The late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, a eager leftist, was once Roev. Wade admitted it was a terrible resolved decision. The abortion ruling then became “unstable” and “resettlement” in 2022, due to the DOBBS decision. The same process is Obergefellv. Will it be developed in Hodges same-sex “marriage” opinion (2015)?
The parent-family group Mass-Resistance (MR) clearly thinks that way. The organization is optimistic. Because the same-sex “marriage” resolutions that are pushing are currently progressing in two state legislatures. The resolution – recognizing that marriage is a state matter, just like abortion – requires the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell.
He certainly has support in this regard. For example, Judge Clarence Thomas said the 2015 opinion should be reviewed. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts also disagreed with the opinion – fiercely. It was very bad, he said in his opposition to Obergeffel, saying the Constitution had actually “had nothing to do with it.” The late Judge Antonin Scalia agreed. He said the decision was so bad that the court “takes one step closer to reminding them of (that) impotence.”
Will the court remarry constitutionalism?
I wrote about the current developments in fake marriages of the same-sex.
North Dakota has become the second state to advance our mass-resistant “gay marriage” resolution in Congress. Two weeks ago, the Idaho House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed it.
The North Dakota resolution is sponsored by seven state representatives and four state senators. On Monday, February 17th, the North Dakota House Judiciary Committee held a hearing, which was then overwhelmingly supported 11-1.
…Mass -Resistance is pushing state legislatures across the country to pass a resolution urging the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the 2015 Obergefell “Gay Marriage” ruling. The ruling was a move by then activist Justice Scotus to deprive the state of rights on this controversial issue.
5-4 Obergefell's decision stated that the 14th Amendment required that same-sex “marriage” be permitted by the state.
(Note: In practice, courts cannot “require” two other government branches, whether federal or state, to do so. As I recently wrote, the courts cannot “require” them to do such things. Hegemony is a myth and the courts have no enforcement power.)
In fact, you need to revisit Obergefell. And this is not because, as Scalia said, it wasn't “legal.” Furthermore, there is no basis for reason.
Rights Issues – Or Is it wrong?
Now many people, including Scotus Obergefell's majority, say that marriage issues are equal rights issues. Let's consider this argument.
If someone tells you that a gay person already has the right to marry, do they have the right to go out into the union of a married couple with a member of the opposite sex, as it is a marriage? Of course, advocates of false marriages protest and challenge this definition. This brings us to the commonly ignored core of the problem.
Marriage debate is not about rights.
It's about definitions.
After all, how can you tell if you have a right to things without first determining what it is?
Should the court say, “We have the right to know what”?
Marriage debate is not about rights. No one – they dispute that all adult Americans have the right to “marry.” Apparently, some people are against what “marriage” is.
But what should they do if the courts do not use definitional operatives in Western civilizations (and beyond) for thousands of years? Are a handful of judges eligible to redefine marriage?
lib-con tag team
Ironically, neither liberals nor conservatives help in this regard. Liberals may reject the definition of marriage implemented. But they never have a hard time coming up with their own difficult, fast, absurd, consistently stated definitions. One reason for this is interesting. Because definitions are restricted and excluded, doing so would make them guilty exactly that they are blaming traditionalists: exclusion and discriminatory. They lose fantastic highlands and convenient embraces that smack the enemy. So they want to have it both ways.
They want to argue, at least implicitly, that the correct definition of marriage is incorrect. But they also refuse to tell anyone if the definition is correct.
But if they don't know what definitions are correct, how can they be sure that traditional things are wrong?
And how do conservatives get negligent? They not only consistently fail to make the above points, but also actually blame the left of the marriage of “redefine”. This gives too much credit to the leftists. Because they did not make any real attempts to redefine marriage.
They are in the process of “undefined.”
They do this by essentially saying that “marriage equality” means that you are allowed to have your own concept of marriage. But there can be as many concepts as there are in the imagination. And, contrary to past claims, this actually undermines marriage. If anything means anything, it doesn't mean anything.
Does a marriage have “equal rights”? What is his pronoun?
Some may say that fake marriages are in their own right and institutional terms, there is no need to redefine “traditional marriage.” However, this does nothing to examine constitutional equality arguments. Ultimately, the 14th amendment – the basis for Obergefell's opinion – guarantees legal equality for individuals.
It's not an institution.
Otherwise, institutions that the group may recall – including interspecies “marriage” – must enjoy government awareness.
Therefore, the judge's position must be simple. “Marriage issues relate to definitions, not rights, and there is no constitution that empowers us to redefine marriage. Talk to your state legislators.”
But that story will now be a problem. Obergefell could be overturned in the not too distant future. But overturning the conditioning of decades of sexual mandate is another matter. In this regard, national support for fake marriages was only 11% in 1988. However, by 2004 it had more than doubled, increasing to 25%. And today, more than two-thirds of Americans support pseudo-institutions. Why do we enjoy the support of the majority in North Dakota and Idaho too?
In other words, this is probably not a political hill to die right now, as it focuses on draining the swamps of DC. But that shows how dark American moral swamps harbor and, sadly, it goes far beyond the beltway.
