramental marriage, just on what U.S. law is allowed to define marriage as.

[–]kdoubledogg 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

But see, this is what people were arguing, you never group people into "couples" when discussing rights. Homosexual people had just as much of a right to enter into marriage before this decision, most of them just did not want to enter into a marriage with a person of the opposite sex. The institution did not bar homosexual people from entering into marriage, it just barred them from redefining marriage.

In my opinion, this is a sweeping court decision that will propel the courts to new levels of judicial activism that people who lived through Roe could never dream of. Rights will be found anywhere and everywhere in the Constitution if need be.

[–]Hormisdas 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Marriage is defined by law, not the constitution

Marriage is an institution superior to civil law. It is innate in the nature of man, codified in natural law, which man cannot change.

[–]aliencupcake -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

How hard is it to understand that different institutions can define things differently according to their purposes?

[–]Hormisdas 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

And that's a great idea (really), but we shouldn't honestly be expecting SCOTUS (of all bodies) to be adhering to "good ideas."

[–]FleetSevens -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

Don't worry. Your downvotes are coming from brigaders, not Catholics.

[–]Fearless85 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

We need to counteract by upvoting all pro-Catholic opinions.