Did the court make the right decision concerning gay "marriage" in June 2016?

Poll closed on 2/12/2017 at 3:30PM.
  • YES, the court was RIGHT to legalize gay "marriage"

  • NO, the court was NOT RIGHT to legalize gay "marriage"

61% 17 votes
39% 11 votes
  • No harm comes about from allowing two homosexuals to marry when their marriage does not harm anybody.

  • Absolutely!!! Even if you are homophobic, the rights of homosexuals does not concern or affect you in any way. You can continue to enjoy your heterosexual relationship in peace even if the gays are allowed to get married.

    Posted by: KayBee
  • Because love isn't about a gender, and religion has nothing about love, so it should be aloud to marry and love whoever you want

  • Amendment X of the United States Constitution states that any powers not specifically delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people. Politics aside, the federal government has no right to define marriage; this right is reserved for the states alone.

  • The Supreme Court ruling on the issue of Gay marriage was not right because, gay marriage goes directly against what the Bible says about marriage stating that "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." Gay marriage goes against God's law and I don't agree with it.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Aarett says2017-01-12T23:00:14.2659976Z
Gays were living together before this was true. The reason it was passed is for the marital benefits, not to redefine traditional marriage. Frankly, it doesn't infringe upon your rights. Let gays have theirs.
Black-Jesus says2017-01-13T00:38:11.0664817Z
I like how the OP put quotation marks around the word marriage like gay marriage doesn't fit the definition of marriage, and, to top it off, put down the year of the decision as 2016 when it was decided in 2015.
Black-Jesus says2017-01-13T00:39:52.9786318Z
@ninjakitty97, Do you, perchance, know why the Supreme Court "legalized" gay marriage? Or how they reach decisions at all?
Black-Jesus says2017-01-13T00:42:14.0650318Z
@subdeo, (A) The judges didn't change laws, they changed how the constitution is interpreted (B) It is perfectly within their rights to do what they did: it's kind of their entire purpose. Why would you invoke the constitution if you don't know what you're talking about?
Anonymous says2017-01-13T01:01:40.9762318Z
Black-Jesus pointed out that the Obergerfell v. Hodges case actually happened in 2015, not 2016. Thank you, Black-Jesus, My bad.
IshaeniTolog says2017-01-13T02:43:08.9256817Z
I'm fine with gay marriage existing, but I think that the court screwed up this one. They should have made civil unions legal across the board, but left the marriage rights with the states. If marriage licences are given by the state, then the state should be the one who defines marriage.
ninjakitty97 says2017-01-13T05:10:16.7290318Z
@Black-Jesus, I'm not sure I understand the purpose of your question. Of course I understand the process by which the Supreme Court reaches its decisions. I simply hold to a strict textualist interpretation of the Constitution, similar to that of Justice Scalia, and believe that the majority opinion of the court was contradictory to the original meaning of the document. If this is not what you meant, could you please explain your question?
Black-Jesus says2017-01-13T06:06:07.7676817Z
@ninjakitty97, Well, there are more than one ways to interpret the Constitution and it's amendments and you can't just say that the majority opinion has no right to interpret it different than you do just because they disagree with you.
Black-Jesus says2017-01-13T06:08:41.0064817Z
That's how it's laid out in the Constitution, so if you're a strict constitutionalist, then you should respect that regardless of whether or not you agree because whether or not you agree is irrelevant.
Black-Jesus says2017-01-13T06:09:30.5676817Z
@subdeo, No problem
ninjakitty97 says2017-01-13T16:48:34.1025890Z
@Black-Jesus, thank you for clarifying. Of course there are many possible ways to interpret the Constitution; however, there is typically only one correct way to do so. I happen to believe that the Obergerfell v. Hodges ruling was incorrect. Now, I could be wrong; I'm not infallible. I am simply saying that with the evidence I have, I believe that the court did not have a constitutional basis for its ruling.
ninjakitty97 says2017-01-13T16:56:55.8792369Z
At any rate, any given constitutional interpretation is not automatically correct because a simple majority of nine people agree. I agree with the dissenting justices and believe they are right. By the way, a textualist interpretation of the constitution holds that justices have a responsibility to interpret the Constitution as it would have been read at the time of its writing. I (and justices Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy, and Alito) believe that the court strayed from the intended meaning of the Constitution in its ruling.
djdethkiller says2017-01-13T18:33:16.1004369Z
Love is about love not religion, state, or government, therefore it should be aloud, no questions asked. They only passed the law for the simple fact of it being law binding that you can't deny a gay marriage because of your own beliefs, its not like I can deny a customer at work if they like trump, it doesn't work like that. Therefore gay marriage is aloud so get over it. Its done lets move on.
Black-Jesus says2017-01-13T19:26:24.7057419Z
@ninjakitty97, alright. I'm glad we could reach this understanding.
ninjakitty97 says2017-01-13T19:44:51.1236369Z
@Black-Jesus, cool. Good discussion.
Shyboy says2017-07-12T06:47:19.8850786Z
I'm all for gay marriage, however I'm strongly AGANIST this court ruling, as I believe marriage is an issue that should be handled at the state level.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.