John wrote:

Ray wrote:

You are correct and not correct.

Correct in that in itself the case wasn’t about state rights, it was about redefining what a person is. The constitution doesn’t mention marriage.  What “people” can marry?  People who are 12, 14 years old?  How about three people?  Obviously marriage world wide means a woman and man.  But not anymore.  Now there is no man and woman. These are not recognized anymore.  There is no longer male or female.  Now “people” have the right to marry.  I wonder if some one will now get arrested for using a bathroom of the opposite sex, and claim his constitutional rights were violated. So you are in a bathroom and someone comes in who is some kind of cross dresser, and you have no right to discriminate against them and take away their dignity…

The idea that homosexual rights are similar to racial civil rights holds no water. Sex is a choice, not the color of one’s skin. So now,  based on a whim, there is no longer gender differentiation legally. You’ll see where this goes. There is no nature, it is all choice.  And we should have free choice, except when it comes to defending ourselves, or not vaccinating our kids, or home schooling, or being religious publicly. Religion is already a hate crime because it is “prejudiced.”

And I am correct. The Supreme Court has now re-defined what marriage is, which is not defined in constitution, and forced this on all states.  State legislatures had the right to define cultural norms for their constituencies. Now they don’t. Democracy has been replaced by fiat.  States have no right to define marriage according to a majority of its citizens.

And you are correct, the issue was not technically states rights.  But that was the ramification and the court knew it, as per article below.

Mandatory ANAL sex education is just around the corner now.  Because an anus and a vagina are now equal, legally. All children will be taught anal sex so as not to discriminate against the 3% of homosexual people.  The purpose is to sow confusion so that there is no family or culture or even gender to defend itself from the State. That is where this is going.

Now, below this list, is the court arguments as it happened publicly.  Please read it.  They definitely talk about state rights.

1. Sex Ed Program in Hawaii Public Schools Teaches 11-Y …

   www.christianpost.com › U.S.

   Feb 06, 2014 · … funded public school sex education … Sex Ed Program in Hawaii Public Schools Teaches 11 … anal sex — which the curriculum does frequently …

2. Chicago Public Schools To Teach ‘Safe Anal Sex’ To Fourth …

   www.inquisitr.com/…schools-to-teach-safe-anal-sex-to-fourth-graders

   Nov 19, 2014 · A rumored plan by the Chicago Public Schools to teach “safe anal sex” and other … on the latest sex ed curriculum of … Local School Council …

3. Ontario to introduce more explicit sex education in …

   www.theglobeandmail.com › News › National

   … and introduce terms like “anal intercourse” and … and sex education doesn’t lead to sex, … When New Brunswick reviewed its sex education curriculum in …

4. School Uses Planned Parenthood Curriculum to Teach …

   www.lifenews.com/…/school-uses-planned-parenthood–curriculum…sex

   Jun 20, 2012 · … day in how to perform oral and anal sex. … curriculum. Planned Parenthood is … its dominant position in school sex ed …

5. Common Core Has a Porn-Sex Education Curricula for …

   www.independentsentinel.com/common-core-has-a…sex-education…school

   Did you know that Common Core has national standards for sex education? Common Core … She showed a photo of what is in the Common Core curriculum … Anal Sex …

6. Parents upset by X-rated sex ed poster in middle …

This was from April– see yellow highlights

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday was deeply divided over one of the great civil rights issues of the age, same-sex marriage. But Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, whose vote is probably crucial, gave gay rights advocates reasons for optimism based on the tone and substance of his questions.

In two and a half hours of arguments over whether the Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry, Justice Kennedy sent conflicting signals. At some points, he seemed wary of moving too fast and torn about what to do. But his demeanor was more emotional and emphatic when he made the case that same-sex couples should be permitted to marry. He is also the author of three landmark opinions expanding the rights of gay Americans.

The other justices for the most part played to type, clashing over what they saw as the right answer in the case and also over how to reach it. The questioning illuminated their conflicting views on history, tradition, biology, constitutional interpretation, the democratic process and the role of the courts in prodding social change.

That left the courtroom focused on Justice Kennedy. He said he was concerned about changing a conception of marriage that has persisted for thousands of years based on little more than a decade of experience with same-sex marriage in the United States.

“I don’t even know how to count the decimals when we talk about millennia,” he said. “This definition has been with us for millennia. And it’s very difficult for the court to say, ‘Oh, well, we know better.’ ” He added that “the social science on this” — the value and perils of same-sex marriage — is “too new.”

Later, though, he expressed qualms about excluding gay couples from the institution of marriage.

“Same-sex couples say, of course: ‘We understand the nobility and the sacredness of the marriage. We know we can’t procreate but we want the other attributes of it in order to show that we, too, have a dignity that can be fulfilled,’ ” Justice Kennedy said, strongly suggesting that the reasoning resonated with him.

The day’s arguments, over same-sex marriage bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee, were divided into two segments. At the start of the first, about whether states must allow same-sex marriage, Mary L. Bonauto, representing more than a dozen gay and lesbian couples, urged the justices to remove “the stain of unworthiness” that marriage bans produce.

She was met with a barrage of skeptical questions from the court’s more conservative justices, as expected. But there were several queries from Justice Kennedy that caused leaders of the gay rights movement who were in the courtroom to squirm.

He asked, for instance, whether “there has not been really time” for “the federal system to engage in this debate.”

Justice Antonin Scalia echoed Justice Kennedy’s language in emphasizing how new same-sex marriage is. “Do you know of any society, prior to the Netherlands in 2001, that permitted same-sex marriage?” he asked Ms. Bonauto. She said no, at least as a legal matter.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested that Ms. Bonauto was asking the court to do something radical.

“You’re not seeking to join the institution,” he said. “You’re seeking to change what the institution is.”  [New World Order to the T]

The chief justice added that he was worried about shutting down a fast-moving societal debate.

“One of the things that’s truly extraordinary about this whole issue is how quickly has been the acceptance of your position across broad elements of society,” he said. [This was through social engineering, completely]

Justice Scalia agreed. “The issue, of course, is not whether there should be same-sex marriage, but who should decide the point.” The right answer, he said, was the people or their elected representatives, not the courts.  [This would allow state rights, which now are gone]

On this point, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, a member of the court’s liberal wing, had his own reservations.

“Suddenly you want nine people outside the ballot box to require states that don’t want to do it to change what marriage is to include gay people,” he said. “Why cannot those states at least wait and see whether in fact doing so in the other states is or is not harmful to marriage?” Later in the argument, though, Justice Breyer indicated support for same-sex marriage as part of basic liberty. “Marriage is about as basic a right as there is,” he said.

The other side’s argument, he said, was that “people have always done it” in a certain fashion.

“You know,” he said, “you could have answered that one the same way we talk about racial segregation.”

Justices Scalia and Samuel A. Alito Jr. were more consistent in opposing a constitutional right to such unions.

Justice Scalia said a ruling for same-sex marriage might require some members of the clergy to perform ceremonies that violate their religious teaching, a notion that Ms. Bonauto rejected. [Didn’t give a shit about]

Justice Alito asked whether groups of four people must be allowed to marry. “And let’s say they’re all consenting adults, highly educated,” he said, and then added, to laughter, “They’re all lawyers.”

Ms. Bonauto responded that marriage is about the mutual commitment of two people. [Says who? That is discrimination!]

Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., the Obama administration’s top appellate lawyer, argued in support of the couples. “Gay and lesbian people are equal,” he said. “They deserve equal protection of the laws, and they deserve it now.”

He was followed by the lawyer defending the same-sex marriage bans, John J. Bursch, who said they were for the benefit of children and not couples seeking companionship and mutual support.

SCOTUS same-sex marriage decision may have just legalized the concealed carry of loaded firearms across all 50 states, nullifying gun laws everywhere

by Mike Adams

http://www.naturalnews.com/050237_SCOTUS_gun_laws_same-sex_marriage.html#ixzz3eWjBJZAG

(NaturalNews) The legal argument of gay marriage proponents is that because gay marriage is legal in a majority of states, that “right” cannot be infringed by the remaining states which opposed gay marriage. The U.S. Supreme Court, in granting this new, nationwide right to gay marriage, cited the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, Section 1, which states:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The actual ruling text of the SCOTUS decision makes it clear that its “equal protection” logic would apply universally to concealed carry gun rights which already exist in a majority of states:

(1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs… When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed. Applying these tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution.

Similarly, the right to keep and bear arms has also long been protected by the Constitution and affirmed in multiple Supreme Court decisions, as early as last year. “In District of Columbia v Heller (2008) — the SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd Amendment rights were ‘fundamental’ in and of themselves as well as ‘fundamental to the Nation’s scheme of ordered liberty'” writes Hawkins at Breitbart.com.

If this right to keep and bear arms (and to carry concealed firearms) is already recognized in some states, then by the Supreme Court’s own precedent on gay marriage, that right cannot be denied in ANY state!

SCOTUS may have nullified gun control laws by legalizing gay marriage

The Supreme Court, in other words, appears to have just nullified gun control laws all across America.

As Bob Owens writes on BearingArms.com, “By using the Constitution in such a manner, the Court argues that the Due Process Clause extends ‘certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy’ accepted in a majority of states across the state lines of a handful of states that still banned the practice. The vast majority of states are ‘shall issue’ on the matter of issuing concealed carry permits, and enjoy reciprocity with a large number of other states.”

He continues:

I’ll be driving through the District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York in several weeks, places that until yesterday I did not have a legal right to concealed carry. As of today, with this decision, it would seem that these states and the District must honor my concealed carry permit, or violate my constitutional rights under the 14th and Second Amendment.

AWR Hawkins, writing for Breitbart.com, adds:

When the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled that every state must recognize same sex marriages, they used a basis for judgement that will not easily stop at same sex marriage. In fact, it is a basis for judgement that should offer itself to national reciprocity of concealed carry permits and permit holders.

“Equal protection” must now apply to all things, not just gay marriage

The fascinating part of the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage is that it sets a precedent of a principled interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment which must now be applied to everything.

The Supreme Court, in other words, just made the argument for nullifying most gun control laws across America. As explained again by Bob Owens in another article on BearingArms.com:

…[I]f there is any intellectual and logical consistency in the Supreme Court’s arguments at all, the ‘due process’ argument must be applied as equally to state and local gun laws, sweeping them aside entirely, and reaffirming the clear command in the Second Amendment that, ‘A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’

All, state and local on concealed and open carry would seem to be invalidated, and citizens should be allowed to carry firearms, either openly or concealed, anywhere they want to go.

Dare the Court dare claim that the 14th Amendment’s due process clause only applies in specific and narrow instances?

That’s the thing about court decisions, you see: we can’t just pick and choose where they apply. A powerful new principle of “equal protection” must now be interpreted across all issues, not just the narrow issue of same-sex marriage.

As Marc Greendorfer explains in his amicus brief to the court:

One day, the Court will have to explain how sweeping restrictions on every aspect of firearms ownership and use can be upheld yet traditional and long-standing regulations on marriage cannot be tolerated in any form or in any jurisdiction.

In other words, if the Court is to have any logical consistency at all, it will have no choice but to declare nearly all gun control laws nationwide to be null and void, in precisely the same way it just declared all “marriage control” laws to be null and void. After all, “equal protection” must be equal, or it has no meaning at all (and the Supreme Court itself becomes a total joke).

That’s how freedom works: It’s not just freedom for YOUR favorite issues, but freedom for other issues, too

You can’t discriminate against people based on their personal beliefs, you see. So if gay couples’ right to be married must be universally recognized across all states, then gun owners’ right to carry firearms must also be universally recognized across all states. That’s the way freedom works: once a principle is affirmed and set into the history of interpretation of law, it must be applied universally.

I can already see the comedic bumper stickers from all this: IF YOU GET TO MARRY, WE GET TO CARRY!

In essence, the U.S. Supreme Court just handed the NRA the very argument it might now use to nullify gun restriction laws everywhere. The NRA merely needs to file suit in a lower court, cite the Obergefall decision, and kick the lawsuit all the way back up the chain to SCOTUS. There, the Court must decide in a manner consistent with the same-sex marriage “rights,” or else it will cease to carry any real authority at all.

The realization of all this, of course, will drive many of the same-sex marriage lobbyists absolutely insane. They did not see this unintended consequence of “equal protection” being applied to other topics. But that’s how equality actually works, isn’t it? Equality means the principle is equally applied to other contexts.

Gay gun rights advocates are no doubt thrilled with this realization

You might be surprised, by the way, to learn that there is a group of gay gun rights advocates who must now be double-thrilled to learn the implications of all this. The group is called the Pink Pistols, and this list of local chapters shows they have members all across the nation, from New York to Texas. Their slogan? “Armed gays don’t get bashed.” Gotta love it!

Anyone who believes in universal freedom, not selective freedom, should support both the rights of people to be gay as well as be armed for self defense. If you happen to both gay and armed, check out the Pink Pistols.