Our Supreme Court acted in rebellion to our Constitution by refusing to take up the Kim Davis case (same-sex marriage)

Politics
465

It certainly does matter in order to be a legitimate opinion, especially when the opinion is not in harmony with the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.

Nowhere in the majority opinion are the debates of the 39th Congress quoted which actually framed and helped to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, in order to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.

While the majority opinion relies upon historical references to establish marriage is a fundamental right, it blatantly ignores the the historical definition of marriage which dates back 4,000 years as being a union between one man and one woman. Hence, the majority opinion contradicts its own method used to arrive at its conclusion.

In essence, a majority on our Supreme Court set itself up as members of an unelected, omnipotent, constitutional convention, and substituted their personal feelings and predilections as being within the terms and conditions under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to, while Article V is the only lawful way to alter our Constitution, and it requires consent of the States and people therein as outlined therein.

466

who says SCOTUS has to issue an opinion that meets you criteria. lol.

they issued it. now deal with it, just like the libs had to deal with dobbs.

Allan

467

We are not talking about my criteria. We are talking about adhering to the terms and conditions set forth in our federal constitution.

The Tenth Amendment leaves to the States and people therein, the exclusive power over all the objects which, “. . . in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” Consequently, by the terms of our federal Constitution, the regulation and issuing of marriage licenses is within those powers reserved by the States and people therein.

In exercising the exclusive power reserved to the States and people therein over the regulation of, and the issuance of marriage licenses, four States—Nevada, California, Colorado, and Hawaii—have exercised their reserved Tenth Amendment powers and amended their State constitutions to specifically allow or protect same-sex marriage.

The only lawful way to make same-sex marriage recognized and protected under our federal Constitution is to do so under the terms mentioned in Article V, which requires consent of the States and people therein as outlined in the amendment.

But such a power ___ making same-sex marriage a federally protected right ___ is not within the terms and conditions set forth in our federal constitution, and was specifically rejected when the proposed Equal Rights Amendment, which would have usher in same-sex marriages, was rejected in 1982 by an insufficient number of States approving the amendment.

So, as it turns out, the majority opinion in Obergefell is not based on our system’s rule of law but rather, it subverts our rule of law and substitutes the majority’s personal feelings and predilections as the rule of law.

JWK

“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded (the Tenth Amendment), would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”___ Justice Story

468

Ignorant is anyone who believes a man and man can be married.

469

your criteria for what SCOTUS should have ruled.

5 SCOTUS justices had different criteria.

they held the 14th requires licensing of all couples.

Allan

470

We are not talking about my criteria. We are talking about adhering to the terms and conditions set forth in our federal constitution.

The Tenth Amendment leaves to the States and people therein, the exclusive power over all the objects which, “. . . in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” Consequently, by the terms of our federal Constitution, the regulation and issuing of marriage licenses is within those powers reserved by the States and people therein.

In exercising the exclusive power reserved to the States and people therein over the regulation of, and the issuance of marriage licenses, four States—Nevada, California, Colorado, and Hawaii—have exercised their reserved Tenth Amendment powers and amended their State constitutions to specifically allow or protect same-sex marriage.

The only lawful way to make same-sex marriage recognized and protected under our federal Constitution is to do so under the terms mentioned in Article V, which requires consent of the States and people therein as outlined in the amendment.

But such a power ___ making same-sex marriage a federally protected right ___ is not within the terms and conditions set forth in our federal constitution, and was specifically rejected when the proposed Equal Rights Amendment, which would have usher in same-sex marriages, was rejected in 1982 by an insufficient number of States approving the amendment.

So, as it turns out, the majority opinion in Obergefell is not based on our system’s rule of law but rather, it subverts our rule of law and substitutes the majority’s personal feelings and predilections as the rule of law.

JWK

“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded (the Tenth Amendment), would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”___ Justice Story

471

which SCOTUS interprets.

they determine the terms and conditions of the constitution.

not you.

Allan

472

The terms and conditions are set forth in our Constitution.

The only lawful way to make same-sex marriage legally recognized and protected under our federal Constitution is to do so under the terms mentioned in Article V, which requires consent of the States and people therein as outlined in the amendment.

473

Latest news on Obergefell v. Hodges, a “precedent” being challenged.

.

Waco Judge Challenges Supreme Court Ruling on Same-Sex Marriage

Published December 27, 2025

“Representing Hensley is Jonathan Mitchell, a name that raises alarms for civil-rights advocates. Mitchell is widely known for crafting Texas’ 2021 abortion law that helped set the stage for the downfall of Roe v. Wade through Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.”
.

474

Someday all will care about the teachings of Jesus.

1 Like