In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, many people are asking: what comes next?
The 5-4 ruling by the nation's highest court kicked abortion regulations down to the individual states, where trigger bans and already-on-the-books anti-abortion laws will make abortion nearly or fully against the law in potentially dozens of states in the coming days.
But there is some evidence to indicate the Supreme Court may not be done making high-profile decisions that threaten established rights.
In a concurring opinion (which many feared was coming down the pipeline following the leaked draft penned by Justice Alito last month), Justice Clarence Thomas argued that not only should Roe be overturned, but that the Court should reconsider other landmark rulings that established sexual and reproductive rights.
LGBTQ and women's rights activists are now sounding the alarm because that would mean laws protecting gay marriage, gay relationships, and access to contraception could soon be on the chopping block.
“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” wrote Justice Clarence Thomas in his 213-page concurring opinion.
Those are the rulings that legalized contraception access, gay sexual relationships, and same-sex marriage, respectively.
It’s worth noting that the majority opinion in this particular case indicates the ruling can and should only apply to abortion access, and not all of the above.
However, the three liberal justices on the court insist that they don’t buy that argument for a second.
In a fiery dissent, Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor wrote that “the right to terminate a pregnancy arose straight out of the right to purchase and use contraception. In turn, those rights led, more recently, to rights of same-sex intimacy and marriage. They are all part of the same constitutional fabric, protecting autonomous decisionmaking over the most personal of life decisions.”
Canary in a Coalmine
LGBTQ and women’s rights activists have long feared that Roe falling would only be the beginning. Earlier this year, one OGBYN called a Roe rollback a “canary in a coalmine” after some legislators danced around questions of potentially reversing Obergefell and Griswold.
The fear could be justified. In their Obergefell dissent, Justices Alito and Thomas wrote that “the court has created a problem that only it can fix.”
Those concerns have only grown after this latest ruling.
There are no current challenges to same-sex marriage before the Supreme Court, but activists say that conservatives will undoubtedly be emboldened by the Supreme Court’s recent ruling and the comments from Thomas. In that scenario, it's less a matter of if… but when.
What do you think? Could we seriously be heading for a future where the contraception and same-sex marriage rulings are reversed?
Could it get as far as women's right to vote and the abolition of slavery be in jeopardy? You must wonder.
Shirley you jest? I think the country actually passed constitutional amendments against slavery and for voting rights and they're established as CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. The SCOTUS is set up to interpret laws based on the constitutionality of the laws. If women want to establish as constitutional their right to kill their unbirthed children they would have to go through the same process of amending the constitution to reflect that "right". I think this issue was brought up to foment anger between the left and right. As long as we keep getting drawn into the argument we lose focus on the fact that our so called representatives in Washington aren't representing us, and that they're robbing the people blind.
Could it get as far as women's right to vote and the abolition of slavery be in jeopardy? You must wonder.
First of all you're right to vote and your right to make equal pay was the era amendment. Do you really need to stop listening to the news and read history. Every slave owner was a democrat. Every statue that they are tearing down was a democrat. Every Jim Crow law was made by the democrats. Every segregation law was made by the democrats. Every KKK member was a democrat. It was the Republicans fighting the Democrats for the women's rights. Your baby's life is not your body. People are so sick and twisted in the head what happened to my body my choice with this vaccination that is killing more people than covid did? I will never take the vaccine but I got a bunch of dumb liberals telling me that I should do it because I might kill somebody yet they believe in killing a baby. Bacteria is considered Life on Mars but a heartbeat is not on earth? Kind of weird don't you think
Actually talking about the democrats and republicans of the 19th and early 20th century as if they are the same parties that they are today show a gross lack of historical understanding. If you have paid any attention to history, these parties are not really even the same animals they had been in the post civil war era. All the old southern democrats converted into republicans in the last 100 years. If you just look at the political aftermath of 1964 civil rights and Nixons southern strategy you will see just the most recent events in this huge shift in parties and party politics. The huge shifts in those parties cannot not be dismissed as minor. The last of those old southern democrats with any power were the Reagan democrats of the 1980s. To try to draw any parallels between what those parties were during Lincoln’s time and today is pure willful blindness. It’s a tired misleading argument born out of ignorance of history.
Roy Anthony Dilley
Thaaank you! I read that drivel from William Aaron Frings earlier and was going to post a reply, but you did a better job than I might have.
What people fail to recognize is that the two parties are the same. The so-called left and right wings fly the same bird, to misquote an old Indian saying. These two wings keep flapping the same things to foment anger and division. It seems the tactic is working well on this thread. When will we learn?
The two parties switched platforms a long time ago and today's Republicans are not the party of Lincoln.
The Republicans of that time were the liberals and the Democrats were the conservatives who joined the KKK, enacted Jim Crow, and lynched black people.
To act like any political party or mainstream American political ideology opposed Jim Crow, segregation, or racism is simply not accurate. Segregation was the law of the land in both the north and the south, Democratic and Republican states. Racism is universal. That being said, since the successful implementation of the southern strategy, the Democrats and Liberals have tended to use less racist rhetoric and have generally pushed for more policies based on egalitarian principles. The Republicans on the other hand have swung further to the right and have embraced openly racist policies where in recent decades they have so done less often (or rather less openly). At this point in contemporary America, the Dems and the GOP are not moral equivalents, but historically speaking, they are both guilty of using the same tactics of racism, genocide, slavery, exploitation, etc.
Slave owners George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Ulysses Grant were Democrats? And womens right to vote wasn't the 19th Amendment, but instead was the ERA amendment (that didn't pass)? And you 'studied history' to learn this??
That is true but originally the republican was created by blacks and then they was killed off and others took there place. Which is what the kkk was created for at the time.
Remember, the democrat's and republicans switched platforms, so saying that the democrats were the ones who owned slaves, while fundamentally correct for that time, is no longer correct based on current political beliefs.
As leaders of faith that vary greatly we need to make sure to remind people to get out there this year and vote. The only way we are going to see any chance of change is to remove the old guard and elect people who are not only current but actually listen to their constituents and what the populace is calling for. This delusion that this country needs christian leaders is not only preposterous but completely against what our fore fathers were calling for when they came here to escape persecution themselves. I am lucky enough to live in a very blue state.
Vote for who? The Republicans are anti-American Nazis & the Democrats are toothless. We've got these hearings, but they're not bringing Orange-Hitler up on charges. The Proud Boys still haven't been declared Domestic Terrorists. You can't vote out the Supreme Court. Democracy is on its' death bed.
When you realize that the left and right wings fly the same plane you will realize these things are brought forth to keep the people on the left and right fighting each other rather than focusing on the fact that the politicians aren't doing their job of serving ALL of the people. By the way, based on the comments, the wings are doing a good job of keeping us fighting each other.
It is strange to see a little common sense on this platform. Good for you for seeing through the lies of both political parties.
@Shane Michael Westerbur True! However, common sense is not that common. Furthemore, the question regarding "Is gay marriage next?" was not mentioned much in the comments because it's also another controversial issue. 🙄🤷♀️
Gays have every right to take advantage of the legal benefits of what we call "marriage". However, they don't have the right to force unwilling pastors to solemnize that union before God. There are plenty of churches and pastors who are ready willing and able to provide that service; use them.
No one is forcing unwilling pastors/churches to preform gay marriage .........
@Kevin Michael Zurrin I totally agree. They have the people in a "rat race" as stated in Bob Marley's song.
I agree. We need to put the United States back on track with Democracy, the Federal Government needs to stop pushing Democracy on the rest of the world. Rewind our country to the founding fathers intentions of building this nation the Supreme Court is in place to protect the Constitution not to make laws or put party politics before the Constitution. This Supreme Court is failing the people of the United States.
Of course they are. Thomas wrote as much in his opinion. Alito and Thomas wrote about it when they put Barrett on the court. With this last decision on prayer by the coach, I hope they're ready to support Muslim, Jewish, and Satanist prayers as well.
Prayer in school sports should be available to any believer of any religion. A Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or other can have prayer as Christian do. The best way to do this in the locker room, not in front of the attendees. Be not like the publican who prays and wail in public to glorify himself. But go into your prayer closet seeking the Lord.
The 1st amendment separation of church and state was intended to preclude any one religion from imposing their laws on everyone. Unfortunately, we live in a time where the White Evangelical Christians have too much political power. Injecting their views on sex, marriage, gays, women, etc. will cause much suffering and ultimately could result in the downfall of our democracy.
Hopefully so...... Idiots have been saying that crap since 2016... WE'RE STILL HERE AS A DEMOCRACY!!!!
Actually, read the establishment clause. Learn it and know what it says. Analyze each word. It seems as if the time is coming that we the people are going to have to know more than Jefferson’s metaphor.
Tom Thackeray. The US Constitution does not have a speration of church and state clause. The first amendment Allows free speech without persecution and the right to worship any religion you want. And not to establish a National Church (such as the Church of England). The US government does work with organizations with charities and such.
Same Sex Marriage Should Be Banned Due To The Fact That Same Sex Marriage Is An Abomination Against God. It's Disrespectful To God & Goes Against Creation. Finally, The Lie That People Believe Is"I Was Born This Way", No You Wasn't. If You Was Born That Way, Then God's Word Would Be A Lie, God Said That He's Not A Man, Therefore He Can't Lie... Amen !!!
Not everyone follows your particular religion.
Sherman, you might consider doing your own research into what the Bible actually says instead of what prejudice demands it says.
Sherman, according to the holy book, we are created in the image and likeness of God. We are all creations of God, so the ridiculousness of "abomination" and "disrespect of God" is silly at best. Jesus never spoke of sexual orientation and in all probability, the 12 guys running all over the desert with him were probably gay. Those who yell the most against LGBTQ folks are just fearful of their own sexuality. Why do you care about who loves who? How do their lives affect you? Why does it set you off into a fearful rage? We are all human, we all have the capacity to love and care about one another. Isn't that a commandment by God, "Love they Neighbor as Thyself"? Christo Fascism and Talibangelicals have no place in a just and free society. Ask your God for forgiveness for violating his commandment and disrespecting members of his Creation.
Of course. You'd be a fool to believe any thing that the liars on the Supreme Court say (whether under Oath or not). Fool me once, shame on.you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
One more time for the misinformed. ROE has not been overturned! All Roe did was say that you could not ban this, nothing more. And any state that does ban this will have that ban overturned. I find it very strange and amusing from the people who are whining about this decision who somehow seemingly think its ok for them to put what they call "reasonable restrictions" on a right that is in the Constitution and has been ruled as an individual right in over 250+ cases since 1787, and then actually go batcrap crazy when the same way of thinking of reasonable restrictions is placed on a myth that never was in the constitution nor the myth of the right to privacy which also was never in the constitution or the simple fact that to add to or remove from the Constitution you MUST have a constitutional amendment. And to add salt to that wound, at no time in Article 3 does it give the SCOTUS the right to interpret anything. And before anyone says anything, the majority of the justices (INCLUDING a woman) have clearly ruled that the 9th and the 14th Amendment do NOT apply in this case. So shocker of shockers, you just had your own actions turned on you and suffered a major defeat using your own words. Thats why you need to make them sweet as sooner or later you are going to have to EAT the same words just like now. so one in the face is that every country but 2 (china and Cuba) have some limit on abortions, in fact quite a few countries i Europe have 15 weeks as their limit meaning NO abortions after that time unless it will kill the mother or it can be proved that it was caused by incest. And no Same Sex marriage will not be overturned so stop trying to make a Mt Everest out of an ants hill.
Not sure who you have been listening to but yes, it has. It was a federally decided law of precedence that these judges were specifically asked about in their hearings. They themselves said it was and they would respect it. Then they did the exact opposite by overturning it on the federal level in order for it to be a state issue. So now, states that want to make it illegal can, which means it's no longer an individual right supported and protected by the constitution.
Hey genius they didn't overturn anything they made the law to be enforced as it was originally written. It was never written to be federally enforced across the land. It was left up to the states to decide that's what's wrong with this country all these liberals don't even know the Constitution are actually what they're talking about all they do is listen to the news.
You are mostly correct. There is no constitutional amendment establishing abortion as rule of the land. SCOTUS never established that and did not just take it away. All they did recently is rectify that this is a state issue. What to do going forward? People need to work at the state level. Vote for those that support their views, be it for or against. That also includes marriage rights or contraception or whatever the cause of the day is. From this point, if most states agree, then it is time to start the process for a constitutional amendment establishing the right for/against the issue. That’s the only way the “right” will be guaranteed. Right now, depending on the sitting judges, SCOTUS can flip-flop for generations.
Thank you! I look forward to a time that this issue can be determined by the people. The pro-choice people must argue the facts not the rhetoric. Facts to be established are When is a fetus human and when do the rights of the human fetus begin. Then the issue becomes, like the slavery issue, are slaves human. If the fetus is human then they have rights too, just like the slaves. Are we going to have slave states and non-slave states? Because there is nothing in the constitution about the humanity of a fetus it's up to the states to decide these laws for themselves. So, we will for a time have the states who abort and those that don't. Imagine the state that says "OK they're human but we want to kill them anyway".
Daniel, your words are unclear. Please be more specific.
It amazes me how many people have so many things backwards due to the mainstream media and their vocal misinformed friends. Look at the economy since the democrats have gained power and tell me you are ok with that. As far as Row and gay marriage, the government should have NOTHING to say about either. Those issues should be left to the individuals involved and affected by the situation. Personally, I do not believe in gay marriage but I do believe that is none of my business. Abortion is NOT birth control nor is it generally healthy care. There are certain situations where it should be considered the only option but not a form of birth control. Enough rant. Judge not...
I think I would be more open to your opinions on the recent Dobbs decision if you actually knew how to spell the name of the defendant in the 50-year-old SCOTUS decision Dobbs overturned.
Seriously, you need to get with the medical program. Yes, abortion is medical care. It requires a doctor who knows how to do it in order for it to not kill or seriously injure the woman involved. When a woman has a medical health issue crop up with a pregnancy and the fetus is no longer viable then the MEDICAL PROCEDURE they prescribe is an abortion. If a pregnant woman turns up with cancer then they recommend it because the treatments weaken the body to the point of not being able to carry a pregnancy to term as well as weaken the fetus so it becomes non viable anyway. DO you have any idea what that does to the woman's body to allow such a thing to rot inside her body? Same goes for children who might have been victims of a sexual assault. Their bodies haven't matured enough to manage it well, never mind the minds of anyone of any age being forced to carry a resulting pregnancy. This is a cruel and incredibly dangerous decision.
The body will expel a dead fetus- still birth. It won’t rot inside a woman. Sexual assault needs to be addressed separately. Let’s educate people, no matter the sex and gender, that sexual assault is never allowable under any circumstances. If children are no longer sexually assaulted and abused there is no need to further traumatize them with abortion.
I'm a nurse. You are wrong. Retained fetal tissue sometimes happens and YES the woman can die from it. So you're saying the 10yo rape victim should carry a 9 month pregnancy and give birth? With a 10 yo immature body? Get serious!
They will go after anyone who does not support THEIR AGENDA. Christofacists are destroying this country.!
This is Awful. What can ppl say. Get rid of the ones who think they think right to tell woman what they can or cannot do. I pray that none of their daughters, granddaughters ,nieces or there wife’s or mother’s have to use the right they took away.
They likely will. The issue there is they can fly them where ever they need to go to get one because they have the money. This will devastate the middle and lower classes. I just cannot figure out if they are really that ignorant or if they know and just don't care.
No flying needed... the so called 'pro-life' states allow the rich to take their inconvenient pregnancies to local private clinics for a 'cosmetic procedure'... AKA a D&C.
What about prostitution? You ok with your daughters and granddaughters making that choice?
You will notice that that Thomas left out Loving v. Virginia in his ramblings. Of note, Roe had her baby long before the court ruling in 1973.
We had gay rights and even gay marriage and everyone tolerated it. It was all here to stay. Then the gay tools just kept pushing for more and more until they finally started to come for our children in the media, in schools, everywhere. Of course leftists are always happy to lead their children to the slaughter. Not my kids though. If you leftists think u can continue like this destroying western civilization, u will soon find out how wrong u were. The Good Lord will let u know.
Marriage equality has been around for 7 years and western civilization continues to thrive.
No, schools do not promote a gay lifestyle. This nonsense has been spouted by ignorant people far too long. We have enough work to do without you adding more nonsense on our plates.
What we do promote in the classroom is kindness and tolerance for others as best as possible.
Abortion in Canada is legal at all stages of pregnancy, regardless of the reason, and is publicly funded as a medical procedure under the combined effects of the federal Canada Health Act and provincial health-care systems. However, access to services and resources varies by region.
I wish this organization would focus more on bringing people to Jesus and less on politics. Justice Thomas' Dodd concurrence: Cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965) (right of married persons to obtain contraceptives)1*; Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2003) (right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts); and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015) (right to same-sex marriage), are not at issue. The Court’s abortion cases are unique, see ante, at 31–32, 66, 71–72, and no party has asked us to decide “whether our entire Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence must be preserved or revised,” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 813 (opinion of Thomas, J.). Thus, I agree that “[n]othing in [the Court’s] opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” Ante, at 66.
'Ante' all you want, Thomas specifically said those 3 cases must be overturned to undo the 'evil' of substantive due process.
Here's an idea, why don't we do away with all marriage laws all together? Marriage is traditionally a religious rite. In the interest of separation of church and state, the government should make no law recognizing nor banning marriage between any two consenting adults. However, to satisfy the need to have something to fill all those forms the government requires for thins like taxes and inheritance, how about we just make a law that permits any two consenting adults to form a domestic partnership and have that suffice. Oh wait, we already have that. Just make domestic partnerships function legally the way marriages currently do in all matters and that solves the problem. Then it won't be the supreme courts business at all!
Meanwhile I will be happy to officiate between any two consenting adults over 18 who are not too closely related to each other here in the Sunshine State.
The United States, it's right there in the name, was not formed as one nation with a powerful central government. The main premise was it was a collection of states united in agreement for common purpose.
There it was agreed upon powers that the federal government should and could have but everything else was left up to the states. THAT is why you do not find certain things in the Constitution. And you certainly would NOT want to find them there.
Just imagine what the outcome would be if the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage were addressed in the Constitution in the 1780s
These issues are rightly decided state by state and of enough States agree on it they can then call for a constitutional convention to amend the Constitution related to these issues.
In the 1780s, abortion was widely done by women and their midwives. It was not considered any sort of problem. Having it specifically in the Constitution would be as ludicrous as naming every medical intervention that could be made, and amendments outlawing it as it became out-of-vogue or proven harmful - such as having a Constitutional clause about bleeding a patient.
Indeed, the general Christian outrage about abortion has a shorter history than the Happy Meal! Before that, it was a "Catholic Problem", thus Protestants had the notion of "If you don't like abortion, don't have one."
You are correct. The millions of women dying in child birth in those centuries weren't considered a problem... for men.
Your right, we need to bring back the 1780s with slavery and the three-fifths of a man clause.
Yes the 3/5 of a man clause was unfortunate. It should have been 0%.
After you pick yourself up off the floor upon reading that statement I'll tell you why.
The 3/5th Compromise (anybody can look that up) was for the purpose of counting population for representation in the House of Representatives.
Initially the slave holding States wanted black people counted as one whole person. To which the ignorant would say, "Yay that is as it should be." But not so fast.
Back then black people, much less slaves, could not vote. So there was absolutely zero benefit to them for them being counted as part of the population for representation in Congress. In fact, it was detrimental to them.
If they had been counted as one whole purpose person for population purposes that means the southern slave holding states would have had MORE White slaveholders representing those States in Congress.
The northern states didn't want them counted at all. If that had been a case the southern slave holding state would have had LESS representation in Congress than they had with the 3/5th Compromise. THAT would have been a good thing.
The United States was already on a trajectory, albeit not a very steep one, to move away from the whole slavery thing.
I bet you didn't know, because the activists don't like you to know this, but in 1808 Congress passed a law prohibiting the importation of new slaves.
You probably didn't know that because the activist want you to think that the slave ships were running at full sail between Africa and North America right up to the end of the Civil War.
Anyway, if black people would have been counted as 0% for the purpose of population the slave holding States would have had less representatives in Congress than they had and the move to end slavery would probably have proceeded faster and there's a good chance it would have happened earlier and without the civil war.
As an aside: I also bet you didn't know with Georgia's new voting laws, that Stacy Abrams and others were saying was going to be "Jim Crow 2.0" and it was going to suppress voters and so on and so forth, Georgia had more people voting than ever in his history.
Everything you said here was historically accurate (and most of it was taught in my high school social studies classes back in the 70s, negating your statements about "activists" not wanting us to know these things).
However, the reason voting was up in Georgia was BECAUSE of Stacy Abrams' work getting out the black vote. "Jim Crow 2.0" refers to the efforts some Republicans did take to supress the vote. They don't get credit for failing!
But to the last point; and I don't know if it's factually true that it was a result of Stacy Abrams work, but that particular point doesn't matter anyway, because the fact was the laws prevented nobody from voting who WANTED to vote.
And I'm still not sure how voting laws that are passed that apply to everybody would suppress the vote of everyone except white voters.
With the right wing courts reversal of Roe. We will see the challenges mentioned above and also interracial marriage. Justice Thomas wants an annulment of his marriage - so he doesn't have to pay alimony!
I wouldn't speculate on how far Thomas would go or if it has anything to do with his marriage. However several of them have signed opinions now about overturning several related laws or precedence.
Or... Narcissism in Thomas has reached the point that he thinks his marriage isn't miscegenation.
I say let GOD settle that question Just as He did in the Biblical Time. We still do not have to judge! SELA Amen!
Which of the 10,000 or so gods men have invented do you mean, Johnny?
I don't see this changing the right consenting adults have to have a relationship with whoever they choose to have a relationship with regardless of gender. The operative word being "consenting" adults. There is a vast difference between two same gendered people with free will choosing a marital relationship with each other, and two people, a mother and her child, in which only a mother has the choice, and the choice is to kill the child.
Then they can go to the courthouse and get married. Are you telling me that I should be able to be sued because I don't want to be a hypocrite minister? Anybody that calls himself a minister of God that performs a gay marriage is not a minister. Not of God anyway. When you have places like cake companies getting sued or ministers being sued because they go against something that is against their moral beliefs something is wrong. These evil Democrats are stripping our rights every day right in front of us and everybody is too blind to see it. Women fought for era rights to be considered for equal pay in voting and such. Now these mentally deranged people are saying it's okay for a transgender to compete in women's sports. I guess they're going to be fighting for those rights all over again when a real woman can't win any competition because a bottom ranking male and sports can I identify as a female and compete with them. Oh great that celebrate a man for beating some women.
You've gotten your bigotries mixed up. Sexual orientation and gender identity are two different things.
And churches already have the right to choose how and with whom they perform their ceremonies. No ministers anywhere have been sued for declining to perform weddings.
You can be sued because our laws allow for frivolous lawsuits to be filed. However, as a minister you aren't required to marry a gay couple. They cannot compel you to provide a service that is repugnant to your beliefs. Personally, if friends of mine who were gay asked me to perform their commitment vows I would do so by the powers vested in me by the state I'm a minister through. We live in a free society in which individuals have the freedom to choose their lifestyle. And lest we forget God gave them free will to choose as well. Which brings us back to the original subject abortion. I was simply saying that the Dobbs decision doesn't mean gay marriage will be deemed unconstitutional. GAY MARRIAGE IS A CONSTUTIONAL RIGHT! If some dim-witted plaintiff wanted to bring this issue to the SCOTUS they would find the court protecting the peoples right to marry whomever they choose; then polygamy would be legal. My point was the mother is not giving a choice to her potential child. Do we need a constitutional amendment to secure the "Rights" of an unborn human?
The cake company didn't get sued, they were the plaintiffs. So much for that whole 'God says don't bear false witness' thing, hmmm?
First of all get your guys's story straight. Roe versus Wade was not overturned. Roe versus Wade was never wrote to be enforced nationally. The only thing the supreme Court justices did was put it back in the power of the state and left it up to the state to decide. As far as same sex marriage that should be controlled by the state as well not forced upon every state. I live in a conservative state for a reason because it's Democrats have gotten out of control with pushing their agenda on everybody. The same sex marriage laws only make a minister a slave to do whatever they say. If I don't want to marry somebody that's gay that is my choice as an American and my religious convictions. The Democrats have gotten so out of control that cake companies are getting sued because they did not want to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. What happened to a business reserving the right to refuse service to anybody. Our rights are being infringed everyday by the Democrats. Anybody that calls yourself a minister that believes in performing gay marriages or thinks it's okay to have abortions needs to throw their license away. If you say you're a minister of God can be a minister of God's law. I am so sick of my rice being infringed by these Democrats that I am over it. The same people that scream my body my choice are demanding that it's no longer your body your choice over a vaccination. How has this country got to this at one time we were a nation under God. Bacteria is Life on Mars but a heartbeat is not on earth? When we lie to the government they throw us in prison. When they lie to us it's called being a politician. Our soldiers that put their life on the line for this country get one day out of the year to celebrate their honor but if you come out as Caitlyn Jenner you get a whole pride month. Is there really nobody out there that sees what is wrong with the hypocrisy in this country? I stand for my flag and I only kneel for God and I support the supreme Court justices 100% in their decisions it needed to be done. I am tired of seeing pastors and businesses getting sued over their right for their moral beliefs. If there was a true separation of church and state then a minister could not be sued for not performing a gay marriage. This evil government can make it legal all they want but it is 100% retarded to be able to sue administer over it they can go down to the courthouse and get married. People really need to wake up
God is still on the Throne. Praise be to the Almighty. Anyone who isn't praying that gay marriage is next, is unGodly and doesn't know Jesus at all. Homosexuality is an abomination. Right next to Beastiality. Gay pride took God's sign to Noah and turned it into a sick twisted agenda. The rainbow comes from God. Homosexuality comes from Satan. Keep pushing that agenda because it only means that Jesus is returning soon. You want to call yourself a Godly person. It's impossible to believe in homosexuality and be Godly. We will never bow to the new religion, "Chrislam". Not true Christians. Why? Because we hold fast to God's scripture. Anyone that doesn't believe in His word comes from the darkness and will NEVER be given salvation until you repent and believe in Him and His word. That's truth. Think God that no more babies will be murdered. Remember don't have sex until you're married? Maybe if we listened to God's words, we wouldn't have single parents that everyone is forced to pay for.Or we wouldn't have murdered 70 million babies. Imagine that? Don't call yourself a child of God unless you abide and protect His words. It's disgusting. You're only ridiculing God. True Christians know this and know that you come from your Father Lucifer.
You have the right to practice your religion as you see fit. But you don't have the right to make others practice it too, whether they believe in it or not.
Christians have the duty to tell the truth. Plain and simple. We don't follow the word of man. We follow the word of God. You can't claim to be spiritual unless you follow what God says. GOD warned us of how Satan uses man to twist His words to suit mankind. No Grey area here. It is what it is and it's the truth. I will remain on the righteous side of the Lord. If you don't follow God and His word then you derive from Satan.
Father? So Lucifer is an all powerful Creator like God?
BTW, America doesn't have any thrones, so your priests Popes and monarchs don't rule us.
Yeshua has a beautiful Throne. Yes Lucifer is the highest, most intelligent angel of all. Obviously you don't know the Bible. I'd be glad to work with you on that. Time is short. Be blessed.
And above all angels are archangels like Michael, who defeated Satan... above that is God. The notion that Satan is an equally powerful creator deity, is heresy.
Here's a novel thought, any state that wants to control a women's right to choose, or decide who can get married should take full responsibility for their actions.
e.g. Any child born in said state would pay for all cost until age 18, prenatal care for both child and mother, all healthcare cost, food, housing, education, daycare, lost wages should the parents not be able to work due to child care, healthcare for the family, family leave/sicktime from work, I think you're getting the idea. By the way, all of the above are pro life issues, we should also include gun control here as well as kids and family members are shot daily.
e.g. As above the state should cover any and all cost with the repeal of marriage equality. The state can pay for all legal cost of what would amount to a divorce. Any other cost or losses incurred by either party would also be payed for.
States should be careful in what they ask for, as any action will be costly.
Maybe we should take a look a who Justice Thomas is married to... just saying.
5 years before R v. W, in 1967 there was Loving v. Virginia. That needs to be looked into again.
My understanding of these rulings is different because of the Fellowship I belong to that actually opened the ruling and read Thomas's findings it and helped the members understand by translating from legalese into common language what it is actually referring to. None of us today is versed in what these laws are actually saying because terms we think we know, we definitely do not. This is done on purpose to keep us all in the dark and interfighting. For the government, this was not so much about a woman's right to choose, as it it had to do with artificial intelligence and legal personhood.
My understanding from this group presentation was that the ruling actually means the Gov does not have the right to determine in one blanket law, whether women can have access to abortion, whether gays can marry, etc. What it said was it is up to local states to determine what they find lawful.
This means where before there was a yes-or-no ruling from the Federal Government on these issues (which mean 50% chance you don't get what you want), now there are 50 separate chances (based on states) where people can go for gay marriage, abortion etc. People have to lobby their local government.
We were warned that this was being done to cause more separation between people and that everyone would be up in arms about this but to realize what's really going on and how this is a good thing for all people on both sides because they have more chances to have access to what they want to do than before.
The original ruling has to do with when is a fetus/baby considered alive. People think this was done for abortion rights. It was actually done so the Government could determine when they form legal persons. If there is no legal person involved, they have zero jurisdiction to rule on anything related to it.
The fellowship posts online freely for a few days before taking the content down and putting it on their member website. What's really going on is so different from what we're all being fooled into believing. But this is how the powers that shouldn't be keep us in obedience - by keeping us separate.
Praying for us all.
Sorry forgot to mention the fellowship is houseofmarkus.org
I wanted to post the information on the fellowship I belong to but the site won't take it. (probably thinks it's spam) The name of it is the house of markus dot org
That is only part of the Court's ruling. In the majority holdings, they clearly stated that the 14th Amendment gives no particular individual civil rights, and that the popular customs and religious beliefs of the 1500 - 1700s were controlling on America today (specifically citing witch burning monarchist Matthew Hale as precedential authority).
I think marriage equality is a lot easier to defend than Roe v. Wade.
Marriage is already an established right for straight people, so if taken from same sex couples it a clear case of discrimination. It would be impossible to annul the status of all the same sex couples who are legally married.
Polls show an ever increasing majority of support for equal marriage, so if the decision was to be determined by the states we'd win in each one.
The article is great at Fear Mongering. Fear, Fear, Fear. Forget about Rule of Law we need FEAR. They need the fear and the biggest fear is lack of knowledge. The Constitution, as it is written, never gave or took away anyone's rights to do themselves. Never. Yet the LGBT+++ crowd has pushed themselves into the lime light (like Sodom & Ghamorah) and forcing themselves on everyone else. IF they read the Consitution they would see "We the People" as the begining, and nowhere in this document does it refer to straight, gay, colored or handicaped. The only thing straight out is the Civil Rights Act that mentiones any that and now the Federal Government has, by it's own decree, zero Congressional Legislation, altered the list of 'protected' peoples.
The 1st, 2nd, 5th, 14th and 19th Amendments 'never' gave anyone civil rights?? That's fantastic.
I have been a ULC “minister” for years as I have been officiating family and friends weddings. I am an evangelical Christian and always find it interesting that each tome this email comes out it espouses a long list of garden variety leftist positions.
Jut remember there is a group of us (the middle and south or our country) that don’t buy any of this stuff you all are saying.
See you all after the red wave in November …
Marriage is an establishment of religion. The federal government has no authority to make any law regarding this. If YOUR church allows you to marry 3 m3n, 2 women and a goat, so be it. The problem is that the government has made laws (also in violation of Amendment I) that give public benefits, e.g., tax status, for participating in the religious rite of marriage. The government should keep out of marriage altogether, including issuing licenses and offering ANY benefits for marriage. All the benefits currently associated with marriage should be granted only via contracts.
This could be accomplished by immediately dropping all government benefits for marriage, and automatically transferring all current benefits (and obligations) to (state-specific) contracts for existing marriages, and for future marriages, the contracts should be voluntary.